To re, or not re: that is the question!

This is for discussions about the community, players, forum games, grudge matches, memes and everything else related to ESOC and its members.
User avatar
United States of America Cometk
Retired Contributor
Posts: 7257
Joined: Feb 15, 2015
Location: California

Re: To re, or not re: that is the question!

Post by Cometk »

@gibson your assertion that absolutely nothing compares is frankly obnoxious

of course no situations or rules exactly parallel what we have in age of empires 3, but those situations and rules may be similar enough to our own game to take reference from in judging the edge case that we have

and i don’t even disagree with your conclusion
Image
User avatar
Korea South Vinyanyérë
Retired Contributor
Donator 06
Posts: 1839
Joined: Aug 22, 2016
ESO: duolckrad, Kuvira
Location: Outer Heaven
Clan: 팀 하우스

Re: To re, or not re: that is the question!

Post by Vinyanyérë »

gibson wrote:
Vinyanenya wrote:
gibson wrote:@Vinyanyérë thats not even comparable because the game hasn't actually started. That's exactly like someone changing their civ before the person who's counter picking picks his civ. Of course there aren't gonna be rules in place in any sports for restarting a game or round due to a player making an error because it just doesn't happen.


At that point the game of "League of Legends" would not have started, but the game of "League of Legends plus picks and bans", a game that consists of players doing a pick and ban phase and then playing out a game of "League of Legends" with those picks would have started. So it's at the early stages of some game, even though that game isn't technically "League of Legends". What I'm saying is that there are rules in places for rewinding when a player makes a mistake in at least one eSport.
So this aoe3 tournament is actually 2 games, Age of Empires 3 and "Age of Empires 3 plus map vetoes and civ picks". No that's stupid. There is no game league of legends plus picks and bans. That game just doesn't exist. They are setting the rules for the game, not playing the game, it's a completely different situation. It's not relevant in any way. It would be relevant if there had been an issue related to civ picking.


"Age of empires 3 plus vetoes and civ picks" does exist though. It's a meaningfully distinct way to play than, say, aoe3 on qs or a bo5 where you can pick whatever civ you like.
duck
:mds:
imo
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Ninja
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 13597
Joined: May 4, 2015
Location: USA

Re: To re, or not re: that is the question!

Post by gibson »

WickedCossack wrote:You're really going down the line of reasoning that false starts are the result of cheating and not the result of making a mistake?

I'd have a gander and estimate that 99% of false starts in high level competition are down to the person making a mistake and not cheating.

If people running high level sports agreed with your position gibson that it was cheating and not a mistake they would be immediately disqualified (by definition) in all cases. They don't and as such some rules treat the infraction as a mistake. Yes it is absolutely a semantics argument and the discrepancy in rules from sport to sport shows this. For you to claim "clearly not the same" when there is no common agreement on the way this is handled across sports is absurd.

Putting that to on side to address you other point regarding no re-starts for mistakes I can easily point to my favourite sport cycling where it happens almost every other race if a top competitor has a mechanical (mistake of the mechanic or riding on the gravelly bit of the road for a faster line) or accident (handling mistake) the other cyclists will wait up. Commissars will get involved with particularly bad accidents or train crossings to enforce that everyone waits. Most of these are done on a case-by-case basis.


gibson wrote: Restarts are allowed in the case of (unintentional) cheating.
I really don't care anymore because this rabbit trail has gone so far that it's not even relevant anymore. But yes, false starting is cheating. Cheating doesn't have to be intentional, and due to the fact that as you said false starting is unintentional, the rule breakers are generally given a 2nd chance.
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Ninja
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 13597
Joined: May 4, 2015
Location: USA

Re: To re, or not re: that is the question!

Post by gibson »

Cometk wrote:@gibson your assertion that absolutely nothing compares is frankly obnoxious

of course no situations or rules exactly parallel what we have in age of empires 3, but those situations and rules may be similar enough to our own game to take reference from in judging the edge case that we have

and i don’t even disagree with your conclusion
No situations in competitive sports( or esports) are at all like what happened because in no competitive sport or esport is a player allowed to restart the game or round because they made a mistake.

@Vinyanyérë quantifying each ruleset for a game into a different game doesn't make sense to me or to most people, but whatever floats your boat.
Great Britain WickedCossack
Retired Contributor
Posts: 1904
Joined: Feb 11, 2015

Re: To re, or not re: that is the question!

Post by WickedCossack »

gibson wrote:
gibson wrote: Restarts are allowed in the case of (unintentional) cheating.
I really don't care anymore because this rabbit trail has gone so far that it's not even relevant anymore. But yes, false starting is cheating. Cheating doesn't have to be intentional, and due to the fact that as you said false starting is unintentional, the rule breakers are generally given a 2nd chance.


Not relevant? :lol:

Your entire argument rests on there being a clear difference between what classifies as unintentional cheating and what is a mistake. There isn't a clear difference and if there is it's debatable which is precisely semantics!

Like comon, not letting you walk off with that.
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Ninja
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 13597
Joined: May 4, 2015
Location: USA

Re: To re, or not re: that is the question!

Post by gibson »

WickedCossack wrote:
gibson wrote:
gibson wrote: Restarts are allowed in the case of (unintentional) cheating.
I really don't care anymore because this rabbit trail has gone so far that it's not even relevant anymore. But yes, false starting is cheating. Cheating doesn't have to be intentional, and due to the fact that as you said false starting is unintentional, the rule breakers are generally given a 2nd chance.


Not relevant? :lol:

Your entire argument rests on there being a clear difference between what classifies as unintentional cheating and what is a mistake. There isn't a clear difference and if there is it's debatable which is precisely semantics!

Like comon.

Well you're only making it relevant because for someone reason you are refusing to see the difference between something being restarted because rules of the game were broken and something being restarted when rules weren't broken. Do you deny that rules are being broken when someone false starts? Or are you saying that Goongoon or raphael broke some rule which was cause for a restart? Cause if you aren't saying either of those things I once again fail to see the relevance because there isn't any sort of equivocation.
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: To re, or not re: that is the question!

Post by deleted_user »

I'm so glad I made this topic.
User avatar
Netherlands edeholland
ESOC Community Team
Donator 01
Posts: 5033
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: edeholland
GameRanger ID: 4053888
Clan: ESOC

Re: To re, or not re: that is the question!

Post by edeholland »

deleted_user wrote:I'm so glad I made this topic.

It's like the Twitch chat but with arguments!
User avatar
United States of America rickytickitembo
Dragoon
Posts: 266
Joined: May 7, 2015
ESO: RickyTickiTembo
Location: Denver, CO

Re: To re, or not re: that is the question!

  • Quote

Post by rickytickitembo »

I just want to throw out there that whether he was right or wrong Radix handled it well imo and tried to give a fair decision. Pausing to think it through. Then checking with Noel. He also took into account that Garja said it was bad hunts so that was the turning point for making his decision.
My favorite donut is chocolate Aiz.
User avatar
Netherlands edeholland
ESOC Community Team
Donator 01
Posts: 5033
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: edeholland
GameRanger ID: 4053888
Clan: ESOC

Re: To re, or not re: that is the question!

Post by edeholland »

dicktator_ wrote:
edeholland wrote:
dicktator_ wrote: I also like Somppus idea of pausing the game at 0:00 to give casters time to check the map, then no rehosts after that.

This does give the players plenty of time to micromanage all their vills, crates, heroes, scouts, wagons etc. Not a huge deal, but does mean Japan with 6 vills, 2 heroes and 1 or 2 wagons can micromanage just as easily and perfectly as Sioux with just a few vills, crates and a hero.

That also happens if one player in the game has a slow computer, but still fair point.

Also free pwnika2


Correct. I am not saying it's fair or unfair (even though I would love to motivate certain players to upgrade their computer/internet) but it should be taken into account.


As a caster, I would love to have a moment to evaluate the map, instead of doing it during the first 30 seconds, while you want to be talking about starting crates, the matchup, the map and the treasures.
User avatar
United States of America rickytickitembo
Dragoon
Posts: 266
Joined: May 7, 2015
ESO: RickyTickiTembo
Location: Denver, CO

Re: To re, or not re: that is the question!

Post by rickytickitembo »

Having said that players can take advantage of this too (although Rapha wouldn't have done this especially considering he had more yaks than a Sioux opponent). For example, I remember (was it Kickass? Correct me if I'm wrong) who missed the TP pass then complained for a rehost
My favorite donut is chocolate Aiz.
User avatar
Netherlands MCJim
Retired Contributor
Posts: 2819
Joined: Mar 7, 2015
ESO: MCJim
Location: The Netherlands

Re: To re, or not re: that is the question!

Post by MCJim »

I proposed a change from:

1.6 - Every player may restart a game BEFORE the 2 minute mark when necessary. This is allowed ONCE per map when the game is NOT casted by an official caster. Restarts for CASTED games will be determined by the caster him/herself.

To:

"Every player may restart a game BEFORE the 2 minute mark when necessary. This is allowed ONCE per map when the game is NOT casted by an official caster. Restarts for CASTED games will be determined by the caster/admin him/herself. This doesn't include mistakes like wrong decks and deleting vills, unless both players agree for a rematch. Only map screws can lead a caster/admin to determine a rehost without asking the opinion of the players."

In other words:

Map screw = caster/admin determines a rehost.
Mistakes like deleting a vill or choosing a wrong deck = a rehost is decided by both players and the caster/admin has to agree as well.


What would you think?
:food: My AoE3 YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/MCJimAgeofEmpiresIII
:wood: My AoE3 Twitch channel: https://www.twitch.tv/MCJim_


:coin: Age of Streaming YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/AgeOfStreaming
France Kaiserklein
Pro Player
Posts: 10278
Joined: Jun 6, 2015
Location: Paris
GameRanger ID: 5529322

Re: To re, or not re: that is the question!

  • Quote

Post by Kaiserklein »

Too lazy to read everything, so I might repeat stuff that was said already. Anyway, I think it's pretty clear that these two specific tourney rules need to be changed asap, to avoid this kind of incident. Here are the reasons:


1) We should trust casters as much as possible, but let's face it: being a caster is nowhere nearly as hard as being a tourney admin. I think tourney admins should be trusted regarding decisions, but should we trust casters in the same way? No. Casters are selected on their casting skills, not on their honesty or on their ability to take decisions under pressure. We don't have enough active casters and applications to afford that luxury.

I could be a bitch, cast a mate, and grant him a rehost just because he's my mate, because he got housed when someone stole his wood treasure, he accidentally deleted a villager instead of some livestock, he missed the xp, his explorer died, or... He picked the wrong deck. After all, according to these rules, I can decide that anything that I judge harmful to optimal play is worth a rehost, right?

Or I could just be a nice guy, but take the wrong decision, and grant a rehost when there shouldn't be one.


2) Checking the resources distribution is part of the caster's job, and rehosting a mapscrew makes sense. It's just checking that the game is fair, it's a no brainer. But why is it fair to rehost a mistake from one player? If you want to win, don't make big mistakes, like deleting a vil or picking the wrong deck, etc. If you do, then that's your fault and your problem, why should the other player be forced to care about it?

Obviously, a player A can still pause the game when he did that kind of mistake, and ask for a rehost. If the other player B agrees, then let them rehost. That's just a favour from B to A, it's sportsmanship, etc, it's really nice. But hey, that's up to B to decide of that. You can't force him to do A a favour. Again, it's A's problem that he did a big stupid mistake.


3) If you grant rehosts for this kind of stuff, where do you draw the line? When is it worth rehosting a mistake, and when is it not? Obviously, there is no line, since it's up to the caster. So depending on who is casting your series, you might just be really lucky and get a rehost for a small mistake (even if your opponent disagrees), or you might get fucked when you have a nr40 deck on Cascade Range.

It's also a shit ton of responsibility for the caster, tbh. When I cast, I don't wanna be in that kind of situation where I need to decide if the match point of a RO8 series has to be rehosted or not (knowing perfectly well that I will get flamed for my decision regardless of what I choose).


4) If you grant rehosts like that, you can also see people start to abuse it pretty easily. I'm India vs Dutch and I have a coin start? Damn, let's just pick a treaty deck, and ask for a rehost! He steals my wood treasure? Hey, I can just delete my tc and ask for a rehost!



So all this implies pretty obvious rules (basically the same as what @MCJim proposed):

- Casters should be able to rehost regardless of the players' opinion ONLY if there is a mapscrew.

- If there is a mistake done by either player before 2 minutes (or another value, but we do need a time limit to avoid late rehosts), he can ask his opponent to grant him a rehost. It is then ONLY up to the opponent to decide whether there is rehost or not.

- If a game-breaking bug happens during a game (example: a lot of units getting stuck somewhere, a shipment not being refunded after a tower was walled up...), an admin can decide whether the game should be rehosted. The caster IS NOT entitled to decide of that. If no admin is available, the caster lets the players know that the admins will review that game later and potentially grant a replay. Meanwhile, they have to finish the game.
Image
Image
Image
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
France Kaiserklein
Pro Player
Posts: 10278
Joined: Jun 6, 2015
Location: Paris
GameRanger ID: 5529322

Re: To re, or not re: that is the question!

  • Quote

Post by Kaiserklein »

And to clarify:

- Radix is not to be blamed for the rehost he called. He simply followed the rules. If anything, he should have probably asked the admins before taking that decision; but even without doing that, he was still within the rules, so he shouldn't be blamed.

- Lordraphael obviously didn't pick a bad deck on purpose, to get a rehost. It was a genuine mistake. However, that doesn't mean that these rules aren't an abusable loophole, and thus should be changed.

- The rules I and @MCJim proposed mean that someone who wants to be a dick and never grant a rehost will be advantaged. That's true. But well, that's part of competition, you're not forced to do favours to your opponent. Also, that's way better than advantaging people who would abuse an unclear rule.
Image
Image
Image
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
No Flag Radix_Lecti
Dragoon
Posts: 413
Joined: Dec 3, 2017

Re: To re, or not re: that is the question!

Post by Radix_Lecti »

Pretty much what ricky said : pause, assessment, rule--> caster decides-> rehost initiated. I'd perhaps add a limit of one re b4 2 min per series, but honoustly just felt unfair to me not to re and at that time it was up to me to decide on it.Garjas analysis came just 10 sec. too late to be used. im more struggling with the fact that it's totally ok for a player to refuse to play while I'm sat there with LordR waiting...

Lastly, how often have we had people selecting aztec sea decks in tourney on Tibet? It is good that this rule gets more clarification but can we also trust a caster to be impartial in this?
France Kaiserklein
Pro Player
Posts: 10278
Joined: Jun 6, 2015
Location: Paris
GameRanger ID: 5529322

Re: To re, or not re: that is the question!

Post by Kaiserklein »

You did use the rules correctly. The actual problem is that the rules suck on this point. Also why would we trust a caster to be impartial, when casters are tested exclusively on their casting skills? A talented biased asshole could be an ESOC caster.
Plus, I have to remind you you were pretty biased towards me in my series against dicktator :p not saying that you would take biased decisions though, just saying you weren't completely objective.

Ah, and it's probably the first time there was a team water deck on tibet. But before, we already had a vil deleted causing a rehost, also a wonder deleted, and probably some other stuff that I'm not aware of.
Image
Image
Image
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
Great Britain WickedCossack
Retired Contributor
Posts: 1904
Joined: Feb 11, 2015

Re: To re, or not re: that is the question!

Post by WickedCossack »

Kaiserklein wrote:It's also a shit ton of responsibility for the caster, tbh. When I cast, I don't wanna be in that kind of situation where I need to decide if the match point of a RO8 series has to be rehosted or not (knowing perfectly well that I will get flamed for my decision regardless of what I


My surprise at reading this coming from the guy who's opinion is that "if you cant handle a couple complaints maybe you shouldn't be casting." Even the foresight of not wanting to be put into certain situations! Maybe you could try being a little less sensitive?
France Kaiserklein
Pro Player
Posts: 10278
Joined: Jun 6, 2015
Location: Paris
GameRanger ID: 5529322

Re: To re, or not re: that is the question!

Post by Kaiserklein »

There's a difference between not being able to handle a player complaining once or twice about the lag as a caster (especially when the player is not even blaming you for the said lag btw), resulting in you leaving your mate to solo cast the next 5 RO8 games, and not wanting to take a super sensitive decision + getting flamed and hated by either one or the other half of the chat depending on the decision.
Btw you're posting off-topic here. If you still can't get over with what I told you, feel free to PM me.
Image
Image
Image
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
User avatar
Belgium chrisie
Retired Contributor
Donator 01
Posts: 128
Joined: Aug 19, 2015
Location: Belgium

Re: To re, or not re: that is the question!

Post by chrisie »

Vinyanenya wrote:I lean more towards no re

That said I think that this quotation from the NA Challenger Series rule book for 2017 is interesting and applicable.

Riot Games wrote:8.8.5 Selection Error. In the event of an erroneously-selected
Champion pick or ban, the team in error must notify a CS official before
the other team has locked in their next selection. If so, the process will
be restarted and brought back to the point at which the error occurred so
that the team in error may correct its mistake. If the next selection is
locked before the team in error gives notice to a CS official, the
erroneous selection shall be deemed irrevocable.


The analogy isn't perfect but it's evident that redoing something in the event of a misclick in the early stages of a match isn't unheard of in eSports.

source



I also remember an LCS game in season 3 where a rehost was done because xpeke from fnatic had selected the wrong rune page
User avatar
No Flag fightinfrenchman
Ninja
Donator 04
Posts: 23505
Joined: Oct 17, 2015
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: To re, or not re: that is the question!

Post by fightinfrenchman »

Well I'm glad we could reach a consensus
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
Image
User avatar
United States of America noissance
Jaeger
Donator 01
Posts: 2031
Joined: Mar 28, 2015
ESO: noissance
Location: United States

Re: To re, or not re: that is the question!

Post by noissance »

I pose the following (potential) solution to map checking by casters:
If rms triggers to spawn the players' bases (or villagers and heroes) were delayed for say 5 seconds, wouldnt pausing at 0:00 be feasible?
Error 404: Signature not found
User avatar
Canada Warno
Dragoon
Donator 08
Posts: 426
Joined: Jul 2, 2016
ESO: Warno

Re: To re, or not re: that is the question!

Post by Warno »

Kaiserklein wrote:So all this implies pretty obvious rules (basically the same as what @MCJim proposed):

- Casters should be able to rehost regardless of the players' opinion ONLY if there is a mapscrew.

- If there is a mistake done by either player before 2 minutes (or another value, but we do need a time limit to avoid late rehosts), he can ask his opponent to grant him a rehost. It is then ONLY up to the opponent to decide whether there is rehost or not.

- If a game-breaking bug happens during a game (example: a lot of units getting stuck somewhere, a shipment not being refunded after a tower was walled up...), an admin can decide whether the game should be rehosted. The caster IS NOT entitled to decide of that. If no admin is available, the caster lets the players know that the admins will review that game later and potentially grant a replay. Meanwhile, they have to finish the game
.



These seem like the most reasonable solutions to the issue.
These would alleviate all future problems - worst case scenario the match is replayed from where the mistake was made.

I like the fact that opponent should be able to choose, for the most part people would be good sports but if you are down 0-2 then you might not. It keeps the game in the players' hands and would make it more exciting for the viewers.
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: To re, or not re: that is the question!

Post by deleted_user0 »

imo, in this case, raphael shouldve asked goongoon for the rehost, and it shouldve been up to his discretion. selecting a wrong deck isn't a good reason for a rehost per se, but it's understandable that someone might want to rehost in that case, and if both players agree, ofcourse there is no reason why a rehost shouldnt be granted. But just allowing a wrong deck being picked to be sufficient grounds for a rehost is open to easy abuse.

I agree with garja on this, what I personally do every tournament is make a tournament civ with only 1 deck. You know what mu youre gonna play anyway, so even before you click in, you can always make minor adjustments to your deck. Saves you time, and you can't make a mistake.

on that note, i think its hilarious that goongoon was making drama, while a few tournaments ago, he deleted his agra fort and resigned asking for a rehost, claiming it was a big, knowing full well he just messed up with his hotkeys. It should never have been granted either. but he got it. and won the series.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: To re, or not re: that is the question!

Post by Garja »

WickedCossack wrote:
Kaiserklein wrote:It's also a shit ton of responsibility for the caster, tbh. When I cast, I don't wanna be in that kind of situation where I need to decide if the match point of a RO8 series has to be rehosted or not (knowing perfectly well that I will get flamed for my decision regardless of what I


My surprise at reading this coming from the guy who's opinion is that "if you cant handle a couple complaints maybe you shouldn't be casting." Even the foresight of not wanting to be put into certain situations! Maybe you could try being a little less sensitive?

Who cares about chat flames. Flame it back if it's that much of a problem.
Image Image Image
User avatar
Spain Snuden
Jaeger
Posts: 4276
Joined: Dec 28, 2016
ESO: Snuden
Location: Costa del Baphomet

Re: To re, or not re: that is the question!

Post by Snuden »

I got some great tips here, which I will use on my upcoming match.
[Sith] - Baphomet

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV