Stories from RhyDin & The Rings

Yeah that's before me. This is one of those things that only comes up once every other year or so and Matt and I usually have to discuss it to make sure we have it right, and then there is occasionally talk about dealing with it which is shortly after forgotten until the next time it happens.

I don't offhand know the logic behind having differences in the scoring, especially since the feint rules have changed several times since then. I donno that there would be a lot of resistance if we wanted to change this to be uniform across the board starting with the next cycle. At that point the only question would be the is 4-3+ a win or a tie? Either side has an arguments for it.

Just to clarify, in Duel of Magic its a win. You hit 5 points, or at the end of 15 one person has a full point lead, both are wins. Pretty sure its been that way as long as I can remember, as I remember 'risking it' to try and cut a lead to .5 to get myself a tie.

Under getting started, the Duels tab lists this as though it applies to all sports. I always thought DoF had the same rule, though I haven't called many matches there.

Why not make that rule uniform for simplicity's sake across all three sports?

For my part, I dislike the 'one-point-lead-is-a-win-after-fifteen-rounds-eve n-if-you-don't-have-5-points' method. I've always thought that you should have to score a minimum of 5 points in order to have a chance to win a duel. In my mind, I always ask myself 'why give someone a win for a 3-2 or 4-3 score when they haven't yet reached the mimimum requirement for winning a duel, which is 5 points'?

For regulation dueling, no 5 points = no win, regardless of whether it's after the 6th, 11th, or 15th round. That makes sense to me and it's the method I personally prefer.

--Matt

Goldglo wrote:For my part, I dislike the 'one-point-lead-is-a-win-after-fifteen-rounds-eve n-if-you-don't-have-5-points' method. I've always thought that you should have to score a minimum of 5 points in order to have a chance to win a duel. In my mind, I always ask myself 'why give someone a win for a 3-2 or 4-3 score when they haven't yet reached the mimimum requirement for winning a duel, which is 5 points'?

For regulation dueling, no 5 points = no win, regardless of whether it's after the 6th, 11th, or 15th round. That makes sense to me and it's the method I personally prefer.

--Matt

The logic here might have stemmed from the results where one duelist dropped out of the chat before the duel ended. Presenting the situation where neither opponent had reached 5 points, and the duel had not reached 15 rounds.

So, a 2-1 duel could end up being reflected as a tie or a win.

DUEL Kheldar wrote:At that point the only question would be the is 4-3+ a win or a tie? Either side has an arguments for it.

Well, the + notation came about because it didn't have value. It's not .5. So, 4-3.5 does not equal 4-3+. The + only has value if it's converted.

Matt wrote:For regulation dueling, no 5 points = no win, regardless of whether it's after the 6th, 11th, or 15th round. That makes sense to me and it's the method I personally prefer.

I agree with that. I'd rather see a 5-4.5 duel end in a win than a 4-3 duel, not that such a thing is on the table, but I do agree that if a duelist doesn't reach 5 they shouldn't receive a win.

The other question though is: Should all 3 sports match with that rule?

Obviously there are differences in how the games work, but there are certain things that are standard fair. Duel to 5 points. 15 rounds in a duel. No repeated moves (with specifically noted exceptions). For consitencies sake and making transition from one game to the next easier on the participant, some of these things should always remain the same. I'd hate, for example, to see DoM suddenly start requiring only 4 points to win a duel, or DoF to start going 20 rounds.

Is the tie / win at 15 rounds one of those things that should be standardized?

I'm not sure really what my opinion is, I lean towards standardization even though I don't care for the predominant rule. Wherever we land though, it really ought to find it's way into the posted rules.

~Kal

For magic, in the old days it was very easy for someone down 2-1 or 3-2 to start 'turtling' and aiming for tie-ing rounds in an attempt to slow down the leader. A 4-3 win prevented this tactic. With the rules of today, I wouldn't expect to see this very often anymore.

I actually had trouble figuring out how a 4-3 duel in fists happened until I realized it was glass vs glass. Which is what we are talking about - glass vs glass or commoner duels for most of this. The only thing I don't like about 4-3 ties is I can see people turtling defense constantly to slow down a 2-1 or 3-2 leader. I see that as an annoying tactic, and prefer duels where people attempt to win, not attempt to tie.

DUEL Goblin wrote:For magic, in the old days it was very easy for someone down 2-1 or 3-2 to start 'turtling' and aiming for tie-ing rounds in an attempt to slow down the leader. A 4-3 win prevented this tactic. With the rules of today, I wouldn't expect to see this very often anymore.

I think that's what I was remembering. The turtling. And I think you're right that with recent rule changes it's not as susceptible to that anymore.

DUEL Goblin wrote:I actually had trouble figuring out how a 4-3 duel in fists happened until I realized it was glass vs glass. Which is what we are talking about - glass vs glass or commoner duels for most of this. The only thing I don't like about 4-3 ties is I can see people turtling defense constantly to slow down a 2-1 or 3-2 leader. I see that as an annoying tactic, and prefer duels where people attempt to win, not attempt to tie.

Actually...I am not sure that works. Switching to defense in DoF when you're losing (and have no mods), makes it really hard to gain any ground. Because of the way Advs work, DoF tends to favor aggressiveness. I don't think turtling (with defenses) in DoF has ever been a problem.

I don't know if it's been brought up, but are matches that result in the booting of one player standardized across all the sports? If I'm winning 3-1 after 6 rounds and my opponent gets disconnected and doesn't come back, I can choose the win or the tie in any sport, correct?

If this is the case, I say we standardize the tie rules in the same fashion, with the win going to the person with at least a full point lead after fifteen rounds.

I completely understand the confusion since the rules for ties under the Getting Started tab when you click The Duels link gives the impression it's the same for all the sports. I lean slightly toward the idea that it should be, for the sake of simplicity.

Harris wrote:I don't know if it's been brought up, but are matches that result in the booting of one player standardized across all the sports? If I'm winning 3-1 after 6 rounds and my opponent gets disconnected and doesn't come back, I can choose the win or the tie in any sport, correct?

As far as I know, the remaining opponent gets to choose win or tie regardless of the duel's score. In other words, if someone's losing 3-1, and their opponent (the person with 3 points) leaves and doesn't come back, the dueler with 1 point can elect to take the tie or the win.

I could be wrong on that, but I don't ever remember a clause that specified that the remaining dueler had to have a lead in order to elect win or tie.

--Matt

Goldglo wrote:As far as I know, the remaining opponent gets to choose win or tie regardless of the duel's score. In other words, if someone's losing 3-1, and their opponent (the person with 3 points) leaves and doesn't come back, the dueler with 1 point can elect to take the tie or the win.

I could be wrong on that, but I don't ever remember a clause that specified that the remaining dueler had to have a lead in order to elect win or tie.

--Matt

If that's the case, I don't see an issue with allowing someone a win with a full point lead even if they don't reach 5 points. If it's possible to win a duel you're losing via opponent boot, I think if someone scratches and claws through 15 rounds and ends up with a full point lead, they should take the win. I think standardizing the tie rules is worthwhile.

I thought the tie rule was universal. The reason I brought the 4-+3 score to Matt after the 15 rounds was because I had never called a DoF match that ended like that and wasn't sure what to do.

Edit: Sorry i'm sort of out of it. I meant I thought the full point lead rule was universal.

Harris wrote:...I think if someone scratches and claws through 15 rounds and ends up with a full point lead, they should take the win.

While I understand that perspective, I disagree with it. If someone scratches and claws through 15 rounds and doesn't yet have 5 points, I don't think a win should be awarded.

5 points is the minimum amount required for a win when round #s are not in consideration and I don't see why, once Round 15 ends, that requirement to win should be pushed aside and replaced by a full point lead.

--Matt

Goldglo wrote:

Harris wrote:...I think if someone scratches and claws through 15 rounds and ends up with a full point lead, they should take the win.

While I understand that perspective, I disagree with it. If someone scratches and claws through 15 rounds and doesn't yet have 5 points, I don't think a win should be awarded.

5 points is the minimum amount required for a win when round #s are not in consideration and I don't see why, once Round 15 ends, that requirement to win should be pushed aside and replaced by a full point lead.

--Matt

At this juncture, that's the exception. It's already been stated that the DoS and DoM rules award a win to a full point lead. Apparently the confusion is with DoF. So the better question is, what if anything about the DoF system requires the difference from the other two sports, outside of the sentiment of simply not liking it? If that's all that's holding standardizing the sports back I don't really see that as enough of a reason to warrant it. It's a minor tweak that will alleviate any future confusion about ties, on the side of callers and duelists. That to me is a boon worthwhile.

Harris wrote: I think if someone scratches and claws through 15 rounds and ends up with a full point lead, they should take the win.

I agree with this. If someone slugs it out for 15 rounds and has invested approximately 45 minutes of their time; I think they deserve the win if they have a full point lead.