Official forums for BZFlag.org

I am voting for opt. 1, my opt 4 will never happen unless a new league is formed. T

option 1

Agh, so many people changing votes. Please, consider your vote carefully and then cast it! Good points, all.

1. im leaving gu if its 2

I strongly tend towards #1.

Regarding option #3: Chances are teams will get less points and less activity for shorter matches (otherwise we will end up with #3 being equal to #2).

I go for option 1 also for reasons stated allready above (which is good that it is allready written down, than i dont have to ^^)

option 3.

Option 3 - I don't think 30 minute matches will die when 20 minute matches come up. I'm often quite pressed for time and am not able to play the full 30 minutes, but when I have the time to do it, I will generally play for 30. I don't see the viewpoint of players saying that 20 minutes will damage the integrity of matches; if you don't want to play 20, you don't have to. The other option, in my opinion, is restricting the 20 minute option to 2vs2 matches only, because you can do a 2 out later on in the game if one player doesn't have time for it. Just a suggestion

Option 1.

"20 or 30 min match?" - just one more point teams may disagree about. Choice is not always good. It actually may split the league and make it harder to get matches going. Option 1.

What about making a 'Postponed Matches' page on the league site, where a referee can enter a match that is postponed for whatever reason. The reason most people don't usually like postponed matches is because they are almost always forgot about. So, if a certain player only has 20 minutes to match, everyone can agree to do a 20 minute match and then enter it to the 'Postponed Matches' list, and it can be finished at a later date and deleted from the page.

Just food for thought, but for ducatiwannabe's sake, I will vote for Option 1.

I'd say #1.

Those last ten minutes are what make the matches exciting for me. I can't say how many matches I've seen or participated in have been decided in the final seconds...playing 20 minute matches would make me have more of a sense of urgency I don't think I'd be comfortable with, in my opinion.

Plus, I don't think cutting the time to accommodate more players pressed for time will make all that much of a difference-20 minutes is still a significant amount of time if you're running a tight schedule. Make time for your BZ!

Option 3! Best Option i think C:

option 3

Option 3

#1

While i switched my vote from #3 to #1 for reasons stated by qd and rb2. Let me qualify my vote.
Personally, at my skill level, 30 min matches are tortuous to play...every time i get sucked into one, I swear it will be my last. That's the way some feel that are less skilled when pitched against a skilled team. Now don't lecture me about the gu learning curve and striving to get better through matching better players - I could tell you what i think of that but bzbb will censor it - Tired of that lecture. That said, I can see the draw for a 20 min match.
BUT. if you get 2 skilled teams playing, then a 30 min match is a must - for so much can change in just a few minutes...as both rb2 and qd have already stated. Plus it's exciting to watch 2 equally strong teams matching.
SOOOO...to appeal broadly across all skill levels (and not lose more players), have both times, with point modification for the time as recommended by this player:

if you give the option of 20 minute matches, make them only count for half as many points as 30 minute matches (instead of 2/3rd as many points) so that there is a large penalty for the shorter duration.

This would be the only way I would vote for #3 and think it is the BEST option. Even make the point 1/3 for 20 min if need be.
Yes, it takes coding and time. Everything costs something. I would code it myself (ha!) but no telling what that would look like.

Good point, Kierra.

I may add that for quite a handfull players the points arent really important, so only getting (or loosing) 1/2 or 1/3 of the points wouldnt be a problem.

I vote for option 3. If possible, I would also like to see 1/3 fewer points awarded for a 20 minute match as opposed to a 30 minute. I believe this would encourage newer players/teams to play more matches, since it is difficult to continue playing when you are down by a large margin. At the same time, more experienced players/teams would be more willing to put more on the line with 30-minute matches. If a longer match cannot be agreed upon, you can always match twice. Also many people simply cannot do 30 minute matches at all or at a given time if they have an engagement to fulfill, so this would allow them to fit an official match into the smaller period of available time.

Option #1

Option 3 is my base choice, but I think there should be conditions attached, some suggestions:

-I agree that 20 min matches should be weighted less with activity and point changes.

-I think there should be some consensus to make it a 20 min match, probably a unanimous decision.

-Also, make a bigger penalty for having to leave a 20 min match, i.e. where a 30 min would be postponed, a 20 min would be forfeited (with the lighter losing penalties however).

-Perhaps if there are more than 2 players per team then it has to be full duration.

Hopefully this will allow people who don't have time for 30 mins (like me ) to match more often, but discourage a "split" in the league. I can see how this might create conflicts but hopefully it will be beneficial in the long run.

who voted 2 plz change vote to opt 3. i would vote 2 too but no way it is gona win..

Quantum Tank wrote:-I think there should be some consensus to make it a 20 min match, probably a unanimous decision.

Match terms already have to be unanimous anyway, since all players have to agree to the match to begin with.

option #1

Option #3