Official forums for BZFlag.org

A cap limit has been proposed. This would mean that a team who has 10 caps with at least a 2 cap lead (e.g., 10-8, 11-9, 10-1, etc.) would automatically win the game, even if time limit has not expired. Would you like the council to consider implementing a cap limit?

I didn't vote cause i am missing some alternatives in the voting.

I am either for

1. Cap difference limit, in that the team leading with a number of caps automatically wins (I say a difference of 6 caps), but not limited by an absolute number.
2. That games are not limited in time, but in total caps only, where the total number of caps is a low number like 2 or 3, where 3 is my favourite

If however the poll remains as it is with the above two options, having a cap limit is my choice.

Maybe having a minimum time limit before the cap limit ends the game? There are a few problems with this, but they seem kind of minor right now.
It seems dangerous to end a match at 10-8 if there are 10 minutes on the
clock still, wouldn't you all agree?

tokimi wrote:Maybe having a minimum time limit before the cap limit ends the game? There are a few problems with this, but they seem kind of minor right now.
It seems dangerous to end a match at 10-8 if there are 10 minutes on the
clock still, wouldn't you all agree?

Only if you keep thinking of the 10 minutes which would have been left to play . If you say: "The team with 10 caps first wins, may the better team win", the team who reaches that 10 caps won and was therefore the better team. It depends on the familiarization.

mistake wrote:I didn't vote cause i am missing some alternatives in the voting.

I am either for

1. Cap difference limit, in that the team leading with a number of caps automatically wins (I say a difference of 6 caps), but not limited by an absolute number.
2. That games are not limited in time, but in total caps only, where the total number of caps is a low number like 2 or 3, where 3 is my favourite

If however the poll remains as it is with the above two options, having a cap limit is my choice.

Would you not agree to, say, having to reach 10 caps AND have 4 more caps than your opponents?
Either way, you should vote. Both of your ideas are cap limits, imho - I assume if there are enough votes in favour of a Cap Limit that there will be a discussion on exactly what that limit should be.

Xell wrote:Only if you keep thinking of the 10 minutes which would have been left to play . If you say: "The team with 10 caps first wins, may the better team win", the team who reaches that 10 caps won and was therefore the better team. It depends on the familiarization.

CBG wrote:Either way, you should vote. Both of your ideas are cap limits, imho

Both points right. taken and voted

mistake wrote:

Xell wrote:Only if you keep thinking of the 10 minutes which would have been left to play . If you say: "The team with 10 caps first wins, may the better team win", the team who reaches that 10 caps won and was therefore the better team. It depends on the familiarization.

CBG wrote:Either way, you should vote. Both of your ideas are cap limits, imho

Both points right. taken and voted

Seems pretty clear so far... Less than 20% voted against any kind of Cap Limit, though I do say that we need to clear up exactly what the cap limit should be. Some seem to agree with:
teamA Wins if teamA's score => 10 AND teamA's score => (teamB's score + 2)
Though others seem to prefer something like:
teamA Wins if teamA's score => 10 AND teamA's score => (teamB's score + 4)
and others like:
teamA Wins if teamA's score => 6

other says : if difference from 7 is reached

Keep it simple...

Zongo did the research on high scoring, close (30 minute) games. Teams at 10 captures had an opponent with a much lower score, no chance of catching up with the allotted time.

Sussi says, once you get a 7 point lead (unless the clock has already run out), you win. The 7 point lead is probably up for debate, but thereabouts.

Both of these (with a clock limit- 15, 20 or 30 - whatever) are great, simple ideas. I don't think there is a need to combine both, one or the other should suit.

Did you see where I left my martini?

Cheers mates!

thx bamf...

keep it simple is my motto...

please read the above mentioned cap limit topic that SC started for me.
I went through all the games and encountered no close games with a higher score than 9-7. So the statistics say that 10 is a good cap limit.

toki: It seems dangerous to end a match at 10-8 if there are 10 minutes on the
clock still, wouldn't you all agree?

toki made a really good point, and cbg had some good ideas about it...and then bamf and zongo came along with statistics and ruined all the good objections.

so keeping it simple does make sense. voting yes.

It seems dangerous to end a match at 10-8 if there are 10 minutes on the
clock still, wouldn't you all agree?

But I think Xell' point is also valid, if the rule is that match end is either 10 caps or the timer end, so when you see the cap limit not only as a means to prevent high score difference, it could make sense also.

I think that ending at 10-8, with 10 minutes to spare, may have a different
outcome than letting the match go ahead. Though after thinking on it, we
may have to get used to the idea that its first to 10, or after 30 minutes (which
is a secondary measure).

as I already told, u will almost -never- see a *real* match ending 10-8 with 10 minutes left! Of course u can do it on purpose...

Im pretty much outnumbered on this, but I've voted against cap limit. Because I also hold "keep it simple" dearly.

My reason is pretty simple. If we allow teams to forfeit, then let them use it when they feel they want to. Then there would be no need to enforce a "mandatory" forfeit because of score-results. If they're having fun, let them play.

As long as it is clear that teams got the option to "surrender".

Well, technically, there is nothing preventing them from forfeiting now. Except that other teams put pressure on them to continue. I've seen teams try to forfeit/quit mid-game and the opposing team has generally been quite insistent about continuing the match. Although the forfeit rule isn't official at the moment, I can't see how it would change things significantly if it were implemented.

Based on Zongo's findings, I vote for: the first team to reach a 10 cap spread wins, unless time runs out first.


t2m

Im pretty much outnumbered on this, but I've voted against cap limit. Because I also hold "keep it simple" dearly.
My reason is pretty simple. If we allow teams to forfeit, then let them use it when they feel they want to. Then there would be no need to enforce a "mandatory" forfeit because of score-results. If they're having fun, let them play.
As long as it is clear that teams got the option to "surrender".

Its' not really that you are outvoted. I think all variations and options proposed have their validity. I voted yes, but it is nothing that I would fight for. Personally I have no problems either way.

t2m wrote:Based on Zongo's findings, I vote for: the first team to reach a 10 cap spread wins, unless time runs out first.


t2m

Just to be clear, the proposal is NOT for a 10 cap spread (i.e., win by 10). The proposal is for a total of 10 caps by one team as long as the team has a 2 cap lead.

[dmp] wrote: My reason is pretty simple. If we allow teams to forfeit, then let them use it when they feel they want to. Then there would be no need to enforce a "mandatory" forfeit because of score-results. If they're having fun, let them play.

That's actually a good point you're making there, but...

What would stop a totally hopeless team to forfeit when the score is 0:1 when playing against a much better team?
A rule saying that "you can't forfeit until opponent has at least an X point lead" could prevent this - but then the simplicity vanishes...

goblin wrote:That's actually a good point you're making there, but...

What would stop a totally hopeless team to forfeit when the score is 0:1 when playing against a much better team? A rule saying that "you can't forfeit until opponent has at least an X point lead" could prevent this - but then the simplicity vanishes...

Nothing. But then again, what stops them from leaving the match (with current rules, or even with cap limit), if they're losing? If they accept a match - they "risk" some points. If they give up after 1:0 they have surely lost them. If they keep playing they have a chance to make draw or even win.

At some point, we need to have faith in the teams/players. Im sure that if some team exploits the rules to their advantage, other teams will stop matching them. If that happens, we need to reconsider the rules. Until then, I'll make go with simplicity. (After all, its hard to predict the future )

SC wrote:

Just to be clear, the proposal is NOT for a 10 cap spread (i.e., win by 10). The proposal is for a total of 10 caps by one team as long as the team has a 2 cap lead.

I didn't actually 'vote' in the poll because I agree with a cap limit, but not with a 2 point spread. I was just offering up an opinion.

If the option was exactly as the poll states, I vote no cap limit.


t2m

[dmp] wrote: At some point, we need to have faith in the teams/players. Im sure that if some team exploits the rules to their advantage, other teams will stop matching them. If that happens, we need to reconsider the rules. Until then, I'll make go with simplicity. (After all, its hard to predict the future )

I agree on the point about trusting teams and players.

I see this "cap limit and forfeit" topic as connected to the "rewarding activity" topic. If we reward activity by giving points to teams that are matching, eg. W/D/L gets you 4/2/1 points, then this could happen:
s00per-d00per-BZ-team-1 matches crummy-newbie-team. crummy-newbie-team forfeits when score is 0:1, so they lose, they only get -1 CTF points, but gain a point for their"activity". Likewise, s00per-d00per-BZ-team-1 gets 4 points. So everybody is happy, nobody cheated and everything went by the rules. But basically, the teams got activity points without really playing(!)

Especially the crummy-newbie-team can pick up a lot of points this way without getting a bad CTF-count score against s00per-d00per-BZ-team-1, 2, 3, etc.

I'm not shure that the s00per-d00per-BZ-teams will boycutt crummy-newbie-team, since they get the 4 points for winning, even though it's a sloppy victory.

Maybe I'm too suspicious. I really want to trust the teams and players, and I actually do. But much too often, I've experinced that a few people can ruin the whole setup by pushing the rules to the limit and gain points, fame and glory, by delivering boring matches.
IIRC, you are danish as I am - think "Richard Møller Nul-Nulsen", and you'll get my point

For the case that a cap-limit is valid, if a team run behind like 3 :7, 8 or 9 they will not see a reason to keep batteling. The better team start to get as quick as possible to reach 10 points. I think ist opposite fun-related. But with the differently cap limit of 7, a positive thinking team try to keep capture, to prevend to loose until the time is over. I think diff cap limit makes matches more tasting. Everything has 2 sides, for finding a compromiss always give up the non relevant part, and hold tight the important parts.
Also a little bit off-topic to the activity. My proposals to scoring wont loose teams points for loose matches. And give a minimum of point to the winners.

sussi wrote:If a team run behind like 3 :7 they will not see a reason to keep batteling.

does a soccer team that runs e.g. 0:3 behind give up?
why cant we leave the matches as they are... 30 minutes... the better team makes more points and wins...

cya all
levi