America's Army Ladder Rules, Suggestions and Comments

[l ! l Ross]

May you can post a link to it so I can add it like the full game to our download section.

No problem about the paying server stuff but it has simply nothing to do with setting up rules  

Mauti if you want to put the full game on your download servers then WAIT!

Me and the rest of the mac beta testers are currently testing Americans Army : Special Forces 2.0 for the Mac so putting the old 1.9 on your servers would be a wast of time.

So wait till it has been released. I can't tell you when it will be released but when it is maybe I can get you a nice fast download link when it is out

Oh yea about hosting there was a guy called Edg who made a program for setting up a host on a mac. I don't know if he will be making one for 2.0 but if he dose it will be the best thing for setting up a server without any problems and hassle.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Ross, he's been keeping it up to date till now, so I suspect that he will continue to do so.

Also, you'll need to join us in our massive Bit Torrent of it again this time.  Since MP has a few beta testers, we took the early download and did a massive distribution of it the day 1.9 came out.  No reason to think we wont do the same this time, and the more on the better, so when it happens, look for us on GR.

[Typhy]

Those MP hosted Bit Torrent's are awesome. I've gotten both 1.7 and 1.9 off of them; most of the time my speed was maxed out - about 200kb/sec.

I put you on my buddy list, so PM me when you get a chance.  

[l ! l Ross]

Ross, he's been keeping it up to date till now, so I suspect that he will continue to do so.

Also, you'll need to join us in our massive Bit Torrent of it again this time.  Since MP has a few beta testers, we took the early download and did a massive distribution of it the day 1.9 came out.  No reason to think we wont do the same this time, and the more on the better, so when it happens, look for us on GR.

Yea I thought you guys had a few beta testers in there but you never said hi

I told edg about this league I am sure he will help with the hosting.

A bittorrent is probably the bets way to download AA.

[*DAMN Elandrion]

i'll gladly help you distribute AA via BitTorrent when its out.

Elan

[Supernatural Pie]

I dont' really understand the 5 second weapon rule.
If you tk, you tk. That's your own fault.

If this gets to be bigger than expected and you need some help admin'ing, I'll volunteer, but I think between Typhy, Vood, and Reb, you guys should be ok.

[KoS.Rebel]

Hmm 1 ladder eh? Well the reason i wanted 2 ladders was because id rather not see a recreation of the RS ladder where people who 2v2ed everday won because they were point whores. But, if we need to nail it down to 1 ladder then i guess we can fix the point system to where 2v2's are worth less and are therefore discouraged. But, with a 2v2 ladder of its own we can have more teams and more matches and more activity then combining it into 1 ladder and forcing clan members to 2v2. If you see my point then it will make sense but if u dont im not going to elaborate. Basically if it must be done then it must be done. Typhy and I will work out a NEW point system and then we will clear it with u mauti. Typhy ill be back on tongiht around 930 east. Thats 530 for u krazy alaskans. Ttyl. oh yeah for all of you who speak spanish.

YO TENGO POWER!!!!!!!!

[Typhy]

While a having two seperate ladders would make for an easier and less complex points system, I think it'd also make for two relativly inactive ladders.

However, you could still make a pretty basic points system, based totally upon the amount of players: 2v2 = 4 points, 3v3 = 6 points. . . 6v6 = 12 points. That'd make it take 2 3v3s to equal a 6v6, or 3 2v2s, which seems about right.

[Typhy]

A couple people have asked me about this, so I figure I'll clarify:

The "5 second" rule: "No team will fire any weapon for the first 5 seconds of ANY live round. Pulling the pin on a grenade IS considered firing a weapon. "

The only place I've seen this come into play is at Bridge; many people go to open servers to practice their 203ing. Some people take it to a new level. They know exactly where to put their reticule to land a 203 in the oponents spawn point at Bridge. It's a royal pain in the ass when someone does this, because they can almost always kill at least 1, often more. This simply prevents against it.  

[Supernatural Pie]

Actually, when you get to learn the map you'll find that if you go immediately up the hill, they can almost never hit you with a 203.

For example, I tend to rush to the right, go along the hill (about 10 feet in from the road), then cross the road at a diagonal where I will either continue down the bridge, go inside to make my way up to the tower, or go to the stairs.

The point is, if you're smart, you can avoid the early death. If you're smarter, you can get an early kill. I think adding this other rule just makes it more complicated, and opens the door to more cheap wins/losses.

[Typhy]

Snipe, there is no reason to shoot within the first 5 seconds. The only potential disagreement would be if someone killed an oponent within the first 5 seconds, which would be cheap and a violation of the rules. TWL uses this rule, and they seem to have no problems.

[Supernatural Pie]

?cE ? SNiPE.jNu-a2-?: I just don't want to fire my gun up in the air as a morale booster (sometimes do it) and then be cheated out of a win.
?cE ??Typhy.-a2-: Lol
?cE ??Typhy.-a2-: I promise you that no one will be cheated out of a win like that.


ok then.

[Typhy]

A preview of what will happen if someone tries to catch a win like that:

Person: He shot his gun as a moral booster 4.999 seconds into the game, so we win by forfit!

Me: Did he kill or wound anyone with it?

Person: No.

Me: Did his doing this effect you in any way?

Person: No.

Me: Then there was no problem. Have a nice day.

This is simply to make sure that people don't try any 203 shit, namely at Bridge, if you really must shoot your gun at the start, I doubt there will be a problem.

[.vooDoo.]

I'm ban from the AA forums for something I said to a moderator in a PM. . .  

HAH.  LMAO.  HEHEHEHEHEHEHE.

Sorry, but that's the funniest thing I've read all week.

I'll find it for you and let you know.  But add me to your buddy list on GR so I can.

That gave me a good chuckle too.  

[*DAMN Mauti]

Guys please stay more ontopic. We are to discuss rules and the point system.

One thing the point should have is penalty points for losing and about the players: in the CombatPoints System we have solved this by multiplying the static rank points with the players. e.g 10(static points) * 1(for 2vs2) and for a 4vs4 just 10 * 1.5.

The CombatPoint System worked great and I think would also work once the AA ladder grows(at least 10 - 15active clans) but for now we should do a simple system.

Bye,

Mauti

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I'll throw in two suggestions, both should be easy and fit the problem with scoring/ladders.

Use the existing formula in the combatpoints system, but just change the constants here (again, like Mauti said, until it grows).

Seems like you'll want to reward bigger CB's a little more, to discourage the 2v2 stuff, so increase that multiplier.  Instead of 1.5x take it up a notch or two.  The actual number has to be looked at in connection with the next part.

Since I doubt you'll see more then 5 active clans the first season, you'll want the points earned to be a little closer.  So again, modify the constants.  Instead of 300 points for beating first place, make it 30.  Just drop a zero.  Then, take a look at the actual numbers Mauti has in place, and maybe close or widen some of the gaps, to make it more competitive.  

Reason I say this is that increasing the gap will make it easier for lower teams to catch up, since beating the high ranked teams is worth more.  And with so few of teams, you don't need the higher numbers like 300, not when using 40, 20, 15, 10, 7, 5, 2, 1, 1, 1 will not only do the same thing for so few teams, but has a bit of a psychological advantage in that it wont seem so hard to catch up (even though it's just as hard/easy).

That's my 2? on topic for a change.

[KoS.Rebel]

I have never really understood that point system but id love to read an explanation and an example. Cant wait till 2.0 AA woot woot!

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Ok, a quick rehash of the combat point system (formerly known as the purse point system )

The Combat Point System gives you points depending on how high the clan is ranked you played against and how many players participated in the cb. The Combat Points are the points from the rank and the # of players. The amount of penalty points depends on how many ranks the played clan is in front or below you. You don't get penalty points if the opponent is 4 or more clans higher ranked than you. Between 3 clans in front of you and 4 clans below you you get also less penalty points than usual. If you play clans that are 5 or more ranks below you you lose 20percent of your combat points.

Point per rank (1st - 20th):
300, 250, 210, 180, 170, 160, 130, 120, 110, 100, 90, 80, 70, 60, 50, 40, 30, 20, 15, 10 anyone else 10. The number of participating clans decide about how many ranks have additional rank points. General for beating top clans you get more points.

Unranked clans (= clans which haven't played a CB yet) have fixed points of 50. An example: clan X wins against Y. it's the first CB for Y in this season, so X gets 50 points + the player-points.

Placement tie-breakers is as follows: combat points, CB win %, won cbs, and head to head won games.

If you don't quite get that, let me know.  All I'm talking about is changing some of the numbers but using the same formula.

[KoS.Rebel]

Sounds good...ill let typhy handle that and ill just handle the public. lol.

[Typhy]

Ah, Rebel, Mr. Public Relations, now there's a scary thought.

Bucc, I agree with you that a modified version of that system putting more of an emphysis on the amount of players would work good. At least it's a good base to start with. I'll try and work up an idea and get your opinions on it later on tonight.

The amount of penalty points would have to be adjusted to fit with whatever modified version of the current points system that we choose to use.

Again, I'll post a points-system proposal later tonight.