NEXT YEARS WoF (input)

[Jimmy B]

and thanks, I couldn't be arsed to do the research for the 'perfect' definition of what we are, it bores me.

No probs, I was planning to type in the one-line answer but was thrown into confusion when I realised I didn't know the answer

For the sake of on-topicness, I don't think Romania's tactics were unfair at all, but to avoid crazy 100 man support teams next year I'd say the tactic may be best disallowed next year...

 

[BlackHawk]

From my point of view, 100 man support is not the problem, as long as they are not all in the same place. And I do think thathaving support makes this event so much fun. To score point I can go in any of the events on LA and hunt for 1h or 2. Without support is solo hunting anyway. In the first few matches we did not used any support and from my point of view it was extreamly boring. First time we used support was in the first match vs england to clean the berry in argo land. Vs France I was hunting alone S of Nimphtown (someone just started an event in the LA during the contest, and this is the reason I don't hunt in that land anymore, because if the land owner care about his land, manages to set up the land to fit most players) and was impresed of how big some support teams are, and this is when the idee poped. I was hunting alone and they had fun in team.
Support is great and it was a spontan ideea that was born to complete the event, It would be a waste to stop using it next year. Is simply to good.
We can add more mobs/round so we can avoid lag easue. We can make all mobs to score the same to make them all interesting. In fact Hurrycane can. We just enjoy the competition.

 

[Pirx Danford]

but to avoid crazy 100 man support teams next year I'd say the tactic may be best disallowed next year...

I already stated my standing I guess, but I just need to beg to differ.
Given a team could really and in earnest organize such a huge support group it would be an ingenous tactic.
Even when I don't see germany able to ever involve more than 20 people at once I would see no problems in losing to someone who uses this strategy.

Remember all efforts the support is at have to finally yield to a global of the team of 4.
There is a maximum of what people will be able to coordinate.

Also - either forbid support completely or allow it unconditionally.
There is technically just no way to policy any solution inbetween.

Also - the biggest support team was with romania and they scored 3rd place...
so honestly there is just no reason to decrease the impact this strategy can have and to increase the impact the firepower of the core team member has.
If you look at the results its oppositely so, one should search for possibilities to reduce the importance of the core team members firepower.

And what would be bad in having such huge flocks running - 100 avis having lotsa fun vs. only 4 - I'd go with the people pleasing approach.

 

[AkiranBlade]

For the sake of on-topicness, I don't think Romania's tactics were unfair at all, but to avoid crazy 100 man support teams next year I'd say the tactic may be best disallowed next year...

From my point of view, 100 man support is not the problem, as long as they are not all in the same place.

The more I think about this, twinned with the notion of a restricted team line-up, the more I think as Jimmy B suggests here, that it's just easier to make the rule of no support teams.

Part of the WoF is tactics, those tactics would also be heavily present in how your team performs with those restrictions in place.

Only 4 man team (maybe stretch it to 5?), no fappers, no taggers and no tankers. This way the team have to pick the members and tactics to achieve their objectives. All other teams will be in the same boat too.

This means no one team will really have an outright advantage over another by either their team members being too uber or the support team being too large.

So in summary my suggestions are as follows:

• 5 avatar acting team
• 15 avatar squad
• No support teams

I would also like to put forward:

• More bonus points awarded for obtaining lower end mob globals in addition to the top scoring mobs. This means that for any given mob menu, the noobs of the team can contribute greatly to a score.

 

[Hurrikane]

Ok, say the decision was made to ban support Teams.... after the hunters leave, what's to stop ANYONE helping or hindering the Hunters in any way? Support doesn't have to form a team, or even tell the main team their intentions, as we hunt in an accessible and interactive world; the people we run into could be anyone, doing anything.

I'm being more in favour of keeping the Support Teams; like I said, hard to stop= allowed, and like Pirx said, 100 vs 4 = better laugh all round.

Hurrikane

 

[AkiranBlade]

Ok, say the decision was made to ban support Teams.... after the hunters leave, what's to stop ANYONE helping or hindering the Hunters in any way? Support doesn't have to form a team, or even tell the main team their intentions, as we hunt in an accessible and interactive world; the people we run into could be anyone, doing anything.

I'm being more in favour of keeping the Support Teams; like I said, hard to stop= allowed, and like Pirx said, 100 vs 4 = better laugh all round.

Hurrikane

Then it's up to the team members to report to the Captain who in turns escalates it with their assigned judge. It's up to the Captains or the lone hunter to ask that person to desist publicly. This way other teams in the vicinity are aware of the situation.

It's unlikely that, if the rules are listed as such, any team will employ such a dishonourable method. It's all about having some fun at the end of the day.

 

[Pirx Danford]

And how exactly should the escalate process work and what exactly should it yield?

If you would want to enforce a strict "no support" policy you would have to have:
1 judge for every team member following everywhere during the match.
1 judge for every area where allowed mobs are to be found during and 24 hours before and after the match on every continent and in space.

So - for for a battle of 8 people against each other and a regularly appearing mob you would need 8 judges for the teams and ~20-30 judges at known spawn locations during a time of ~48 hours.

With the current ruleset you need 1 to 2 judges (maybe 1 for every team) to count globals.
Ensuring fun for 8 to as many as the nation can handle avatars...

And don't tell me judges won't be necessary!
Consider this:
Team Captain from SomeNation - 2 hours and 30 minutes into the match and SomeNation like 100 points behind: "Judge judge team OtherNation is cheating they have FAPPers with them", judge sighs and tells "Okay we will repeat the match... for the 100th time"

Please consider that screenies are no proof, also the fapper in a screenie could just be someone from SomeNation...

I dare you to proof me wrong when I claim that the ONLY possibility to 100% limit the hunt to the core members is to use the event system and tickets.

 

[AkiranBlade]

And how exactly should the escalate process work and what exactly should it yield?

If you would want to enforce a strict "no support" policy you would have to have:
1 judge for every team member following everywhere during the match.
1 judge for every area where allowed mobs are to be found during and 24 hours before and after the match on every continent and in space.

So - for for a battle of 8 people against each other and a regularly appearing mob you would need 8 judges for the teams and ~20-30 judges at known spawn locations during a time of ~48 hours.

With the current ruleset you need 1 to 2 judges (maybe 1 for every team) to count globals.
Ensuring fun for 8 to as many as the nation can handle avatars...

And don't tell me judges won't be necessary!
Consider this:
Team Captain from SomeNation - 2 hours and 30 minutes into the match and SomeNation like 100 points behind: "Judge judge team OtherNation is cheating they have FAPPers with them", judge sighs and tells "Okay we will repeat the match... for the 100th time"

Please consider that screenies are no proof, also the fapper in a screenie could just be someone from SomeNation...

I dare you to proof me wrong when I claim that the ONLY possibility to 100% limit the hunt to the core members is to use the event system and tickets.

I just don't believe people are going to do it if it's part of the rules. Someone will see if you have a support team and report it to their captains who should report it on to the judges. Then a mobile judge can get to the site and view for themselves. Not a big issue.

Forget the Event system, it's too restrictive.

 

[Pirx Danford]

I just don't believe people are going to do it if it's part of the rules. Someone will see if you have a support team and report it to their captains who should report it on to the judges. Then a mobile judge can get to the site and view for themselves. Not a big issue.

You are a good person for believing in humankind so much.
May I direct your eyes here http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/News_Zabel_and_Aldag_confess_to_doping_article_121185.html
it seems nearly all successful professional bikers here in germany and throughout europe were doping.

Forget the Event system, it's too restrictive.

I forgot it already.
As I stated before a closed event for only 4 hunters per nation would totally take the fun out of the WoF in my opinion.
But it would be the only possibility to enforce the rules you have in mind.

You did not proof me wrong yet

 

[AkiranBlade]

You did not proof me wrong yet

I don't intend to but having support teams as it stands now will just get ridiculous. Most people will adhere to the rules, those that don't will probably get caught in the act, dependant upon mob choices.

 

[Pirx Danford]

having support teams as it stands now will just get ridiculous

No - it will get exciting and be the most ultimate event for masses of participants.

 

[truantduck]

As you valiantly won without this tactic, we now have a benchmark for a Final Score. Nothing under 300 will impress now. If next year the mass use of well-co-ordinated support teams causes that benchmark to rise to 500-600 points, then I don't really have a problem with that.

To be honest, the scoring for WoF is really mostly determined by the score values you give to the mobs. Awarding higher point values to big mobs will just result in higher scores. It's actually much easier to get a global from a very large mob.

but this was due to the Hogglo's and the generous state they were in that night... (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

Hogs seemed pretty typical.

USA got 308, a score higher by 130+ than their previous round record, Romania got 197... about the same differences in high and low score we've seen all through the competition. So for all the bluster about Romania's last tactic, it still remains to be proven whether it gives any real advantage at all.

Make no mistake: Having addtional people doing damage to monsters allows the main team to kill more monsters faster, thus increasing their probability of scoring more globals. There should be no debate on this issue.

 

[Hurrikane]

To be honest, the scoring for WoF is really mostly determined by the score values you give to the mobs. Awarding higher point values to big mobs will just result in higher scores. It's actually much easier to get a global from a very large mob.

The points were worked out on the difficulty to Kill/Find the mob, not global from it. This may change, poll coming soon.



Hogs seemed pretty typical.

I agree, I meant this too.... Hogglo's were always going to get more points than say Neconu did; but now those who didn't know Hog's globalled so often do know now.



Make no mistake: Having additional people doing damage to monsters allows the main team to kill more monsters faster, thus increasing their probability of scoring more globals. There should be no debate on this issue.

Agreed, it is a tactic that helps. What the debate concerns is whether this tactic, above Fapping, Tagging, clearing of unwanted Mobs, works proportionately better than any other. I don't think it does. All Support Team activities enable more Globals; that's what they're for.

Hmm, message too short, gotta reply outside the quotes

Hurrikane

 

[truantduck]

I'm telling you:

Having somebody take a mob down to 55% life then moving on to another is far more effective than a fapper or a scouter.

But this shouldn't be the issue, given that any given team could have a fapper, AND n number of additional shooters.