|
|
 Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Member
Joined: 2/11/2008 Posts: 168 Points: 504 Location: Keller, TX
|
Check it out for glaring errors please... http://www.a20xx.com/a2010/media/A2010%20Players%20Handbook.pdfThanks! Dark Angel Servant of Armageddon
|
|
 Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Member
Joined: 2/21/2008 Posts: 246 Points: 59 Location: San Francisco
|
Sunday July 3rd 2010 will go down in history as one of the most intense days of lasertag ever. Starting at 8am, each of us will play 7 games of Quest, many back-to-back. Then at 4pm, each of us will play 21 games of lasertag until 2am, many of us not having more then 45 mins break between games.
I hope there are some viable food options near some of these centers. This will be the most hard-core intense lasertag tournament ever. YAY!
-Zigs
|
|
 Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Member
Joined: 2/21/2008 Posts: 246 Points: 59 Location: San Francisco
|
Tardiness------
I see in handbook that there is a 5 minute grace period for teams to show up late for their games without penalty. I recommend removing that allowance. Give teams a 5 minute advance warning to report to the staging area before their staging time, but never hold up a game for a tardy team. Teams that are tardy should not be allowed a replay.
The games should start whether or not all players are ready. If a team isn't ready by the time the game is scheduled to begin, the game needs to start without them. If players arrive late and aren't able to get suited up in time, only the players who are signed in and suited up should be allowed to play.
In the past we've all gotten less sleep and forfeited replays because a few people couldn't manage to get to the staging area on time. That has to end. Stick to the schedule regardless of the cost. If the team isn't ready the game should start without them. If teams are allowed to be late without consequence, they will.
-Zigs
|
|
 Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Member
Joined: 2/13/2008 Posts: 412 Points: 72 Location: Pittsburgh
|
The Warn/Pull Rule... will that only be enforced for major issues (equipment tampering, ect), or will it also be enforced for minor issues (sensor covering, running, two-knees, ect...)? If it is enforced for minor issues, is it considered an "ejection" if a player is pulled from the game for breaking minor rules? The 15% off the score for all subsequent games left in the sub-tournament seems a bit harsh if so....
- Jabber
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Member
Joined: 2/13/2008 Posts: 150 Points: 450
|
Nice work...
There is mention of 15% and 5% point deductions for being called for infractions. The rules don't really make any sense regarding the pulling of the lanyard, for example if someone is tampering with the equipment that is very much a you're out of the event, but the rules seem to imply you need to catch someone doing twice during the same game. I think you have to be clearer on which types of infractions should be called at what level, i.e. someone accidentally covers in LQ, the marshal warns them because they are a non-LQ player. Someone covers in LQ who is an LQ player they should have their card pulled. Equally someone tampering with their equipment, i.e. putting vasaline on sensors, unplugging their phaser in LQ, causing a Q-Zar gun to reset, are all obvious cheats and should be dealt with in a strong way. A lot will be down to marshals judgement of the intent behind an action and the severity of an action... I just think the rules should be a little clearer.
The 5 minute rule seems odd, as there is no way we can afford 5 minute delays. Or will the game call be made 6 or 7 minutes before the game start time, with the 5 minutes being the last 5 minutes of the current game that is playing?
The playing 1 or 2 players down is open to abuse. There is a warning system in place which is great, and that should stop anyone from risking not having a full team ready for game start... Playing a man down in LT can be a serious handicap, which is fortunate as it is our last system. Had it been a system such as LQ, or perhaps Q-Zar, playing a man down can be a serious advantage, if the event is down to the wire like last year and you really need that win, sitting your weakest two players to ensure the win would effectively be within the rules assuming you've not collected any tardiness warnings. Even if its mid-tournament, if I was on a team that lost their game by a few points because the other team failed to bring their full lineup and were effectively down two of their weakest players (by design or by accident) I wouldn't be happy. I know its unlikely, but its something that could cause an upset.
Mike
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Member
Joined: 2/13/2008 Posts: 150 Points: 450
|
One other thing, I notice the scoring has changed. I changed the UK scoring method to follow the USA and now its changed again.... last year it was 1 point for a win, 0 points for a loss or draw, however if you lost you got one loss point. In the event two teams ended up on the same number of league points their loss points were compared. Just not sure why this has been changed to 0.5 points for a win.
|
|
 Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Member
Joined: 2/11/2008 Posts: 168 Points: 504 Location: Keller, TX
|
http://www.a20xx.com/a2010/media/A2010%20Players%20Handbook.pdf contains V1.1, It contains changes to the Tardiness and Lanyards rule clarifications! Please read them! comments are welcome. Check them out! Dark Angel Servant of Armageddon
|
|
Rank: Member Groups: Member
Joined: 2/13/2008 Posts: 25 Points: 75 Location: United States
|
Re: Laser Force: The wording regarding the activation of nukes and power boosts is not accurate. The special / option button ( located on the front left of the phaser) must be held, not the trigger.
|
|
 Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Member
Joined: 2/21/2008 Posts: 246 Points: 59 Location: San Francisco
|
mjturner wrote:One other thing, I notice the scoring has changed. I changed the UK scoring method to follow the USA and now its changed again.... last year it was 1 point for a win, 0 points for a loss or draw, however if you lost you got one loss point. In the event two teams ended up on the same number of league points their loss points were compared. Just not sure why this has been changed to 0.5 points for a win.
As far as i can remember, a draw has always been 1/2 point for each team in Armageddon. It's been the basis for which i score sflasertag events. It's not like draws happen very often. .5 point draw is a simpler way of dealing with wins and loses. The end result ends up being the same, and this way you only need to see how many total victory points each team has. It's much easier to track then both victory points and loss points. -Zigs
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Member
Joined: 2/13/2008 Posts: 150 Points: 450
|
The main point behind the lack of victory points for draws is to ensure that people don't sit back and hide on any game. Depending on the field Outdoor is the most prone to this, but my main point wasn't to say one is better than the other, only to ask why it was changed because I just want things to stay the same so we have some consistency across all Armageddons....
|
|
 Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Member
Joined: 3/15/2008 Posts: 61 Points: -496 Location: United States
|
mjturner wrote:The main point behind the lack of victory points for draws is to ensure that people don't sit back and hide on any game. Depending on the field Outdoor is the most prone to this, but my main point wasn't to say one is better than the other, only to ask why it was changed because I just want things to stay the same so we have some consistency across all Armageddons....
I don't personally care much about this (sitting back and hiding is not my cup of tea), and I do see your point about this issue being more relevant in Outdoor than in most arena systems. Having said all that, however, let me also say that I don't think the rules should be built to favor one style of play over another. Locking up to slow down the pace of a game and lower the total scoring is a perfectly legitimate strategy, and to me it seems that it is up to opposing teams to adjust to that strategy (rather than relying on an arbitrary rule to do the job for them). Just because most players don't like it when opponents "sit back and hide" does NOT mean that sitting back and hiding should be illegal. That's my personal opinion as a "purist." --Tavas
|
|
 Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Member
Joined: 2/12/2008 Posts: 139 Points: 320
|
I want to clarify that we are counting losses this year in addition to wins, so that team's records will be shown as 35-11-0 rather than just 35 win points. We were supposed to go with this system, however this is not what the rulebook states. While I agree that in a *complete* tie, the victor should be determined by head to head matches, if one of the teams has more losses than the other, they should be the clear cut 2nd place without having to resort to comparing head to head.
This was something that you, George, Mike, Nathan and I had all discussed and agreed upon on these forums following armageddon last year.
1) Team with most wins 2) In case of tied wins, team with the least losses 3) In case of tied losses, best head to head record 4) ....
I don't remember off the top of my head what #4 was and the discussion forum isn't there anymore.
|
|
 Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Member
Joined: 2/12/2008 Posts: 139 Points: 320
|
Few things in the zone portion too:
1) We're only playing 8 minute zone games, but 10 minute darklight and blast? 2) You have it listed as 8 man teams, but all the language in the paragraph below still says 6. 3) Nathan mentioned to me that Blaze doesn't have reloads (which is odd, since they're supposed to be packaged with nexus pro) but if that's the case, we'll have to remove the ammo/energy language.
and most importantly....
4) I still don't know if he's even going to let us load the format. /facepalm
|
|
 Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Member
Joined: 2/11/2008 Posts: 168 Points: 504 Location: Keller, TX
|
this has been added in the rule book that will be distributed to the captains tommorrow Assassin wrote:I want to clarify that we are counting losses this year in addition to wins, so that team's records will be shown as 35-11-0 rather than just 35 win points. We were supposed to go with this system, however this is not what the rulebook states. While I agree that in a *complete* tie, the victor should be determined by head to head matches, if one of the teams has more losses than the other, they should be the clear cut 2nd place without having to resort to comparing head to head.
This was something that you, George, Mike, Nathan and I had all discussed and agreed upon on these forums following armageddon last year.
1) Team with most wins 2) In case of tied wins, team with the least losses 3) In case of tied losses, best head to head record 4) ....
I don't remember off the top of my head what #4 was and the discussion forum isn't there anymore. Dark Angel Servant of Armageddon
|
|
|
Guest |