Forums › English Language Forums › General › The Coliseum

Search

Deleted-Knight's guide on how to make a fair 1v1

2 replies [Last post]
Mon, 03/23/2015 - 17:17
Deleted-Knight's picture
Deleted-Knight

1. The technical rules of each 1v1 should be uniquely established by agreement of the two players involved.
"technical" means any details not explicitly mentioned in these guidelines

2. Each match should consist of X* number of rounds. Each round is a battle that starts with both players on full health and ends with one player dead. Players may not change equipment or any game settings while conducting a match.
*X should be twice the value of an odd number greater than 1 (eg. 6, 10, 14). The starting conditions of each round should be identical (same map, same obstacles, etc.)

3. Every match shall be proctored by an judge agreed upon by both players. The judge has the right to interrupt a round if rule violation is suspected*. The judge can also invalidate a round that lasts for longer than 5 minutes
*If the judge accuses a player of cheating, the round is restarted and the accused player is allowed to convince the judge of his/her innocence in a reasonable way. If the judge is unconvinced, the opposing player can choose to waive the violation. By waiving the violation, the opposing player also waives any rights to outlined in Rule #5. If there is no waiver and the judge is unconvinced, the violator forfeits the round.

4. Half of the rounds in each match shall be done on the EU server, and half on the US server. Winning the majority* of the rounds in each server earns half a point. This means the score of each match could be 1-0, 0-1, or 0.5-0.5.
*If X is chosen appropriately, there should always be a majority winner in each server.

5. The loser (and strictly the loser) of a match can accuse the winner of violating the rules. To make an accusation, the he/she must say specifically what was done against the rules. If the judge deems the accusation reasonable, the winner must offer video proof or a concessional rematch* in return.
*In a "concessional rematch" the loser is allowed to engage in the actions specifically described in the accusations. The winner is expected to follow the old rules. If the loser achieves a better score in the concessional rematch, 1 point is added to his/her old score. If the loser fails to do better in the rematch, 1 point is subtracted.

6. Several* matches must be conducted. In each match, both players must have identical loadouts and game settings. Different loadouts are used for different matches. The loadouts used must be established as prior agreement between the two players.
*Using a larger variety of loadouts gives a more accurate comparison of the players' holistic skill.

7. The scores from different matches should be averaged* to yield each player's total score. The player with the higher score is deemed holistically better than the other
*Averaging puts more value in consistent performance over all situations rather than high performance in select situations.

Tue, 03/24/2015 - 00:05
#1
Sipsy's picture
Sipsy
~

"Fair," does not exist. To me, it's way too idealistic. Though the meaning of fair, like most things in a communicative language such as English is subjective ( which is why I dislike it and it also happens to be my worst subject at school, at the moment.. ).

Anyway, when conducting experiments, you need controlled variables as well as independent variables.
The independent variables are the people ( also known as play styles ) participating in the challenge.
The controlled variables are needed so we have fair results.

Controlled variables are :
Latency - They must be exactly the same at all times. Server does not matter as long as both player's latency are the same.
Equipment - The same. UV, Status, Type, Damage, Range, Etc.
Frame Rates - Must be the same at all times.
Keyboard setup - Some are easier to use than others, they must be the same.
AT/AA - Both must have it either on or off. As long as they both agree on the same, it should be fine.
Monitor - Should be the same, long hours from multiple matches may put stress on eyes.
Mouse - Should be the same DPI, all buttons should work. Both mice should be the same.
Multiple matches - Eliminates outliers. The more matches, the better, the more matches, the closer you get to real results. Then it should, as you said, be averaged.

Fair sounds like perfect. Perfection doesn't exist, but this is probably the closest you can get to it - the closest you can get to having a, "fair match."
Just let people use and do what they like, it's all fair on a technical view from the server's side of things - the game's rules, unaffected by our own nature and morals since we all know how perfect those are.

Thu, 03/26/2015 - 17:04
#2
Bullpig's picture
Bullpig
 

i agree that these terms are fair but NO ONE can match latency perfectly or bother buying identically heated and uv'd gear or learn to use the same controls or..

i suppose that's the point. it can never be truly fair. perhaps a 1v1 on neopets would be better (do they have pvp? that'd be sick).

EDIT: this reminds me!!!! if you've ever played CoD you know about custom games. custom games are matches that you can set up with many different variations (i.e. pick the map, limit or chose everyone's loadouts aka gear, select number of players per team, leave/join at will in the middle of a match, chose the match's availability, pick the game type, chose the time limit, set a # of stock/life, set certain health restrictions, turn on NPCs, etc.)

=====possibilities=====

gambling: what if there was a way to bet on matches or players in a safe and controlled way? they could make it so that each player gives a certain amount of energy, crowns, or item (bets would be displayed to avoid scamming), and be sure that the winner would receive their prize (applicable for 1v1s as well as gvg fights).

training: if you wanted one-on-one training from a friend, and you didn't feel like trying to train in a RLD match where you would just be killed constantly while typing "dude stop we're doing something! go away we are trying to train," you could set up a private match or lobby with just the two of you and practice. respawn limits can be turned off or on and set at certain times in CoD, so why not LD? you could also take your guild into a 6v6 with NPCs set at high or low difficulty to practice strategy without needing another online guild.

events: setting up 1v1s and tournaments has always been a hassle, forcing players to leave guilds and be reinvited to their own, looking for subs, waiting for enough players to be online, yada yada yada. but who needs a 6-man team when the only people participating are the two players and a judge? this reduces guilds gaining random leaderboard points and the redistribution of crowns at the end of a match that was only won because it had to end sometime. this would also take away the need to cap two bases simultaneously, which often fails and makes everyone rage (lol). having custom matches also removes the need to purchase certain uvs or gear, since uvs could be turned off/on with a button, damage bonuses could be set or reduced, gear level could be changed lower, higher, or set equal, etc. (this brings up a few problems such as people never buying ce or farming fsc/arcade for cr since they don't need to buy they own gear for LD matches. on the other hand, a system could be put in place that only eliminates advantages, but does not give them i.e. take away uvs, not give them to everyone).

restrictions: custom matches would not count towards the leaderboards, nor would they cost any cr to play, unless however someone is betting. auto-target WOULD be a controllable variable. latency and ping would NOT. handicaps, or undistributed game limits could be set to one team or the other; each team would not be required to have similar sets of rules or loadouts, however, a party leader who controls the rules could be assigned to matches.

ideas? i'd be interested to know what anyone thinks. (btw, "that's stupid" or "that will never happen so stfu" is not an idea!!)

Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system