PDA

View Full Version : ONS Ladder 2 Rules


Lord_Xan
26 Apr 2005, 15:31
As promised, here are the rules for the 2nd Onslaught Ladder. I'll continue to add bits and pieces as needed.


QUALIFYING

█ Why qualify again?
There has been a tremendous increase in skill since the 1st ladder's qualifying, so running another qualifier will allow us to again assemble well-balanced teams.

█ How does it work?
Pretty much the same way as it did last time (bar a few changes of course ;)).

To qualify you simply play qualifying matches (these are the "sanctioned matches" from before) over the qualifying period. Each match that you play from start to finish counts towards your ladder ranking.

Ladder rankings are calculated a little differently, but are still updated after every map you play:

Ranking for match = [(1) / (2)] * [(3) / (4)] * 100
Total Ranking = Sum of all match Rankings / (5)

where:
(1) = Your score for the match
(2) = Your team's total score for the match
(3) = Your total kills for the match
(4) = Your total deaths for the match
(5) = Total number of qualifying matches that you have played

Note that [(3) / (4)] is subject to a minimum of 0.9 and a maximum of 1.1.

If you have specific questions about the calculations involved, please let me know so that we can discuss them.

█ What counts as a qualifying match?
A qualifying match is any Onslaught match with at least 4 players on each side from start to finish. To have the match count towards your ranking you have to play from start to finish - if you arrive late or leave/disconnect before the end it will not count.

Bots do not count as players.

All qualifying matches must take place on public servers - that is, either SGS, Gamezone or MA's server.

Clanmatches do not count.

█ How many matches must I play to be eligible to play in the ladder?
To be able to play in the ladder you must play a minimum of 10 qualifying matches. This is quite a bit higher than before, but upping this is much more preferable than adjusting all the rankings at the end of the qualifying period (the adjustments were too much of a hit-and-miss affair).

█ Will the final rankings be adjusted again for the number of matches played?
No, no adjustments will be made this time around (see above).

█ Do I have to play in the ladder if I qualified?
No, playing in the ladder is entirely up you.

█ When does qualifying start and end?
At the moment the qualifying period stretches from 01/05/2005 to 31/05/2005. Note that the end date may be extended if such a need arises.


LADDER MECHANICS

█ The Tactical Map
The tactical map is where troop movements (and therefore battle set-ups) take place. This is the big new thing in the 2nd ONS Ladder - battles are no longer fixed and set up in advance. Everything (including ultimate victory) is dictated by how a team's command moves its players through the tactical map.

Each team has a base connected to various other maps. The base is the single most important map a team can control. If they lose their base map the game is over and the other team wins (regardless of points - see more on points below).

Both teams start off controlling their bases.

The various other maps can be occupied by a team and should be used to push forward towards the enemy base map. Note that the maps are connected in very specific ways. As in a normal Onslaught game you can only move via the routes indicated.

Whenever both teams occupy the same map at the end of a turn, a battle will ensue. The victor gets to stay in the map while the loser must retreat back to one of its other maps (again only via the routes indicated).

This is what the tactical map currently looks like (big thanks to Shrimp for creating it):
http://www.unreal.co.za/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=333&stc=1&thumb=1 (http://www.unreal.co.za/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=333&stc=1)

█ Turns
A turn represents one week in realtime. To keep everything manageable (and me sane) I've divided the week as follows (note that the ladder will start on a Monday):

Monday - Tactical map and score update is posted, reflecting most recent movements and battle results
Tuesday - Nothing
Wednesday - Due day for Red team's decisions
Thursday - Nothing
Friday - Due day for Blue team's decisions
Saturday - Battles
Sunday - Battles

The turns work pretty much like they do in Risk - during a turn a team may move each of its units (those are the players) by one map (via the routes indicated), except when sacrificing points (more about this below).

Battles may take place at any time over Saturdays and Sundays. It is up to the two teams to decide when they will play.

The ladder will run for 15 turns.

█ Points
Each map will generate a certain amount of points per turn for its owner. At the end of the ladder the team with the most points wins (unless a team has their base map taken over).

During the ladder, you may use 5 points from your total to transfer a player in your team from anywhere on the tactical map to another map that you currently control. Note that:


you cannot transfer someone directly into battle, unless you are defending
moving a player like this counts as their move for the turn
you may move more than one player (but not the same player) in a turn using this method


Note that owners of maps (for points purposes) will be determined after battles take place.

█ Map Army Sizes
Each map can only hold so many units. You will not be allowed to occupy a map with more units than the number indicated in the map's tactical summary. You may, however, occupy it with less.

Pay careful attention to this number - it makes some maps much more valuable than others.

█ Deployment
During the first turn, each team will be allowed to place their members on any map that's within 2 moves from its main base (it is assumed all players start in their respective base maps). To avoid confusion, these maps are:

For Red - Icarus, Severance, Crossfire, Frostbite
For Blue - Dawn, Urban, Adara, Primeval

█ Bonus players
Each team gets 2 Godlike bots to use as they see fit.

To server admins - please take care to set games with bots up properly.


LADDER RULES

█ When/Where do I sign up for the ladder?
Sign-ups will only open once the qualifying period is over. At that time a thread will be created where those interested in participating in the ladder can put down their names. As soon as the sign-ups close I will draw up the Red and Blue teams and the ladder will begin.

█ How do the battles work?
Just as they did in the first ladder. Players divide into their appropriate team colours and an Onslaught match is played on the map in question. The game settings should be as follows:

Timelimit - 15 minutes
Scorelimit - 3
Core Drain in overtime - 50

Once the battle is complete the admin (Cataphract) should be notified of the results so that he can update the game standings.

█ What happens if teams are not of equal size?
The battle continues as normal. Even though it will not be fair to the smaller team, we must allow team commanders to make tactical mistakes, otherwise the whole tactical aspect becomes redundant.

█ How are disconnects treated?
A disconnected player may not be replaced by another player, but he can rejoin the game at any time after his disconnect.

█ Can matches be paused?
No, no pauses will be allowed.

█ What happens if I don't have the map being played?
Make sure you have all of the maps listed in the tactical map beforehand. SGS Filevault has downloads for all the maps required.



If you have any suggestions or queries, please let me know. I hope we can have every bit as much fun (if not more!) with the 2nd ladder as we did with the 1st. :)

Bean
27 Apr 2005, 09:29
Hey Xan - is there any way we can figure in the deaths/kills number at all?

I think it would make sense to give these numbers some weight in the rankings.

e.g. In the attached screenshot - you can see that I got the most points during one of our ladder games, but everyone killed way more people than me! Just cause I was jumping on the middle node all game long doesn't mean I should get a better ranking than the others.

Lord_Xan
27 Apr 2005, 19:29
Thanks for bringing that up, Bean.

For the 1st ladder I wasn't too eager to bring kills/deaths into the ranking calculation. Onslaught is about the nodes and power core afterall, not frags. I felt that if we brought kills/deaths in it would encourage people to rather get frags instead of capturing or destroying nodes.

However, some players rightly mentioned that the more defensive players would always have a lower score, even though their contribution to their team's success was more than that. In this instance kills/deaths could be a useful addition.

I had a look at your screenshot, and I propose the following:

For each player we adjust their ranking by a factor of (1) / (2),

where:
(1) = Number of kills for player (Deaths + Net Efficiency)
(2) = Number of deaths for player

To stop things from getting out of hand, I suggest we cap that factor by not allowing it to go below 0.75 or above 1.25. This means that you will loose at most 25% of your ranking because of a poor net efficiency, or gain at most 25% of your ranking because of a very good net efficiency.

Let me know what you guys think. Is the 0.75 too low or too high? What about the 1.25? Or do you think we shouldn't adjust the ranking at all?

Rommel
27 Apr 2005, 23:45
ok #20 here i come (if im lucky) but aslong as i get to play im happy

fatman
28 Apr 2005, 12:02
Xan, i had a chat with pp and we thought why not simply make 2 teams with 10 players each, playing say only 3 or so games. (prevents onslaught fatigue)

If you look at the fun we had with the mega matches, and the types of maps we could play this might just work. Yes, i agree, organising players to all pitch might be a problem, but perhaps a different format might just work.

Also an individual player's skill will be less of a factor as we saw. The mega matches were extremly tight and some of the most fun games ever.

So, lets hear it....

Lord_Xan
28 Apr 2005, 12:17
Xan, i had a chat with pp and we thought why not simply make 2 teams with 10 players each, playing say only 3 or so games. (prevents onslaught fatigue)

The two-team approach is definately the way I want it to go too. Ultimately the sizes will depend on how many people qualify and sign up (qualification is still highly recommended so that we end up with fairly balanced teams).

3 games seem a bit short, but I agree that we shouldn't overdo it. The 1st ladder really was a marathon and I would like to avoid that as much as possible with the 2nd ladder.

My main reason for more than 3 matches is that I want to do something interesting with the 2nd ladder. I don't want it to be "just more matches". If it's interesting enough hopefully more people will be interested in playing! :)


Yes, i agree, organising players to all pitch might be a problem, but perhaps a different format might just work.

I've yet to figure out the details (and consult with you guys on them), but I'm planning on doing something that should help with the absent-player syndrome we had in the 1st ladder. The new system won't be 100%, of course, but I trust it'll be better.

Thanks for the input so far. :)

<A>BioGizzard
28 Apr 2005, 12:24
i like the old schoool ladder more that way we play more onslaught,
i think i'll end up being the bottom feeder anyhow, but who cares as long as we play ons, Iя happy

Lord_Xan
28 Apr 2005, 12:35
i like the old schoool ladder more that way we play more onslaught

You know I'm an ONS nut, but you have to agree that the 1st ladder dragged considerably towards the end. All-in-all we played 30 matches then, so the 2nd ladder will very likely be less than that.


i think i'll end up being the bottom feeder anyhow

Sounds like you'll have to battle Rommel for that spot. ;)

Bean
28 Apr 2005, 12:45
Deaths/Kills adjustment sounds ok.
Maybe keep track of the rank with and without this adjustments and see how it pans out.

You do like maths right? I'm not giving you too much work to do? :)

Lord_Xan
28 Apr 2005, 12:54
Maybe keep track of the rank with and without this adjustments and see how it pans out.

Good idea. Will do.


You do like maths right? I'm not giving you too much work to do? :)

Don't get me started! Unfortunately I've forgotten a lot since I left university. :(

And don't worry - it's one extra column in a spreadsheet, ie no work at all.

<A>BioGizzard
28 Apr 2005, 12:58
You know I'm an ONS nut, but you have to agree that the 1st ladder dragged considerably towards the end. All-in-all we played 30 matches then, so the 2nd ladder will very likely be less than that.

i know, i don't want it to drag out either but 3 mega matches is just not enough for me, we get them sum nights any wayz...i wana carefully planned war like in the first ladder have u given that teritory thing a good thought yet
it sounded intreseting to me

Sounds like you'll have to battle Rommel for that spot. ;)

he better watch out i might just .... :P

fatman
28 Apr 2005, 13:21
... but 3 mega matches is just not enough for me,


I actually agree, we can play many more games if there are only 2 teams....

Hell, we can even play all the maps, since none would be repeated....

sneaky
28 Apr 2005, 13:22
Sounds like you'll have to battle Rommel for that spot. ;)

HEY!!! Stop bagging Team C lmao. Dont worry Bio we can start the underdogs team;).

Im sure this ladder will be bigger and badder than the previous one, alot of people wanted to join when the first one was allready underway.

Maybe we should do a post in the general forums when qualifyings start?

<A>FluX.v2.0
28 Apr 2005, 14:20
general forums post sounds good

Lord_Xan
28 Apr 2005, 14:28
have u given that teritory thing a good thought yet

The reaction to that was pretty positive, so that's probably the format we'll use. I'll start fleshing out the details soon (already busy at the back of my mind :)).


Maybe we should do a post in the general forums when qualifyings start?

Yep, I was planning to do just that!

Shrimp
28 Apr 2005, 14:47
We should make an actual map of it, and update with maybe team symbols or something after each match... That'll be cool to see who controls what. Maybe lay it out on a world map style, with oceans between etc :P

I'll help with that if you just give a list of the maps, and where you'd like them placed?

Cataphract
28 Apr 2005, 15:33
Fatman wrote:

(prevents onslaught fatigue)

There is no such thing. The fictitious concept of "Onslaught fatigue" is basically akin to "government efficiency" and "the African Renaissance".

2 May 2005's a public holiday, we can start playing some qualifiers.

Lord_Xan
28 Apr 2005, 16:01
We should make an actual map of it, and update with maybe team symbols or something after each match... That'll be cool to see who controls what. Maybe lay it out on a world map style, with oceans between etc :P

I'll help with that if you just give a list of the maps, and where you'd like them placed?


My thoughts exactly! At the moment I've got a very rough idea of what I'd like. As soon as I have something workable I'll let you know, Shrimp.

Lord_Xan
28 Apr 2005, 19:19
Ok, here's what I've got for a quick mock-up (Zyron proposed something very similar back on the old site). Please note that this is not the final map but merely an example.

Shrimp, are you up to creating and/or maintaining something like this?

Shrimp
28 Apr 2005, 19:45
Hmm, I was thinking of it as an an actual world map, where each map is represented as an island or continent (with a small top view of the map like thr ONS map guides, and similar terrain/style maps could be on the same continent).

Space/planets is/are fine by me too though :D. Easier to maintain ;)

<A>BioGizzard
29 Apr 2005, 08:07
i like ur idea to shrimp, allthough the space this seems easier it just looks so dull

<A>BioGizzard
29 Apr 2005, 08:09
I actually agree, we can play many more games if there are only 2 teams....

Hell, we can even play all the maps, since none would be repeated....

i'm all for that and can we also put the ece maps in it as crappy as anyone moght think they are that still don't make a 30 match total, wich is good

and how about we organise sumthing were the losing team sponsors the winning team to a braai or something....just a thought

Lord_Xan
29 Apr 2005, 09:45
Hmm, I was thinking of it as an an actual world map, where each map is represented as an island or continent (with a small top view of the map like thr ONS map guides, and similar terrain/style maps could be on the same continent).

I've got no problem with that. Just show me a mock-up so that I know what can go where. :)


i'm all for that and can we also put the ece maps in it as crappy as anyone moght think they are that still don't make a 30 match total, wich is good

Just to clarify: The approach we're likely to take won't entail us playing each map just once. Some maps might be played multiple times.


and how about we organise sumthing were the losing team sponsors the winning team to a braai or something....just a thought

I don't think the CT okes will be too keen on paying for something they won't be attending. :P

<A>BioGizzard
29 Apr 2005, 09:55
Just to clarify: The approach we're likely to take won't entail us playing each map just once. Some maps might be played multiple times.

trust me i really don't mind ....Ons Ons Ons Ons


I don't think the CT okes will be too keen on paying for something they won't be attending. :P

i was just thinking of some social way for them to gloat"spelling?" at when they win
there need not be only one braai u know i'm sure the CT ppl knows how to organise a braai...unless u wanna wait till descember then we can remind u'z :D , when sum of us go down for a holiday on ur bitches...i mean beaches

Lord_Xan
30 Apr 2005, 16:57
*Bumpity*

Added ladder mechanics. Not all of it's there yet (and there's no map!) but you should be able to get a good idea of how things will work.

Let me know if I'm too ambitious. :(

|sAvAgE|
30 Apr 2005, 22:53
wrt:

█ How many matches must I play to be eligible to play in the ladder?
To be able to play in the ladder you must play at least 10 qualifying matches. This is quite a bit higher than before, but upping this is much more preferable than adjusting all the rankings at the end of the qualifying period (the adjustments were too much of a hit-and-miss affair).

by saying "at least 10" what does this mean? you can qualify with 11, 12, 13,...,20 matches? if it does mean this, i think it shouldnt be done this way. make the requirements for the ladder 10 matches, and finish. if you play < 10, you dont qualify and once you hit ten you cannot get a higher ranking just becuase you choose to play more than everyone else.

if it does not mean that, then perhaps it should be spelled out a bit more (knowing how ppl react here :P [especially in the long run])

:D :rolleyes:

in a nutshell:

to qualify, you HAVE to play 10 matches. nothing more (well anything more wont count) and nothing less.

Lord_Xan
01 May 2005, 00:24
by saying "at least 10" what does this mean? you can qualify with 11, 12, 13,...,20 matches? if it does mean this, i think it shouldnt be done this way. make the requirements for the ladder 10 matches, and finish. if you play < 10, you dont qualify and once you hit ten you cannot get a higher ranking just becuase you choose to play more than everyone else.

That is the idea, yes. You need to play a minimum of 10 matches to qualify for the ladder. I don't see a problem with people playing more than 10 matches. Your ranking won't necessarily go up if you play more - it'll just become more and more accurate.

(If you don't believe me I can repost rankings from the 1st ladder. There are numerous instances where a player played less matches than someone else yet had a higher ranking.)

|sAvAgE|
01 May 2005, 02:00
na, its not that (and i do believe you :P ) its just that if everyone plays the same number of games nobody will have any reason (or least, its one reason less) to complain about the rankings. ;)

Shrimp
01 May 2005, 10:32
Xan - Send me a map list and I'll give a few variations of maps types a go...

sneaky
03 May 2005, 12:15
How about a set time daily were we schedule an Onslaught match? Player numbers willing of course to facilitate the qualifiers say between 9-10pm daily?

Lord_Xan
03 May 2005, 12:23
How about a set time daily were we schedule an Onslaught match?

I'm all for that, but it tends not to work as well in practice. It's worth a shot though.

<A>BioGizzard
03 May 2005, 12:52
mmm cu online thenbetween 9-10 daily :D

this ladder is gonna rock man i can't wait....

Nautilian
10 May 2005, 14:23
Can I play? But I want to be on the winning team :P and I am not joking, I seriously would not mind giving ons a go.

Naut

Lord_Xan
10 May 2005, 14:37
Can I play?

Of course! It's open to everyone. :)

(I can't guarantee you'll be in the winning team though. :P)

Lord_Xan
24 Jun 2005, 12:58
Updated with final rules.

Lord_Xan
05 Jul 2005, 17:42
Updated with a few revisions (moving using points, timelimit).

Gamos
18 Jul 2005, 07:53
Wow gents, just wow! I can not believe I missed out on all this! It is like Battle-chess/Risk with UT players :) I LOVE the idea!

I will definately make sure to qualify for the 3rd ONS Ladder (but will merc this 2nd.)

Brilliant, applause to all the brains involved!

Lord_Xan
18 Jul 2005, 14:49
It looks like it's working out quite well. Things started off a bit slower than I anticipated, but I'm sure the intensity will pick up as the various fronts move closer to each other.

I'm really glad we've got a dedicated community who are interested in participating in events like these. Without them it wouldn't be possible. :)