UnFreeZe league

[Liza]

Ok, now teams that prepared dm13 can use dm13 and pro-nodm9 for play-off as their home maps.

[adminless]

if that's the real reason why you antagonize that why didn't you complain also on the original list about dm6 and dm7 too (dm6 three times actually btw, dm6, 6++ and bloodcovenant), because you liked those better? look, yes, I agree on that, though that has a very simple 1 min solution, remix maps (dm6/6++/bloocovenant, dm7/7++ and dm13/nodm9) will all count as same map respectively and every map on every fight must be different, easy. the problem I see is that you seem to me to be bringing these topics on a clear personal note.

[Liza]

I used to be a participant and an organisator of some sporting events. I know for sure that players on average hate when the rules are changing during the tournament. And the more serious tournament it is, the more hate appears.
As a tournament administrator I do not see strong reasons to apply these changes. And I am confused about that.

Do you have a request from captains to add new maps? Have you asked their opinion? I do not see such request. If they agree to do that, then it is a reason for a change and a different story.
Is there a commercial need to advertise these maps or are they key assets to the public server? Extended DM13 is not used even on glacius. DM4 is used, but is it a key asset?

Do you know the preferences of the teams on maps? I have seen all pick-up procedures, I can say that 2 teams are looking forward to play dm13. And 2 teams keep dropping it quite early. There is a team that does not like compact maps and there is a team that likes compact playing.

the problem I see is that you seem to me to be bringing these topics on a clear personal note.

I try to abstract from personal opinion. And I brought initial map pool here for discussion so that it was not affected by my personal preferences. Moreover, my style is rocket-based, so compact maps seem to suit me (but i'm neutral to dm13 and i actually like dm4 on public servers).

why didn't you complain also on the original list about dm6 and dm7 too (dm6 three times actually btw, dm6, 6++ and bloodcovenant)

I do not have that much experience on extended dm13 version. However, I do not see significant changes in team strategy in unfreeze mod.
DM6/bloodcovenant and 6++ are perceived in a different way. That is not only my opinion, but opinion of most teams. Some of them pick one version and drop the other on early stages.
Similar story with dm7 and 7++. Teleports adjust strategy really much.

[adminless]

well you don't see strong reasons to apply any changes but I sure do (and btw even your own feedback seems to suggest so). other than that so far I brought the topic here (in public not in private and/or come up with that out of nowhere) and nobody really objected. that in my book count as enough feedback, I'm not here to go looking/reaching for anybody, don't get me wrong that's the participants role not mine. other than that let me know if you want me to address something else in particular further.

[oKo*Magister]

I think dm13 should stay in map pool as it is but I'm okay with adding dm4

DM13 in my opinion is really good competitive map and even if it's not gonna be played, I doubt that players will choose the extended version of it. DM4 is really great map and would fit to this league. This map is just good for team games

[adminless]

I know, don't worry that pro-q3dm13 will stay as is, it's not like it's going to be replaced by pro-nodm9 or anything. it's merely a addition so people can have something else to chose from if necessary. just some small revision for the next phase no big deal at all.

[fau]

I don't like changing maps/rules during tournament. I did some organizing myself and I know it only brings discontent among players and drama.
This is my feedback. But whatever. I just want to play our games. I'll play either way and enjoy myself.

[adminless]

I'd understand that from the the original suggested changes (drop dm14/dm11 and add four maps) that really do significantly differ and was pretty much alien but seriously if someone is gonna hate/bring drama for adding two very well known maps in light that the pool was a bit short and wasn't entirely working out for everybody in a effort to proactively improve and make the most out of the experience for a new phase, I honestly don't really care as whoever is gonna do that and fail to understand that is clearly in the wrong and on a different page/negative/toxic mind set (so don't worry that I won't hesitate in dealing with them if I have to) and from experience I know whoever is on that page is gonna end up hating/bringing drama anyways for whatever the reason is. as said as I see it I believe they are positive changes that could potentially improve the games but that's just what I think so rather than hearing how you think other people might react/think about it, I'd rather be more interested in hearing what's your actual opinion about adding the maps q3dm4 and pro-nodm9 for the next phase and how do they fall to you in comparison to the rest of the pool and/or if you have any other feedback/suggestion to implement for the next phase.

[i_cezar]

I feel this particular situation is not so much a "changing the rules" case since adding more maps as we move to a different stage of the competition and bo5 format can arguably make sense. It is not enforced either as we can simply veto off those maps. And i think this is what will actually happen too because it's the first edition and everybody reasonably prepared only a couple of maps. But generally yes, it's a bad practice to change the rules mid-season.

[fau]

Well, I can't give you my honest opinion on these two because if we play them, it would make it easier for our opponents to pick/drop them. I can send you pm.

[adminless]

@blaze I disagree on that, I insist, assuming changes are a bad thing by itself means assuming that you get it all right from the beginning and there's no margin for improvement/adjustment when necessary, which not only is unrealistic that is self defeating/liming in itself. we not talking about making random changes here as I said after experience some fights already I had another look at the pool and I felt like those two maps at least could be (or not as you're pointing out) really of interest and adding something else for the finals and probably something like that is what we should be discussing about that now, how we want the finals to be and how we can use the experience we collected so far on the league to make the most out of the finals rather locking out the finals to a predefined concept dismissing any new insight we've got along the way.

[adminless]

@fau yes you finally reached user level four, congrats. true you actually outsmarted me there hehe well one thing I want to say is that I didn't suggest that in a effort to benefit someone in particular and/or because someone in particular requested it to me. I have nothing to do with the game and/or any of the teams. I only lose if the server/game crash/bugs/plays poorly and so on not if one team tops this or another. it's not like I have any kind of conflict of interest here and in fact, as you can see I don't even know who would benefit, if anybody as said. I just did so because after a continuous revision cycle I honestly believe it could potentially bring the most out of the finals overall.

[fau]

I don't think it's a huge issue, just gave my opinion. On a positive note I'd like to add that me and my team enjoy the league tremendously, some even a little too much Great job by Liza and adminless.

[adminless]

neither I do, honestly I said it like ten messages ago, it shouldn't be such a big deal to add a few extra well known maps that may (or may not) be of interest to some of the teams for the finals because perceptively it seems they can potentially lead to some exciting games, really. np, I'm glad to hear you're having a good time.

[aimer]

...I'd like to add that me and my team enjoy the league tremendously, some even a little too much Great job by Liza and adminless.

Definitely not referring to me there

I think adding maps doesn't change the tournament too much (compared to removing) and if they end up being played they might provide useful feedback for the next tournament initial map pool.