Rule proposal

[KiwiLeKiller]

It's been quite some times now that I witness something very frustrating within the LIHL community. This issue has come with the Discord bots, especially since Blizzard's update allowing 24 players in a game, as I do not recall this being an issue at any moment when we had the Channel bots.

The main issue is about "remake game". It can happen quite often that a game gets drawn very fast (on level 1) because either votebalance didn't work or that someone crashes on right after loading time and that someone gets sniped due to this. People often say there is no such thing as a "remake game", but I honestly think this should be common sense. I even see people joining observers slots super fast in hope to make votebalance not work and then be able to snipe someone when game gets drawn, which is, let's face it, a fucking dick move.

For those reasons, I think we should think about a rule about "remake games" with the following phrasing:

When a game gets drawn on level 1 due to a crash or a bug, the game must be remade with the same players.

Now we can argue if the team must remain the same as they were when the game was drawn, because they could change in the remake game since ELO can take some time to adjust. I think this would make it too complicated.

I strongly hope people can support this proposal because it should be nothing less than common sense, but it appears that it is too much to ask.

[Meshtar]

Seems reasonable. It is funny though how many rules we introduced just to prevent people from acting like assholes.

In-house, yeah right.

[Diablo_]

Hard and annoying to enforce with little benefit. Against

[epicdeath]

When you say it must be remade with the same players does this include the bloke who dropped?
I think it shouldnt since that person might not be able to get their wc3 working again quickly. A small point but imo it needs specification.

Also I'm concerned about how your rule proposal interacts with the following scenario.

8 people start a 4s game, everyone sc's ect and the game starts. I rock up 10 seconds later, write !rg lihl and decide ok I wanna play next so I'll write !start. Three other people sign. Your game is then drawn and you all try to sign for the game I started. According to this rule are me and the three other players obligated to give up our spots in a game we signed for? We're (to my understanding) not "acting like assholes" or intending to snipe but trying to get another game going.

In this situation, do the players that couldn't sign in time (since we had a 4/8 lobby) deserve to be swapped in? I think yes. In the same situation, do the first 4 people that signed to this game deserve to be swapped out? I think no. And I reckon thats the core of my problem with this suggestion. It can punish people for doing nothing wrong and it doesnt provide a result that is fair for everyone.

There's a big difference between the situation that first came to mind reading this, people start resigning then someone else rocks up and snipes last sign then doesnt give up his spot (kinda BM but still within the current rules). And the situation I described above where there is no BM or ill intent yet suddenly people are essentially punished for signing, just because someone else dropped. We cant even report that d/c since we weren't in the game, yet it affected us too.

Finally if this rule were to be added it would require a change be made to the current rules about observer vetos, otherwise a player (e.g. me in the above scenario) could veto an observer from last game swapping in. This would cause a stalemate in the rules so if this is implemented a clause MUST be added to the rule about vetoing obs concerning this rule.

Cheers

[BoretkPanda]

When you say it must be remade with the same players does this include the bloke who dropped?
I think it shouldnt since that person might not be able to get their wc3 working again quickly. A small point but imo it needs specification.

Also I'm concerned about how your rule proposal interacts with the following scenario.

8 people start a 4s game, everyone sc's ect and the game starts. I rock up 10 seconds later, write !rg lihl and decide ok I wanna play next so I'll write !start. Three other people sign. Your game is then drawn and you all try to sign for the game I started. According to this rule are me and the three other players obligated to give up our spots in a game we signed for? We're (to my understanding) not "acting like assholes" or intending to snipe but trying to get another game going.

In this situation, do the players that couldn't sign in time (since we had a 4/8 lobby) deserve to be swapped in? I think yes. In the same situation, do the first 4 people that signed to this game deserve to be swapped out? I think no. And I reckon thats the core of my problem with this suggestion. It can punish people for doing nothing wrong and it doesnt provide a result that is fair for everyone.

There's a big difference between the situation that first came to mind reading this, people start resigning then someone else rocks up and snipes last sign then doesnt give up his spot (kinda BM but still within the current rules). And the situation I described above where there is no BM or ill intent yet suddenly people are essentially punished for signing, just because someone else dropped. We cant even report that d/c since we weren't in the game, yet it affected us too.

Finally if this rule were to be added it would require a change be made to the current rules about observer vetos, otherwise a player (e.g. me in the above scenario) could veto an observer from last game swapping in. This would cause a stalemate in the rules so if this is implemented a clause MUST be added to the rule about vetoing obs concerning this rule.

Cheers

Ty. and if games gotta rmk first round i think almost every one in this league would give spot. would be sad if not.

[FadingSuns]

Im with Diablo, it can be a fken mess to rule this and too much drama for the outcome.

This should rely on player manners, no more no less.

BTW when someone is sniped on a !sign warr and then he creates a new game, idk what gives the ppl who "won" the sign warr more rights to play on a new lobby. I only give spots to the ppl that was really waiting 10+ mins for a game to start, not to the ones who won me on a sign warr, makes no sense.

[Anda]

This suggestion would be too hard to hold up to due to the sign wars. I trust on common sense to give up spots for people that have been waiting, so far i didnt experience this to be a huge issue and most people are kind and empathic enough to give spots to people waiting.
Denied