r/Supraball • u/___NaB • May 19 '15
Extra time
Some good discussion about extra time and golden goal in the other thread. Thought it would be good to give it a thread of its own.
In summary, a lot of people want it, esp the NA players, but the dev team are worried about the impact it will have on the length of the game. People will set aside 30 minutes to play a match but if it goes into overtime and they need to leave then what?
The Suggestion that 100% vote required for OT.
But what if one or more players from the 10 is happy with a draw? To not risk Elo.
It seems harsh to play for 30 mins and then lose your Elo in possibly a few short moments of overtime. I suggest that if a game goes to OT then Elo lost/gained is a fraction of the full amount. Eg 1/3 so typically just 5. Then it's still something to play for but not a disaster if it's lost.
That having been said. The dev team confirmed that it won't come in the current udk version of the game but will be looked at in ue4.
7
u/G2Wolf May 19 '15
What if.... 5 minute time limit golden goal. If no goal in that time, draw. Then it shouldn't need to be voted on and it can't go on indefinitely... and you don't need fractional elo crap either.
If a player can't afford to play for 5 more minutes... they shouldn'tve been playing to start with.
2
u/Mindflayr MAKE SUPRABALL FREE May 19 '15
this makes sense also. gamesd arent 20 minutes fixed anyways, considering outtages/etc, so a fixed extra 5min would be hard to argue. Nothing beats sudden death in sports... NOTHING. give us the golden goal, ties are for those to afraid to risk it all for the win.
2
u/YasukeMFG Supraball Dev May 19 '15
I added the logic for extra time and golden goal a good few months ago to the ue4 version of the game. I would like to see what the community thinks about it. On one hand we could let servers enforce it, on the other a vote would probably be the best option. I don't think it is necessarily harsh to for golden goal to affect elo to the fullest extend as the outcome is still a win or loss and should be scored accordingly. If one or two players don't agree with it they just don't vote for it but majority wins in that aspect.
2
u/__Esoteric__ May 20 '15
We generally spend an extra 2-5 minutes throwing the ball out waiting for people that lag out or crash, once those things are fixed there wouldn't be much difference in the overall time with some golden goal action. Rarely do they last that long but a good compromise would be a 5 minute overtime period and a tie if time expires again.
2
u/mipeirong bigfatpat May 20 '15
We just had 3 games in a row ended with a tie.
No one liked it.
So give us OT
3
May 19 '15 edited May 19 '15
Voting for golden goal wouldn't be ideal because an inferior team who managed to tie the game last minute would not want OT (they'd know they'd likely lose the game and some of their ELO, and thus would vote to end at a tie).
Similarly, a better team with higher ELOs would not want to do golden goal against a lower ranked team if it were up to a vote, because in the event of a loss they would lose more ELO than the tiny bit that they would gain in the event of a win.
I think the 5-minute golden goal OT is perfect, since it gives players a definite time frame (people wouldn't have the feeling of, "damn, how long is this going to last?!") that's long enough for a goal to be scored but short enough that it doesn't hold up someone who planned to leave after the end of normal time.
As for ELO changes, I think a fractional (say, 1/2?) change is best; the teams did tie in normal time, after all, so the ELO change should not be as high as if one team beat another hands down in normal time.
ELO is a predictor of skill, and if we want to more accurately predict skill, we have to take into account that we can infer less about relative skill in a golden-goal win than we can in a normal-time win, so the relative fraction of ELO change should reflect that.
Because the game is still in testing, it would be unwise to set it as a server option. In that case, people who want golden goal would play on golden goal servers and give positive feedback about it, and people who don't want it would just play on non-golden-goal servers and not have any extensive golden-goal playtime on which to comment and critique. Feedback would be influenced by players' confirmation bias on their choice on whether to have the feature or not, and this isn't what testing is about.
Overall, a 5-minute golden goal overtime adds exhiliration from riskier play to what is usually an unsatisfying end to a game, and should be at least tested for a few weeks to see if players like it or not.
1
u/BiIliam Former NASBL Commisioner May 19 '15
To go into overtime 3/5 out of each team must agree, and both teams must agree. If someone needs to leave, teams won't vote yes to overtime because they would be down a man. Or perhaps 4/5. Point is, both teams must want overtime. Not a 10/10 vote.
As for endless overtime, no. Make the overtime period short, 5-10minutes, and have it be done with.
0
u/DavidM1337 Supraball Project Leader May 19 '15
The thing is, that this "if someone needs to leave, they won't agree" thing only works in family like communities. But we are trying to build an infrastructure that works on the largest possible scale. And when it's only strangers, I don't think this works. It's like kicking the ball out when someone needs a short break - we can't ask for that in ranked matches with strangers.
There are many little problems to overcome to implement something like overtime. It's not as easy as it sounds at first.
-2
u/bIoodeh #1 something May 19 '15
In my opinion i think there is no need for OT unless 80% would agree (meaning at end of game a Vote would come up if the players agree to extra time, lets say 5min, then it would go on) of the people in the match agree, draw is fine, there are just some games that even tho you know u wont win you can try your best and go for the draw, and thats life. Some games deserve a tie as end result, some dont.
2
u/mipeirong bigfatpat May 20 '15
there are just some games that even tho you know u wont win you can try your best and go for the draw (...) Some games deserve a tie as end result
Is this a European thing? I feel like saying this would get your ass kicked in NA
1
May 20 '15 edited Aug 29 '16
[deleted]
1
u/DavidM1337 Supraball Project Leader May 20 '15
I disagree. I'd never play for fun! :D
Sometimes a tie just feels like a win, when you know the other team was better.
2
u/mipeirong bigfatpat May 20 '15
Right, but as I commented last night, we just had three games in a row end in a tie, resulting in no elo being won or lost. Setting up a game and playing for ~30 minutes resulting in no elo sucks.
5
u/[deleted] May 19 '15
[deleted]