Lately people have been doing a lot of 3 on 3 games. Currently, JDC counts those as events. The problem is, some people are gaining huge amounts of points from playing large amounts of them, and they are sometimes going as far as to play 3 on 3 games exclusively instead of duels due to the fear of losing points, since a 3 on 3 is considered an event while a 2 on 2 is considered a duel in terms of how they are scored.

We (the JDC administration) wish to change this, because we consider it a bit unfair that such large amounts of points are being given out.

There are two proposed solutions to fix this problem, and one of them is going to be enacted by the end of this round. We are either going to put restrictions on the amount of points you can get out of a 3 on 3 event (the maximum amount of points for an event will probably be determined by a function like Points = Players*2.5 - 10 or similar), or we will make them count as duels in terms of scoring.

A lot of people are against making a 3 on 3 game scored like a duel (they are mostly the higher ranked players), but I for one am in favour of making them equivilant to duels in terms of scoring. I dislike placing restrictions on points, and I think making a 3 on 3 out of a maximum of 5 will just encourage people to to do even more of them.

Before I state my opinions on this issue, I feel it is important to clarify some of the scoring issues that would go along.

A 2on2 is scored the same way as a duel except for the fact that 2on2 does not affect your opponent quality or personal quality. 2on2s change your roast:fall ratio and they give points to the points per duel part of the scoring. If 3on3s were no longer considered events they would be scoring exactly the same as 2on2s.

Personally I feel that making 3on3s scored the same as 2on2s is the best option since points that are raked in from 3on3s are not as fair as 2on2 points. Limiting points would likely do little to prevent 3on3 abuse, possibly just causing more to make up for the lack of points received for each.

I agree with Evilmike that this idea could be abused. However, I don't believe we should make 3 on 3 battles score like duels. The scoring for duels is messy as it is, plus, the definition of a "duel" is starting to fade with this. What's next, 4 on 4's?

I don't want to destroy the idea of spontaneous events; I still fully support the idea. Now that there is a much larger player population than was in the first few seasons, we should set solid rules for such events. Therefore, I believe that instituting a standard scoring method for spontaneous events (such as Evilmike suggested) would be a good plan.

EDIT: After reading Bobby's post, I still think the 3 on 3's should stay as events. Make Mike's formula a little more strict, and spontaneous events would have the meaning they were originally intended, while retaining some value. They were never meant to be a major source for points.

It's true that the word duel would lose it's meaning a bit by implementing this, but still, the amount of 1 on 1 duels still vastly outnumbers 2 on 2 or even 3 on 3 games.

If people are actually abusing the event system for points, the players will just start playing other types of spontaneous events that are not 3 on 3.

Even if we decide to make 3 on 3 games count like duels, I still believe standardizing spontaneous events is a good idea.

Yes, I feel that no matter what it would be a good idea to standardize spontaneous events and to separate them from main events on the event page as well.

I will give my fair option and i think it makes no sence a 2 vs 2 counts for a duel while a 3 vs 3 would be an event. I voted for make a 3 vs 3 count as a duel.

@bobby and syntax

Yeah since we all agree (we are the 3 pwnage admins who have absolute admin tyrant powers) we might as well standardize spontaneous events, to limit their scoring over main ones.

@Syntax
People may do other types of spontaneous events more often, but it's quite difficult to organse a 4 on 4 so I'm ok with that.

Let me clarify to all that the first option on that poll assumes 3 on 3 games are kept as events, while the second one doesn't. Voting on the first option means you think 3 on 3 games should be kept as events, and voting on the second one means you think they should be scored like a 2 on 2.

It's ok with me to make 3vs3s count the same ways as duels and 2vs2s. It would put an end to any possible abuse of them, since 4vs4s or more are extremely rare. It's a fact that people seem to be very afraid of losing points this season.

I will give my honest opinion of this one. Lately I've been seeing a couple of guys (myself a bit as well) doing a lot of 3 on 3 BR and that kinda stuff. They were getting so many points for these "events" that it's almost impossible for the others to have a chance to get on a higher rank.

I would say that you should count 3 on 3 and things like 4 on 4 and 5 on 5 like duels, so that it can be a fair game. People will just have to wait for the original events to take place. This has been bothering me for a while though so i'm glad there's a post of it right now.

Well, I find the thing with the limited score fine (ok, I have to, because I think it was me who suggested it ). Though, scoring events like duels is a fine idea as well. However, I voted for option 1.

Originally Posted by ßúññ¥€lmérTbtCC

...while a 3 vs 3 would be an event. I voted for make a 3 vs 3 count as a duel.

...What?

I think it should be counted as a duel. It never has made much sense to me that it was an event. Frankly, it is a bit confusing. However, it would also be neat if there was some sort of "score calculator" that allowed you to enter two users and a theoretical score and it would spit out how many points each would get. It might make people duel more often, as they feel more comfortable dueling, but then again it might also make people more obsessed with only dueling people who will get them a higher score, which is sort of not the point of JDC in the first place, or at least for me.

~ Traft

Limit the amount of 3v3's that you can do.

On that, I would like to note that I was attempting to vote for option two, but accidentally voted for option one. I will plaster the word "IDIOT" on my forehead for myself to save some dignity, thank you.

~ Traft

Adding restrictions on the 3v3's sounds fair enough. I agree with Syntax that with 2v2's and possibly 3v3's being counted as duels eliminates the 1on1 meaning of "duel" altogether.

I think 3vs3s should count as duels. I don't think it makes sense to have them as an event.

Make them count as duels, some people tend to abuse it. so do alot of 3v3's we cant lose points anyway.. you know?

that would been better

I would prefer that they be counted as 2v2s as Bobby suggests.

As regards the dilution of the meaning of the word "duel," I personally don't consider 2v2s duels and if 3v3s were scored the same way under JDC I wouldn't consider them duels, either. While 2v2s are scored as duels under JDC, they do not appear on duel pages but rather have their own designated section. They are also distinct from duels in that they do not affect your avg. opponent quality nor your personal quality, as Bob has noted. I don't think that the meaning that's wrapped up in the idea of a duel would be affected by changing the scoring of 3v3s, nor do I think that it would be a substantial reason to not change the scoring in any case.

People can always continue to have 4v4s; personally, I'd like the system to be changes for 3v3s with the understanding it would not later be changed for 4v4s. 4v4s are harder enough to organize than 3v3s that I don't think they'd be played excessively. I don't believe they're so much harder to organize as to merit leaving 3v3s as they are in order to protect spontaneous events, however...Those who wish to play more events without the risk of losing points can play 4v4s, which are difficult enough to put together to prevent any abuse of the system, I think.

I'd also like to note that the vote count should be 13-12 in favor of counting 3v3s as duels since Trafton accidentally misvoted.

Maybe they could be called fights or something. It really doesn't matter IMO.

...so, is anything going to be done about this or not? A lot of people have been doing lots of 3vs3s to get easy points lately, and a growing amount of people have been refusing to play 2vs2s because they're afraid that they'll lose points. Also, the poll is in favor of making 3vs3s scored like duels (remember, Trafton voted wrong).

I suggest changing it quickly, currently I get about 10 events to add per day. I don't like doing that, really.

I tend to get the same thing like Unhit. Since I became an official there have been a lot of times in which people have wanted me to add over 5 3vs3 games at a time. There have been people who have been gaining over 50 points per day with 3vs3s, which makes it nearly impossible for less active players to keep up.

;P

I say :
Limit from next rounds, (3 per round per player )
or Make count as duels asap

Agreed, if we're still planning to do something, it should be done now.

*checks the number of events for some people* Hm, ironic how the people who initially complained about this have done way more 3vs3s than the people they were accusing of it. (No names mentioned to avoid flamewars)

Now there is a limit 1 a day, now i find it a bit unfair, unhit coudnt add 3 vs 3 games the day before this limit was set, and the day after he only can add 1 3 vs 3 game,
[18:07:19] Unhit: read the newspost
[18:07:27] Unhit: the word that starts with a and ends with buse
[18:07:28] (m)>¿BúññýÉlmér?< XÐ :P - www.dreambunnies.com -:
newspost
[18:07:34] Unhit: you had so many 3v3
[18:07:52] Unhit: that might sound unfair
[18:07:53] Unhit: maybe it is

Dont tell me i played around 6 pointless 3 vs 3 games -.-

Derby: Severe filter bypass removal. This has resulted in a subwarning. When posting logs, it is wise to check to see if you have offensive content in your post and edit it if it is present.

I can add them, but seriously...you have so many -.-

There are people who like to play 1v1 alot, and there are people who like to 3v3 alot. :P

the change is kind of a good thing i guess.