Suggestion: Make deathmatch a tournament room.

Friday 28/01/2011, 09:10

Am I the only one that likes this idea?

Friday 28/01/2011, 13:16

Im sorry but that is a really dumb idea. deathmatch is its own game mode. Point system would all have to be readjusted if your idea was put in place. I just dont get it...

Friday 28/01/2011, 15:04

Yes, you are...sorry ^^

But all DM is about is getting more battle points in a shorter playing period. It's just completely different from daily tournament calculation.

Friday 28/01/2011, 15:46

1000 BP hours (400 BP is a typical winning score in DTs) would be easily possible to the point where you would have to play in DM to even have a chance. Terrible idea.

Friday 28/01/2011, 19:00

Ah thanks howard, I didn't realize tournaments went off battle points.

Anyways, my point was, they should have a rooms with faster times to stop intentional stalling and for faster players. Sure, some players can't calculate in under a minute. My question now is, if you can't calculate as fast are you really the better player? So, idk, I'm not sympathetic towards more time for the sake of calculation.

Friday 28/01/2011, 22:21

Then play deathmatch ^__^

That's one of the factors in DT, and in UR in general: Randomness. Sure, if that *one* player didn't stall you *would* have gotten top, but to cut to the quick: They did, and you didn't. No, the human error end of things should be kept in full in DT and DM in general.

Saturday 29/01/2011, 02:47

@0Guitarguy: are you insinuating you are better than some of the plaayers who play slow, like for instance in ELO just because you supposedly caluclated or or thought faster? In chess, the best blitz chess player cant hold a candle against the msot traditional player. Your notion towards a definition of a better player sounds a little farfetched to me. DM is made for everybody while not everyone can play dt. No thinking in DMs as much as in dts. Ive made my point...

Saturday 29/01/2011, 08:46

This idea is as good as getting 15 life in ELO :thumbsup:

Saturday 29/01/2011, 11:06

I think it was pretty clear I was saying the faster a player "fully calculates" the better the player he/she is. I think what wasn't so clear was I was insinuating the faster player is smarter. Not that it's a good idea to play faster than your capable of just that some people are better at mental math than others. If your not I apologize. My motives are pure I assure you, even if you ignore them. My main motive and my first point was putting a stop to intentional stalling. Please offer useful insight to that, which there are other threads for that I suppose but it seems to come down to shorter times unfortunately for some. Which is initially why I suggested making DM a tourney room.

Anyways, your point is validly logical just disagreeable. Your saying the longer times make UR generally more competitive because more people are allowed to take care on their pill amounts and make better decisions. It's arguable you don't need the long times for both DT's and ELO or even for every single DT. Which brings up the idea of occasional blitz DTs but that may be too progessive for some since well, some people are better than others at math others. :P The people who aren't good at math will pretend to be offended and fight for longer times rather or not it would be making others deal with stalling. They'll do this for as long as they get their way but in regards to "blitz chess" and "traditional chess," there should be a blitz UR for tournaments, not just BP.

Saturday 29/01/2011, 15:00

I respect your rebuttal but the problem is that some ppl have weaker internet connections. It may not be fair if they cant participate in this blitz dt that u propose due to their internet connection. its a multifaceted problem. I really dont think stalling can ever be really fixed cuz there is always a counter agaisnt less time..


Reply to this subject