Back Talk 1

Tilt 1 Back Talk

Here is the format to post in the wiki. Press the edit button and then put a ";" before your name and a ":" before your comments. Thanks.
Use GMT kkthxbye
Of course again it was great that so many people made it out. We ran into a number of fixable problems though. Two of the servers got completely locked out because either I or another admin made max_clients 0 and then got kicked...which means that we cant unlock that server unless we find out a way to contact someone on msn to unlock the server. Secondly, My first match got done on time, everyone else's went like an hour longer which should not happen. I was not there during all of the problems but I think it wa smostly due to people not counting instant deaths. For me, it is part of the game, you should count them because BOTH SIDES GET THEM. Plus its not like the game is to 5 and 1 insta could completely change it around. If everyone plays their game, the better team will come out victorious. If you guys decide on not counting instas fine, because it is a tournament for everyone to organize, not me I just make the basic rules, but just be aware that you will go way overtime, that you will need someone with a pass to restart the server, and that you will make other teams wait for you to get done. Thirdly, I think we need to have 4 definite admins to come out to all of the tilts, they can still play but they must know the password to boot people etc. I will be one, but I need 3 more that think they will be able to make most of the Tilts. So if you are interested, contact me on msn @
Also: some people don't believe me but it would be so easy for me to win a match 1v4 vs a team, it is easier for a team to win down 2, down 1...It's weird how it works out but whichever team has the more opportunity to die (team with more players) the higher chance the team without as many players has of gaining points and winning. Therefore how about a rule saying if you can't get more than 2 players to show up to your match you forfeit, and if you show 3 and the other team shows 4 then you must sit out one player to make it 3v3? Give some opinions
Yes i agree with everything you said psyko and i would like to be an admin for the servers I play in for other tilts if i know the pass i will know how to use it. (I learned today)So finally I can help out if you need it. :D
I think what could solve the player disadvantage part is to play up to 20 and then the winning team gets 3 points. So if it is 3v2, the team with 2 will get more kills but the team with 3 will most likely win more so maybe they will have a better chance to win
Let's vote on everything! I've created new sections. Feel free to add and discuss, but especially vote! Hopefully everything is clearly voted one way or the other. That would be easiest.
I think in a 4v1 where everyone has the same skill, the solo player should be able to score 20 kills just as fast as he dies 20 times against them. Some people might think the solo player has an advantage, or that the larger team has an advantage. If anything, fighting a larger team seems like a disadvantage to me, especially if each member has the same skill as me. Before we can decide how many pts a winning team gets per round, we have to actually know how 4v1 turns out after a long time. I was able to calculate that round points are required IF AND ONLY IF smaller teams have an actual advantage. And (once again) I doubt smaller teams have an advantage. No one will believe PsYkO or PsYkO's disbelievers unless equally skilled drivers produce data for the results of 2v1, 3v1, 4v1, 3v2 etc. Each of these categories would probably need thousands of kills before we could start accepting the accuracy of any advantages revealed by the data. As far as I know, this hasn't been done, and no one really feels like doing it, so I think we won't get any further by saying what we think about it. Suggesting 3 points for the round winner in a 3v2 would only make sense if you knew the EXACT advantage the smaller team has against the larger team.
I personally received a frustrating amount of instant kills from one player that had a remarkably high ping for the entire 2 matches. This wouldn't have been frustrating if instant kills weren't counted. There are some instant kills that I feel can be legitimately counted as kills, and I think people should be able to tell the difference between a legitimate instant kill, and the more common type that shouldn't be counted in a high rubber tournament. I'm afraid a lot of people actually don't know the difference nor can distinguish between them. Either way, legitimate instant kills are much more rare that nobody should have a problem ignoring them if we decide not to count instant kills.
Finally, I wanted to watch the tournament but most of the matches ended up being completely private. Lag is a main issue, but I think this tournament has an important interest in not being private. As far as I know, this isn't a private tournament, and although we may need to limit spectating, I don't think the policy should be the privacy we saw.
Dreamy Pie
Eh, I think that a high rubber tourney is too hard to really keep fair. It's so easy to camp forever, back door, etc.
Well camping, cornering, plugging, back dooring, speeding, trapping, dogfighting, digging, stabbing, grinding, using telepathic powers to make the other person crash... Its all part of the game and it is ALL fair. The ONLY thing that is not fair is INSTANT KILLS. But they CANT be controlled. Which is why we should have referees for matches ;).


Not counting instant kills

  • There is no difficulty keeping track of the score
  • Prevents people from trying to gain an advantage by raising their ping and speeding
  • Prevents people from having to react to people trying to gain that advantage (or whom just have high ping)

People who vote for not counting instant kills

Oblivion (maybe we can get a ref in each game to keep track of score???)

Counting instant kills

  • It's easier to not keep track of if some kills didn't count.

People who vote for counting instant kills


Not Counting Rounds

  • Rounds are not kills so should not count toward the match point limit.

People who vote for not counting rounds

Kryalot - Until the community does research into the outcome of various sized matchups, I cannot support adding points for winning a round.

Counting rounds

  • If smaller teams have an advantage, then round points correctly balance the match. For example, a 1 person team can only afford to lose 10 rounds before losing a 20 pt match (instead of losing 20 rounds), whereas a 4 person team can lose 4 rounds before losing the match (instead of 5 rounds).

People who vote for counting rounds

Oblivion (I agree, it doesn't need to be proven. With more players you become more crowded. If you fire a gun into a crowd of people you probably will hit somebody. Fire a gun at one person and the chance you hit them is lowered a lot. That is basically how this works. **trying to create an analogy here :P**)


No team restrictions

  • Description: A team can have 1 - 8 members. Every round (or match?) a team can choose any combination of up to 4 people. No substitutions at all. (Signups are sacred and important).

People who vote for no team restrictions

Kryalot - I don't agree that this way is unfair in any way. Every team has an opportunity to signup 8 people, and chooses how many to play each round. 4 against 1 is not unfair because 3 people can suicide right away. If they continue without killing themselves when they had an opportunity to not be at a disadvantage (huh?), then that's their fair choice.

Team restrictions a la PsYkO

  • Description: A team must signup 4 members. During the tournament, teams must compete with equal numbers (2v2 or 3v3 etc). If needed, you can use people who weren't signed up in time, or are signed up on a different team. No solo teams and team signups are under the control of the organizer.

People who vote for team restrictions a la PsYkO

Oblivion (I believe if your going to play for that team you MUST be signed up. Matches need to be even to make the tournament fair. so 4vs4 or 3vs3 or 2vs2.)


The real solution is for armagetron developers to allow unlimited spectating in a way that doesn't impact a server at all.

No spectators

Less opportunities for lag or being annoyed by spectator messages

People who vote for no spectators

Limited spectators

Description: Each server will accept a fixed number of connections. Preference given to participants or officials over non-participants.
Competition is for spectating

People who vote for limited spectators

Kryalot - I wanted to watch more than I was able to~ I also thought other people should be able to watch =/
artiFice- one or two peeps only
Oblivion - Add a referee to keep track of score if we are to make instas not count to that teams score. The referee and possibly an admin that is not playing should be the only spectators to limit lag and annoying people.
PsYkO - I think the only people in the server should be the players, any teammates that are not playing, an admin, and a team captain of the team that the winner will face. Although 95% of armagetron believe that spectators cause lag, they do not, they are 0 pingers, its like having computers playing with you except less lag, because they are not playing. This was proven by the game developers.
Oblivion - What about my idea of adding a referee. Maybe it can be a spectator but somebody has to hold that job because the players cant constantly be adding up scores in their head. They must concentrate on winning the match.
PsYkO - The admin can be the referee
Oblivion - what if the admin is the player? Like what happend to me on sp server.. I had to keep track of the score while playing and it sucked. People would listen to and trust somebody who wasnt on one of the teams, then they cant say the score keeper cheated :P

Previous Back Talks

Pilot Back Talk Tilt Back Talk 1