Why is execution set at a best of 12 rounds?

(Talak) #1

Since execution doesn’t have it’s own forum section yet, I’ll post here.

Why is a round based game type set at an even number? I’ve had several 6-6 matches.

(Atherel) #2

Because it would be unfair if defending is easier than attacking or vice versa.

(Sir_Slam) #3

6 rounds attacking, 6 rounds defending. Both teams get an even shot at both sides. If a tie happens, a tie happens.

(Ardez1) #4

@Talak Because it gives each team a chance to play the same number of rounds as the attackers and defenders, which would be 6 of each.

Draws are to be expected.

When I was playing competitive CS:GO we would sometimes end in a draw after 30 rounds of playing. 15 wins and 15 losses. While the odds of tying are slimmer after 30 rounds than 12, it is still possible to have fairly evenly matched teams.

The point is that the possibility exists to draw. If it was first to 7 and there was a possible total of 13 games instead then the final match that breaks the 6 to 6 tie would be inherently unfair because the defending team would have an extra round defend and the attacking team would have an round attacking.

(signofzeta) #5

So if we get a sweep, it would be 6 times attacking, and 1 time defending. How is that any even?

Rounds should be 11 rounds and go like this:

Attack
Attack
Attack
Defend
Defend
Defend
Attack
Attack
Defend
Defend
Attack

If they really wanted that 12th round, the round would be defend.

There’s no tying in baseball. They played until someone won, and go through extra innings.

13th round would be attack, 14th round would be defend, and it would alternate until someone won.

Overtime works by adding in 2 rounds. You win the round as attackers by eliminating your team or blow up the towers. In the 14th round, the other team has to beat your time, or eliminate more enemies than the first team in the previous round.

(Ardez1) #6

It still gave the opposing team a chance to attack.

Also, if a team couldn’t defend/attack successfully once through seven(or six for that matter) rounds, they did lose.

Most draws are a combination in wins and losses both defending and attacking. Not attacking 6 times and losing all 6 and then winning all 6 defends.

The point is @signofzeta that they had the opportunity to attack. That they failed there as well as in defense just means they were truly the worse overall team.

(HoopleDoople) #7

My one complaint with draws in Execution is that they are essentially a loss for everyone. This is because there’s a daily win bonus but no penalty for losing. In most cases you’ll get your win bonus soon enough, but I’ve definitely had days where I only had time to do a few matches and never did get the win.

I’d have no problem with a 13th round to break a tie, even if it is inherently uneven. Who gets to attack and defend could be randomly chosen or left unchanged from round 12. It might be unfair in some cases but as long as someone gets a win I’d be a lot happier. Obviously if competitive Execution ever becomes a thing it would need to maintain draws or come up with a fairer way to break ties.

(retief) #8

As others have said, 13 rounds would be unbalanced if attacking is easier than defending (or vice versa). If two teams draw, then the match was clearly pretty even overall. Not the worst situation overall. “Extra innings” where each team gets one round to attack and one round to defend could work, but then a match could take an arbitrary amount of time – this has its own set of issues.

(signofzeta) #9

Even so, the rounds should go 3 attacker, 3 defender, 2 attacker, 2 defender, 1 attacker, 1 defender, in that pattern, just so that if the rounds were a sweep, we wouldn’t see a round where a team played mostly as attack, not defense.

Let’s say the team sucks at defense, and is only good at attack. In the current form, they win rounds 1 to 6 on attack. They would only have to win once on defense to win the match, making it a minimum of 7 rounds.

In my way, if they only won once on defense, they need minimum 11 rounds to win the match. In order to win in 7 rounds, they would need to win on defense 3 times. It means they have to defend as much as they attack to win.

Just because a team sucks at defense doesn’t mean they lose every round on defense. There’s also this thing called upsets, where the worst overall team beat the better team.

The odds of winning on defense once when your team sucks at defense is one thing. The probability is lower if you have to win on defense 3 times.

(retief) #10

[quote=“signofzeta;107487”]Even so, the rounds should go 3 attacker, 3 defender, 2 attacker, 2 defender, 1 attacker, 1 defender, in that pattern, just so that if the rounds were a sweep, we wouldn’t see a round where a team played mostly as attack, not defense.

Let’s say the map was attacker biased, and the both teams only loses once on defense.

Team 1 attacks first, team 2 attacks second.

Team 1 won games 1 to 5, lost game 6 and 7. They would win if they won games 8 and 9.

If team 2 wins on attack on rounds 9 through 12, the match would be over in 8 rounds.

In my style, they would win games 1 to 4, because they have to win once on defense, lose 5 and 6, win on 7 and 8, lose on 9 and 10, win on 11.

Or

They could win games 1 to 3, 7, 8, and lose on 11, win on 12.

All I’m saying, it would take more than 8 rounds for a team to win, and only lose once on attack.[/quote]

Why should it take more than 8 rounds to win if a team won 5 games on defense then wins 2 games on offense? They won 2/2 times on offense while the other team won 1/6 – they are either very lucky or significantly better than the other team. Switching constantly either confuses people or wastes time with a bunch of “now you are offense, plant the bomb” interludes.

(HoopleDoople) #11

Having 6 rounds on one side followed by up to 6 rounds on the other side still ensures that the better team wins, no matter how unbalanced offense and defense may be. For example, if offense was far easier a team might start 6-0 but the match may very well end 6-6.

I will admit that this can result in far more lopsided results than should really be the case. A slightly better team that starts on the easier side may win with a score around 7-1 under the current format. Under a format that switched sides back and forth more often, the same team might win a 7-5 match.

The biggest upside of the current format is that it gives random teams (that are usually mostly newbies) longer to figure out how to work together and play one side effectively. The biggest downside is that it can arbitrarily make the “win X rounds of Execution” mission significantly harder if you’re stuck on the harder side for 6 rounds and only get one or two chances at the easier side. That said, both of these issues can be solved if additional side switching was desired for Execution. Execution could be properly targeted towards experienced players instead of beginners and the missions that require wins can (and most definitely should) be removed.

(LifeupOmega) #12

At least in CS you have tie-breaker rounds.

(Izzy) #13

They should introduce a 13th round when tie:
No weapons, only knife, and no bomb.

like the ol’good time on COD1 were the first round was a knife fight for first side.

(signofzeta) #14

All I’m saying is that in the current format, you only have to be good at attack, if you start as attack, and not necessarily have to be good on defense to win the match. In the format where it alternates, you have to be equally as good on attack as you are on defense just to sweep the other team.

Baseball switches sides all the time. I don’t see them getting confused.

(immenseWalnut) #15

End match Draw is laughable, why can’t we have sudden death for a 6-6 match??

(RyePanda) #16

I’d like a 13th and 14th round where whoever gets the best attacking time wins or if both team are eliminated whichever lived longer wins or if time runs out whoever has the most attacking survivors win. If the time is even do another set of 2.

(signofzeta) #17

I’d just rather have 6 rounds, and each round be once attack, once defense, just like baseball.

So top of round 1 you attack, bottom of round 1, you defend. You don’t look at the attack portion as one round, you look at both attack and defense as one round.

Playing the first 6 rounds on attack only makes sense if all 12 rounds are played, no matter if one team got 7 wins or not.

(Atherel) #18

So you have two teams who are good at attack: First wins 6 rounds, then the other one wins 6 rounds - tie.

If the first team wins 6 rounds in attack and then the other one then loses one round as attack, the first team was better. The order of “attack/defense” doesn’t matter.

(cordovanJive) #19

In competitive CSGO if a game ties there will be an overtime of four rounds on one side and four rounds on the other. So eight rounds in total. This game could choose something similar, maybe 2 or 3 rounds per side? (And if it draws it goes on even further, etc…)

Matchmaking doesn’t have overtime and just leaves it a draw, so games cant go on forever. =P

(signofzeta) #20

So you have two teams who are good at attack: First wins 6 rounds, then the other one wins 6 rounds - tie.

If the first team wins 6 rounds in attack and then the other one then loses one round as attack, the first team was better. The order of “attack/defense” doesn’t matter.[/quote]

Um, no. If you are good on attack, it means that the other team, when they become attack, can’t make a single mistake, while in my way, it takes 3 rounds for the other team on attack to make mistakes and lose.

Just because the team does a 7 round sweep doesn’t mean they are overall good. They could be good at attack, and just got lucky on defense. Just because a team is good on attack doesn’t mean they win every round on attack. Just because a team is bad on defense doesn’t mean they lose every round on defense.

The odds of winning something decrease if you have to pull it off repeatedly. If you are bad on defense, you have to string in one win from your weakness just to get that win. If you had to string together 3 wins on your weakness, it makes it even harder. If you win in a tougher situation, the more better your team is overall.

Let’s say both teams are good on attack 9 of 10 times. Let’s say both teams win on defense 1 out of 10 times as well. There is a 5.314% chance one team will sweep the other team. This is in the current format where round 1-6 is attack, 7-12 is defense.

In my format where 1-3 attack 4-6 defend 7,8 attack 9,10 defend, 11 attack, 12 defend, there is a 0.065% chance one team will sweep.

So to prove you are good on defense as you are on attack, you have to win as much on defense as you are on attack, and not win only 1 defense just to prove you are good overall.

In a situation where a team loses once on attack in any of the first 6 rounds, meaning it takes a minimum of 8 rounds to win, it has a 0.059% chance that one team will win in 8 rounds.

If a team lost one attack in my format in the any attack on the first 8 rounds, meaning they lost either round 1, 2, 3, 7, or 8, it has a 0.0066% chance that one team will win in 8 rounds.

If you sweep in the current format, you may be good overall, but if you sweep in my format, your team will be even better overall.

There is a reason why in a 7 game series in baseball, you play home home away away away home home, and not away away away home home home home, or home home home away away away away, even if your team only has to travel once. It is more fair doing the former than doing the latter. Just to tell you what home team advantage means in baseball, you bat on the bottom of the 9th if you are the home team.

All I am saying in my format is, give both teams a chance to win, and not be in a situation where one team rarely wins because they don’t get to play to their strengths as much as the other team gets to play to theirs.

I’d rather have situation where it is harder to sweep in 7 rounds, and if one team wants to win by being only good on attack, and mediocre, but not mediocre enough to lose every game on defense, better play 11 to 12 rounds.