Head-2-Head 9 / H2H9: Round Robin - R4M1 - Scream Queens vs Tile Inspectors

This topic hosts comments for 2 parks(View Parks)

Select your favourite park.

  1. Yerka Daylight Time by the Scream Queens 16 votes [25.81%]
    • Liampie
    • RWE
    • 6crazy6king6
    • Psi
    • frigginbrownie
    • chorkiel
    • deanosrs
    • ultro
    • Zarathustra
    • be_nice
    • olddtfan51
    • pants
    • Magnus
    • Suormot
    • Splitvision
    • Louis!
    Percentage of vote: 25.81%
  2. Stardust Jubilee by the Tile Inspectors 46 votes [74.19%]
    • Gustav Goblin
    • trav
    • Mr.Brightside711
    • Six Frags
    • soap and butter sandwich
    • kenos
    • Turtle
    • Scoop
    • Hex
    • G Force
    • MCI
    • posix
    • djbrcace1234
    • Jaguar
    • Thethrillman
    • Bubbsy41
    • Lowenaldo
    • Pacificoaster
    • Dr_Dude
    • Goliath123
    • In:Cities
    • PizzaWurscht
    • AJ-
    • saxman1089
    • ottersalad
    • Coasterbill
    • CedarPoint6
    • Cocoa
    • Shen Kitchen
    • tabard424
    • Lurker
    • Jens J.
    • geewhzz
    • SupraSix
    • Ziscor
    • MorganFan
    • Milo
    • RaunchyRussell
    • IonZer0
    • FredD
    • Astroturd
    • Otsdarva
    • Maverix
    • FK+Coastermind
    • Iretont
    • Hepta
    Percentage of vote: 74.19%
  • Kumba%s's Photo

    First, SQs, outstanding park! I really loved the "clockpunk" and artsy kinda vibe in it. Seeing that Terry did 80% was a surprise. I was already a fan of his NSCO work, but wow, he's definite a great CSO player too! I hope the AP score will get him NE Parkmaker.

     

    Congrats to AVC, Walto, Mulder (2-0!) and Bio on a huge win! This park was so crazy it literally scared me. Really, early on, I thought I might be asked to work on it and I was afraid, lol. 

     

    I am working on a mid-season review were I will have a lot more to say about these parks and all others. 

     

    Let me address the penalty by starting with the precedents for a DQ in H2H. It has happened 4x that I know of [H2H3-8]. The first and frankly only time a park that was trying to win was DQ'ed by an admin ruling was Merlinwood in H2H3 after Posix posted that a sign in the park read "yyo pwnz all joo, n00bs." Indeed, yyo was a co-builder of the park (which was the likely winner) and it was DQ'ed. The next "DQ" came against my team in H2H4 when the Stallions submitted an unfinished park well beyond H2H size. At the end of that season, I DQ'ed the Tigers for refusing to send in a park for the championship game, but you'll see that they didn't raise an objection. The fourth case was the most recent and from the end of last season. Common trend here is that almost all DQs have come from purposely not following the rules, but in the case of yyo, it might have been a lack of understanding. 

     

    We need to keep in context what happened with Stardust, as the admins did. The tile count was surpassed due to placement of a 7x1 star field object that only has one view and was placed on a solid black land texture on a park set in space. Only in a park like SJ can you have something crazy like that happen. We had no intent to surpass the limit, had been working hard to stay within it and of course counting tiles which was not easy to do on this map. 

     

    I think the admins made the right ruling by going with a penalty. I do think 20% was a little harsh, but within reason. It seems one issue some have with the penalty is that the H2H9 rules only state a disqualification as an outcome to a rules violation. I think that was an error on their part. However, it can be viewed as SJ being disqualified of 20% of its vote for the match. 

     

    If we DQ'ed every park that was a tile over the limit, we'd have a lot of DQs and hurt the contest. I can list a number of parks that have surpassed it. Past precedent is simply to make a park that's "H2H sized." Still, I actually prefer sticking closer to the rules. I think it's a good thing that we don't DQ parks for letting their creativity overflow, a little

  • Liampie%s's Photo

    Thanks for the reply, Kumba, that's a pretty neutral analysis of some relevant points, and I always enjoy the history bits. You're missing one: the DQ from H2H5, when Seven Days in Prison was submitted hours after the deadline. I think that was it.
     

    I think the admins made the right ruling by going with a penalty. I do think 20% was a little harsh, but within reason. It seems one issue some have with the penalty is that the H2H9 rules only state a disqualification as an outcome to a rules violation. I think that was an error on their part. However, it can be viewed as SJ being disqualified of 20% of its vote for the match. 
     
    If we DQ'ed every park that was a tile over the limit, we'd have a lot of DQs and hurt the contest. I can list a number of parks that have surpassed it. Past precedent is simply to make a park that's "H2H sized." Still, I actually prefer sticking closer to the rules. I think it's a good thing that we don't DQ parks for letting their creativity overflow, a little.

     
    I don't think the severity of the penalty should be publicly debated, especially after the fact, although of course it's controversial. I won't get into that regardless of whether I agree or disagree with any of it.

     

    I do think it's worth addressing that the 'all rule infractions must be met with a DQ' bit in the rules is too strongly worded, and not representative of how an NE contest is actually refereed, and how H2H has been refereed in past editions, I thought that was obvious to anyone. The deadline rule alone would probably disqualify at least one park per round, as sometimes parks come in a few minutes late. I like your interpretation of the rule that some votes can be disqualified, but I personally think we should reword that part of the rules, that has been part of rules ever since H2H5.

     

    Hope to leave a review this weekend, I'd like to explain why I voted for Yerka and why I didn't vote for Jubilee. Past two weeks have been crazy for me...

  • Recurious%s's Photo

    Thanks for the well thought out comments Kumba and Liam. I must admit that I agree that the problem is mostly in the way the rules are written. Personally I also think a DQ would be extremely harsh, so I can understand why this was not done even though strictly speaking the rules do call for this. Yesterday Liam and me also talked a little bit and while we still don't agree on everything I think that did definitely help clear the air.

     

    I do want to adress one thing in Kumba's post, and this is in no way me trying to attack anyone or trying to change the decisions that were made. I feel like those are in the past and I think it is best if we move on. But there is one thing I still wanted to adress and that is this: you state that this 20% vote penalty is pretty harsh. But honestly I think it's not really that harsh of a penalty. 20% sounds like a large number but the actual impact is way lower. The match score before  the penalty was 46-16, after the penalty it was 37-16. That means that without a penalty the TI would have a 74.19 win percentage, and after the penalty they have a 69.81 win percentage. A difference of only 4.38%. If you take into account that there are 7 RR match-ups, the difference in the final score percentage by this penalty is only 0.626%, an almost negligible amount. So that is still pretty mild if you ask me.

Tags

  • No Tags

Members Reading