[MKU-DX] Rules Suggestions Thread

Teeples

Member
MKU Staff
Site Supporter
Founding Member
#41
This isn't so much a rule change but rather a format modification:

I think each division should have a 3rd place match under the new format. Simply a match between the two losers of semifinals round. This is pretty traditional in single elimination brackets, to determine the 3rd podium spot. Currently only 1st vs 2nd are determined in the playoffs, while 3rd place vs 4th place is determined by regular season record. Personally I find this rather inconsistent, especially considering 3rd place is traditionally a podium finish.

Edit: another problem with the current way which determines 3rd vs 4th is that the two conferences are often unbalanced, which makes determining 3rd place based off regular season record possibly unfair/unbalanced.
The top division will have this next season. The semi finals losers in other divisions outside D1 play teams from the division above so the third place match doesn't make sense for anything below D1.
 

Jack

δk
Site Supporter
#42
What happened to naming divisions?

(Not as much of a rule as much as it just is a add-on)

I thought it was always a pretty nice touch, was kind of disappointed when it was removed. Wouldn't be very hard to do, for example let's say there are 5 divisions next season w/ no Division 6 with League format. If it were to be league format, you could just do it like the old one.

Division 1
- Conference Shock
- Conference Star

Division 2
- Conference Blue Shell
- Conference Super Horn

Division 3
- Conference Mushroom
- Conference Red Shell

Division 4
- Conference Piranha Plant
- Conference Boomerang

Division 5
- Conference Blooper
- Conference Banana

Division 6: Fire Flower

Division 7: Green Shell
 
Last edited:
#43
What happened to naming divisions?

(Not as much of a rule as much as it just is a add-on)

I thought it was always a pretty nice touch, was kind of disappointed when it was removed. Wouldn't be very hard to do, for example let's say there are 5 divisions next season w/ no Division 6 with League format. If it were to be league format, you could just do it like the old one.

Division 1
- Conference Shock
- Conference Star

Division 2
- Conference Blue Shell
- Conference Super Horn

Division 3
- Conference Mushroom
- Conference Red Shell

Division 4
- Conference Piranha Plant
- Conference Boomerang

Division 5
- Conference Blooper
- Conference Banana

Division 6: Fire Flower

Division 7: Green Shell
I speak purely from my own opinion , but while conference shock and star seem cool , I would rather be conference A and B than conference Blue Shell and Super Horn. Those are long names and while it might be a tad cool , A and B are just shorter and easier to site without having to look up which is which.
 

Jazzy

8va ~ Going the octave higher
Staff member
Administrator
Amplify Staff
Site Supporter
Founding Member
#44
I think possibly colors may be best.

Red/Blue
Green/Orange
Purple/Yellow
Pink/Aqua
Black/White
Brown/Grey
...for example.

And then the tables would be made in their respective colors.
 

Jack

δk
Site Supporter
#45
I speak purely from my own opinion , but while conference shock and star seem cool , I would rather be conference A and B than conference Blue Shell and Super Horn. Those are long names and while it might be a tad cool , A and B are just shorter and easier to site without having to look up which is which.
How about then just naming the divisions?

ex: Division 1: Shock
then Conference A & B
 
#46
I think possibly colors may be best.

Red/Blue
Green/Orange
Purple/Yellow
Pink/Aqua
Black/White
Brown/Grey
...for example.

And then the tables would be made in their respective colors.
would that do away with MKU tables or would the colors change somehow?
How about then just naming the divisions?

ex: Division 1: Shock
then Conference A & B
They could implement that , but then they might also have people complaining about their div name not being to their liking. Also there might be issues that arise from the including of the name on the banner or not. If the division is already named "1" , I don't see the need for a prefix even if it adds a little flavor.
 

Joe_

Member
Founding Member
#47
allow players from a lower division to transfer to a higher team mid season before week 5. this would prevent players from moving teams and being too good for the division they went to.
 

Jack

δk
Site Supporter
#48
allow players from a lower division to transfer to a higher team mid season before week 5. this would prevent players from moving teams and being too good for the division they went to.
that also encourages clan hopping. there was a very good reason mid-season transfers were removed. MKU transfers are denied if they are too good for division. like if pyrax joins TL they wont allow that in MKU lol
 

Jazzy

8va ~ Going the octave higher
Staff member
Administrator
Amplify Staff
Site Supporter
Founding Member
#49
@zVezda by colors for tables I meant the standings tables, not the match results tables
 

Athaway

RΞOL
Staff member
Moderator
MKU Staff
Event Organizer
Site Supporter
Founding Member
#51
allow players from a lower division to transfer to a higher team mid season before week 5. this would prevent players from moving teams and being too good for the division they went to.
I don't really get your point, with current system, if a player is leaving a team for another in the season, he can't play with his new team for the whole season, therefore he can't be "too good for the division he went to"
 
#52
Hi, I have an idea that would change a lot of thing for me as a leader of a low div team.

Why don't we add a rule where everyone register on a team has to play one or two matchs ?
This would change a lot of things (most of the part for the low divisions) :
- Each player will play and enjoy the competition, they wont have to leave a team they like for something other because they don't have the same level.
- The mind about seeding teams with their best LU, because that's more the case than seeding the team overall, even if it's a team competition and not a best LU competition.
- Add some strategy about doing LU for the rest of the competition, who should be playing agaisnt some teams to get a better chance ect...
- Every player would've the chance to say "I helped my team to win the div" and not just sitting on their chair, waiting results every match.
- If someone don't want/can't play MKU, he could be kick from the MKU Registration

I also know some cons about it :
- Teams with a lot of players might need to split.
- This would change the mind of a lot of registers, and maybe some players might be kicked from teams in high divs if they don't have the level to give a win.

I know that in the case of my team, Re-Birth, I overseed them, I have a much more level than my teammates, but I like and they like to play with each others, even with our differences of level. I want to give everyone the chance to discover the competition with the team they like and they feels good with, not the team they need to join just to play in MKU.

I can't wait to see your answers and thought about it.
(I maybe miss something but I think I wrote the most about it)
 

Athaway

RΞOL
Staff member
Moderator
MKU Staff
Event Organizer
Site Supporter
Founding Member
#53
Hi, I have an idea that would change a lot of thing for me as a leader of a low div team.

Why don't we add a rule where everyone register on a team has to play one or two matchs ?
This would change a lot of things (most of the part for the low divisions) :
- Each player will play and enjoy the competition, they wont have to leave a team they like for something other because they don't have the same level.
- The mind about seeding teams with their best LU, because that's more the case than seeding the team overall, even if it's a team competition and not a best LU competition.
- Add some strategy about doing LU for the rest of the competition, who should be playing agaisnt some teams to get a better chance ect...
- Every player would've the chance to say "I helped my team to win the div" and not just sitting on their chair, waiting results every match.
- If someone don't want/can't play MKU, he could be kick from the MKU Registration

I also know some cons about it :
- Teams with a lot of players might need to split.
- This would change the mind of a lot of registers, and maybe some players might be kicked from teams in high divs if they don't have the level to give a win.

I know that in the case of my team, Re-Birth, I overseed them, I have a much more level than my teammates, but I like and they like to play with each others, even with our differences of level. I want to give everyone the chance to discover the competition with the team they like and they feels good with, not the team they need to join just to play in MKU.

I can't wait to see your answers and thought about it.
(I maybe miss something but I think I wrote the most about it)
MKU is a competition (and the main one on 8d), teams should be willing to play with the best they've got like a proper competition, if they don't want to go full out, either don't play or play and assume the consequences.
We as a staff team assume that everyone is playing a competition to actually compete, what's the point of registering if that's not the case in the first place? That's why we must seed teams based on what's the best they can throw at the competition.
You're still free to not use your best players to let "everyone experience the competition", but the main point is that you can't expect other teams to just throw away some matches by using suboptimal LUs, because those teams, as competitors, want to win the whole thing themselves.

I know MKU feels different, but we're talking about 2 wars a week, it's not like you can't play with your team at all if you're not in your team's best 6. By playing scrims outside of MKU with your teammates, you help them progress as players and as a team overall, so you're already "helping your team" IMO.

Conclusion : This rule, by forcing teams to not play with the best they can compete with, would just make the whole event less competitive.
 

Nato

Member
Staff member
Administrator
Site Supporter
Founding Member
#54
Something needs to be fixed with this room breaking rule, because right now it can only really benefit the team that breaks the room.

Real Life Example: We got top 3 5 8 on dCL in Agility vs Star Clan, but because one of them broke room, and we have proof of all our spots, we can't get the race win for that, but they're able to just void out a -30 race and reopen room without having to wait on spots, so they just benefit super hard off of it.

Either give spots to the opposing team if the hosting team broke room, or vice versa if the opposing team broke room. There's no way its balanced the way it is currently because all it does it benefit one team harder than the other with no real penalty applied
 
#55
I won't take anyone's defense about your example but Sc didn't manually break the room: Meme dc'ed pre-race and his character was stuck the whole race, which sometimes happens when you dc in a specific (I guess) way.

And if that happens with 1 player or more, the results won't show up and the room will crash 30 seconds after the 1st crossed the finish line. Facts 99% of the time.

I would rather suggest another rule about the room crashing: if one player is stuck in the mini-map (for ley's say, 20 seconds), the room can be manually broken by the host.
Because the race won't even count whatsoever so there's no point is wasting a couple of minutes for a race that won't count due to the room crash lol.

It will avoid what xi went through, and this happened to a lot of teams (results never showing up because of the opposing team so race doesn't count whereas you win the race)
It will also save time and make the wars go cleaner.
 
#56
I won't take anyone's defense about your example but Sc didn't manually break the room: Meme dc'ed pre-race and his character was stuck the whole race, which sometimes happens when you dc in a specific (I guess) way.

And if that happens with 1 player or more, the results won't show up and the room will crash 30 seconds after the 1st crossed the finish line. Facts 99% of the time.

I would rather suggest another rule about the room crashing: if one player is stuck in the mini-map (for ley's say, 20 seconds), the room can be manually broken by the host.
Because the race won't even count whatsoever so there's no point is wasting a couple of minutes for a race that won't count due to the room crash lol.

It will avoid what xi went through, and this happened to a lot of teams (results never showing up because of the opposing team so race doesn't count whereas you win the race)
It will also save time and make the wars go cleaner.
Races sometimes still count even with a frozen player for the majority of the race. I have experienced this like 4 times in recent memory. This could potentially nullify a race even before you know room would crash.
 

Samovar

Member
Founding Member
#57
Hello, I have a question about the rule talking about repeats

i. Tracks which have already been played during the match may not be picked again for the remainder of the match. If a player fails to honor this rule and his selection is chosen, that player’s team will receive a -20 (-14 in 5v5) point penalty.

We had an experience during a friendly war where someone repeated, the map were picked by the game, and the room crashed because of disconnections a the end of the track.
What happen in this case ? The text seems to penalize the action of repeating and nothing else but it's not clear if the -20 is up to date when the map can't be counted because of disconnections or anything else.
If anyone can clarify this for me, thanks !
 

Blue

Penguins are cute
Site Supporter
Founding Member
#58
Hello, I have a question about the rule talking about repeats

i. Tracks which have already been played during the match may not be picked again for the remainder of the match. If a player fails to honor this rule and his selection is chosen, that player’s team will receive a -20 (-14 in 5v5) point penalty.

We had an experience during a friendly war where someone repeated, the map were picked by the game, and the room crashed because of disconnections a the end of the track.
What happen in this case ? The text seems to penalize the action of repeating and nothing else but it's not clear if the -20 is up to date when the map can't be counted because of disconnections or anything else.
If anyone can clarify this for me, thanks !
If the race doesn't count, then you can pick the track again since the race didn't count.
 

Samovar

Member
Founding Member
#59
There is a misunderstanding, I will try to be more clear:
- A first time, the map is played without any problem
- Then later in the war the map is repicked by someone, choosed by the game and the room crashs during the map

I'm curious to know what happens in this case about the penalty. There is the act of repeating, but the race repeated doesn't count.
Two choices:
1. The ruleset penalizes the repeat alone and the -20 remains
2. The ruleset penalizes a repeat only if the repeated race is played completely

Also note that if it's the second case, the rule can be abused as you just have to break the room to avoid the penalty from the repeat
 

Teeples

Member
MKU Staff
Site Supporter
Founding Member
#60
There is a misunderstanding, I will try to be more clear:
- A first time, the map is played without any problem
- Then later in the war the map is repicked by someone, choosed by the game and the room crashs during the map

I'm curious to know what happens in this case about the penalty. There is the act of repeating, but the race repeated doesn't count.
Two choices:
1. The ruleset penalizes the repeat alone and the -20 remains
2. The ruleset penalizes a repeat only if the repeated race is played completely

Also note that if it's the second case, the rule can be abused as you just have to break the room to avoid the penalty from the repeat
Repeats have been updated to count even if the room has crashed during that race a repeat is selected. This will be to avoid hosts closing the room with a clip and dodging the repeat penalty.

Thanks for the suggestion to clear up a loop-hole.
 
Top