You are here

[Official] The Last Battle 2017

Before posting make sure you are aquainted with our forum rules.

23 posts / 0 new
Last post
Online
Moderator
ffa eu top 0.9%
1v1 eu top 16%
team eu top 1.8%
[Official] The Last Battle 2017

Hey guys!

We are really glad to announce this years Last Battle!

What is the last battle?

  • In 2016, the best two team players in EU Rankings (theRealMadridcf and oldghz) created their own teams (they chose friends, good players on their own) 
  • The Last Battle 2016: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZYdLmoFCis
  • They played 3 games: Thin, Special and Green Speed.
  • Winner got a special title (best team player ... )

 

The Last Battle 2017

This year, we decided to change this competition a bit:

- Best 8 EU Rank FFA play against each other (3 matches with thin special and g speed)
  (Check current Leaderboard here: http://forum.curvefever.com/ranks/eu/ffa )

- Best 2 EU Team ranks create their teams and play against each other (same items as FFA)
   (Check current Leaderboard here: http://forum.curvefever.com/ranks/eu/team )

- Best 2 EU 1v1 Ranks play against each other (Same items as team and FFA)
   (Check current Leaderboard here: http://forum.curvefever.com/ranks/eu/1v1 )

- You dont have to be premium to join this competition!

Deadline: 18th of December, (5:30 CET)

That means: You basically have time, untill sunday night (monday already) 5:30 CET. If you play a game at 5:19, for example, from 2034 to 2050, and it ends 5:29 CET, and you're first in ranks, then you qualified for the next stage. If it ends at 5:31 (or later) you wont get the points which means you wont be first.

The General Curve Fever rules are to be observed. Anyone who has been given a place on an illegal way is disqualified and the following places will be re-nominated. The rank update will be at 5:30 (18th of december) Amsterdam time. 

Let the Battle begin!!

Questions? Comment below! 

Good luck and have fun

Meechy Darko

Offline
ffa eu nr. 40
1v1 eu nr. 17
team eu nr. 66

I'm confused, does this mean there will be 3 seperate tourneys with 3 seperate titles awarded? I.E. Best FFA/Team/1v1 player?

Online
Moderator
ffa eu top 0.9%
1v1 eu top 16%
team eu top 1.8%

Team -> Best of 3 games 
FFA -> Most points in 3 games 
1v1 -> Best of 3 games

Offline
ffa eu top 0.3%
1v1 eu top 6.2%
team eu top 1.4%
Clan: KOLL

Question to field size:

1vs1 speed - full field, 1vs1 thin - scaled field, but whats about 1vs1 special? For special scaled and full field are both usual modes.

 

~~signature~~

My time:

Offline
ffa eu nr. 87
1v1 eu top 4.1%
team eu nr. 39

I suggest to set a date for the FFA tournament. It's easy for example to compromise a date and time to do the 1v1 games since there are only 2 participants. A preliminary date could be set for the team tournament that can be changed if both teams agree to. But its much more difficult to do that with 8, and especially during holiday seasons.

Will the other teammates in the team receive titles too?

Online
Moderator
ffa eu top 0.9%
1v1 eu top 16%
team eu top 1.8%

@Nowo, i'd say it depends on the participants. if they want special 1v1 on full map and they both agree, then its fine for me aswell. I guess a coin flip or draw will decide if they can't agree.

 

@Miao the exact date will be released soon ;)

 

Edit* there will be 6 (new) titles. 

Edited by: 
Meechy Darko on 24 November, 2017 - 14:01
Online
Moderator
ffa eu top 0.9%
1v1 eu top 16%
team eu top 1.8%

Reminder

Offline
ffa eu top 1%
1v1 eu top 1.6%
team eu top 12%

would be Dirol to win every title Biggrin

Offline
ffa eu top 1%
1v1 eu top 1.6%
team eu top 12%

its like 3 titles and easier to achieve than olimpic one :d

Offline
ffa eu top 65%
1v1 eu nr. 72
team eu top 5.4%

maybe wall items as 3rd item set for 1v1? i can show its very playable

 

Offline
ffa eu nr. 40
1v1 eu nr. 17
team eu nr. 66

I would just like to say that I quite dislike how this tournament has been setup and I hope the tournament is done differently next year.

People with the highest ranks are not necessarily the best players; this is exceptionally true for the 1v1 ranking list: it's not very difficult to get to a T2 rank and duck the whole way until the deadline.

Not to mention that some of us simply don't have the time to grind hours trying to get these ranks, this is why I quite like normal tournaments where everyone (premium players*) can join and the best player on the current date claims a deserved victory.

Anyway, best of luck to those who qualify.

Offline
ffa eu top 0.6%
team eu top 3%

im in

Offline
ffa eu nr. 40
1v1 eu nr. 17
team eu nr. 66

I was going to make this point in the 'Reporting Vito' thread but it's disallowing post at the moment.

Meechy Darko wrote:

http://forum.curvefever.com/content/what-poor-behaviour-curve-fever

Exploiting the ranking system

This means any unethical result of the ranking system. An example of this is if a user is in the top 50 of the rankings but is playing a lot of matches against users of <1300 rank. The games are fair and do not break any rules. However, it doesn't look very good does it? They don't really deserve to be at the top if they don't compete against the best players in the game.

If something relatable to that above is observed then moderators will assess the situation. It may not be correct to ban the user, but to preserve the accuracy of the ranking system a rank reduction may be given. A more detailed discussion can be read here.

We (the moderators) will discuss this intern. 

The claim that Vito never plays against the top 100 is false. He played against Darken (No.6) the last time Darken was online: http://forum.curvefever.com/achtung/match/38732201

Also, if you do want to reduce Vito's rank because he refuses to play against players then you ought to reduce the rank of all the ffa players and team players who get to a specific rank and then continue to duck until the deadline. These are also players who choose to play when they are certain of being victorious, for example, they only play against low-skilled players or when they have a very high chance of winning. Why should Vito be punished when they get a free pass?

A ban should be out of question; a rank reduction is also unjust.

The main flaw of 'The Last Battle' is the system, not the players who know how to manipulate it in their favour.

Fluaz's picture
Offline
ffa eu top 3.1%
1v1 eu top 4.6%
team eu top 13%

Hibernica wrote:

im in

You need to be top 8 to be in The Last Battle

Record:

Spoiler: Highlight to view

FFA - 1655

Team - 1680

1v1 - 1558 

Fluaz's picture
Offline
ffa eu top 3.1%
1v1 eu top 4.6%
team eu top 13%

As in Teams, FFA, and 1vs1

 

Record:

Spoiler: Highlight to view

FFA - 1655

Team - 1680

1v1 - 1558 

Vito...'s picture
Offline
ffa eu top 0.6%
1v1 eu nr. 2
team eu nr. 14
Clan: Don

"The claim that Vito never plays against the top 100 is false. He played against Darken (No.6) the last time Darken was online: http://forum.curvefever.com/achtung/match/38732201"

thx bax man, nice link of my match u found I-m so happy

Anyway not much high ranks is in 1v1 and nobody even try to play, only few  "higher" people do. When I make a room 1v1 80% time "low ranks" came I had very much chance to win and room  was open for everybody usuaally - no limit rank. Also when I played vs "low ranks" its too risk for +2 or -40, risk if someone would take "random acc" and try to play vs me undercover, I had situation like this too few times but I won, doesnt matter also if they are 1200 rank or 1400 rank its a different  idk 3-4 points in 1 match if i will a winner I tried this. I won enough games no lose even if players werent so high in rank but I played vs experienced players too some times I was better and if I refused few people to play its normal I think. I got this rank by winning all the time.

The Godfather <3

Online
Moderator
ffa eu top 0.9%
1v1 eu top 16%
team eu top 1.8%

BAXUID wrote:

I was going to make this point in the 'Reporting Vito' thread but it's disallowing post at the moment.

Meechy Darko wrote:

http://forum.curvefever.com/content/what-poor-behaviour-curve-fever

Exploiting the ranking system

This means any unethical result of the ranking system. An example of this is if a user is in the top 50 of the rankings but is playing a lot of matches against users of <1300 rank. The games are fair and do not break any rules. However, it doesn't look very good does it? They don't really deserve to be at the top if they don't compete against the best players in the game.

If something relatable to that above is observed then moderators will assess the situation. It may not be correct to ban the user, but to preserve the accuracy of the ranking system a rank reduction may be given. A more detailed discussion can be read here.

We (the moderators) will discuss this intern. 

The claim that Vito never plays against the top 100 is false. He played against Darken (No.6) the last time Darken was online: http://forum.curvefever.com/achtung/match/38732201

Also, if you do want to reduce Vito's rank because he refuses to play against players then you ought to reduce the rank of all the ffa players and team players who get to a specific rank and then continue to duck until the deadline. These are also players who choose to play when they are certain of being victorious, for example, they only play against low-skilled players or when they have a very high chance of winning. Why should Vito be punished when they get a free pass?

A ban should be out of question; a rank reduction is also unjust.

The main flaw of 'The Last Battle' is the system, not the players who know how to manipulate it in their favour.

It's disallowed exactly because of that. You just make a few speculations and substantiate your thesis with it. This will start a discussion that is nonsense already from the beginning. 
Don't worry about that, like Destin. said already in his other post, you can believe us that we do our job. And if you want to help us, don't start such discussions like that, rather report the players you mean with "they".

Oh and by the way, the comment on the report was a quote from "What's poor behaviour in Curve Fever"

Offline
ffa eu nr. 40
1v1 eu nr. 17
team eu nr. 66

Meechy Darko wrote:

BAXUID wrote:

I was going to make this point in the 'Reporting Vito' thread but it's disallowing post at the moment.

Meechy Darko wrote:

http://forum.curvefever.com/content/what-poor-behaviour-curve-fever

Exploiting the ranking system

This means any unethical result of the ranking system. An example of this is if a user is in the top 50 of the rankings but is playing a lot of matches against users of <1300 rank. The games are fair and do not break any rules. However, it doesn't look very good does it? They don't really deserve to be at the top if they don't compete against the best players in the game.

If something relatable to that above is observed then moderators will assess the situation. It may not be correct to ban the user, but to preserve the accuracy of the ranking system a rank reduction may be given. A more detailed discussion can be read here.

We (the moderators) will discuss this intern. 

The claim that Vito never plays against the top 100 is false. He played against Darken (No.6) the last time Darken was online: http://forum.curvefever.com/achtung/match/38732201

Also, if you do want to reduce Vito's rank because he refuses to play against players then you ought to reduce the rank of all the ffa players and team players who get to a specific rank and then continue to duck until the deadline. These are also players who choose to play when they are certain of being victorious, for example, they only play against low-skilled players or when they have a very high chance of winning. Why should Vito be punished when they get a free pass?

A ban should be out of question; a rank reduction is also unjust.

The main flaw of 'The Last Battle' is the system, not the players who know how to manipulate it in their favour.

It's disallowed exactly because of that. You just make a few speculations and substantiate your thesis with it. This will start a discussion that is nonsense already from the beginning. 
Don't worry about that, like Destin. said already in his other post, you can believe us that we do our job. And if you want to help us, don't start such discussions like that, rather report the players you mean with "they".

Oh and by the way, the comment on the report was a quote from "What's poor behaviour in Curve Fever"

What is disallowed? Please be more specific. *You've* not "you", and "made" not "make". Moreover, "speculations"? No, I am certain that you will not see players like FRANSWAG playing FFA much anymore considering he doesn't need to anymore. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve his rank because he's a great FFA player and it's in his right to not play if he doesn't wish to.

"theory" would be more apt than "thesis", my argument was never intended to be maintained or proven.

Usually I wouldn't criticise diction but it seems as though you're purposely trying to be boastful with diction.

I've never questioned your ability to do your job; I have no idea why you mentioned it.

Why shouldn't I "start such discussions like that" considering this is a forum — a place of discussion. Is it not in our right to question a possible decision if we feel it is unjust? Plus what harm is done in giving constructive criticism? The system is flawed and I stand by that.

I'm not going to specify the players, who are manipulating the system, frankly because reporting users usually leads to conflict. Something I wish to avoid.

Offline
Moderator
ffa eu top 3.8%
1v1 eu top 15%
team eu top 19%
Clan: DNVD

Dear Baxuid,

thank you for your input.
The system is indeed not perfect, and cases like this are always pretty hard to decide. The main point why my decision was like this is following: By far the biggest amount of games were games against new accounts or very low ranked ones. There were just a few (like 5) games which had a opponent above 1250 out of many games (if you want me to count them I will). But some games, especially against new accounts, are even more suspicious, especially when they are against own accounts like this one: http://forum.curvefever.com/achtung/match/38534768, and there were some other games lasting not so long as you would expect for a green speed game. So I would like to keep this topic clean now with an "exploiting"-case like this. Feel free to contact me if you have more input. For me, a reduce seems suitable.

Kind regards

clans.curvefever.com - the battleground for clans

Destin.'s picture
Offline
Champion
Moderator
ffa eu nr. 7
1v1 eu nr. 39
team eu nr. 55

Hello,

Guys, keep in minds this topic has been created to announce a new competition : The Last Battle 2017. Some people will think it encourages boosters, some other will think it encourages people to be active. If you any questions about the schedule, progress, conditions..., post it below.

If you don't like the competition, or don't agree with a decision, do create a seperate topic with recommendations for this current competition or the next competitions. The section « Suggestions » has been created for that. Don't derail the topic :-)

Best regards,
Destin.

-------
Forum Moderator

Offline
ffa eu nr. 40
1v1 eu nr. 17
team eu nr. 66

TheGordon wrote:

Dear Baxuid,

thank you for your input.
The system is indeed not perfect, and cases like this are always pretty hard to decide. The main point why my decision was like this is following: By far the biggest amount of games were games against new accounts or very low ranked ones. There were just a few (like 5) games which had a opponent above 1250 out of many games (if you want me to count them I will). But some games, especially against new accounts, are even more suspicious, especially when they are against own accounts like this one: http://forum.curvefever.com/achtung/match/38534768, and there were some other games lasting not so long as you would expect for a green speed game. So I would like to keep this topic clean now with an "exploiting"-case like this. Feel free to contact me if you have more input. For me, a reduce seems suitable.

Kind regards

Hmm, yes that is quite suspicious; I was unaware of games such as that. I was under the impression that he just liked playing against lower ranked players to guarantee a victory; there are many other users in addition to Vito who have abused this and yet they get free passes. I don't think manipulating the system is wrong; I think it's actually quite intelligent for users who seek rank. The fact that manipulating the system is inevitable and abusers can only be punished if people "snitch" is the reason why access to tournaments should not depend on rank at all; this is the reason why I'm resentful about this year's Last Battle system. 

Like I've mentioned previously, those users will remain unknown because I'm not in the habit of creating conflicts.

Destin. wrote:

If you don't like the competition, or don't agree with a decision, do create a seperate topic with recommendations for this current competition or the next competitions. The section « Suggestions » has been created for that. Don't derail the topic Smile

Best regards,
Destin.

To me that seems unnecessary and simply strange: in other forums it is completely acceptable to post anything in a thread that is related to a topic. It seems things here are different. I apologise. This will be my lost post on the matter.

unholy&#039;'s picture
Offline
ffa america nr. 1
1v1 america nr. 1
team america nr. 1
Clan: 2

BAXUID wrote:

To me that seems unnecessary and simply strange: 

To me,

You forgot the comma bro <3

Offline
Clan: 3001

Baxuid, they had the same rules last year :o two highest of team ranks make team and battle? Also you forget that everyone has same chances to gain rank