From: hadley@codes.ics.uci.edu (Tedd Hadley)
Subject: Re: GB at LAR
Newsgroups: rec.games.netrek
Organization: UC Irvine Department of ICS
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:14:04 GMT

In <1e9slvINNgfr@agate.berkeley.edu> tom@soda.berkeley.edu (Tom Holub) writes:

>          I think LA Riot deserved most of the acrimonious
>comments; to play a game on calvin when other servers are available
>is intentionally taking unfair advantage of the home field.
> -Tom

   Whoa, wait a minute.  If this is going to be the general attitude
   towards teams with lagged home servers, we have a problem.  First
   of all, we're going to have to redefine some terms.

   home server: the server that the away team finds the most agreeable.

   fair home field advantage: a measure of network response-time
   experienced by the home team that is somewhat less then that
   experienced by the away team, but not by too much.

   unfair home field advantage: a measure of network response-time
   experienced by the away team that is pretty much a lot more then
   that experienced by the home team.

   Yeah, my legalese needs work, but you see the problem.  Nobody knows
   whether bad lag is really bad lag or just kinda bad lag or excuse-for-
   bad-playing lag or i'm-at-cmu-and-i've-never-had-lag-like-this-on-bronco
   lag.

   There's no question calvin's response time is very poor, but there are
   other points to consider before accusing LAR of unfairness:

   1) Last INL season, all home games were played on calvin without
      apparent network problems.  (Perhaps I should put it another
      way: SC _lost_ most home games last INL season.)  The seeming
      conclusion?  Lag - no big deal.

   2) Calvin regulars are quite inured to network complaints ("callused" is
      a better word) both from hearing them all the time, and, as Ron has
      already mentioned, having to put up with it everytime they
      play outside USC.

   3) What other servers?  Maybe I could have set up something at UCI on
      short notice, but I can't make the decision to relocate for my USC
      teammates who might then have to put up with response times far beyond
      what could be called a home field advantange.

   4) Since when is a team morally required to  forfeit a home advantage?
      Last season, games were described where the away team had to tradeoff
      updates between players.   Games were described where practically the
      whole team spent most of the game ghostbusted.  At no time was it ever
      suggested that the home team was _at fault_ for not giving up their
      home server!  (And yet, right after the GB-LAR game, Rob Hill
      (apparently speaking as an unbiased observer) blamed LAR for just that.)

   In the last game, the larger USC part of LAR went to a great deal of
   trouble to play at a server with more reasonable delay for GB.  Accounts
   were set up at UCLA, arrangments made for transportation, etc..  The
   attitude of GB as expressed above?  "Gosh, guys, thanks.  You didn't have
   to go to all that trouble just on our account."  *NOT*.  How about:
   "Well _that's_ what you shoulda done in the first game, cheaters."


   There are two ways we can handle network problems in INL games: just play
   the game (and then, justification notwithstanding, complain/gripe/moan
   about it on r.g.n for the next few months), or get an official ruling from
   the INL council.  Both Rob and Tom seem to have reached an informal
   conclusion of some sort -- at least with respect to calvin and LAR -- but
   I think we'd like to see a more generally worded rule if possible.

++
   Tedd Hadley (hadley@uci.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.netrek