Quote by A F 1 G 3:
well its been addressed already on what i was referring to but we havent figured this problem out...some1 suggested if u play well u can earn the host...but that doesnt make sense cause that wuld totally unbalance it..a mediocre/average player with host can make him a above par excellent player..but a excellent player with host makes him literally god-like...soo if we get the 7th person to kill him self and just observe that wuld be the best idea YET...anyone else wanna input?
I was the person who suggested the idea of awarding Host to the team whose player accumulated the most points in their previous match.
I don't think giving host to the team with the best player from the previous round 'unbalances' the game. I think it provides additional incentives for a team to help each other out and for the best player in each team to play their best, to try and earn host for the next match.
A mediocre/average player even hosting the match wouldn't be able to best a good/great player who is not hosting. There may be occasional lag hiccups, but a better player is a better player regardless of who's hosting.
My friends and I have proven this time and time again, joining other people's games and schooling them; to the point where they kick us because we are beating them too handedly. Gears is not Halo 2, where the host has a HUGE advantage, in Gears the host advantage is definitely there, but it is not so bad that it makes the host invincible.
As for the 7th man idea, plainly put, I don't like it, simply because:
1. Every player's connection would have to communicate with the host then with their opponent, then with the host, then back to them, then back to the host, and back to your opponent again, it adds a completely unnecessary middle man to the latency issue.
2. Secondly the host would have to have a good enough connection to host the game, what if he doesn't? What if you have a bad connection to the host for one reason or another, then what? Do you forfeit? I'd much rather take my chances communicating directly with the other team's hosting player; it's one less communication layer to worry about.
3. As Z pointed out having a 'ref' in eight different matches in the first round is not feasible. It would take too long, waiting for each match to finish so the ref can host the next match, and the next, and so on.
Neither solution is fool-proof, but I'd rather play a game where the host and I have direct communication as opposed to having to stream everything through a middle man. Unless the host has a really, really good connection, where none or hardly any of the players even notice any latency.
Good luck to all in the Tournament.