[NC2012] - Questions and Answers

Users who are viewing this thread

Canada is having some problem's choosing a few last member's. Because we have 1-2 spot's left open, and 3 west coaster's.

Now. West coast player's won't help by any mean's, in scrims against Europe. So, I was thinking...could matches with NA NC team's, be played half in a European server, then half in a NA server?

This would actually let west coaster's play, other then against the U.S.A...
 
Mok said:
Canada is having some problem's choosing a few last member's. Because we have 1-2 spot's left open, and 3 west coaster's.

Now. West coast player's won't help by any mean's, in scrims against Europe. So, I was thinking...could matches with NA NC team's, be played half in a European server, then half in a NA server?

This would actually let west coaster's play, other then against the U.S.A...
I thought it was already planned to be held on two servers when teams from NA face those from other continents(like stated in rules,except for matches involving NA teams against Russia and Turkey(Kazakhstan,Australia too probably)where the matches will be held on one server probably located in UK).So to sum it up,we can play 8 rounds(2x4 rounds of each map)on Eu server then change to NA for the rest.That way both teams will have equal chance(in theory) to play with good ping at least half of the match.Well,I think that was what you wanted to say Mok,and it seems fair to me :wink:
 
Alex_C said:
captain lust said:
I know this is a bit out there but have you thought about abandoning round difference?

With America participating, it becomes a little obsolete and imbalanced as a method of sorting teams. Last year, Benelux got somewhat unfairly knocked out in the second group stage because they had lost by more rounds to Poland, which is inevitable since America get to play 10 rounds against them with a significant ping advantage.

It works both ways though, and means America aren't able to gain a really decent round difference, since they have to play 10 rounds of every match at a disadvantage.

Overall, I just think it would be fairer if round difference wasn't relied on to sort teams.

What other method of ranking teams would you suggest?

I guess you could have decider-matches, but that would probably be fairly inconvenient.
They would be fairly inconvenient I agree. But to be honest I still think that's better than using rounds, which are completely redundant (I guess it just depends on whether or not you agree that rounds are completely redundant).
 
Alex_C said:
Ikaguia said:
and what about matches involving south america?

No convenient way of managing this unfortunately. Would be great for this to be a Warband World Cup, but in the end it's pretty much limited to Europe and North America.
can't the matches between SA and EU be in a NA server and matches between SA and NA in EU server?
this way the pings would be evenly matched.

BTW, I have already applied as captain for the brazilian team, and there is already a full team avaiable, so we are gonna play in the cup, regardless of the ping.
 
Ikaguia said:
Alex_C said:
Ikaguia said:
and what about matches involving south america?

No convenient way of managing this unfortunately. Would be great for this to be a Warband World Cup, but in the end it's pretty much limited to Europe and North America.
can't the matches between SA and EU be in a NA server and matches between SA and NA in EU server?
this way the pings would be evenly matched.

BTW, I have already applied as captain for the brazilian team, and there is already a full team avaiable, so we are gonna play in the cup, regardless of the ping.

SA and NA matches would not have even ping on a EU server. Both teams would have ****ty ping, but I'm pretty sure NA would ping significantly less on servers in UK, France, Germany, etc.
 
Shemaforash said:
That's kind of his point, if both teams have ****ty ping what difference would it make?

Well, NA's would be playable, averaging at, hopefully, 110ish, 120, (i really have no idea, but thats what I'm thinking), whereas SA's would probably be around 200 considering what they get on NA servers.
 
We should aim for optimum conditions for one side each round.

So if you have a 2 rounded map, one is a 'home' advantage for one and an 'away' disadvantage for the other.
Let the NA team pick their server for their map, and let the EU's pick theirs.

I'd like to give the team captains the benefit of the doubt, but we did that last year and there were people trying to exploit every last bit of the system.
 
For the reasons lust outlined, play-offs at the end of the group-stage will be used as tie-breakers, not round difference. This also allows teams such as Brazil to participate without any possible negative effects on other teams due to their pings. Permitted servers will still only be in either North America or Europe however, although both teams should try their hardest to minimise the impact of ping.



Mok said:
Canada is having some problem's choosing a few last member's. Because we have 1-2 spot's left open, and 3 west coaster's.

Now. West coast player's won't help by any mean's, in scrims against Europe. So, I was thinking...could matches with NA NC team's, be played half in a European server, then half in a NA server?

This would actually let west coaster's play, other then against the U.S.A...

Rules said:
  • Teams may agree to play the full match on one server, or they may with to change servers at some point. If a server cannot be agreed upon, for a match, approach one of the event admins, for a resolution. Always decide on servers and test them, well in advance of the match. This will avoid complaints and problems, when it comes to playing.
  • Servers outside of the EU may be permitted, for matches involving North America. For these teams, an event admin will be on hand to decide which servers are used, on a case by case basis. A potential match between a North American team and a Turkish or Russian team will likely have to take place on a server in France or at best the United Kingdom. It's doubly important in this case that teams make sure they have checked out the server they plan to use beforehand.



Outlawed said:
We should aim for optimum conditions for one side each round.

So if you have a 2 rounded map, one is a 'home' advantage for one and an 'away' disadvantage for the other.
Let the NA team pick their server for their map, and let the EU's pick theirs.

I'd like to give the team captains the benefit of the doubt, but we did that last year and there were people trying to exploit every last bit of the system.

The second spawn (I think this is the 'defender' spawn) generally has the advantage in terms of map balance (inside spawn on Village, inside spawn on Port Assault, ruins spawn on Ruins). As such, the ideal system would seem to be for the away team to be playing rounds on the second spawn, and the home team on the first spawn. Having one map high-ping, one map low-ping is silly.
 
I would like to express some concern regarding the acceptance from both the Australian and Brazilian teams.
Don't take this personally, I would love to play against this Nations but I don't understand how they will manage to play with such high pings. One thing is the so called "barrier of playable pings" (just made that up lol), between 100 to 130, which is hard to play and adapt. I fell already sorry just by imagining Aussies and Brazilians playing with more then 150, being this value way to low from whats expected in reality, since they will get around +200.
Having this in mind I don't see the fun of it, even if we do 1 map in EU and other map in AU or SA the result would be 10-10, since this is not allowed the only scenario I can imagine is those teams getting massacred with 20-0 losses over and over again and that would be a waste of time both for Australia, Brazil and the teams they will have to face.

Again, I made this statements with no disregard for this specific Nations, I just would like to see them play in the NC with minimum conditions to prove themselves and also have fun with it.
 
well, personally, I get 160-170 ping on a server hosted in NA and 190-210 ping in european servers, I manage to kill people often in native and I don't think it would be that disbalanced a 140 vs 210 ping match, it would get an 14-6 score I'd say or even 12-8

edit:
  • IG_battlegrounds(couldn't find IG_NC2012on the list) = 232
  • ENL_France_1 = 231
  • ENL_France_2 = 247
  • ENL_Germany_1 = 278
  • ENL_Germany_2 = 279
  • ENL_Germany_3 = 280
  • Team_USA couldn't find it
my ping is not good, but I can still fight, and on the NA servers, the ping is quite good
  • ENL_Hungary_1(not official but still...) = 237
  • US_GK_Siege_New = 139
  • JestServers_Florida = 140
  • Beast_Coast_Duel = 141
  • NA_cRPG1 = 161
  • EU_cRPG1 = 206

And I'm not the one with lowest ping on the team
 
And you expect to fight against very experienced players, the best in EU and NA with that ping?
Honestly, we will have 40/50 and you 200 to 300...Lets be realistic, you might go some pub servers and kill some guys but that wont happen at this skills level.
Sorry to disappoint you m8, if you wanna go trough with its ok, its up to you but it will be a waste of time for everyone.

One good thing tough, Beast_Coast_Duel = 141, Brasil can play their some match's in Beast Coast since EU's (Western Europe and Southern Europe teams) will have the same amount of ping,  the Northern Europe teams, eg. UK will probably have less. Seems a good solution.
 
Do i have to live in the country to play for them?  What if i am half and half? May i choose?
 
Indeed Alex, I was talking about ideal conditions in terms of ping, not map position. Should have probably specified that.
Cheers.
 
GlorvalhirSRB said:
Q: Will someone record this tournament and put it on youtube or somewhere else ?
That would be nice..
http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,213375.0.html
 
Back
Top Bottom