Proposition Regarding match size and Roster

Users who are viewing this thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gulatr

Squire
As I have not found any other thread to discuss the matter, I decided to post it here.

I propose the following:

1) Raise the player minimum in matches to at least 10 vs 10 - this will allow more players to take part, increase importance of teamplay and tactics, but most importantly, it will allow more players to actually play and have fun rather then being on the bench. I do not see any reason for the NC to use such tiny teams, it is breaking the purpose tactical preperation.
I understand that some teams have problems fielding 8 players, there are solutions for such cases -
A - Consider a merger with another team, like many nations with a small player base already have done.
B - If a merger is not possible, then make a rule that these specific teams will only play under the minimum of 8 vs 8.

I totally disagree that NC needs to have such tiny matches, we are talking about National teams, most of which can field 10 players with ease on any given day. Why force a reduction of the scale, when we already have a good system that has proven itself in the past (in ENL and all clan matches). Those teams that have problems with the scale, will be given the right to "force" the opposition to play with the minimum 8 vs 8. That right should not however be standard for everyone, but only for the few teams that actually need that(organisers know who should be given this right).

2) Allow a larger roster of 18 or 20 players, this is to adjust to the 10 vs 10 in terms of player pool.

3) make a poll so that team captains can vote for this proposal.

Personal note: I see no logical reason for connecting the NC with the "planned experimintation" in the ENL, there are problems but there are other ways to solve them. By reducing the scale you harm the enjoyment of the participants, and make players sit on the bench, players that would otherwise be fielded on both sides.
The ENL and NC are two totaly different tournaments and should not be treated the same!

 
Gulatr said:
I totally disagree that NC needs to have such tiny matches, we are talking about National teams, most of which can field 10 players with ease on any given day.

By reducing the scale you harm the enjoyment of the participants, and make players sit on the bench, players that would otherwise be fielded on both sides.

First of all, "most" isn't good enough for an international tournament. The rules need to be flexible enough for all teams to have an equal chance. I know that the North American teams (USA and Canada) cannot field 10 players with ease on any given day, because our matches will all be in the early afternoon to accommodate for time differences. That means weekdays are almost entirely out of the picture. If a match must be played on a weekday, I'd feel much more comfortable trying to get 8 players to show up instead of 10.

As for "harming the enjoyment of the participants," that's just silly. The latest competitive ladder in North America runs 6v6 matches. They're quick, fun, and easier to manage for everyone involved, which means they can be played more frequently and with less preparation. There's no rule that says you need double digit teams to be entertained in Warband. It's not a Mount & Musket line battle. Regarding benched players, it's not a fault of the rules that they're stuck in spec. If you feel they should be playing, substitute them in. There are plenty of opportunities to do so which are all listed in the rules.

Finally, there's absolutely no reason to complicate the rules further with special exceptions for certain teams to play with certain numbers of players. That's ridiculous, and difficult to enforce. There's already a provision in the rules which allows for the number of players to be raised for a match if both teams agree to do so, why isn't that good enough?
 
Since when has 8vs8 been experimentation? NC 2011 used 8vs8 and it was fairly standard in clan matches, for a long time. The only real experimentation the ENL is undergoing is with class limits (at 8vs:cool:, combat gold and round length.

Also, a lot of what you're saying is highly questionable:

"By reducing the scale you harm the enjoyment of the participants" Nope, that's just opinion.

"I do not see any reason for the NC to use such tiny teams, it is breaking the purpose tactical preperation." That depends on what you mean by "tactical preparation"... anyway, that statement isn't really founded on anything.

"I totally disagree that NC needs to have such tiny matches, we are talking about National teams, most of which can field 10 players with ease on any given day." I suspect many of these teams will struggle to field 8, by the last match of the group stage.

"Consider a merger with another team, like many nations with a small player base already have done." So now teams that could field 8 players but not 10 should be merged together? Meaning 10 players are playing instead of 16? Doesn't that contradict this:

"this will allow more players to take part, increase importance of teamplay and tactics, but most importantly, it will allow more players to actually play and have fun rather then being on the bench."

Also, what Marnid said about arbitration and enforcement for the special circumstances 8vs8 idea.

I get that you have an endless supply of players for the Russian team but I think you have to understand that the tournament needs to cater to everyone.
 
I agree that it will be hard for most of the teams to line up 8 players in the matches.Also i don't see any problem with the rules considering number of players.It clearly says that 8 is a minimum,and if both teams have more players in the match that number can increase to the maximum of 16(if both teams agree to that option).So,I don't see a reason for your concern here,because if the other team has more then 8 players(having in mind that your team will probably always have high number of players  :wink:) it's likely that they will try to play them all at once,because they probably same as you want to give all of their players chance to play and have fun too.So it will leave a bit less of your subs on the "bench" providing that you always have a full squad.
So,to sum it up if one team has 8 players(which is their right)they are not trying to "force you to a tiny teams match",instead it is more likely that they can't bring more at the moment.
 
Marnid it might be hard for US clans to gather 10 players, but I doubt it can be hard for a Nations Cup level with the cream of the crop of each US clan. If it is hard for a 300 millions inhabitants country, what about Spain (40 millions) Holland (dunno) or Poland (40 millions)?

I agree with Gultar, but at later stage of competition, once we have half of teams eliminated (almost always the small countries) we can imagine that the qualified teams can field 2  more players without having roster problems, or decreasing their average skill level by much.
 
"By reducing the scale you harm the enjoyment of the participants" Nope, that's just opinion.

Maybe I am used to IG trainings and official matches, when we organising those, we always aimed to have as many people playing on both sides. It is more fun to play in a large scale battle. It is a matter of personal opinion that is true, but I am quite confident that most players agree with that point of view. You want more "Evidence" to prove that - look at any public server, when the number of people drops to less then 10 usually everyone leaves, as it is boring to play with so few people.


"I do not see any reason for the NC to use such tiny teams, it is breaking the purpose tactical preperation." That depends on what you mean by "tactical preparation"... anyway, that statement isn't really founded on anything.

As for tactics, I was doing quite a bit on the tactical part, and know exactly what it means to play with less players -
1) It means you can't cover the map fully.
2) It means that flanking can be done by tiny "Assult teams", with 1 person or maybe 2.
3) It means that Leaders will fear moving forward, as any tiny mistake will cost them 1\8 of their team.
4) The less players there are, the more important is personal skill rather then teamwork and coordination, in large scale combat the  winner is usually the most organised and well lead team, on smaller scale it is the more personaly skilled team. This is a fact.


"I totally disagree that NC needs to have such tiny matches, we are talking about National teams, most of which can field 10 players with ease on any given day." I suspect many of these teams will struggle to field 8, by the last match of the group stage.

So you "assume" that "they will fail" to field enough players by the end of the cycle, makes no sense Lust. If they have 16 on the roster why should they fail?! If their team is so unstable, why allow them to participate in the first place?!


"Consider a merger with another team, like many nations with a small player base already have done." So now teams that could field 8 players but not 10 should be merged together? Meaning 10 players are playing instead of 16? Doesn't that contradict this:

"this will allow more players to take part, increase importance of teamplay and tactics, but most importantly, it will allow more players to actually play and have fun rather then being on the bench."

You are the one that is contredicting himself, just above you mention that "I suspect many of these teams will struggle to field 8, by the last match of the group stage."
If the situation is so bad then they must merge, or be under special rules like a "minimum 8 vs 8" that applies only to that team. It is not hard to enforce and implement. Certain teams will have this right from the start, others will have the minimum set on 10 vs 10, make a list that will be public and you got your rule ready and enforced.

The ammount of players from the Russian community has nothing to do with my proposal, changing the scale from 8 vs 8 to 10 vs 10 will only improve the tournament and the experience of the players taking part.
Making an exception to this rule, for teams that are really in need of it, is easy to do.


Orion: I have no idea how Warband is usually played in NA, but I know how it is played in EU. Mostly 10 vs 10 or more, both sides covering most or all of the map. tactics and teamplay are crucial, and usually the most organised team wins the round. You can have great fun playing with friends 3 vs 3 or 2 vs 2, it is fun, but not tactical oin any way.
There was a 5 a side tournament just a month ago, in which I was taking part, I can tell you that there were almost no tactics in any of the matches, as you simply don't have flanks, the scale is just tiny. The final was played by two teams that had the most "skilled" 5's squads.
Don't get me wrong, it was great fun taking part in it, and my team won quite a few matches before we dropped.

But why should a tournament called "Nations Cup 2012" be played on a smaller scale, when there is an option to make matches larger and more epic?!
With respect to the smaller national teams, there is a solution for that as well, it just takes a tiny bit more effort from the organisers.

FFS try to remember the great matches were in the past(when I first started playing), 20 vs 20 sometimes larger, that is tactical and very fun to play, in those matches, the "Best Team" won!
I am aware that the community is smaller then it used to be, but we can still have large scale matches, it all depends on the community leaders.
 
I wouldn't like to have teams of 20 people and 10v10 matches.
I mostly have 2 matches/ 1 training and a match on sunday, (ENL and Nations Cup) and I'd prefer to keep both matches as short as possible. Playing 4 hours straight just isn't viable for me.
 
I was dissapointed to see "8v8" from the offset and would like to see larger games(10v10 with exceptions for teams that can't fill the roster seams plausible to me).

I hope some teams will choose 10v10s.
 
The only concern for me is that teams that could field more than 8 won't do so because they believe those who would fill the rest of the places aren't good enough. Apart from that it's pretty necessary. Looking at NA thread's fuss, they could field more than 8 probably.
 
Killfacer said:
The only concern for me is that teams that could field more than 8 won't do so because they believe those who would fill the rest of the places aren't good enough.
This, drawing the line would be the problem...
 
I disagree entirely with increasing the match size. There is no viable, logical reason to do so other than the delusional argument of "tactics." I contend smaller matches leave less room for error because every mistake is more costly. I'd understand if the ruleset as it stood was 4v4 or something small, but the reality of the situation is that in Warband terms, 8v8 is a totally acceptable size. I honestly prefer 6v6, but I'm not going to sit here and argue for it because I know that that would be selfish of me -- in the best interests of the tournament, a middle ground is best; that middle ground is 8v8.
 
8v8 opens things up enough for a large variation in tactics yet is small enough to make a TK or lack of awareness in a situation costly...I believe it is a good and balanced format.

My opinion
 
Everyone, I think I have the perfect solution to this situation.

What we'll do is make it so that a country with less skilled players will be able to field more of them in every battle. This will mean that in every battle against a better country, one side will feel like they are the Spartans and the leader is actually Leonidas. This will increase how epic battles are because everyone will either be a Spartan or an Immortal, and we all know how British bad ass their teeth are by being filed to points. Also, this will be very balanced because we know that some countries don't have a lot of good players. Instead, these countries can just get a lot of bad players together and have an equal shot at winning.

I don't see why anyone would disagree with making the Nation's Cup more epic by refusing to let people be Spartans. Furthermore, the Spartans will have to use lots of tactics to win because you can't just send people to every corner of the map. Instead, you'll really have to work together as a tightly knit group of elite black ops commandos in order to win each round. Also, the Immortals will have to coordinate together in order to beat the super elite Spartans which further increases the amount of tactics involved. What I am saying is that by going to this format we will have a super epic tournament where lots and lots of elite special forces tactics are needed to win. This is on the heart of LES LordHasek and I really feel if you all look deep into your souls you know that I am right.
 
Was that supposed to be funny? I'm genuinely interested.

(edit) I kinda feel that maybe instead of writing something incomprehensible and presumably sarcastic, you should write your opinion.
 
Killfacer said:
Was that supposed to be funny? I'm genuinely interested.

(edit) I kinda feel that maybe instead of writing something incomprehensible and presumably sarcastic, you should write your opinion.

Gulatr is wrong. His arguments are so shaky that they can easily be parodied to a ridiculous degree. Adding more people just to make something more "epic" is ridiculous. Show me tactics that work at 10 vs. 10 which are impossible at 8 vs. 8. Gulatr is asserting 10vs10 has some inherent superiority to 8vs8 without presenting any examples or evidence as to why this is the case. As such, I posted an equally ludicrous response lacking the same critical thinking as Gulatr's original post.
 
It's entirely comprehensible, and it's mostly a joke on one of the higher-end American duelists (conveniently, his name is Leonidas). Quite the character. :lol:

Anyway, back to the topic. Tactics are entirely viable on a 6v6 scale. It's also more important to build your team in such a way that everyone can be flexible and fill at least two roles. I've personally played all three classes in scrims with my clan, and the team my clan usually brings to scrims consists of players that can play two roles. It's essential to have flexible players for the sake of tactics on that scale, because you cannot field a team of one-dimensional specialists. A change in your opponent's composition could render some of your players worthless in that situation. You need to know how to adapt your team's balance to defeat your opponent's.

Long story short, tactics are present at smaller scales, they just differ from tactics at larger scales (naturally).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom