Proposition Regarding match size and Roster

Users who are viewing this thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
arsenic_vengeur said:
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.
This made me laugh alittle, so what your trying to say is that we have 300 million  inhabitants and that has to due with the amount of players we can field ? You got to be ****ting me man, look at the player base in warband not actual country inhabitants. It will be hard for USA to field players due to us having to probably play matchs at 19 gmt or something like that. 19 gmt = 14 est = 13 cst = 11 pst. Thats very early if you ask me to be able to field a lot of players. But continue this is amusing to read.
 
Z3ro said:
arsenic_vengeur said:
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.
This made me laugh alittle, so what your trying to say is that we have 300 million  inhabitants and that has to due with the amount of players we can field ? You got to be ****ting me man, look at the player base in warband not actual country inhabitants. It will be hard for USA to field players due to us having to probably play matchs at 19 gmt or something like that. 19 gmt = 14 est = 13 cst = 11 pst. Thats very early if you ask me to be able to field a lot of players. But continue this is amusing to read.
Depends on the day when you play it, if we play let's say at 20 gmt on sunday it shouldn't be that bad.
 
I kind of agree with the yanks. I don't think it's fair to raise it to 10v10. I know it's difficult for Russia with the amount of players they have but without the minimum it's damn hard for some countries. As long as teams are encouraged to play as many players as they can up to 16, then it will have to do. Perhaps raising the maximum to 18 could be done without risking anyone though.
 
I played quite a bit of Warband, and I do know what I am talking about, if you do not agree with my proposition that is fine, but do share your own arguments to support as I did. My proposition has supporters as well as people that disagree, I have no problem with people disagreeing with my point of view, but please keep it civil.

This matter should be raised for a vote by the captains of NC, Alex to your consideration.
 
Cybran said:
Z3ro said:
arsenic_vengeur said:
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.
This made me laugh alittle, so what your trying to say is that we have 300 million  inhabitants and that has to due with the amount of players we can field ? You got to be ****ting me man, look at the player base in warband not actual country inhabitants. It will be hard for USA to field players due to us having to probably play matchs at 19 gmt or something like that. 19 gmt = 14 est = 13 cst = 11 pst. Thats very early if you ask me to be able to field a lot of players. But continue this is amusing to read.
Depends on the day when you play it, if we play let's say at 20 gmt on sunday it shouldn't be that bad.
Yeah, weekend afternoons (USA time) seem the best for US team. And Z3ro there is no point in saying that you cant gather 10 players because of time difference between east and west coast. Alright I know there is much less players in US (300 millions inhabitants) than UE (350 million inhabitants) because the game is not famous on your side of the ocean, but I doubt you dont have a basis of 30-40 active players to pick from.
 
arsenic_vengeur said:
Cybran said:
Z3ro said:
arsenic_vengeur said:
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.
This made me laugh alittle, so what your trying to say is that we have 300 million  inhabitants and that has to due with the amount of players we can field ? You got to be ****ting me man, look at the player base in warband not actual country inhabitants. It will be hard for USA to field players due to us having to probably play matchs at 19 gmt or something like that. 19 gmt = 14 est = 13 cst = 11 pst. Thats very early if you ask me to be able to field a lot of players. But continue this is amusing to read.
Depends on the day when you play it, if we play let's say at 20 gmt on sunday it shouldn't be that bad.
Yeah, weekend afternoons (USA time) seem the best for US team. And Z3ro there is no point in saying that you cant gather 10 players because of time difference between east and west coast. Alright I know there is much less players in US (300 millions inhabitants) than UE (350 million inhabitants) because the game is not famous on your side of the ocean, but I doubt you dont have a basis of 30-40 active players to pick from.
We do, but are they Nations Cup level of players ? I would say no but maybe in eu you guys got that. But I can say in NA it will be hard if you ask me. Time difference does play a little effect on how many people show up too.
 
Their point its pretty simple...Its hard for the Americans to fill 10 players in order to play against EU teams because of the time difference + their internal East/West coast time difference also.

We normally play around 18:00/19:00 GMT, its 13:00/14:00 for them. Are we Europeans able to field a team with 10 guys at 13:00/14:00? I cant and I believe most of the other Nations cant as well.
Even if USA moved the match to 18:00/19:00 according their time zone, it would be 23:00/00:00 for EU players. Again, are we Europeans able to field a team with 10 guys at 23:00/00:00? I cant and I believe most of the other Nations cant as well, maybe on the weekend but its hard.

Having this in mind I believe that 8 vs 8 its easier to handle for them and also for other Nations with a small community's, like Portugal. Raising the player number to 10 its creating more difficulties to this small teams and after all bigger Nations wont suffer as much with this change has we do.
 
Sorry but...

If the size was increased to 10v10 and the roster was proportionaly increased, the only difference to the Americans would be... having a larger and worse selection of players(less available @ dodgy hours of the day) not that much of a problem for you. Although I would support 10-a-side, I understand this would be not be possible for smaller countries and their inclusion is more important(imo). :???:
 
sammac said:
Sorry but...

If the size was increased to 10v10 and the roster was proportionaly increased, the only difference to the Americans would be... having a larger and worse selection of players(less available @ dodgy hours of the day) not that much of a problem for you. Although I would support 10-a-side, I understand this would be not be possible for smaller countries and their inclusion is more important(imo). :???:

Again -- There's no valid reason to justify moving it to 10v10, or 12v12, or 50v50. The status quo in NA is 6v6, but we understand we're coming into a European tournament so we must accept the way you guys play -- however, I'm led to believe that the ENL has 8v8 matches? There's literally no reason to further convolude matches with more unnecessary bodies because some people want it to be more "epic." If you want to watch epic fight scenes, go watch 300 or Troy, because I'm not here to watch, I'm here to compete, and adding bodies does nothing to further that end other than add headaches.
 
Rhade said:
sammac said:
Sorry but...

If the size was increased to 10v10 and the roster was proportionaly increased, the only difference to the Americans would be... having a larger and worse selection of players(less available @ dodgy hours of the day) not that much of a problem for you. Although I would support 10-a-side, I understand this would be not be possible for smaller countries and their inclusion is more important(imo). :???:

Again -- There's no valid reason to justify moving it to 10v10, or 12v12, or 50v50. The status quo in NA is 6v6, but we understand we're coming into a European tournament so we must accept the way you guys play -- however, I'm led to believe that the ENL has 8v8 matches? There's literally no reason to further convolude matches with more unnecessary bodies because some people want it to be more "epic." If you want to watch epic fight scenes, go watch 300 or Troy, because I'm not here to watch, I'm here to compete, and adding bodies does nothing to further that end other than add headaches.

Until now the ENL was played with 10vs10, although the next cycle its programmed to 8vs8. Testing tournament just started.
 
I think the team-sizes are fine the way they are.
Many smaller nations will have little trouble fielding 8 players, but increase that to 10, and you're decreasing the chance of a small team to field the minimum numbers by a relatively large fraction. 1/4-1/8 times harder, I should think.
And when you do that, you increase the likelihood of a default victory.

Anyways, this whole thread is redundant, because if both the teams wish, and have the numbers, they can go up to the maximum.
 
Going from 8 to 10 means increasing by 25% the number of people who have fun, that is the main point, and it seems a much valid argument.
All team captains posting here have a little devil in their brain telling them "Bro if you line up 8 instead of 10 you will have better team and pown them niark niark niark". But it is stupid because they will face other teams with similar team captains with similar devils in their brain, so 1-1 bring the ball back to the center of the field.
Only major problem with going 10 players is for countries with small community but elite players who will have 8 good players + 2 noobs, but does this case really exist? And would a Nations Cup won by Luxemburg or Cuba sound like a serious league?

OR we could start with 8 at first phase, and then go up to 10 when the small countries are eliminated (look at NC 2011, all eliminated teams at first stage where small countries, even at 8 vs 8 so...).
 
Personally I disagree with changing numbers mid tournament. Whilst I don't think that the skillset (both team and player) is massively different between 10vs10 and 8vs8, I still think it's bad form to change certain aspects of match format during a competition.

That's actually one of the reasons I'm skeptical about the move for the ENL (since the current placings have been reached based on 10vs10). However actually planning to totally change a format during a competition is just going to damage competitivity for the knockout stage. Inevitably, some teams will adapt better and it's unfair both on the teams who can't adapt and also on the teams which maybe couldn't do as well for the 8vs8 stage but might have been better than others in 10vs10.
 
captain lust said:
Personally I disagree with changing numbers mid tournament. Whilst I don't think that the skillset (both team and player) is massively different between 10vs10 and 8vs8, I still think it's bad form to change certain aspects of match format during a competition.

+1

Pick one and stick with it. There's always the option for both captains to increase the player size, something which the proponents of 10v10 all seem to be conveniently forgetting, so if you're going to use a silly argument like this:

arsenic_vengeur said:
Going from 8 to 10 means increasing by 25% the number of people who have fun, that is the main point, and it seems a much valid argument.

Please, read the rules.
 
As i have already stated in my earlier post i am against the increasing of the minimum number of players needed to play.Anyway there is no point in arguing about this and it seems to me that only smart thing to do is:let the captains vote for or against it.And respect whatever result the voting brings,even if it's not the way you wanted it. :wink:
 
arsenic_vengeur said:
Going from 8 to 10 means increasing by 25% the number of people who have fun, that is the main point, and it seems a much valid argument.
All team captains posting here have a little devil in their brain telling them "Bro if you line up 8 instead of 10 you will have better team and pown them niark niark niark". But it is stupid because they will face other teams with similar team captains with similar devils in their brain, so 1-1 bring the ball back to the center of the field.
Only major problem with going 10 players is for countries with small community but elite players who will have 8 good players + 2 noobs, but does this case really exist? And would a Nations Cup won by Luxemburg or Cuba sound like a serious league?


OR we could start with 8 at first phase, and then go up to 10 when the small countries are eliminated (look at NC 2011, all eliminated teams at first stage where small countries, even at 8 vs 8 so...).

By your logic, we should do 25v25 so everyone can "have fun."

I think that with a tournament this serious and at a competitive level, it's important to remember that there is actually a reason most fps's are played @ 5v5 at the pro level. I'm not even going to sit here and try to advocate that, because that would be selfish and  compromise is key; 8v8 is a good compromise, yet some of you remain selfish. There is a part of the rules that allow you and another team to increase team sizes if you would both like to -- why is this not enough for you?

Also, on the topic of changing tourney rules mid tourny; hell no. Not only is it a bad idea for reasons marnid and Lust already listed, but the justification of "small teams getting eliminated early" makes no sense. Last year, USA placed third, I believe.
 
Rhade said:
I think that with a tournament this serious and at a competitive level, it's important to remember that there is actually a reason most fps's are played @ 5v5 at the pro level.
I still think the Nations Cup should stay 8vs8 but saying "there is actually a reason most fps's are played @ 5v5" doesn't count as a reason in itself.

Warband isn't an fps. There is no benchmark for the genre because the game is unique. In the ENL we're experimenting with 8vs8 and I'm personally undecided on the subject. 8vs8 certainly has its advantages but although it's important to learn things from successful esports, they shouldn't be dictating the standards for Warband where the comparisons aren't applicable. We are the competitive scene for the game and we are the ones setting the standards. Does that mean we should abandon experimentation and proceed with blind arrogance? Of course not but we have to approach the issue with a degree of self confidence because no one else is going to establish these things for us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom