Maps
BIT Tournament Rules & Discussion POLL: PM Scheduling Info?
- Thread starter Catholic
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
- Status
A - Maps
Gelden said:
I originally posted this in the CJTT thread. I was talking about switching sides after 4 rounds, but most of these issues would be addressed if a map side was played to 5 rounds before the swap:
[quote author=WilySly]
IMO, the switching:
1) Makes it very difficult, as a caller, to identify whether your strategy was successful or not. If you try something new, and you lose the round, you're not sure if it was because the strategy was not effective, or you just executed it poorly. If you do it a second time to make sure the strategy is viable, and lose, you've now lost any chances of winning that map roll. Punishes innovation.
2) In a related point, the switching seems to encourage a very risk-averse, defensive-oriented mindset. I imagine that it's due to, as referenced above, the short window of opportunity that each team has to try to win. Why take risks if you've only got 2 rounds to establish momentum? Most clan matches that I've watched and been apart of (lately) have devolved into two groups of archers (with cav or inf support) shooting at each other for an entire round or until one team establishes a clear advantage. Waiting for MotF has become a depressingly prevalent strategy.
Note: I'm not arguing against switching or implying that switching is the only cause of the problems I've identified above. Switching definitely seems like the most fair ruleset, just not the most fun. We can argue that "it's important to the competitive balance to ensure an even playing field between each team," etc., but I don't think anyone enjoys sitting around watching that 5 minute timer tick down and hoping for a lucky MotF spawn.
[/quote]
Also:
Vote B: 5 rounds total (proposed change)
Vote A: Maps (incumbent)
Feel free to post your votes on this question:
Also, please, welcome the most recent addition to the BIT administration team: KoA_Fehnor. Thanks for joining us, Fehnor!
Following a suggestion by WilySly, wK and Wappaw have playtested Verloren by AZAN yesterday (thanks, guys!). I think the popular opinion was that this is an interesting map and I will talk to AZAN about fixing some issues and having it adopted as an official map by our tournament. Feel free to post your comments on the map in the respective thread. I will do so later tonight. There are two mixed maps that we are planning to make available for playtesting this weekend, as well as two more open maps from PiMP. Stay tuned!
My vote is Vote B: Top 8. (proposed change)Eternal said:
Also, please, welcome the most recent addition to the BIT administration team: KoA_Fehnor. Thanks for joining us, Fehnor!
Following a suggestion by WilySly, wK and Wappaw have playtested Verloren by AZAN yesterday (thanks, guys!). I think the popular opinion was that this is an interesting map and I will talk to AZAN about fixing some issues and having it adopted as an official map by our tournament. Feel free to post your comments on the map in the respective thread. I will do so later tonight. There are two mixed maps that we are planning to make available for playtesting this weekend, as well as two more open maps from PiMP. Stay tuned!
findecanno
Grandmaster Knight
Thrusday: B
Also, can we get a poll about allowing random plains back in?
These new plains maps are great and all(At least the one I helped test last night was), but it lacks the element that made random plains really interesting. There never is one "best" spot for certain classes on random plains, it changes everytime, making map specific strategies worthless. Its more about looking at the map and figuring out a plan on the fly.
Also, can we get a poll about allowing random plains back in?
These new plains maps are great and all(At least the one I helped test last night was), but it lacks the element that made random plains really interesting. There never is one "best" spot for certain classes on random plains, it changes everytime, making map specific strategies worthless. Its more about looking at the map and figuring out a plan on the fly.
Not to be a downer - cause I really appreciate the efforts you guys are putting into this tournament, but the first map we played last night was either fighting for the sand dunes (which, don't get me wrong was actually interesting, but got old after the 4-5th round) or camping the back of the map until MoTF. The entire one side of the map (the flat part opposite the dunes) was useless. My advice would be to add some balance and symmetricity into this map. In addition, I don't believe that map is viable as a replacement for Random Plains, not only for the reasons stated above but also because Random Plains should be just that - random. RE: Beer's post above.
On the other hand, whatever that second map was.. that was cool other than the seemingly lob-sided win percentage of the bottom spawn, but I attribute part of that to Xbows.
On the other hand, whatever that second map was.. that was cool other than the seemingly lob-sided win percentage of the bottom spawn, but I attribute part of that to Xbows.
The first map was Bay Farm, and it has already been updated to address the concern you've brought up. I think the dunes are not so OP anymore.Gelden said:
The second map was Verloren by AZAN. I would attribute it to hammers being OP in close quarters. But, I don't think we have explored all the tactical options on that map.Gelden said:
Gelden said:
Post that sort of thing on Kiss's thread somewhere down there. This thread's for the rules.
However!
In regards to questions about "What will happen to Random Plains?"
There were talks of having both the custom plains maps and the random plains maps. That's not happening. That, to me, defeats the purpose and will more than likely lead to under-playing of the custom plains maps. Likewise, there were talks of having plains with no rerolls. That's also not happening.
However, I am being very critical about the Custom Plains maps. Kiss is a friend and I'm not cutting him slack on them. If I feel the custom plains maps are not a satisfactory replacement for Random Plains, or do not have a sufficient strategic component (e.g. the strategy is to all-cav charge) then they will not be allowed to replace Random Plains and I will bring Plains back with the no-rerolls-unless-everest rule. I'm not going to allow uncompetitive not-fun maps to replace uncompetitive fun maps. I hold the NA community highly (I'm running a tournament for crying out loud) and will not remove Random Plains unless I'm absolutely certain there is a good custom map substitute.
edit: With that said, if I deny the Custom Plains maps this go around, then during Season 2 (or I'll try to convince whoever runs the next one) if more, better custom plains maps are brought up I'll accept them. I'm not closing the coffin on this idea.
I have a negative attitude towards this tournament because it's not CJ TT season 2. I feel bad saying that, but I also feel it needs to be said -- The last tournament was a success. Now you are changing things for no reason.
Eternal said:
I don't buy the argument that All cav > all other loadouts on Random Plains. I agree it's an effective strategy to use, especially if your team is loaded with stud cav players, but it's not the be all end all. The only proof I can think of on tape that you can go watch is the CJT finals random plains map. An all cav loadout was rarely used by either team, and it was negated if it was used. There's plenty more examples of other viable strats on Random Plains, so the argument that it's causing narrow strategic circumstances is a total myth that some people seem to believe.
I seriously think that a lot of the people against Random Plains either don't play it, it doesn't side with their playing style, or they just think it's boring to see to all the re-rolls. Whatever the reasons, that's all fair, but there's a huge core of players in NA that actually like Random Plains, particularly the "Random" part - which I think is an important reason for its popularity and it has been voiced multiple times to keep it that way.
The Pizza said:
Things are being changed for the sake of innovation - I get that - however, I think innovation for the sake of innovation is the wrong direction.
Yes, and so was K-TiT, K-BOOB and NASTe Season 1 and yet that's no excuse to keep a decadent system with no innovation going.The Pizza said:
That argument has never been said. I have said that if there is a custom map with that one strategy, then it will not be used.Gelden said:
I think Random Plains could be better, to be honest. I don't want to remove it or break it.
That is why if Custom Plains are genuinely better and I am more happy playing them than Random Plains, they will be in. If not, no.
And yes, changing things for the "sake of innovation" is a good thing. You need variety or the NA community will **** itself out of boredom out of having the same-old same-old rules and maps. And it's not as if it is only for the sake of innovation - again, I feel Random Plains could be genuinely improved and 1500 gold is inferior to 1000 gold. It's definitely worth trying out.
Z3ro said:
What? If they want to make a tournament with a rule-set excluding plains, they can do it, just like they can enforce any other rule that 'forces' people to use other settings. Like 1kg, 5min round time, or anything esle that is within the rules. See Zerp, you have to create an arguement as to why Random Plains is a positive and competitive map that should be used for competitive play.
Just because you like it, doesn't exactly mean it should be used for a fair and competitive tournament. If there are issues they interfere with that, then I have no problem with the custom maps being used as a replacement. Same with many other rules, though I feel one major chunk of the ruleset still prohibits that from happening. A team being able to choose their own map and faction for example.
Ninja'd 
And in other news . . .
For the Thursday poll-
Thursday 12/5/12: Should all of the teams be allowed in the finals (see CJTT) or just the top 8?
Vote A: All. (incumbent) Rebels
Vote B: Top 8. (proposed change)
For the Friday Poll-
Friday 12/6/12: Should all scheduling information be forced to be PM'd to me?
Vote A: No. (incumbent)
Vote B: Yes. (proposed change)
At least a tentative schedule.
For the Thursday poll-
Thursday 12/5/12: Should all of the teams be allowed in the finals (see CJTT) or just the top 8?
Vote A: All. (incumbent) Rebels
Vote B: Top 8. (proposed change)
For the Friday Poll-
Friday 12/6/12: Should all scheduling information be forced to be PM'd to me?
Vote A: No. (incumbent)
Vote B: Yes. (proposed change)
At least a tentative schedule.
Eternal said:
Not sure how the ruleset from CJTT was declining, decaying, or self-indulgent?
POM_Zero
Master Knight
RoBo_CoP said:
I have me. Catholic and me have talked in ventrilo about this already. I love the all the changes that his doing, but I greatly disagree with ban on random plains. Put it in and let it be "random". No rerolls nothing. I bet you 99% of the people that normally choose random plains wont if it was "random". They would opt for Open Plains one of the custom maps. I told Kiss yesterday, just because random plains is a option doesn't mean I wont choose the custom maps. It would all come down to what faction I can pick and what I want to gamble with. I like the changes, I am all for them, but the Ban on random plains is a unnecessary one and a terrible one.
- Status
