With the conclusion of another ENL cycle, I'm again wondering (like many of you) what can be improved. I've always wanted to see the community progress rather than stagnate and even though the ENL is a longstanding competition, I think it has driven progress throughout. Attitude has changed a lot since the ENL began and I'm proud of all its successes. But where do we go from here? I mean the situation isn't perfect. We're not massive scene with hundreds of competitive teams and thousands of dollars of prize money. That's certainly the situation I'd like us to be in... though I don't know if that's an opinion shared by everyone.
I have a number of views on the best way to progress from here and would like to hear everyone's thoughts on those. As long as they are well reasoned and constructive of course.
Match Format
The more I play and watch and think about the current match format, the clearer its imperfections become in my eyes.
The first problem of it is its suceptibility to map imbalance. As it stands, one map can render the other redundant if a team dominates on it. Likewise, a map can render itself almost redundant if it's particularly imbalanced. We've seen this before when a match has one map as Port Assault (for example) and the other as Field by the River (for example). Given the nature of Port Assault, it's very tricky to dominate on the map. Not impossible (nothing seems to be, in this game) but on average, scores on the map tend to be fairly close. However, Field by the River could allow a team a much better chance of getting a high score due to it's relatively balanced nature. Unless there is serious faction imbalance, then a team that wins on one side of the map could be expected to win on the other side.
This problem has been largely ignored arguably it isn't really a problem. It doesn't cause any inherent advantage to one team or another. It happens that one team might benefit on a case by case basis.
The second problem is watchability. As more matches are getting streamed and the interest is somewhat growing, it's frustrating to see how matches can seem to be over by the time the second map starts. One team might be left with a mountain to climb and with a near impossible task to pull back rounds due to a specific map and faction set up (this links back to the first problem). The level of uncertainty that makes anything interesting or entertaining to watch has been vanquished.
The third problem is the expectation of teams to play redundant rounds. In the ENL, these rounds aren't always redundant since round difference counts etc. but rounds are already an imperfect decider for separating teams and motivation to play after having lost in other competitions is rightfully lacking. There have also been suggestions that not playing such rounds is dishonourable. Something which I think is a shame because that really shouldn't be an issue and a respectful team that respectfully doesn't want to waste their time doesn't deserve criticism of that sort in my opinion. That's something that should be saved for rude and childish individuals of which, in this community, there are (thankfully) relatively few. In my opinion anyway. But sorry for waffling.
I think I had another problem to talk about but I'll edit it in, if I can remember it.
What I can remember is my proposal for a revised match format.
Like now, maps and factions would be predermined (the method is irrelevant but in any competitions I might run, they would probably be random). However, instead of two setups, you would have three. Closed, Mixed and Open.
As an example, these might be:
Closed: Sandiboush - Nords vs Sarranids
Mixed: Ruins - Rhodoks vs Sarranids
Open: Field by the River - Nords vs Swadia
From this point onwards, it's effectively the same system used in the NASTe competition. If you aren't familiar with that, I'll explain it below.
Team 1 would pick the first map to play. Say it was Ruins - Rhodoks vs Sarranids. This would be played in the same way as a map in the current format. Switching sides etc. (though it might need to be shorter) and you'd play until a team got over half the total rounds for that map. Say it was 6, you'd play until a team reached 4 or it got to 3-3, in which case the map would be a draw. Let's say that is the case and the first map is drawn. Then Team 2 picks the next map from the remaining two. Let's say it's Sandiboush - Nords vs Sarranids. Team 2 gets to 4 while the opponent is on 1, it ends at 4-1. Team 2 would then win and a third map would not need to played. The same would apply if a team had won both of the first two maps.
If however teams were a map each (or 0 maps each, 2 draws) then a third map would be played. This will always be the remaining map from the three that are given at the start and it would be played in exactly the same way (3 rounds a side, as proposed).
If there was a draw after that, you could simply continue swapping sides every round on the third map until one team went two ahead. This would be fair since it was the map neither team picked.
This system solves all of the above problems and means that there is no point where a team cannot win the match, before the match is finished. I propose that we switch entirely to a system of wins and losses, regardless of what happens to tournament formats. I have been thinking this would be a good idea for a long time (long before IG won the title) and that result had no bearing on my thoughts, nor do I intend for it to take away from their victory in any way.
Tournament Format
The ENL has been a great success, in my eyes (as I've already mentioned). However, I think now is the time for focus to shift elsewhere... Depending on interest, I actually think it might be a good idea to keep it going but really, I'd like to start pushing tournaments.
As it stands, though, mobility in the ENL is too low and new, strong teams shouldn't have to wait so long to compete at a top level. Infact, I don't think they should have to wait at all.
This isn't a regressive step, back to what we had with the ENPL or anything like that. I want these tournaments to be professional and fast affairs. 2 weeks and over.
Many of you may wince at the prospect of playing such a fast tournament but I say it's the best way of moving forward and I want to run a test tournament very soon to see how it works. I'm thinking single elimination with a scheduling system somewhat similar to that of Division C's but more rigid.
I'd also like to start thinking about somehow integrating prize money, even small amounts into these competitions. Cheating is an issue and the only real defence we have against that right now is the game itself and how cheating can never really be as devastating as it is in other games. Though it is a real issue and a key limiter to progress in this area. That's something I'm very concious of and I would say it's important any integration of money into these competitions is done properly to avoid it backfiring.
I'll take questions on this because there's not really much else to say. I know people will have concerns but I'd like to address them directly.
Khergits
Bring them on. We're going to try and push out a release for the ENL Admin Mod very soon, based on 1.153 and then I'll set up a platform for them to be tested. Additionally, any testing you want to do would be welcome. I don't want to apply arbitrary restrictions like (horse archers can't take horses) or anything. We've avoided doing that in the past and I think in doing so, we dodged a massive bullet. Messing with the game is a slippery slope and an all round bad idea for the time being. Personally, I'm gutted that jump reloading was "fixed" in the latest patch but that's something I'm just going to have to learn to suck it up and take it (no sniggering, please).
Fight and Destroy
I've talked about testing this for a long time. It's a game mode we never threw much at but I think it could be an incredible amount of fun. Once this release out (sorry about that, I wanted to postpone making this thread a few days but discussions were starting anyway) we'll get some testing done for that. With the right ruleset, I think it can work.
That's all I've got to say for now. Please post with your angry thoughts (and with your less angry ones... I feel like people forget to do that and it's not very helpful for getting an idea of overall reaction to these sorts of proposals).
I have a number of views on the best way to progress from here and would like to hear everyone's thoughts on those. As long as they are well reasoned and constructive of course.
Match Format
The more I play and watch and think about the current match format, the clearer its imperfections become in my eyes.
The first problem of it is its suceptibility to map imbalance. As it stands, one map can render the other redundant if a team dominates on it. Likewise, a map can render itself almost redundant if it's particularly imbalanced. We've seen this before when a match has one map as Port Assault (for example) and the other as Field by the River (for example). Given the nature of Port Assault, it's very tricky to dominate on the map. Not impossible (nothing seems to be, in this game) but on average, scores on the map tend to be fairly close. However, Field by the River could allow a team a much better chance of getting a high score due to it's relatively balanced nature. Unless there is serious faction imbalance, then a team that wins on one side of the map could be expected to win on the other side.
This problem has been largely ignored arguably it isn't really a problem. It doesn't cause any inherent advantage to one team or another. It happens that one team might benefit on a case by case basis.
The second problem is watchability. As more matches are getting streamed and the interest is somewhat growing, it's frustrating to see how matches can seem to be over by the time the second map starts. One team might be left with a mountain to climb and with a near impossible task to pull back rounds due to a specific map and faction set up (this links back to the first problem). The level of uncertainty that makes anything interesting or entertaining to watch has been vanquished.
The third problem is the expectation of teams to play redundant rounds. In the ENL, these rounds aren't always redundant since round difference counts etc. but rounds are already an imperfect decider for separating teams and motivation to play after having lost in other competitions is rightfully lacking. There have also been suggestions that not playing such rounds is dishonourable. Something which I think is a shame because that really shouldn't be an issue and a respectful team that respectfully doesn't want to waste their time doesn't deserve criticism of that sort in my opinion. That's something that should be saved for rude and childish individuals of which, in this community, there are (thankfully) relatively few. In my opinion anyway. But sorry for waffling.
I think I had another problem to talk about but I'll edit it in, if I can remember it.
What I can remember is my proposal for a revised match format.
Like now, maps and factions would be predermined (the method is irrelevant but in any competitions I might run, they would probably be random). However, instead of two setups, you would have three. Closed, Mixed and Open.
As an example, these might be:
Closed: Sandiboush - Nords vs Sarranids
Mixed: Ruins - Rhodoks vs Sarranids
Open: Field by the River - Nords vs Swadia
From this point onwards, it's effectively the same system used in the NASTe competition. If you aren't familiar with that, I'll explain it below.
Team 1 would pick the first map to play. Say it was Ruins - Rhodoks vs Sarranids. This would be played in the same way as a map in the current format. Switching sides etc. (though it might need to be shorter) and you'd play until a team got over half the total rounds for that map. Say it was 6, you'd play until a team reached 4 or it got to 3-3, in which case the map would be a draw. Let's say that is the case and the first map is drawn. Then Team 2 picks the next map from the remaining two. Let's say it's Sandiboush - Nords vs Sarranids. Team 2 gets to 4 while the opponent is on 1, it ends at 4-1. Team 2 would then win and a third map would not need to played. The same would apply if a team had won both of the first two maps.
If however teams were a map each (or 0 maps each, 2 draws) then a third map would be played. This will always be the remaining map from the three that are given at the start and it would be played in exactly the same way (3 rounds a side, as proposed).
If there was a draw after that, you could simply continue swapping sides every round on the third map until one team went two ahead. This would be fair since it was the map neither team picked.
This system solves all of the above problems and means that there is no point where a team cannot win the match, before the match is finished. I propose that we switch entirely to a system of wins and losses, regardless of what happens to tournament formats. I have been thinking this would be a good idea for a long time (long before IG won the title) and that result had no bearing on my thoughts, nor do I intend for it to take away from their victory in any way.
Tournament Format
The ENL has been a great success, in my eyes (as I've already mentioned). However, I think now is the time for focus to shift elsewhere... Depending on interest, I actually think it might be a good idea to keep it going but really, I'd like to start pushing tournaments.
As it stands, though, mobility in the ENL is too low and new, strong teams shouldn't have to wait so long to compete at a top level. Infact, I don't think they should have to wait at all.
This isn't a regressive step, back to what we had with the ENPL or anything like that. I want these tournaments to be professional and fast affairs. 2 weeks and over.
Many of you may wince at the prospect of playing such a fast tournament but I say it's the best way of moving forward and I want to run a test tournament very soon to see how it works. I'm thinking single elimination with a scheduling system somewhat similar to that of Division C's but more rigid.
I'd also like to start thinking about somehow integrating prize money, even small amounts into these competitions. Cheating is an issue and the only real defence we have against that right now is the game itself and how cheating can never really be as devastating as it is in other games. Though it is a real issue and a key limiter to progress in this area. That's something I'm very concious of and I would say it's important any integration of money into these competitions is done properly to avoid it backfiring.
I'll take questions on this because there's not really much else to say. I know people will have concerns but I'd like to address them directly.
Khergits
Bring them on. We're going to try and push out a release for the ENL Admin Mod very soon, based on 1.153 and then I'll set up a platform for them to be tested. Additionally, any testing you want to do would be welcome. I don't want to apply arbitrary restrictions like (horse archers can't take horses) or anything. We've avoided doing that in the past and I think in doing so, we dodged a massive bullet. Messing with the game is a slippery slope and an all round bad idea for the time being. Personally, I'm gutted that jump reloading was "fixed" in the latest patch but that's something I'm just going to have to learn to suck it up and take it (no sniggering, please).
Fight and Destroy
I've talked about testing this for a long time. It's a game mode we never threw much at but I think it could be an incredible amount of fun. Once this release out (sorry about that, I wanted to postpone making this thread a few days but discussions were starting anyway) we'll get some testing done for that. With the right ruleset, I think it can work.
That's all I've got to say for now. Please post with your angry thoughts (and with your less angry ones... I feel like people forget to do that and it's not very helpful for getting an idea of overall reaction to these sorts of proposals).