Proposition Regarding match size and Roster

[Maynd]

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.

[Rallix]

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.

[sammac]

Anyways, this whole thread is redundant, because if both the teams wish, and have the numbers, they can go up to the maximum.

[arsenic_vengeur]

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...).

[Lord_David]

OR we could start with 8 at first phase, and then go up to 10

This is an idea I agree with

[Captain Lust]

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.

[Orion]

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:

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.

[Erminas]

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.

[Rhade]

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.

[Captain Lust]

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.

[Rhade]

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.

Granted, the precedents set by other games shouldn't be a be-all-end-all argument, but it lends weight to the argument I was making. It's not enough, alone, to justify it, you're right, but that still doesn't mean that it isn't a valid point to say that Warband has FPS elements, much like CS/COD S&D.

[John7]

Warband isn't an fps.

It isnt??



My dreams...





Crushed... 

(click to show/hide)

Hahaha just messin 

[arsenic_vengeur]

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:

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.

This rule also existed last year and nobody never applied it afaik so you cant say that it is a reality.

Also as you reckon "the skillset (both team and player) is not massively different between 10vs10 and 8vs8". So changing rules in the middle of competitions wont be a drama. The only problem is that some teams could forget that it goes from 8 to 10, and forget to gather enough players, but they would be really dumb and then fairly victim of the Darwin rule.

[Broomstick]

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:

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.

This rule also existed last year and nobody never applied it afaik so you cant say that it is a reality.

Also as you reckon "the skillset (both team and player) is not massively different between 10vs10 and 8vs8". So changing rules in the middle of competitions wont be a drama. The only problem is that some teams could forget that it goes from 8 to 10, and forget to gather enough players, but they would be really dumb and then fairly victim of the Darwin rule.

Imo just keep it at 8v8 and don't change the rules mid-tournament.

[TurambarMakart]

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.

25 vs 25 is for sure More fun than 8 vs 8 and in my opinion managing a big group is harder than managing a little one. So if we are talking about being more tactical with small numbers for me this argument is not valid cause it's common knowledge that managing a big group is harder than doing the same thing with a little one.

I can understand that there are teams that have problems with having 10 active players so in my opinion that case 8 vs 8 is an acceptable option.

Early clans European battles were made with almost those numbers and it was more exciting than doing it now...