WTFFS - Summary and closing discussions

[Captain Lust]

WTFFS - Summary of points and arguments

These are my summarised counter points against arguments that have been made against the proposed rules:

"You lose a few players and that costs the round - everything is decided in the first 2 kills"
Here's why I think this is a flawed logic: The suggestion here is that you lose a greater proportion of your players for each loss at 8vs8, which in turn means you have less chance to level things and the rest of the round is rendered pointless. However, making a comparison with 10vs10 -

Say you lose 2 at 10vs10 (20%) of your players, putting it at 8vs10.

From then, since it's only 20%, rather than 25% you're able to pull it back to 8vs8... so then why is it so much better that the round should be decided by the next 2 kills?

I agree other factors are at work and that's why I wouldn't follow the logic down to 1vs1 but I just think it's flawed to say that you're somehow screwed losing 2 players at 8vs8 and not at 10vs10. Certainly you're much more screwed in a 5vs10 than you are in a 1vs2 (even though the ratio is the same), so to say that the numbers scale proportionally doesn't really hold up to reason. Unfortunately, there's very little actual data on this but I personally haven't noticed it being a problem. It's not like teams aren't interested in getting the fruitless first 2 kills at 10vs10 but suddenly dedicate all their efforts into sneaking early kills at 8vs8 because it's so decisive.

"Too much focus on individual skill"
Well how much is too much? I'd definitely agree there is more focus on individual skill but individual skill in Battle is more than a case of how good a player is. I think that the majority of teamwork in Warband takes place via mutual understanding and the best players in Battle are the ones that, not only can nail a 1vs3 but also understand where they're needed, how they can help their teammates and how they can make it easy for their teammates to help them. This is something that is only nurtured by familiarity with teammates and takes place in equal measure at 8vs8 and 10vs10. As for tactics (which is a different thing), the point is highly subjective and involves a lot of theory about what tactics entail within the game. I think a lot of the points being made are also largely based on nothing and don't reflect reality. For example, I could say about 8vs8 that "it allows for more on-the-spot tactical improvisation and a more fluid, entertaining approach". I've not really got anything to back that up and whether it is or isn't true, whether it is or isn't a good thing doesn't have any grounding in reality. None of the costs of this supposed effect are explored, for example that it might fail to reward teams who have planned more rigorously, or that it makes rounds feel more random. These, again, are portrayed as negatives but none of it is explained or justified.

The main reason for this is a difference in goals and what people enjoy about or want to see more of in matches. In my example, there are certain things which are being asserted as universally "good" such as fluidity and planning (even though they are somewhat contradictary) and "bad" such as randomness (note that none of any of the rules actually have any random elements).

What I see as the goal of the ruleset, the core of which is 8vs8 and 16 rounds, is to promote a situation for the scene whereby we have more clans that are looking to stay small but active and competitive. It's just something that I think is healthier for the scene and more likely to produce both more teams and stronger teams. It's a trend that's already taking place with the formations of AE, cASS, RNGD etc. and I don't want to offend anyone, nor do I mean to knock any of the achievements of clans that have been successful at 10vs10. I just think the proposed ruleset will encourage what I see as a healthier situation.

What you have is a ruleset that:

• Allows clans to form and manage themselves more easily
• Allows matches to be played more frequently and scheduled more easily, allowing potentially for more competitions to take place simultaneously
• Places slightly more emphasis on player skill (something which I can't see much of a downside to, especially if it encourages players to get on public servers and practice more often) as opposed to some kind of flanking strategies which are apparantly only possible at 10vs10 (sorry but what?)
• Doesn't do much else

The last one is the crucial point. Essentially, it's not going to change the dynamics of the game. Good clans aren't going to start sucking and bad clans won't start dominating just because of the rule changes. These are tweaks and shifts.

So what I propose as the final ruleset is 8vs8, 16 rounds, 5 minutes per round, default gold, no class restrictions. Also with the new substitution rule (2 per 4 round leg).

(click to show/hide)

• Combat Speed: Medium, Friendly Fire: 100% (melee and ranged), Round Duration: 5 minutes, Game type: Battle, Gold: Starting gold set to 100%, Round and Combat gold both set to 100%, Respawn Time : 8 sec , Spectator Settings: Locked to team members view. No bots and no polls.
  
• Matches will be 16 rounds long, played over two maps. Each map will be 8 rounds, with teams swapping sides and factions after 4 rounds.
  
• Rounds resulting in a draw will count as normal, with no points awarded to either team.
• Matches will be 8 a side. If both teams agree, matches may be fought with more players but as far as the league is concerned, no support will be offered for this.
  
• All matches should be played on the official tournament servers named: "ENL_France" (servers 1&2) and "ENL_Germany" (servers 1-4). Book timeslots on these servers, in the Server Booking thread, in this sub-forum. If wish to play your match on any other server, you must request permission from me (captain lust) via PM. The password, for these servers is "enl20" and should always be reset to "enl20" after use, so people can register players and test pings.
  
• The winner will be the team with the most rounds won, at the end of the match.
• Teams may make 2 substitutions during each 4 round leg. When making a switch, the outgoing player should leave the server. At no point should teams spawn more than 8 players.
  
  • If "no spectators" has been agreed by the teams, the joining player should respect that and make sure to join late in the round. If spectators have been agreed and allowed by both teams then neither team should take up more than half of the spectator spots.
• Teams are permitted to make as many changes as they like in between each 4 round leg (i.e. at spawn and map switches).
  
• If the match ends in an overall draw, then it will be considered a tie and both teams will get 1 point.
• Each map must be reset, after 4 rounds, when the teams switch.
  
• Typically, matches will be played without a referee. There are simply too many matches to expect a referee to be present most of the time, so take frequent screenshots and even video recordings, if you can.
• Unless team captains decide otherwise, team 1 will always start at spawn 1 on the first map and and spawn 2 on the second map and vice versa for team 2.
• Special versions of the Warband maps will be made for the tournament. They will fix map bugs and remove ways to glitch, removing the problem of glitches entirely. A log of the changes made to the maps will be kept and the maps will be made publicly available.
• If a team cannot show out with 8 players, for a match, the other team should continue with 8 anyway. If however, a team cannot make 7 players or more, the other team will be offered a default win, provided they have shown up with at least 8 players. If neither team has shown up with 8 players, the match should be rescheduled. Teams should allow 15 minutes, after the scheduled match time, for players to arrive on the server, before any of these rulings are put into practice.
  
• The above notions of shown players are defined by attendance on the agreed server alone. Players must be eligible, ready and willing to start the match.
• It is only by explicit agreement by team reps from both teams or by ruling from an event admin that a match can be rescheduled.
  
  • An event admin may only make such a ruling if there is a reason that the match cannot be legitimately played, through no fault or misdoing of the teams and express consent to reschedule cannot be obtained from both teams. Basically unforseeable, unavoidable circumstances. Situations that do not warrant the usage of this power include (but are not limited to): one team can't get enough players, there is a national holiday in the country where one the teams is based, there is another event taking place at the time.

These are still open for discussion and I'd invite people to perhaps quote or highlight points that they feel I haven't covered, whilst bearing in mind that statements and assertions ought to be justified and have their reasoning explained. Also thinking about the overriding principles and goals of the proposed ruleset.

[Andrej1]

Each map must be reset, after 3 rounds, when the teams switch.

Don't you mean: after 4 rounds? (cauz you said a match is 16 rounds long...)

[Captain Lust]

Each map must be reset, after 3 rounds, when the teams switch.

Don't you mean: after 4 rounds? (cauz you said a match is 16 rounds long...)

Jap, I did mean 4. Also fixed another one I missed.

[nedsat]

I think you've missed various arguments some of which are in this post:

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,215244.msg5173099.html#msg5173099


Having a small clan requires everyone in it to be highly active. I don't think there is that many highly active players in this game or there would be more of those kind of clans already and less of them dying. That's why I find your logic flawed.
Furthermore I don't see how these proposed rules are doing the community any good if they make clans downprioritize or even leave the ENL for other tournaments more fitting their style.
We already have tournaments covering the lower numbers/rounds why make another. And how are these new rules in any way an improvement of the old ones?

Allows clans to form and manage themselves more easily

Hardly think the different between 10 and 8 is going to make it or break it for any stable clan.

Allows matches to be played more frequently and scheduled more easily, allowing potentially for more competitions to take place simultaneously

16 rounds or 20 rounds. We'll still only be able to play 1 match a night. I dont see how this allow matches to be played more frequently. (And why is more matches better if they are of less quality?)

Places slightly more emphasis on player skill (something which I can't see much of a downside to, especially if it encourages players to get on public servers and practice more often) as opposed to some kind of flanking strategies which are apparantly only possible at 10vs10 (sorry but what?)

No. Places more emphasis on dueling skill and less on battle skill and tactics. No matter how you look at it. Less players = less tactical options.
And people are only going to play as much as they have time for and want to. With your own words and arguments you want to exclude the more casual players just because they don't have as much time to train....

Doesn't do much else

This isn't about who's going to dominate. It's about fun (what we are all here for). And these rules makes it less fun.
Changing the dynamics of the game, that is a match, is exactly what these rules does.

[Newbiejunky]

Hardly think the different between 10 and 8 is going to make it or break it for any stable clan.

But it's still easier for a leader to manage 8 players than 10 as it is for 5 players than 8, etc.

16 rounds or 20 rounds. We'll still only be able to play 1 match a night. I dont see how this allow matches to be played more frequently. (And why is more matches better if they are of less quality?)

Rounds are playing with the same quality. Except the fact that playing 20 rounds with 10 vs 10 means playing during 1:30 hour and playing 16 rounds with 8 vs 8 is more like less than one hour wich could be more confortable to arrange match between country like france and Turkey or Russia during the week where the difference of time could be a handicap. When people couldn't played too much late because they have to go to work the day after, it may means that with such rules they can play matchs when before they couldn't.

No. Places more emphasis on dueling skill and less on battle skill and tactics. No matter how you look at it. Less players = less tactical options.
And people are only going to play as much as they have time for and want to. With your own words and arguments you want to exclude the more casual players just because they don't have as much time to train...

It doesn't mean there are less tactical option but only there is a different way to use them. As you said, it's harder to split your troops on the map so it gives more place for maneuver and deplacements. It will be harder to keep defending a position and will give more advantages for teams wich take the initiative wich is a very good point imo.
Duelling will not be more important than battle skill and tactics because melee as 8 vs 8 is almost the same than 10 vs 10 as you will less split the team.

This isn't about who's going to dominate. It's about fun (what we are all here for). And these rules makes it less fun.
Changing the dynamics of the game, that is a match, is exactly what these rules does.

Ofc we are all here to get some fun, but there are different way to get it. ENL is a way to get fun for people who get fun by playing with competition. If people don't really like the competition, they are totaly allowed to organised 30 vs 30 with others teams or team's coalition wich is fun too, but in a different way.


As you probably understood, i agree with all these rules changements and i would be glad to see them executed for the next ENL cycle.
Also, after having some clash with CoR at this subject ( It's not a provocation but i would really like to see a rule cover it ), i think that, as alexander did for NC, i would like to see a rule cover the fact they can be breaks or not between each 4 rounds.

[Captain Lust]

I think you've missed various arguments some of which are in this post:

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,215244.msg5173099.html#msg5173099

Well if you highlight any points I've failed to cover which you think are particularly pertinent, I'll happily give them a response.

In addition to what Nubijuki has stated, I think you're wrong about the ruleset not making it easier for two matches to be played in one night. 16 rounds, 5 minute round duration and 8vs8. These matches can take place in 55-65 minutes typically. I don't think it's outside the realms of possibility for a team or player (who might be part of two teams in different competitions) to play two matches. Furthermore, on a night where scheduling is a bit tight and people might have some other things on, a match like this can be much easier to squeeze in. In the 5 a side tournament, UK I played lots of 12 round training matches, which allowed for much more regular practice in a match environment.

Also... please explain why 20 is so perfect and amazing but 16 is somehow not fun and of a lower quality. I don't get that. It's just change-fearing nonsense. If we had settled on 12 or 16 early on, there would be outcry at a move to 20 rounds. They are needlessly long and almost always end up as drawn out slogs.

[Lord_David]

I'm happy with the proposed 16 rounds, 5 mins and the same gold.

Just a few things though.

Here's why I think this is a flawed logic: The suggestion here is that you lose a greater proportion of your players for each loss at 8vs8, which in turn means you have less chance to level things and the rest of the round is rendered pointless. However, making a comparison with 10vs10 -

Say you lose 2 at 10vs10 (20%) of your players, putting it at 8vs10.

From then, since it's only 20%, rather than 25% you're able to pull it back to 8vs8... so then why is it so much better that the round should be decided by the next 2 kills?

Your down to 6 players v 8, any group that moves away from the main is going to be easier to attack and ineffective to attack, more often than not you'd probably have to stick as a big group, allowing the other to confidently surround you with a reduced risk of being attacked.

What makes the above worse in 8v8 than 10v10 is you will have less of every class than you would in 10v10 90 % of the time

So you've lost a few guys, imagine both were archers and you started with 3, you've then lost 66% of your ranged and that one archer left probably isn't going to risk much at all, so the other team just shoots them to bits or suppresses them into a camping position. Lets say both are inf and again you have 3-4 inf that's 50%-66% of your inf gone and your chances of an effective push greatly reduced as you have less people and less inf.

I could go on presenting every possible class and mix of classes. But I'm sure you get the idea. Less people=Less of each class=Every class and player more valuable. With 8v8 there's no denying that each player/class is more valuable.

I think a lot of the points being made are also largely based on nothing and don't reflect reality. For example, I could say about 8vs8 that "it allows for more on-the-spot tactical improvisation and a more fluid, entertaining approach". I've not really got anything to back that up and whether it is or isn't true, whether it is or isn't a good thing doesn't have any grounding in reality. None of the costs of this supposed effect are explored, for example that it might fail to reward teams who have planned more rigorously, or that it makes rounds feel more random. These, again, are portrayed as negatives but none of it is explained or justified.

I don't think you can dismiss carefully thought out answers, your example here is to undermine answers and your defending a new 8v8 system. Other's are arguing in defensive of a tried and tested 10v10, which has been proven to work and so I am one of the many who feel confused about the lack of strong arguments about why 8v8 is needed, wanted or suggested. A few people have attempted to explain and justify there points in various threads and I think there arguments are valid to a rule which has nothing really solid to back up the demand for it and hasn't been explored fully.

What you have is a ruleset that:

Allows clans to form and manage themselves more easily
Allows matches to be played more frequently and scheduled more easily, allowing potentially for more competitions to take place simultaneously
Places slightly more emphasis on player skill (something which I can't see much of a downside to, especially if it encourages players to get on public servers and practice more often) as opposed to some kind of flanking strategies which are apparantly only possible at 10vs10 (sorry but what?)
Doesn't do much else

- How does it allow clans to form and manage themselves better/easier? because of 2 less players? has there ever been a situation before when a clan was 2 players to short? there may have been 1 or 2 cases but not enough to consider changing the rules for the small majority I think.

- so the league becomes more about a players skill than a clans ability slightly? not good imo. Also no-one is saying its impossible to use flanking strategies which are apparantly only possible at 10vs10 but that it becomes alot more risky/ ineffective, instead of having 2 archers shooting into there back or side you might only be able to put 1, instead of 2 guys defending the archers you might only be able to have 1, reducing either the effectiveness or the defensive capabilities (size would either have to be smaller to keep one group big enough to press an attack or hold an attack, the other way is to increase the flanking group so you now have 2 roughly equal groups, both of which are vulnerable to being rushed, unless there close together which makes flanking rather harder to do.)

Doesn't do much else

The last one is the crucial point. Essentially, it's not going to change the dynamics of the game. Good clans aren't going to start sucking and bad clans won't start dominating just because of the rule changes. These are tweaks and shifts.

I don't think 3 rounds worth of matches is enough to confidently say it's not going to change the dynamics of the game when many have said it will/ could do. My concern isn't that good clans will do bad, it's that good clans will become better, the gap between good and normal clans will widen as the good clans have the good players, and the rules will mean the games focus more on good players. I don't want to see the same clans get to a good position and then constantly hold it for many many cycles, until maybe a star player or 2 leave.

Phew, sorry for the long wall of text.

[Andrej1]

So what I propose as the final ruleset is 8vs8, 16 rounds, 5 minutes per round, default gold, no class restrictions. Also with the new substitution rule (2 per 4 round leg).

Hmm, if I get the point most players agree with the new ruleset except the rule: 8 vs. 8

Maybe a poll ( only for the question: 8vs.8 or 10vs.10) only for clan leaders is suitable. (just do it like Alex in the NC with the captain polls) in this way their is no poll abuse.

 I think with 16 round and 10 vs. 10 the match duration is already shortened.

[Newbiejunky]

I don't want to see the same clans get to a good position and then constantly hold it for many many cycles, until maybe a star player or 2 leave.

It was already the case.

[nedsat]

I can see the advantage of matches being a bit shorter and I can support the 16 rounds format. But I still dont believe we'll get to play 2 matches a day. Will probably be easier to arrange matches with Russians for instans yes.

5min round was the best of the new proposals imo. Seems like we cut off some time otherwise just wasted waiting for flags. But BaronDeMoroz thinks 6min rounds is way superior to 5min rounds and have alot more experience with the 5min round than we do given the fact that 5min round has been the standard in the Russian community. I didn't seem like to me that he was heard or that we explored the round minutes any further.

I among others would still rather play 12v12 (not that this was ever discussed for some reason) but ill settle for 10v10.

I can agree to the new ruleset with the modification of it being 10v10.



@Nubi. I love competition. For me it just have to go hand it hand with fairness and fun. For others its only about the winning...

[Newbiejunky]

@Nubi. I love competition. For me it just have to go hand it hand with fairness and fun. For others its only about the winning...

Good philosophy, i love competition too, but in my case it's not just a question of winning, result doesn't matter. Imo the more important is the way to get this result.

[Captain Lust]

Here's why I think this is a flawed logic: The suggestion here is that you lose a greater proportion of your players for each loss at 8vs8, which in turn means you have less chance to level things and the rest of the round is rendered pointless. However, making a comparison with 10vs10 -

Say you lose 2 at 10vs10 (20%) of your players, putting it at 8vs10.

From then, since it's only 20%, rather than 25% you're able to pull it back to 8vs8... so then why is it so much better that the round should be decided by the next 2 kills?

Your down to 6 players v 8, any group that moves away from the main is going to be easier to attack and ineffective to attack, more often than not you'd probably have to stick as a big group, allowing the other to confidently surround you with a reduced risk of being attacked.

What makes the above worse in 8v8 than 10v10 is you will have less of every class than you would in 10v10 90 % of the time

So you've lost a few guys, imagine both were archers and you started with 3, you've then lost 66% of your ranged and that one archer left probably isn't going to risk much at all, so the other team just shoots them to bits or suppresses them into a camping position. Lets say both are inf and again you have 3-4 inf that's 50%-66% of your inf gone and your chances of an effective push greatly reduced as you have less people and less inf.

I could go on presenting every possible class and mix of classes. But I'm sure you get the idea. Less people=Less of each class=Every class and player more valuable. With 8v8 there's no denying that each player/class is more valuable.

I'm not denying that it's more punishing to be short two players at 8vs8 than it is at 10vs10. What I'm saying is that even if it is better to lose 2 players at 10vs10, where does that get you? If the answer is the opportunity to still take (say) 2 kills back even it up to 8vs8 then why is that better than 8vs8 in the first place?

I think the argument you're making is that there are essentially two distinct times when kills are made. One is before the climax of the round where players are killed by archers or sneaky cav runs. The other is the climax of the round which often involves all the remaining players. The suggestion on your part (and others) seems to be that these early kills taking place are less significant at 10vs10 (since they have less impact proportionally) and consequently more importance is placed on the climactic end of the round, which is supposedly won through team coordination. The accompanying point to that argument is that 8vs8 promotes the importance of these early kills (since they have a stronger proportional impact), thereby detracting from climax of the round and causing the round to more often be resolved before that point.

The first problem I have with this argument is that it fails to take into account the fact that, as the impact of each kill increases, the likelihood of a mistake or exceptional circumstance creating one of these early kills decreases (since there are less players = less chaos = moor coordination). In my opinion, both effects are inevitable when decreasing the player number. I don't think the strength of either effect is particularly prominent when moving between 10vs10 and 8vs8, however when you move down to 5vs5 you see almost no chance kills early on and almost everything happens in a short space of time. Opposingly, when you move up to 20vs20 or so, you get a lot more of these sneak early kills.

The second problem is that it suggests coordination and teamwork don't play a role in the early kills. I'd disagree with this strongly. In order to avoid getting caught out early on, it's massively important for teams to be relaying infomation and making sure the threats are known to everyone. It's an important part of the game and not to be so easily scoffed at. If a team has lost 2 of their 3 archers early doors, they've clearly messed this up and are just paying for their mistakes.

I think a lot of the points being made are also largely based on nothing and don't reflect reality. For example, I could say about 8vs8 that "it allows for more on-the-spot tactical improvisation and a more fluid, entertaining approach". I've not really got anything to back that up and whether it is or isn't true, whether it is or isn't a good thing doesn't have any grounding in reality. None of the costs of this supposed effect are explored, for example that it might fail to reward teams who have planned more rigorously, or that it makes rounds feel more random. These, again, are portrayed as negatives but none of it is explained or justified.

I don't think you can dismiss carefully thought out answers, your example here is to undermine answers and your defending a new 8v8 system. Other's are arguing in defensive of a tried and tested 10v10, which has been proven to work and so I am one of the many who feel confused about the lack of strong arguments about why 8v8 is needed, wanted or suggested. A few people have attempted to explain and justify there points in various threads and I think there arguments are valid to a rule which has nothing really solid to back up the demand for it and hasn't been explored fully.

Well firstly I think it's wrong to say 8vs8 isn't tried and tested. It was the standard for a long time, has been played frequently throughout Warband's history,  used for the EU Campaign and 2011 Nations Cup (and now Nations Cup 2012).

The reason I've decided to push for it now is that I think it makes things more interesting competitively. The ENL has always been intended as a serious, competitive competition and I think this move would enhance that aspect of the game. It's not because I think something is horribly wrong with 10vs10 (I honestly don't see them as being that far separated) but I do think 8vs8 is a more appropriate number for a culture of regular, easily organised, competitive matches. That's the only objective thing I can really say in its favour to be honest because the rest just does come down largely to preference. If your argument is "don't rock the boat" well I just don't think that's what the move will do. As I've said, I don't think the two match sizes are a million miles apart.

[nedsat]

Why not 6v6 then? 8v8 and 6v6 cant be that far apart?
6v6 clearly must be easier to organize and we'll be able to play 3 matches a night.


On a more serious note. I still haven't seen any good arugments as why 8v8 should be better than 10v10. You say that good arguments has to back up any given statement. Yet the only argument we see for 8v8 is slightly easier to organize. Id say thats rather weak.

[Captain Lust]

This is something that was touched on in the other thread and I agree (I also acknowledged, if you'd read my post properly) a lot of the arguments on both sides could logically be extended to infinitely increase the player count, or to decrease it down to 1vs1. I don't think anyone actually wants either of those things. I certainly don't.

Personally, I just think 8vs8 does a better job of balancing out player skill, teamwork, ease of organisation for clans and matches, interesting rounds, competitive legitimacy, class balance, faction balance, map balance and all the things that are affected by changing the player count. And that's all it's about. Finding the optimal point.

We've had two good cycles with 10vs10 and this move isn't to say that 10vs10 is somehow terrible, nor is it to discredit the achievements of teams that have done well at 10vs10. However, I am of the opinion that the competitive scene would benefit overall from focusing on the slightly smaller match size.

[Broomstick]

8v8 simply is better because it will also allow new, and sometimes good clans join up, wich have agreed to the 8v8 rule.
Einherjar for instance probably wouldn't join if it was 10v10 because they have too many inactive players.