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).
- 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.