Author Topic: WTFFS - Summary and closing discussions  (Read 2036 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mordgrim

  • Knight
  • *
  • Less talking! More raiding!
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Nord
  • MP nick: IG_Knt_Mordgrim
Re: WTFFS - Summary and closing discussions
« Reply #30 on: February 29, 2012, 04:28:31 PM »
I think player skill was a huge factor at 10vs10.....

Maynd

  • Moderator
  • *
  • Giddy up!
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Bandit
  • WBWF&SNW
Re: WTFFS - Summary and closing discussions
« Reply #31 on: February 29, 2012, 04:37:24 PM »
I think player skill was a huge factor at 10vs10.....

And it tends to grow even more with lower numbers.
Quote from: Snoop
If Mr.X and Captain Lust were a gay couple and adopted an Asian child with extremely high intelligence, how do you think that child's development would turn out?

Meister_Eder

  • Knight at Arms
  • *
  • Herrschaftszeiten!
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
  • MP nick: IG_Alderduke_Eder
  • WB
Re: WTFFS - Summary and closing discussions
« Reply #32 on: February 29, 2012, 05:41:58 PM »
I followed this discussion for some time now, but I'm still a bit confused. From what I can tell, the last ENL was quite a success. Hence, quite a number of people is in favor of keeping the old rules, which have proven to work well. However, another group of people is convinced that a new ruleset is urgently needed. The argument in favor of the old rules is the success of the last ENL. The argument in favor of the new rules apparently is this:
Quote
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.

This isn't a bid to save the community, nor to slow down its decline. This is a bid to enhance competitive play through a few small tweaks to the ruleset.

If I got that right:
- you don't want to save the community, but you want to keep/make it 'healthy'
- the healthyness of the community is the goal of your rule changes
- what you are aiming for is to increase the competitiveness.

So, trying to understand this, here's what I assume your position is: The community doesn't really have serious problems, it just might be a bit 'unhealthy'. You care a lot about health issues and the method to increase the community's healthyness is increasing it's competitiveness. The competitiveness is increased by decreasing the standard player number in matches.

Now that opens some new questions:

The central terms in your statement seem to be  'community-health' and 'competitiveness'. So I wonder:
 - What constitutes a 'healthy' community, in your opinion (besides being competitive)?
 - How do you define 'competitiveness' (not in general, but in Warband)?

Also, could you explain
 - What is the causal relation between community-health and competitiveness?
 - What is the causal relation between competitiveness and player number?

And: What about the clans now? You said you don't care about clan types, since the ENL is about teams. But then again, in your argument the size of clans somehow seems to be linked to the healthyness and competitiveness of the community?
(click to show/hide)

GoldFingero

  • Sergeant Knight at Arms
  • *
  • Blixn suxx
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Vaegir
  • MP nick: GFxVIPER
Re: WTFFS - Summary and closing discussions
« Reply #33 on: February 29, 2012, 06:21:52 PM »
Is a clan more likely to participate in a clan war if he can't field its best players in a 8 vs. 8 match?
We have the deadline for a reason and in training matches the result doesn't matter.

Quote
How do you keep you bench players "happy"?
Let them play in the training matches and large clans are more than welcome to make a "B" team that could consist of benched players that want to play in the ENL.

Quote
I vote for more players per side, 10 or 15
>:I

Shemaforash

  • Grandmaster Knight
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
  • MP nick: AE_Shemaforash
  • WB
Re: WTFFS - Summary and closing discussions
« Reply #34 on: February 29, 2012, 06:27:00 PM »
15v15 is just bad, nuff said.

Captain Lust

  • Community Manager
  • *
  • I captured my (e)motions
    • Skype - frankelliott555
    • Steam - captainlust
    • Twitter - captainlust
    • Twitch.tv - mb_tv
    • YouTube - MBtvReplay
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Bandit
  • MP nick: captainlust
  • M&BWBWF&SNW
Re: WTFFS - Summary and closing discussions
« Reply #35 on: February 29, 2012, 11:32:50 PM »
If you make the match size 15vs15, [...] you kill the importance of player skill - this is a big one.

Why would that be the case?
There's no need to play coy. By your own logic, the importance of each player is reduced as you scale up the numbers.

Granted, it would have been more accurate to say "the significance of each individual is reduced" in 15vs15 matches but the point still stands. The less difference you make as a player, the less reason (and therefore less motivation) you have to stay in form.

Now that opens some new questions:

The central terms in your statement seem to be  'community-health' and 'competitiveness'. So I wonder:
 - What constitutes a 'healthy' community, in your opinion (besides being competitive)?
More players and more teams, matches (competition/casual/official) being played more frequently and more presence on public servers - the "more" the "healthier".

- How do you define 'competitiveness' (not in general, but in Warband)?
More strong teams and therefore more pressure on all strong teams to stay strong/get stronger. I know you didn't ask for a general definition but I don't see why Warband is any different. Again - the "more" the more "competitive".

Also, could you explain
 - What is the causal relation between community-health and competitiveness?
When you have more players and more teams taking part in active scrimming and competitive play, competitivity will inevitably be increased.

- What is the causal relation between competitiveness and player number?
Do you mean player number as in match size? i.e. 10vs10, 8vs8 etc.?

If so, I think that's been covered. Although, to be honest, I'm not totally clear on what you're asking.

And: What about the clans now? You said you don't care about clan types, since the ENL is about teams. But then again, in your argument the size of clans somehow seems to be linked to the healthyness and competitiveness of the community?
(click to show/hide)
Well actually in the quote I only made reference to team size and the fact that if a team has enough active players to form 2 or more teams that play and compete regularly, that EDIT: having them do so can only be of benefit to the overall health of the community. That's my reasoning anyway.
« Last Edit: February 29, 2012, 11:38:58 PM by captain lust »
For Mount&Blade e-sporty and streamy news, follow: @captainlust

blergh                                                                                                               

Meister_Eder

  • Knight at Arms
  • *
  • Herrschaftszeiten!
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
  • MP nick: IG_Alderduke_Eder
  • WB
Re: WTFFS - Summary and closing discussions
« Reply #36 on: March 01, 2012, 02:35:15 AM »
And: What about the clans now? You said you don't care about clan types, since the ENL is about teams. But then again, in your argument the size of clans somehow seems to be linked to the healthyness and competitiveness of the community?
(click to show/hide)
Well actually in the quote I only made reference to team size and the fact that if a team has enough active players to form 2 or more teams that play and compete regularly, that EDIT: having them do so can only be of benefit to the overall health of the community. That's my reasoning anyway.
In this quoted part, yes. But in the part I quoted in the beginning of my post, you mentioned cASS, RNGD and AE as an indicator for a development that favors small teams. I don't know cASS, but RNGD and AE are clans and not just ENL teams, as far as I know. Small clans=small ENL-teams, apparently you take clans as an indicator to what ENL-teams should look like.

Now that opens some new questions:

The central terms in your statement seem to be  'community-health' and 'competitiveness'. So I wonder:
 - What constitutes a 'healthy' community, in your opinion (besides being competitive)?
More players and more teams, matches (competition/casual/official) being played more frequently and more presence on public servers - the "more" the "healthier".
So, when you say 'healthy', you mean 'big'? You want the Warband community to grow?

- How do you define 'competitiveness' (not in general, but in Warband)?
More strong teams and therefore more pressure on all strong teams to stay strong/get stronger. I know you didn't ask for a general definition but I don't see why Warband is any different. Again - the "more" the more "competitive".
So, competitiveness means many competitors. What are 'strong' competitors, though? How do you define "strength of an ENL-team"?


- What is the causal relation between competitiveness and player number?
Do you mean player number as in match size? i.e. 10vs10, 8vs8 etc.?

If so, I think that's been covered. Although, to be honest, I'm not totally clear on what you're asking.
Yes, in match size. I learned that bigger is better, but why now is a smaller player number in matches better? If everything is getting bigger, the player number could get bigger aswell, couldn't it? But this question is closely linked to your definition of competitiveness or rather the question what you define as a "strong ENL-team".

Captain Lust

  • Community Manager
  • *
  • I captured my (e)motions
    • Skype - frankelliott555
    • Steam - captainlust
    • Twitter - captainlust
    • Twitch.tv - mb_tv
    • YouTube - MBtvReplay
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Bandit
  • MP nick: captainlust
  • M&BWBWF&SNW
Re: WTFFS - Summary and closing discussions
« Reply #37 on: March 01, 2012, 02:52:04 AM »
In this quoted part, yes. But in the part I quoted in the beginning of my post, you mentioned cASS, RNGD and AE as an indicator for a development that favors small teams. I don't know cASS, but RNGD and AE are clans and not just ENL teams, as far as I know. Small clans=small ENL-teams, apparently you take clans as an indicator to what ENL-teams should look like.
That was just a suggestion that there might be a trend in the way members of the community are approaching competitive play. I don't know what you're getting at but as far as I'm concerned, clans can organise themselves however they like.

So, when you say 'healthy', you mean 'big'? You want the Warband community to grow?
I'd love for the Warband community to grow.

So, competitiveness means many competitors. What are 'strong' competitors, though? How do you define "strength of an ENL-team"?
How good they are in matches. What else?

Yes, in match size. I learned that bigger is better, but why now is a smaller player number in matches better? If everything is getting bigger, the player number could get bigger aswell, couldn't it? But this question is closely linked to your definition of competitiveness or rather the question what you define as a "strong ENL-team".
What are you on about? "If everything is getting bigger, the player number could get bigger aswell, couldn't it?" that's like saying "Well everything's getting bigger so why don't we double weapon lengths and the number of arrows in quivers?". There's no logic to what you're saying. My reasoning behind reducing the match size has already been explained.
For Mount&Blade e-sporty and streamy news, follow: @captainlust

blergh                                                                                                               

arsenic_vengeur

  • Knight
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
  • MP nick: CoR_Marcus
Re: WTFFS - Summary and closing discussions
« Reply #38 on: March 01, 2012, 10:25:09 AM »
8 vs 8 is supported by most clan leaders or match organizers, because it makes stuff easier for them. To some extent it might help the community as the problem of Warband community is that we have lot of sheeps and very few decent shepards.

On complete other matters, I'd like to know if something can be done about the div A problem : Div A is only 8 teams making it completely too short, too difficult, and not fun for those who dont aim for first place (aka 6 teams on 8). Div B has more teams in it, Div C has twice more teams, wtf. Should one team in Div A disband and the whole division is completely broken.


God created men free, couch lance made them equals.

Broomstick

  • Grandmaster Knight
  • *
  • Norway > USA
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Vaegir
  • MP nick: BROxVIPER
  • WBNW
Re: WTFFS - Summary and closing discussions
« Reply #39 on: March 02, 2012, 04:34:38 PM »
EDIT: Outdated stuff  :wink:
« Last Edit: March 02, 2012, 04:49:38 PM by Broomstick »
(click to show/hide)
(click to show/hide)

Cybran

  • Knight
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Swadian
  • MP nick: Cybran
Re: WTFFS - Summary and closing discussions
« Reply #40 on: March 02, 2012, 08:38:22 PM »
8 vs 8 is supported by most clan leaders or match organizers, because it makes stuff easier for them. To some extent it might help the community as the problem of Warband community is that we have lot of sheeps and very few decent shepards.

On complete other matters, I'd like to know if something can be done about the div A problem : Div A is only 8 teams making it completely too short, too difficult, and not fun for those who dont aim for first place (aka 6 teams on 8). Div B has more teams in it, Div C has twice more teams, wtf. Should one team in Div A disband and the whole division is completely broken.
I personally find it easier to play with 15 players than with 8 players, I get bored after 2 rounds in 8vs8, becouse there is like no action. Problem is lust is supporting smaller clans and big clans should just adjust to it, but why it can't be the other way, small clans adjust to big clan? You can't splitt 1 clan with 20 ppl to 2 teams, becouse you never know if all people will come.

Klockis

  • Knight
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
  • MP nick: Klockis
Re: WTFFS - Summary and closing discussions
« Reply #41 on: March 02, 2012, 08:55:17 PM »
Problem is lust is supporting smaller clans and big clans should just adjust to it, but why it can't be the other way, small clans adjust to big clan?

Because some people don't want to be in big clans. Not every clan want to recruit loads of people they want to keep it small. By change it to 15v15 we're forcing alot of clans to either recruit alot of people and therefore maybe destroy the whole idea of that clan, or to not participate in the ENL therefore making the League smaller.

Broomstick

  • Grandmaster Knight
  • *
  • Norway > USA
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Vaegir
  • MP nick: BROxVIPER
  • WBNW
Re: WTFFS - Summary and closing discussions
« Reply #42 on: March 04, 2012, 09:41:48 AM »
8 vs 8 is supported by most clan leaders or match organizers, because it makes stuff easier for them. To some extent it might help the community as the problem of Warband community is that we have lot of sheeps and very few decent shepards.

On complete other matters, I'd like to know if something can be done about the div A problem : Div A is only 8 teams making it completely too short, too difficult, and not fun for those who dont aim for first place (aka 6 teams on 8). Div B has more teams in it, Div C has twice more teams, wtf. Should one team in Div A disband and the whole division is completely broken.
I personally find it easier to play with 15 players than with 8 players, I get bored after 2 rounds in 8vs8, becouse there is like no action. Problem is lust is supporting smaller clans and big clans should just adjust to it, but why it can't be the other way, small clans adjust to big clan? You can't splitt 1 clan with 20 ppl to 2 teams, becouse you never know if all people will come.

So you are saying you can't split a big clan with a lot of people in two, but you are saying that smaller clans can randomly duplicate players?

Also, if you want 15v15, why not make a own tournament? It's not like you're forced to play in the ENL...
(click to show/hide)
(click to show/hide)

Cybran

  • Knight
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Swadian
  • MP nick: Cybran
Re: WTFFS - Summary and closing discussions
« Reply #43 on: March 04, 2012, 05:34:55 PM »
8 vs 8 is supported by most clan leaders or match organizers, because it makes stuff easier for them. To some extent it might help the community as the problem of Warband community is that we have lot of sheeps and very few decent shepards.

On complete other matters, I'd like to know if something can be done about the div A problem : Div A is only 8 teams making it completely too short, too difficult, and not fun for those who dont aim for first place (aka 6 teams on 8). Div B has more teams in it, Div C has twice more teams, wtf. Should one team in Div A disband and the whole division is completely broken.
I personally find it easier to play with 15 players than with 8 players, I get bored after 2 rounds in 8vs8, becouse there is like no action. Problem is lust is supporting smaller clans and big clans should just adjust to it, but why it can't be the other way, small clans adjust to big clan? You can't splitt 1 clan with 20 ppl to 2 teams, becouse you never know if all people will come.

So you are saying you can't split a big clan with a lot of people in two, but you are saying that smaller clans can randomly duplicate players?

Also, if you want 15v15, why not make a own tournament? It's not like you're forced to play in the ENL...
I used 15 people for example, I am saying that you can't splitt big clan, becouse if you have 16 active people you can in theory create 2 teams, but some of them don't have time sometimes, that means you can't make 2 teams, but i think recruiting 2 people is not that hard. It's just my opinion that making league smaller hurts more clans in warband. I know that you will argue with why I don't recruit those 4 players to have enough for 2 teams and I can't really defend my opinion agains that.

Broomstick

  • Grandmaster Knight
  • *
  • Norway > USA
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Vaegir
  • MP nick: BROxVIPER
  • WBNW
Re: WTFFS - Summary and closing discussions
« Reply #44 on: March 07, 2012, 09:32:49 PM »
8 vs 8 is supported by most clan leaders or match organizers, because it makes stuff easier for them. To some extent it might help the community as the problem of Warband community is that we have lot of sheeps and very few decent shepards.

On complete other matters, I'd like to know if something can be done about the div A problem : Div A is only 8 teams making it completely too short, too difficult, and not fun for those who dont aim for first place (aka 6 teams on 8). Div B has more teams in it, Div C has twice more teams, wtf. Should one team in Div A disband and the whole division is completely broken.
I personally find it easier to play with 15 players than with 8 players, I get bored after 2 rounds in 8vs8, becouse there is like no action. Problem is lust is supporting smaller clans and big clans should just adjust to it, but why it can't be the other way, small clans adjust to big clan? You can't splitt 1 clan with 20 ppl to 2 teams, becouse you never know if all people will come.

So you are saying you can't split a big clan with a lot of people in two, but you are saying that smaller clans can randomly duplicate players?

Also, if you want 15v15, why not make a own tournament? It's not like you're forced to play in the ENL...
I used 15 people for example, I am saying that you can't splitt big clan, becouse if you have 16 active people you can in theory create 2 teams, but some of them don't have time sometimes, that means you can't make 2 teams, but i think recruiting 2 people is not that hard. It's just my opinion that making league smaller hurts more clans in warband. I know that you will argue with why I don't recruit those 4 players to have enough for 2 teams and I can't really defend my opinion agains that.

As klockis sayed, some people want a small clan with people they like. The bigger a clan, the more players get benched, the less players play because they get benched. If you have 30 people you can easily make 2 teams, and with 16 people you wouldn't even have to bench a lot of guys.

But discussing this wouldn't change a thing though.
(click to show/hide)
(click to show/hide)