Playoffs and Rule-Testing Tournaments... WTFFS?

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Is the aim of class limitations to try and make everything more even?

If so I fear it may have a negative effect, Some clans rely on good archer support as they have bad inf and vice versa etc etc, therefore fixing some unbalances while creating others.

However a test of the rules seems reasonable.
 
Archivarius Rhae said:
ENL rules for the next cycle are brilliant, but could be improved a bit. I think maybe 4 players less would be great. Also, maybe limited to one cavalry without a rider.
Click to expand...

Archivist what do you mean a "one cavalry without a rider"? The only way I understand this that the cavalry would play dismounted? Doesn't make sense, why having a cavalry if you not gonna use it properly? I would like to understand better your point of view on this.

Archivarius Rhae said:
The best players should be forced to wear default armour and weapons and archer should not be allowed to fight in melee.
Click to expand...

How do you define best player? By score? Most of the times the best score does not define the best player, this concept is way to vague.
Archers shouldn't be allowed to melee fight? So, imagine the case where an archer is the last man standing, what should he do? Surrender or try to engage a fist fight? lol

Im under the impression that this post was done under the influence of narcotics  :mrgreen:
Anyway, it would be good if you could give us some more insight on this subject.
Best regards
 
Lord_David said:
I think he was expressing his dislike of the rules in a sarcastic manner Maynd
Click to expand...

Thought so, that reply was just in case of his post being serious and every opinion counts.
If it is sarcastic I dont get the point of even posting. Doesn't help  to the future development of the ENL.
 
But still I don't see the problem with infantry spam?

What if you allready lost 4-0 to a archer spamming team (to some extent, like 4 archers + 4 cav) and it's a closed map (Like sandibush),
If you have the right setup (and throwing weapons) the tactic should work, but why would you need to restrict it?

I have never heard anyone being bothered with infantry spam.
 
Broomstick said:
But still I don't see the problem with infantry spam?
Click to expand...
+1.
At the beginning people were complaining about archery spam, which is indeed annoying and very hard to counter on some maps. Infantry spam is a way of life, and possibly "counterable". Same with cav spam.
We should not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
 
If we're only going to play 12 rounds in a match instead of 20 (which im against). I'd rather play 12 rounds on one map then 6 on 2 different. 3 rounds per side is too few to make adjustments to counter your opponents tactics.
 
nedsat said:
If we're only going to play 12 rounds in a match instead of 20 (which im against). I'd rather play 12 rounds on one map then 6 on 2 different. 3 rounds per side is too few to make adjustments to counter your opponents tactics.
Click to expand...


I don't see the problem, playing on only 3 rounds per side means that you have to be very reactiv to opponents tactics.
 
You can't say that a tactic have failed after one lost round because there are so many factors. So if you loose first round and apply same tactic again then there isnt really a whole lot of rounds left to changes tactics is there.
 
nedsat said:
You can't say that a tactic have failed after one lost round because there are so many factors. So if you loose first round and apply same tactic again then there isnt really a whole lot of rounds left to changes tactics is there.
Click to expand...
That's what Nubi is saying is a good thing, and is partly my reasoning as well. Teams are under more pressure to react and adapt faster than with 5 round legs.

There's no data on this but I suspect the last 2 rounds of most 5 round legs are won by the same team, since it's reached something of an equilibrium.
 
nedsat said:
You can't say that a tactic have failed after one lost round because there are so many factors. So if you loose first round and apply same tactic again then there isnt really a whole lot of rounds left to changes tactics is there.
Click to expand...

That's why tacticians have to prepare more than one tactics, in cases that they have to adapt.
 
Seems like you entirely missed my point.

Your tactic cant be jugde on one round. So in a case where your tactic fail in the first and second round and you turn to a new tactic and win third round there is no room to keep that momentum going. You'll lose 2-1 instead of having the chance of going 2-3 (or 3-2 for that matter).


If the concern really is that the matches are time consuming and boring when the match is uneven. Then lets stop the matches when one team reaches 11 rounds and stop counting round differential.
 
nedsat said:
Seems like you entirely missed my point.

Your tactic cant be jugde on one round. So in a case where your tactic fail in the first and second round and you turn to a new tactic and win third round there is no room to keep that momentum going. You'll lose 2-1 instead of having the chance of going 2-3 (or 3-2 for that matter).
Click to expand...
Seems to me like you missed the point of the reply.

All of what you're saying should fall under tactical judgement, rather than trial and error. A good leader should be able to judge why a round was lost, whether it was down to a tactic, a mistake or whatever and that's part of the game. In your example, I say well done to the team who won those first 2 rounds while their opponent struggled to adapt.
 
No I didn't miss the point of the reply. I simply disagree.

Less rounds means less tactic. And it also favors all in'ish/hail marry tactics more. (which you for some obnoxious reason favors)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Krisee
EU Native Other Open The Grand European Duo Tournament - Community Funded prizepool! (fundraiser on kickstarter) - Triple elimination!1!
Replies
7
Views
319
Krisee
Krisee
The captain's map causes the game to crash
Replies
0
Views
38
LLHE
perfect_Prefect
Matchmaking: suggestion to add opportunity to change the team IN CASE of quantitative imbalance 💔
Replies
2
Views
106
perfect_Prefect
perfect_Prefect
Back
Top Bottom