Playoffs and Rule-Testing Tournaments... WTFFS?

nedsat said:

Less rounds means less tactic. And it also favors all in'ish/hail marry tactics more. (which you for some obnoxious reason favors)

Click to expand...

How!?
Please explain how your teams tactics/fighting ability are somehow diminished by playing less rounds.

A bad tactic is a bad tactic, no matter how many rounds you play. If you get defeated by a bad/terrible tactic then perhaps you deserve to lose.

nedsat said:

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)

Click to expand...

Accusing us of misudnerstanding your point and then completely changing your point is a bit rich. Especially when you're calling people obnoxious .

As crazyboy said, a different number of rounds doesn't favour one tactic any more than another. I don't know where you got that from. All it does is create a match environment that offers less second chances and punishes teams for their mistakes. 20 rounds really allows a lot of breathing space and warm up time, which I think makes matches too grindy, long and forgiving in my opinion.

It's the same as anything else... a balance needs to be struck. Obviously 1 round a map would be stupid and there's no way you could justify that by saying that matches ought to be more punishing. Likewise, 40 rounds would be absurd for a number of reasons. I just think settling on 20 was a bit of a mistake and perhaps we went there for the wrong reasons. (i.e. we thought 10 rounds was a good length for a match as it's a nice round number, and from there we decided to play two maps, which meant 20 rounds).

Before now, I just think it's never really been thought out, only accepted.

@lust: How am I completely changing my point from my orginal statement that said that in my oppinion does less rounds give less tactical decisions?
And when did I call anyone obnoxious? I said that I found your reasoning obnoxious.

When you say "long and forgiving" im reading "less random"/"the better team will prevail".



@crazyboy11: Are you telling me that there is no all in tactics in this game that only works if you're lucky but then most likely will give you the win?

nedsat said:

@crazyboy11: Are you telling me that there is no all in tactics in this game that only works if you're lucky but then most likely will give you the win?

Click to expand...

Any tactic works if you're lucky 

There are plenty of "all in" tactics based on quickly surprisng your enemy with a co-ordinated team rush. But these work regardless of whether you're playing 5 rounds or 3 rounds. The number of rounds makes no difference to whether they succeed. This won't affect the overall outcome of the match unless the opposing team has no idea how to defeat such an aggressive tactic in which case they deserve to lose.

What? The number of rounds surely matters. If a lesser team meets a greater team and the lesser team would lose any round they used a 'standard' tactic but had a 10% chance of winning a round using a all-in tactic. Then the lesser team chances of winning a match alltogether would be greater in a Bo3 than a Bo5.

You think it's unfair that a team with a 10% chance of victory each round should have a 30% chance of winning overall?

How did you come up with that math? And no that wasn't my point either.

Like any other competitor I want a game where the best player/team wins. This format doesn't promote that. This format was made to promote randomness.

nedsat said:

@lust: How am I completely changing my point from my orginal statement that said that in my oppinion does less rounds give less tactical decisions?

Click to expand...

Well your original point was "teams have less time to adapt" and then it changed to "the ruleset favours more 'all in' tactics". I think they're objectively different and not only do I find the latter to be untrue but I don't think either situation is especially undesirable for any valid reason.

nedsat said:

And when did I call anyone obnoxious? I said that I found your reasoning obnoxious.

Click to expand...

That's an odd technicality to try and fall back on but frankly, you can call me what you like.

nedsat said:

When you say "long and forgiving" im reading "less random"/"the better team will prevail".

Click to expand...

This is something that I plan to address in full before the WTFSS tournament starts, just to make clear my reasoning for proposing the ruleset so that teams can test it bearing in mind the purpose and ideas behind it.

As a resonse now, I'd say the key problem in your reasoning comes from the terms you're using. The first is "random" and the main flaw here comes from the fact that nothing in the either ruleset is inherently random besides the map selection, which obviously doesn't change between rulesets. The other term is "better". You're using "better" at the existing ruleset as the overruling definition of the word.

What the current ruleset does is favour teams that (among other things) can play well on any map (good thing), are generally good (obviously that's important... the NA community doesn't quite have that one down ) and are able to adapt in order to beat their opponent after a maximum of two rounds. That is roughly what defines "better" under this ruleset. The proposed ruleset keeps the first two but tweaks the third to one round, in essence. What that means is that teams have to be able to react a lot faster and respond to their opponents' actions during rounds as well as after them. It just puts a lot more pressure on teams to make the right decisions and gives them fewer opportunities to experiment with different things in order to find something that works.

Under the proposed ruleset, teams that cannot adapt simply are not better. What you're defining as "better" would no longer be relevant and that's where your logic is failing.

nedsat said:

How did you come up with that math? And no that wasn't my point either.

Click to expand...

I made it up.
the actual chance the team would win would be less than 3%, really promotes randomness.

captain lust said:

And there's another reason I think the community should make the move to 12 rounds: At 20 rounds, the best team almost always wins. I can't name a sport or a game or anything where the best team always wins, other than Warband. There are so few upsets in the Warband that it acts as a detriment to excitement factor of the league. At 12 rounds, weaker teams have a much stronger chance of coming out on top

Click to expand...

Do I need to say anymore? This would make any competitors eyes bleed.

A game where the best player/team always wins is what any pro-gamer/athlet wants but not you.


And the worst part... is that you are serious...

nedsat said:

A game where the best player/team always wins is what any pro-gamer/athlet wants but not you.

Click to expand...

There are no pro gamers in warband. 

also, way to ignore all other arguments.

Well all I can do is admit that at that stage my reasoning was in its infancy. I didn't explain myself very well because I hadn't consolidated my thoughts fully.

The logic is effectively the same but the problem was the terms I used and the way they were used. Ironically, it's exactly the same problem as you're currently having in fixing your mindset in one place about what constitutes a strong or a weak team. Quoting that now doesn't really prove anything, other than the fact that you still can't get your head around my argument.

So... bleed away.

I see your argument and I disagree. And you dont like it.

nedsat said:

I see your argument and I disagree. And you dont like it.

Click to expand...

If, as you claim, you understand my reasoning fully (your posts strongly suggest otherwise) then I'd encourage you to just keep an open mind for the tournament and see what you think after trying the proposed rules. I suspect you'll find that they're not "random" at all.

I'm sort of jumping in here to say that if you really want to embrace the idea of an inferior team beating the superior team, you should reduce the combat gold bonus.

Shemaforash said:

I'm sort of jumping in here to say that if you really want to embrace the idea of an inferior team beating the superior team, you should reduce the combat gold bonus.

Click to expand...

Well, as I've explained to Nedsat that isn't quite the idea. Rather it's to shift the boundaries of what constitutes "inferior" and "superior".

Anyway, the proposed ruleset already includes a combat and round gold bonus change to 80%.

Ah, didn't see that.