arsenic_vengeur said:
I know my question is extremely noob, but please enlighten me :
Is there something to win in this tournament or we just play for fun? Because yesterday we did a draw with REF we took 1 hour to decide how we would settle the situation cause we thought it was direct elimination (well I thought that and I told everybody we would be eliminated if we lost). Not like if I care much, indeed we will still play our best but I just wanted to know. In other words is there a winner at the end?
Not really lol. Originally it was going to be a knockout thing but when it became clear there weren't going to be 16 teams, I just decided to do 3 rounds of matches. That way more matches get played and everyone gets a good chance to test things out. I might do a "playoffs" thing at the end maybe by arranging teams according to wins but it's not something that is going to mean an awful lot.
arsenic_vengeur said:
My personal opinions (which might differ from the opinions of my clans) about yesterday match :
- i am pretty sure that 4*3 rounds encourages draws especially if maps are unbalanced (Port Assault). But funnily I think it is a good thing if it is to be applied to a league. Though, if it is a direct elimination system like Nations Cup or play-offs, the tie-break part has to be specified clearly and well-fathomed.
I'm concerned about the draws thing as well. While it can benefit a league to have variety in points and match outcomes, I don't want draws being an inevitablility with closely matched teams. Initially, I don't think that's what has been shown but hopefully this match week will give us a clearer idea of the problem. I'm also hoping that the 5 minute rounds will possibly bring about more round draws (which get dismissed and insulted too lightly, in my opinion), widening the spectrum of common match results to help decrease the chance of draws. Though it's something that I am definitely thinking about.
I hadn't put much thought into the tiebreaker situation since the rulest is for a league. However, it does need to be clarified for the playoffs and I'll do that later today.
arsenic_vengeur said:
- I'd favor 4*4 rounds rather than 3*4 rounds cause I feel a bit like if I go to MacDonalds and only get a box of 4 nuggets, that is not enough. 4*4 rounds might be the best solution to please everyone, people with real life and people without.
Well continuing your analogy, I would say that only having 4 nuggets allows you to go round the corner and get something from Burger King as well
. Without being a fat bastard like me who gets a supersize meal from both (still in the analogy - I play a lot of matches... not fat irl). 12 rounds will do a lot to open things up for other competitions, which is something I really want to push for. As others have said, it will help to enable casual scrimming and bring about more frequent matchplay. Something that is a staple of a thriving competitive scene.
I'm still keeping an open mind about this because I understand this is a common concern but I do want to keep pushing the advantages of cutting matches to* 12.
arsenic_vengeur said:
- 80% Gold : three rounds is not enough to see a difference compared to normal system, so I cant tell. I still saw some players afford a warhorse, so it doesnt ruin this possibility entirely. I agree with diminishing gold bonus.
Imo we should set combat gold to 100% because it is a bit logical that good players can tank themselves, but it sucks that round bonus is so high. If you are a noob hiding in a corner, at the end of the match you can have tank equipment thanks to your friends doing all the work. If you set (I take the strongest example voluntarily not because I favor it) 100% on combat gold and 0% on "surviving" gold, then the winning team with be made of tanks and crap-equipment guys and that still leave a chance to the opponent. Right now almost everybody in an easily winning team gets the haubergeon.
I'd question how important kills really are in determining "good" players...
With the gold, it's sort of a tricky situation. Personally, I'm kind of cautious about doing anything too drastic with it. I think scaling the bonuses relative to the starting gold is a sensible and modest change. It's not like it's a massive problem and the round reduction will (possibly) help to combat it already... although that's been drawn into question. Still not quite sure about that.