WTFFS - Summary and closing discussions

Users who are viewing this thread

That's not even on the table as far as I'm concerned. All Divisions will play under the same match rules at the same competitive standard. I don't see the move to 8vs8 as some sort of kiddie mode for noob clans, nor as a stepping stone to a 10vs10 match size.

Why not? And why would you call it something as demeaning as "kiddie mode for noob clans"?


What do you mean by "well rounded"?

I mean maps more suited for the numbers of players there is in a match and not on any given day on public.
 
nedsat said:
That's not even on the table as far as I'm concerned. All Divisions will play under the same match rules at the same competitive standard. I don't see the move to 8vs8 as some sort of kiddie mode for noob clans, nor as a stepping stone to a 10vs10 match size.

Why not? And why would you call it something as demeaning as "kiddie mode for noob clans"?
Because that's exactly what it would be. It totally illegitimises the move to 8vs8, if you're saying it's not good enough for the top tier teams. And that's certainly not what I think anyway.

nedsat said:
What do you mean by "well rounded"?

I mean maps more suited for the numbers of players there is in a match and not on any given day on public.
I think the current maps are fine. I actually quite like how they tend to open up at 8vs8.
 
So Lust you got your way it seems. Looking forward to 8 versus 8 on Field by the River or CS on Nord Town. From battle to skirmish thats the future. Didn't you mention somewhere around here that you welcome the 1000s registered player or similar? Wonder were they are all gone. But this will not solve your problems anyway. You will have a lot of default wins and re-scheduling of matches in the upcoming cycle. Cause now clans are even less encouraged to have a healthy player base and train their members properly over the 12+ and no clan will want to take the chances of playing a match if only one key player is missing but hey, the cycle after spring we can play 6 versus 6 and finally have our WNL with NA on random plains plus even more challenging tactics to come. Btw, can you implement in your next ENL admin tool update a timer function for the flags to spawn? So we could save valuable time starting at three minutes and no one needs to listen to complains over "camping" on wolfpack tv cause the flags are already there. A part from the benefits of being able to play 4 matches a day.
 
Or just start with fighting at flags and do duels. 1 of each clan, 1vs1. Why playing with 8 if even smaller clans with 1 player can join the ENL then?

Then there can be even more matches each evening.

edit: Not a lot of trolling though. lowering the amount of players in each team can only lead to 1vs1 situations very early. Or how many people could you send to defend each side of the ruins on ruins map for example if you only have 8 players? 3? No..
 
Changes all seem fairly decent to me.

The only ones I really didn't like was class limits and three rounds per set, four seems like a decent compromise.

Kinda stupid to keep with the whole 'if we're going to have four rounds per map why not only one', 'if we're going to have a slightly reduced round time we might as well just have one-minute rounds', not useful arguments and purely clumsy rhetoric.
 
Alex_C said:
Kinda stupid to keep with the whole 'if we're going to have four rounds per map why not only one', 'if we're going to have a slightly reduced round time we might as well just have one-minute rounds', not useful arguments and purely clumsy rhetoric.

Well, not my "rhetoric" isn't it. And good to know that you like it. A part from the "i like this and no, i like that" i haven't seen any argument so far.

The saying "8 vs.8 is good for the community and easier to organize" comes from what experience and how is that going to work? A part from the fact that this came was not made for such small number of players its not going to work out as you might think.

You want more clans to take part in this competition and therefor make it more accessible to smaller
clans so they can join in which is fine. But will the competition get more interesting or stable while changing from 10 to 8 players per side? Are you doing the community or smaller clans a favor? How many players do you need to train properly for this? At least 16 with a reserve you would like to have around 20 players for your ENL team. How likely are teams from the ENL to drop out because they can filed there players? How do you keep you bench players "happy"? Will this prevent defaults from happening?

You will still encounter the same problems in trainings and organizing your matches no matter its 8 or 10 you play with.

You fancy changes? Try out something new or think 8 players makes the game more interesting? You truly think clan wars with only 8 players per side will help the community or make the top Div. A more interesting? You want more changes on the top not only onside competition, do you? A part from teams with smaller player sizes you will still have the ones that fight for their lives while others more experienced clans will kill everything that comes into their way.

Yes, this new rule change will favor clans like RNGD, AE and us, IG. Smaller new clans will not enjoy this very much and if you vote for smaller clan wars this community in a competitive way won't change much but kill the masses. See, the only way to save this "dying community" is not to make smaller clan wars but to get more people to take part. I vote for more players per side, 10 or 15, not because i come from a clan with a big bench but to get more players to play. If you aim smaller clans cause you think everyone will get to play and it is easier for the community to organize itself. Well, you can't beat laziness nor will inexperienced clans enjoy a concentration of players. In fact weaker clans profit from fielding more then less players. And yes, the competition in Division A will not change much as it will not break the concentration of more experienced players from curtain clans.

The problem how to organize trainings, your players skill base, organize clan wars and the willingness to commit yourself to the community will not change with smaller clan wars but it will bring more "pain" to less experienced clans within the Warband community. 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?

And do you really think it will make clan wars at the top more exciting? Or anywhere? Interesting tactics and duels while fighting this 8 vs. 8? And do we really need this new standards in a NC and ENL? My bets go for RNGDs next league cycle. They don't have to change much do they; As FRA team the will beast the next cycle and the competition gets more exiting does it not. But this is a bit of topic, sorry.

So in conclusion i doubt things will change much with 8 vs. 8 but eventually kill a small scene. Smaller/ unexperienced clans will have more problems competing while a small elite scene will have all the joy for itself. I know training and recruiting is a painful business but for weaker less experienced or mediocre teams the only chance to beat and eventually bring in fresh air is to play with bigger teams. Im not saying this because i am IG but for the sack of this game.

So a part from the damage being done with playing one round in the WTFFS without any open minded discussion we have new rules. And yes Lust, we love you for the effort you do to this community and all the blood and time you put into this but you will kill your league all by yourself. Im not threatening you but if you want true "change" start with the organization and don't decide all on your own or with four other mates who agree with you anyway. 8 vs. 8 will not only bring a bit of trouble to hugh clans like us, cause from now on clan wars outside the ENL with more then 8 players will be difficult to organize, but smaller clans will die as soon as they pop up. You just excluded a large player base from competitive gameplay and will help this "dying" community a lot. So yes, small clans are great, sit around with your buddies you love and have not to deal with strangers in your own clan. But thats properly cause, a part from spamming the form like i do, you dont have any interested at all in this community (No Lust, sorry. Im not asking to you any more but in general). Smaller skirmishes and smaller clans doesn't mean it gets more interesting nor does it help our competitive gameplay nor the community in general. Its not even the right conclusion to our problems.
 
Well apart from disagreeing with almost everything you said, I also think the community is far from "dead" or "dying". 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 you make the match size 15vs15, what you do (firstly) is kill half the teams in the ENL (or more) because they simply can't get the players. You kill casual scrimming because organising matches that large has to be done in advance (save for in a few select cases). And you kill the importance of player skill - this is a big one. Playing in an environment where individuals feel challenged and motivated to improve is what keeps people playing on public servers. That's just the way it is. If you're part of a 15vs15 team where you could have the best game of your warband career or the worst and it wouldn't make a difference to the result, then you just won't have any motivation to stay in form. So you kill public server populations for competitive players (i.e. IG_Battlegrounds).

To be perfectly honest, I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about and I remain strongly convicted about all the decisions I've made with regards to the ruleset.

I don't think this will make the scene explode with new competitive clans overnight but I do think it nudges the balance in a way that is more appropriate for the game as an esport. That is what the ENL is and has always been about.
 
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:
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.

captain lust said:
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?
captain lust said:
But honestly I don't see acting in the interests of specific clan types as one of my objectives. If it's the case that a team has enough active players for 2 teams at 8vs8 then thoeretically, perhaps it would be more beneficial to the health of the community if those players formed 2 teams. The internals of clan management are something that I really try to separate myself from though. As I have consistently maintained, the ENL supports the (relatively) unambiguous idea of teams which are all defined in the same way (by their name, contacts and roster). Any relation to a particular clan that a team has is irrelevant to the ENL and how "clans" are managed doesn't come under my jurisdiction.
 
Saxnot said:
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.

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.

I vote for more players per side, 10 or 15
>:I
 
SCGavin said:
captain lust said:
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.

Meister_Eder said:
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".

Meister_Eder said:
- 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".

Meister_Eder said:
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.

Meister_Eder said:
- 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.

Meister_Eder said:
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?
captain lust said:
But honestly I don't see acting in the interests of specific clan types as one of my objectives. If it's the case that a team has enough active players for 2 teams at 8vs8 then thoeretically, perhaps it would be more beneficial to the health of the community if those players formed 2 teams. The internals of clan management are something that I really try to separate myself from though. As I have consistently maintained, the ENL supports the (relatively) unambiguous idea of teams which are all defined in the same way (by their name, contacts and roster). Any relation to a particular clan that a team has is irrelevant to the ENL and how "clans" are managed doesn't come under my jurisdiction.
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.
 
captain lust said:
Meister_Eder said:
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?
captain lust said:
But honestly I don't see acting in the interests of specific clan types as one of my objectives. If it's the case that a team has enough active players for 2 teams at 8vs8 then thoeretically, perhaps it would be more beneficial to the health of the community if those players formed 2 teams. The internals of clan management are something that I really try to separate myself from though. As I have consistently maintained, the ENL supports the (relatively) unambiguous idea of teams which are all defined in the same way (by their name, contacts and roster). Any relation to a particular clan that a team has is irrelevant to the ENL and how "clans" are managed doesn't come under my jurisdiction.
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.

captain lust said:
Meister_Eder said:
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?

captain lust said:
Meister_Eder said:
- 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"?


captain lust said:
Meister_Eder said:
- 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".
 
Meister_Eder said:
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.

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

Meister_Eder said:
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?

Meister_Eder said:
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.
 
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 :cool:. 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.
 
Back
Top Bottom