Where do we go from here?
- Thread starter captain lust
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
I think that tactics deserves more in this league than super pro individual skills, and 10 v 10 is just better in my point of view for this tournament. I mean, yea it's harder, that's why the best clan of ENL sould be the one who "can have the control and can be coordinated even in open maps with 10 players" (just tried my best to explainNewbiejunky said:
)
Saxnot
Sergeant
ramboTotalWar said:I think that tactics deserves more in this league than super pro individual skills, and 10 v 10 is just better in my point of view for this tournament. I mean, yea it's harder, that's why the best clan of ENL sould be the one who "can have the control and can be coordinated even in open maps with 10 players" (just tried my best to explainNewbiejunky said:
What Crusader says!
I wouldn't say 10 v 10 is harder, if anything maybe slightly easier (can cover more of the map etc) as Nubi says. However if you wanted the league to become bigger and better I think you should consider changing it back to 10 v 10. I'm sure we'd all like to see big matches with lots of fights everywhere but those days have gone. However if it goes to 10 v 10 the matches will probably have slightly longer/bigger fights (good for the livestreams) and more people get to play, plus alot of the matches and maps will hopefully not have that empty feeling I've experienced on matches and seen on livestreams. Of course you could argue that bigger teams cover more of the map which could lead to camping, but from this ENL 8v8's don't seem to stop camping if a team really wants to do that.
I'm not really fussed about it, 10 v 10 or 8 v 8, but I hope you would consider 10 v 10's again.
I'm not really fussed about it, 10 v 10 or 8 v 8, but I hope you would consider 10 v 10's again.
grossart
Veteran
Im new to the competitive community in this game. However, i have years of experience competing in other games such as cs. In fact, i was surprised to learn that F&D wasn't the real deal here, instead of Battle. It is normal for sides to be unbalanced in this type of game. In CS defending is (almost) ALWAYS harder than attacking but then again you switch sides in the game which balances it out. I think that actually one side should be harder to play than the other, so both teams have 2 different stages in a game where they can either stand out at, or not.
I still think 8vs8 has been a big success. I don't believe in "easy" or "hard" in multiplayer versus games. That just doesn't make sense to me.
What I do think is that the player skill shift at 8vs8 makes for more interesting rounds. 10vs10 feels too grindy and it always has done. Coordination and tactics have been significantly more advanced in the last cycle and the meta game has come a long way from playing with smaller numbers. Plus it means the timer can be brought down to 5 minutes (possibly could go lower), which reduces the inevitable wait time of a non objective based, non respawn mode.
Anyway, just to throw something new into the discussions. I have a suggestion (one which I think is fairly neat) for a tournament format that allows 1st and 2nd (but not 3rd) to be determined fairly but also relatively quickly. I don't know if this is already known or has been used before because I just made it up but I'd like to hear thoughts, criticisms and flaws.
Basically it's built around a standard single elimination bracket but any team that loses against a team who wins their next match will fight the loser of that next match. This keeps going until one team plays the loser of the final, which is the last match. For practicality's sake, I would suggest that this is delayed by a stage to see who wins the next match and see if it's worth teams playing at all. Otherwise you'd have too many teams playing for nothing (you would have teams playing for nothing either way, which is the main flaw I can see in the tournament... however they wouldn't know they'd be playing for nothing, it's just that their fate would sort of be out of their control).
Here's an example (with letters representing teams):
What you can see there is firstly A winning the tournament, by winning all of it's games and therefore showing itself to be the best. However, after A beats F (and P beats J) loser matches start taking place. These are B vs D and N vs O. After that the final is played, which renders N vs O pointless (even though N won) as they both lost to a loser. After the final is played, B fights and beats F. This means B can be second place in the left side of the bracket (after A) and with P as the winner of the right side of the bracket, they can fairly face off to determine second place in the tournament. To determine 3rd place fairly, quite a few more matches would need to be played depending on the results of certain playoffs.
It is a bit of an issue having 2 games played after the final (this could be reduced but would mean more games like N vs O would get played) but it does mean that relatively few games need to be played, unlike in double elimination which can drag on for a seriously long time. Standard single elimination fails to fairly determine second place with a random seed and can leave a good team (in this example B) with nothing because of a very unfortunate draw. There would be more of these "pointless" games being played in a 32 team tournament (4 more?), which is another potential problem although you could delay the loser matches further and tighten their scheduling. A solution that could work reasonably well.
Anyway, I'd be interested to hear thoughts on this format.
As an aside, sorry for the delay on the playoffs. I'm verifying the matches now and the deadline will be extended by 3 days to Sunday (inclusive) for the first playoff match.
What I do think is that the player skill shift at 8vs8 makes for more interesting rounds. 10vs10 feels too grindy and it always has done. Coordination and tactics have been significantly more advanced in the last cycle and the meta game has come a long way from playing with smaller numbers. Plus it means the timer can be brought down to 5 minutes (possibly could go lower), which reduces the inevitable wait time of a non objective based, non respawn mode.
Anyway, just to throw something new into the discussions. I have a suggestion (one which I think is fairly neat) for a tournament format that allows 1st and 2nd (but not 3rd) to be determined fairly but also relatively quickly. I don't know if this is already known or has been used before because I just made it up but I'd like to hear thoughts, criticisms and flaws.
Basically it's built around a standard single elimination bracket but any team that loses against a team who wins their next match will fight the loser of that next match. This keeps going until one team plays the loser of the final, which is the last match. For practicality's sake, I would suggest that this is delayed by a stage to see who wins the next match and see if it's worth teams playing at all. Otherwise you'd have too many teams playing for nothing (you would have teams playing for nothing either way, which is the main flaw I can see in the tournament... however they wouldn't know they'd be playing for nothing, it's just that their fate would sort of be out of their control).
Here's an example (with letters representing teams):
What you can see there is firstly A winning the tournament, by winning all of it's games and therefore showing itself to be the best. However, after A beats F (and P beats J) loser matches start taking place. These are B vs D and N vs O. After that the final is played, which renders N vs O pointless (even though N won) as they both lost to a loser. After the final is played, B fights and beats F. This means B can be second place in the left side of the bracket (after A) and with P as the winner of the right side of the bracket, they can fairly face off to determine second place in the tournament. To determine 3rd place fairly, quite a few more matches would need to be played depending on the results of certain playoffs.
It is a bit of an issue having 2 games played after the final (this could be reduced but would mean more games like N vs O would get played) but it does mean that relatively few games need to be played, unlike in double elimination which can drag on for a seriously long time. Standard single elimination fails to fairly determine second place with a random seed and can leave a good team (in this example B) with nothing because of a very unfortunate draw. There would be more of these "pointless" games being played in a 32 team tournament (4 more?), which is another potential problem although you could delay the loser matches further and tighten their scheduling. A solution that could work reasonably well.
Anyway, I'd be interested to hear thoughts on this format.
We already have that, to an extent, with map and faction imbalances but I agree, Fight and Destroy could be interesting to experiment with.grossart said:
As an aside, sorry for the delay on the playoffs. I'm verifying the matches now and the deadline will be extended by 3 days to Sunday (inclusive) for the first playoff match.
What is Fight and Destroy, exactly? Never played that...
I have defended 10 vs 10 battles for a long time, because 10 vs 10 is obviously more fun.
Now I changed my views because it seems pretty clear that the vast majority of clans find it hard to get 10 players on a regular basis, and switching to 8 players makes it easier for "small business" to survive.
And this is a good thing for the community overall.
Most clans are based on a coregroup of 5-6 players very available, so 8 vs 8 battles means that their organizer only needs to find a couple more guys to get a team. It is much easier to manage for those who carry the community on their shoulders aka the clan organizers.
Also, I wonder why people just talk about minor problems such as flag spawning at 2:45 instead of 2:30, or consider creating ununderstandable league system when it is clear that the major flaw of ENL is the high percentage of 16-0-in your-face for roster violations problems... Playing a league where the ranking is smallpoxed by administrative default losses is so demotivating.
Now I changed my views because it seems pretty clear that the vast majority of clans find it hard to get 10 players on a regular basis, and switching to 8 players makes it easier for "small business" to survive.
And this is a good thing for the community overall.
Most clans are based on a coregroup of 5-6 players very available, so 8 vs 8 battles means that their organizer only needs to find a couple more guys to get a team. It is much easier to manage for those who carry the community on their shoulders aka the clan organizers.
Also, I wonder why people just talk about minor problems such as flag spawning at 2:45 instead of 2:30, or consider creating ununderstandable league system when it is clear that the major flaw of ENL is the high percentage of 16-0-in your-face for roster violations problems... Playing a league where the ranking is smallpoxed by administrative default losses is so demotivating.
Dealing with that by allowing teams to be sloppy is the wrong approach and a terrible idea. I've said that consistently and I still think it.arsenic_vengeur said:
A man read, and a man disapprove
Some people here wrote that they would like playing with 10 people again too : S
Whatever, let's focus on more important things given that it looks like also Lust wanna keep the number to 8.
Some people here wrote that they would like playing with 10 people again too : S
Whatever, let's focus on more important things given that it looks like also Lust wanna keep the number to 8.
He's right in some extent. The "ID's" aren't that reliable. We thought they were, but even our clanmate Blead had his ID randomly changed even without a proper predicted reason for such.captain lust said:
I think the ID system causes a great deal of nuisances and should be removed. What good does it really accomplish anyways? Most online competitive games with BIG prize pools don't go so far as to have such a strict policy to monitor players, for a reason. Seems unlikely to me that people would fake "big" names. Skill speaks for itself.
Still don't buy that it just "changed".Harkon Haakonson said:
Yes they do.Harkon Haakonson said:
As long as you make it possible for teams to have one extra non-roster guys you solve 99% of the problems we have seen, given that 99% of default losses were the fault of only one ID error.
We are playing a medieval game, not some stalinist roleplaying game.
We are playing a medieval game, not some stalinist roleplaying game.
arsenic_vengeur said:
I'm against this because having one extra roster guy means I can play for every team as long as they allow me to.
I've made my arguments against the sloppy approach countless times. They're all still valid in my opinion and I'm not going over them again.
8 Players is certainly more balanced on Village as it becomes harder to cover all entrances properly when defending. I do feel that 10 players a team was more fun on the open maps like Ruins and Field by the River though. Tough call, but both player amounts has it's charms but if some clans can't gather 10, I still think 8 players is a decent enough amount. Definitely don't go lower than 8 though.
Stick with 8 or 10 players per team and the league format - but don't go below it.
Going below 8 vs 8 will force the breaking up of the bigger teams like IG in several lineups. Tell me, how do you want to field your active players regularly in a 5v5 massacre, if you have a 30 ppl roster? It's good that we still have these, we should not force clans which _can_ maintain a big roster to break their rosters up...
The league format enables a regular competition rather than a "hot" 2 weeks tournament with loads of matches. It's summer, there's good weather and I'd rather go for one match per week than 3 - 5 in one week, of which I just can attend the half, because I want to spend time outside in the sun with my friends!
Going below 8 vs 8 will force the breaking up of the bigger teams like IG in several lineups. Tell me, how do you want to field your active players regularly in a 5v5 massacre, if you have a 30 ppl roster? It's good that we still have these, we should not force clans which _can_ maintain a big roster to break their rosters up...
The league format enables a regular competition rather than a "hot" 2 weeks tournament with loads of matches. It's summer, there's good weather and I'd rather go for one match per week than 3 - 5 in one week, of which I just can attend the half, because I want to spend time outside in the sun with my friends!
I'm for the 10 vs. 10, dont want either Khergits (i think its enough factions that we currently have) nor Fight and Destroy (the last will break out league, i think the classical battle is much better).
Hs_Salim
Master Knight
Hmm, afterreading page after page, i can't understand why we should change such a lot of things.
The question is, what is the goal in our, the european community?
I think we don't need a "super hardcore" competition similar to the Coutner Strike, Call of Duty and the ESL.
For me that's not Warband.
I really like the european or international community, a lot of nice and awesome Clans and Players, regardless of whether they come from france, great britain, turkey, spain, italy, russia, poland and so one. There are some trolls but who cares.
That's the point, why i love warband. It's not so important for me, that I'm the best player ever or that my clan is the best warband clan. THe most important factor why I'm playing warband, is because I have a lot of fun, the community is great and there are a lot of great players.
And I think 8 vs. 8 is a good balance, not to much but also not insufficient. With Nords, Swadia, Rhodok, Sarranids and Vaegir we have enough factions. why do we need Khergit with stupid horse archers? 8 horse archers on ruins or field by the river, have a big advantage.
Imo without the ENL, the warband scene could be nearly dead. It's great to have such a league. But it's also good to have some tournaments, like 5-a-side, Nations Cup, Duelling Tournaments and so one. So variety is given.
In case the ENL is no longer a league, we will have endless tournaments, kinda boring imo.
In summer it's better to have one match per week in a league, than to have 2 or 3 matches in one week. (just like TheBard said it)
I think we don't need big changes, in my opinion last cycle we have a great success. Not much roster violations and except divison a there were not that much postponed matches.
Why should we change that?
I think, the only thing is that we should give a chance to the mappers, to create new maps, so that we can introduce 2 or 3 maps per cycle and remove 1 or 2 old maps for getting variety.
But anyway, the most important fact is that we have fun, because it's a game and it's our free time. We should not hassle all the time. We should have fun as a community and i think only having tournaments with 5 vs. 5 or so, is not the right way.
The question is, what is the goal in our, the european community?
I think we don't need a "super hardcore" competition similar to the Coutner Strike, Call of Duty and the ESL.
For me that's not Warband.
I really like the european or international community, a lot of nice and awesome Clans and Players, regardless of whether they come from france, great britain, turkey, spain, italy, russia, poland and so one. There are some trolls but who cares.
That's the point, why i love warband. It's not so important for me, that I'm the best player ever or that my clan is the best warband clan. THe most important factor why I'm playing warband, is because I have a lot of fun, the community is great and there are a lot of great players.
And I think 8 vs. 8 is a good balance, not to much but also not insufficient. With Nords, Swadia, Rhodok, Sarranids and Vaegir we have enough factions. why do we need Khergit with stupid horse archers? 8 horse archers on ruins or field by the river, have a big advantage.
Imo without the ENL, the warband scene could be nearly dead. It's great to have such a league. But it's also good to have some tournaments, like 5-a-side, Nations Cup, Duelling Tournaments and so one. So variety is given.
In case the ENL is no longer a league, we will have endless tournaments, kinda boring imo.
In summer it's better to have one match per week in a league, than to have 2 or 3 matches in one week. (just like TheBard said it)
I think we don't need big changes, in my opinion last cycle we have a great success. Not much roster violations and except divison a there were not that much postponed matches.
Why should we change that?
I think, the only thing is that we should give a chance to the mappers, to create new maps, so that we can introduce 2 or 3 maps per cycle and remove 1 or 2 old maps for getting variety.
But anyway, the most important fact is that we have fun, because it's a game and it's our free time. We should not hassle all the time. We should have fun as a community and i think only having tournaments with 5 vs. 5 or so, is not the right way.
