Match Format
The more I play and watch and think about the current match format, the clearer its imperfections become in my eyes.
The first problem of it is its suceptibility to map imbalance. As it stands, one map can render the other redundant if a team dominates on it. Likewise, a map can render itself almost redundant if it's particularly imbalanced. We've seen this before when a match has one map as Port Assault (for example) and the other as Field by the River (for example). Given the nature of Port Assault, it's very tricky to dominate on the map. Not impossible (nothing seems to be, in this game) but on average, scores on the map tend to be fairly close. However, Field by the River could allow a team a much better chance of getting a high score due to it's relatively balanced nature. Unless there is serious faction imbalance, then a team that wins on one side of the map could be expected to win on the other side.
This problem has been largely ignored arguably it isn't really a problem. It doesn't cause any inherent advantage to one team or another. It happens that one team might benefit on a case by case basis.
The second problem is watchability. As more matches are getting streamed and the interest is somewhat growing, it's frustrating to see how matches can seem to be over by the time the second map starts. One team might be left with a mountain to climb and with a near impossible task to pull back rounds due to a specific map and faction set up (this links back to the first problem). The level of uncertainty that makes anything interesting or entertaining to watch has been vanquished.
The third problem is the expectation of teams to play redundant rounds. In the ENL, these rounds aren't always redundant since round difference counts etc. but rounds are already an imperfect decider for separating teams and motivation to play after having lost in other competitions is rightfully lacking. There have also been suggestions that not playing such rounds is dishonourable. Something which I think is a shame because that really shouldn't be an issue and a respectful team that respectfully doesn't want to waste their time doesn't deserve criticism of that sort in my opinion. That's something that should be saved for rude and childish individuals of which, in this community, there are (thankfully) relatively few. In my opinion anyway. But sorry for waffling.
Certainly agree on the latter points, it ruins the experience of watching the match if you already pretty much know a team is going to win and watching redundant rounds has no suspense. Likewise playing redundant rounds has also been something I never liked, when a team wins the loser should be able to say 'gg' and leave respectfully, not get dragged through half a dozen more rounds of defeat.
The first point is true but not something that we need to worry about so much I think, as you say its not really a problem as both sides have to fight in the same circumstances and I wouldn't say either side of any of the maps currently played is not winnable.
Like now, maps and factions would be predermined (the method is irrelevant but in any competitions I might run, they would probably be random). However, instead of two setups, you would have three. Closed, Mixed and Open.
As an example, these might be:
Closed: Sandiboush - Nords vs Sarranids
Mixed: Ruins - Rhodoks vs Sarranids
Open: Field by the River - Nords vs Swadia
From this point onwards, it's effectively the same system used in the NASTe competition. If you aren't familiar with that, I'll explain it below.
Team 1 would pick the first map to play. Say it was Ruins - Rhodoks vs Sarranids. This would be played in the same way as a map in the current format. Switching sides etc. (though it might need to be shorter) and you'd play until a team got over half the total rounds for that map. Say it was 6, you'd play until a team reached 4 or it got to 3-3, in which case the map would be a draw. Let's say that is the case and the first map is drawn. Then Team 2 picks the next map from the remaining two. Let's say it's Sandiboush - Nords vs Sarranids. Team 2 gets to 4 while the opponent is on 1, it ends at 4-1. Team 2 would then win and a third map would not need to played. The same would apply if a team had won both of the first two maps.
If however teams were a map each (or 0 maps each, 2 draws) then a third map would be played. This will always be the remaining map from the three that are given at the start and it would be played in exactly the same way (3 rounds a side, as proposed).
If there was a draw after that, you could simply continue swapping sides every round on the third map until one team went two ahead. This would be fair since it was the map neither team picked.
I actually quite like the sound of this system, seems fair and still forces random selection of maps. I do have a problem with one part of it however and that is the victory conditions on the third map. You seem to be suggesting here that there would be no possibility for the match as a whole to be a draw. Could we not just have the possibility of a draw (all 3 maps drawn) because otherwise those 2 points ahead rules would make it a very long game (potentially unending XD).
As I see it currently the minimum number of rounds played with this suggested system would be 8 (one team winning both the first two maps outright). The maximum number of rounds played would be 18 if match draws were allowed. This seems like a good number to be as that would be pretty rare, however given that teams would have to do plans for 3 maps instead of two now we can also probably expect an increased amount of time between all the sets, probably an overall increase of 50%. The result of this is that I would guess that these matches would be longer than the matches in the current rules. Even for an early win playing only 8 rounds there would be the same amount of pre match prep as for 4 sets.
I will probably write something later when I have had more time to think about it, but for now I do like some aspects of the suggested system and I think generally I would just like to have it streamlined a bit to make sure matches are over in a reasonable amount of time (definitely not above 2 hours) and also so we can reduce the amount of fluff and prep time without hindering the teams and forcing them to fight unprepared.
Tournament Format
The ENL has been a great success, in my eyes (as I've already mentioned). However, I think now is the time for focus to shift elsewhere... Depending on interest, I actually think it might be a good idea to keep it going but really, I'd like to start pushing tournaments.
As it stands, though, mobility in the ENL is too low and new, strong teams shouldn't have to wait so long to compete at a top level. Infact, I don't think they should have to wait at all.
This isn't a regressive step, back to what we had with the ENPL or anything like that. I want these tournaments to be professional and fast affairs. 2 weeks and over.
Many of you may wince at the prospect of playing such a fast tournament but I say it's the best way of moving forward and I want to run a test tournament very soon to see how it works. I'm thinking single elimination with a scheduling system somewhat similar to that of Division C's but more rigid.
I think I would really need more info on the specifics of what you are suggesting but I do agree with what the others are saying, having a general league is more interesting in general than a tournament because there is more potentially to play for. If a tournament is small and fast then it will probably be fun but lack the prestige of winning something like the ENL.
Also elimination based tournaments tend to mean that weaker clans would only get one or two matches. I like the league more because it filters clans and lets even beginner or newly formed clans continue to compete.
I do agree on the mobility aspect however, currently its too slow and clans change too fast for the system to keep up. Thats why I prefer the idea of having a single large ladder with all the clans in similar to division C. I think its a more interesting format as well since you don't know who will pick who. Perhaps it could also use a seed system for the first weeks picks in order to ensure the strongest clans don't immediately fight each other. That would be based on the rankings from the previous ENL.
As for the fast tournaments I would say run them! The ENL isn't active constantly and I think it would be nice to have them, however I do think it would be a mistake to try and make teams play any more than 1 match a week. It can already be difficult sometimes getting a single date agreed on a week, I fear if the tournament demands more it would simply make it impractical for some teams to enter.
Khergits
Bring them on. We're going to try and push out a release for the ENL Admin Mod very soon, based on 1.153 and then I'll set up a platform for them to be tested. Additionally, any testing you want to do would be welcome. I don't want to apply arbitrary restrictions like (horse archers can't take horses) or anything. We've avoided doing that in the past and I think in doing so, we dodged a massive bullet. Messing with the game is a slippery slope and an all round bad idea for the time being. Personally, I'm gutted that jump reloading was "fixed" in the latest patch but that's something I'm just going to have to learn to suck it up and take it (no sniggering, please).
Said this in the other thread, I am happy to test them and if they are found to be balanced I see no reason not to include them. I would say however that it is pretty likely they aren't balanced and that even if the results do show they aren't it may be misleading due to the lack of recent experience using them in the competitive scene.
Fight and Destroy
I've talked about testing this for a long time. It's a game mode we never threw much at but I think it could be an incredible amount of fun. Once this release out (sorry about that, I wanted to postpone making this thread a few days but discussions were starting anyway) we'll get some testing done for that. With the right ruleset, I think it can work.
We've discussed this briefly before but I still think that the way the maps themselves are set up with the two objectives is almost always going to heavily benefit one team or the other. I think it makes the maps very hard to balance and the layout of the two siege weapons often places the defender in an untenable position where they have to stop the attackers getting to two positions while also defeating the attackers. It often ended in a lot of drawn rounds in public play where the defenders couldn't stop the attackers taking out at least one of the objectives but then the attackers couldn't take the second one.
I really don't think any minor rule changes are going to sort that out and you would need something drastic with either specifically designed or modified maps or maybe even unbalanced number of players on the defending/attacking teams.
Also just as an extra nugget of knowledge to help continue the discussion, maps can include more than two siege weapons in them however the attackers still win if they destroy two of them and there are still only two points available to either side.
