Author Topic: Where do we go from here?  (Read 21608 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lord Rich

  • Grandmaster Knight
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Rhodok
  • MP nick: AE_Azan
Re: Where do we go from here?
« Reply #15 on: May 30, 2012, 07:32:21 PM »
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.

Deacon Barry

  • Marquis
  • *
  • Lord of the Lord
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Bandit
  • MP nick: AE_Deacon
  • WB
Re: Where do we go from here?
« Reply #16 on: May 30, 2012, 08:23:37 PM »
I know you've mooted the idea before and a few others have mentioned it above but i'll just restate my support for the idea. I really think having a singular ladder would create a competitive and dynamic league. Merging all of the divisions into one ladder would mean you had no more dud matches, you wouldn't have any more teams in divisions that everyone thrashes 16-0. This would be better not only for competitiveness but also for the clans that get repeatedly thrashed, as they will be fighting clans actually on their level. It also nullifies the importance of drop-outs, meaning that they no longer matter.

All in all I think the idea has much to commend it and ticks many boxes (competitiveness and mobility being key ones).
« Last Edit: May 30, 2012, 09:13:59 PM by Killfacer »

Morii

  • Sergeant Knight
  • *
  • chat au Coq
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Vaegir
  • MP nick: Chikun
Re: Where do we go from here?
« Reply #17 on: May 30, 2012, 08:35:51 PM »
The idea tickled my box as well.
I used to be active like you, but then I took an arrow to the dick.


Lord_David

  • Knight
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Rhodok
  • MP nick: AE_David
Re: Where do we go from here?
« Reply #18 on: May 30, 2012, 09:32:36 PM »
The Naste system looks good, but could cause matches of varying time as Morii said (might cause clashing on server over busy days, matches going on longer than expected) or people not understanding it fully (like me for example :P) but overall I like the idea, and I'm sure it could be adapted to suit any problems.

I'm against any prize money, we've been doing well without it and then there is the problem as Alex said of how the money is distributed and I think could cause alot of problems.

Also I'd prefer a longer league set up to a quick tourney, as Mordgrim I think, said it would take away the feeling of a long and hard fought victory.

With Khergits I'm all for testing but I don't really think they would work, but you never know.

Not sure about the Fight and Destroy thing, don't really like the idea tbh.
I love sandy's bush..
All Davids are sexier than Italians.
David's not dead....just spreading the awesomeness around a bit ^^

BaronDeMoroz

  • Squire
  • *
  • night hunter
    • View Profile
    • Black Team
  • Faction: Neutral
  • MP nick: BT_cpt_BaronDeMoroz
Re: Where do we go from here?
« Reply #19 on: May 30, 2012, 10:01:38 PM »
Khergits

I support the idea that it would use the Khergits without testing.
But probably will be a testing.

if the test shows negative result. I offer this idea:

Do not exclude Khergits in the random system. and automatically change the second fraction in map on khergits.

I think no one can deny. What Khergits - Khergits  is balanced. On any map.

The greatness of the country simply define:
By the quantity of jackals yapping on her legacy.

BaronDeMoroz

  • Squire
  • *
  • night hunter
    • View Profile
    • Black Team
  • Faction: Neutral
  • MP nick: BT_cpt_BaronDeMoroz
Re: Where do we go from here?
« Reply #20 on: May 30, 2012, 10:19:31 PM »
prize Money

Lust, my clan and myself (I was then deputy leader of the clan).

We were the only ones who organized the tournament with a prize fund in the form of real money. (in Russia).
Believe my experience, and take my word:

Do not do it. Never!

What Alex wrote, it is only a small part. You get a very big disappointment.

P.S. I find it hard to write in English. But I can give you all the arguments, if you wish.

The greatness of the country simply define:
By the quantity of jackals yapping on her legacy.

BaronDeMoroz

  • Squire
  • *
  • night hunter
    • View Profile
    • Black Team
  • Faction: Neutral
  • MP nick: BT_cpt_BaronDeMoroz
Re: Where do we go from here?
« Reply #21 on: May 30, 2012, 10:32:11 PM »

Tournament Format

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.

I think that one tournament every 2/3 weeks would be excessive: some teams can't play 2 matches ore more every week.

I want to remind you about the Russian teams, who are experiencing a big difference over time.

We can carry  matches out only at the weekend. Especially with teams from Spain and Portugal.

The greatness of the country simply define:
By the quantity of jackals yapping on her legacy.

ModusTollens

  • Baron
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
  • MP nick: modus_tollens
  • M&BWBWF&S
Re: Where do we go from here?
« Reply #22 on: May 30, 2012, 10:38:38 PM »
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.
Just to make sure: the method of predetermining maps and factions would always be random but the accomplishment of this randomness doesn't matter? And not: the method of predetermining maps and factions doesn't matter in general (so they could be chosen by the teams for example)?

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.
But wouldn't such (regular but different in their formats) tournaments involve even more administrative work than a league (or a single ladder)? These tournaments could also be affected worse by things like roster violations and drop-outs, thinking that those won't happen because something is over fast - judging from the habit of things being dragged out way above the estimated time period even that could be doubted (and could even be supported by some empirical evidence and justification) - isn't necessarily accurate.

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).
Not in the proposed single elimination tournaments of course but as far as a league or ladder are concerned I'd agree.

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.
I blame Arch3r.

We're not massive scene with hundreds of competitive teams and thousands of dollars of prize money. That's certainly the situation I'd like us to be in... though I don't know if that's an opinion shared by everyone.
I'd also like to start thinking about somehow integrating prize money, even small amounts into these competitions.
As far as a broader, so to speak, audience is concerned I don't believe a game like Warband (or WotR or M&B2) will ever be able to address a significant enough portion of gamers.

I'm opposed to the introduction of prizes or prize money (apart from them being used for advertising purposes like in the WFAS-tournament). If one needs prizes to play a game in an at least semi-serious way without being overly ambitious they're either kiddies thinking they need the 10 bucks to buy some random **** or conservative idiots who need some sort of material incentive. In both cases they can go **** themselves as far as I'm concerned.

Morii

  • Sergeant Knight
  • *
  • chat au Coq
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Vaegir
  • MP nick: Chikun
Re: Where do we go from here?
« Reply #23 on: May 31, 2012, 08:55:15 AM »
I feel that IF its probable that money-prizes will draw more people to the game or tournaments and/or improves general competitiveness, its worth looking into at least.
I used to be active like you, but then I took an arrow to the dick.


BaronDeMoroz

  • Squire
  • *
  • night hunter
    • View Profile
    • Black Team
  • Faction: Neutral
  • MP nick: BT_cpt_BaronDeMoroz
Re: Where do we go from here?
« Reply #24 on: May 31, 2012, 09:05:02 AM »
Do not see the point.

All those who have played in Native already are participating in the ENL.

Those who do not play in the Native. Savvy enough to realize that they can not win a prize.

The greatness of the country simply define:
By the quantity of jackals yapping on her legacy.

Morii

  • Sergeant Knight
  • *
  • chat au Coq
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Vaegir
  • MP nick: Chikun
Re: Where do we go from here?
« Reply #25 on: May 31, 2012, 09:50:02 AM »
All those who have played in Native already are participating in the ENL.
That's just not true :O Look at RN, RS and plenty of small clans in Poland, Germany and possibly Russia(?) who are currently not participating in the ENL.

Those who do not play in the Native. Savvy enough to realize that they can not win a prize.
Also not really true; as an example, there are plenty of cRPG players/clans who think they'd do very well in Native.

There are serious concerns to be dealt with before implementing moneyprizes, but I doubt the idea itself would have no effect whatsoever on activeness in the competitive scene.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 09:53:50 AM by Morii »
I used to be active like you, but then I took an arrow to the dick.


sotamursu123

  • On probation
  • *
  • Why so serious? :)
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Khergit
  • MP nick: osTnT_cns_SotaMursu
  • WBNW
Re: Where do we go from here?
« Reply #26 on: May 31, 2012, 10:13:26 AM »
I support Khergits!



BaronDeMoroz

  • Squire
  • *
  • night hunter
    • View Profile
    • Black Team
  • Faction: Neutral
  • MP nick: BT_cpt_BaronDeMoroz
Re: Where do we go from here?
« Reply #27 on: May 31, 2012, 10:32:18 AM »
...

Check the roster of the Syndicate and you will see  the clans and players about which you are told by . (In Russia, not excluding the RS).

Others would not go in Native for the money.

P.S.
RS for two years waiting for t-shirts, which they won at the NC 2010. So it never came.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 10:36:22 AM by BaronDeMoroz »

The greatness of the country simply define:
By the quantity of jackals yapping on her legacy.

Shemaforash

  • Marquis
  • *
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • Steam - Shemaforash
    • Twitch.tv - Shemaforash
    • YouTube - UCxUKp-cVk-kmP3aEBjgDg3g
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
  • MP nick: AE_shema
  • WB
Re: Where do we go from here?
« Reply #28 on: May 31, 2012, 10:42:42 AM »
...

Check the roster of the Syndicate and you will see  the clans and players about which you are told by . (In Russia, not excluding the RS).

Others would not go in Native for the money.

P.S.
RS for two years waiting for t-shirts, which they won at the NC 2010. So it never came.

This was promised from ONE member of the taleworlds staff who no longer works with them, I do think it's bad to make a promise for something like that and not going through with it. But didn't the RUM team recieve NW keys?

Arch3r

  • Count
  • *
  • >:I
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Rhodok
  • MP nick: CoR_Arch3r
  • M&BWBNW
Re: Where do we go from here?
« Reply #29 on: May 31, 2012, 11:28:53 AM »
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.
I blame Arch3r.
Such a blamer...

Anyways, NAste system seems pretty cool.
                                                                                           

Slenderpeasants,
the evil minions of the Bonerlords