Where do we go from here?

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Andrej1 said:
Hmm, afterreading page after page, i can't understand why we should change such a lot of things.


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. :grin:
Click to expand...
=D

anyway, the horse archers are much much less accurated andrej, and it is really more playable as factions, we just need tests. try to believe!
 
ramboTotalWar said:
Andrej1 said:
Hmm, afterreading page after page, i can't understand why we should change such a lot of things.


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. :grin:
Click to expand...
=D

anyway, the horse archers are much much less accurated andrej, and it is really more playable as factions, we just need tests. try to believe!
Click to expand...

hmm, okay, we will see :wink:

Oh fuuu, i wrote Italy???  :roll: Porca miseria!

 
Andrej1 said:
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. :grin:

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.
Click to expand...

I agree.
Although I don't agree on the Kerghit part. We gotta give them a chance!
 
Kerghits could be fun.

Though in a match with 2 maps, and random generation among the 6 factions, each faction has 66% chance of being played.

66% of kerghits in matches sounds way too much...
So maybe it should be like there is very few chances to have kerghits (like 10-20% of chance that kerghits occur in a match) but this could happen.
 
arsenic_vengeur said:
Kerghits could be fun.

Though in a match with 2 maps, and random generation among the 6 factions, each faction has 66% chance of being played.

66% of kerghits in matches sounds way too much...
So maybe it should be like there is very few chances to have kerghits (like 10-20% of chance that kerghits occur in a match) but this could happen.
Click to expand...
66%? Your calculations are flawed methinks. Probably more of a 18% EDIT: My calculation was also flawed, but the correct answer would be 51,77%

Maynd said:
Chasing annoying horse archers will be funnnnnnnnn
Click to expand...
Shoot 'em, shoot 'em for glory!
 
Hmmm seems like I ****ed up.
For some obscure reasons it appears that having 4 times 1/6 probability is lower than 4/6 probability. This must have a link with a parrallel universe, or a 4th dimension I suppose.

And regarding the fact that it is annoying to run after kerghit horse archers, I dunno why you would even try to do so, just take javs, shoot them, or wait for draw or flag.
 
arsenic_vengeur said:
And regarding the fact that it is annoying to run after kerghit horse archers, I dunno why you would even try to do so, just take javs, shoot them, or wait for draw or flag.
Click to expand...

That is not fun either  :lol:
 
arsenic_vengeur said:
Hmmm seems like I ****ed up.
For some obscure reasons it appears that having 4 times 1/6 probability is lower than 4/6 probability. This must have a link with a parrallel universe, or a 4th dimension I suppose.

And regarding the fact that it is annoying to run after kerghit horse archers, I dunno why you would even try to do so, just take javs, shoot them, or wait for draw or flag.
Click to expand...
If you would throw a dice 6 times, would it be 100% chance you'll throw one 6? Because 6 times 1/6th chance is 100% right? No, not really.
According to this calculator the chance to get 6 at least once when throwing a dice 6 times is 66%.
 
Arch3r said:
arsenic_vengeur said:
Hmmm seems like I ****ed up.
For some obscure reasons it appears that having 4 times 1/6 probability is lower than 4/6 probability. This must have a link with a parrallel universe, or a 4th dimension I suppose.

And regarding the fact that it is annoying to run after kerghit horse archers, I dunno why you would even try to do so, just take javs, shoot them, or wait for draw or flag.
Click to expand...
If you would throw a dice 6 times, would it be 100% chance you'll throw one 6? Because 6 times 1/6th chance is 100% right? No, not really.
According to this calculator the chance to get 6 at least once when throwing a dice 6 times is 66%.
Click to expand...
It's (rounded) 67%, since 1-(5/6)^6 (for the dice example, not the Khergit one where it would be ^4 - as you obviously used it anyway). Not that probabilities matter at all. That's as useless as seeing a correlation between number of players and advancements in tactics (however those are measured) or metagaming for that matter. Either Khergits have the same status as the other factions or they shouldn't be included at all.

captain lust said:
Anyway, I'd be interested to hear thoughts on this format.
Click to expand...
If you want tournaments to happen fast I don't see the advantage of that format over simple single-elimination tournaments.
If teams happen to have to fight against a strong opponent in their first round it's tough luck. Your suggestion may be more objective regarding the 2nd placed team (although it would be possible to imagine scenarios where that's not the case) but who cares about that anyway (especially when it's not decided in the finale). As you pointed out yourself, the matches being played after the winner of the tournament is already found, are pretty uninteresting.

A team winning all their games apart from the finale is worthy of the 2nd place even when some team(s) may be better in general (or specifically: when playing against the otherwise 2nd placed team on thát map with thóse factions and so on - you catch the drift) but had the misfortune of fighting the future winner of the tournament in the 1st/2nd round. "What if"-whining will happen anyway all the time (or not at all).

Also: Why is 9vs9 being ignored?
 
Because 9 is odd numberrrr. But ye, 9v9 could actually be good. I don't see any reason why teams can't have an odd number of players.

ModusTollens said:
Arch3r said:
arsenic_vengeur said:
Hmmm seems like I ****ed up.
For some obscure reasons it appears that having 4 times 1/6 probability is lower than 4/6 probability. This must have a link with a parrallel universe, or a 4th dimension I suppose.

And regarding the fact that it is annoying to run after kerghit horse archers, I dunno why you would even try to do so, just take javs, shoot them, or wait for draw or flag.
Click to expand...
If you would throw a dice 6 times, would it be 100% chance you'll throw one 6? Because 6 times 1/6th chance is 100% right? No, not really.
According to this calculator the chance to get 6 at least once when throwing a dice 6 times is 66%.
Click to expand...
It's (rounded) 67%, since 1-(5/6)^6 (for the dice example, not the Khergit one where it would be ^4 - as you obviously used it anyway). Not that probabilities matter at all. That's as useless as seeing a correlation between number of players and advancements in tactics (however those are measured) or metagaming for that matter. Either Khergits have the same status as the other factions or they shouldn't be included at all.
Click to expand...
Because rounding down matters so much, just trying to say that Marcus thought of reasoning of chance/probability was a bit awkward (see the 6 times throwing of a dice example, no 100% chance)
 
Arch3r said:
Because rounding down matters so much, just trying to say that Marcus thought of reasoning of chance/probability was a bit awkward (see the 6 times throwing of a dice example, no 100% chance)
Click to expand...
Well, it could matter depending on context (and would still be false otherwise) - but wasn't saying that, just agreed with you and showed how you came up with the number since it obviously was a mystery to Marcus, who's reasoning wasn't awkward but false.
 
I had an idea the other day which might make battles more interesting, so I will just outline it here for sounding out.

One of the main complaints made about the current system for battles is about flag camping. Usually if two teams are going to flag camp you essentially know within the first minute, the subsequent two minutes are therefore in the majority of cases pointless and waste a lot of time with players doing nothing.

So my idea is this, modify the ENL mod so that it has an option for changing the flag spawning rules (server side mod only). The current rules as I understand them is that the game waits until half the max round time has passed and then has to wait for 20 secs without anyone dying. That's why the flag will come up at 2.10 when neither team gets a kill and just waits.

My suggestion would be to simply change the initial time this starts happening, so instead of waiting for half the round time to pass it would only wait for say 30 seconds or a minute to pass (so 15-20% of round time). If teams still want to be aggressive they can be since the flag does not come up when teams are too close or when kills are happening. So on a map like port assault for instance the flag wouldn't come up if both teams push forward and engage immediately.

Because some maps are bigger than others we would modify the flag start time based on the distance between the two teams spawns. So a map like snowy village would get extra time before the flags spawn.

The result of all this? Aggressive play remains exactly the same, stalemates and flag waiting get resolved a lot quicker and there would be far less waiting around doing nothing.

Those minutes spent waiting for flags can add up too, if you discount the first minute and just look at the 2 minutes which you know you will have to wait through, then you're looking at about 32 minutes of sitting around if teams flag camped every round. Flag camping every round may not be likely but I have seen some games where it pretty much happened.
 
Lord Rich said:
I had an idea the other day which might make battles more interesting, so I will just outline it here for sounding out.

One of the main complaints made about the current system for battles is about flag camping. Usually if two teams are going to flag camp you essentially know within the first minute, the subsequent two minutes are therefore in the majority of cases pointless and waste a lot of time with players doing nothing.

So my idea is this, modify the ENL mod so that it has an option for changing the flag spawning rules (server side mod only). The current rules as I understand them is that the game waits until half the max round time has passed and then has to wait for 20 secs without anyone dying. That's why the flag will come up at 2.10 when neither team gets a kill and just waits.

My suggestion would be to simply change the initial time this starts happening, so instead of waiting for half the round time to pass it would only wait for say 30 seconds or a minute to pass (so 15-20% of round time). If teams still want to be aggressive they can be since the flag does not come up when teams are too close or when kills are happening. So on a map like port assault for instance the flag wouldn't come up if both teams push forward and engage immediately.

Because some maps are bigger than others we would modify the flag start time based on the distance between the two teams spawns. So a map like snowy village would get extra time before the flags spawn.

The result of all this? Aggressive play remains exactly the same, stalemates and flag waiting get resolved a lot quicker and there would be far less waiting around doing nothing.

Those minutes spent waiting for flags can add up too, if you discount the first minute and just look at the 2 minutes which you know you will have to wait through, then you're looking at about 32 minutes of sitting around if teams flag camped every round. Flag camping every round may not be likely but I have seen some games where it pretty much happened.
Click to expand...

I like the idea.

But if we can do that, why don't just make round time shorter ? like 3 - 4 minutes.
If i good remember when we put roundtime to less than 5 minutes, flags doesn't spawn everytime, but if we can change that, then we should put roundtime to 3 or 4 minutes long.

So it would be more important to take important positions for the flag and do it quick.
 
It's a bad idea that would punish teams that don't have a clear battle strategy decided before the round, because (depending on map) it can take up to a minute to simply get into position. By making the flag spawn so soon you lose:

- The ability to change tactics mid-round
- Archers no longer have time for ranged duels
- Tactical feints

For the sake of saving a couple of minutes you end up forcing teams into a "rush into battle or gamble on the flag" scenario.

e.g. On sandy bush you would no longer be able to wait until 3:00 to attack the graveyard because the flags would spawn at 4:00. Any attacking/aggressive tactic under the proposed idea would have to take place straight away not giving the enemy team chance to corner themselves so completely.
 
I would like to see a mini-ENL in which we are going to have 5v5 clan battles. For this, new arena variations could be created by map developers. No bigger maps, no waiting for opposite team to do something, no waiting for the flag, no fancy tactics. Basicly a gladiator arena with clans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Krisee
EU Native Other Open The Grand European Duo Tournament - Community Funded prizepool! (fundraiser on kickstarter) - Triple elimination!1!
Replies
7
Views
301
Krisee
Krisee
The captain's map causes the game to crash
Replies
0
Views
32
LLHE
Let's be honest the multiplayer here is underdone
Replies
14
Views
377
Seleucid
Back
Top Bottom