Author Topic: Where do we go from here?  (Read 21644 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BaronDeMoroz

  • Squire
  • *
  • night hunter
    • View Profile
    • Black Team
  • Faction: Neutral
  • MP nick: BT_cpt_BaronDeMoroz
Re: Where do we go from here?
« Reply #30 on: May 31, 2012, 11:32:31 AM »
But didn't the RUM team recieve NW keys?
Yes, they got the keys and played in NW

But,
Keys unconvincing consolation. Keys can buy one.
A tournament T-shirts is a unique thing.

And this is just one of those things on which I want to warn Lust:

People will always be unhappy.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 11:39:11 AM by BaronDeMoroz »

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

Sil Good Feeling

  • Knight at Arms
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Sarranid
Re: Where do we go from here?
« Reply #31 on: May 31, 2012, 11:41:52 AM »
I like Lust suggestions, and i m sure an "direct-elimination tournament" is better and more interesting than a ladder. why not use the NC format for ENL?
this way nodoby would discuss which teams deserve the title (cf. trinity vs IG drama)
plus as an example when RNGD did lost against trinity (as we were really involved & motivated) early in the season, a lot of us loose their motivation by the fact champion title was 90% lost

BaronDeMoroz

  • Squire
  • *
  • night hunter
    • View Profile
    • Black Team
  • Faction: Neutral
  • MP nick: BT_cpt_BaronDeMoroz
Re: Where do we go from here?
« Reply #32 on: May 31, 2012, 11:51:34 AM »
I like Lust suggestions, and i m sure an "direct-elimination tournament" is better and more interesting than a ladder. why not use the NC format for ENL?
this way nodoby would discuss which teams deserve the title (cf. trinity vs IG drama)
plus as an example when RNGD did lost against trinity (as we were really involved & motivated) early in the season, a lot of us loose their motivation by the fact champion title was 90% lost

The idea is good, but what about those teams that have not been to the playoffs?

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

Arch3r

  • Count
  • *
  • >:I
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Rhodok
  • MP nick: CoR_Arch3r
  • M&BWBNW
Re: Where do we go from here?
« Reply #33 on: May 31, 2012, 12:59:21 PM »
I really dislike the idea of direct-elimination and in my opinion it's way less interesting than a ladder. Joining a tournament and then only getting to play one match because you lost sounds much less fun for me than having a bad match and learning from mistakes to improve your performance on next matches. I prefer the ladder as it is now.
                                                                                           

Slenderpeasants,
the evil minions of the Bonerlords

Sil Good Feeling

  • Knight at Arms
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Sarranid
Re: Where do we go from here?
« Reply #34 on: May 31, 2012, 01:15:35 PM »
I really dislike the idea of direct-elimination and in my opinion it's way less interesting than a ladder. Joining a tournament and then only getting to play one match because you lost sounds much less fun for me than having a bad match and learning from mistakes to improve your performance on next matches. I prefer the ladder as it is now.
Maybe you can get better by playing training and friendly matchs all year long, outside the ENL competition

BaronDeMoroz

  • Squire
  • *
  • night hunter
    • View Profile
    • Black Team
  • Faction: Neutral
  • MP nick: BT_cpt_BaronDeMoroz
Re: Where do we go from here?
« Reply #35 on: May 31, 2012, 01:26:03 PM »
Maybe you can get better by playing training and friendly matchs all year long, outside the ENL competition

it is not interesting. I agree with Arch3r . I prefer the ladder as it is now.

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

Newbiejunky

  • Knight at Arms
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
  • MP nick: RNGD_Nubijuki
  • WB
Re: Where do we go from here?
« Reply #36 on: May 31, 2012, 01:41:41 PM »
In my opinion we can find a way to mix tournaments and ladder. We can imagine a season where some tournaments where each tournaments' results give a certain amount of points wich lead each team to a rank.

At the end of the season ( i can't tell how long the season is ), we arrange a "super" tournaments splited in 3 divisions where div A get the best ranked teams, div B got the lower ranked than A and Div C lower than B.

The goal is to win the more point we can to qualify to the Div A.

So, at the end there is a great tournament where teams' levels are suppose to be balanced, and the winner become the Best team.

I was pracitcing fencing in competition, and that was the system. It is still that way and it work well.

I know i'm not precise in my explaination, and it's more a summary to give you an idea of what i mean. I talked about it with Lust already, and i think he could help me to explain it to you better than i can.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 02:06:47 PM by Newbiejunky »

ModusTollens

  • Baron
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
  • MP nick: modus_tollens
  • M&BWBWF&S
Re: Where do we go from here?
« Reply #37 on: May 31, 2012, 02:11:43 PM »
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 don't see what's there to look into. Of course prizes will make tournaments more attractive for some people who wouldn't even have participated otherwise. It's also clear that what you seem to understand as "improved general competitivesness" doesn't necessarily has to be perceived as a positive development.

As implicated by BaronDeMoroz' experience some people tend to behave even more like irrational pricks as soon as material gains are involved. Just imagine the possible shitstorm at the end of the ENL if some sort of "real" prize could have been won. (That Trinity may have taken their match against Inquisition more seriously if they could have won something - presupposed you're believing dzioOb's tale - isn't something I'd value positive, but that's just my opinion, as is the rest of the post).

If the organisers of a tournament can be arsed to raise money for prizes (beside the money they need for the official servers - if there are any), one could still decide whether one wants to participate in those tournaments - I haven't and I won't, neither as far as computer games are concerned nor "real" sports for that matter. It's not like I couldn't deal with "increased competitiveness" (whatever that means) or the inherent greater amount of worse attitude (especially from people with an already bad attitude), I just can't be arsed to deal with it when I do something which should be at least somewhat enjoyable and I just don't think the prospect of a larger playerbase is worth those nuisances.

Cleric_Johnson

  • Baron
  • *
  • The Rats Are Coming
    • Twitter - ClericJohnson
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Bandit
  • MP nick: AE_Cleric_Johnson
Re: Where do we go from here?
« Reply #38 on: May 31, 2012, 02:29:11 PM »
Too me so far, reading peoples responses, the most popular idea seems to be a sort of giant division C ladder, integrating NASTE match rules. As lust said he wants people non-angry responses as well as angry, i would just like to say i think this seems like a great idea and i would be in support of it.

In terms of money, im not convinced. Imagine the **** storms about cheating that could ensue. It would mean the community would have to start taking it a lot more seriously and as it really isnt a major problem at the moment, it seems like a surefire way to make it become one. (not to mention some of the other problems people have raised with this idea).

With regards to khergs and F and D or w/e, as you've pointed out, i find it difficult to have a strong opinion either way until in depth testing has been done on them.

All in all lots of good suggestions all around though.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 02:32:33 PM by Cleric_Johnson »

Morii

  • Sergeant Knight
  • *
  • chat au Coq
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Vaegir
  • MP nick: Chikun
Re: Where do we go from here?
« Reply #39 on: May 31, 2012, 02:41:08 PM »
That's alright and your points might very well turn out to be true. But its still just presumptions partly based on DeMoroz' opinion (1) of 'hey guys, we tried it, doesn't work' and partly based on your ideas (2) of what would be good for the community.

1) Sofar DeMoroz hasn't really explained what all went wrong with his tournament, doing this would already count very much toward 'looking into it' and could clarify and decide the matter right away. I'm not a supporter, I'm a supporter of making sure we know why we say yes or no to the idea.

2) Everyone is allowed to have their own opinions of where they want to see this community go; Lust wants to make it more 'professional' so that it eventually even could be considered for systems like the ESL, where you seem to not want to go in that direction or at least not that far. And that's all good, but I think I personally lean a bit more towards Lust's direction than yours and I'm interested to see which sentiment is shared more inside the community.
I used to be active like you, but then I took an arrow to the dick.


FrankElliott

  • Forum Legend
  • *
    • Skype - frankelliott555
    • Steam - frank_tw
    • Twitter - frankelliott_
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Bandit
  • MP nick: Frank
  • M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Re: Where do we go from here?
« Reply #40 on: May 31, 2012, 02:44:04 PM »
OK long post. I kind of address a lot of things over the past couple of pages. Sometimes directly. Sometimes not. If you think I missed something... get angry! Kick off!

Well I want to scrap round difference either way. Under the current system, matches could be as short as 9 matches and as long as 16 (before tiebreakers). In the proposed system that changes to 8 and 18 (before tiebreakers). Arguably still a bit long but I think the fact that you don't play rounds after losing will help keep matches interesting throughout. They won't feel like a chore (as they often can, now).

That's the plan anyway.

As for actually getting them scheduled... I think it'll be ok. I'm going to start making it clearer what will be expected of teams scheduling wise, for each tournament. If they can't fulfill the expectations, that'll be that.

My current thinking is to keep the ENL going, at least for another cycle. It is useful to have something providing regular competitive matches. While I think a ladder, where teams could play at their own pace would be preferable, I don't really have the means to set something like that up. All the good ones require a dedicated site that handles all the complex formulae etc. I'm not convinced a big Div C style ladder, with all the teams in it would actually work. Division C takes time to provide an accurate sorting of teams. After 9 match weeks, that's just about done for 10-14 teams. For ~30, that would be a lot more. On top of that, you have a large amount of regular participation from teams demanded by the ladder, with all the picking and scheduling. I'll think about it though.

As for prize money, it would be attached to one person. The team would have to trust them to spread it around. I don't think that's a problem.

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).
Seem to remember hearing someone say the same thing about the tiebreaker system in the NC :P. Though seriously, potentially unending>potentially unfair. But yes, for the ENL draws would make more sense.

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 would like to start thinking about having proper rules on this. I was cautious about it before but I think a fixed system could work half decently. Perhaps something like allowing insant restarts at spawn swap (no subs) and an unplayed round at map change (i.e. you let the timer run out for one round and that constitutes the break - 5 mins).

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.
A lot of people share this sentiment. However, what I think is that when it's clear the toughest competition (i.e. the best teams, not just the best old teams are all competing) then people will start taking the tournaments more seriously than the league. We might even get some very tough new teams popping up, just because there is less waiting around. I think the long term waiting perhaps keeps players tied into situations longer than they might do otherwise, since it would take so long to get to that level if they moved teams.

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 don't expect it to be quite so stagnant in competitive play. Tactics will probably force it into a battle situation quite regularly... that's my theory anyway.

@Baron: It might be arrogance on my part but I honestly feel like I could make some sort of prize system work. As long as it wasn't too much money and the parameters of the whole thing were set out very clearly before the start, then I don't expect too many complaints. Though, as with everything else, since this is run on a forum things can easily get blown out of proportion (everyone has the same platform to shout from). Either way, I would be very interested in hearing specifics about what went wrong when you attempted a similar thing - either here or via PM.



As for certain teams having difficulty playing... I think firstly, teams could probably play a lot more than they think and secondly, well where's the cutoff? These kind of tournaments have huge merits over those which drag on for months on end. If it's the case that you genuinely can't find 8 reliable players to put in a team, then don't.

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)?
Well in theory they could be chosen by teams. That just wouldn't be my preferred method of doing it and I don't expect that's how I'd do it for any tournament I'd run. What I might do is pick some specific setups to ensure balance and interest throughout the competition. Though only if I wasn't competing.

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.
No, there's much more admin involved in the league than tournaments like this could ever offer up. I'm certain of that.

I'd argue that the roster situation is pretty good right now. For tournament matches like this, I can't see too many mistakes occurring... perhaps even less if there was some cash up for grabs. Perhaps less dropouts too. Though in my opinion/experience most dropouts seem to come from sustained periods of frustration if a team is underperforming in the ENL or whatever and can't do anything about it, due to the format. In a single elimination tournament, you really don't get the chance to have that. If you sign up for a two week tournament, I can't see many teams not at least playing until they lose.

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 disagree. The game has a hell of a lot going for it. For starters, it's good. Loads of games absolutely suck, even competitive ones, and that's a realisation that will slowly come about. The other thing is the melee system. I mean Starcraft 2 is good to watch because it's clear what's happening. Same with the DotA clones (if you're into that sort of thing) for the same reason. Warband has that aspect but it's also vastly different from those sort of games, since it's action based. Other action games are mainly shooters and watching those can be incredibly tedious. There just isn't much fun in seeing people randomly getting headshots. It's not really clear what's happening beyond the kills that pop up on screen.

I also predict the next Mount&Blade game will be big. Everyone must know someone who bangs on about Mount&Blade all the time (except me, I just know people who know someone who bangs on about Mount&Blade all the time) and when the new game comes out, all those people will be giving it a serious look. It will be very saturated at the time of release and as long as things are in place, ready for the boom (they weren't for Warband, it took/is taking ages for us to really get organised), I expect a pretty big scene could emerge.

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.
Well there's taking matches seriously (which most teams do) and there's taking competitions seriously (which a lot of teams don't). The idea behind prizes is to try and drive teams to get to a top level and start taking competitions seriously, going into them with the intention of actually winning.



Nubijuki's suggestion is to basically run tournaments throughout a period of time, which would give you points that enable you to qualify for a final tournament at the end. I like the idea as a whole but the problems with it are twofold.

The first is that it regresses back to a system where players are once again disincentivised to form new teams (due to the persistent nature of the system). The second is that a good team could get enough points to qualify and then have nothing really to do... I don't know I just feel like it's worth experimenting with the fast tournament format first, before we start going crazy with it.

Even then, what I'd be more inclined to do is set up similarly fast tournaments but have 5 a side ones, fight and destroy etc.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 02:49:02 PM by captain lust »
Follow me on the twitters @frankelliott_

ModusTollens

  • Baron
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
  • MP nick: modus_tollens
  • M&BWBWF&S
Re: Where do we go from here?
« Reply #41 on: May 31, 2012, 02:47:17 PM »
(click to show/hide)
I agree. The only thing I disagree with is that "more 'professional'" necessarily involves prizes or prize-money, neither as far as an ESL-participation is concerned nor in general.

I'd argue that the roster situation is pretty good right now. For tournament matches like this, I can't see too many mistakes occurring... perhaps even less if there was some cash up for grabs. Perhaps less dropouts too. Though in my opinion/experience most dropouts seem to come from sustained periods of frustration if a team is underperforming in the ENL or whatever and can't do anything about it, due to the format. In a single elimination tournament, you really don't get the chance to have that. If you sign up for a two week tournament, I can't see many teams not at least playing until they lose.
I also predict the next Mount&Blade game will be big. Everyone must know someone who bangs on about Mount&Blade all the time (except me, I just know people who know someone who bangs on about Mount&Blade all the time) and when the new game comes out, all those people will be giving it a serious look. It will be very saturated at the time of release and as long as things are in place, ready for the boom (they weren't for Warband, it took/is taking ages for us to really get organised), I expect a pretty big scene could emerge.
I admire your optimism and philanthropy and hope you're right.

Well there's taking matches seriously (which most teams do) and there's taking competitions seriously (which a lot of teams don't). The idea behind prizes is to try and drive teams to get to a top level and start taking competitions seriously, going into them with the intention of actually winning.
And that's an idea which I think is bollocks - as well as I don't see the difference between taking matches and competitions seriously. How can you take a match seriously without trying to win? And when you're taking every match seriously how one could say that they don't want to win the whole competition?

And as I argued before, taking a competition seriously and getting overly ambitious (if you pardon the euphemism) because you can win some **** are two different things (again: at least for me).
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 03:09:05 PM by ModusTollens »

BaronDeMoroz

  • Squire
  • *
  • night hunter
    • View Profile
    • Black Team
  • Faction: Neutral
  • MP nick: BT_cpt_BaronDeMoroz
Re: Where do we go from here?
« Reply #42 on: May 31, 2012, 03:09:02 PM »
@Baron: It might be arrogance on my part but I honestly feel like I could make some sort of prize system work. As long as it wasn't too much money and the parameters of the whole thing were set out very clearly before the start, then I don't expect too many complaints. Though, as with everything else, since this is run on a forum things can easily get blown out of proportion (everyone has the same platform to shout from). Either way, I would be very interested in hearing specifics about what went wrong when you attempted a similar thing - either here or via PM.

I'll post a detailed report. As soon as I have help with English.

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

Deacon Barry

  • Marquis
  • *
  • Lord of the Lord
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Bandit
  • MP nick: AE_Deacon
  • WB
Re: Where do we go from here?
« Reply #43 on: May 31, 2012, 03:12:09 PM »
I agree that round difference should be scrapped.

I'm against prize money because this game is so incredibly easy to hack that encouraging it further would be silly. I also think many clans are probably run by pretty young people, not really encouraging their participation if you're making everyone pay. Additionally, many poorer teams simply won't bother participating because they know they'll never win any money. Particularly when they can actually just play in a league against teams they stand a chance against and have no risk of losing money. I don't think it's suitable for the scene or the game and I certainly don't think it's likely to attract any more people. Even more so considering the size of each team, you'd have to spread the prize money amongst around 10-20 people. It's gonna be such an irrelevant amount of money, just a complete waste of time.

In terms of league format, I think fully investigating a single ladder should be done, if it's found not to be possible without a site as you say then perhaps another format should be looked at. Perhaps merging Division A and B into a single ladder would be a viable alternative, it would be of a similar size to the Winter Cycle ENL division C and that was both competitive and exciting. Maybe also to aid mobility of newly formed strong clans, you could have a small tournament for the bottom Division teams in which the winner (or top 2/3) gets immediately put into the top divisions. This way you would avoid teams such as AE or Inquisition being in Division C when they belong above. It also gives every team a fair crack at getting promoted and doesn't rely on personal judgements.

🐝 axL

  • Sergeant Knight
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
  • MP nick: AE_axL
  • WBWF&S
Re: Where do we go from here?
« Reply #44 on: May 31, 2012, 03:27:47 PM »
If prize money is being considered seriously, wouldn't it be better that the prize would be something that benefits the clan as a whole, such as an own server prepaid for a period of time? Then there wouldn't be a need to divide a minimal sum of money between a lot of different players.