Native Completed Calamity and John's Team Tournament | CJ's TT

How many random plains re-rolls does it take to make you rage?

  • 1

    Votes: 22 27.5%
  • 2

    Votes: 8 10.0%
  • 3

    Votes: 5 6.3%
  • 4

    Votes: 5 6.3%
  • 5

    Votes: 7 8.8%
  • 6

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 7

    Votes: 2 2.5%
  • 8+

    Votes: 31 38.8%

  • Total voters
    80

Users who are viewing this thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
valent69 said:
Don't you think that customized plain maps will get boring after a while just like every other map? Some of us still enjoy that little taste of randomness.  I just personally find  that many random plains maps are actually pretty awesome, and will not bear seeing that choice taken away.
Yea, many re rolls,  a big pain in the arse, but at least you are able to play on 2 entirely new maps.

The Pizza said:
I appreciate that you are putting time and effort into solving what could be perceived as a major issue with matches/scrims.

That being said, I don't agree with taking Plains out of the rotation of maps.

The Pizza said:
I don't see what was wrong with the last tourney's take on Plains. I don't see what rules we need to change.
I think the last tournament was a success... Why are some people feeling that it's necessary to change things?

Mad Dawg said:
I would look for some well put together .gif with a witty saying and an underlining point...

I feel like this point could have been well-supported by an insightful .gif......Gelden knows the one, but can he deliver?!

Anyways, while I do explicitly agree with the above quoted points, I'm up for trying some new stuff.  If the PIMP maps are good, I don't mind using them.  The challenge lies in making them worth playing in a time frame that we can support.
 
Personal after the play test, I dislike all the maps except for the River one by Vendigr (thank god its not made by DBD or I would hate it :razz:). I feel that the current ruleset is flawed when it comes to random plains, First of all its not so random when one team can just reroll until they get a desirable layout for there faction. Like if going all cav reroll until a flat map is out, Archers / Xbow a more hilly map. I find that even with the swap its still flawed. My solution to this is only having reroll due to cliffs. You play with what you get, that will force you to adapt your composition how to play. You will be more dependent on how you use the map with what classes rather then just a set all cav flat map. I like random plains because as a caller it challenges me to adapt to play with what is give to me, rather then just reroll until I get what I want. Some of you might say oh what if the map is boring. UNFORTUNATE! Like I told Catholic the other day, you will never be able to please everyone. If one team is bored, how sad for them. The Next thing flawed with the current rule set is the following rule : "The attacking team may pick from the same category as the defender's first map choice.". I like the idea that both teams can't pick within the same category, it brings in a whole different way to picking your map, and your faction. It makes you think better about hey do I want to try and save this faction for my map, if so what do I want attackers or defenders, what faction do I want to choice if for there map that will help me save my faction for my map.

tl;dr: Rules are Flawed, People need to learn how to try new things out every now and then. Also if one team doenst want change, **** THEM ! You shouldnt change rules, and worry about one team, now if its a community issue then you should look at more carefully, and consider options.
 
valent69 said:
Don't you think that customized plain maps will get boring after a while just like every other map? Some of us still enjoy that little taste of randomness.  I just personally find  that many random plains maps are actually pretty awesome, and will not bear seeing that choice taken away.
Yea, many re rolls,  a big pain in the arse, but at least you are able to play on 2 entirely new maps.

The Pizza said:
I appreciate that you are putting time and effort into solving what could be perceived as a major issue with matches/scrims.

That being said, I don't agree with taking Plains out of the rotation of maps.

The Pizza said:
I don't see what was wrong with the last tourney's take on Plains. I don't see what rules we need to change.
I think the last tournament was a success... Why are some people feeling that it's necessary to change things?

Mad Dawg said:
I would look for some well put together .gif with a witty saying and an underlining point...

llama-stare-gif.gif

 
I'm starting to think we live in different worlds now, and that's why our opinions differ... because in my world... that animal there... is called a LLAMA...  :!:
 
Z3ro said:
The Next thing flawed with the current rule set is the following rule : "The attacking team may pick from the same category as the defender's first map choice.". I like the idea that both teams can't pick within the same category, it brings in a whole different way to picking your map, and your faction. It makes you think better about hey do I want to try and save this faction for my map, if so what do I want attackers or defenders, what faction do I want to choice if for there map that will help me save my faction for my map.

Changing that rule to force separate categories for all maps is excessively disadvantageous to the attacking team. The defending team could simply pick their preferred map from their opponent's strongest category, denying their opponents a shot at picking their strongest map & category. The attackers couldn't counter with anything else from their strong category, essentially denying them the benefit of picking their favorite map. Because of a misinterpretation of this rule, such an incident did occur during CJTT. When Desert Town was categorized as a mixed map, if memory serves, IAH selected Frosty Battle (also a mixed map) to deny Desert Town to wK. It was quite cheesy.
 
Orion said:
Z3ro said:
The Next thing flawed with the current rule set is the following rule : "The attacking team may pick from the same category as the defender's first map choice.". I like the idea that both teams can't pick within the same category, it brings in a whole different way to picking your map, and your faction. It makes you think better about hey do I want to try and save this faction for my map, if so what do I want attackers or defenders, what faction do I want to choice if for there map that will help me save my faction for my map.

Changing that rule to force separate categories for all maps is excessively disadvantageous to the attacking team. The defending team could simply pick their preferred map from their opponent's strongest category, denying their opponents a shot at picking their strongest map & category. The attackers couldn't counter with anything else from their strong category, essentially denying them the benefit of picking their favorite map. Because of a misinterpretation of this rule, such an incident did occur during CJTT. When Desert Town was categorized as a mixed map, if memory serves, IAH selected Frosty Battle (also a mixed map) to deny Desert Town to wK. It was quite cheesy.

Then the attackers can do the same thing. If the defenders do that, it means that they are giving up their best map (assuming its in a different category), which means the attackers can pick their best map from the defenders best category. IaH selecting Frosty Battle to deny Desert Town to wK is probably one of the only examples of putting thought behind map choice in the entirety of warband history (beyond "this is our best map"). I happen to think encouraging that kind of thing is a good thing. Forces teams to be good at more than one map, and adds an element of strategy.
 
The Pizza said:
I wouldn't mind adding them to the allowed maps either, but not at expense of losing Random Plains.

So you'd like to just add the PIMP maps under the "Open Maps" options, but keep Random Plains listed? That sounds like a reasonable compromise.

Z3ro said:
First of all its not so random when one team can just reroll until they get a desirable layout for there faction. Like if going all cav reroll until a flat map is out, Archers / Xbow a more hilly map.

A few of us have cited this as a reason we should change the Random Plains rules, but I really see this as a non-issue.  I didn't see any teams blatantly gaming the system to give their team some kind of unreasonable advantage, in any of the matches I played in or spectated.  I think lending the rolling team a little advantage is ok since it is, after all, their their map choice.  There are a lot of reasons to tweak the Random Plains rules, but this irrational fear that a team might  "ruin my l33t all cav strat because they rolled a map with hills" is kind of missing the point, imo.

Before this devolves into a "But what about this rule?!" slutfest, perhaps Catholic could create a new thread that outlines the rules for his tourney.  We're going to be waiting until the PIMP maps are developed anyway, so if people want to negotiate the rules, they should use the rules that are actually being put forward.
 
WilySly said:
Before this devolves into a "But what about this rule?!" slutfest, perhaps Catholic could create a new thread that outlines the rules for his tourney.  We're going to be waiting until the PIMP maps are developed anyway, so if people want to negotiate the rules, they should use the rules that are actually being put forward.
Working on it. The ruleset will be developed tonight (although we already have a preliminary version completed). I'll toss them around to CJTT admins and some people I know to be responsible and then a thread will go up, depending on the map pack progress.
 
Mr.X said:
Then the attackers can do the same thing. If the defenders do that, it means that they are giving up their best map (assuming its in a different category), which means the attackers can pick their best map from the defenders best category. IaH selecting Frosty Battle to deny Desert Town to wK is probably one of the only examples of putting thought behind map choice in the entirety of warband history (beyond "this is our best map"). I happen to think encouraging that kind of thing is a good thing. Forces teams to be good at more than one map, and adds an element of strategy.

So neither team gets to play the maps they want. :???: This is ideal how? Neither team gets the chance to play their strengths to the fullest unless their strength is adaptability. While that's a good strength, it shouldn't get more emphasis than others. It's already a factor when dealing with your opponent's pick anyway.

If you and Zero have such misgivings about that rule, why didn't you bring them up during NASTe Season 2 when it was first written?
 
Orion said:
Mr.X said:
Then the attackers can do the same thing. If the defenders do that, it means that they are giving up their best map (assuming its in a different category), which means the attackers can pick their best map from the defenders best category. IaH selecting Frosty Battle to deny Desert Town to wK is probably one of the only examples of putting thought behind map choice in the entirety of warband history (beyond "this is our best map"). I happen to think encouraging that kind of thing is a good thing. Forces teams to be good at more than one map, and adds an element of strategy.

So neither team gets to play the maps they want. :???: This is ideal how? Neither team gets the chance to play their strengths to the fullest unless their strength is adaptability. While that's a good strength, it shouldn't get more emphasis than others. It's already a factor when dealing with your opponent's pick anyway.

If you and Zero have such misgivings about that rule, why didn't you bring them up during NASTe Season 2 when it was first written?

I never said it was "ideal". I said it was not "excessively disadvantageous to the attacking team" as you said it was.

While NASTe really has nothing to do with this, cause this is more about how I think the game works now, rather than howevermany months ago that ways, I thought that the rule in NASTe rule was that you couldn't pick a map in a category that was already picked. That's how I prefer the rule. The rule Zero quoted says that the attacking team can pick a map in the SAME category as the defending team. I'm not a fan of that because of the whole adaptability argument I'm about to make. If the rule Zero quoted is the same as the NASTe rule, than I guess I was mistaken about that. The reason I didn't bring it up than was either because I was misinformed, or I didn't give a ****.

I happen to think that adaptability is immensely under-emphasized in the current ruleset. Barely any adaptability to the map is necessary considering maybe 2 or 3 are played a lot more consistently than the others. We only go to 4 rounds, which gives teams barely any time to adapt. I had a conversation with some people in Balion Vent the other day. I argued that if pubs changed maps at 4 or 5, things would be a lot more exciting because it would be fresher. Many of them argued (quite convincingly) that the coolest part of pubs where the come-backs that happened once teams got a chance to really figure out some good compositions. I ended up agreeing with them. And now I don't think that scrims give enough time for that kind of adaptability. I would argue that there is no "perfect" composition, but that certain compositions of teams counter other compositions, and I would argue that, with only 4 rounds, creating counters turns into more of a guessing game than a strategy.
 
To be frank, there are a lot of things that I'd like to change. Orion's system was revolutionary and wonderful in its time, but I would prefer a rounds-count system with 5 total rounds as opposed to 4 before the swap. The 'big comebacks' also tend to be more possible, in my opinion, in 1000 gold, which is why I'm trying to hitch on to that idea before I go with anything else. It's rare that you see a Nord team lose once they're 2-0 simply because the 1500 gold soon gives them mail armor and makes any comeback very difficult.

We've got to take baby steps, though. Even my ideas for the tournament, notably 1000 gold and custom random plains, are currently criticized, discussed, debated back and forth (as they should be). We can't get too ahead of ourselves, or the rules will simply get confusing or so different that nobody will have the desire to try it out.

The NA community also needs to be open to change, or it'll die in dry waters of boredom. If the custom plains maps don't work, that's fine. It's something that can be noted and then removed in the next tournament. Hell, the great thing about is it that if it turns out to not work mid-tournament I can even put random plains back in. I will tentatively call it the Battle Innovation Tournament [BIT] for that very reason - we need to be open to spicing things up and trying out what works and what doesn't.
 
I feel like.... 1000 gold would make my job MUCH easier, as I use the free weapons anyway and people won't even be able to buy a helmet or good horse. + it would take only one round win for one team to be upgraded and the other team to be left in their one hit death rags, wouldn't it?
As for 5 rounds... I like the idea.. BUT... the matches already take up a decent amount of time, I don't know if a whole other round for each map would be the greatest thing either, but I wouldn't mind trying it out.
Oh and I do have support for the hilly plain maps :razz:
 
valent69 said:
I feel like.... 1000 gold would make my job MUCH easier, as I use the free weapons anyway and people won't even be able to buy a helmet. + it would take only one round win for one team to be upgraded and the other team to be left in their one hit death rags, wouldn't it?

Quite the opposite. The difference between 1000 and 1500 gold is, I feel, much smaller than the difference between 1500 and 2000 gold. It also opens up more tactical opportunities (choosing weapons over armor, etc.) It's an argument that's been beaten to death and one that's gone past the 'debate' stage and into the 'let's actually try it out' stage.

And I know it's not a popular thing to say, but the EU scene uses it and it's worked out for them since Day 1.
 
Maybe 1000 gp is what makes EU archers seem OP? I use the free weapons as an archer all the time, and they are a pain in the ass to people as it is. Now people would be getting a lower tier shield, lower tier armor, lower tier... everything... how are they expected to survive against possible archer spam? It's a fact that a low tier shield doesn't even protect you from projectiles.

I think wK and TMW need to have a practice scrim soon to test it out.
 
The same argument can be made, and has been made, that cavalry are overpowered with 1500 gold (particularly Swadia) and to a lesser extent infantry.

It has been beaten, flailed, raped and burned. There are threads that pop up every six or so months that get ten pages discussing the feasibility of 1000 gold. It's time to try it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom