- Thread starter Catholic
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Do I get a gold star for handing mine on time?
Mok the International
Banned
Mok wants his gold star too! 
Methodology: I am going to keep this survey as objective as I possibly can. I will rely primarily on the numbers and the votes, and then I will address both the people that support the majority (including quotes and points) and then I will address the points made by the minority. I will not throw in my own opinion, but if I believe I have a strong point that wasn't mentioned by anyone, I will note it as a 'Administrator's Note'. If you doubt my ability to remain objective regarding the results of my tournament, which I cannot blame you for, then simply look at the numbers for what they are. I did not take part in the survey - I only administered it and collected the results.
Some voting was irregular, therefore all of the numbers for 'Yes' and 'No' totals may not add up to the same amount. If someone appeared to vote both ways, then I put their vote down for the minority, thereby eliminating any bias that I may have.
Point: I strongly, strongly urge all future tournament administrators to heed what is in this survey. The next major battle tournament will be headed by William, and I hope that it reflects the wishes of the NA community that are held in this survey. I am not an opponent to innovation, in fact I ran two tournaments in an attempt to innovate, but disregarding the past five months would be a very major mistake. It is fully up to the future tournament organizers' discretion as to what balance to strike between the will of the majority and the will to innovate. I want to make the NA community understand this is as close as we'll get to the true data that helps us analyze in what direction we should go. Perhaps expanding the survey to not only include the captains and administrators would have been a good idea, in order to accommodate the opinions of Rhade and Orion, among others, but choosing those people would have been difficult and would make staying objective difficult.
On to the survey results:
1) In a very general sense, would you say that this tournament was a success? [Y/N] Why or why not?
10 v 0
100% Y vs 0% N
Checked through every single survey, because I would despise giving it a 100% approval rating without being 100% accurate. A number of explanations were provided, including:
"It made it to the end." (paraphrasing)
"It was very enjoyable to both participate in and follow."
"My favorite aspect of the tournament was the diversity of map choices we saw."
"Minimal instances of problems."
People were, in a very broad sense, satisfied with the way the tournament was run and the lack of issues it had.
2) Look at the OP of the BIT thread and look at the Key Changes. Which would you keep, and which would you eliminate? This is just a yes or no question, later in the survey they will be questioned in detail.
1) 1000 starting gold. [Keep/Remove]
8 Keep vs. 2 Remove
80% Keep vs. 20% Remove
2) Addition of new maps, including maps from the Plains Map Pack.[Keep/Remove]
9 Keep vs. 0 Remove
100% Keep vs. 0% Remove
3) Stricter rules for re-rolling Random Plains.[Keep/Remove]
6 Keep vs. 3 Remove
67% Keep vs. 33% Remove
4) Matches being scored by rounds[Keep/Remove]
7 Keep vs. 1 Remove
87.5% Keep vs. 12.5% Remove
5) Only the top 8 teams in the round-robin stage will advance to the single elimination stage.[Keep/Remove]
6 Keep vs. 2 Remove
75% Keep vs. 25% Remove
6) A mercenary pool system.[Keep/Remove]
8 Keep vs. 0 Remove
100% Keep vs. 0% Remove
7) Teams must field at least 6 players each, although 7 players is the standard number[Keep/Remove]
8 Keep vs. 1 Remove
88% Keep vs. 12% Remove
Some numbers are visibly off - for example, the first question has 10 total votes, and there are cases of 8 votes. This is either due to Eternal error or due to someone trying to explain themselves and then being very much on the fence. Other people only voted for some of the options. You will also notice some of the numbers up there (for example, the 1000 gold percentage) being higher in question 2 than in question 7, despite being essentially the same question. This is because question 2 is strictly a Keep/Remove question, which most people knew to simply bold the one they agreed with, while in question 7 it was more of an opinion question where some people failed to put either 1000 or 1500. I followed the "pick 1500 in case of doubt" logic for question 7, because I'd rather be careful.
Most of these topics will be covered later, but three won't - Random Plains, Top 8 Teams, and fielding at least 6 players each. I'll go through them individually.
The Random Plains issue was strongly divided, and I regret not making it into a separate question. However, one noted "I don't see a reason to keep Random Plains, so I guess Remove." The two remaining "Remove" votes did not provide an explanation (one wasn't asked for) so I am lead to assume they believe it can become an issue if a team gets a massive cliff random plains map and the other team doesn't want to reroll. Alternatively, a balance issue could come from this if one team receives a large advantage and refuses to reroll the map.
The issue with having the top 8 teams proceed to the finals mostly comes from the fact that 8 out of 9 is considered too many by some people. It nearly renders the entire round robin pointless if there are no teams that are eliminated by the round robin. The majority, however, prefer to have a shot in the single elimination and find the round robin to be more of a 'practice' round rather than a qualification round.
The majority prefers having larger battle scrims, though one captain noted "it was frustrating when two teams had 5 and we sat for an hour waiting for a maybe 6."
3) In terms of organization of the tournament, in regards to administration and arbitration, would you say it was a success? [Y/N]. Why or why not?
7 Yes vs. 0 No vs. 2 On-the-fence
77% Yes vs. 0% No vs. 23% On-the-fence
The positives primarily came in discussion regarding quick and fast action when it was needed, and lack of problems in general. Most problems were noted to have been "resolved relatively quickly." The dissent came primarily in the form of admin ineptness and, at times, indecisiveness. One example, "considering changing the layout of a map mid-tourney and potentially switching to fixtures were two things that shouldn't have been considered after the start of the tournament" highlighted the quick and rash actions of the tournament administration at some points. Further negative comments were made about "control freak" admins, while on the opposite scale some thought that the admins "[weren't] aware of all the arbitration going on."
It is difficult to precisely put a finger on where improvement could happen, and leaving that decision for each person to make independently seems to be the best option.
4) Which do you prefer: Pre-set maps and factions for the single elimination stage, pre-set maps only for the single elimination stage, pre-set maps and factions for the entire tournament, or using a map-choosing system for the entire tournament? Why?
0 Pre-set Maps and Factions for Single Elim, 2 Pre-set Maps for Single Elim, 5 Pre-set Map and Factions for Entire Tournament, and 2 Map Choice for Entire Tournament
0% Pre-set Maps and Factions for Single Elim, 22% Pre-set Maps for Single Elim, 56% Pre-set Maps and Factions for Entire Tournament, and 22% Map Choice for Entire Tournament
This seems to be by far the most important and also the most divisive issue. However, each voter essentially argued the same thing. Most of the map choice voters enjoyed the strategic choices it gave their team, with one saying, "I feel as though this system is perfect because it's one team's best map (or the map they want to play on strategically) against another teams best map." Unsurprisingly, the voters in favor of pre-set maps or both factions and maps gave the exact same reasoning, one of which said "but I think fixed maps/factions forces teams to diversify their styles and adapt, making for overall higher quality matches and teams." I do not have any data to support either point of view, as pre-set maps and factions have yet to be tested on the NA scene. However, the survey results show a willingness on part of the NA community to try it out in the future, and could be a good point of innovation in the future.
5) Give a general summary of your views about the new maps in the PIMP map pack. Which ones would you keep, which ones would you remove, and which ones would you change?
Open Plains was by far the most divisive map. Many liked it, but its opponents were extremely vocal. "Open Plains is a completely horrible map. As I've stated in the PIMP thread, it has all of the negative aspects of Random Plains (all-cav desperation strats), with none of the positive aspects (terrain variation, manipulating Line-of-sight, agile troop movement, etc.)." as well as "For the love of god take away open plains. It's unfair to have a flat open map, devolves into cav spam. Random Plains at least kept things interesting." The opinions on it appeared to be evenly split, and one response advocated adding more cover to stop all-cav spam strategies.
Delta, Dune and Swamp were either not played or reviewed very negatively.
Verloren received highly positive reviews all-around, and seemed to be the favorite map out of the pack. Solace and Dry Valley received mixed reviews, and recommendations were made to make Dry Valley smaller and make Solace headshots from spawn to spawn not possible.
In general, the reviews on the maps as a whole leaned slightly positive, although individual maps had very different responses.
6) If given the choice of adding new, balanced maps to the PIMP map pack or simply keeping the number of maps as it is (with the exception of the ones you want to remove in 5), which one would you choose?
7 in favor of more maps vs. 1 in favor of keeping the same amount of maps.
87.5% in favor of more maps vs. 12.5% in favor of keeping the same amount of maps.
First of all, clarification needs to be made. PIMP refers to an old map pack developed by Kiss that has been superseded by COMP. Not all of PIMP was in the BIT tournament, and it is nobody's discretion except for Kiss's as to how many maps are in the pack or what maps are in the pack. The question referred to whether or not people were willing to have more maps in general in tournaments, and thankfully, most people interpreted it that way. My apologies for the miscommunication.
Secondly, people generally enjoyed having more maps. A fair point was made regarding fixed maps and factions and more maps - it may be a wise idea to restrict the number of maps if fixed maps are implemented.
7) Which do you prefer: 1000 gold, 1500 gold, or an alternative gold setting? Why?
7 in favor of 1000 gold, 2 in favor of 1500 gold, and 0 in favor of an alternative gold setting.
77% in favor of 1000 gold, 23% in favor of 1500 gold, and 0% in favor of an alternative gold setting.
I will split this up:
1000 gold arguments:
"As we've seen in BIT, it balances factions and makes each of them more viable and adaptive."
"I think we did see that factions were more balanced."
"It's a simple answer to faction balance issues. This is the only tournament not dominated by Vaiger's and Swads on Plains."
1500 gold arguments:
"I feel archers are too overpowered on 1000g as an archer I can get pretty much all the equipment I want while the cav and inf are much weaker than they are on 1500g and if you have any good archers then your entire game and map will be based around them all the time and every map shouldn't be based on archers all the time."
"1000 gold is too low, IMO, because it severely weakens cav. Calling for a clan that has a lot of great cav, we definitely had to change our play dramatically. I'm not even talking about the "4 Heavy horse" cheese strategy that we've never used anyway. Just using 1500 gold as a reference, cav can serve multiple roles: initiator, mop up, flanking force, ninja, etc. At 1000 gold, the armor/weapon trade-off is horribly steep. This limits cav's ability to serve the above mentioned roles and really just dulls/slows down gameplay. Where before, you'd see some really fantastic cav maneuvering and ninja'ing, the lack of armor usually means that you don't see your cav establishing themselves until much later in the round."
There is little I can say as a tournament administrator without being biased, so I will leave the reader to read the above arguments and make their own decision. The opinion after BIT seems to have swayed in favor of 1000g - whether this is a sign of increasing acceptance or simply a rise in popularity after BIT cannot be decided from the basis of this survey.
8 ) Do you think it is a good idea to host an innovation tournament to test an alternative gold-setting in the short term? [Y/N] In the long term? [Y/N] Why?
2 in favor in the short term vs. 5 not in favor in the short term.
29% in favor in the short term vs. 71% not in favor in the short term.
3 in favor in the long term vs. 4 not in favor in the long term.
43% in favor in the long term vs. 57% not in favor in the long term.
In general, the 'No' voters were people who were fully convinced in the viability of 1000g, while the 'Yes' votes came from people who preferred an alternative gold setting. The predominant opinion in terms of not having one in the short term can be summarized as follows: "Not sure if mixing things up in a short term is something the community needs, though. For once, let's make a Battle Stabilization Tournament."
In the long term, however, the community was very evenly split. Most supporters preferred a short tournament to test out the alternative gold setting, saying that "we could definitely mess with the gold settings a bit. As I mentioned, I think 1000 gold is too low, but I also see the negative points regarding 1500. Hosting a minor tourney in the interim before the next major battle tourney seems like it could get the conversation going." Other captains who were not in support of testing an alternative gold setting mentioned that "1200 gold is weird."
9) Do you believe scheduling issues are becoming increasingly problematic? [Y/N] What would you do to fix the issue?
1 believing they are, 7 believing they are not.
12.5% believing that they are, 87.5% believing that they are not.
The majority of captains believed the scheduling issues were much the same as they used to be, saying "What was seen was pretty typical at the end of a tournament. Teams don't show as they don't expect to win or the members are tired of the tournament." Although this was the predominant opinion, a variety of different solutions were proposed:
1) "Mandatory PMs all sent by the captains about scheduling need to all be sent to tournament admins as well so that there is no question about whether this captain said this or that captain said that"
2) "...being strict and penalize irresponsible scheduling and showing up late/not showing up at all."
3) "The best option is really just to make sure the teams who register have enough interest and understand what they're getting themselves into. Strict deadlines work..."
4) "I think allowing mercs helps a lot, but beyond that there is little to be done."
I would strongly advise any future tournament admins take some of these opinions into consideration. Activity is a problem every single tournament has had to deal with, and efficient ways of managing issues are absolutely key.
10) Do you prefer matches being scored by rounds, or maps? [Rounds/Maps] Why?
7 in favor of rounds, 2 in favor of maps.
78% in favor of rounds, 22% in favor of maps.
Both pro and con arguments appeared to pivot around the point of whether or not teams cared more if games were scored by maps or rounds. Paradoxically, supporters of both positions said the exact same argument. See:
1) "The rounds this tournament caused the winning team to not try once they won and it also caused the losing team not to try which in turn caused flawed round data for the final bracket"
2) "I also don't like that with map scoring if one team wins 5 rounds on a map, that map is already over. I'd rather each round be played and as important as possible."
11) If you have any other ideas that could make the NA competitive scene better, please list them here. Also, if there is any issue that wasn't asked, please bring it up and answer it here.
A lot of commentary was made regarding Zaffa's maps making it into future tournaments. Those are definitely worth checking out. Other comments were made regarding lowering the roster limit and advertising more to get more players into the competitive scene. Furthermore, the issue was brought up regarding the lack of interest for losing teams and keeping the game fun and enjoyable for them.
I would encourage all of those points to be discussed and solutions to be found.
Some voting was irregular, therefore all of the numbers for 'Yes' and 'No' totals may not add up to the same amount. If someone appeared to vote both ways, then I put their vote down for the minority, thereby eliminating any bias that I may have.
Point: I strongly, strongly urge all future tournament administrators to heed what is in this survey. The next major battle tournament will be headed by William, and I hope that it reflects the wishes of the NA community that are held in this survey. I am not an opponent to innovation, in fact I ran two tournaments in an attempt to innovate, but disregarding the past five months would be a very major mistake. It is fully up to the future tournament organizers' discretion as to what balance to strike between the will of the majority and the will to innovate. I want to make the NA community understand this is as close as we'll get to the true data that helps us analyze in what direction we should go. Perhaps expanding the survey to not only include the captains and administrators would have been a good idea, in order to accommodate the opinions of Rhade and Orion, among others, but choosing those people would have been difficult and would make staying objective difficult.
On to the survey results:
1) In a very general sense, would you say that this tournament was a success? [Y/N] Why or why not?
10 v 0
100% Y vs 0% N
Checked through every single survey, because I would despise giving it a 100% approval rating without being 100% accurate. A number of explanations were provided, including:
"It made it to the end." (paraphrasing)
"It was very enjoyable to both participate in and follow."
"My favorite aspect of the tournament was the diversity of map choices we saw."
"Minimal instances of problems."
People were, in a very broad sense, satisfied with the way the tournament was run and the lack of issues it had.
2) Look at the OP of the BIT thread and look at the Key Changes. Which would you keep, and which would you eliminate? This is just a yes or no question, later in the survey they will be questioned in detail.
1) 1000 starting gold. [Keep/Remove]
8 Keep vs. 2 Remove
80% Keep vs. 20% Remove
2) Addition of new maps, including maps from the Plains Map Pack.[Keep/Remove]
9 Keep vs. 0 Remove
100% Keep vs. 0% Remove
3) Stricter rules for re-rolling Random Plains.[Keep/Remove]
6 Keep vs. 3 Remove
67% Keep vs. 33% Remove
4) Matches being scored by rounds[Keep/Remove]
7 Keep vs. 1 Remove
87.5% Keep vs. 12.5% Remove
5) Only the top 8 teams in the round-robin stage will advance to the single elimination stage.[Keep/Remove]
6 Keep vs. 2 Remove
75% Keep vs. 25% Remove
6) A mercenary pool system.[Keep/Remove]
8 Keep vs. 0 Remove
100% Keep vs. 0% Remove
7) Teams must field at least 6 players each, although 7 players is the standard number[Keep/Remove]
8 Keep vs. 1 Remove
88% Keep vs. 12% Remove
Some numbers are visibly off - for example, the first question has 10 total votes, and there are cases of 8 votes. This is either due to Eternal error or due to someone trying to explain themselves and then being very much on the fence. Other people only voted for some of the options. You will also notice some of the numbers up there (for example, the 1000 gold percentage) being higher in question 2 than in question 7, despite being essentially the same question. This is because question 2 is strictly a Keep/Remove question, which most people knew to simply bold the one they agreed with, while in question 7 it was more of an opinion question where some people failed to put either 1000 or 1500. I followed the "pick 1500 in case of doubt" logic for question 7, because I'd rather be careful.
Most of these topics will be covered later, but three won't - Random Plains, Top 8 Teams, and fielding at least 6 players each. I'll go through them individually.
The Random Plains issue was strongly divided, and I regret not making it into a separate question. However, one noted "I don't see a reason to keep Random Plains, so I guess Remove." The two remaining "Remove" votes did not provide an explanation (one wasn't asked for) so I am lead to assume they believe it can become an issue if a team gets a massive cliff random plains map and the other team doesn't want to reroll. Alternatively, a balance issue could come from this if one team receives a large advantage and refuses to reroll the map.
The issue with having the top 8 teams proceed to the finals mostly comes from the fact that 8 out of 9 is considered too many by some people. It nearly renders the entire round robin pointless if there are no teams that are eliminated by the round robin. The majority, however, prefer to have a shot in the single elimination and find the round robin to be more of a 'practice' round rather than a qualification round.
The majority prefers having larger battle scrims, though one captain noted "it was frustrating when two teams had 5 and we sat for an hour waiting for a maybe 6."
3) In terms of organization of the tournament, in regards to administration and arbitration, would you say it was a success? [Y/N]. Why or why not?
7 Yes vs. 0 No vs. 2 On-the-fence
77% Yes vs. 0% No vs. 23% On-the-fence
The positives primarily came in discussion regarding quick and fast action when it was needed, and lack of problems in general. Most problems were noted to have been "resolved relatively quickly." The dissent came primarily in the form of admin ineptness and, at times, indecisiveness. One example, "considering changing the layout of a map mid-tourney and potentially switching to fixtures were two things that shouldn't have been considered after the start of the tournament" highlighted the quick and rash actions of the tournament administration at some points. Further negative comments were made about "control freak" admins, while on the opposite scale some thought that the admins "[weren't] aware of all the arbitration going on."
It is difficult to precisely put a finger on where improvement could happen, and leaving that decision for each person to make independently seems to be the best option.
4) Which do you prefer: Pre-set maps and factions for the single elimination stage, pre-set maps only for the single elimination stage, pre-set maps and factions for the entire tournament, or using a map-choosing system for the entire tournament? Why?
0 Pre-set Maps and Factions for Single Elim, 2 Pre-set Maps for Single Elim, 5 Pre-set Map and Factions for Entire Tournament, and 2 Map Choice for Entire Tournament
0% Pre-set Maps and Factions for Single Elim, 22% Pre-set Maps for Single Elim, 56% Pre-set Maps and Factions for Entire Tournament, and 22% Map Choice for Entire Tournament
This seems to be by far the most important and also the most divisive issue. However, each voter essentially argued the same thing. Most of the map choice voters enjoyed the strategic choices it gave their team, with one saying, "I feel as though this system is perfect because it's one team's best map (or the map they want to play on strategically) against another teams best map." Unsurprisingly, the voters in favor of pre-set maps or both factions and maps gave the exact same reasoning, one of which said "but I think fixed maps/factions forces teams to diversify their styles and adapt, making for overall higher quality matches and teams." I do not have any data to support either point of view, as pre-set maps and factions have yet to be tested on the NA scene. However, the survey results show a willingness on part of the NA community to try it out in the future, and could be a good point of innovation in the future.
5) Give a general summary of your views about the new maps in the PIMP map pack. Which ones would you keep, which ones would you remove, and which ones would you change?
Open Plains was by far the most divisive map. Many liked it, but its opponents were extremely vocal. "Open Plains is a completely horrible map. As I've stated in the PIMP thread, it has all of the negative aspects of Random Plains (all-cav desperation strats), with none of the positive aspects (terrain variation, manipulating Line-of-sight, agile troop movement, etc.)." as well as "For the love of god take away open plains. It's unfair to have a flat open map, devolves into cav spam. Random Plains at least kept things interesting." The opinions on it appeared to be evenly split, and one response advocated adding more cover to stop all-cav spam strategies.
Delta, Dune and Swamp were either not played or reviewed very negatively.
Verloren received highly positive reviews all-around, and seemed to be the favorite map out of the pack. Solace and Dry Valley received mixed reviews, and recommendations were made to make Dry Valley smaller and make Solace headshots from spawn to spawn not possible.
In general, the reviews on the maps as a whole leaned slightly positive, although individual maps had very different responses.
6) If given the choice of adding new, balanced maps to the PIMP map pack or simply keeping the number of maps as it is (with the exception of the ones you want to remove in 5), which one would you choose?
7 in favor of more maps vs. 1 in favor of keeping the same amount of maps.
87.5% in favor of more maps vs. 12.5% in favor of keeping the same amount of maps.
First of all, clarification needs to be made. PIMP refers to an old map pack developed by Kiss that has been superseded by COMP. Not all of PIMP was in the BIT tournament, and it is nobody's discretion except for Kiss's as to how many maps are in the pack or what maps are in the pack. The question referred to whether or not people were willing to have more maps in general in tournaments, and thankfully, most people interpreted it that way. My apologies for the miscommunication.
Secondly, people generally enjoyed having more maps. A fair point was made regarding fixed maps and factions and more maps - it may be a wise idea to restrict the number of maps if fixed maps are implemented.
7) Which do you prefer: 1000 gold, 1500 gold, or an alternative gold setting? Why?
7 in favor of 1000 gold, 2 in favor of 1500 gold, and 0 in favor of an alternative gold setting.
77% in favor of 1000 gold, 23% in favor of 1500 gold, and 0% in favor of an alternative gold setting.
I will split this up:
1000 gold arguments:
"As we've seen in BIT, it balances factions and makes each of them more viable and adaptive."
"I think we did see that factions were more balanced."
"It's a simple answer to faction balance issues. This is the only tournament not dominated by Vaiger's and Swads on Plains."
1500 gold arguments:
"I feel archers are too overpowered on 1000g as an archer I can get pretty much all the equipment I want while the cav and inf are much weaker than they are on 1500g and if you have any good archers then your entire game and map will be based around them all the time and every map shouldn't be based on archers all the time."
"1000 gold is too low, IMO, because it severely weakens cav. Calling for a clan that has a lot of great cav, we definitely had to change our play dramatically. I'm not even talking about the "4 Heavy horse" cheese strategy that we've never used anyway. Just using 1500 gold as a reference, cav can serve multiple roles: initiator, mop up, flanking force, ninja, etc. At 1000 gold, the armor/weapon trade-off is horribly steep. This limits cav's ability to serve the above mentioned roles and really just dulls/slows down gameplay. Where before, you'd see some really fantastic cav maneuvering and ninja'ing, the lack of armor usually means that you don't see your cav establishing themselves until much later in the round."
There is little I can say as a tournament administrator without being biased, so I will leave the reader to read the above arguments and make their own decision. The opinion after BIT seems to have swayed in favor of 1000g - whether this is a sign of increasing acceptance or simply a rise in popularity after BIT cannot be decided from the basis of this survey.
8 ) Do you think it is a good idea to host an innovation tournament to test an alternative gold-setting in the short term? [Y/N] In the long term? [Y/N] Why?
2 in favor in the short term vs. 5 not in favor in the short term.
29% in favor in the short term vs. 71% not in favor in the short term.
3 in favor in the long term vs. 4 not in favor in the long term.
43% in favor in the long term vs. 57% not in favor in the long term.
In general, the 'No' voters were people who were fully convinced in the viability of 1000g, while the 'Yes' votes came from people who preferred an alternative gold setting. The predominant opinion in terms of not having one in the short term can be summarized as follows: "Not sure if mixing things up in a short term is something the community needs, though. For once, let's make a Battle Stabilization Tournament."
In the long term, however, the community was very evenly split. Most supporters preferred a short tournament to test out the alternative gold setting, saying that "we could definitely mess with the gold settings a bit. As I mentioned, I think 1000 gold is too low, but I also see the negative points regarding 1500. Hosting a minor tourney in the interim before the next major battle tourney seems like it could get the conversation going." Other captains who were not in support of testing an alternative gold setting mentioned that "1200 gold is weird."
9) Do you believe scheduling issues are becoming increasingly problematic? [Y/N] What would you do to fix the issue?
1 believing they are, 7 believing they are not.
12.5% believing that they are, 87.5% believing that they are not.
The majority of captains believed the scheduling issues were much the same as they used to be, saying "What was seen was pretty typical at the end of a tournament. Teams don't show as they don't expect to win or the members are tired of the tournament." Although this was the predominant opinion, a variety of different solutions were proposed:
1) "Mandatory PMs all sent by the captains about scheduling need to all be sent to tournament admins as well so that there is no question about whether this captain said this or that captain said that"
2) "...being strict and penalize irresponsible scheduling and showing up late/not showing up at all."
3) "The best option is really just to make sure the teams who register have enough interest and understand what they're getting themselves into. Strict deadlines work..."
4) "I think allowing mercs helps a lot, but beyond that there is little to be done."
I would strongly advise any future tournament admins take some of these opinions into consideration. Activity is a problem every single tournament has had to deal with, and efficient ways of managing issues are absolutely key.
10) Do you prefer matches being scored by rounds, or maps? [Rounds/Maps] Why?
7 in favor of rounds, 2 in favor of maps.
78% in favor of rounds, 22% in favor of maps.
Both pro and con arguments appeared to pivot around the point of whether or not teams cared more if games were scored by maps or rounds. Paradoxically, supporters of both positions said the exact same argument. See:
1) "The rounds this tournament caused the winning team to not try once they won and it also caused the losing team not to try which in turn caused flawed round data for the final bracket"
2) "I also don't like that with map scoring if one team wins 5 rounds on a map, that map is already over. I'd rather each round be played and as important as possible."
11) If you have any other ideas that could make the NA competitive scene better, please list them here. Also, if there is any issue that wasn't asked, please bring it up and answer it here.
A lot of commentary was made regarding Zaffa's maps making it into future tournaments. Those are definitely worth checking out. Other comments were made regarding lowering the roster limit and advertising more to get more players into the competitive scene. Furthermore, the issue was brought up regarding the lack of interest for losing teams and keeping the game fun and enjoyable for them.
I would encourage all of those points to be discussed and solutions to be found.
Change speed to medium and we can start calling ourselves European.
Also... not entirely sure if the maps on IG_Battlegrounds are special for the server, or they are part of an updated ENL pack or sumthin' along those lines. But they have some cool new additions to them that make playing on our current maps quite different and the same 'campin' till flag pops up' strategy a little less effective... because those spots you would normally camp on successfully on our current maps have more ways to access them. For example... The ledge on top of top spawn where archers normally camp or entire teams normally sit till flag pops up.. now has 3 ways to access it. The same old staircase up straight from the spawn... a ladder that allows you to climb straight up on to the part of the ledge where archers normally walk down the wall to escape. And then there is also a staircase next to the barn leading up to the edge where jumping down onto the log fence thingy was patched up.
I believe that with these kinds of additions... the camping one side of the map till motf spawns will not be used as much and we will actually have more intense battles sooner into the round. I feel like I have been playing a waiting game instead of a medieval combat game lately. It will also make it tougher on the archers... and perhaps bring a little more balance to the classes that so many people ***** about.
If we could get this updated maps, it would be pretty cool. We could at least test them out in some practices to see if we like them. (Only if we are allowed to use them of course... haven't done that kind of research yet)
Also... not entirely sure if the maps on IG_Battlegrounds are special for the server, or they are part of an updated ENL pack or sumthin' along those lines. But they have some cool new additions to them that make playing on our current maps quite different and the same 'campin' till flag pops up' strategy a little less effective... because those spots you would normally camp on successfully on our current maps have more ways to access them. For example... The ledge on top of top spawn where archers normally camp or entire teams normally sit till flag pops up.. now has 3 ways to access it. The same old staircase up straight from the spawn... a ladder that allows you to climb straight up on to the part of the ledge where archers normally walk down the wall to escape. And then there is also a staircase next to the barn leading up to the edge where jumping down onto the log fence thingy was patched up.
I believe that with these kinds of additions... the camping one side of the map till motf spawns will not be used as much and we will actually have more intense battles sooner into the round. I feel like I have been playing a waiting game instead of a medieval combat game lately. It will also make it tougher on the archers... and perhaps bring a little more balance to the classes that so many people ***** about.
If we could get this updated maps, it would be pretty cool. We could at least test them out in some practices to see if we like them. (Only if we are allowed to use them of course... haven't done that kind of research yet)
Wow, very impressed with what you've done with the survey. Great work Cath. Still annoyed I had to do it... 
Those still feeling cav are inept at 1000 gold obviously haven't watched the finals match, a match that was absolutely won by cav on both maps. Many points about the survey can be viewed in that last match.
Those still feeling cav are inept at 1000 gold obviously haven't watched the finals match, a match that was absolutely won by cav on both maps. Many points about the survey can be viewed in that last match.
Zaffa
Terrible idea. Will never support.valent69 said:
Though fastest speed is agreeably a bit "buggier" than normal combat speed, it is far more individual skill based than its medium counterpart. The speed also reduces some of the effectiveness of camping.
On medium speed, if you are ever in a tight spot, you can just turtle until your team arrives. Blocking is an absolute joke on the speed, which is why the NA dueling scene switched to fastest in the first place. It simply takes too long for competitive players to kill each other on the speed, and with the group play of battle taken into account, the speed lends itself to camping. I believe this is one of the reasons that Euro's seem to have a bigger problem with camping than the NA scene. It is simply a more effective strategy over there thanks to the painfully slow combat speed.
As to the Euro map changes, though I admittedly have not seen the maps yet, my understanding is that they are designed almost entirely around suppressing archers. The same goes for the upcoming warband patch that nerfs archers into the ground. Honestly, I think people are trying to fix a problem that really isn't there. Though I'd agree that certain maps could still do a better job at team balance (ex. Port assault), I think most of this balancing can be done without completely changing how the maps are played. Adding 3 entrances to the archer ledges in nord town is excessive imo, though I would support making a more reliable entry way (such as a barrel) where cart is, and a small ladder on the left side of gingerbread.
Such changes would serve to make the map more dynamic (killing most of the camping problem), without completely screwing the roll of archers in the process.
blak
Knight at Arms
Mad Dawg said:Wow, very impressed with what you've done with the survey. Great work Cath. Still annoyed I had to do it...
Those still feeling cav are inept at 1000 gold obviously haven't watched the finals match, a match that was absolutely won by cav on both maps. Many points about the survey can be viewed in that last match.
Cath you have done so much more than your fair share to help the competitive scene...thank you.
As for the maps, I'm looking to replace Swamp and Dune, make serious changes to Delta. Got some new open maps from Sota -- they look real good. Looking forward to testing them. With the longer lead time we have and having (mostly) worked out the kinks in the testing process, I'm pretty sure we're gonna have a solid map lineup for the next NA battle tourney.
Also, if you have something to say about the maps (good or bad) in BIT/PiMP/CoMP, PM me or post in the thread (in my sig).
Also, if you have something to say about the maps (good or bad) in BIT/PiMP/CoMP, PM me or post in the thread (in my sig).
You are saying this even though i beat you 1v1 with 130 ping on fastest speed because it's too fast for you to handle gg gf hf tbh imo bbq gtgZaffa said:
changing gamespeed barely makes the game any harder or easier except when your ping is so high that it's right on the edge of your skill capabilities, so that fastest makes it too fast for you.
The only thing gamespeed really has an effect on is noobs and high pingers. Lower speed allows more wide scale of different pings to be playable.
And of course a weird game speed will take a few minutes of warming up to get used to, as timings are a bit different.
The only thing gamespeed really has an effect on is noobs and high pingers. Lower speed allows more wide scale of different pings to be playable.
And of course a weird game speed will take a few minutes of warming up to get used to, as timings are a bit different.
Zaffa
I think it is absolutely retarded to suggests that game speed doesn't affect anything. If that were the case, than by all means, just run all tourneys at slowest speed...sotamursu123 said:
The fact is that as things become faster, they become more complicated. There are a number of fighting techniques that work on fastest but not medium speed. Also, as stated previously, medium speed allows for people to turtle more because of the ease of blocking. As such, people can "crutch" on their teams more on medium, and while battle is about teamplay, to intentionally try limit the capabilities of exceptional players is silly.
In response to your statement on ping, as someone who plays with an average ping of 120, I am well aware of the impact that ping has on the various classes. While archery remains relatively unaffected, infantry fights can become a pain, as some of the crazier feinting that occurs at fastest speed wont register and players will often phase through you. Under normal circumstances however (anything at 120- for archery, 70- for infantry), everything works fine on fastest speed. Though it comes down to personal opinion, I see no reason why somebody with high and heavily fluctuating ping should be participating in a scrim, or more importantly why they should be catered to.
"But Zaffa, what about nation's cup?"
Let's be honest here, criticisms come up every year regarding the ridiculousness of the tournament and the server selections associated with having teams across the Atlantic compete. The simple truth is that you cannot have a meaningful tournament at high pings anyways, so there is no point in completely subverting the skill of available play to compensate for it.
