BEAST - Bannerlord Early Access Skirmish Tournament

[Hairless]

But Beast is also the best event for testing.

We have established divisions and skill levels.
We can, after 3 season, predict how some match -ups play out within the class restrictions rules and compare it to matches without the class restrictions.

We are afaik the biggest team based event in Bannerlord. With the exception of Captain's League maybe (which is a great event!)

Beast is probably the best way to collect loads of data on competetiv play quickly.

As there is no doubt that BEAST is currently best place to gather data, we can't forget that BEAST is also only thing that bring all the clans together to engage into competetive scene in Early Acces stage of Bannerlord. Everyone is investing their free time to play the game, and everyone wants it to become better at every aspect. BUT also everyone wants to have fun, and thats why we are all here. Competetive scene at niche game like this is both meant for tryharding and having fun, cuz there is little to none cash prizes involved. If we take away the "fun" part, people will simply quit, cuz there is no money to keep them invested to play thing that they don't enjoy. We can't simply let BEAST be a limitless hell of archer/cav spam. As Bard pointed there are already events planned to let people enjoy the limitless hell, but most of people don't want to/don't have time to sacrifice 8 weeks of a tournament that they won't enjoy.

Keeping all that in mind, I agree with @Loyal2Odin that bigger limit should be imposed, such as keeping the current one + making at least 3 inf a muss. So 3 cav 3 inf won't be allowed, but 3:2:1 or any other variation wiht more than 3 infs will be. Thus I suggest that class limit vote should get new option with that limit. Let people decide.

 

[IceNoVa]

I'll put it plain and simple. Data collection should not be a concern of players. There's the regular Skirmish queue in which not only the competitive scene, but the majority of players play in on a much more regular basis. Tournament matches are a very insignificant amount of matches compared to that and will not factor into data collection as heavily. They're a cross-reference point for the big picture at best, but if you look at statistics alone, competitive matches will not play an important role. That'd call for an elaborate tracking system of which there is no indication of it existing.
Needless to say that Skirmish in particular shouldn't mind the whole process as much, since the Captain scene and Siege etc all affect the the balancing decisions TW makes.
Also, BEAST is the best event for testing, because TW doesn't host anything themselves.

We can, after 3 season, predict how some match -ups play out within the class restrictions rules and compare it to matches without the class restrictions.

True, but I wouldn't place that solely on the existence of class restrictions, but rather a collective knowledge on which team has the edge performance-wise. A much bigger factor are the faction match-ups and those, while partially affected by class limits, will not be decided on that alone.

I'll absolutely grant that the tournament administration may call the shots on the rules and proceedings since it's a significant amount of time and effort that goes into hosting event like this. However there is always a risk of alienating the competition's rules from the targeted audience looking to participate. It's why some choices and concessions are usually made, such as your decision to postpone the division size reduction for the next season.
If events are dedicated to data collection as a priority before popular demand, they're bound to restrict their size and growth, which I pointed out earlier when that announcement appeared out of the blue. It's a valid move, but it's my opinion that such a move will negatively affect the status of the tournament and that is something that I assume administrators consider when making such choices. That is to say that such a move being made the way it was intended (and then reverted), I very much believe that it is a good move, if properly planned and announced in advance. See my suggestion for sibiling divisions in case you go that way because of other implications.

And while all of this may seem very harsh on the administration, the critique and suggestions are all in the full spirit of aiding you in your efforts, for which I'm certainly not the only person on here that is thankful and appreciates all the time the admin staff puts into this endeavour.

 

[TheBard]

As there is no doubt that BEAST is currently best place to gather data, we can't forget that BEAST is also only thing that bring all the clans together to engage into competetive scene in Early Acces stage of Bannerlord. Everyone is investing their free time to play the game, and everyone wants it to become better at every aspect. BUT also everyone wants to have fun, and thats why we are all here. Competetive scene at niche game like this is both meant for tryharding and having fun, cuz there is little to none cash prizes involved. If we take away the "fun" part, people will simply quit, cuz there is no money to keep them invested to play thing that they don't enjoy. We can't simply let BEAST be a limitless hell of archer/cav spam. As Bard pointed there are already events planned to let people enjoy the limitless hell, but most of people don't want to/don't have time to sacrifice 8 weeks of a tournament that they won't enjoy.

Keeping all that in mind, I agree with @Loyal2Odin that bigger limit should be imposed, such as keeping the current one + making at least 3 inf a muss. So 3 cav 3 inf won't be allowed, but 3:2:1 or any other variation wiht more than 3 infs will be. Thus I suggest that class limit vote should get new option with that limit. Let people decide.

All hail the Fool! ?

Nothing to add. Perfectly coined.

#inflivesmatter

 

[Aeronwen]

I strongly advise to not let the restriction drop if they community votes in favor of restricting. On the current patch you risk the format getting burnt down by cavalry/archer spam instantly.

Ofc we will abide by the results of the vote.
If we were going to make an admin decision on it we would nto have allowed a vote.
I still get to have (and express) an opinion though ^^

TW should just host their own event if they want data, with a price pool, and either pay you and Ikea for doing administration to administrate on their own. But well, thats a different matter alltogether.

lol TW didnt even pay me for running their BoB tourney, though Frank did offer me a T-shirt. In fact the only company that ever paid me for anything (though I have had free games and/or swag from other companies I helped) was the notoriously stingy PDX!

Thanks everyone for your input. I am really happy that we have so many players who are happy o put alot of thought into what's best for the tournament and totake teh time to express their views.

 

[KSHMR]

It is not clear whether you have spotted the ongoing class restriction vote

See, the vote poll in itself stands in need of additional voting options. The poll allows for voting between a restriction of two or three on cavalry and archer classes, which is inherently different from placing a minimum requirement on amount of infantries to be played during a match. One of the great things about quantitative data, it shows exactly where people want to go. However, ask people whether they prefer red or green and yellow will be out of the question. Let's for a moment assume that the majority of players support my preceding post, the simple result being that we have failed to establish what the community really wants.

I kindly ask you to review your poll and make changes accordingly.

 

[Dextrus]

I dont need to get my ass handed to me in a competetive setting by classes that are so obviously broken just to collect data for devs who now already have 2 years of data. 2/2/2 is already hell. Who knows when the next patch comes.
The class limit is a way to fix a broken game. We all know it is broken, and TW does too. They just wont admit it. So why kill the fun that is left?

 

[Horatius]

@Aeronwen is the cav glitch allowed in BEAST?

 

[Aeronwen]

@Aeronwen is the cav glitch allowed in BEAST?

The admins are discussing it but my personal opinion is that there is nothing we can do about it. The admins cannot start judging whether a keypress was OK.

 

[Horatius]

The admins are discussing it but my personal opinion is that there is nothing we can do about it. The admins cannot start judging whether a keypress was OK.

Its not about the keypress its about blocking during the glitch. Is very damn obvious so you notice it when you are doing it but you can choose to not abuse it while doing it. Giving the round is fair to me.

 

[IceNoVa]

Its not about the keypress its about blocking during the glitch. Is very damn obvious so you notice it when you are doing it but you can choose to not abuse it while doing it. Giving the round is fair to me.

It'd be hard to enforce imo. Without a decent recording it's just not practical to uphold. Of course people should abide a gentlemen's agreement and not abuse the glitch at all.
But in order to sanction it, there'd have to be proof.

 

[Aeronwen]

It'd be hard to enforce imo. Without a decent recording it's just not practical to uphold. Of course people should abide a gentlemen's agreement and not abuse the glitch at all.
But in order to sanction it, there'd have to be proof.

This is a problem for fairness. If we can only sanction on a recording then we can only sanction if someone has the ability to record and happens to be looking at the time. Therefore only some instances are even in the class of possible to be sanctioned.

I have no problem with both teams agreeing to not use it.
I just do not see how the admin team can fairly make a judgement on any complaint.

 

[Horatius]

It'd be hard to enforce imo. Without a decent recording it's just not practical to uphold. Of course people should abide a gentlemen's agreement and not abuse the glitch at all.
But in order to sanction it, there'd have to be proof.

IMO it's just as hard as hard to enforce the class limit. Of which you also need proof.

Nowadays basically everyone who plays this game has shadowplay or relive options so you can record past time with the press of a button.

This is a problem for fairness. If we can only sanction on a recording then we can only sanction if someone has the ability to record and happens to be looking at the time. Therefore only some instances are even in the class of possible to be sanctioned.

I have no problem with both teams agreeing to not use it.
I just do not see how the admin team can fairly make a judgement on any complaint.

Well how is it different to not abiding the class limits? People also have to provide proof of that if the other team doesn't give the round right?

The bug is very hard to do on accident and very noticeable (you can even hear it) so I don't see how it's hard to say that it is not allowed to use like every other glitch.

 

[Aeronwen]

IMO it's just as hard as hard to enforce the class limit. Of which you also need proof.

Nowadays basically everyone who plays this game has shadowplay or relive options so you can record past time with the press of a button.


Well how is it different to not abiding the class limits? People also have to provide proof of that if the other team doesn't give the round right?

The bug is very hard to do on accident and very noticeable (you can even hear it) so I don't see how it's hard to say that it is not allowed to use like every other glitch.

The class limit rule explicitly states that the teams may not have 3 cav or archers showing on the UI. The UI is shown for every player and therefore is available to any player to screenshot, they do not have to be looking at the offending player at the instant of it happening nor do they have to have the capacity to run recording software. That is a very different set of circumstances.

 

[Horatius]

The class limit rule explicitly states that the teams may not have 3 cav or archers showing on the UI. The UI is shown for every player and therefore is available to any player to screenshot, they do not have to be looking at the offending player at the instant of it happening nor do they have to have the capacity to run recording software. That is a very different set of circumstances.

Like I said basically everyone who plays this game (because they have an Nvidia or AMD dGPU from the last 8 years) has recording software that takes up 1-5% of your performance so computer capacity should not be an issue.
The recording is only needed when a player denies using it and a heavier punishment could be handed out if it was denied and a recording had to be used.

Well, if no one is looking at the player using it then it doesn't matter if the player used it or not does it? As the player doesn't get an advantage by using it as you cannot hit someone you don't see (99,9% of the time).

It is your tournament but these are the options I would suggest:
1. Teams can agree beforehand if the glitch can be used or not. If one team doesn't want to use it the other team isn't allowed to use it.
2. Team Captains can vote on it to have a general consensus throughout BEAST.

*And then only if a player is blocking while abusing it as I can see the button being pressed by accident (unlikely but possible).

 

[Aeronwen]

Like I said basically everyone who plays this game (because they have an Nvidia or AMD dGPU from the last 8 years) has recording software that takes up 1-5% of your performance so computer capacity should not be an issue.
The recording is only needed when a player denies using it and a heavier punishment could be handed out if it was denied and a recording had to be used.

Well, if no one is looking at the player using it then it doesn't matter if the player used it or not does it? As the player doesn't get an advantage by using it as you cannot hit someone you don't see (99,9% of the time).

It is your tournament but these are the options I would suggest:
1. Teams can agree beforehand if the glitch can be used or not. If one team doesn't want to use it the other team isn't allowed to use it.
2. Team Captains can vote on it to have a general consensus throughout BEAST.

*And then only if a player is blocking while abusing it as I can see the button being pressed by accident (unlikely but possible).

I look forward to seeing your recordings of all your matches

It remains the case that recording an instant of one person's play is a very different thing to taking a screenshot on any players ui, and much less accessible.
It should be easy to distinguish the argument that every player can see the UI from not every player can see what one particular player is doing at one particular time.

Nor is it desirable that admins should be second guessing an instant of play after the match.

 

[Silvernj]

I don't get what is the problem. If it's a glitch or abuse it must be banned. If it's recorded or reported and not being denied by the teams = round loss. If there's no evidence and a team denies it = no round loss.
You have autoblock, auto aim cheating restrictions in the rulebook what is the difference?

 

[Aeronwen]

I don't get what is the problem. If it's a glitch or abuse it must be banned. If it's recorded or reported and not being denied by the teams = round loss. If there's no evidence and a team denies it = no round loss.
You have autoblock, auto aim cheating restrictions in the rulebook what is the difference?

Again this is my personal opinion, not the admin decision...
It is not possible to outlaw a key press.
installing an autoblock or autoaim cannot be done accidentally and once we have proof there is no argument about it. That is one major difference.
Considering the endless arguments on here about simple and completely proved things like wrong names/tags/3rd cav or ranged adding a rule so impossible to judge or administer is not helpful.

Out of interest if you had to vote on a group of 3 players to make more or less subjective decision about who won each round in the final (or any match) after the match is played who would you vote for?

 

[Aprikosenmann]

Again this is my personal opinion, not the admin decision...
It is not possible to outlaw a key press.
installing an autoblock or autoaim cannot be done accidentally and once we have proof there is no argument about it. That is one major difference.
Considering the endless arguments on here about simple and completely proved things like wrong names/tags/3rd cav or ranged adding a rule so impossible to judge or administer is not helpful.

Out of interest if you had to vote on a group of 3 players to make more or less subjective decision about who won each round in the final (or any match) after the match is played who would you vote for?

I agree, the glich feels 100% satisfying for a cav player because its very op. By now everyone who uses it has build muscle memory to spam space like crazy. Alot of accidential uses will happen which means alot of rounds will be decided by the rule. Both teams should abuse it and thats it. This glich is the perfect finale for the cav dominated beast#3 anyways.

 

[Namakan]

meh, I find the 'can't outlaw keypress' argument quite weak to be honest. I mostly play cav and I can not remember EVER pressing space after I got reared, be it intentionally or by accident.


Using it on purpose? You deserve punishment.
Built up 'muscle-memory' abusing a glitch? Same thing. No excuse for it.
Pressed it on accident? Tough stuff, but other things happening on accident are also punished (class limit or naming violations, for example)

Whether 'punishment' is a round loss and/or a suspension or something else entirely, that's obviously up to the adminteam, but I honestly can't see why people would argue that it's ok to use glitches to get an unfair advantage. It's not.

Handing out punishment obviously requires solid proof (= a recording), but if people are concerned about it happening then they should be able to have someone record or stream their match.
If neither team is concerned about it (which I would find quite sad), then nooone records/reports anything, nothing happens. No plaintiff, no judge. Sad, but fine.

tl;dr: The official stance should be that glitching is not allowed and that (if there is proof) it will be punished. If teams don't report each other, nothing happens - like with most other violations.

 

[TheBard]

I agree, the glich feels 100% satisfying for a cav player because its very op. By now everyone who uses it has build muscle memory to spam space like crazy. Alot of accidential uses will happen which means alot of rounds will be decided by the rule. Both teams should abuse it and thats it. This glich is the perfect finale for the cav dominated beast#3 anyways.

I for once refuse to abuse this when I am getting reared on a horse. It just feels cheap. If the spearman is able to rear me, then okay, I have to take that hit.
Maybe it's because I like fairplay.