BEAST - Bannerlord Early Access Skirmish Tournament

BEAST is the first Bannerlord Skirmish tournament in Europe.

Quick Overview

Category
Bannerlord
Language
English (UK)
Total members
277
Total events
0
Total discussions
263

[Beast 8] Suggestions

Users who are viewing this thread

Beast-Avatar-2update.png


Suggestions

Please post your suggestions, questions and comments relating to BEAST#6 in this thread.

Any substantive suggestion requiring an in-depth discussion would be better in a separate thread. We also look forward to any constructive criticism concerning BEAST8

Feel free to comment on any aspect of the tournament but it remains the case that aspects of tournament administration are limited by the early access nature of the game.

...~x*
Beast-Avatar-2.png
Beast-Avatar-2.png
Beast-Avatar-2.png
*x~...​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why so many admins? And half of them are literally nonames. I suggest to remove half of them (starting from aero ofc)

Usually I do a huge amount of work. I simply dont have have time for that atm and no-one else will do it.

By including so many volunteers I hope to
1. make sure each person has only a small amount of work to do
2. train new admins for the future of BL tournies.

Rather than trolling the people who dput in work for the community why don't you put your energies into something positive?
 
I suggest a rule to be added to deal with player disconnects. I wrote a rule in the "New Season of Beast?" post, but if that is not good, we still need one.
 
I suggest a rule to be added to deal with player disconnects. I wrote a rule in the "New Season of Beast?" post, but if that is not good, we still need one.

ye I do take your point.
And the rule you gave previously was well thought out.
It is however far too complicated.

It is obviously unsatisfactory if a player drops. For the reasons Ikea already gave though it is not possible atm to have a satisfactory rule that wont cause further problems.
Remember it is always open to the two teams to agree a restart.
 
ye I do take your point.
And the rule you gave previously was well thought out.
It is however far too complicated.

It is obviously unsatisfactory if a player drops. For the reasons Ikea already gave though it is not possible atm to have a satisfactory rule that wont cause further problems.
Remember it is always open to the two teams to agree a restart.
I do agree that it is a bit of a hassle to implement, but the rule makes it fair when a disconnection happens. And having a rule that forces teams to act in a way is going to get a more fair outcome as opposed to relying on the good will of teams (especially when there is such a thing as economy advantage/disadvantage). As far as what @Ikea Knight has said: "The team that has a crash can't force a restart. Both teams need to agree. Otherwise it's really easy to fake a crash.".

If I did not misunderstand him, the rule that I typed up protects against exactly the exploitation that he mentions. This is the link to my response to ikea's concerns, if you had not had the time to look them over. If ikea had other concerns (that he shared with the admin team) that were not mentioned in his reply to my proposed rule, then I do not know them.
 
I do agree that it is a bit of a hassle to implement, but the rule makes it fair when a disconnection happens. And having a rule that forces teams to act in a way is going to get a more fair outcome as opposed to relying on the good will of teams (especially when there is such a thing as economy advantage/disadvantage). As far as what @Ikea Knight has said: "The team that has a crash can't force a restart. Both teams need to agree. Otherwise it's really easy to fake a crash.".

If I did not misunderstand him, the rule that I typed up protects against exactly the exploitation that he mentions. This is the link to my response to ikea's concerns, if you had not had the time to look them over. If ikea had other concerns (that he shared with the admin team) that were not mentioned in his reply to my proposed rule, then I do not know them.

I understand your points. I do not think the rule is workable atm.
As we said right at the start, the game is not perfect, it isnt really tournament ready. The admins are limited in what we can do and what is practical to implement.

I am kinda curious how you think players who dont understand 'It is strictly prohibited to modify the game files or implement modifications' would cope with the complicated rule you suggest ^^
 
We currently don't have division E, and some clans are either inactive or disbanded, so we have more space in higher divisions. The questions is: How does the process of transfering teams to other division works?
 
In the linked ruleset (from BEAST #3, so I appreciate it if any of the admins could do the intended update of the ruleset to it's current standard, whatever that may be) it says:

§ 15 Player Names & Tags

(1) Players must play with the name they are signed up under in the team roster.
(2) The team must wear the team tag (through the clan system and Steam) that is used in the roster thread.
(3) Team tags must be unique.
(4) Players must be 'online' on Steam during a match.

Number 2 seems to origin from a time where you could only play clanmatches while everyone is in the same ingame clan (if I remember correctly). Now that people from different clans or even without a clan can play matches together via the clan system, I suggest changing the rule to the following:
"The team must wear the team tag through Steam that is used in the roster thread"
 
We currently don't have division E, and some clans are either inactive or disbanded, so we have more space in higher divisions. The questions is: How does the process of transfering teams to other division works?
What we do is this:

Teams that played in the last Beast are put in the position they finished in
New teams are placed according to a compromise between their wishes, admins assessments and where there are spaces.
If there is an unfilled space higher in the tournament teams are requested to move up.
 
we don't have as many sign ups this season but many teams have said they will return next season.

So we either had to reduce the divisions to 4 this time or reduce the no of teams in the divs.

Having 5 teams in a div gives each team in A-D a bit more flexibility with dates as they all get a week off (and as its summer players will tend to have holidays). And we retain the 5 division structure for (hopefully) the return of more teams in Sept.
 
Back
Top Bottom