Menavlion inf, Vlandian twohanders and Horse Archers
BEAST - Bannerlord Early Access Skirmish Tournament
BEAST is the first Bannerlord Skirmish tournament in Europe.
Share this group
Quick Overview
[Beast #2] Suggestions
Users who are viewing this thread
- Status
I also think 2handers especially Menavlion should be at least limited in order for this season to not become a crushtrough spam boring tournament.
+1 like especialy Menavlion, other 2 hander are not so op but every player playing menavlion is just abusing the mechanic. Twohander class should be the slowest one.
I'd suggest reconsidering the severity of admin punishments/decisions. Why would you suspend someone for not wearing a tag in 1 set of the LAST match in a tournament and then let him carry on his suspension to a second series of the tourney? That doesn't make any sense. And the punishment is disproportional in the first place, I am sure a simple warning would have done wonders, especially when it's a respected member of the community.
I guess you are talking about the suspension of Krex and Romersa. We talked about that here in more detail.
I can't agree with you that just because it was the last match that rules could be neglected.
Have you ever seen any kind of (E)- Sport event where the rules didn't matter in the last match anymore?
Do the refs just stay home for last match?
Every rule is intended to improve the tournament.
I get that Krex and RoemerSa didn't get a major advantage by breaking the rule. But that doesn't mean that it can be ignored.
The adminstration talked in great length about this internally and the suspension stays.
The rules apply for every match of the tournament, yes. But then there should also be the same punishment for the same rulebreaks throughout the tournament, but there wasn't, as pointed out by White Noise on the thread you linked. A team played an entire match without any tags on and got warnings across the board, we played a third of our match and both got suspended without any prior offense. And those suspensions were even carried over to this next tournament.
We did not get ANY advantage by it, actually. It was an honest mistake, we corrected it as soon as we could and still we were punished harder for it than anyone else.
Obviously, people should be punished for breaking the rules, even in the last match, I should know well enough.
Nonsense is, that you guys punished someone for not wearing a tag for 3 rounds by suspending them from the first ladder match in the next tournament. You literally have it in your own rules, that a warning shall be issued first, only after that can a player be punished:
Yet, you decided to suspend 2 players for a nominal rule break straight away.
The rules you are quoting are the new rules for Beast #2 There it simply said:
However the suspension is based on the rules of Beast#1:
On 21st, June 2020 Bard said:
"Warnings and Suspensions are up now. There were first incidents of rule breaking which were handled with Warnings so far. All of these infringements were based around rule §12. This is an official announcement regarding all teams. If any infringement on §12 is found in the next matches, the players responsible for these will be suspended for at least one match.
The importance of § 12 is is to be stressed since we can not administer the game like it was possible in Warband.
Any infringement on any rule will be punished accordingly. "
As you see Krex and Roemersa were aware of the resulting punishment / they should have been aware.
White Noise was pointing out that the team EEE was playing without tags.
If you check the warning and suspension thread for Beast #1 they were collectivly warned on the 21st of June. That is in line with Bard's post since the match were EEE broke the rule was prior to his post:
If you take another look at the thread you will find that all matches that took place after the post by Bard that broke §12 (2) were suspended. That includes Krex and Roemersa.
The only and main difference is that the rule was broken in their team's final match in that tournament.
But as I said before that's no reason to ignore the rules.
I can understand that starting the tournament with a suspension is frustrating, however it's part of the adminstrations job to enforce rules. If the adminstration makes exception to the rules the teams can't trust in the rules anymore.
And once that happens the whole tournament falls apart.
From my point of view I explained the situation in great detail. Probably more than it's worth. I think each and every of our steps is tracable and makes sense.
The suspensions stay and we are not planing to revisit that again.
On the 21st of June, Bard posted the following:
You can definitely read this, as if the next infringement by any of this teams' players will result in a supension.
Furthermore, there was no official announcement changing this role, that's why we prefer the suggestion that i made, enforcing the change of rules for the next tournament (as bard himself wrote there).
Breaking the rules needs to be punished yes, even in the last match. But that doesn't implement making the punishment harder because it's the last match. If you change rules in the middle of the tournament, do it with a change in the rules thread (which you did with other rules aswell). That makes it transparant to everyone, but not in a single post on the rosters thread, where not everyone is looking into every roster change.
EDIT: Didn't realize you referred to the news feed of the group. Even tho i'll still prefer a more clarified rulechange in the rulethread itself, i'll take back my criticism from my post above.
You can definitely read this, as if the next infringement by any of this teams' players will result in a supension.
Furthermore, there was no official announcement changing this role, that's why we prefer the suggestion that i made, enforcing the change of rules for the next tournament (as bard himself wrote there).
Breaking the rules needs to be punished yes, even in the last match. But that doesn't implement making the punishment harder because it's the last match. If you change rules in the middle of the tournament, do it with a change in the rules thread (which you did with other rules aswell). That makes it transparant to everyone, but not in a single post on the rosters thread, where not everyone is looking into every roster change.
EDIT: Didn't realize you referred to the news feed of the group. Even tho i'll still prefer a more clarified rulechange in the rulethread itself, i'll take back my criticism from my post above.
Last edited:
Sorry for the confusion but I didnt update the anchor tags (I didn't realise I would have to) and they are sending you to the WNL rules.
BEAST#2 rules actually read
which you can check by scrolling down rather than using the index.
I will hold off correcting the tags for 24 hours so you can check this is if you want to.
I just want to add here that I admire and respect Krex (as I am sure other admins do) and he has also been extremely helpful to tournament administration. However that the rules are the same for everyone, whoever they are, is a basic tenet of fair play.
Yet the people who broke the same identical rule in the first part of the tournament had a different punishment than the ones who broke it in the second part.
What's concerning me right now though are 2 situations i would like the administration to explain:
1) Port of omor used as a map
2)Two handed limitation
1. Port of Omor is clearly not ready to be used as a competitive map, not only the design of the map needs to be reworked, but the spawns are completely broken, allowing teams to easily spawnkilling and taking control of the map very easily. As far as i know, in clan matches you can't choose to play port of Omor yet and i'm failry certain the administration is aware of this.
So i would like to know the reasoning of using this map in the draft; imo even if with an eventual patch they add the possibility to play port of omor, it shouldn't be used for competitive in that state.
2. You let clans choose what class limitations there are because, according to most of the people, cav/arch spam is op and would ruin the fun. Why isn't the same line of thought used for twohanded weapons?
They are completely broken, the meta is right now 2h spam yet i haven't seen you sharing any proposition towards this problem.
Of course it's more difficult to limit or eliminate 2h classes/specific weapons during a match (and keep track of it), but 2h is a big current problem and the tournament has already started.
I'd rather have you explain this 2 points than focusing on forcing some people to wear Additional unique tags on top of their clan tag on top of their specific name.
I'm quite time constrainted, otherwise I would answer more in detail, but please consider that Vlandia actually needs the voulgier as their light inf with swo/bo. So if a ban or limit is put on 2H-Classes, we're ruining one faction essentially. From my experience the voulge is not as ugly or broken as the menavlion, but also allows to crushthrough the same as other twohanded weapons.
I m not sure where to ask - how many teams would be moved to other leagues after league?
2 loosers to lower league, and two winners from lower league move to higher league? or how
2 loosers to lower league, and two winners from lower league move to higher league? or how
The winner of the promotion matches go up or remain in the higher div and the losers of the promotion matches remain or go down to the lower div.
§ 5 Final and Promotion Matches Format
Promotion Match 1: Division A penultimate place vs. Division B 2nd place
Promotion Match 2: Division A last place vs. Division B 1st place
Promotion Match 3: Division B penultimate place vs. Division C 2nd place
Promotion Match 4: Division B last place vs. Division C 1st place
does this clarify?
Oh yes, thank you!
We should add:
Promotion Match 5: Division C last place vs. Division C penultimate place
The losing team is disbanded, all references to it are erased, and the memory of it burns like ashes...
Or we just giving them Hairless from DM for 2 months for enhanced training but if we promised the last team training from hairless they would all try to be last.....Oh yes, thank you!
We should add:
Promotion Match 5: Division C last place vs. Division C penultimate place
The losing team is disbanded, all references to it are erased, and the memory of it burns like ashes...
Why can't the administration allow matches to be delayed into the next week?
What will the administration do if teams can't agree on a date because for example real life reasons (exams, holidays etc)?
Will this change of rules be made transparent by a change in the rules thread?
What will the administration do if teams can't agree on a date because for example real life reasons (exams, holidays etc)?
Will this change of rules be made transparent by a change in the rules thread?
We can't delay matches because we need to have all the results from the prior week to be able to seed the next week.
Every delay into the next week delays the whole division and so the whole tournament.
If teams can't schedule a match the adminstration will ask both teams for a preferred time and (if they have to) schedule the match for them.
- Status
