2015 UNAC testing tournament!

[WinniedaPooh]

Team Name: HoneyBadgers
Clan(s) and/or Organization(s) Representing: Praetorians of Neapolis & Guardsmen
Captain (with link to TW profile): WinniedaPooh (http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?action=profile)
Co-Captain (with link to TW profile):  Fritz (http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?action=profile;u=430920)
Members (including Captain and Co-Captain) with IDs:
01)  Winniedapooh 1607915
02). Fritz 2190799
03)  eagle 2137012
04)  rail 1981476
05)  Doodoobuttface 1412265
06)  kirito 1684091
07)  Hawkeye 2238752
0  Xeeses 20869
09)  James 1858370
10)  chi-zee 1751311
11)  dragonslayer 2215087

 

[MadocComadrin]

Zaffa is not trying to compare the native competitive scene to MOBAs as a whole, just one aspect of them.
In a MOBA it is more important that a carry champ is given the kills/gold rather than the support.
He is suggesting that we implement that aspect ALONE to warband, which i support.

And I'm trying to show that the one aspect, and the suggestion based off that, isn't as related as he thinks and is not a good one.

is this MOBA101? How does an increase in combat gold translate to "a longer, more MOBA-like experience" What does any of this have to do with CTF????!??!?~?!?~! wtf

Not all of those paragraphs are a reply to the same topic.

 

[Arys]

Poll added and module uploaded!

 

[Guaccmoleboy]

Zaffa's comment is actually pretty reasonable and of course this is a testing tournament so I don't really see a reason to not try it? Why don't we argue with this after the testing tournament instead of killing the idea immediately?

I noticed on WinnieDaPooh's post and Lagstro's post about taking out battle mode and instead using another mode to promote different playing styles. Why not introduce a whole new game mode, if we really want to change the NA competitive scene so much?

Like how Zaffa uses ideas from MOBA's, why not use ideas from other popular competitive games like CS:GO or C.O.D? Basically like the Warbanded search and destroy.

I do have a lot of ideas for this, but does the majority of the community want an entirely new game mode? Do we feel comfortable enough with a big change? Will this year be the revolutionizing of the NA community!?!?!!? (think about it. old clans left, new clans joined. now we changing the whole meta. maybe this tournament will be the spark of an entirely new competitive scene)

 

[janyroid]

Zaffa's comment is actually pretty reasonable and of course this is a testing tournament so I don't really see a reason to not try it? Why don't we argue with this after the testing tournament instead of killing the idea immediately?

I noticed on WinnieDaPooh's post and Lagstro's post about taking out battle mode and instead using another mode to promote different playing styles. Why not introduce a whole new game mode, if we really want to change the NA competitive scene so much?

Like how Zaffa uses ideas from MOBA's, why not use ideas from other popular competitive games like CS:GO or C.O.D? Basically like the Warbanded search and destroy.

I do have a lot of ideas for this, but does the majority of the community want an entirely new game mode? Do we feel comfortable enough with a big change? Will this year be the revolutionizing of the NA community!?!?!!? (think about it. old clans left, new clans joined. now we changing the whole meta. maybe this tournament will be the spark of an entirely new competitive scene)

It's called Native for a reason. I don't think creating a completely new game mode is a good idea - I like change, but your idea is too much.



Heat: "Gave the unupdated version of 'Laoktudt' to Arys, it's full of glitches."

epic

 

[WinniedaPooh]

Zaffa's comment is actually pretty reasonable and of course this is a testing tournament so I don't really see a reason to not try it? Why don't we argue with this after the testing tournament instead of killing the idea immediately?

I noticed on WinnieDaPooh's post and Lagstro's post about taking out battle mode and instead using another mode to promote different playing styles. Why not introduce a whole new game mode, if we really want to change the NA competitive scene so much?

Like how Zaffa uses ideas from MOBA's, why not use ideas from other popular competitive games like CS:GO or C.O.D? Basically like the Warbanded search and destroy.

I do have a lot of ideas for this, but does the majority of the community want an entirely new game mode? Do we feel comfortable enough with a big change? Will this year be the revolutionizing of the NA community!?!?!!? (think about it. old clans left, new clans joined. now we changing the whole meta. maybe this tournament will be the spark of an entirely new competitive scene)

It's called Native for a reason. I don't think creating a completely new game mode is a good idea - I like change, but your idea is too much.

It will still be native nothing is changing the only thing changing is what mode we are playing on and instead of a scrim on battle it could be a CTF match or Conquest match. The game isn't changing just how we play on it is.

 

[janyroid]

Zaffa's comment is actually pretty reasonable and of course this is a testing tournament so I don't really see a reason to not try it? Why don't we argue with this after the testing tournament instead of killing the idea immediately?

I noticed on WinnieDaPooh's post and Lagstro's post about taking out battle mode and instead using another mode to promote different playing styles. Why not introduce a whole new game mode, if we really want to change the NA competitive scene so much?

Like how Zaffa uses ideas from MOBA's, why not use ideas from other popular competitive games like CS:GO or C.O.D? Basically like the Warbanded search and destroy.

I do have a lot of ideas for this, but does the majority of the community want an entirely new game mode? Do we feel comfortable enough with a big change? Will this year be the revolutionizing of the NA community!?!?!!? (think about it. old clans left, new clans joined. now we changing the whole meta. maybe this tournament will be the spark of an entirely new competitive scene)

It's called Native for a reason. I don't think creating a completely new game mode is a good idea - I like change, but your idea is too much.

It will still be native nothing is changing the only thing changing is what mode we are playing on and instead of a scrim on battle it could be a CTF match or Conquest match. The game isn't changing just how we play on it is.

Yes, yes - I read it wrong.

 

[Marin Peace Bringer]

Team Name: Defenders of Faith
Clan(s) and/or Organization(s) Representing: Defenders of Faith
Captain (with link to TW profile): Darin
Co-Captain (with link to TW profile):
Members (including Captain and Co-Captain) with IDs:
01) Darin ID: 27345
02) Azrael ID: 1076023
03) Jorvasker ID: 1318322
04) Stopher ID: 1570318
05) DeathAngel: 1991520
06) William ID: 397011
07) CB/Brandon ID: 105509
0 Syreth ID: 1106574
09) Argon ID: 1295503
10) Bubs ID: 1403798
11) Proteger ID: 924305
12) Chev ID: 1150726
13) Zagoroth ID: 1330167

Not sure if there's a roster limit or...

 

[Catholic]

I'd be fine with whatever you guys end up doing. I think wK played with changing combat gold and if I recall correctly they actually liked the change, so I wouldn't mind seeing how it works.

On the other hand, if you're genuinely doing a BIT-like approach of "hey let's see how changing this variable works," leave combat gold alone since you're already changing the starting gold. Experiments don't work if you change more than one variable.

My opinion? Arys, review what we found after BIT. Get a general analysis of how 1000 gold works and what it changes. We've been down that road and we have our results, both good and bad. Set gold back to 1200, then take Zaffa's idea and test it here. Then, for UNAC5, look at both results. Analyze BIT - was 1000 gold good? If so, implement it. Analyze this tournament - was tweaking combat gold good? If so, implement it.

edit: You can take a look at my analysis post in BIT if you're curious about results. I also happened to hold on to a copy of what every captain sent me for their survey, and I'll be more than happy to PM you every one of those responses. It was very thorough and very clear, and the only failure in that survey was accidentally PMing "greenknight" and not "green knight" and thus failing to get Wappaw's opinion. It wouldn't have changed the survey results themselves, but their opinion would have been very nice to have.

 

[CaptianBeetle]

Im all for people with no kills not getting a heavy cav, just because their team won a round. Makes the rest of that map stupidly imbalanced..
People who get the kill, should get the gold. Imo.
Would even add the dynamic of 'feeding' a kill to certain people who are behind on gear. More team play there.

But just because one person goes 6-0 a round, doesn't mean the entire team should get a gear upgrade ontop of that person getting all heavy equips ;D
If this happens twice, its just gg at round 2. Good fiiiite.

#EndTheRambo

Team Name: HoneyBadgers

*COUGH COUGH* UR NOT HB GAIZ STAHP <3

 

[XeleonPrime]

Not sure if there's a roster limit or...

No team roster limitations.

 

[KoA John]

隐藏

I'd be fine with whatever you guys end up doing. I think wK played with changing combat gold and if I recall correctly they actually liked the change, so I wouldn't mind seeing how it works.

On the other hand, if you're genuinely doing a BIT-like approach of "hey let's see how changing this variable works," leave combat gold alone since you're already changing the starting gold. Experiments don't work if you change more than one variable.

My opinion? Arys, review what we found after BIT. Get a general analysis of how 1000 gold works and what it changes. We've been down that road and we have our results, both good and bad. Set gold back to 1200, then take Zaffa's idea and test it here. Then, for UNAC5, look at both results. Analyze BIT - was 1000 gold good? If so, implement it. Analyze this tournament - was tweaking combat gold good? If so, implement it.

edit: You can take a look at my analysis post in BIT if you're curious about results. I also happened to hold on to a copy of what every captain sent me for their survey, and I'll be more than happy to PM you every one of those responses. It was very thorough and very clear, and the only failure in that survey was accidentally PMing "greenknight" and not "green knight" and thus failing to get Wappaw's opinion. It wouldn't have changed the survey results themselves, but their opinion would have been very nice to have.

Yea I was worried about something similar. Changing round gold, combat gold, combat speed, starting gold, maps, etc all at once and then depending on if people view this tournament as good or bad then all of those changes will get thrown under the same bus whether good or bad. We might not end up knowing what were actually good changes.

 

[Catholic]

隐藏

I'd be fine with whatever you guys end up doing. I think wK played with changing combat gold and if I recall correctly they actually liked the change, so I wouldn't mind seeing how it works.

On the other hand, if you're genuinely doing a BIT-like approach of "hey let's see how changing this variable works," leave combat gold alone since you're already changing the starting gold. Experiments don't work if you change more than one variable.

My opinion? Arys, review what we found after BIT. Get a general analysis of how 1000 gold works and what it changes. We've been down that road and we have our results, both good and bad. Set gold back to 1200, then take Zaffa's idea and test it here. Then, for UNAC5, look at both results. Analyze BIT - was 1000 gold good? If so, implement it. Analyze this tournament - was tweaking combat gold good? If so, implement it.

edit: You can take a look at my analysis post in BIT if you're curious about results. I also happened to hold on to a copy of what every captain sent me for their survey, and I'll be more than happy to PM you every one of those responses. It was very thorough and very clear, and the only failure in that survey was accidentally PMing "greenknight" and not "green knight" and thus failing to get Wappaw's opinion. It wouldn't have changed the survey results themselves, but their opinion would have been very nice to have.

Yea I was worried about something similar. Changing round gold, combat gold, combat speed, starting gold, maps, etc all at once and then depending on if people view this tournament as good or bad then all of those changes will get thrown under the same bus whether good or bad. We might not end up knowing what were actually good changes.

^^

 

[MadocComadrin]

Im all for people with no kills not getting a heavy cav, just because their team won a round. Makes the rest of that map stupidly imbalanced..
People who get the kill, should get the gold. Imo.

And if the cav is doing work but doesn't get any kills? Or perhaps someone just lands the last hit on an opponent, but the person fighting him before was actually the more skilled one who could have made better work with the gold?

Sure, you could make strategic last-hits matter. You could also make/keep tactical survival relevant.

I don't see the former playing out well at all. It's way too risky (for the reward) in Warband. If you slip up feeding a kill (by not securing it, trading kills when you could have just gotten a kill, or worse losing people instead of getting a kill at all), you're generally much more likely to screw up the entire round, as you have a warband team-fight going on. I could do an analysis on why this is riskier and less rewarding than it is in a MOBA (assuming we're still on that strain of topic), but I think it really just boils down to this: every player in a warband match (unless they're laughably unskilled) is dangerous (essentially all the time). Enemy players generally become less dangerous when you have more and they have less, but if you get into a 1v1 (or some 2v1s), you generally can't ignore players. In MOBAs, there are general times and situations where you can essentially ignore certain players. They aren't scary to you: you can't be killed by them or you could right out kill them (which you should probably do unless you suspect a trap or have a greater priority).

 

[XeleonPrime]

Im all for people with no kills not getting a heavy cav, just because their team won a round. Makes the rest of that map stupidly imbalanced..
People who get the kill, should get the gold. Imo.

And if the cav is doing work but doesn't get any kills? Or perhaps someone just lands the last hit on an opponent, but the person fighting him before was actually the more skilled one who could have made better work with the gold?

Sure, you could make strategic last-hits matter. You could also make/keep tactical survival relevant.

I don't see the former playing out well at all. It's way too risky (for the reward) in Warband. If you slip up feeding a kill (by not securing it, trading kills when you could have just gotten a kill, or worse losing people instead of getting a kill at all), you're generally much more likely to screw up the entire round, as you have a warband team-fight going on. I could do an analysis on why this is riskier and less rewarding than it is in a MOBA (assuming we're still on that strain of topic), but I think it really just boils down to this: every player in a warband match (unless they're laughably unskilled) is dangerous (essentially all the time). Enemy players generally become less dangerous when you have more and they have less, but if you get into a 1v1 (or some 2v1s), you generally can't ignore players. In MOBAs, there are general times and situations where you can essentially ignore certain players. They aren't scary to you: you can't be killed by them or you could right out kill them (which you should probably do unless you suspect a trap or have a greater priority).

What you are still not grasping is that this is a TESTING tournament.
We are TESTING the proposed idea out to see if the scene will like it, the scene that you no longer participate in.
You can continue to argue your point, however you are an un-active player so in the end your opinion is irrelevant. relevant
When the voting takes place after this TESTING tournament, you are not going to get a say.

 

[BlackTide]

When you test a hypothesis, you have to think about the expected results, otherwise what are you going to test your findings against? There's nothing wrong with discussing what you think the consequences may be and deciding whether it's worth your time to test them.

Participation in the scene is irrelevant in establishing the effectiveness of any changes. No need for the ad-hominem.

 

[XeleonPrime]

When you test a hypothesis, you have to think about the expected results, otherwise what are you going to test your findings against? There's nothing wrong with discussing what you think the consequences may be and deciding whether it's worth your time to test them.

I agree, there is nothing wrong with discussing our hypotheses.
You used the term "your" here in reference to the players participating in the tournament. It's up to the current active players to decide whether it is worth their time, not the inactive players.
Now i'm sure that everyone does appreciate Madoc's input, but thus far majority of the current players do not have an issue with trying the proposed idea out, meaning it will be worth our time to test it out.

Participation in the scene is irrelevant in establishing the effectiveness of any changes. No need for the ad-hominem.

Participation is irrelevant in establishing the effectiveness of any change, but participation is relevant if you want a say.
Regardless of how right or wrong someone is /how effective or ineffective a change is, if majority of the scene wants a proposed change, then it will occur.
Didn't mean to attack Madoc.

隐藏

Then again, its not like Blacktide is active, but there is this new "Paul Krugman" guy that reminds me of a certain someone... 

 

[BlackTide]

lol, Madoc isn't forcing anyone to do anything nor has he demanded a 'say', he's adding to the discussion, you can either accept his points or reject them. There's no ground whatsoever for telling him not to contribute. This community has for too long tried to shy away from discussion by telling people, particularly from Europe, that because they're not participating any insights into the matter are irrelevant. People can make their own mind up on what he has to say, they don't need you to speak for the 'majority' and protect them from whatever Madoc has to suggest.

 

[MadocComadrin]

What you are still not grasping is that this is a TESTING tournament.
We are TESTING the proposed idea out to see if the scene will like it, the scene that you no longer participate in.
You can continue to argue your point, however you are an un-active player so in the end your opinion is irrelevant.
When the voting takes place after this TESTING tournament, you are not going to get a say.

Yes, I understand that it is a testing tournament; however, if you want to make your testing worth it, you should test things that people reasonably believe are worth testing.
And no, my opinion is not irrelevant. I don't expect people to change the parameters based on my whims, but that doesn't mean that people can't learn from my opinions and change their own minds. Likewise, I'm not someone who has been inactive for the past tournament or two and still think they know exactly what's going on. I'm only recently inactive: my opinions are based on information that is still fresh.

I'm putting forth my opinions because I feel that my opinions match what people want to see a competitive match decide: a fair determination of which team is more skilled. If people suggest something that takes away from that, I will call attention to that. And like I said, if people want to change the overall experience to something more than just team-skill-based, then that's fine.

Also, information that is still extremely relevant and should be considered by tournament admins DESPITE my recent inactivity in the competitive scene is in regards to gamemode mechanics. I have a fair grasp of what's going in inside the module system and in the engine, and when I saw something like "the respawn system is fubar" or "modifying <X> would take too much time/effort or would not be native compatible" it can and should be taken with a due amount of weight.

 

[XeleonPrime]

Poor choice of words on my part, shouldn't have said "opinion."
Of course your opinion is relevant, what i meant to say was what you personally want for the future of the scene as an inactive player is irrelevant.

隐藏: ↓↓↓

soz it was late when i made those posts, pls forgib