Native Completed Battle Innovation Tournament [BIT] - SURVEY RESULTS. PAGE 53

[Lagstro]

I have been persuaded by several people to enter this tournament with the sole purpose of proving 1 key point they have mentioned time and time again about what this whole tournament will turn out being. Hopefully it becomes crystal clear within the first few matches. There is no need for me to say what that point is, it will reveal itself as the tournament progresses.
(I was asked to post this for it to be used for future reference, gosh I am such a tool.)

 

[Catholic]

OP changed around a bit. KissMyAxe sent me a list of suggested changes, I said ok that's cool I'll change tomorrow, and then he sent me the OP itself changed so I wouldn't have to. Kickass guy. Thanks, Kiss.

gosh I am such a tool.)

My God yes you are.

 

[KissMyAxe]

Gee, Eternal, you make me blush Just doing my job, bro.
In other news, the team registrations are due tomorrow. If your team is still lacking players for the 9-player minimum, please, check out the mercenary roster in the first post and consider asking the mercs to join your roster (although, as far as I know, Snoop and Bohemond have joined a team already, and others might have done so too). I'd like to remind you that you can add and substitute players throughout the round-robin phase, but you need at least 9 players in order to register a team.
I'm going to publish top-bottom seed assignments with teams coded with numbers (1 to N, where N is the number of teams) on Sunday, and Tavi (the only administrator not affiliated with any team) will assign the teams to the numbers in a random manner (the explanation of why it's done this way is in this post; the TL;DR is that this is the most fair and unbiased system). The bracket should follow soon after that.
Finally, I'm looking into collecting detailed player statistics (kills, deaths, damage dealt, damage received while playing the different troop classes (archer, inf, cav)) on the server side. If you have mad module system chops, a bit of time and would like to help, please, let me know.

 

[Juve]

gosh I am such a tool.)

My God yes you are.

 

[Fehnor]

Worth noting that I've posted about 8 times and deleted them all right after

because Kiss asked me nicely to not be a ****.


RAAAAAAGGGEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee^{eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee}

 

[Nevino]

any chance anyone needs a slot filled for a team I would really like to be on one

 

[Orion]

Nobody's actually played 1000g on a competitive level.

That's the entire point of this tournament.

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,116953.0.html

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,213437.0.html

What about those people? Should I also mention competition in beta? It's a shame megavideo is down, because I could show you the first-ever Warband scrim (Hoboknights vs. nK) which was fought on 1000g. Some of us do have competitive experience on 1000g. Please don't dismiss us because others don't.

Although, I think it's flawed because it basically assigns players their typical roles/classes with no regard to the fact that many players can and do play as two or three different classes depending on the situation and on the caller's demands (Marnid, please, forgive me if I'm wrong in that respect, and clarify if you have a different opinion). And, as they say in Balion, K ratios are not a reliable indicator of player's value (although, Angus might disagree with me on that ).

When I made my statement that "archers have lower K/Ds, cav have highest," in whatever way I said it, I was generally referring to the high-profile players that are generally dedicated to a single class in scrims. So, I counted King John, Peasant, Peers, myself, and a couple others as archers. I imagine in season 1 that they spent the majority of their time as a ranged class. The same standards were applied to cavalry. Infantry is a bit different, because at the time it seemed to be a situational thing. If a team needed infantry, they would swap their general-purpose players to infantry. Sometimes a general-purpose player is actually dedicated to another class most of the time (like me), and because of the players involved or any other reason they might get switched back and forth. I even played cav in a few scrims for LES. So, you're right that the stats aren't 100% accurate, but if the players I picked as archers only played as archers 50% of the time, the explanation for their lower K/D ratios & total kills is still the same (in part, I don't want to bore everyone to tears here): archers get less kills than other classes.

As for K/D being a less-than-ideal stat, that's also true. It's also true that K/D is about the only stat I could record with a high degree of accuracy from screenshots, other than attendance. If the game tracked assists, then it would be much easier to compare the discrepancy between an archer's kills and their assists to determine whether or not they're truly a support class. As it is now, we have the NASTe 1 data and conclusions based on that, which are reliant on assumptions made based on a wealth of (sometimes conflicting?) anecdotal evidence.

 

[Mad_Dawg]

Let's see:
- Long posts
- Varied views
- Rebuttals to rebuttals
- Marnid

This tournament looks run of the mill and should do fine. 

 

[KissMyAxe]

Oh, how could I forget! We need a "Testimonials" section in the OP. Uh, Eternal?...

Let's see:
- Long posts
- Varied views
- Rebuttals to rebuttals
- Marnid

This tournament looks run of the mill and should do fine. 

隐藏: Marnid's post

Although, I think it's flawed because it basically assigns players their typical roles/classes with no regard to the fact that many players can and do play as two or three different classes depending on the situation and on the caller's demands (Marnid, please, forgive me if I'm wrong in that respect, and clarify if you have a different opinion). And, as they say in Balion, K ratios are not a reliable indicator of player's value (although, Angus might disagree with me on that ).

When I made my statement that "archers have lower K/Ds, cav have highest," in whatever way I said it, I was generally referring to the high-profile players that are generally dedicated to a single class in scrims. So, I counted King John, Peasant, Peers, myself, and a couple others as archers. I imagine in season 1 that they spent the majority of their time as a ranged class. The same standards were applied to cavalry. Infantry is a bit different, because at the time it seemed to be a situational thing. If a team needed infantry, they would swap their general-purpose players to infantry. Sometimes a general-purpose player is actually dedicated to another class most of the time (like me), and because of the players involved or any other reason they might get switched back and forth. I even played cav in a few scrims for LES. So, you're right that the stats aren't 100% accurate, but if the players I picked as archers only played as archers 50% of the time, the explanation for their lower K/D ratios & total kills is still the same (in part, I don't want to bore everyone to tears here): archers get less kills than other classes.

As for K/D being a less-than-ideal stat, that's also true. It's also true that K/D is about the only stat I could record with a high degree of accuracy from screenshots, other than attendance. If the game tracked assists, then it would be much easier to compare the discrepancy between an archer's kills and their assists to determine whether or not they're truly a support class. As it is now, we have the NASTe 1 data and conclusions based on that, which are reliant on assumptions made based on a wealth of (sometimes conflicting?) anecdotal evidence.

First of all, Marnid, thanks for posting and clarifying the statistics. Second, I hope, you didn't take my comment as a personal attack (or any kind of attack, for that matter). What I wanted to point was that all the discussions on 1500 vs 1000, archers being OP, cav being UP etc. are, indeed, based on anecdotal evidence and there's little hard data: that's why the stats that you've collected, even if not 100% accurate, are valuable in discussing the merits of different starting gold amounts (and maybe other parts of the ruleset). Third, I'm looking forward collecting statistics on kills, deaths, damage received, damage taken for individual players, classes, and teams on different maps at least for a part of the tournament to try to give the tournament rules a firmer background in form of statistics. I am not sure that is enough data either as, for example, archers might be valuable even beyond the damage they deal (interrupts, harassing cav, harassing infantry with multiple angles of fire), but that's the most I could come up with so far.

 

[MrNomNom]

i bet the next team that signs up is going to be filled with chumps who have no teeth :/ :/

 

[MrNomNom]

Team Name: That's White Meat.

Captain: MrNomNom.

Co-Captain: Catholic.

Link to Captain's TW profile: http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?action=profile;u=112381

Team:

1: mrnomnmo
2: Catholic.
3: fiery
4: Jai.
5: buzz
6: Painkiller.
7: snubert
8: Antigone.
9: deafening
10: Robo_Cop.
11:mrx

 

[Catholic]

Six. Awaiting wK and GK and we're set.

 

[RoBo_CoP]

10: RoboCop_.

I've had a change of heart over the time in which I played, and moved the '_' to the end of my alias.

 

[dman248]

Golden Kingdom

Captain: dman248

Link to Captain's TW profile: http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?action=profile;u=219531

Team:

1: GK_ORA_Vendigr
2: GK_ORA_Hero
3: Valavingee/Phoenix Gold
4: GK_ORA_Chewbacca
5: GK_ORA_Spartan
6: GK_ORA_Lockedout
7: GK_ORA_Derpy_Hooves
8: GK_ORA_Can
9: GK_ORA_Coors

10: GK_ORA_Sq_Sala
11: GK_ORA__Sq_Beer
12: dman248

 

[Rebel Emperor Bohemond]

Name: GK_L_Prisoner
NA/EU:  NA
Taleworlds/Steam Contact: Here  Don't have steam

Do not to forget add prisoner to the mercs list.

 

[Gaius_Octavian]

Name:Tavi
NA or EU?: NA
Taleworlds/Steam Contact Info:GaiusOctavian

 

[Mad_Dawg]

I don't see a clarified ruling on rounds that result in a draw.  Replayed or nullified?

 

[Catholic]

Let's have a bit of a discussion.

What do you gents think? I don't have much of an opinion one way or another.

 

[Mad_Dawg]

Let's have a bit of a discussion.

What do you gents think? I don't have much of an opinion one way or another.

In a close match it could be the one round someone needs to win.  The reasons a round are drawn can be various, even with one team utilizing a strategy to prolong the round on purpose.  My vote is for a replay.

 

[Juve]

I agree with Mad Dawg. If a drawed round stands as a round, there's the possibility of it being taken advantage of by teams. Not saying anyone would, but there's the possibility. I understand that drawing rounds out on purpose is frowned upon by most people in the community, but we would still end up having to decide what a legitimate draw is and how to deal with purposefully bringing rounds to a draw.

Oh, and:

Let's have a BIT of a discussion.

I see what you did there.