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

[KissMyAxe]

Harkon, as with Marnid's argument, your argument can also be turned upside-down. The team to pick the map first is also under pressure to win it 8-0. Why? Because the second team might as well do better on their map than the first did on theirs -- but then it's out of control of the first team to remedy the situation. If anything, I would say that the second team has more advantage as even after losing 8-0 on the first map it's in their power to remedy the situation.

And why do people keep bringing up the own map advantage?! The rules were designed precisely to decrease that advantage: now it matters not only "whether" you win/lose a map, but how badly you win/lose. So, even if you lose on, say, an open first map which is not your forte, but manage to still one round -- and then absolutely kill it, say, on a closed map, you win. And deservedly so, because you did better on your own map than your opponent on his. That's how it should to be -- instead of going back to the opponent's map again and losing it -- and the whole match, like it has been in CJTT and NASTe. So, now it pays off to actually be able play well on any map -- instead of polishing only one map category, or even one single map.

Finally, as for psychological pressure. Please... This is a competition, there's always pressure.

 

[Catholic]

Honestly Eternal, Marnid's point is rather clear. If you go into the first 8 rounds on the map selected by the opposing team, and if you happen to lose all of them because it was their plan and their specialization, you don't get to lose a single round yourself when it shifts to your own map. That induces an obvious psychological effect on the team that plays on its map secondly, in the form of extreme pressure; you can't afford to commit a single mistake.

That's not his point. If it were his point, he wouldn't be specifically ragging on BIT for having specifically its system because NASTe had the exact same thing in regards to psychological pressure. All first 8 rounds were based on one map.

Regarding your point (read: yours, not Marnid's, because they're very different) five people have largely said what I was going to say. It's competition. Pressure's going to happen. Complicating map/faction choosing, selection and play even further just because some people might get nervous is ridiculous. See X's post, because he's got excellent points on the topic.

This argument is getting ridiculous. All of Marnid's fanboys are bringing up random non-related crap in defense of him and all of his haters are bringing up random non-related insults against him. This is getting far past productive, and with this post, I'd like to conclude the aimless discussion, alright?

On to something useful:

Feedback: I like pre-determined fixtures. Like NC. No 'well imma just pick what my guys are good at.' Rather, you have to be ready for any situation and map/faction arrangement, also it allows captains to work on strategies before hand. None of this pub style non-sense of just whipping up a plan on the spot. IMO.

I like them too. I was going to consider putting them in BIT, but I've changed up quite a bit (haha, get it?) already. It would be interesting to see the next tournament innovate with pre-determined fixtures in the single elimination and see how it works.

 

[Harkon Haakonson]

Excellent points my ass.
Just because other sports do it one way, doesn't mean Warband itself can't do it better thanks to the way it works. It is possible to reduce pressure of having to perform ridiculously flawless 8 rounds in a row for both teams, and have people compete on a more even level by having teams competing at their favourite map in alternate manner, can't see WHY one wouldn't do it just to save a total of 2 minutes to sort maps.

That you dismiss it as "useless" is actually pretty sad and from reading actually intelligent posts of yours in Off topic debate threads I have to say your short sight is a disappointment. After all my post was fully respectful and rid of any bias towards Marnid or the contrary, just giving suggestions. But be that way, I'm sure your tournament is perfect. xoxo

And actually, it's very similiar points if not identical, the only suggestion I personally added that isn't directly related to what he mentioned (at the end of the post, to make it clear precisely) was the map swap every 4 rounds. Ask him yourself.

 

[ClockWise]

If no one picks a map, no one can compalin about it. Problem solved. 

 

[Fehnor]

no one can compalin about it.

 

[Mad_Dawg]

Just because other sports do it one way, doesn't mean Warband itself can't do it better thanks to the way it works. It is possible to reduce pressure of having to perform ridiculously flawless 8 rounds in a row for both teams, and have people compete on a more even level by having teams competing at their favourite map in alternate manner, can't see WHY one wouldn't do it just to save a total of 2 minutes to sort maps.

Wow.

Spoiler: How I used to envision Harkon

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Spoiler: How I now envision Harkon

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[RoBo_CoP]

Very informative post, Mad.

I like them too. I was going to consider putting them in BIT, but I've changed up quite a bit (haha, get it?) already.

Do not see much reason why not to do it; The only reason not to do it is to avoid change. There are many advantages to that system, including this entire debate above me is thrown out the window, and replaced by something much more fair and competitive than the current one. I'd like to see a debate going for this, rather than the non-sense that currently plagues this thread.

 

[Gaius_Octavian]

Very informative post, Mad.

I like them too. I was going to consider putting them in BIT, but I've changed up quite a bit (haha, get it?) already.

Do not see much reason why not to do it; The only reason not to do it is to avoid change. There are many advantages to that system, including this entire debate above me is thrown out the window, and replaced by something much more fair and competitive than the current one. I'd like to see a debate going for this, rather than the non-sense that currently plagues this thread.

The preselection for the final was actually in the original rules discussed, but we removed as there were several changes already and people were already complaining excessively about those changes. 

Just trying to make people happy Robo. 

 

[Green Knight]

Well, this horse is a beaten, bloody pulp.

Onto other business: I (unfortunately for him) launched into a bit of a tirade over steam with KissMyAxe the other day while RAFF was waiting for the opposing team to find their 5th and 6th guys.

I would say I'm generally a pretty patient guy, but the waiting around in this tourney had reached new heights for me. So, what? If a team can't get 6 guys, we're supposed to wait around for an hour for them to try and find guys? In the future, admins have gotta be more strict about this, seriously.

This happened to RAFF twice this tourney: We show up on time to get repaid by having to hang around our computers and not start any other engagements for the next hour in the (possibly vain) hope that the other team will get a 6th. And this is the best part: If they weren't able to get 6 guys, we just reschedule (at admin's behest) for the next day or so, and guess what? We up waiting around because our opponents  can't muster 6 guys again. In the end, some form of 6-man team is usually assembled, and then we play em and it's over in 45 minutes. Waiting has become the rule, instead of the exception 

My team's retrospective of the experience: We waited for 2 hours and played for 45 minutes. While we waited, we couldn't play other games or leave our computers for very long. Our promptness is in no way recognized or even visibly appreciated. It's fun-sapping and off-putting, and I have zero interest in participating in future tourneys if this is what it's going to be like.

 

[KissMyAxe]

I'd like to add that Tavi was the one to suggest fixed maps/factions for the playoffs. From my prespective, the biggest challenge for implementing it would be ensuring that the fixtures are not biased and are adequate.

Onto other business: I (unfortunately for him) launched into a bit of a tirade over steam with KissMyAxe the other day while RAFF was waiting for the opposing team to find their 5th and 6th guys.

Well, given the circumstances, you were right to be upset.

In the future, admins have gotta be more strict about this, seriously.

My team's retrospective of the experience: We waited for 2 hours and played for 45 minutes. While we waited, we couldn't play other games or leave our computers for very long. Our promptness is in no way recognized or even visibly appreciated. It's fun-sapping and off-putting, and I have zero interest in participating in future tourneys if this is what it's going to be like.

TL;DR: RAFF has been on the receiving end of irresponsible scheduling by other teams, but, to the best of my knowledge, has not notified the administrators. Sympathies go to RAFF, but there's not much the admins can do about a situation they don't know about.

First, I'd like to say that I do appreciate you being accommodating to the other team. I know that a few scheduling screw-ups have happened during the round-robin phase, but, admittedly, I'm not privy to the details of most of them.

Second, as an admin that participated in the resolution of the incident reported by Green Knight, let me give my perspective on that and the whole issue. It has been a few weeks ago (?), so Green and the parties involved, please, forgive me if my memory is hazy and feel free correct any inaccuracies in my account.

I joined the Wappaw server at around 8.30PM for some dueling warm-up, and saw a few players of RAFF's opponent at that time discussing what seemed to be an impeding match. I asked them if they were about to have a match, which they confirmed and informed me that they didn't have enough players. After finding out the details, I advised them to use an emergency substitution, which they have proceded to locate. At which time Green steams me with his tirade (and yes, it was quite unfortunate ) and informs the match was supposed to start at 8PM, already rescheduled from the day before. I have agreed with him that this was no way to go about playing a match. I have asked him to wait 10 minutes while the opposing team and I determine whether there was a merc they could use. They have found a merc within 10 minutes and started a match, maybe, another 10 minutes later (informed by Green over steam since I was about to start a Balion match). If I haven't known the back story, I would have deemed the resolution to be swift and relatively painless.

However, after finding out about his team's experiences with scheduling in the tournament, I must admit I feel for RAFF and agree with Green that some teams have been irresponsible with their scheduling and showing up for matches, and this is unacceptable.

But, I have an issue with Green as well. Why haven't you informed an administrator about the problems? Why did I have to literally stumble upon a problem worthy of admin attention instead of being informed, proactively, that something was going on? What if I haven't come to the Wappaw server then? How can you blame admins for the problems when you don't communicate with them?

 

[Mad_Dawg]

Very informative post, Mad.

Breaking the tension...while insulting Harkon.  Win|Win

 

[RoBo_CoP]

are not biased

Not biased? If a team is good at a map that is picked, it's soley on the other team to improve their game. It would eliminate the situation where a team would only have to specialize on a map they could choose. The debate above is about a good team being very well at one, while still being good on others. It makes it so a team could press the advantage of skill even more so on their choice, while still maintaining a minimal effort on the others. Does this mean the other team should improve their play on that map and elsewhere? Ofcourse it does. It also means however you can gain a massive amount of momentum off of a chosen map to start a match with. On the other hand, with fixtures every team has to adhere to one thing:

you have to be ready for any situation and map/faction arrangement

Complaint about waiting.

I'm quite sure we ALL agree on this. Scheduling for matches on a much more organized manner would be great, however very hard to achieve. If you can get the moderators to ever give a NA tournament our own board (look at WNL/SNL/NC) it would greatly aid our ability to organize and improve the experience of a tournament in quite a few ways.

I find it funny the Salvs got their own board though, we can't get a ****ing bone to chew on, however.

 

[Gaius_Octavian]

I can see both points, but I do side with RoBo.  If you happen to get to a map that is a known weakness then you must improve.  Throw the maps and factions into a simple randomizer; then it is up to each team to make themselves competitive for each map. 

I would like to see it tried as an evaluation.  It does seem to work for the NC tournament. 

I do apologize for your troubles, the only thing I can see it warning a team for repeated tardiness.  However, that can only be tracked through team's reporting any issues.  I wouldn't want to enforce I hard and fast rule as sometimes computer's can crash or as in my case a winter storm severs your power lines 45 minutes before a match. 

Thank you for continually being prompt RAFF, punctionality is important. 

 

[Mad_Dawg]

I'm quite sure we ALL agree on this. Scheduling for matches on a much more organized manner would be great, however very hard to achieve. If you can get the moderators to ever give a NA tournament our own board (look at WNL/SNL/NC) it would greatly aid our ability to organize and improve the experience of a tournament in quite a few ways.

I find it funny the Salvs got their own board though, we can't get a ******** bone to chew on, however.

ENL clearly needed it's own board.  After that most of the same content they produced with a Sub-Board we've done with a single thread.  I'm agreeing with this, especially after looking at the SNL board.

 

[Catholic]

Excellent points my ass.
Just because other sports do it one way, doesn't mean Warband itself can't do it better thanks to the way it works. It is possible to reduce pressure of having to perform ridiculously flawless 8 rounds in a row for both teams, and have people compete on a more even level by having teams competing at their favourite map in alternate manner, can't see WHY one wouldn't do it just to save a total of 2 minutes to sort maps.

It's difficult enough now to arrange maps, frankly. It has finally gotten to the point where swapping maps and changing them and getting the server set up is actually flowing smoothly. For a very long time I remember it took a bloody long time for an admin to actually get it right and then swap.

This just throws in another cork. I don't like the solution much, honestly. It's a good idea though, I'll give you credit for that.

That you dismiss it as "useless" is actually pretty sad and from reading actually intelligent posts of yours in Off topic debate threads I have to say your short sight is a disappointment. After all my post was fully respectful and rid of any bias towards Marnid or the contrary, just giving suggestions. But be that way, I'm sure your tournament is perfect. xoxo

**** move baiting me, as I've been more than my share of patient with this whole situation. Has the entire Marnid-you conversation gotten us anywhere?

Not really. Hence my desire to stop it. I've got nothing against discussing a topic that will yield productive results. Hence my discussing the idea of having fixed maps for the finals. I will admit I'm getting frustrated, though.

edit: I'm just going to throw in here I've got no disrespect or ire for you or Marnid. I just want less mutes and pissed off people and more discussion about valid concerns. When I read your post I just read "Orion is right because unrelated-idea-here." I shouldn't have, and I apologize for that.

And actually, it's very similiar points if not identical, the only suggestion I personally added that isn't directly related to what he mentioned (at the end of the post, to make it clear precisely) was the map swap every 4 rounds. Ask him yourself.

Not really. See last part of my post.

Well, this horse is a beaten, bloody pulp.

Onto other business: I (unfortunately for him) launched into a bit of a tirade over steam with KissMyAxe the other day while RAFF was waiting for the opposing team to find their 5th and 6th guys.

I would say I'm generally a pretty patient guy, but the waiting around in this tourney had reached new heights for me. So, what? If a team can't get 6 guys, we're supposed to wait around for an hour for them to try and find guys? In the future, admins have gotta be more strict about this, seriously.

This happened to RAFF twice this tourney: We show up on time to get repaid by having to hang around our computers and not start any other engagements for the next hour in the (possibly vain) hope that the other team will get a 6th. And this is the best part: If they weren't able to get 6 guys, we just reschedule (at admin's behest) for the next day or so, and guess what? We up waiting around because our opponents  can't muster 6 guys again. In the end, some form of 6-man team is usually assembled, and then we play em and it's over in 45 minutes. Waiting has become the rule, instead of the exception 

My team's retrospective of the experience: We waited for 2 hours and played for 45 minutes. While we waited, we couldn't play other games or leave our computers for very long. Our promptness is in no way recognized or even visibly appreciated. It's fun-sapping and off-putting, and I have zero interest in participating in future tourneys if this is what it's going to be like.

My policy is, and always has been, "Let's get the match played so we actually have some fun with it." If a team fails to make it once, I tell the team to reschedule, in hopes that it'll happen the second time. Past the second time I generally deliver an auto-win.

I don't want to be the admin that sees a team that genuinely can't field six because something came up and gives them a 0-16. I really, really don't. I am very thankful and gracious for the teams that patiently wait for the other team, but there's not a lot I can do.

I will say that the emergency sub option is there for a reason, and even that is being abused as a quick get-out-of-auto-loss card instead of an actual EMERGENCY substitute, and this is coming in the way of the enjoyment of the other teams.

I would advise shooting me a PM during the situation, explaining what's going on, and then I'd give that team a warning so that it doesn't happen again. Besides that, there's honestly not a lot an admin can do. Frankly, besides TWM (which I only knew about because I was on the team) I haven't gotten any reports or problems with teams having irresponsible scheduling. You've got to tell us about these things.



Alright, so I had a brief calm conversation with Orion. Here's a brief section of the log:

Mac: the problem is that you only need one win on the other team's map
Mac: so rather than a 5/4 split between advantaged/disadvantaged
Mac: you can have an 8/1 split in the same
Mac: that's my problem
Mac: the reason I was focusing on first seed is because they can 1) keep the enemy team from eeking out one round, and 2) be more comfortable going into the second map than their opponent
Mac: so, it's still slightly advantageous, but that wasn't really my point

Orion states that instead of being like NASTe (which forced you to be good at two maps, because you had to get a win on two), BIT allows you to be really only good at one map and then just eek out that one round on the other map and win.

On one hand, I disagree, because 8-0's are ridiculously rare and in most cases all of the maps are challenged pretty closely. This is a bigger problem in the round robin(if rounds didn't count) with weaker teams than in the single elimination. In practicality, at least a part of his point is moot.

However, it's still a very valid concern. There is, genuinely, a bigger focus on "being good on few maps" than there was in NASTe. Even if you were amazing at one map, you were forced to at least be good on two because there was that third tiebreaker map.

Which really doesn't happen in BIT. You play one map, and then the other team plays one map. Orion's point isn't mostly about the second team being at a large disadvantage (which I strongly disagree with), it's just that there is too much focus on superiority on one map.

Now, community, tell me this. How do I fix this issue? I was considering implementing fixed maps and factions for the semi-finals onward. This would also fix the morale problem that Harkon discussed. Do you think that this is a fair solution to the problem?

 

[KoA John]

I think it is a decent solution, but its way too late to implement such a change this far into the tourney

 

[Gaius_Octavian]

My opinion is well noted so far. 

I like the idea of fixed maps for the finals.  I believe another benefit of that strategy is people may start playing a wider variety of maps during a round robin if it is known that they could play on any map.  Force people to get experience on lesser played maps. 

No evidence or real logical argument to support, but it is what I believe would happen. 

 

[RoBo_CoP]

Now, community, tell me this. How do I fix this issue? I was considering implementing fixed maps and factions for the semi-finals onward. This would also fix the morale problem that Harkon discussed. Do you think that this is a fair solution to the problem?

Yay.

 

[Mad_Dawg]

Now, community, tell me this. How do I fix this issue? I was considering implementing fixed maps and factions for the semi-finals onward. This would also fix the morale problem that Harkon discussed. Do you think that this is a fair solution to the problem?

I've been a fan of fixtures for quite a while and would love to see an NA tournament with them.

At this point in this tournament, I feel a format change this drastic would have to be unanimous among the captains, including a unanimous map list.  It would also require a concession from TWM about the match already played.

Seems very messy to try and get done in 4 days.

 

[Fehnor]

I agree with Dawg the bounty hunter. We should not make a hasty change right now.