Battle of Bucharest 2017 - Sign Up!

Users who are viewing this thread

Shemaforash said:
What's the reasoning for going back to best of 4 instead of first to 3-4 when the latter provides a chance for teams to make comebacks.

Also only one map still

I'd rather play two maps too, one map is really dangerous and punitive, one mistake and it's over and sometimes people need one round or two to really get into the match and show their full potential. We will do our best anyway.
 
I think it would be extremely easy to draw, lets say the factions are Nords vs Swadia, people are bound to get like 3 - 1/ 4 - 0 as Nords. Two maps needs to be a thing, It also doesn't add much time either.

[M] said:
The_Troubadour said:
I get that randomization isn't perfect, but as Lust said, it will be used to seed in future tournaments
You can't properly seed future tournaments from an unseeded tournament, the seeding data will be terrible. If Charlini's team goes out in the first round, a team that should be a contender, they'll have the same seed in the next LAN as any terrible team who also went out in the first round. That means for the next hypothetical LAN the seeding data will be barely better than random, and still far worse than any community member/manager could have done for the first non-hypothetical LAN. That also assumes all these 5v5 teams will stay together for many LANs, which won't happen, since we're apparently and completely bizarrely unwilling to seed based on compositions of players we've all known for 7 years.

Having to explain seeding to competitive gamers, I'm old but this is a future I could not have imagined. I hope it still all goes great since I love this game but every decision seems to be designed to kill potential LAN hype. Terrible format for the teams, terrible seeding, no faction switching in duel - forget seeing anything but a greatsword, anything else is too risky to commit to if you can't switch back. A real knock to this thing's potential, hopefully it's still useful to generate publicity for Bannerlord and bladegames in general.

How can you determine seeding data from a format that's never been used in big tournaments? It's impossible to get a seed from start that would be non-bias. You'd first need to have it randomized to see where people are placed, you can also take rounds into account when seeding. If charlini's team loses by a round against AE's main team which stomped the rest of the tournament, that would be taken into consideration. You can't seed for a brand new format and brand new teams. Teams on paper could be strong (BigBoys) but can be extremely weak in team play (So it's extremely hard to place people). Having this tournament randomized will allow future seeds, but do 5v5 teams stick around anyways?. I would think that seeding is much more complex than 'How far you get in a tournament', they'd probably take into account how well they did against teams that stomped through the competition.

 
Fietta said:
Teams on paper could be strong (BigBoys) but can be extremely weak in team play (So it's extremely hard to place people).

My team isn't an example of anything since we played no official matches and our weakness was distinctly a lack of communication and leadership. Anyone who's played competitive at all can look at those rosters and easily identify 5 or so teams with a clear chance of winning and leaving that chance down to one map bo4 is not a good idea. Ft3 at least means teams can make comebacks against heavy armour if they play well or the other team messes up and conversely makes it possible for teams to recover from messing up.

Really just echoing what everyone else is saying at this point but if there's a real issue with two maps at the very least changing the system back to ft3 is beneficial for ensuring the best teams make it through.
 
Fietta said:
Bash said:
Are the final four going to play 2 maps at least?

I think they're going to be longer, I would imagine 2+ maps..

Hope so, would be also cool to have like a map ban/picking in any case, considering the small map-poll. Obviously the reasoning behind banning or picking a map considering the opponent strenght could be limited but I'd personally prefer having it this way instead of being purely random. I guess it can always be up to discussions with the qualified teams, once they're known.
 
On Bucharest, it would be in my opinion extremely dissapointing to see people ending their matches in 30 minutes or 45 minutes if they even decide to switch to 2 maps per match.

After all, people travel there to play the tournament and as any other esports lan tourney, I suggest developing bo3 system with pick/bans for every match on the semifinals and bo5 on the finals.

2 Maps per match. Shouldn't take more than 1.5-3 hours for both semifinals and 2.5-4.5 hours for the finals, probably less time in both cases. In the end, this would mean similar times compared to semifinals/finals of other big esports tournaments and its what people will travel for and what the competitive scene should aim for from my perspective.

Also, Considering tardet's words, I believe that if a pick/ban system would be developed here, considering the small map pool, bans for each team should be limited to one per team + a 3rd randomised banned map(not sure about this last thing).
 
Back
Top Bottom