BEAST - Bannerlord Early Access Skirmish Tournament
BEAST is the first Bannerlord Skirmish tournament in Europe.
Share this group
Quick Overview
[BEAST#4] Suggestions
Users who are viewing this thread
- Status
Not entirely fair considering you cannot control maps or factions. There isn't a massive rush right now Bannerlord Online is filling some gaps in playtime
There is no need to rush the tournament to its conclusion and undermining the core rules in the progress.
TW should come up with a fix in the very near foreseeable future. Not much admins can do to fix the game, but just because we want to "get on with it" doesn't mean we should do so by any means necessary.
It is not ideal, but considering there's pretty much nothing at stake except personal satisfaction, extending the deadlines is a no-brainer. No one is at fault for this and no one has to take blame/extra work just to forced 1-2 matches.
TW should come up with a fix in the very near foreseeable future. Not much admins can do to fix the game, but just because we want to "get on with it" doesn't mean we should do so by any means necessary.
It is not ideal, but considering there's pretty much nothing at stake except personal satisfaction, extending the deadlines is a no-brainer. No one is at fault for this and no one has to take blame/extra work just to forced 1-2 matches.
Commendable idea, but it's not working either, Destiny Pickups came to a complete halt for weeks because of that.
Been a while, but just to recap:
DR vs SGM - game bug awarded round at 2:0 (for DR) to SGM and what should have been a 3:0 for DR on that set turned into a 2:3 for SGM.
Since Gotha streamed the entire event and we had a developer response stating that the round should indeed have been awarded to DR, which lead to this issue being fixed in the latest patch, that result should be adjusted by the administration.
However a decision is yet to be made, and while my arguing does come with some bias, I firmly argue that the evidence and consequent conclusion is clear.
If you want to reread the debate or simply watch the event in question, here's Firunien's post including Gothas stream that kicked the question off.
To be silent about it and not make a decision, I think is wrong for a tournament management
To be completely fair, almost a month long interruption did bring things out of order.
And just to make sure no one tries to twist this as she/he likes: It was a bug and it was not working as intended, there is no doubt on that. Thats also why taleworlds released a hotfix to address this issue.
1.5.7 was released on february 4 which contains the following in the changelog:
it was supposed to be fixed, because it was reported earlier but they had to revert it since it was causing crashes.
1.5.7 was released on february 4 which contains the following in the changelog:
DR vs SGM was played on february 14 so it was supposed to be fixed and to work like this.
Losing rounds to bugs/lags/crashes is just a part of the BL experience. Embrace it already..
Losing a round because one of your players gets 1000 ping (not his internet) after the warmup is also games fault..
So is getting a crash mid-game.
Losing a round to a flag bug is on the same playing ground.
To me it seems that SGM didn't agree to count that round as DR win at the time which is on the same level as not restarting round because a player crashes/lags out. And it was their right to do so.
It was actually even less "bad" because at the time it seemed like a feature. The game counted morale instead of living players at the time of the round end.
Adding rounds now is same as a clan deciding to give a round to someone from a month ago because they had a crash in a certain round or someone got stuck on the stairs or a crossbow was bugged and it didn't reload. It might seem like it's a "special" case of a bug. But it's a bug that impacts round outcome just like any other bug/crash/lag.
Losing a round because one of your players gets 1000 ping (not his internet) after the warmup is also games fault..
So is getting a crash mid-game.
Losing a round to a flag bug is on the same playing ground.
To me it seems that SGM didn't agree to count that round as DR win at the time which is on the same level as not restarting round because a player crashes/lags out. And it was their right to do so.
It was actually even less "bad" because at the time it seemed like a feature. The game counted morale instead of living players at the time of the round end.
Adding rounds now is same as a clan deciding to give a round to someone from a month ago because they had a crash in a certain round or someone got stuck on the stairs or a crossbow was bugged and it didn't reload. It might seem like it's a "special" case of a bug. But it's a bug that impacts round outcome just like any other bug/crash/lag.
Last edited:
We waited for an answer all the time.
This is a bug, flag bug in warband was replayed when a team asked for it.
At the time SGM was not asked to give us the round.
This bug simply awarded round win to the wrong team, its like in CSGO bomb going off and you hear "Counter-Terrorists won" and CTs get the round, i am 100% sure no Tournament administration would count that for CT.
Obviously you are trying to defend a bug cause it now matters for your team, while we were trying to get this set since we played on february 14.
In other esports matches are replayed when such bugs occure (LoL as an example).
Lags are not "bugs", crashes and fps drops might be.
In football (soccer) you have that goalline technology to grant / annul goals (which is not necessary here cause we have the entire replay of the game).
Just cause this topic was hushed up doesn't make it a false claim. The only reason we kept playing was that we weren't entirely sure if this was intended or not, otherwise we just could have quit.
After the match and after watching the replay it was obvious that it was not.
Which you can see when you read all the mentions in the patchnotes or simply by reading NIN3 his comment (or by watching the replay).
But I got a question to people who think this regarding win conditions: "Losing a round to a flag bug is on the same playing ground." or "we play the game as it is not the game as we expect it to be"
What if there is a bug ingame which grants the win to the team which gets wiped out first?
Would that be okay too? So everyone can just suicide in spawn to get the win asap?
Last edited:
From SGM side - I'll repeat what we said back then, we thought we would win since we had more morale when the timer ran out, however, we never argued for the result to be kept like that and waited on an admin decision, and since the admins added it to the official table with the score it was played out with, we thought a decision was made to keep that score. We won't suddenly give the round now more than a month after the actual match happened.
If the admins think that DR should get the round now, with a good explanation why the previous decision should be overturned, so be it, but we don't agree with that.
If the admins think that DR should get the round now, with a good explanation why the previous decision should be overturned, so be it, but we don't agree with that.
Well this wasn't a plain win. The game design then took the morale as the deciding factor.
Same as if you're winning with all your team alive and you all have max respawns. But you run out of morale and you lose.
Simmilarly to that the game back then took the morale state of the round instead of the player aliveness state.
Sure it should have just ended it the second timer hit 0 instead of waiting
But then again you could have used the time to take the flag instead of fighting..
It's not an ideal way for a competative game to work but thats how it was at the time.
Doesn't matter if the update changed it.
For example if TW now decides that it takes 2 wins for the set to be won instead of 3 that won't mean that people that were leading 2-0 and lost 3-2 are now 2-0 ..
And lags are same as a bug/crash if they are games/servers fault and not players.
And ofcourse it matters to me how this plays out i don't think anyone who knows anything about this situation thinks that im purely neutral.
Everyone has an agenda here.
And as i said bugs are all over the game.. If the bug happens early on it makes sense to restart/force restart.
But this happend at the middle of the match AND was continiued AND documented as a 3-2.
For example we had a BUG that caused a player to have 1000+ ping even though his connection was normal.
Right after warmup, not during it. We asked for a restart after the 1st round was lost and it was denied. End of story. This is exacly the same only after 3 played rounds not 1.
*edit OH, and also.
This was a KNOWN bug at the time. Competative players should have known about it. Or the admins should have placed it in the ruleset.. It wasn't taken into the account in time..
Same as cavarly players pressed SPACE when reared to avoid taking dmg. SGM won with playing the morale instead of the killing game.
As a matter of fact in my opinion the round should have been SGMs the second the timer hit 0 instead of being prolonged till one team died/morale ran out.
So we could also argue that SGM lost economy in that round due to a bug at the time.
Doesn't matter how it was updated later on.
Also the CS:GO argument that you wrote Firunuen..
In CS:GO when you crash/lag out the game gets paused and then you rejoin.
In bannerlord you're forced to suffer due to countless bugs. (IT'S EARLY ACCES, EY!)
So again.. This bug should be treated like all the other bugs/crashes and non-player-fault lags.
And if there was a suicide bug like you wrote Gotha then people would agree that it's against the rules before it happend like that.. This was posthumus kinda thingy..
Same as if you're winning with all your team alive and you all have max respawns. But you run out of morale and you lose.
Simmilarly to that the game back then took the morale state of the round instead of the player aliveness state.
Sure it should have just ended it the second timer hit 0 instead of waiting
But then again you could have used the time to take the flag instead of fighting..
It's not an ideal way for a competative game to work but thats how it was at the time.
Doesn't matter if the update changed it.
For example if TW now decides that it takes 2 wins for the set to be won instead of 3 that won't mean that people that were leading 2-0 and lost 3-2 are now 2-0 ..
And lags are same as a bug/crash if they are games/servers fault and not players.
And ofcourse it matters to me how this plays out i don't think anyone who knows anything about this situation thinks that im purely neutral.
Everyone has an agenda here.
And as i said bugs are all over the game.. If the bug happens early on it makes sense to restart/force restart.
But this happend at the middle of the match AND was continiued AND documented as a 3-2.
For example we had a BUG that caused a player to have 1000+ ping even though his connection was normal.
Right after warmup, not during it. We asked for a restart after the 1st round was lost and it was denied. End of story. This is exacly the same only after 3 played rounds not 1.
*edit OH, and also.
This was a KNOWN bug at the time. Competative players should have known about it. Or the admins should have placed it in the ruleset.. It wasn't taken into the account in time..
Same as cavarly players pressed SPACE when reared to avoid taking dmg. SGM won with playing the morale instead of the killing game.
As a matter of fact in my opinion the round should have been SGMs the second the timer hit 0 instead of being prolonged till one team died/morale ran out.
So we could also argue that SGM lost economy in that round due to a bug at the time.
Doesn't matter how it was updated later on.
Also the CS:GO argument that you wrote Firunuen..
In CS:GO when you crash/lag out the game gets paused and then you rejoin.
In bannerlord you're forced to suffer due to countless bugs. (IT'S EARLY ACCES, EY!)
So again.. This bug should be treated like all the other bugs/crashes and non-player-fault lags.
And if there was a suicide bug like you wrote Gotha then people would agree that it's against the rules before it happend like that.. This was posthumus kinda thingy..
Last edited:
There never was a decision it was just hushed up until now. Even tho we tried to receive an answer.
This is In my opinion, just unsportsmanlike behaviour, nothing more. Even tho I can understand that you are trying to reach place 4 instead of 5 by denying us those rounds, so I can't even be really mad about that.
No, lags are not the same as bugs. These might be a routing issues but these are usually not taleworlds fault or at least not fault of the game itself. It's just caused by a bad routing towards / back from the gameserver location (netherlands) (edit: taleworlds still might be able to improve / fix those routing / package loss issues, but usually it's caused by the server, not the server software nor the game itself).
Also this bug is not comparable with crashes, in this scenario there was simply no way we could have won this round.
Just in case you were talking about our game: You asked for a restart after you lost the first round, not during warmup.
Oh yes, but thank god the patchnotes stated that this exact bug was fixed right before so it was valid to assume that we win this set by killing both enemies cause that was the gamedesign intention.
Nice to hear that, cause in fact both SGM players could have started teamkilling each other to win this round even faster since that would have granted them the win in this scenario.
Well ok i guess my final words here would be:
After you refused and we accepted your decision.
So that meant we had no chance to win that game. Maybe we'd win if you all decided to teamkill one another but so what ? I don't think thats argument enough.
Also SGM won the round due to a different bug ( but still just a bug, which is a part of current EA gameplay) and they refused to restart/ give you the win. Same as everyone does when there is a crash/lagout midgame. It's normal.
1st: As i said there was no rule about it
2nd: The game is full of bugs that have to be tolerated, and this should be no exception.
3rd: Just because a bug gets fixed after the fact it doesn't mean that all the outcomes that it had induced should be reversed.
There was no real overtime period in this game. It's like TW didn't even expect that people would end up playing past the round timer.
If the game was balanced and the bugs were rare i'd totally understand how this should be a DR win.
But due to basically every team losing rounds all over the place because of persisting bugs that can decide the winner of a matchup this should be treated just like any other bug.
For example:
A team is leading 2-0. They get a crash. Their opponents refuse to restart. They lose 2-3.
This kind of things happen and are not against the rules.
So again. Because this bug was known at the time, and there had been no precautions in place for in case it happend it is not fair to treat it as a special case of a bug.
Especially since there was no malice on SGMs side in other words it wasn't intentional.
It's game developers responsability to provide us with servers that won't CONSISTENTLY make people lag. In my mind a gamebreaking/unplayable lag caused by something outside of players control is equal to a crash.
Aslo one could argue that during that stage of game development the round was SGMs the second timer ran out to 0. Meaning they lost economy because of a bug..
Yes we asked for a restart because one player had such great lag that it would be better for us that he crashed so at least we would have the extra economy beacuse of it.
After you refused and we accepted your decision.
So that meant we had no chance to win that game. Maybe we'd win if you all decided to teamkill one another but so what ? I don't think thats argument enough.
Also SGM won the round due to a different bug ( but still just a bug, which is a part of current EA gameplay) and they refused to restart/ give you the win. Same as everyone does when there is a crash/lagout midgame. It's normal.
There was no rule in the tournament stating anything about this bug. That makes this a fallacy IMO because :
1st: As i said there was no rule about it
2nd: The game is full of bugs that have to be tolerated, and this should be no exception.
3rd: Just because a bug gets fixed after the fact it doesn't mean that all the outcomes that it had induced should be reversed.
And again in that state game should have ended at 0 and SGM would have better economy because of it.
There was no real overtime period in this game. It's like TW didn't even expect that people would end up playing past the round timer.
If the game was balanced and the bugs were rare i'd totally understand how this should be a DR win.
But due to basically every team losing rounds all over the place because of persisting bugs that can decide the winner of a matchup this should be treated just like any other bug.
For example:
A team is leading 2-0. They get a crash. Their opponents refuse to restart. They lose 2-3.
This kind of things happen and are not against the rules.
So again. Because this bug was known at the time, and there had been no precautions in place for in case it happend it is not fair to treat it as a special case of a bug.
Especially since there was no malice on SGMs side in other words it wasn't intentional.
Last edited:
Don't start twisting arguments so they don't make any sense at all.
Also you cannot bring these dumb teamkill comparison. The difference is that we couldn't do anything at all to win this game. They could have teamkilled eachother to get the round or we could kill them and we would still lose. Every scenario would have led to us losing, so please don't even try to defend such a gamebreaking bug.
Btw. we also had a crash during an official and still won 5v6 and the primary thing I am pointing out is: there was simply no scenario we could have won this round cause it was bugged. Even in a 1v6 you can at least in theory win even when its really really really unlikely. But we could not. There was no scenario.
Also it's not a punishment for SGM at all. They wouldn't have won any rounds on this set cause it would have been over. It would have been a clean 3-0.
I would understand that you want to argue if this round won would have led to a 1-0 / 2-0 / 1-1 etc. but not when it would have been a 3-0 and the game was supposed to end after that.
I am just telling you it's not exactly a bug, even tho it's unintended. But that has not really anything todo with this case anyway. Usually you can find out if you lag etc. if you spawn during the warmup phase and walk around. And this entire case is covered by the rules anyway.
Not valid at all cause if one team has more moral and the team with less moral holds the flag, overtime starts UNTIL their moral surpasses the other teams moral or one team gets wiped out. So this is never supposed to happen. So it's invalid cause SGM was supposed to lose that round.
This case is covered anyway by the rules and we would've let you restart (we also let RM restart yesterday) but not after we won the first round (and not after waiting a long time without claiming a default before).
Also you cannot bring these dumb teamkill comparison. The difference is that we couldn't do anything at all to win this game. They could have teamkilled eachother to get the round or we could kill them and we would still lose. Every scenario would have led to us losing, so please don't even try to defend such a gamebreaking bug.
Btw. we also had a crash during an official and still won 5v6 and the primary thing I am pointing out is: there was simply no scenario we could have won this round cause it was bugged. Even in a 1v6 you can at least in theory win even when its really really really unlikely. But we could not. There was no scenario.
So again, this bug was fixed and other than crashes / high pings not easy to reproduce really quick without bringing 12 clan players into the same game.
Also it's not a punishment for SGM at all. They wouldn't have won any rounds on this set cause it would have been over. It would have been a clean 3-0.
I would understand that you want to argue if this round won would have led to a 1-0 / 2-0 / 1-1 etc. but not when it would have been a 3-0 and the game was supposed to end after that.
Last edited:
I guess it wasn't my final words then..
Well again i'll just put it simply.
Having terrible lag instead of a crash is even worse and has everything to do with this case because it is a simmilar scenario
So here is a simple template:
- Game is filled with bugs/crashes/lags that affect tournament outcome.
- Bug is not denoted in the ruleset of the tournament as a "win/lose" scenario.
- Bug happend
- One team refuses to restart/ give up the win
- The end.
And this can be used for every single type of a gamebreaking problem. Such as bugs/crashes/lags.
Something wasn't intended by design .. It affects tournament outcome.. It gets fixed .. It still happend the way it happend same as any other bug that affected the outcome but is not being discussed on the forum.
Can't put it more plainly than this.
Well again i'll just put it simply.
Having terrible lag instead of a crash is even worse and has everything to do with this case because it is a simmilar scenario
So here is a simple template:
- Game is filled with bugs/crashes/lags that affect tournament outcome.
- Bug is not denoted in the ruleset of the tournament as a "win/lose" scenario.
- Bug happend
- One team refuses to restart/ give up the win
- The end.
And this can be used for every single type of a gamebreaking problem. Such as bugs/crashes/lags.
Something wasn't intended by design .. It affects tournament outcome.. It gets fixed .. It still happend the way it happend same as any other bug that affected the outcome but is not being discussed on the forum.
Can't put it more plainly than this.
Still not in this case since no one crashed and everyone could see the obvious expected result and it would have been over. There was also not a mechanic which makes it impossible to rejoin or something like that. When someone crashes you cannot rehost the game with the exact same eco etc. But it's really obvious in this case cause it would just have been over 3-0.
This is more about SGM / GG simply not wanting us to receive those rounds cause both of them would suffer in their final ladder positions even tho it would just be fair and in fact the correct score regarding our performance.
Of course our placement matters to us aswell, I am not trying to deny that, but we asked here for the first time before it even was of any importance cause it would have been the right thing todo.
Edit:
Denying us this set win is the same as denying players to rejoin a match if there would be a rejoin option.
This is more about SGM / GG simply not wanting us to receive those rounds cause both of them would suffer in their final ladder positions even tho it would just be fair and in fact the correct score regarding our performance.
Of course our placement matters to us aswell, I am not trying to deny that, but we asked here for the first time before it even was of any importance cause it would have been the right thing todo.
Edit:
Denying us this set win is the same as denying players to rejoin a match if there would be a rejoin option.
Last edited:
Ofcourse it was of importance to you. Every round counts. You just wanted to get the rounds as soon as possible. That's normal.
And thats exacly why im saying this is a bug and should be treated like other bug/crash/lag simply because all of these affect the end result.
And because in bannerlord you cannot rejoin games/ have the bugs/crashes/lags not affect the end result that is EXACLY why this bug should not be treated with special care.
And on top of that as i've said for the 3rd time now :
This was a known bug. Nothing was said or done about it until it happend.
Competative players and tournament admins should know about existance of such outcome changing bugs and should either be ready to deal with them/accept them or should accept the responsability that comes with their effect. And that effect in this case is DR losing 3-2 instead of winning 3-0.
I,for a fact, knew about that bug and if i were in that scenario it wouldn't have surprised me.
I'm not very proactive on forums as you can se by my measly regular rank so i don't go around telling admins what to do ( or anyone for that matter) untill it has some impact on me. Like you've stated twice now.. The outcome matters to me. I don't see why you keep pointing that out. It's very obvious.
If i were organizing a tournament i'd definetly want to cover all the bugs that could affect the outcome so this doesn't happen. But those things are easier said than done. Either way now what happend happend. The bug wasn't in the rules.
Bugs/crashes/lags affect outcome. Just like this one. Doesn't matter how it looks. It needs to be treated equally.
And thats exacly why im saying this is a bug and should be treated like other bug/crash/lag simply because all of these affect the end result.
And because in bannerlord you cannot rejoin games/ have the bugs/crashes/lags not affect the end result that is EXACLY why this bug should not be treated with special care.
And on top of that as i've said for the 3rd time now :
This was a known bug. Nothing was said or done about it until it happend.
Competative players and tournament admins should know about existance of such outcome changing bugs and should either be ready to deal with them/accept them or should accept the responsability that comes with their effect. And that effect in this case is DR losing 3-2 instead of winning 3-0.
I,for a fact, knew about that bug and if i were in that scenario it wouldn't have surprised me.
I'm not very proactive on forums as you can se by my measly regular rank so i don't go around telling admins what to do ( or anyone for that matter) untill it has some impact on me. Like you've stated twice now.. The outcome matters to me. I don't see why you keep pointing that out. It's very obvious.
If i were organizing a tournament i'd definetly want to cover all the bugs that could affect the outcome so this doesn't happen. But those things are easier said than done. Either way now what happend happend. The bug wasn't in the rules.
Bugs/crashes/lags affect outcome. Just like this one. Doesn't matter how it looks. It needs to be treated equally.
- Status
