BEAST - Bannerlord Early Access Skirmish Tournament

BEAST is the first Bannerlord Skirmish tournament in Europe.

Quick Overview

Category
Bannerlord
Language
English (UK)
Total members
231
Total events
0
Total discussions
185

[BEAST 5] Suggestions

Currently viewing this thread:

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jufasto

Sergeant at Arms
WBWF&SNW
Basically:

RM's first map choice : Port At Omor is getting banned by DM
RM's second map choice: Town Outskirts is getting banned by admins of tournament.

and you call that a fair selection for everyone meanwhile it's clearly at DM's advantage
 

Koso

Sergeant at Arms
I'd say thank you for organise this tournament, rules and ect. but, I don't really get it why you are insist on this method. This method can be came from since BEAST2 but, it doesn't mean that it is really good or If you change it, it'll break something. Like you realized here
I guess we could add have city outskirts as both a map to choose and tiebreaker. There is no real issue why we can't do it like that. Variety of course but it wouldn't influnce the balance.
It will happen soon or later. In BEAST6 will happen like this I am sure of this because other way is just not sufficient. Always will be forced by 4 maps. This game needs more content while we are struggling to get decent, playable game and this way looks not possible in the near future. Therefore, decide from 5 map (ban-pick) is way more better than before. At least let's wait for lots of maps to decide one map as a tiebreaker. Also let's not wait for this rules for BEAST6.
 

Ikea Knight

Master Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Vlandia and not vlandia option why proposed to every team and its now proposed to each promotion matches individually,and their decisions also affecting our factions in our own promotion match.And now you propose this vote to 2 teams for 1 promotion match.I dont really get these votes in my mind at all.And about town outskirts,is this special boy and you just exclude it?That map never being played in the finals/promos.

I don't really understand what you're are saying but I will be straight with you:
@Aeronwen I guess we could add have city outskirts as both a map to choose and tiebreaker. There is no real issue why we can't do it like that. Variety of course but it wouldn't influnce the balance.

I didn't expect it to be really an issue but of course I had to be wrong. DM doesn't want the change while RM is trying to get it. So it's up to me and hatever I decide here, it favours one team significantly. You may not believe it but I really don't like one team more than the other.

Enforcing the old rules over enfocing a rule change so shortly before the tournament ends just seemed like the lesser of two evils to me.

But in the end It's up to you. Maybe both teams can come to an agreement.
 

Ikea Knight

Master Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Basically:

RM's first map choice : Port At Omor is getting banned by DM
RM's second map choice: Town Outskirts is getting banned by admins of tournament.

and you call that a fair selection for everyone meanwhile it's clearly at DM's advantage

You still get to ban one map for DM aswell. And you get to decide which map is played with which factions.
 

angry man

Recruit
Basically:

RM's first map choice : Port At Omor is getting banned by DM
RM's second map choice: Town Outskirts is getting banned by admins of tournament.

and you call that a fair selection for everyone meanwhile it's clearly at DM's advantage
If you want to be the best clan in the tournament and win the title you will need to be able to win on any faction and map. That is what being the best is.

grow up kiddo
 
I'd say thank you for organise this tournament, rules and ect. but, I don't really get it why you are insist on this method. This method can be came from since BEAST2 but, it doesn't mean that it is really good or If you change it, it'll break something. Like you realized here

It will happen soon or later. In BEAST6 will happen like this I am sure of this because other way is just not sufficient. Always will be forced by 4 maps. This game needs more content while we are struggling to get decent, playable game and this way looks not possible in the near future. Therefore, decide from 5 map (ban-pick) is way more better than before. At least let's wait for lots of maps to decide one map as a tiebreaker. Also let's not wait for this rules for BEAST6.
The point is, that a change could have been asked for at any time before the final week.

The default option is obviously not to change things during the later stages of the tournament.

As admins we don't care which way it is. I think when the rule was introduced the thinking was that teams wouldn't want to play a tiebreak on a map they had just played.
The only problem we have is the timing of the request.

I agree with Ikea, at this point if both teams agree to include TO in the map pool we have no issue. But if one team disagrees then the rules should remain in place for this BEAST.
 

Koso

Sergeant at Arms
I didn't expect it to be really an issue but of course I had to be wrong. DM doesn't want the change while RM is trying to get it. So it's up to me and hatever I decide here, it favours one team significantly. You may not believe it but I really don't like one team more than the other.
Then you should say firstly DM doesn't want to play this town outskirt map. Instead of you were saying that, make an agreement with your opponents. In my opinion it is a disguised decision while you were forced by not to change map.
The point is, that a change could have been asked for at any time before the final week.
We saw that it doesn't matter whether we asked before or not. While you'r opponent don't want to play, and you are trying to change a tradition of BEAST. Of course you need majority of votes. I strongly believe that will change in BEAST6. Killing the variations never good think about it.
If you want to be the best clan in the tournament and win the title you will need to be able to win on any faction and map. That is what being the best is.

grow up kiddo
Ogey, wise seagull man is talking listen to him. 4 message on entire forum and 3 of them against us. This isn't surprise me that you burst onto the scene when the subject is RM. My recommendation to you, should to go back to where you came from, your mama's cave. The wet one.
 

angry man

Recruit
Ogey, wise seagull man is talking listen to him. 4 message on entire forum and 3 of them against us. This isn't surprise me that you burst onto the scene when the subject is RM. My recommendation to you, should to go back to where you came from, your mama's cave. The wet one.
Why don’t you defend your leader like this when he is getting berated every match by the worst infantry player in your team?

how embarrassing
 

Beano

Recruit
Personally i like the idea of having all 5 maps be available for the ban pick phase and having the one that isn't picked or banned being the tiebreaker but it doesn't make sense to try and change it when its the week of finals/ promotions. Maybe for next BEAST it can be changed but at this point rules and mechanics shouldn't be messed with rashly, better to play this one out with the rules as they are and improve on them for next time around if people agree it's needed
 

Jufasto

Sergeant at Arms
WBWF&SNW
And you get to decide which map is played with which factions.
Well duh. We won the group stage that's why. If DM won the group stage they'd decide which map is played with which factions. Don't tell this like you are making us a favour. We earned that privilege. It is making 0 sense that you are picking town outskirts for the tiebreaker meanwhile it's RM's second pick after Port At Omor. Yet you are telling me from steam, if you agree this change it will be biased. Well it is being biased much much more when you reject our suggestion.

Both teams have 1 ban but this way DM gets auto 2 ban with banning our best two maps. Think about it.
 
That's not a topic to trashtalk and insult people.This is a topic to suggest.They are suggesting things and you are trashtalking because you just hate them.People suggest things and you are trashtalking. if you want to trashtalk don't show your personality here and do it private.

nobody give a f*ck about who won group stage jufi

You do,imagine only playing against RM and saying not caring the match.Hard to believe.Btw stop using your account only to reply and trashtalk against RM members you can use steam chat always.
 
Last edited:

TheBard ✂

Salt Knight
Master Knight
I don't really agree with the sentiment that DM is getting favored by the rules. The rules regarding the tie breaker were the same for 4 tournaments in a row now. Shoving it into DM's and tournament administration "because it is our best map" is imo not right since this rule was standing for four tournaments and nobody cared for the same duration about it. I'd say: Change the rule next tournament permanently or just say with the administration what shall be tie breaker at the start and then this problem should not reoccur.
 
Last edited:
The Tiebreaker map should be still pickable by both teams. Tiebreaker almost never happen anyways so it will be a rare occasion that the map will be played 3 instead of 2 times. Even if played 3 times its no harm.
We only have 5 maps so let teams pick out of all of them.

And if RM is better on that map than DM the rule is obviously hurting them, nomatter if intended by anybody or not.
 

Einarcf

Master Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
How about each team ban 1 map, the team that placed higher in group stage gets last ban, and the last 3 maps are put randomly in order of map 1, map 2 and tiebreaker.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom