BEAST - Bannerlord Early Access Skirmish Tournament

[IceNoVa]

Regarding the proposal itself
Is it unnecessary to host a competition to assist seeding? Possibly.
I'd simply argue that a tournament that lasts for multiple seasons that has clear rules regarding seeding is preferable to one that does not.

I consider this whole thing unnecessary and even insulting tbh as neither Nova nor anyone else ever felt the need to make this fuss in Warband tournaments, many of which were admin seeded.

The argument "We've always done it like this and nobody complained" is invalid. It argues nothing but the status quo. Which leads to my next point
If you do not want to discuss or receive criticism or suggestions, you should close this thread and just do as you please. If you want to be open to either type of input, there is no basis for being offended or any rational reason to be insulted. I'm making this point purely objectively: It is your tournament, you're free to run it as you please.

However if Nova wants to run this I have no objection. It is not however going to be a precedent for every tournament. The default option is admin seeding of new teams.

If that is the position I am trying to discuss and reach consensus with, please clarify if at all, or even how any competition could possible allow for seeding by competition rather than purely admin discretion.
I can certainly envision better things to do with my free time than try to work with you to improve this tournament, if that is not in the interest of admin staff and/or participants.
To clarify, I do not care which option the admin staff decides upon. Just let me know if I can save any further energy on this endeavour.

---

I'll put my answers to your comments regarding my proposal in a condensed list, as this post is going be long enough as it is:

Regarding the length of the rules
1. The ruleset was a draft I wrote down in about 15 minutes. Wording is not final, as the entire proposal is not final or gospel of any kind. Condensing the content can be done of course. I do agree that the rules should be as brief and clear as possible.

Regarding how many maps are played
2. To minimise the time the HUNT system would take in preparation for BEAST, a singular map would be played. A regular tie-breaker match-up, to keep things as balanced as possible. There are more elaborate options, however given the importance of time and the necessity for quick results this is the most sensible option.
This is also why, in case of there being more than a certain number of teams, the contest is changed into a ladder with a fixed number of matches.

Regarding spots are earned in the HUNT
3. The HUNT would be an event that covers all open spots within the fixed number of matches. Since there is no way to know how many open spots there might be.
Let's assume there's 3 open spots and 4 teams competing. The first three teams would earn those spots based upon their ranking, the 4th place goes emptyhanded.

Regarding admin discretion
4. If there are more open spots than teams hoping to gain one of them that means that there are still open spots, even after the HUNT. It is for the eventuality that no team is left to earn a spot in a fair competition. Spots need to be filled. If even after a placing event there are still gaps, then there is no other option than witchcraft on behalf of the admins. Ideally this part would never be triggered, but the rule should be in writing and accepted before it is needed.
Just to clarify, there wouldn't be any time "wasted", since if there are more open spots than team willing to competete in the HUNT, you know that in advance. You also know which of the open spots will be claimed during the HUNT.
The point is that the process of how open spots are handed out should be as transparent and in concordance with the spirit of a competition as possible.

---

You're making this entire thing more complicated than necessary.
...

You're missing the absolute core of the this proposal and I'll skip your mislead argumentation about standings, results and whatever, because they are, for the most part, not relevant for the matter of principle we are dealing with here.

This is not about earning an "undeserved promotion". This is about putting a system into place that covers a gasping hole in the current ruleset, which adresses an issue that has occured every season so far. Except for season 1 ofc.
The issue is: If there is an open spot, it needs to be filled by someone.

I'll try to to illustrate the line of thought here as briefly and clearly as possible:

How do you fill an open spot in a division?
Option 1) Put the next team in line in (second place), if they want
Option 2) Put a new team in, if they want.
Option 3) Put in any other team in that wants the spot.

How do you determine who gets the spot, if multiple people gun for it?
Option 1) Lottery
Option 2) Dark Magic
Option 3) Make them earn it by playing

Assume you go with Option 3, how do you that?
Option 1) You put a rule into place and design a system for it
Option 2) Come up with something yourself

Now the admins argue, that it is too much work, it has to fit within their timeline of organising things etc.
Option 1) Do nothing and complain
Option 2) Do nothing and don't complain
Option 3) Propose a system, optimise it with feedback. Offer to run the entire operation in order to assist.

I've opted for option 3.

 

[Teugata]

The argument "We've always done it like this and nobody complained" is invalid. It argues nothing but the status quo. Which leads to my next point
If you do not want to discuss or receive criticism or suggestions, you should close this thread and just do as you please. If you want to be open to either type of input, there is no basis for being offended or any rational reason to be insulted. I'm making this point purely objectively: It is your tournament, you're free to run it as you please.

That's exactly what we said, we should make a plaque out of this and hang it on the wall just to warn the next person that might have an idea.

 

[Aeronwen]

Regarding the proposal itself
Is it unnecessary to host a competition to assist seeding? Possibly.
I'd simply argue that a tournament that lasts for multiple seasons that has clear rules regarding seeding is preferable to one that does not.


The argument "We've always done it like this and nobody complained" is invalid. It argues nothing but the status quo. Which leads to my next point
If you do not want to discuss or receive criticism or suggestions, you should close this thread and just do as you please. If you want to be open to either type of input, there is no basis for being offended or any rational reason to be insulted. I'm making this point purely objectively: It is your tournament, you're free to run it as you please.


If that is the position I am trying to discuss and reach consensus with, please clarify if at all, or even how any competition could possible allow for seeding by competition rather than purely admin discretion.
I can certainly envision better things to do with my free time than try to work with you to improve this tournament, if that is not in the interest of admin staff and/or participants.
To clarify, I do not care which option the admin staff decides upon. Just let me know if I can save any further energy on this endeavour.

---

I'll put my answers to your comments regarding my proposal in a condensed list, as this post is going be long enough as it is:

Regarding the length of the rules
1. The ruleset was a draft I wrote down in about 15 minutes. Wording is not final, as the entire proposal is not final or gospel of any kind. Condensing the content can be done of course. I do agree that the rules should be as brief and clear as possible.

Regarding how many maps are played
2. To minimise the time the HUNT system would take in preparation for BEAST, a singular map would be played. A regular tie-breaker match-up, to keep things as balanced as possible. There are more elaborate options, however given the importance of time and the necessity for quick results this is the most sensible option.
This is also why, in case of there being more than a certain number of teams, the contest is changed into a ladder with a fixed number of matches.

Regarding spots are earned in the HUNT
3. The HUNT would be an event that covers all open spots within the fixed number of matches. Since there is no way to know how many open spots there might be.
Let's assume there's 3 open spots and 4 teams competing. The first three teams would earn those spots based upon their ranking, the 4th place goes emptyhanded.

Regarding admin discretion
4. If there are more open spots than teams hoping to gain one of them that means that there are still open spots, even after the HUNT. It is for the eventuality that no team is left to earn a spot in a fair competition. Spots need to be filled. If even after a placing event there are still gaps, then there is no other option than witchcraft on behalf of the admins. Ideally this part would never be triggered, but the rule should be in writing and accepted before it is needed.
Just to clarify, there wouldn't be any time "wasted", since if there are more open spots than team willing to competete in the HUNT, you know that in advance. You also know which of the open spots will be claimed during the HUNT.
The point is that the process of how open spots are handed out should be as transparent and in concordance with the spirit of a competition as possible.

---

You're missing the absolute core of the this proposal and I'll skip your mislead argumentation about standings, results and whatever, because they are, for the most part, not relevant for the matter of principle we are dealing with here.

This is not about earning an "undeserved promotion". This is about putting a system into place that covers a gasping hole in the current ruleset, which adresses an issue that has occured every season so far. Except for season 1 ofc.
The issue is: If there is an open spot, it needs to be filled by someone.

I'll try to to illustrate the line of thought here as briefly and clearly as possible:

How do you fill an open spot in a division?
Option 1) Put the next team in line in (second place), if they want
Option 2) Put a new team in, if they want.
Option 3) Put in any other team in that wants the spot.

How do you determine who gets the spot, if multiple people gun for it?
Option 1) Lottery
Option 2) Dark Magic
Option 3) Make them earn it by playing

Assume you go with Option 3, how do you that?
Option 1) You put a rule into place and design a system for it
Option 2) Come up with something yourself

Now the admins argue, that it is too much work, it has to fit within their timeline of organising things etc.
Option 1) Do nothing and complain
Option 2) Do nothing and don't complain
Option 3) Propose a system, optimise it with feedback. Offer to run the entire operation in order to assist.

I've opted for option 3.

I am not going to quote every part. I would be grateful if you would stop misrepresenting my points.

My point was not "we have always done it this way" but that you insinuate lack of integrity of this method only in certain circumstances. You had no objection to seeding by admins when it was Scar, Deacon & me for many years.

We are not only open to, but have already amended the tournament several times on the basis of constructive and pertinent criticisms. I think this particular suggestion is bizarrely inappropriate waste of time but as long as it is your time that you are wasting I have no problem with it.
As I have said at least 3 times now, if you want to run it and you do so within a time frame that works for all the admin prep that has to be done, then we will use the results.

1. You are the one doing the prep in public if you do not want constructive criticism of your suggestions then say so.
2. That seems sensible. But that is one 'map' not one' set'.
3. Unless you mean something other than you have stated that is not workable. If there are 3 new teams preferring to start in A,B,C respectively but there are only 3 open spots in A we wouldnt put them all in A.

Thanks for calling the admins careful consideration of all appropriate facts 'witchcraft'.

Generally as we have said before many times we find out who wants the spot and if there is more than one team we work out who is most likely to be the appropriate skill level. If there is only one team and we consider them not skilled enough we still let them choose. If no appropriate team wants the spot we leave it open.
All of the above is subject to time constraints.

 

[IceNoVa]

I did not insinuate a lock of integrity, but proposed a more transparent approach.
Proposing a placing event seemed like a decent way to aid that transparency by allowing teams to be actively involved and eliminate any backtalk about teams being placed differently, since there was trackable effort involved.
Again, having no objection in the past is completely irrelevant to suggesting a different course of action in the present.
However, I will not invest any further effort into suggesting and developing something that is deemed a bizarrely inappropriate waste of time.

 

[Champion Relexan Forzen]

Why we can't ban/pick 5 out of 5 maps and admins put the 1 map by their own as their mind?It was Trading Post and it's now Town Outskirts,any explanation?Let us ban pick 5 out of 5 maps,the map teams didn't ban and pick will be tiebreaker.

 

[Ikea Knight]

Why we can't ban/pick 5 out of 5 maps and admins put the 1 map by their own as their mind?It was Trading Post and it's now Town Outskirts,any explanation?Let us ban pick 5 out of 5 maps,the map teams didn't ban and pick will be tiebreaker.

Tiebreaker always was town outskirts.
It's always the tiebreaker map because it's the map were both sides are most identical.
I guess we could also use port of omor for that tbh- but so far we always used town outskirts.

on some maps (especially Xauna) the spawn can have a major impact. (for example the B spawn there)

 

[Champion Relexan Forzen]

Trading Post is identical and more symmetrical.But i dont want to make Trading post tiebreaker either.That's just bad making 1 map out always in my opinion.That tiebreaker map will be never playable on promotion matches.We don't have many maps like Warband does,in Native Leagues there are lots of options.It's bad to leave 1 map out of 5 maps.

 

[Koso]

Tiebreaker always was town outskirts.
It's always the tiebreaker map because it's the map were both sides are most identical.
I guess we could also use port of omor for that tbh- but so far we always used town outskirts.

on some maps (especially Xauna) the spawn can have a major impact. (for example the B spawn there)

I mean in WB is acceptable that tiebreaker map decided beforehand because there are lots of maps and the tiebreaker map nearly most uninteresting map. However, in bannerlord there is just 5 map. If we ban with final opponent just one map there will be one map force to play for both sides. The tiebreaker map should be decided when RM and DM pick their maps. I know this is a tradition of BEAST since BEAST2 but, it makes every final are same map.

 

[TheBard]

Omor as map is broken beyond belief since the map is broken with spawn killing etc.

So far it never went to the tie breaker anyway so I guess it will be fine here as well.

 

[Ikea Knight]

@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.

 

[Jufasto]

@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.

Yeah, sounds like a great idea. To be honest, as RM we would like to choose Town Outskirts as a group stage winner of Division A but since it's a tiebreaker map we cannot play our favourite map in final. Btw, teams like RM - DM never go to tiebreaker in final.

 

[Aeronwen]

@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.

The problem is with changing at the last minute, especially when the rule has been in place for several seasons.
There is not time for us to think it through or consult.
I can't think of any reason it would be an issue.

 

[Koso]

The problem is with changing at the last minute, especially when the rule has been in place for several seasons.
There is not time for us to think it through or consult.
I can't think of any reason it would be an issue.

You just opened the factions and map picks. It can be last minute for you but If you want, you would extend it aswell. You can say that: "You guys should say it when tournament starts and not waiting for final." And I'll say how we can know that we will gonna reach the final before it starts? It will be too cocky move for other teams like discussion in division s topic.() Like Ikea Knight's words there is no real issues with that. Let teams ban and pick from 5 maps. This decision must be given from teams there is nothing to discuss.

 

[Jufasto]

I respect a lot for the admin team and thanks for organizing the biggest bannerlord tournament every season but also admin team have to respect players and teams opinion about map selections. Especially, group stage winner teams or teams which will going to play final should select their own map. Thanks a lot.

 

[Aeronwen]

Ye I don't see a problem. I think there was just an assumption teams wouldnt want it in the main match AND the tie breaker.

It's my favourite map too, would love to see it more.


@Koso
I know nobody (except Erminas) ever reads the rules but it is there

(1) Due to the nature of the tournament, only ladder stage matches may end in a draw. Should a KO match end in a tie after the regular time, a tie breaker has to be played.
(2) The tiebreaker has to be played on Town Outskirts. A faction will be randomly selected from the list in Appendix B, and mirrored for both teams and posted by the admins in advance. The format will be one set, with the winner of the set taking the overall victory.

and in beast 4, beast 3, beast 2

 

[Koso]

Ye I don't see a problem. I think there was just an assumption teams wouldnt want it in the main match AND the tie breaker.

It's my favourite map too, would love to see it more.

Good decision I'd say.

@Koso
I know nobody (except Erminas) ever reads the rules but it is there
and in beast 4, beast 3, beast 2

I know this is a tradition of BEAST since BEAST2 but, it makes every final are same map.

 

[Ikea Knight]

So this new map suggestion turned out to be an issue for some teams.

Here is my solution and it's for this Beast only:

I give you two options: A) If both teams agree on having Town as tiebreaker and part of the normal pick / ban they can play it that way. When you post your picks let us know about this.

Option B) If one team does not agree on this, we will play these promotions / finale as we always have: With Town only as tiebreaker.


We can't change all the rules for the last and most important match. The old way to play might be simple but at least it's clear to everyone and doesn't discriminate.

I think this suggestion and other suggestion concerning the pick / ban are welcome and I think the adminstration should have a look on it for the next season.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just to make myself clear: these solutions are my decision as an admin. It's not a suggestion or a discusison. It's either option A or B. Nothing else or inbetween. I would be happy to look at it for the next seasons and it should be discussed. But for the end of this season I don't want to cause any further confusion.

 

[Champion Relexan Forzen]

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.

Honestly with this logic lets say 1 team vote for vlandia 1 team vote for not vlandia result would be : Not vlandia.Now with this vote 1 team will say yes to tiebreaker ''Town outskirts'' no to ''Town outskirts'' result is : Town outskirts as tiebreaker.

 

[Jufasto]

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]

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.