[EC5] Suggestions

Users who are viewing this thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well we are playing online and people can drop or they can lost electricity. So you are saying lets assume match started in 1st round X player lost connection and cannot fix the problem. The team has to finish the map 4v5 ? Well i think its a bad idea. You want it to be similiar with BoB but it can not be the same since we are playing online.
 
Menethil said:
Well we are playing online and people can drop or they can lost electricity. So you are saying lets assume match started in 1st round X player lost connection and cannot fix the problem. The team has to finish the map 4v5 ? Well i think its a bad idea. You want it to be similiar with BoB but it can not be the same since we are playing online.

Yeah I agree, in BoB it was a certainty that all players would be able to play at all times where online many factors can go wrong as Menethill said. This rule is not so fair for people who have problems with internet or other problems that you might not have taken into consideration.
 
Watly said:
I have a question: isn't the system of this tournament pretty much the system that Tardet got a huge amount of crap for?

Ask a real question if you want a real answer. You mean GSL groups into KO stage? Because that's pretty standard AFAIK.


@Menethil, Apollo etc -

BoB had 5 man rosters. If you dropped a man that was it you were out of the tournament. Its a poor comparison.

This is a competitive tournament, its up to players if they want to risk playing if they have unstable internet.

The point of the rule is twofold. First to replace the previous rule which was stupidly open to abuse. Teams that want to change class set up just pull the router and swap out. Rules for a competitive tournament cannot be open to abuse so easily because it punishes teams that dont abuse the rules. Playing the game with **** internet his inherently unfair on yourself, you can't expect admins to legislate based on it when doing so opens up tons of abuseable loop holes. The second point was to force teams to make meaningful choices in class composition, want two cav for Swadia and 1 for Nords? Well you have to plan your roster accordingly. It places an empthasis on player flexibility and composition choices which I think will be beneficial.
 
I agree with Deacon, small rosters are better for tournament like this, you have to take only active guys, if they don't come to match, it's your problem, you took wrong players to your team. Now you have to do choice between one player who doesn't have any problem with internet or better player who isn't ready to come for all matches. I know that, Wannabaes played their matches with only 5 guys, now we have only 5 guys in the roster who are active and come to all matches when we play.
 
Deacon Barry said:
Watly said:
I have a question: isn't the system of this tournament pretty much the system that Tardet got a huge amount of crap for?

Ask a real question if you want a real answer. You mean GSL groups into KO stage? Because that's pretty standard AFAIK.


@Menethil, Apollo etc -

BoB had 5 man rosters. If you dropped a man that was it you were out of the tournament. Its a poor comparison.

This is a competitive tournament, its up to players if they want to risk playing if they have unstable internet.

The point of the rule is twofold. First to replace the previous rule which was stupidly open to abuse. Teams that want to change class set up just pull the router and swap out. Rules for a competitive tournament cannot be open to abuse so easily because it punishes teams that dont abuse the rules. Playing the game with **** internet his inherently unfair on yourself, you can't expect admins to legislate based on it when doing so opens up tons of abuseable loop holes. The second point was to force teams to make meaningful choices in class composition, want two cav for Swadia and 1 for Nords? Well you have to plan your roster accordingly. It places an empthasis on player flexibility and composition choices which I think will be beneficial.

I get your points and agree with them mostly apart from the internet one regarding timeouts. Some people might not have access to good stable internet but still want to play you can't expect them to just not play. It might not be really their fault that they have bad internet because a lot of people might have a singular provider in there area which is bad or not reliable and they are forced to use which again is not there fault.. there is nothing that they or you can do about this apart from 'stop playing' but.. this isn't really a option for most players who want to play and have fun within competitive warband and more specifically this tournament.

About the 2nd part, I agree with this but.. Most teams have probably picked the players within there teams due to there strengths at there main classes not at the classes they can play secondary to their main. And forcing teams to not play to there strengths and focus more on playing a team of all rounders is quite hard and in some teams impossible or at least impossible for some teams to perform against others with full effectiveness which they might otherwise have done with the switching of players PER set.
 
Deacon i dont care about the the tactical stuff and etc. My point is simple. There are maybe 250 players in this tournament. Napoleon and Achto both have great internet and yesterday during our scrim they both dropped. It can happen to you or anyone else during offical matches. Forcing 4v5 is a bad solution. What would you do it happens during Grand Final. I remember in ECS 2 final AE let Freelancers to restart the game again cause someone dropped in first round. It can happen in this tournament aswell. I dont want to complain without giving any suggestion so i suggest that allow player changes(if somone dropped) between sets and first 2 round of sets. Yeah there is no way that you can be sure about it but i think this rule is not good for an online tournament
 
Watly said:
I have a question: isn't the system of this tournament pretty much the system that Tardet got a huge amount of crap for?

ECS3 was supposed to be played with a best of 3 maps innitially which some people reacted badly to. The fact that BoB showed it is possible to play such system probably made them change their minds. Or they actually realise choice won't be given to them this time. 

It doesn't really matter anyways; what's in the past, is in the past and I'm glad such system has finally been adopted for this tournament, and possibly the ones in future.
 
AnchorTheMean said:
I like the rule but you probably should have highlighted it at the start of the signups so teams could gather a suitable roster, instead of 1 day before the deadline .

Yeah that's fair. My initial plan had been for 5 man rosters but people argued against it so it slipped my mind.
 
We're still not having any admin. Would be nice if this was done somewhat soon since it's cancer to have matches with polling maps and stuff. Dunno if that goes for all teams but servers have been up quite a while now... Hope this get fixed soon. Thanks
 
HKP said:
We're still not having any admin. Would be nice if this was done somewhat soon since it's cancer to have matches with polling maps and stuff. Dunno if that goes for all teams but servers have been up quite a while now... Hope this get fixed soon. Thanks

Our team got the admin passwords for all servers yesterday and the other times (before) Erminas directly send us the required PW for the server we were playing on atleast 24h prior. Should just try to contact Erminas, Aeronwen or Deacon and see directly with them! :smile:
 
HKP said:
We're still not having any admin. Would be nice if this was done somewhat soon since it's cancer to have matches with polling maps and stuff. Dunno if that goes for all teams but servers have been up quite a while now... Hope this get fixed soon. Thanks

I had to book a server and was permitted only this servers admin pass try this :wink:)
 
If a team goes under 4 players they have to forfeit any remaining rounds which will be added in favour of their opponent to the final score.

This I found quite unfair. In case two players lose connection, the team they played for has to give up the match. Even if the players that crashed make it back in five minutes.

For example, Habrak and me often play using one connection. It's stable, although once in our 5-years career we both timed out playing in the same set. We won the match though. It would feel extremely unfair to lose it, as we were the favourites.
 
I notice for the knockout stage the winner and runnerup of a group play the top 2 teams from the same group, and then moving to the quarter finals each play the winner of those matches (making it likely some teams will play a team they've already faced in the group stage during the quarterfinals). Is this on purpose? Seems like the match ups could be mixed around more.
 
OurGloriousLeader said:
I notice for the knockout stage the winner and runnerup of a group play the top 2 teams from the same group, and then moving to the quarter finals each play the winner of those matches (making it likely some teams will play a team they've already faced in the group stage during the quarterfinals). Is this on purpose? Seems like the match ups could be mixed around more.

pretty sure it was copied from a previous tournament - I think its too late to change anything once its reasonable clear which teams will be going forward (ie now)
 
You could still randomly generate the knockouts instead of having the winners and runnerups playing the same group. It's arguably unfair on teams that ended up the second seed in the groups with the top 4 first seeds, because if we assume the seeding is fairly accurate then seeds 9, 10, 11, and 12 (and also 24, 23, 22, 21) have a much, much harder group AND knockout stage progression.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom