Users who are viewing this thread
Team fortress was (is?) 6v6 and 9v9, Battlefield is 5v5, 8v8, and 10v10 (although I think 5v5 is the main one for technical reasons you mentioned), Quake is solely 1v1s, World of Tanks is 7v7.
It's correct that 5v5 is definitely easier due to the most common set up of big LAN venues, but I think we try to force into a 5v5 standard and it proves not particularly compelling, that would kill the scene anyway as it wouldn't be the same game anymore. So we need to find what works.
It's correct that 5v5 is definitely easier due to the most common set up of big LAN venues, but I think we try to force into a 5v5 standard and it proves not particularly compelling, that would kill the scene anyway as it wouldn't be the same game anymore. So we need to find what works.
Kragen said:
Goker said:
I think there were plenty of arguments about tactics and game depth. If organizers says big battles aren't practical for LANs, we can always limit ourselves later. 5v5 it's pretty easy to organised and can serve as a daily training for your team. We can also run 5v5 tournaments along the proper competitions.
BUT this game is about medival battles. It only gets more interesting and more epic when the numbers are larger.
Battlefield's case seems quite similar to what we have. That game too is well known for its large battles so it is surprising to think that they might have chosen 5vs5 as their main format. Would be interesting to see how many tournaments they do with the different player number formats they're running. I haven't heard much about Battlefield Esports so my gut says that they haven't been too successful in their decision.
https://battle.lef.lt/
"NEXT BATTLE: To be announced Shortly"
...New Battles incoming...?!?
Edit:...SergeiKilimov from "LEF", answer:...
https://twitter.com/sergeiklimov/status/866726937221373953
https://twitter.com/sergeiklimov/status/866729602529603584
https://twitter.com/sergeiklimov/status/866729602529603584
ciauz^^,
Jab
"NEXT BATTLE: To be announced Shortly"
...New Battles incoming...?!?
Edit:...SergeiKilimov from "LEF", answer:...
https://twitter.com/sergeiklimov/status/866726937221373953
https://twitter.com/sergeiklimov/status/866729602529603584
https://twitter.com/sergeiklimov/status/866729602529603584
ciauz^^,
Jab
Dat Windows XP thoJabdiMelborn said:https://battle.lef.lt/
"NEXT BATTLE: To be announced Shortly"
...New Battles incoming...?!?
ciauz^^,
Jab
Bauglir said:
MOBAs have a top-down view, unlocked camera and a mini map. It also has resources, such as mana, and (a lot) more cool-downs. This slows the pace, and makes it a lot easier to keep track of the map, making it far less frustrating and difficult to keep track of the map than Warband.
Watly said:
SMITE does not have top-down view, it does not have unlocked camera. Those cooldowns are also something that you have to keep track of, your own teammates ability cooldowns and also your oppositions. Not to mention all the objective cooldowns, possible item actives your opponent has, your opponents respawn times, jungle camp respawn timers etc etc.
All you have to do in warband is call out things you see, and when you hear something you remember it. If in MOBA someone walks over a ward to certain direction, think of that as someone calling archers position in warband, it's literally the same thing. You don't see them in your minimap all the time, you need to remember his position the same way as you do in warband.
Bauglir said:
It's silly anyway to say "players in SMITE can play 5v5, so warband players should be fine with 8v8." The differences between Smite and Warband (heck, even between Smite and other MOBAs) are too vast to make that conclusion in 2 paragraphs. We share a different opinion on what's acceptable concerning mental mapping, let's keep it at that.
I personally enjoyed 8v8 and 10v10 much more than 5v5.
People could have chosen 5v5 before, there were times when there already were discussed Tournament formats, we ended up with 10v10 and 8v8 later for a reason. More fun, more complexity, more friends (that may mean nothing to some of you, but having more friends with you on a match, makes it often much more fun).
We are discussing something, that has been done years, years ago only because there was a 10k$ 5v5 tourney. Also, some of you talk like Warband (or BL) is already an esport, which is not.
Let's not ruin something we've (and others that are not here anymore) built in years. The game is fun as it is now. 5v5s are fine, but changing the whole aspect of competetive games because there was one tourney with money involved.. I'd rather migrate to CS:GO, which is actually much more playable in 5v5.
Basically, if there will be more 5v5 "eSport" tourneys in the future, there's a chance that 8v8 will go on a straight road to hell. People will want to practice 5v5, they will make 5v5 teams and will prefer playing 5v5 in the end.
I am not saying 5v5 is a bad thing nor that "eSport LAN" (if I can call it like that) warband tourneys should be played 8v8 - most likely impossible. But the game is different from any other comp. game after all, it's unique, slow paced, that's also one of the main reasons why the 8v8 is played.
People could have chosen 5v5 before, there were times when there already were discussed Tournament formats, we ended up with 10v10 and 8v8 later for a reason. More fun, more complexity, more friends (that may mean nothing to some of you, but having more friends with you on a match, makes it often much more fun).
We are discussing something, that has been done years, years ago only because there was a 10k$ 5v5 tourney. Also, some of you talk like Warband (or BL) is already an esport, which is not.
Let's not ruin something we've (and others that are not here anymore) built in years. The game is fun as it is now. 5v5s are fine, but changing the whole aspect of competetive games because there was one tourney with money involved.. I'd rather migrate to CS:GO, which is actually much more playable in 5v5.
Basically, if there will be more 5v5 "eSport" tourneys in the future, there's a chance that 8v8 will go on a straight road to hell. People will want to practice 5v5, they will make 5v5 teams and will prefer playing 5v5 in the end.
I am not saying 5v5 is a bad thing nor that "eSport LAN" (if I can call it like that) warband tourneys should be played 8v8 - most likely impossible. But the game is different from any other comp. game after all, it's unique, slow paced, that's also one of the main reasons why the 8v8 is played.
Ron Burgundy
Plenty of good info so far, my analysis on the matter (aka wall o text):
Since only two things are being compared, I will simply list the strengths of both.
5v5
- Easier to make teams and there will be more teams
- Easier to keep track of individual players in an event stream (somewhat)
- Individual skill is more important
- Individual mistakes are more greatly punished (can be good or bad)
8v8
- Strategy is more complicated and has a higher skill cap (implicit with having to manage more people)
- Teamplay/coordination is more important
- Can use existing maps which have been used for years (may not be very important)
- Higher individual skill cap for awareness and game sense
- Individual mistakes are less likely to have severe impact (can be good or bad)
Let me know if I left something out.
Overall, I prefer 8v8s by a considerable margin, it is a key component in what makes warband unique and very challenging. Much of the skill behind 8v8 is in managing 8 players while still having individuals capable of being autonomous. This greatly rewards teams with cohesion and experience. To be honest, I don't think any team has even come close to the maximum potential for this game when it comes to strategy and coordination (the competitive community simply hasn't been large enough). I think 8v8 should continue to be the standard for top-level competition because of its' uniqueness and skill intensity.
However, I see no issues with also having 5v5 tourneys or LANs. I have yet to see a compelling argument to do one and not the other. Closest argument is essentially "it will take players away from the other formats", but I think that is up to the people. If it becomes a major problem where tournaments can't get enough teams, it can probably be reconciled then.
------------W--A--L--L----E--X--P--A--N--S--I--O--N------------
On eSports, the key components I've seen for any "eSport" are (in no particular order):
Warband is already unique and has a high skill cap, so the remaining elements to improve are spectating quality and game availability.
Spectating quality has come a long ways through the efforts of community members, the only remaining question is which format is better to spectate? People have discussed this a bit, but I think, for the uninformed viewer, a 5v5 is likely easier to spectate. The main objective behind a stream for new people is to display something visually appealing while showing off player's skills. This keeps the viewer engaged and entices them to play the game so they can be the one making the plays. In a 5v5 there is less distraction and more focus on individual skill to win rounds. For informed viewers, either format is fine. It is easier for veterans to understand what players are doing from a distance, so you know when they make a big play.
Game availability is the biggest challenge for Warband, as it is super old and never had many people to begin with. Bannerlord should bring in a stream of new players upon release (assuming it is good
), but it is important to have a strategy behind keeping players engaged before release to continue getting more players. If the multiplayer server system stays exactly the same as it is now, I do not see any future for competition at an eSport level in Bannerlord. Why? It does not have the feel of a competitive game. Competitive games have defined competitive formats, and they ensure it is easy to play those formats. Without a matchmaking system for the competitive mode, the barrier to entry is too high for a more casual player.
How do we solve this problem? Here are a few ideas which may help.
How should these ideas be implemented? Can go over that somewhere else, my wall o text is too large as is. Regardless, it would require in-game UI rework for finding multiplayer games.
If this is too divergent for this thread, sorry, I can copy pasta it somewhere else. (though this thread is literally titled "future of tournaments", so I figured broad was ok)
Kragen said:So far we have heard a lot of good arguments for 5v5 whilst the onlyest real arguments for 8v8 were "I think it is more fun" and "We allways played 8v8 for a reason !"
Can anyone make a pro/con list ?
Since only two things are being compared, I will simply list the strengths of both.
5v5
- Easier to make teams and there will be more teams
- Easier to keep track of individual players in an event stream (somewhat)
- Individual skill is more important
- Individual mistakes are more greatly punished (can be good or bad)
8v8
- Strategy is more complicated and has a higher skill cap (implicit with having to manage more people)
- Teamplay/coordination is more important
- Can use existing maps which have been used for years (may not be very important)
- Higher individual skill cap for awareness and game sense
- Individual mistakes are less likely to have severe impact (can be good or bad)
Let me know if I left something out.
Overall, I prefer 8v8s by a considerable margin, it is a key component in what makes warband unique and very challenging. Much of the skill behind 8v8 is in managing 8 players while still having individuals capable of being autonomous. This greatly rewards teams with cohesion and experience. To be honest, I don't think any team has even come close to the maximum potential for this game when it comes to strategy and coordination (the competitive community simply hasn't been large enough). I think 8v8 should continue to be the standard for top-level competition because of its' uniqueness and skill intensity.
However, I see no issues with also having 5v5 tourneys or LANs. I have yet to see a compelling argument to do one and not the other. Closest argument is essentially "it will take players away from the other formats", but I think that is up to the people. If it becomes a major problem where tournaments can't get enough teams, it can probably be reconciled then.
------------W--A--L--L----E--X--P--A--N--S--I--O--N------------
On eSports, the key components I've seen for any "eSport" are (in no particular order):
- Availability to jump in a standard game
- Spectating quality
- Uniqueness (to some degree)
- Skilled mechanics
Warband is already unique and has a high skill cap, so the remaining elements to improve are spectating quality and game availability.
Spectating quality has come a long ways through the efforts of community members, the only remaining question is which format is better to spectate? People have discussed this a bit, but I think, for the uninformed viewer, a 5v5 is likely easier to spectate. The main objective behind a stream for new people is to display something visually appealing while showing off player's skills. This keeps the viewer engaged and entices them to play the game so they can be the one making the plays. In a 5v5 there is less distraction and more focus on individual skill to win rounds. For informed viewers, either format is fine. It is easier for veterans to understand what players are doing from a distance, so you know when they make a big play.
Game availability is the biggest challenge for Warband, as it is super old and never had many people to begin with. Bannerlord should bring in a stream of new players upon release (assuming it is good
), but it is important to have a strategy behind keeping players engaged before release to continue getting more players. If the multiplayer server system stays exactly the same as it is now, I do not see any future for competition at an eSport level in Bannerlord. Why? It does not have the feel of a competitive game. Competitive games have defined competitive formats, and they ensure it is easy to play those formats. Without a matchmaking system for the competitive mode, the barrier to entry is too high for a more casual player.How do we solve this problem? Here are a few ideas which may help.
- Define the competitive formats. Oh look, we are sortof trying to do that now.
- Support a matchmaking system for the competitive formats in the regular game. Every competitive game has this, it is necessary. While WBMM was fun for a while, and was a cool proof of concept, it obviously needs to be supported within the game to thrive.
- While supporting the matchmaking system, continue to support pub servers. Even with matchmaking for competitive, large scale battles via pub servers are still the backbone of this game (as the game was created with large scale battles in mind).
- Schedule regular events which are advertised in game. Rob has recently been doing pickup parties which are actually pretty fun. If this style of event was moved to an automated system which was supported and advertised in-game, I think it could do pretty well.
How should these ideas be implemented? Can go over that somewhere else, my wall o text is too large as is. Regardless, it would require in-game UI rework for finding multiplayer games.
If this is too divergent for this thread, sorry, I can copy pasta it somewhere else. (though this thread is literally titled "future of tournaments", so I figured broad was ok)
Yh, I also agree and I'm glad you brought it up, for M&B to ever become an e-sport it needs a matchmaking system specifically for competitive games in the desired competitive format. Obviously, it is a bit late now for Warband and all props to Grimsight for trying with WBMM but hopefully TaleWorlds are listening and will have something in place for Bannerlord.Ron Burgundy said:
Ron Burgundy said:
Couldn't say it better.
Honestly, I do not like an idea of Ingmage MM in Bannerlord. It would not fit into warband and I think it won't in Bannerlord either.
That being said, it may be a good thing after all. New players would welcome a familiar system from games like CS:GO. The funny thing is, that every bigger aspect being changed may attract new players, but will most likely get rid of others.
Ron burgundy is smart, smart, smart.
I don't think having a MM system would get rid of new players, assuming it isn't implemented at the cost of anything else. If we entertain any notions of a e-sport a MM system would probably be essential, nowadays I can't think of any e-sport game that doesn't have one. I would guess majority of people who view cs, dota etc have played the games themselves and through it become more invested in viewing it. A accessible way to start up the game and jump straight into a match would be crucial in getting people interested in the competitive side of M&B.
Ron hit the nail on the head, I prefer 8 v 8 and think that's what makes warband a better game. If 5 v 5 is going to be the established format I would adapt.
Leonemo
Squire
I support the idea of a matchmaking system since it doesn't discourage new players like I feel it is right now. Many of my friends bought Warband because I conviced them with the great teamplay and individual skill aspect of it. But when they started joining servers, trying to compete against other players they got frustrated pretty fast since they have to learn the complex gameplay, especially the blocking system. And to me it looks like you HAVE to get used to the gameplay of Warband if you want to experience the unique and diversified possibilites of teamplay and "clanplay" the game offers. Any other big online game you play puts you together with players who possess a similar skill level like you which also makes it possible for you to enjoy little victories the first day you play the game.
Going to post here with some of my own thoughts on the discussion and how I see the scene going forward.
5 vs 5 vs 8 vs 8
Skill Cap / Skill Ceiling
I feel like this is being thrown around as a concept in a ridiculous manner. It's not getting anyone any closer to a conclusion and it's basically meaningless in its current form.
What we need is to define more clearly what we mean by "skill cap" because I'm pretty sure we're all talking about different things.
Currently, I don't believe anyone is particularly close to a "skill cap" in 8 vs 8 or 5 vs 5. Even in duels, the very top players are still able to consistently beat others.
Also, pretty much every argument stated is meaningless in the sense that it could apply to any "lower vs higher" player count argument. The logic is being presented in such a way that you might as well be arguing for 100 vs 100 or 2 vs 2 as the competitive standards. If you replace the names of the formats, this discussion is pretty much exactly the same as the any of those that took place when I pushed the scene to play 8 vs 8 instead of 10 vs 10 - something that many people argued for vigorously at the time, but practically nobody misses now. It *is* worth remembering that 8 vs 8 doesn't hold any sacred value and wasn't arrived at for some kind of special reason. It's just the number I decided after the second ENL season.
Despite that, I do think 8 vs 8 works well and I absolutely believe that larger team formats will always have a place in the game. I see no reason for us to stop playing 8 vs 8 regularly right now.
Watchability
I thought 5 vs 5 was fantastic to watch at LAN. We really don't have enough data to make a comparison and I'm sure 8 vs 8 would have been tremendously exciting as well but in general, I do feel like it gave more of an opportunity for players to pull off round-winning plays that made the game exciting to watch. The rounds themselves always seemed to be exceptionally close and tense.
It's also a reality that smaller player counts make it easier to get a feel for the players, their personalities and styles.
However, I do disagree that it's impossible to commentate on 8 vs 8 and I feel like there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. It's a good format to watch and I don't see why so many people are taking such a hard stance against it.
Comparing the two formats will be hard without seeing how an 8 vs 8 holds up at LAN.
Viability
Even if it's possible to put an 8 vs 8 LAN together, I really can't see 5 vs 5 being excluded. When you have 8, the infrastructure is inherently there to support 5 as well. On top of that, you have situations like the one with the PGL Studio, where everything is geared up for 5 vs 5. It's here to stay if you ask me.
Can't really comment on how realistic it would be to get an 8 vs 8 set up right now. It would be cool, though.
Conclusion
I like 8 vs 8 and completely agree that there is no reason to stop playing it at all. However, it just makes sense to incorporate 5 vs 5 more into the scene. I'd like to see more tournaments operating on the format and believe by playing it more, it would only get more exciting as teams learn interesting tactics and can become more experimental. For this tournament, most of the play was pretty standard but I don't necessarily think that would always be the case.
Tournament Format
If you ask me, the tournament format for the qualifiers is one of the biggest things we can take away from this event. It has proven that you can get a good number of teams/players together to play online matches at fixed times, even on weekdays. I hope to see more tournaments of this nature arranged in the future. Not saying that I want to see the weekly-fixture disappear (I certainly don't) but we'd be missing out greatly by not running more online tournaments like it.
Even if not everyone can play in every tournament, running them often enough would mean everyone could take part semi-frequently and it would help teams to structure around something more professional. Naturally not every tournament will have the allure of a trip to Bucharest and a cash prize pool but even 16 or 8 teams playing a single elimination would be exciting to watch, and help increase the frequency of official matches.
Match Format
Map-based scoring is infinitely better if you ask me. Better to watch and fairer on the teams as well. It copes much better with map/faction set-up imbalances, produces more tension and allows for exciting comebacks.
I'd like to see this become the standard and get rid of "first-to" sets which don't make any sense and slipped into the norm for no good reason, if you ask me.
The only challenge here is making sure that teams understand the format (which should be easy, since it's essentially the same as CS) and finally get teams to stop playing pointless rounds (after a map/match is won), which is a long-standing problem.
5 vs 5 vs 8 vs 8
Skill Cap / Skill Ceiling
I feel like this is being thrown around as a concept in a ridiculous manner. It's not getting anyone any closer to a conclusion and it's basically meaningless in its current form.
What we need is to define more clearly what we mean by "skill cap" because I'm pretty sure we're all talking about different things.
Currently, I don't believe anyone is particularly close to a "skill cap" in 8 vs 8 or 5 vs 5. Even in duels, the very top players are still able to consistently beat others.
Also, pretty much every argument stated is meaningless in the sense that it could apply to any "lower vs higher" player count argument. The logic is being presented in such a way that you might as well be arguing for 100 vs 100 or 2 vs 2 as the competitive standards. If you replace the names of the formats, this discussion is pretty much exactly the same as the any of those that took place when I pushed the scene to play 8 vs 8 instead of 10 vs 10 - something that many people argued for vigorously at the time, but practically nobody misses now. It *is* worth remembering that 8 vs 8 doesn't hold any sacred value and wasn't arrived at for some kind of special reason. It's just the number I decided after the second ENL season.
Despite that, I do think 8 vs 8 works well and I absolutely believe that larger team formats will always have a place in the game. I see no reason for us to stop playing 8 vs 8 regularly right now.
Watchability
I thought 5 vs 5 was fantastic to watch at LAN. We really don't have enough data to make a comparison and I'm sure 8 vs 8 would have been tremendously exciting as well but in general, I do feel like it gave more of an opportunity for players to pull off round-winning plays that made the game exciting to watch. The rounds themselves always seemed to be exceptionally close and tense.
It's also a reality that smaller player counts make it easier to get a feel for the players, their personalities and styles.
However, I do disagree that it's impossible to commentate on 8 vs 8 and I feel like there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. It's a good format to watch and I don't see why so many people are taking such a hard stance against it.
Comparing the two formats will be hard without seeing how an 8 vs 8 holds up at LAN.
Viability
Even if it's possible to put an 8 vs 8 LAN together, I really can't see 5 vs 5 being excluded. When you have 8, the infrastructure is inherently there to support 5 as well. On top of that, you have situations like the one with the PGL Studio, where everything is geared up for 5 vs 5. It's here to stay if you ask me.
Can't really comment on how realistic it would be to get an 8 vs 8 set up right now. It would be cool, though.
Conclusion
I like 8 vs 8 and completely agree that there is no reason to stop playing it at all. However, it just makes sense to incorporate 5 vs 5 more into the scene. I'd like to see more tournaments operating on the format and believe by playing it more, it would only get more exciting as teams learn interesting tactics and can become more experimental. For this tournament, most of the play was pretty standard but I don't necessarily think that would always be the case.
Tournament Format
If you ask me, the tournament format for the qualifiers is one of the biggest things we can take away from this event. It has proven that you can get a good number of teams/players together to play online matches at fixed times, even on weekdays. I hope to see more tournaments of this nature arranged in the future. Not saying that I want to see the weekly-fixture disappear (I certainly don't) but we'd be missing out greatly by not running more online tournaments like it.
Even if not everyone can play in every tournament, running them often enough would mean everyone could take part semi-frequently and it would help teams to structure around something more professional. Naturally not every tournament will have the allure of a trip to Bucharest and a cash prize pool but even 16 or 8 teams playing a single elimination would be exciting to watch, and help increase the frequency of official matches.
Match Format
Map-based scoring is infinitely better if you ask me. Better to watch and fairer on the teams as well. It copes much better with map/faction set-up imbalances, produces more tension and allows for exciting comebacks.
I'd like to see this become the standard and get rid of "first-to" sets which don't make any sense and slipped into the norm for no good reason, if you ask me.
The only challenge here is making sure that teams understand the format (which should be easy, since it's essentially the same as CS) and finally get teams to stop playing pointless rounds (after a map/match is won), which is a long-standing problem.
Captain Lust said:
Just my two cents on this as I don't want to focus too much on everything Lust said. We should definitely organize more of these tournaments and see how well the community adapts to them, how enjoyable they are in a long term.
Captain Lust said:
Also this.
