Future of tournaments

[Greedalicious]

Teams get destroyed because the opposition is always made up of veteran players. The last new clan that did well in EU was probably CCC and as much as I love them, theyre not exactly a top clan of players, and hell even they have very veteran players in their roster.
Also everyone saying 8v8 has this massive depth, what exactly is this depth everyone is talking about? With the timer being what it is, you have zero time to do advanced tactics, all you do is run to a basic position and hope the flag spawns there, if it doesnt, you attack it. This is not a tactic and this is how it works in 5v5 aswell, only with less people....
8v8 has had years to develop and considering this many people say 5v5 should be the new format (or both) should be a sign that we want something new.

Also about the standin part, competitive means you have to become better. If you get set as a standin instead of a full member, become a better player, find a new team. Even better, make a new team, find 4 people and make your own.
The fact that "8v8 leaves room for mistakes" is seriously the worst argument I've ever heard, basically it rewards you for being stupid...

In my opinion 5v5 should be tournament standard, and have 8v8 as a fun tournament in off seasons.

 

[bomba12131]

Posting on behalf of SotaMursu who is to be unbanned soon i believe.

Spoiler

SotaMursu:Shut up greed.

 

[Apollo ?]

The fact that "8v8 leaves room for mistakes" is seriously the worst argument I've ever heard, basically it rewards you for being stupid...

The worst argument I have ever heard is when a player said that 8 v 8 matches only happen when there is nothing else on tv.....

 

[Kragen]

Stop being stupidpollo

 

[PeterAvastrat]

Maintaining what makes Warband a great game to play is more likely to make it a success than losing it's integrity trying to fit it into the mould of very different games.

I think the issue with this debate is how we define these things.

Take your "success" for instance.

Is success defined as Warband becoming an esport? Or simply surviving longer in the state we want it to be in?

A problem with trying to make it survive for longer, for instance, is that we seem to all not know what makes Warband great let alone what we "want" out of it.

We're all dabbling in the subjective and sadly no-one can break an opinion.

Lust also said this earlier in the chat: How do we quantify "tactical-depth", among other things. The idea of the esport being generally 5v5 seems a fair assessment to make based on what seems to be evidence but, as you pointed out Aeronwen, it is entirely irrelevant as those games are so different.

Thus we're all failing to define anything meanwhile debating about a completely subjective point of view. Further discussion can't really lead us anywhere.

What we should then do is allow the doers (tournament organisers and team leaders) to create the demand and the supply will follow suit. This will simply work the game to its natural state. If not us allowing the doer then us becoming a doer. If you're not advocating and supporting 8v8 directly then you have no right to complain about the scene as it changes and same goes for 5v5.

If tournament organisers make 8v8 games and team leaders make 8v8 teams then that will be what happens. If it doesn't become an esport... Then so be it (though I'll be sad admittedly).

From what I can see, after BoB, I believe it likely we'll see an increase in 5v5 tournaments but, as you say, this isn't the end of 8v8.

Though perhaps I'm wrong, only time and the ones who actually do anything about it can make the change.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Teams get destroyed because the opposition is always made up of veteran players. The last new clan that did well in EU was probably CCC and as much as I love them, theyre not exactly a top clan of players, and hell even they have very veteran players in their roster.
Also everyone saying 8v8 has this massive depth, what exactly is this depth everyone is talking about? With the timer being what it is, you have zero time to do advanced tactics, all you do is run to a basic position and hope the flag spawns there, if it doesnt, you attack it. This is not a tactic and this is how it works in 5v5 aswell, only with less people....
8v8 has had years to develop and considering this many people say 5v5 should be the new format (or both) should be a sign that we want something new.

Also about the standin part, competitive means you have to become better. If you get set as a standin instead of a full member, become a better player, find a new team. Even better, make a new team, find 4 people and make your own.
The fact that "8v8 leaves room for mistakes" is seriously the worst argument I've ever heard, basically it rewards you for being stupid...

In my opinion 5v5 should be tournament standard, and have 8v8 as a fun tournament in off seasons.

Where is the depth? Zero time to do advanced tactics? I am perplexed by these statements.

There are many more combinations of unit composition and engagements strategies when it comes to 8v8, many of which are underutilized. Teamplay is also more difficult. Probably half of the skill in 8v8 is being able to understand the scenario you are in and know what you should be doing. It requires a greater amount of team cohesion and non-verbal signals because no single person can keep track of everything. This is one of the things I enjoy most in Warband competitive play, and I think it is very unique to the game when compared to other titles.

When you say "zero time to do advanced tactics" I don't really agree with you at all. There are plenty of maps where I find early aggression and positioning are greatly rewarded, as well as maps which greatly reward proper flanking. Sometimes there is a good spot to hold the flag, in which case it is on both teams to either secure the position or block the other team from doing so. Teams have the capability to try unique tactics, most simply do not because they are familiar with standardized comps and pushes which aren't difficult to pull off. As aforementioned, I'm quite certain there is a lot of untapped potential here. It is difficult to innovate new team compositions/roles when the player base is so small and there is no way to jump in to a competitive match (via some matchmaking system) and try it out. Some of this occurs in scrims, but most people try to refine what they already know.

"8v8 rewards you for being stupid", not really. A single person's mistakes are generally less prominent in an 8v8, but it can still cost them heavily if the other team is on point. Teams with 8 great players will certainly do better than teams with 6.

Lust also said this earlier in the chat: How do we quantify "tactical-depth", among other things. The idea of the esport being generally 5v5 seems a fair assessment to make based on what seems to be evidence but, as you pointed out Aeronwen, it is entirely irrelevant as those games are so different.

Thus we're all failing to define anything meanwhile debating about a completely subjective point of view. Further discussion can't really lead us anywhere.

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,365593.msg8759633.html#msg8759633 and this. I've attempted to define the strengths of 8v8 over 5v5 as a top-level competitive strategy, but so far it has been met with hand waiving. Is my analysis wrong in some way, or perhaps these details are irrelevant?

 

[PeterAvastrat]

I get you Ron. It seems logical as you're suggesting more is more. However where does this logic stop? Why shouldn't we then go to 12v12 - 100v100.

There would be more compositions but numbers are irrelevant, it is how you apply them. Look at Chess. There's a finite number of pieces and places to move and yet an almost incalculable amount of potential outcomes. Boxing to, there's only about 6 main moves in Boxing and yet somehow it has entertained for over a century.

The comparison between 5v5 and 8v8 tactical depth is meaningless because it isn't quanitifiable, at least by us.

There are still so many outcomes and possibilities that simply having "more" possibilities is entirely unnecessary.

It's like living in a caravan and saying £1,000,000,000 is better than £1,000,000. You're never going to need either amount for what you're living with.

If 5v5 opens up the game to more teams, people and commitment then I see that as a good thing. The more people, the less teams can form, the harder it will be to find people who are committing, the harder trainings will be to set up...

I wouldn't argue that 8v8 or 5v5 are any better than another. In my eyes 5v5 is a wee bit more feasible in terms of community potential due to player input. Though this is irrelevant and doesn't make it "better", only different.

What matters is what we do as a community for the future. Whether whoever makes the tournament makes it 5v5 or 8v8.

 

[Greedalicious]

Teams get destroyed because the opposition is always made up of veteran players. The last new clan that did well in EU was probably CCC and as much as I love them, theyre not exactly a top clan of players, and hell even they have very veteran players in their roster.
Also everyone saying 8v8 has this massive depth, what exactly is this depth everyone is talking about? With the timer being what it is, you have zero time to do advanced tactics, all you do is run to a basic position and hope the flag spawns there, if it doesnt, you attack it. This is not a tactic and this is how it works in 5v5 aswell, only with less people....
8v8 has had years to develop and considering this many people say 5v5 should be the new format (or both) should be a sign that we want something new.

Also about the standin part, competitive means you have to become better. If you get set as a standin instead of a full member, become a better player, find a new team. Even better, make a new team, find 4 people and make your own.
The fact that "8v8 leaves room for mistakes" is seriously the worst argument I've ever heard, basically it rewards you for being stupid...

In my opinion 5v5 should be tournament standard, and have 8v8 as a fun tournament in off seasons.

Where is the depth? Zero time to do advanced tactics? I am perplexed by these statements.

There are many more combinations of unit composition and engagements strategies when it comes to 8v8, many of which are underutilized. Teamplay is also more difficult. Probably half of the skill in 8v8 is being able to understand the scenario you are in and know what you should be doing. It requires a greater amount of team cohesion and non-verbal signals because no single person can keep track of everything. This is one of the things I enjoy most in Warband competitive play, and I think it is very unique to the game when compared to other titles.

When you say "zero time to do advanced tactics" I don't really agree with you at all. There are plenty of maps where I find early aggression and positioning are greatly rewarded, as well as maps which greatly reward proper flanking. Sometimes there is a good spot to hold the flag, in which case it is on both teams to either secure the position or block the other team from doing so. Teams have the capability to try unique tactics, most simply do not because they are familiar with standardized comps and pushes which aren't difficult to pull off. As aforementioned, I'm quite certain there is a lot of untapped potential here. It is difficult to innovate new team compositions/roles when the player base is so small and there is no way to jump in to a competitive match (via some matchmaking system) and try it out. Some of this occurs in scrims, but most people try to refine what they already know.

"8v8 rewards you for being stupid", not really. A single person's mistakes are generally less prominent in an 8v8, but it can still cost them heavily if the other team is on point. Teams with 8 great players will certainly do better than teams with 6.

Lust also said this earlier in the chat: How do we quantify "tactical-depth", among other things. The idea of the esport being generally 5v5 seems a fair assessment to make based on what seems to be evidence but, as you pointed out Aeronwen, it is entirely irrelevant as those games are so different.

Thus we're all failing to define anything meanwhile debating about a completely subjective point of view. Further discussion can't really lead us anywhere.

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,365593.msg8759633.html#msg8759633 and this. I've attempted to define the strengths of 8v8 over 5v5 as a top-level competitive strategy, but so far it has been met with hand waiving. Is my analysis wrong in some way, or perhaps these details are irrelevant?

Unit compositions yes, I fully agree. Why does that matter though? At BoB we saw that teams having 2 dedicated archers having to play differently than a team having one, there were benefits and side effects to this. Always having the exact same team composition on both teams is not very interesting. On every map its 4-2-2, theres nothing to analyse on this before the game starts, because every team always has the chance to do whatever they like, if you need an extra archer? Take one from spectate, you have 15 players after all, you always have a card for the situation required, you're not needed to make a choice. Hell you can even swap them in mid sets now. Limiting this makes it more interesting. So you're playing a team like AE yellow, who has 2 archers, on Reveran. Maybe you have to think outside the box, how do you beat 2 archers 1 cav. In a roster of 15 players, you cant prepare for a match the same way.
Also as you say many of these tactics are underutilized, so why are we using a non relevant factor to decide anything?

Teamplay in 8v8 is absolutely harder, paying attention to everything is much much harder aswell. But ask yourself who benefits from this? We do, the veterans of the game. New players have no chance of even understanding how they lost because they get so overwhelmed with information. I also dont think paying attention to everything should be that much of a factor, having to keep track of every single hoof sound is frustrating and not fun. Teamplay in 8v8 is more difficult to pull off, because you dont play with the same players that often, unless you're a hardcore clan, and there are very few hardcore clans out there. Having 5 players playing together daily, atleast 1 match a night (easier to organize) will make your teamplay much much better.

Again I do somewhat agree with you, but your examples aren't locked to 8v8, you can still hold and control areas on the map with a 5v5 format, but as you mention alot of potential tactics dont get used and I dont think we should use it as a factor.

 

[Watly]

You can all hate on Greed, but he's right as far as I'm concerned.

@Ron, we've been playing 8v8 for at least 5 years now, and even the best teams are still using "standard" comps and "standard" tactics. Theoretically, there are of course more ways to build a team in 8v8 than in 5v5, but in practice, the amount of comps used is more or less the same.

AE has been together for 5 years now, tried a lot of different tactics, but are now practically only playing 4-2-2/2-2-4 with the occasional clever push. Claiming there is a lot of "untapped potential" is just wishful thinking.

 

[Surkan]

so poland winning with 3-3-2 is luck?
kurwa winning with 4-3-1 was luck too?
yeah suck **** factions are going to need to run standard team comps, because they don't have anything special to change to

 

[Kragen]

Surkan please stop posting on TW. Frankly at this point it is an embarrassment to be associated with you

 

[Watly]

so poland winning with 3-3-2 is luck?
kurwa winning with 4-3-1 was luck too?
yeah suck **** factions are going to need to run standard team comps, because they don't have anything special to change to

Notice how both of those stem from 4-2-2 with one player playing another class.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

...

As mentioned in some of my prior posts, the main difference I see between 8v8 vs. something larger (i.e. 12v12 or 100v100), is that it is still a number which is reasonable to coordinate from a team perspective. I think 8v8 is a good balance of being manageable while increasing the difficulty and potential rewards for superb teamplay.

Also mentioned previously, I do support 5v5 as a tournament format and as a learning tool for new players. 8v8 is too complicated for new players to hop in and have an impact. However, I think 8v8 should remain to be the standard for high level competitive play. The main problem here is player base, as other people have mentioned. It is very difficult to support 2 formats without a sizeable base to draw from. This is where I think Bannerlord will have an advantage since many new people will check it out.

...

So if you refer to my prior posts and above, I do support 5v5 as a format and as a better learning tool for new players than 8v8. And yes, 8v8 does indeed benefit the veterans of the game, that is exactly my intent. I like the idea of having a competitive mode supporting of new players while also having a mode where veterans can show the true potential of high level team play.

As for the team composition part, underutilized does not translate to irrelevant. I think it is underutilized because teams don't know how to do it, not that it is completely non-viable. If a team of veterans came together and decided they wanted to truly explore the potentials of the game, I'm quite certain they would stomp any and all existing/past teams by finding new strategies/tactics.

For "you're not needed to make a choice" due to large team roster, I don't think this is true. If you can make a team of 15 players with top-level cohesion and team play, regardless of which 8 are in, I'm pretty sure you deserve the benefits of that. The primary benefit between having a smaller roster, say 9 or 10 people, is that you can build the cohesion between a core group of players. If they are multi classers, all the more flexible. If not, you are more restricted. Seems like a fair trade off to me.

...

I'm not super familiar with AE since I'm an NA player, but from my understanding they, and all other dominant clans of the past, were generally only dominant when their player's simply had vastly higher individual skill than the other teams. I don't think the driving force was complex strategies or team comps.

Regardless, AE remained top dog while everyone else was doing the same thing. Why would it be on AE to make a meta change when they are already winning? It would be up to the other teams to figure out a new way to win. Did other teams experiment with new strategies in scrims? Did they push the potential of team compositions? From my understanding, no. They just tried to work harder at it and win the regular way. I believe there are some good examples of unique team comps winning games, I will look into finding some evidence.

While I know AE is a great team, and there have been other good teams as well, I don't believe any team ever mastered all the mechanics Warband has to offer. This is pretty much pure speculation, but that's my thought on the matter.

 

[PeterAvastrat]

+1 Watly/Greed

My point, Ron, is that difficulty and potential rewards are no better for 8v8 but simply down to perspective.

The numbers you're dealing with are so vast to make any real difference.

Both is high level play and if 5v5 continues to encourage tactical play AND inclusive play then all the better!

But again... Let's see what the community nurtures!

 

[Watly]

AE tried to make many meta changes though, and they didn't succeed. Even their most succesful attempt (6 cav) merely worked because they were far better than everyone else.

8v8 benefitting veterans =/= 8v8 allowing veterans to show the true potential of high level team play. The current top level in 8v8 is a cluster-**** where veterans abuse the chaos to get masses of easy kills. While this means that new players almost cannot enter competitive warband currently, it also means that veteran players can't show as much potential in 8v8 as they can in 5v5.

 

[Greedalicious]

We shouldnt teach players how to play 5v5 then the elite plays 8v8, we're not really playing the same game, and even if they learn to play 5v5 they'll get beaten by 8v8 teams as theyre much more used to the chaos that comes with 8v8. This will definitely split the player base, at the very least the 5v5 teams will split up and just fill existing rosters.
In my opinion advanced tactics go un-used because they simply dont work. the last proper tactic I remember is AE's 6 cav that basically made open maps dissapear after stomping IR. Before that I reckon Dragoons? Which has more or less fallen off the meta, havnt seen that in a while. These are the only 2 tactics I know that properly worked out, in the last...3 years atleast?

The amount of time it takes to practice these tactics makes it very difficult to pull off. Normally a team has 2-3 matches a week to prepare for a match, so if we say reveran village and sandiboush are the 2 maps, on monday you try a new tactic. It massively fails, but you think hmmm maybe we should try again. So tuesday you try it again, it kinda worked this time. A few days off now because people cant play every night, friday you try again and it failed massively again. You're committed now, do you try for a standard tactic of 4-2-2? or do you try your fancy strat? Hell maybe a strategy failed because you didnt have that one player there. Most would go for the usual, and next week its 2 different maps again so you cant use the same strats.
We're talking about having minimum 8 incredibly dedicated players to play every night and really focus on improving, and thats provided they can also multiclass, incredibly difficult to find.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

The numbers you're dealing with are so vast to make any real difference.

This is false.

There is a very real and tangible increase in situations you face during 8v8 vs 5v5.

On open, you often have to deal with 4 enemy cav and 2 archers. The mindset you need to effectively attack and survive is a lot different than when you are fighting 1 or 2 cav and 1 or 2 archers. It is not hard to keep track of 3 enemies (assuming 2 inf), it is very hard to keep track of 6. You must always assume there is something you do not know.

On closed, 4v4 or 5v5 infantry has more opportunities than 2v2 or 3v3. It is more viable to use spears in melee or special weapons as the number of infantry increases. Archers have more options regarding who to target, there are more people who might turn their back or shift their shield. At the same time, there are more enemy archers who you need to dodge (and cav who might hit you in the back).

I fail to see how 8v8 doesn't add depth to engagements compared to 5v5 given these details.

8v8 benefitting veterans =/= 8v8 allowing veterans to show the true potential of high level team play. The current top level in 8v8 is a cluster-**** where veterans abuse the chaos to get masses of easy kills. While this means that new players almost cannot enter competitive warband currently, it also means that veteran players can't show as much potential in 8v8 as they can in 5v5.

What? How can a player stream together 3 quick kills? They position well or their opponents position poorly, that's the team mechanic portion of the game. Is it possible for one player to account for all possible enemies, and have a perfect line of play to survive? Of course not. That's why they have teammates. That's what makes the game challenging. You say the current top level is a mess, that's probably because people are not skilled, plain and simple.

And why do you say people "cannot enter competitive warband" due to 8v8? I've stated 4 or 5 times now that I think 5v5 is a good thing for introducing players or having a simpler level of competition, whether it be now or in the future. The real barrier for entry is the game being old with a very small player base. There aren't enough new people to keep other new people around. Instead, they get smashed by people with 2000+ hours.

...

All the mechanics of the game are the same, the skills you learn in 5v5 translate to 8v8 and are then expanded. Having different versions of competition which are centered on the same mechanics should enhance the experience, not ruin it. Besides, I don't see anything wrong with someone only playing 5v5 if they prefer it, there would be no requirement to play 8v8. The player base should be large enough in Bannerlord to accomodate both formats if it is successful.

As for strats requiring time and effort, no kidding? You don't want the game to be hard? You don't want to allow people to spend effort and reap the benefits? I'm not sure you are really interested in higher level competition, because that is the core of what it should be.

 

[Lord Rich]

Don't know what you guys are really on about. Most of the meta changes are small things, use of particular weapons in certain ways, how the classes move and fight together, adopting optimal approaches to certain flags etc... Expecting every meta change to be some huge world changing grand strategy makes you sound naive.

5v5 is an OK format, it just has a lower skill ceiling in my opinion. It's so easy comparatively to keep track of every enemy on the field, you simply have less risk and threats around you. Strategic positioning does matter less because you have less ability to set up crossfires and hold them if you do. It's just a shallower version of 8v8, now that might not even be a bad thing if you want a format for match making and 5v5 does have some advantages in that direction.

However I see very little benefit for the community and for competitive play by adopting it wholesale. I think the result will be more fracturing of teams and a destruction of the types of team environments that nurtured a lot of the best players capabilities. Players like Scar for instance who are now first rate infantry started off in clans like ARMY competing in a good natured way in the ENL. I can't really see people getting into 5 man squads and holding together as well.

In fact it would be the opposite I think, with elite teams forming around 5v5 (if thats where the most prize money is) and larger teams being ignored and sidelined and given no route to play in tournaments.

 

[Shemaforash]

5v5 is like a barebone version of battle aka 8v8, it's not more fun nor more skillful. It also doesn't have as much potential

 

[Surkan]

Players like Scar for instance who are now first rate infantry started off in clans like ARMY competing in a good natured way in the ENL.