Native Completed North American Native League [NANL]

[Orion]

You guys can't just try 1200... why? It stops the biggest problem with 1500, which was the round one warhorse, but it gives infantry and cavalry more of an edge than 1000 in terms of armor and shields. Archers really don't change much between 1000 and 1500, so it's safe to assume they won't change much from 1000 to 1200 either, because it's an even smaller difference. So, archers will remain fairly constant in terms of gear, while infantry and cav will regain some potency. I can't really say what gear combinations are possible because I'm not a walking Warband encyclopedia, but IIRC mid-tier helmets are in the 200 to 300 gold range, so that's a simple example for a gear upgrade which is meaningful when facing archers.

 

[Blade6119]

When Balion and TMW made a big push to host tournaments at 1000 gold instead of 1500, some other clans disagreed but went along with it. It was a change of pace, and frankly if someone wants to put the effort into hosting a tourney then they have the right to create a rule-set that results in their view of the most fun game play. If you don't like the current tourney's rule set, put in the time to make your own tournament. Having now played in multiple tourneys at that lower gold level, I personally do not believe it has resulted in either more fun for the community or better "results." I have seen both sides cite all sorts of reasons why their side is superior, and ultimately it boils down to what people enjoy. I don't quite understand why proponents of the 1k gold system cant begrudgingly play at 1500 at times for the good of the community, much like proponents of 1500 gold have had to do recently with the 1k tourneys. Clearly both parties feel their rule-set/gold setting is superior. From what I see, neither side is likely to suddenly read some post on here and change their view on the matter. So in my humble opinion, lets agree on like 1250 or just take turns rotating the rule-sets/gold settings. I don't agree with the lower gold/map choice rules, but I am willing to work and find an agreeable middle ground. Are you?

 

[ClockWise]

When Balion and TMW made a big push to host tournaments at 1000 gold instead of 1500, some other clans disagreed but went along with it. It was a change of pace, and frankly if someone wants to put the effort into hosting a tourney then they have the right to create a rule-set that results in their view of the most fun game play. If you don't like the current tourney's rule set, put in the time to make your own tournament. Having now played in multiple tourneys at that lower gold level, I personally do not believe it has resulted in either more fun for the community or better "results." I have seen both sides cite all sorts of reasons why their side is superior, and ultimately it boils down to what people enjoy. I don't quite understand why proponents of the 1k gold system cant begrudgingly play at 1500 at times for the good of the community, much like proponents of 1500 gold have had to do recently with the 1k tourneys. Clearly both parties feel their rule-set/gold setting is superior. From what I see, neither side is likely to suddenly read some post on here and change their view on the matter. So in my humble opinion, lets agree on like 1250 or just take turns rotating the rule-sets/gold settings. I don't agree with the lower gold/map choice rules, but I am willing to work and find an agreeable middle ground. Are you?

You guys can't just try 1200... why? It stops the biggest problem with 1500, which was the round one warhorse, but it gives infantry and cavalry more of an edge than 1000 in terms of armor and shields. Archers really don't change much between 1000 and 1500, so it's safe to assume they won't change much from 1000 to 1200 either, because it's an even smaller difference. So, archers will remain fairly constant in terms of gear, while infantry and cav will regain some potency. I can't really say what gear combinations are possible because I'm not a walking Warband encyclopedia, but IIRC mid-tier helmets are in the 200 to 300 gold range, so that's a simple example for a gear upgrade which is meaningful when facing archers.

^

 

[captain lust]

You guys can't just try 1200... why? It stops the biggest problem with 1500, which was the round one warhorse, but it gives infantry and cavalry more of an edge than 1000 in terms of armor and shields. Archers really don't change much between 1000 and 1500, so it's safe to assume they won't change much from 1000 to 1200 either, because it's an even smaller difference. So, archers will remain fairly constant in terms of gear, while infantry and cav will regain some potency. I can't really say what gear combinations are possible because I'm not a walking Warband encyclopedia, but IIRC mid-tier helmets are in the 200 to 300 gold range, so that's a simple example for a gear upgrade which is meaningful when facing archers.

Imo we should try 1284. Perfect gold amount. If that doesn't work we should try 1286 or something. Pretty sure it's in the 1280s somewhere but we should all just try it and then it will obviously become abundantly clear.

 

[T]

I have seen both sides cite all sorts of reasons why their side is superior, and ultimately it boils down to what people enjoy.

While I don't think 1000g supporters have cited any arguments other than stats or who does well, it does ultimately boil down to opinion.





I wouldn't mind trying a middle ground amount.
Here are some loadouts. I used 1224 as a test amount because that is when factions start being able to get H. cav.

Cav: Any amount above 1224 will allow Rhodock and Swadia a Heavy horse first round with essentially zero other upgrades. Add to that and they will begin to be able to buy more.
        Most cavalry must choose between armor or lance unless using a courser. Nord cav are still hurt pretty hard, they still can't afford armor plus lance since they must pay for the light lance.

Inf:All faction inf can now afford tier 3 armor (~40 body armor) matching top archer armor. Above 1224 also allows them to choose between mid tier shield or weapon.
          Sarra inf must settle with less armor to afford a solid shield.
          No faction inf can realistically afford top tier weapons at start.
          Inf can also begin to add light throwing weapons to the mix with clever enough builds.

Range:Archers relatively unchanged. The plus 200ish gold bumps them up a bow/weapon class, not too big of a deal. Crossbowmen get more freedom in choosing melee vs range lethality.
            Range definitely does not benefit as much as cav/inf by the gold increase of around 200.

Sorry this isn't super in-depth, just thought I'd throw it out there to give ppl an idea of what it would change. It definitely evens the armor gap for inf. For Cav only a little bit but it more increases their lethality as they can afford better lances along with chargers at start. Heavy cav at start with 0 upgrades doesn't seem unfair at all, considering inf will more be able to hold their own.


EDIT: Remember I am in BkS, so no helms were worn during the making of this film. Not sure they change things too much though.

 

[ClockWise]

EDIT: Remember I am in BkS, so no helms were worn during the making of this film. Not sure they change things too much though.

 

[BinaryAznMon]

While I don't think 1000g supporters have cited any arguments other than stats or who does well, it does ultimately boil down to opinion.





I wouldn't mind trying a middle ground amount.
Here are some loadouts. I used 1224 as a test amount because that is when factions start being able to get H. cav.

Cav: Any amount above 1224 will allow Rhodock and Swadia a Heavy horse first round with essentially zero other upgrades. Add to that and they will begin to be able to buy more.
        Most cavalry must choose between armor or lance unless using a courser. Nord cav are still hurt pretty hard, they still can't afford armor plus lance since they must pay for the light lance.

Inf:All faction inf can now afford tier 3 armor (~40 body armor) matching top archer armor. Above 1224 also allows them to choose between mid tier shield or weapon.
          Sarra inf must settle with less armor to afford a solid shield.
          No faction inf can realistically afford top tier weapons at start.
          Inf can also begin to add light throwing weapons to the mix with clever enough builds.

Range:Archers relatively unchanged. The plus 200ish gold bumps them up a bow/weapon class, not too big of a deal. Crossbowmen get more freedom in choosing melee vs range lethality.
            Range definitely does not benefit as much as cav/inf by the gold increase of around 200.

Sorry this isn't super in-depth, just thought I'd throw it out there to give ppl an idea of what it would change. It definitely evens the armor gap for inf. For Cav only a little bit but it more increases their lethality as they can afford better lances along with chargers at start. Heavy cav at start with 0 upgrades doesn't seem unfair at all, considering inf will more be able to hold their own.


EDIT: Remember I am in BkS, so no helms were worn during the making of this film. Not sure they change things too much though.

FFS SHEEPLE LISTEN TO THIS LOGIC, BINARY SUPPORT! im srs, all caps does not mean troll here. this is probably the only post ive seen with relevant balance issues as most posts are about fun which is a subjective term

 

[Orion]

You guys can't just try 1200... why? It stops the biggest problem with 1500, which was the round one warhorse, but it gives infantry and cavalry more of an edge than 1000 in terms of armor and shields. Archers really don't change much between 1000 and 1500, so it's safe to assume they won't change much from 1000 to 1200 either, because it's an even smaller difference. So, archers will remain fairly constant in terms of gear, while infantry and cav will regain some potency. I can't really say what gear combinations are possible because I'm not a walking Warband encyclopedia, but IIRC mid-tier helmets are in the 200 to 300 gold range, so that's a simple example for a gear upgrade which is meaningful when facing archers.

Imo we should try 1284. Perfect gold amount. If that doesn't work we should try 1286 or something. Pretty sure it's in the 1280s somewhere but we should all just try it and then it will obviously become abundantly clear.

Thanks for your input, Lust. Kindly **** off now. You've already made it clear to me that you give absolutely no thought to the American community, so why do you continue sticking your nose where it is neither needed nor welcome? Take your sarcasm elsewhere. Maybe someone will appreciate it.

 

[Mr.X]

You can't ignore that archer heavy strategies are prominent in European meta though, and that usually it's archers who top the score boards.

Being one of the most active and one of the best players in the EU scene I can say this is not true.
Most teams play, on a closed map, three archers, three/four inf and one/two cav.
On open maps it tends to go to 3/4 archers, mostly 3, and 3/2 cav and 2 inf.
Wouldn't say that's super archer heavy, seems pretty balanced.
If you look at the WNL stats and screenies, it's also pretty balanced in terms who's on top of the scoreboard most. Would say cav followed by archer followed by inf.

Yea, and being me, I can ignore the EU scene as much as I ******** want in this discussion

Ofcourse you can, just wanted to say EU scene isn't all about archers.

I was mostly responding to Gelden there



And does noone think that maybe looking at round bonus and combat bonus would be better ideas than just focusing on initial gold? The whole idea of scaling could be changed if the round bonus was changed.

 

[captain lust]

You guys can't just try 1200... why? It stops the biggest problem with 1500, which was the round one warhorse, but it gives infantry and cavalry more of an edge than 1000 in terms of armor and shields. Archers really don't change much between 1000 and 1500, so it's safe to assume they won't change much from 1000 to 1200 either, because it's an even smaller difference. So, archers will remain fairly constant in terms of gear, while infantry and cav will regain some potency. I can't really say what gear combinations are possible because I'm not a walking Warband encyclopedia, but IIRC mid-tier helmets are in the 200 to 300 gold range, so that's a simple example for a gear upgrade which is meaningful when facing archers.

Imo we should try 1284. Perfect gold amount. If that doesn't work we should try 1286 or something. Pretty sure it's in the 1280s somewhere but we should all just try it and then it will obviously become abundantly clear.

Thanks for your input, Lust. Kindly **** off now. You've already made it clear to me that you give absolutely no thought to the American community, so why do you continue sticking your nose where it is neither needed nor welcome? Take your sarcasm elsewhere. Maybe someone will appreciate it.

You are a pleasant individual. I'll completely ignore your nonsense and reexplain my point in a non-sarcastic way... even though I felt the sarcasm was fairly humorous while being effective and concise.

People have been playing the game for three years. You are insulting their judgement by saying that they need to test certain iterations of the gold amounts.

There is no right answer to the best gold amount. I have argued the merits of 1000 over 1500 in the past. I prefer the way it plays out and I like a lot of the things it does but effectively no one can prove one way is technically better than the other. It's a matter of opinion. Respect that players like Rhade, from their years of experience, know what they want to play as and that finding some medium point won't magically change everyone's standpoint.

 

[Lagstro]

People have been playing the game for three years. You are insulting their judgement by saying that they need to test certain iterations

  Beta Patch 1.155 ... you know what I am getting at.

 

[Kherven]

Honestly i'm not sure what you are all arguing about in here. Will said he wanted a 1000g tournament and has said his policy on map choice. That is how the tournament will go. If you don't like it go make your own tournament with your choice of rules. With that said my recommendation is if you do that, make sure you make a specific rule in the thread that there will be no discussion about gold amounts, or you'll end up with this mess again.  Also, I bet if you did specifically mention you don't want these aimless gold discussions, I'm sure the mods would love to help enforce it as they're probably tired of this too.

 

[Orion]

People have been playing the game for three years. You are insulting their judgement by saying that they need to test certain iterations of the gold amounts.

Nearly 4, actually. The closed beta started in August of 2009. I am one of those players, in case you've forgotten.

There is no right answer to the best gold amount. I have argued the merits of 1000 over 1500 in the past. I prefer the way it plays out and I like a lot of the things it does but effectively no one can prove one way is technically better than the other. It's a matter of opinion. Respect that players like Rhade, from their years of experience, know what they want to play as and that finding some medium point won't magically change everyone's standpoint.

You're missing the point entirely. Classic. I've argued for 1000 over 1500 as well since day one, but I'm not averse to trying something entirely novel to see how it pans out. It could be that people who haven't given it a shot will come to prefer it. We won't know unless we try. Regarding Rhade's opinion, since you've specifically mentioned him, I'd like to point out that it isn't exactly set in stone, either. He already acknowledged one of the biggest flaws with 1500, and this was almost a year ago.

Spoiler

In hindsight -- Marnid was right.

1500 gold is silly for battle tournaments. Heavy horse from first round and possible in every single round makes it extremely unbalanced, imo.

The argument for the GS being balanced because it's expensive is the same as heavy horses being balanced because they're expensive -- bumpcav from heavy horses possible in all rounds makes the game rather stale.

Something to think about for next season.

I am one of those long-term players that you're referring to, but you say I should blindly follow the preferences of the others. Point in fact, I can claim to have been playing longer than anybody in this discussion. I can also claim to have founded the premier competitive clan during the closed Warband beta, so my competitive experience in Warband also extends back farther than theirs. If Megavideo releases legitimate user-uploaded files, I'll have access to video evidence of taking part in the first ever Warband scrim. Does that grant me more validity, because I've had a few weeks or months more experience than them? No, it doesn't. Capacity for reason, experimentation, and analysis give validity to someone's opinion on the gold issue, not how long we've sat in our 1000/1500 trenches and griped at each other.

Why are you still posting in an American tournament thread, by the way? Didn't you tell me once that the American competitive scene was backwards and irrelevant? Oh, no, actually you've told me more than once. So why are you here? Shouldn't you be breaking the metagame some more with your patch?

 

[T]

People have been playing the game for three years. You are insulting their judgement by saying that they need to test certain iterations

  Beta Patch 1.155 ... you know what I am getting at.

 

[captain lust]

I would like to make the offer to delete whatever posts William wants from this thread, as and when they come.

 

[Fehnor]

I would like to make the offer to delete whatever posts William wants from this thread, as and when they come.

I really don't see how this is constructive at all.

 

[Nord Champion]

I would like to make the offer to delete whatever posts William wants from this thread, as and when they come.

Thanks for the offer, but I would like to wait on deleting posts until the League starts, if you don't mind. I'm still looking at some of the posts and trying to draw any suggestions from them if there are any.

 

[Kherven]

I would like to make the offer to delete whatever posts William wants from this thread, as and when they come.

I really don't see how this is constructive at all.

William said in some of the very first pages that he wanted no discussion about gold, you saw how that went ;p So technically he could ask for almost all those pages to be deleted.

 

[Kherven]

Sorry for double post but otherwise Will wouldn't know I posted

Change to TMW:

Drop Nomnom for Sammac
Drop Kohath for Volpel

 

[Nord Champion]

OK, so question time.

Eternal suggested that I lower the Max Team limit to 12. What does everyone think about that? Also, Kherven suggested I should not allow 5 players to be fielded a match, and keep it to a minimum of 6. What does everyone think about that?