Proposition Regarding match size and Roster

[Gaius_Octavian]

Err,how did the argue in this thread change from minimum amount of players in NC match to archer spam debate in one night

Because I, the great and powerful, was bored at work and decided to bother people with my personal opinions about matters not related to the purpose of the thread. 

My apologies. 

 

[sammac]

The point was brought in by those 'against' that archer spam is more viable with a greater number of players.

 

[BoomstickS3000]

Best to stop it now then.
This thread is for discussing the minumum amount of player count.
There should be a vote for each captain imo.

 

[sammac]

Lets say that the number of players is increased to 9 or 10, will the Rosters be increased proportionaly?

 

[Mr.X]

Lets say that the number of players is increased to 9 or 10, will the Rosters be increased proportionaly?

I think you can safely assume that maximum roster size would be increased. The reason the topic came to archer spam was because several people feel that larger numbers decreases the skill level of the match.

 

[Orion]

I think you can safely assume that maximum roster size would be increased. The reason the topic came to archer spam was because several people feel that larger numbers decreases the skill level of the match.

+1

Do I need to elaborate on sample size? It's still entirely relevant.

And now, for a bit of posturing and saber rattling (I like sabers):

What you're saying is that it's been rejected by the current european meta. It's simply not the case, it has been tried repeatedly for years and on the whole has failed to beat competent teams. The sample size is pretty big, at least bigger than anything you'll be able to put forward.

Congratulations, you have graduated to moron status. A handful of teams "attempting" archer spam and failing in the past is not a complete data set. A handful of teams in the US attempting and succeeding at archer spam are part of the same data set (and would complete the data set), but many here are refusing to include them in their reasoning. They divide the available sample into "European" and "American" and ignore the validity of the American data, just as you have done with your quote. I'll even quote it again, just for you.

The sample size is pretty big, at least bigger than anything you'll be able to put forward.

American data is not to be categorically refused because it is from America, nor is it to be considered apart from European data because it is gathered elsewhere. We are all playing the same exact game, and we are discussing the same strategy, ergo the data set is the same. I do not refuse to acknowledge the reasoning of European teams, the closest I have come to discrediting them is to say they seem to be drawn from experiences in pubs rather than scrims. I do not ignore their lines of argument or say their data is insignificant compared to mine. That's too arrogant, even for me.

Really now, this is getting quit silly.

You seem to think archer spam has been tried thoroughly enough to know that it's not viable. My experience in the NA competitive scene tells me otherwise. Here, lopsided proportions of archers are not uncommon or ineffective. In many scrims and matches, archers will make up about half of a team. Sometimes more, sometimes less, depending on the situation

Spot the inconsistency.

There's nothing inconsistent with that statement, mate. Nobody has said American teams always spam archers all of the time to great effect. There are some times when it isn't viable and nobody has claimed otherwise. The main argument I am making is that most of the time it is viable, more so than other sorts of spam.

I won't even touch what you did with my ruins example. We can go back and forth ad infinitum about what could happen in that situation, without ever convincing each other which side will win. Have you heard of the butterfly effect?

 

[crazyboy11]

You seem to think archer spam has been tried thoroughly enough to know that it's not viable. My experience in the NA competitive scene tells me otherwise. Here, lopsided proportions of archers are not uncommon or ineffective. In many scrims and matches, archers will make up about half of a team. Sometimes more, sometimes less, depending on the situation

Spot the inconsistency.

There's nothing inconsistent with that statement, mate. Nobody has said American teams always spam archers all of the time to great effect. There are some times when it isn't viable and nobody has claimed otherwise. The main argument I am making is that most of the time it is viable, more so than other sorts of spam.

So you're basing your arguments on the fact that:
a) Archer usually appear in NA matches in varying quantities, and all these are part of the same data set.
b) Too many archers AND too few archers are not uncommon or ineffective.
c) Lopsided archer quantities are only sometimes viable.
d) Archer spam is only more effective than other forms of class spam.

Or did I miss something?

 

[Killfacer]

@Orion



You graduated to pointlessly rude and unpleasant status. Try to engage in discussion without being pointlessly aggressive.

As others have said it's not really good for this thread to be torn apart by some never ending argument but you seriously need to reconsider how you reply to people. Vile. Will PM you but try to keep it civil.

(edit) I don't really see why every conversation has to turn into: 'WE'D BEAT YOU EZ' (as though that would prove anyone right) and 'NO U WUDNT IM PRO ARCH0R I'D SHOWU' or 'UR A MORON GRADUATE LIKE HA LOL'. Come on guys. So pathetic and unhelpful.

 

[Orion]

You seem to think archer spam has been tried thoroughly enough to know that it's not viable. My experience in the NA competitive scene tells me otherwise. Here, lopsided proportions of archers are not uncommon or ineffective. In many scrims and matches, archers will make up about half of a team. Sometimes more, sometimes less, depending on the situation

Spot the inconsistency.

There's nothing inconsistent with that statement, mate. Nobody has said American teams always spam archers all of the time to great effect. There are some times when it isn't viable and nobody has claimed otherwise. The main argument I am making is that most of the time it is viable, more so than other sorts of spam.

So you're basing your arguments on the fact that:
a) Archer usually appear in NA matches in varying quantities, and all these are part of the same data set.
b) Too many archers AND too few archers are not uncommon or ineffective.
c) Lopsided archer quantities are only sometimes viable.
d) Archer spam is only more effective than other forms of class spam.

Or did I miss something?

"Varying quantities" is true. What team anywhere in the world always rolls with the same exact setup every match? It's practically a given, but I thought I should clarify for those of us with fewer faculties at our command.

Nobody said "too many" or "too few." Don't put words in my mouth. I say 50%, sometimes less, sometimes more. Are you insinuating that 50% is the optimal amount? I can think of several situations when that is not the case, but it's easier to come up with situations where more archers > less. This also ties into your first point. Of course the number of archers varies, because the strengths, performance, and environment of a team will affect their decision on composition. Maybe in Europe a clan leader will say "ok guys, I want 3 archers, 5 infantry, and 2 cavalry" and will stick with it on any map, ranging from random plains (oh wait, you guys don't play that I hear) Field by the River to nord town to port assault. I doubt that's the case, but it's the impression I'm getting from you specifically, crazy.

Anyway, on to the third point. I didn't say they're only "sometimes" viable. I said archers usually make up 50% of a team, and that decision is made because experience in NA shows that a large proportion of archers is critical almost all of the time. Notice I said almost. I'm not the one trying to deal in absolutes. Sometimes more is better. Like I said previously, I have seen and been a part of teams successfully using all-archer setups. It works if you use it when you know it's necessary. Unfortunately, archer spam works regularly even when it isn't necessary. It's also easiest to accomplish and easiest to control a map with. All things I have said before.

I've also said before that archer spam scales better than all other forms of class spam. You're only confirming that I am repeating my points for the sake of others. I know where I stand, but some folks can't seem to find a consistent line of argument to use against me.

@Orion



You graduated to pointlessly rude and unpleasant status. Try to engage in discussion without being pointlessly aggressive.

Sorry for the unseemly conduct. The amount of sarcasm directed at me in this thread from a couple of posters wears my patience a little thin.

 

[crazyboy11]

You're so full of **** Orion. Your entire last post was an analysis of the conclusions I had just drawn from one of your previous posts... it's no wonder it made little sense. I'm really struggling to keep up with your line of argument here, you seem to just be posting anything vaugley relevant that just happens to be true.

The original post I was under the assumption we were arguing over was this:

At 10v10 it isn't an issue because the 10 people playing don't all enjoy playing archer. If 10 people were go to archer on pretty much any map, as long as they weren't ridiculously stupid and 3 or 4 of them were actually good archers, the archers would win.

Your last few posts have been talking about "varying numbers" of archers, and how different numbers of archers are useful in differen situations. This only helps prove the point that 10 archers is ineffective.

Maybe in Europe a clan leader will say "ok guys, I want 3 archers, 5 infantry, and 2 cavalry" and will stick with it on any map, ranging from random plains (oh wait, you guys don't play that I hear) Field by the River to nord town to port assault. I doubt that's the case, but it's the impression I'm getting from you specifically, crazy.

This isn't the case and I've said nothing that would give you that impression. You're just making stuff up.

I've also said before that archer spam scales better than all other forms of class spam. You're only confirming that I am repeating my points for the sake of others. I know where I stand, but some folks can't seem to find a consistent line of argument to use against me.

We all agreed upon this ages ago.

There's no room for your trolling here. I don't know who you think it's amusing but just take it elsewhere.

I'm being serious. 10 good archers honestly beats 10 good infantry or 10 good cavalry on pretty much every map (except maybe cav on a really open plains). If the players are at the same level, the archers will win.

That's not the argument now is it. The argument is that 10 good archers will beat *anything* on pretty much every map, when it's been clearly shown that most maps at 10vs10 on Medium reward a fairly well mixed class distribution.

So please for the love of god, and good health of all this thread's readers, don't waste any more of our time trying to argue something that:
a) Doesn't need to be argued
b) Uses an irrelevant data set
c) Insults anyone posting in this thread (as you have done frequently).

 

[Gaius_Octavian]

So angry...

You're so full of **** Orion

So please for the love of god, and good health of all this thread's readers, don't waste any more of our time trying to argue something that:
a) Doesn't need to be argued
b) Uses an irrelevant data set
c) Insults anyone posting in this thread (as you have done frequently).

Follow your own advice and if you consider North America invalid, then any North American speaking with will likely have little success. 

At 10v10 it isn't an issue because the 10 people playing don't all enjoy playing archer. If 10 people were go to archer on pretty much any map, as long as they weren't ridiculously stupid and 3 or 4 of them were actually good archers, the archers would win.

Yes, this is what the argument is about.  Not to take anything from Orion's impending response, but this is exactly what he details. 

See below

I've also said before that archer spam scales better than all other forms of class spam

Your claim of fallacy with his argument is as follows.

Your last few posts have been talking about "varying numbers" of archers, and how different numbers of archers are useful in differen situations. This only helps prove the point that 10 archers is ineffective.

This is a conclusion which I cannot determine how you reached aside from being similar to my personal opinion.  Yes, varying amounts of archers are useful.  Hopefully, we agree on that.  Now spamming archers, for example we take 75% to 100% of the team.  Falls into varying numbers and is addressed by Orion in a previous quote in this post.  The claim is that it scales better than other forms of spam.  That is the end of the statement on the issue.  According to this claim 10 archers would be better then 10 cav on a given map.  I disagree with this point and I believe you, crazy, do as well.  As this is a discussion without any verifiable evidence, just different experiences, there is no way to prove how ineffectual any system is. 

Maybe in Europe a clan leader will say "ok guys, I want 3 archers, 5 infantry, and 2 cavalry" and will stick with it on any map, ranging from random plains (oh wait, you guys don't play that I hear) Field by the River to nord town to port assault. I doubt that's the case, but it's the impression I'm getting from you specifically, crazy.

This isn't the case and I've said nothing that would give you that impression. You're just making stuff up.

After reviewing the thread, I do not see how Orion acheived this impression either, but it is an impression.  Which are patterns induced by perceptions.  Your tone appears insulting in this instance and as you likely don't know Orion personally on a level where you can consider every possible perception he could have on your words and you can not know if a word was missed or transposed during reading or other such issue, your absolute declaration seems improbable. 

My last sentence is not very clear.  For clarification, impressions are personal things and most can't know how there words impact another. 

That's not the argument now is it. The argument is that 10 good archers will beat *anything* on pretty much every map, when it's been clearly shown that most maps at 10vs10 on Medium reward a fairly well mixed class distribution.

Firstly, define clearly shown?  I am not important in the Warband scene, but I have seen teams with approximately 50-75% archers destroy other teams of mixed composition.  I have never seen a team of 100% archers play so I cannot argue there.  I don't believe it would be very effect personally as archers work better if there is a buffer between them and the enemy.  Effectively, for archers having melee support seems required in my opinion. 

Secondly, the argument is whether or not it is feasible to move to 10 people instead of 8.  Disputed by a few arguments one of which is that as the number of archers increases other classes lose effectiveness and reduce the relative skill level of the match.

I'm really struggling to keep up with your line of argument here, you seem to just be posting anything vaugley relevant that just happens to be true

As you dispute several times on the validity of his information and data set, it surprises me you consider all his arguments true. 

I think you can safely assume that maximum roster size would be increased. The reason the topic came to archer spam was because several people feel that larger numbers decreases the skill level of the match.

+1

Do I need to elaborate on sample size? It's still entirely relevant.

And now, for a bit of posturing and saber rattling (I like sabers):

What you're saying is that it's been rejected by the current european meta. It's simply not the case, it has been tried repeatedly for years and on the whole has failed to beat competent teams. The sample size is pretty big, at least bigger than anything you'll be able to put forward.

Congratulations, you have graduated to moron status. A handful of teams "attempting" archer spam and failing in the past is not a complete data set. A handful of teams in the US attempting and succeeding at archer spam are part of the same data set (and would complete the data set), but many here are refusing to include them in their reasoning. They divide the available sample into "European" and "American" and ignore the validity of the American data, just as you have done with your quote.

So mean...

I believe that he is not trying to dismiss the North American data as to say that while there may be 10-15% of the clans whom excel at archer spam it would be greatly reduced by pairing our data set with the European data set and recalculating the percentages.  Before the counterattack, I do not have actual figures and lack the experience for an educated guess.  The number used earlier this paragraph may very well not be even close to the actual percentages.   

Now for peace and happiness everyone. 

 

[Orion]

Maybe in Europe a clan leader will say "ok guys, I want 3 archers, 5 infantry, and 2 cavalry" and will stick with it on any map, ranging from random plains (oh wait, you guys don't play that I hear) Field by the River to nord town to port assault. I doubt that's the case, but it's the impression I'm getting from you specifically, crazy.

This isn't the case and I've said nothing that would give you that impression. You're just making stuff up.

After reviewing the thread, I do not see how Orion acheived this impression either, but it is an impression.  Which are patterns induced by perceptions.  Your tone appears insulting in this instance and as you likely don't know Orion personally on a level where you can consider every possible perception he could have on your words and you can not know if a word was missed or transposed during reading or other such issue, your absolute declaration seems improbable.

Apparently I'm better at detecting sarcasm, too. It was a joke about your critiques of my argument involving varying compositions. The whole premise of the joke was varying compositions versus static. So far you've been trying to disprove my argument by pointing out the times I've been less-than-absolute (most of the time), and claiming this lack of absolutism makes me inconsistent. One of these instances involved my claim that NA teams will vary their composition as needed, but large proportions of archers are almost always included. You made a comment about varying composition, seeming to imply that we wouldn't have to vary our composition of archers were so incredibly OP, and I responded with the obvious "of course we vary our composition." I'm not a fool, and I've never said archers are always better in all situations.

That's when I made the joke, insinuating Europeans don't vary their compositions (which I know they certainly do).

Now it isn't funny anymore, even for me.

 

[Gaius_Octavian]

Maybe in Europe a clan leader will say "ok guys, I want 3 archers, 5 infantry, and 2 cavalry" and will stick with it on any map, ranging from random plains (oh wait, you guys don't play that I hear) Field by the River to nord town to port assault. I doubt that's the case, but it's the impression I'm getting from you specifically, crazy.

This isn't the case and I've said nothing that would give you that impression. You're just making stuff up.

After reviewing the thread, I do not see how Orion acheived this impression either, but it is an impression.  Which are patterns induced by perceptions.  Your tone appears insulting in this instance and as you likely don't know Orion personally on a level where you can consider every possible perception he could have on your words and you can not know if a word was missed or transposed during reading or other such issue, your absolute declaration seems improbable.

Apparently I'm better at detecting sarcasm, too. It was a joke about your critiques of my argument involving varying compositions. The whole premise of the joke was varying compositions versus static. So far you've been trying to disprove my argument by pointing out the times I've been less-than-absolute (most of the time), and claiming this lack of absolutism makes me inconsistent. One of these instances involved my claim that NA teams will vary their composition as needed, but large proportions of archers are almost always included. You made a comment about varying composition, seeming to imply that we wouldn't have to vary our composition of archers were so incredibly OP, and I responded with the obvious "of course we vary our composition." I'm not a fool, and I've never said archers are always better in all situations.

That's when I made the joke, insinuating Europeans don't vary their compositions (which I know they certainly do).

Now it isn't funny anymore, even for me.

Fail at detecting sarcasm. 

My bad. 

 

[Maynd]

The good old NA vs EU Bashing!
I've missed this arguments and its always good to fire up the heat before the NC hehe 

Spoiler: Muted Mok style

GF

 

[Orion]

Haven't bashed anyone for being particularly European yet, but I might start with a certain Portuguese Spanish fellow I know about. 

 

[Maynd]

Haven't bashed anyone for being particularly European yet, but I might start with a certain Portuguese Spanish fellow I know about. 

Milk my lolcows 

 

[sammac]

lolcows

I want one.

 

[Maynd]

Ask Rhade where the lolcows went...wait...he was burned at the barn.
Silly times

 

[Mr.X]

Guys, this is my fault. My post where I was like "10 archers always wins" was an exaggeration of something I believe is generally true and is pretty much irrelevant to the topic. Sowwy.

 

[Gulatr]

Saying that 10 vs 10 will encourage "Archer Spam" = "OP Tactic that beats all", is not a valid argument in this discussion. A team  that uses combined arms tactics (3-4 of each class), and has decent teamplay, will be able to overcome any combination put by another team. It is a solid fact, which I have seen prove itself many times.

Those that decided to go on personal lines along the discussion - it does not serve your cause at all, it only diminishes the validity of your own arguments.

As the deadline of the tournament approaches, I believe we need to come to some sort of conclusion here. I still stand by my original proposal, and I am happy to see that there are others who share this point of view.

The matter is in your hands Alex, but whatever course of action you decide to follow, it is better to make a decision now, so that all the teams may adjust accordingly.