BEAST - Bannerlord Early Access Skirmish Tournament

[Aeronwen]

Play-Off Match 7 is listed in the table, but not the summary of the new promo rules. Sorry for putting it a little cryptic before.

ah I see, well yes. That match is a new addition rather than an adjustment to the existing rules. So it is not added in yet but I don't see any downside to adding it when we change the ruleset.

I think Deacon's table makes everything clear. Match 7 is a standalone adjustment and the 2 teams will simply swap places or remain where they are depending on the result of the match.

 

[OurGloriousLeader]

Think it's fine, only thing I would query is it not counting towards the break, I think if anything the breaks are too short between BEASTs as it is.

Obviously it's easy for me to say this since I won't be doing any work at all, but I do think the scene needs a decent KO tourney that can take place between BEASTs, such as the ECS filled in Native.

 

[Aeronwen]

Think it's fine, only thing I would query is it not counting towards the break, I think if anything the breaks are too short between BEASTs as it is.

Obviously it's easy for me to say this since I won't be doing any work at all, but I do think the scene needs a decent KO tourney that can take place between BEASTs, such as the ECS filled in Native.

Everything is a balance with pros & cons. 8 weeks was considered too long a tournament by a lot of players and 3 weeks break was considered too much by some and then many weeks weeks break was requested over the summer holidays. This is one o fteh reasons why increasing the weeks of promotion/finals is a problem. As only some teams are playing, teams have a different length of break. It will always be too long for some and too short for some.

I agree that a KO tourney between BEAST's would be a good addition. Admins of BEAST are always ready to consult with other tournament admins to agree a suitable timetable to keep everyone amused

My only hesitation is that the state of the game is still not conducive to running tournaments as we have no tools available to the admins.

I also regularly receive 'complaints' because the scene is pretty much dominated by DM and RM. A KO would have to seed such that they could both arrive at the final (otherwise it is a meaningless competition). But it seems that a number of players would feel it redundant to join a KO where the winners were pretty much determined at the outset.

Imo the quick scramble tournaments hosted by Hairless etc address all the issues and would work well as an intermediate while we await more tools conducive to running tournaments.

 

[Killfacer]

I must admit I agree with OGL - the schedule is a bit too packed for my liking. You basically have to commit permanently if you want to stay in the Division you've earned your place in. No room for breaks at all. That said if some people like it then it's just a judgement call of finding a middle ground as you say.

I don't see that a KO style tournament would suffer any worse from being dominated by 1-2 teams. To be honest I can only think of a handful of Warband tournaments which didn't have two massive favourites. Though there does seem to be a lack of teams capable of upsetting them here.

 

[Aeronwen]

I must admit I agree with OGL - the schedule is a bit too packed for my liking. You basically have to commit permanently if you want to stay in the Division you've earned your place in. No room for breaks at all. That said if some people like it then it's just a judgement call of finding a middle ground as you say.

I don't see that a KO style tournament would suffer any worse from being dominated by 1-2 teams. To be honest I can only think of a handful of Warband tournaments which didn't have two massive favourites. Though there does seem to be a lack of teams capable of upsetting them here.

There's the problem of trying to cater for all players from those at school to those with jobs and families. Whatever the admins decide on any issue someone is going to be unhappy. But if people want to play then why not have a tournament running? If some players want to skip a season then (for BEAST) they have to resign themselves to taking the best place the admins have to offer them.

but even with wanting to keep the competitive play rolling on we have already had to very large breaks between seasons and are always happy to cooperate scheduling if anyone else wants to run something between BEAST seasons.

I am happy to help in any capacity if anyone wants to set something up.

The purpose of BEAST was, and is, simply to give competitive players something to do while the game is in early access; to be open to all players of any skill level and to have them play against teams of a similar skill level.

with the new system of 5+2 weeks that already 2 weeks where the majority of teams are not playing a competitive match and every week of break adds to that. How long would you suggest is optimal?

 

[KSHMR]

I must admit I agree with OGL - the schedule is a bit too packed for my liking. You basically have to commit permanently if you want to stay in the Division you've earned your place in. No room for breaks at all. That said if some people like it then it's just a judgement call of finding a middle ground as you say.

I don't see that a KO style tournament would suffer any worse from being dominated by 1-2 teams. To be honest I can only think of a handful of Warband tournaments which didn't have two massive favourites. Though there does seem to be a lack of teams capable of upsetting them here.

The new concept has my support and I am also in favor of playing every week. I enjoy these competitive matches and I will be present if I can. However, the health of the community could be better in terms of playerbase and if any clan has trouble finding enough people on consecutive weeks then that is understandable. My suggestion would be to reach a consencus between the two and make it not too short but also not too long, so that both sides are catered to.

 

[Aeronwen]

The new concept has my support and I am also in favor of playing every week. I enjoy these competitive matches and I will be present if I can. However, the health of the community could be better in terms of playerbase and if any clan has trouble finding enough people on consecutive weeks then that is understandable. My suggestion would be to reach a consencus between the two and make it not too short but also not too long, so that both sides are catered to.

I believe the question we are debating now is:
'What number of weeks is not too short and not too long'

you may have noticed that no-one (yet) has been brave enough to attempt an answer.

 

[KSHMR]

I believe the question we are debating now is:
'What number of weeks is not too short and not too long'

you may have noticed that no-one (yet) has been brave enough to attempt an answer.

I don't see many options for reducing or increasing the number of weeks the tournament takes. But one option could be to shedule matches not based on weeks, but on days. This is what you see in tournaments of top-level sports worldwide too, where some teams have to sometimes play two matches in one week. An option could be to give teams a five days time range in which the match needs to be played. One major factor will be availability of players throughout the week, since the majority of matches are played in the weekend. This could be researched using a survey to see how viable this is. If this is not possible, I don't see many options considering every team should play every team. There is not much room to reduce this. Regarding the break, I believe that three weeks is enough. I personally don't think there will be many teams that want a two-month break for example. I also think three weeks is a good middle ground between both sides, prove me wrong.

 

[IceNoVa]

Regarding breaks: Are we talking three weeks altogether or do those 3 weeks begin after the final is played? Because I doubt teams that have 7 weeks of fixtures would appreciate a single week break.

 

[Aeronwen]

I don't see many options for reducing or increasing the number of weeks the tournament takes. But one option could be to shedule matches not based on weeks, but on days. This is what you see in tournaments of top-level sports worldwide too, where some teams have to sometimes play two matches in one week. An option could be to give teams a five days time range in which the match needs to be played. One major factor will be availability of players throughout the week, since the majority of matches are played in the weekend. This could be researched using a survey to see how viable this is. If this is not possible, I don't see many options considering every team should play every team. There is not much room to reduce this. Regarding the break, I believe that three weeks is enough. I personally don't think there will be many teams that want a two-month break for example. I also think three weeks is a good middle ground between both sides, prove me wrong.

We have had tournaments (in Warband) where some teams at some times are asked to play more than one match a week. Given that even with one match a week teams often cannot agree on a match time and date you can imagine how that is magnified for more than one match per week. These petty disputes are what takes up most of an admins time and energy I am not up for increasing the problem.

Also can we stop using top level sports as a comparison? I am pretty sure that if teams were getting top level sports prize money they would turn up when told and if admins were getting top level sports pay there would be more of us and w would have more time to give but none of that is the case.

The only reduction (and I favour this but so far have been in the minority) is to require all promo/final matches to be played over one weekend. That means a very few teams will potentially play a match on Saturday and anther on Sunday. They would have to forfeit if they didn't turn up though.

Regarding breaks: Are we talking three weeks altogether or do those 3 weeks begin after the final is played? Because I doubt teams that have 7 weeks of fixtures would appreciate a single week break.

ye, my idea was 3 weeks from the end of the ladder. (more if another tournament turns up ofc)

that would mean most teams have a 3 week break, a few teams have a 2 week break and a very few teams have break match break and one or two teams (the most competitive) have a one week break.

Clearly there is a potential problem here.

 

[Tryerror]

My very own personal opinion is to have a 4week brake. A whole month to recover from Beast - since it always takes up a lot of time and resources in the week. Team who dont have a Demotion/Promotion/Final match will have a nice 6 week brake. Which is also very nice. If Teams still want to play, they can do scrims vs other teams. Brakes are important, especially with how much time a Beast - preperation and an ongoing Beast-Match is eating.

 

[Killfacer]

I think a month sounds about right as Tryerror says.

I suppose ideal scenario would be something like:

BEAST
Knockout Tournament
BEAST
Scramble Tournament
BEAST
Nations Cup
BEAST
Knockout Tournament

and so on. That way instead of enforced breaks teams can chose to skip tournaments and not risk their league position. Finding people capable and willing to organise the tournaments for a calendar like this is obviously challenging however.

 

[Aeronwen]

I think a month sounds about right as Tryerror says.

I suppose ideal scenario would be something like:

BEAST
Knockout Tournament
BEAST
Scramble Tournament
BEAST
Nations Cup
BEAST
Knockout Tournament

and so on. That way instead of enforced breaks teams can chose to skip tournaments and not risk their league position. Finding people capable and willing to organise the tournaments for a calendar like this is obviously challenging however.

Do you think is the game is ready for a serious KO tournament?
If you do and you run it I'm in ^^

also are you talking 4 weeks after the ladder or 4 weeks after the final (6 weeks for most teams)?

 

[Einarcf]

Maybe let the remaning teams, that do not have playoffs/finals, play placements matches against each others. Mostly for the sake of them also getting matches, but also it could be relevan if multiple teams want an open spot in the division above them for example.

 

[TheBard]

Maybe let the remaning teams, that do not have playoffs/finals, play placements matches against each others. Mostly for the sake of them also getting matches, but also it could be relevan if multiple teams want an open spot in the division above them for example.

Sorry, but that makes no sense. We can just give out new spots if teams do not sign up again, otherwise the spot is taken. For the purpose of placement we actually have a RR tournament.

 

[Black_Corsair]

Too long topic, could someone answer simple question, what happens with 2nd place team, who lost first promotion match?
Does it move to division lower, despite the fact that it took 2nd place in division?
Or it stays in its division, just losing chance for 2nd promotion match?

 

[Aeronwen]

Too long topic, could someone answer simple question, what happens with 2nd place team, who lost first promotion match?
Does it move to division lower, despite the fact that it took 2nd place in division?
Or it stays in its division, just losing chance for 2nd promotion match?

check out the first spoiler in the OP

if teh 2nd place team loses their promo match with the 1st place team of teh div below, they simply remain in their div

 

[Koso]

As RM we don't want this system on the mid-tournament. You should bring this idea on the beginning of the BEAST7. We already finished this season no need to add things like that.

 

[Aeronwen]

As RM we don't want this system on the mid-tournament. You should bring this idea on the beginning of the BEAST7. We already finished this season no need to add things like that.

what a shame you did not say so during the consultation and before the change was made. Changing back now woudl mean a last minute change to teh rules without wider consultation - which is not OK

 

[Koso]

what a shame you did not say so during the consultation and before the change was made. Changing back now woudl mean a last minute change to teh rules without wider consultation - which is not OK

Yes, yes. Bring system to division A but, with division C or D players instead of division A players. Also only with 3-4 guy from the tournament while tournament has 30+ teams with lots of members. It seems to me logically "general agreement." Additionally, bringing the changes middle of the tournament. Yes, yes.

If there is general agreement we would consider implementing it for this season.

Refusing this idea and asking for old ones while there is no "general agreement." being too late and wrong to search for your rights. Yes, yes. I am sorry that I am not really forum warrior and not spending my lots of times here to see undercover changes without letting know steam or discord. While we have "neutral discord." However, you have the general agreement with 4-5 ppl from division C. :^)