Tell me

Users who are viewing this thread

That especially bothered me in the Nations 5-a-side when we were against a team quite a bit weaker than us and thus as tactic they went to the Nord Town spawn camp. Not fun, but that same thing can happen in the ENL.
 
Just to address the main points:

Class Limits
I really think this is a bad idea, for one thing enforcing any such rule would be pretty horrible and its going to be hard to stop people from just picking up other peoples weaponry. Hell is there even any point putting a limit on infantry given that both other classes can effectively play as them as well. That's only going to punish clans that rely on archers or cavalry.

The other aspect is that I think it will make the game more boring, more limits means fewer options for teams to play their own style. Certainly our clan would usually field a lot more infantry than 3 even if it was an 8v8 and I don't see why we should have to take dummy cavalry and dismount them to match some arbitrarily placed limits.

Number of Rounds
I honestly don't think 2 hours is an especially long amount of time for people to play, teams also have the opportunity to use substitutes if some of their members can't make it. From what I have seen matches usually go on for 90 minutes rather than 120 but of course this is variable. The last two matches we've played have been tense and great all the way through.

Having said that I can see how it can be frustrating for teams that are blatantly out-classed to continue through the full 20 rounds without really much chance of getting wins. Perhaps for this you might consider a default win situation if a team wins say 15 rounds? That way given that the maps are divided into an open and a closed map you can't just have a team win on one of the map types to win, they have to win consistently on both. It would at least remove the final quarter of 'grinding' rounds where the team knows they have no chance and can't even fight back to make it look close.

My main complaint about the shorter number of rounds is organisation after switching. Often teams will be a bit disorientated on the first round of a set of 5 either due to someone not selecting equipment correctly or spawning late because of selecting it slower. It can also be simply due to the fact that the team is not well practised on a map and has to get their bearings. If you keep the number of faction switches the same but reduce the number of rounds, a greater number of the total rounds will be the first ones where more screw ups are made.

As an example of this I would point to our match against Gothic, we were drawn at 5:5 and then moved to reveran village. Our tactics were obviously more practised for this map as we hammered them the first 4 rounds, but each round they adapted and learned and finally got the last one of the set. For the second set of that map it was a more even affair.

If you do reduce the number of rounds then reduce the number of sets as well, why not simply play one map for instance with a single faction swap? Over the course of a league like the enl you will play an even number of open and closed maps so in the long term it shouldn't damage a particular style of play for any clan.

Player Number
My argument against this is simple, less people can play. That means for the clans with larger numbers of members you will have more people sitting bored on the sideline and less actually able to join in. Of course this is a relative thing and you can say that 12 is better than 10 for the same reason. I am not going to use that to argue for greater numbers, just the effect of reducing the numbers we have now.

The other thing is that fewer players playing leads more to a reliance on personal skill and less on strategy or tactics. For that reason and the previous one stated I think this would be a bad idea as well, basically don't fix what isn't broken.

Combat Bonus
This I actually agree with you on, I for one don't think positive feedback loops are a good idea in a competitive scene. We already have enough of them within a round (early kills can lead to victory) so its not good to have them across multiple rounds as well. At the same time however without the extra gold you are cut off from a large proportion of armour, weapons, and horses which can't be a good thing.

I honestly don't think there is going to be a simple solution using the existing framework. However I have a complex solution you might consider that is probably within the scope of an admin mod. You might have a system for a clan to elect a player (or players) as their champion for him to get a larger amount of starting gold. I doubt this would be an especially complex addition given that admin mods can already give a specific player gold, it would simply automatically do it whenever the player spawns.

This way you still can have the higher cost items in play in a limited fashion with no positive feedback loops. Also you could have a fair amount of variation in the way the gold is used, do you have the champion simply max out his own weapons and armour or do you have him buy weapons or shields for his team mates to spread it around a bit more.
 
2 hours is an EXTREMELY LONG amount of time to play, comparing to the very large majority of competitive online games out there. The duration on these can't be that long for many reasons, among some of the most important being not having tournaments / leagues take too long (you can maximize the amount of matches played in a certain timeline the shorter the duration is, and 12 rounds seems absolutely fine to play), and ensuring that all of a roster is available from beggining to the end for the sake of consistency and competitiveness, bar extreme circumstances.
 
@Rich: Firstly, I'd like to thank you for making a post outlining your opinions and reasoning.

Though there are a number of things I want to clarify on my part and question on yours.

The first problem is that you have treated "Class Limits" and "Player Number" as separate points. I have stated that class limits are totally off the table at 10vs10 and would only be introduced if there is a move to 8vs8. The reason for this is that I personally think, on certain maps, that the balance of classes shifts too far (example being Vaegirs on Snowy Village). What I would say is that I think the cap of 3 is too harsh. I had only suggested it initially but thinking about it, a cap of 4 per class would be better in my opinion.

I'd also contest your point that archers and cavalry double up as effective infantry. Any infantryman worth his salt will tell you that's plain crap. Here are the stats for the troops (some might be a little off since this is based on 1.134 but I don't think there have been any major changes):

TroopLvlStrIrnP StrP DrwP ThrRidAthShdHs AW. Profs
5620582193_07207bc789_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
Khergit Horse Archer21140050632580  ,80  ,80  ,150,60  ,100
Khergit Lancer211432036521115,115,115,115,115,115

TroopLvlStrIrnP StrP DrwP ThrRidAthShdHs AW. Profs
5620582193_07207bc789_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
Nord Archer15112250142090  ,90  ,90  ,150,60  ,80
Nord Huscarl241445041630110,135,100,40  ,60  ,140
Nord Scout191422036312105,105,105,105,105,105

TroopLvlStrIrnP StrP DrwP ThrRidAthShdHs AW. Profs
5620582193_07207bc789_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
Rhodok Crossbowman201422001520100,100,100,60  ,180,90 
Rhodok Sergeant201444011650110,100,140,30  ,50  ,110
Rhodok Horseman201432014320100,100,100,100,100,100

TroopLvlStrIrnP StrP DrwP ThrRidAthShdHs AW. Profs
5620582193_07207bc789_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
Sarranid Archer19122050152080  ,80  ,80  ,150,60  ,80 
Sarranid Footman191243031620110,100,130,30  ,50  ,120
Sarranid Mamluke191432025030110,110,110,90  ,60  ,110

TroopLvlStrIrnP StrP DrwP ThrRidAthShdHs AW. Profs
5620582193_07207bc789_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
Swadian Crossbowman19142200155090  ,90  ,90  ,60  ,180,90
Swadian Infantry201454021640105,130,110,40  ,60  ,110
Swadian Man at Arms201433025320130,110,120,?    ,?    ,?   

TroopLvlStrIrnP StrP DrwP ThrRidAthShdHs AW. Profs
5620582193_07207bc789_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
5621140148_36b6ed98d2_o.png
Vaegir Archer19122060142080  ,80  ,80  ,150,60  ,80 
Vaegir Spearman191243031620110,100,130,30  ,50  ,120
Vaegir Horseman191432025030110,110,110,90  ,60  ,110

As for whether class limits make it boring... I suppose it comes down to opinion in a sense. For my part, I don't think it's made the 5 a side tournament at all boring. In fact I've found it extremely interesting having to make use of all of the classes in every situation and at such low numbers, you really have to make every player count. There's no genuine logical pathway in saying that fewer options makes something more boring. Say, for instance (this is just an analogy), that there was another game like Warband but every faction had a class which could fire deathlasers, 1000 a minute. Now since this would be extremely powerful, annihilating every other class with ease, battles would soon turn into a deathlaser vs deathlaser fest. However that game that we know and love is still existing underneath and if we just limited the deathlasers, it would be a whole lot more interesting.

Now I don't happen to think (as others do) that archers are particularly overpowered, certainly not at 10vs10. However, as the number of players decreases, so too in my opinion does the strength of archers. That's why along with my advocation of 8vs8 (for entirely separate reasons), I would be in favour of adding some class limitations. As just mentioned, I think 4 per class would be an appropriate number.

Enforcing isn't a problem, it would be done within the ENL Admin Mod. That point has been covered.



Onto round number. Well I completely disagree with all your suggestions here.

-Firstly the idea that a default win should be given after 15 rounds won. Round difference can count for a lot in these Divisions and teams should be able to fight for every round should they choose. I could go into more detail and give examples detailing why this suggestion just makes no sense at all but honestly, I would guess you haven't really thought about it and for me to dismantle it isn't worthwhile.

-Your "main complaint" I just don't see as valid. I don't see the need to have a number of rounds which is particularly forgiving for teams that take a while to get going. I actually think shorter more intense affairs would be overall much more enjoyable and if a team goes into a match with a lot of preparation and strong start, all the best to them.

-As for just playing one map... well I don't see switching as a major issue, nor do I have any intention of changing the "one open map, one closed map" formula. I see it as integral to having an interesting, fair and competitive match.



I touched on Player Number, when I was explaining my reasoning behind class limits.

You make two separate points here and I'll address them both as such. The first being "more people get to play, which is good for larger clan".

Well I've alluded to this already but since you missed it, I'll be more explicit. I am against the idea of large clans. I think it's unhealthy for the community. Having smaller, tighter knit clans/teams, I believe is a better way to increase competition, standard of play and overall activity (less players per team > more teams). A large organisation, active recruitment culture has developed in the Warband scene and whilst I understand it's something a lot of people like, I don't think it does the community any favours as a whole. It might sound a little brutal but that's simply my opinion.

Your second point, concerning the balance of overall strategy vs individual player skill, again comes down to opinion. I don't think the sort of tactics that apply in Warband are significantly more applicable to 10vs10 than 8vs8. That's just speaking from experience. I'd go further in saying that I think teamwork in Warband largely takes place on an individual basis, that is to say that skilled individuals will see opportunities to support their teammates and cooperate on an instinctive level, rather than groups of players en masse executed will rehearsed plans.

I think a bit of the latter goes on but either way, I don't think its presence would diminish should the move be made to 8vs8 and I certainly don't think so of the former.



As for combat bonus, well I personally haven't advocated any sort of change on the front but your idea seems way too invasive. Certainly a lot more so than class limits.
 
HarkonHakoon said:
2 hours is an EXTREMELY LONG amount of time to play, comparing to the very large majority of competitive online games out there. The duration on these can't be that long for many reasons, among some of the most important being not having tournaments / leagues take too long (you can maximize the amount of matches played in a certain timeline the shorter the duration is, and 12 rounds seems absolutely fine to play), and ensuring that all of a roster is available from beggining to the end for the sake of consistency and competitiveness, bar extreme circumstances.
This. The 5 rounds per swap and 2 maps was something I used in the first large Warband tournament (Nations Cup), simply because this was the standard in most FPS games and thus also the most obvious choice for a league of a new game. Warband however isn't your average FPS as the rounds last longer and is not as fast-pased as a regular FPS.

The main problem is: it requires quite a lot of time of people, as there's usually a warm up time, preparation time and breaks during the match itself, this can add up to about 2 hours of non-stop playing. In CoRs case we usually have just 10 players for the ENL matches, so it isn't as simple as 'If you can't play 2 hours non-stop, just get a substitute' when someone wants a break. But why do we still manage to play the full 20 rounds when we have just 10 players, no reserves? Because noone wants to let the team down. But this doesn't mean the long match times aren't a problem and inconvient.
 
captain lust said:
The first problem is that you have treated "Class Limits" and "Player Number" as separate points. I have stated that class limits are totally off the table at 10vs10 and would only be introduced if there is a move to 8vs8. The reason for this is that I personally think, on certain maps, that the balance of classes shifts too far (example being Vaegirs on Snowy Village). What I would say is that I think the cap of 3 is too harsh. I had only suggested it initially but thinking about it, a cap of 4 per class would be better in my opinion.

As for whether class limits make it boring... I suppose it comes down to opinion in a sense. For my part, I don't think it's made the 5 a side tournament at all boring. In fact I've found it extremely interesting having to make use of all of the classes in every situation and at such low numbers, you really have to make every player count. There's no genuine logical pathway in saying that fewer options makes something more boring. Say, for instance (this is just an analogy), that there was another game like Warband but every faction had a class which could fire deathlasers, 1000 a minute. Now since this would be extremely powerful, annihilating every other class with ease, battles would soon turn into a deathlaser vs deathlaser fest. However that game that we know and love is still existing underneath and if we just limited the deathlasers, it would be a whole lot more interesting.

Firstly, the whole balance of class shifting too far is a load of complete and utter bull. If a team is going to use 6 archers in a team of 8 and its their only way of actually winning rounds, if it works, why stop that? It is a tactic to be used! It makes things far more interesting and obviously if a team specialises in archery, they will use it to great effect. Yes, the opposition WILL hate that! But its up to them to react to that. This is the same point with using mass cavalry or infantry. At no point have clans really complained to the extent that a large majority wish to have a cap in the past, so why change that?

You seem to base your reasons of class limits of the 5-a-side tournament. 5 players on each team doesn't really resemble what you could actually do with a larger amount of players on each team. Like I've said, tactics become more diverse when there are more players. But the thing is, because of the caps, you are pretty much restricting to what clans can actually do! Because of this teams will end up using the same tactics, it becomes predictable... basically, this means boring.

captain lust said:
Onto round number. Well I completely disagree with all your suggestions here.

-Firstly the idea that a default win should be given after 15 rounds won. Round difference can count for a lot in these Divisions and teams should be able to fight for every round should they choose. I could go into more detail and give examples detailing why this suggestion just makes no sense at all but honestly, I would guess you haven't really thought about it and for me to dismantle it isn't worthwhile.

Hey, you're the one saying that matches "last too long" and that others would rather not sit through the whole match if its a 20-0 or 19-1.

In football, they play the full 90 minutes, regardless of the score. Whether its 0-0 or 11-0 and only 70 minutes played, both teams will play the full 90 minutes until the whistle has blown.

This is when having more players in a clan is useful, so not so players have to sit in for the whole 20 rounds if they don't want to! You can change and switch players after 5 or 10 rounds.
captain lust said:
I touched on Player Number, when I was explaining my reasoning behind class limits.

You make two separate points here and I'll address them both as such. The first being "more people get to play, which is good for larger clan".

Well I've alluded to this already but since you missed it, I'll be more explicit. I am against the idea of large clans. I think it's unhealthy for the community. Having smaller, tighter knit clans/teams, I believe is a better way to increase competition, standard of play and overall activity (less players per team > more teams). A large organisation, active recruitment culture has developed in the Warband scene and whilst I understand it's something a lot of people like, I don't think it does the community any favours as a whole. It might sound a little brutal but that's simply my opinion.

Pff, large clans unhealthy?? Its not skill or competitiveness that creates and holds a clan, (Maybe for yours, whatever floats your boat) but its down to each player actually wanting to play and actually knowing your clan mates, and just having fun basically. It creates a clan harmony. Hell we have 30+ in our clan, but we have 70+ in our community to do other things like play mods in warband and other games. If anything it actually benefits clans, keeping them together.

Since I've said that, you'll probably mention the likes on RNGD and FF (Again...-.-) but look at other clans who have formed, joined and possibly left! Having a small clan or one which is based around competitiveness and only that leads to clans falling in the near future. (That doesn't mean RNGD or FF will do.)

captain lust said:
Your second point, concerning the balance of overall strategy vs individual player skill, again comes down to opinion. I don't think the sort of tactics that apply in Warband are significantly more applicable to 10vs10 than 8vs8. That's just speaking from experience. I'd go further in saying that I think teamwork in Warband largely takes place on an individual basis, that is to say that skilled individuals will see opportunities to support their teammates and cooperate on an instinctive level, rather than groups of players en masse executed will rehearsed plans.

Have I just read this? So you believe individual skill is down to team work without rehearsing or actually working on it? You think it just comes "instinctively"? So you would put 2 players who have never been in a clan before, barely have a grasp on teamwork and tell them to get on with it. The chances are that they wouldn't do as well as they should do, they are both in the mind set of "must get the kill" and would even hit their own team mates to make sure they do so!

God you say Warband largely takes place on an individual basis, you might as well say "right, its a 10v10, pair up and duel. the most wins from either team wins." A load of crap tbh.
 
Stuboi0 said:
captain lust said:
I'd go further in saying that I think teamwork in Warband largely takes place on an individual basis, that is to say that skilled individuals will see opportunities to support their teammates and cooperate on an instinctive level, rather than groups of players en masse executed will rehearsed plans.

Have I just read this? So you believe individual skill is down to team work without rehearsing or actually working on it? You think it just comes "instinctively"? So you would put 2 players who have never been in a clan before, barely have a grasp on teamwork and tell them to get on with it. The chances are that they wouldn't do as well as they should do, they are both in the mind set of "must get the kill" and would even hit their own team mates to make sure they do so!

God you say Warband largely takes place on an individual basis, you might as well say "right, its a 10v10, pair up and duel. the most wins from either team wins." A load of crap tbh.

Way to miss the point completely. Skill covers a lot more than the ability to duel.

E.g. A skilled archer will know which shots are the most important to his team, whether that's shooting the person right in front of him, shooting down the enemy horse or shooting the guy who's just kicked your friend before he can take his head off. They will also know where the best vantage points are in most maps and head for them instinctively.

A skilled infantry player will know how his movement/attacks affect his team. They won't go blindly charging in, and they won't leave someone in battle to die. They'll help block attacks, arrows and even swap opponents with them without being told to.

A skilled cavalry player doesn't need to be told where to go, he'll shadow the party that is most likely to need his support, will knock opponents over or stab them in the back without being told to... all to help the team not themselves.

How do I know this. UK 1 doesn't drill tactics.
 
So you basically read what I wrote, totally misunderstood all of it and added 2+2 to get 11.

Stuboi0 said:
captain lust said:
The first problem is that you have treated "Class Limits" and "Player Number" as separate points. I have stated that class limits are totally off the table at 10vs10 and would only be introduced if there is a move to 8vs8. The reason for this is that I personally think, on certain maps, that the balance of classes shifts too far (example being Vaegirs on Snowy Village). What I would say is that I think the cap of 3 is too harsh. I had only suggested it initially but thinking about it, a cap of 4 per class would be better in my opinion.

As for whether class limits make it boring... I suppose it comes down to opinion in a sense. For my part, I don't think it's made the 5 a side tournament at all boring. In fact I've found it extremely interesting having to make use of all of the classes in every situation and at such low numbers, you really have to make every player count. There's no genuine logical pathway in saying that fewer options makes something more boring. Say, for instance (this is just an analogy), that there was another game like Warband but every faction had a class which could fire deathlasers, 1000 a minute. Now since this would be extremely powerful, annihilating every other class with ease, battles would soon turn into a deathlaser vs deathlaser fest. However that game that we know and love is still existing underneath and if we just limited the deathlasers, it would be a whole lot more interesting.

Firstly, the whole balance of class shifting too far is a load of complete and utter bull. If a team is going to use 6 archers in a team of 8 and its their only way of actually winning rounds, if it works, why stop that? It is a tactic to be used! It makes things far more interesting and obviously if a team specialises in archery, they will use it to great effect. Yes, the opposition WILL hate that! But its up to them to react to that. This is the same point with using mass cavalry or infantry. At no point have clans really complained to the extent that a large majority wish to have a cap in the past, so why change that?
The reason I suggest limiting it is for the exact reason you argue against it. To make things more interesting. This isn't a case of teams specialising in certain classes, it's a case of map and faction set ups giving too much weight to certain classes (at 8vs:cool:. Adding class restrictions just forces teams to think differently instead of allowing matches to turn into shootouts/dogfights. Restricting class/weapon choice is no revolution in competitive gaming. Since I don't expect you'll be convinced with words, I'd say wait until the time comes around for the planned tournament and make your mind up about it then. Right now you just seem angry and change-fearing.

Stuboi0 said:
You seem to base your reasons of class limits of the 5-a-side tournament. 5 players on each team doesn't really resemble what you could actually do with a larger amount of players on each team. Like I've said, tactics become more diverse when there are more players. But the thing is, because of the caps, you are pretty much restricting to what clans can actually do! Because of this teams will end up using the same tactics, it becomes predictable... basically, this means boring.
That's an assertion you're making with no real logical grounds and one which I doubt. Very much.

Stuboi0 said:
captain lust said:
Onto round number. Well I completely disagree with all your suggestions here.

-Firstly the idea that a default win should be given after 15 rounds won. Round difference can count for a lot in these Divisions and teams should be able to fight for every round should they choose. I could go into more detail and give examples detailing why this suggestion just makes no sense at all but honestly, I would guess you haven't really thought about it and for me to dismantle it isn't worthwhile.

Hey, you're the one saying that matches "last too long" and that others would rather not sit through the whole match if its a 20-0 or 19-1.
And what's that got to do with the reason I gave for finishing a match after 15 rounds being ridiculous?

Stuboi0 said:
In football, they play the full 90 minutes, regardless of the score. Whether its 0-0 or 11-0 and only 70 minutes played, both teams will play the full 90 minutes until the whistle has blown.

This is when having more players in a clan is useful, so not so players have to sit in for the whole 20 rounds if they don't want to! You can change and switch players after 5 or 10 rounds.
Again, what's your point? I'm saying the total number of rounds for a match should be reduced to 12. I fully agree that all of those rounds should be played, which is exactly why I was disagreeing with Rich.

Stuboi0 said:
captain lust said:
I touched on Player Number, when I was explaining my reasoning behind class limits.

You make two separate points here and I'll address them both as such. The first being "more people get to play, which is good for larger clan".

Well I've alluded to this already but since you missed it, I'll be more explicit. I am against the idea of large clans. I think it's unhealthy for the community. Having smaller, tighter knit clans/teams, I believe is a better way to increase competition, standard of play and overall activity (less players per team > more teams). A large organisation, active recruitment culture has developed in the Warband scene and whilst I understand it's something a lot of people like, I don't think it does the community any favours as a whole. It might sound a little brutal but that's simply my opinion.

Pff, large clans unhealthy?? Its not skill or competitiveness that creates and holds a clan, (Maybe for yours, whatever floats your boat) but its down to each player actually wanting to play and actually knowing your clan mates, and just having fun basically. It creates a clan harmony. Hell we have 30+ in our clan, but we have 70+ in our community to do other things like play mods in warband and other games. If anything it actually benefits clans, keeping them together.

Since I've said that, you'll probably mention the likes on RNGD and FF (Again...-.-) but look at other clans who have formed, joined and possibly left! Having a small clan or one which is based around competitiveness and only that leads to clans falling in the near future. (That doesn't mean RNGD or FF will do.)
I don't think large clans create a closer bond. If anything, I think they do the opposite. I also refute your assumption that I'm suggesting clans should just be held together by competitivity. I have experience playing in lots of different Warband teams and personally I find there's a better harmony (both in the game and out) with a smaller group of active players.

As for the community in general, I think having lots of small teams rather than fewer, larger ones would certainly spice things up a lot. Results would be much less predictable and there would be a lot more opportunity for new clans to emerge and develop faster.

Stuboi0 said:
captain lust said:
Your second point, concerning the balance of overall strategy vs individual player skill, again comes down to opinion. I don't think the sort of tactics that apply in Warband are significantly more applicable to 10vs10 than 8vs8. That's just speaking from experience. I'd go further in saying that I think teamwork in Warband largely takes place on an individual basis, that is to say that skilled individuals will see opportunities to support their teammates and cooperate on an instinctive level, rather than groups of players en masse executed will rehearsed plans.

Have I just read this? So you believe individual skill is down to team work without rehearsing or actually working on it? You think it just comes "instinctively"? So you would put 2 players who have never been in a clan before, barely have a grasp on teamwork and tell them to get on with it. The chances are that they wouldn't do as well as they should do, they are both in the mind set of "must get the kill" and would even hit their own team mates to make sure they do so!

God you say Warband largely takes place on an individual basis, you might as well say "right, its a 10v10, pair up and duel. the most wins from either team wins." A load of crap tbh.
Here, you totally misunderstood what I was saying. When Rich was talking about "strategy or tactics", I am assuming he meant that having more players means the match is decided more by the way a team operates as a whole, rather than the ability of individuals to kill the opposing team.

My point was that individuals don't just act as drones looking to kill the opponents, who take orders from the battle leader like it's some kind of RTS. Individuals in Warband (certainly good players) will look at a situation, assess the best way to aid their teammates or enable their teammates to aid them and act in ways to make those things happen. If they do get an order, they don't simply just follow that order to the letter... they understand the concept and meaning of that order within the context of the situation. That's what I mean by instinct (perhaps not the best word to have used) and it's that often unspoken (though also often spoken) communication and mutual understanding that teams get from playing lots of matches or just kicking it together in a public server.

Basically, what crazyboy said. Just in additon, that all gets lubricated the more a set of players plays together. Especially in UK I, where we regularly grease up and get stuck in.
 
So next ENL will be 8 vs 8, 4*3 rounds, with class restrictions? Hmm nice! Can we also have some garbage for dinner please? Seems like ENL coupling with 5-a-side Nations stuff and getting an akward kid.

8 vs 8 rule : To some extent, the less players you put in a team the less tactical the game is. And also less people play. Which futures for the 4 noobest guys of these 10 vs 10 matches? A clan is more than 8 uberpros players trying to win a league.

4*3 rounds : Matches will be one hour of organization for 45 minutes of game, and each round will be so important, that teams will camp flags even more. I agree matches are too long, but you are cutting through them way too much, and not in the appropriate manner. The famous 2-hours-matches happen when both teams camp flags the whole 20 rounds, so it is the flag timer thingy that we should discuss. Also 1h30 of real match is more valuable than 1h of flag camping.

Class restrictions :
The more you put class restrictions the more you diminish the differences between factions and maps.
So if it is Nords playing in Nord Town, you must go with 3 cavs even if you dont want it? Class restrictions are defined for each map?
If some commander wants to go cav spam trololol to surprise his enemy right in the middle of a match, he cant because it is forbidden? I suggest you also set up rules like no more than a hammer, no more than two pikes, no more than 3 javs, 2 shields turtling forbidden, cause they also make things disproportional, unsymetrical and uneven.

I think the vast majority of players are against class restrictions.
 
I`ll be captain Obvious for a few seconds and make this post.

This is their league,and experimenting is fine (thats what my mother said before sending me off to uni) which is what Lust is suggesting here isnt it?

That being said *Takes off cape and goggles*
I dont like class restrictions either,for reasons already being covered in this thread.
 
arsenic_vengeur said:
8 vs 8 rule : To some extent, the less players you put in a team the less tactical the game is. And also less people play. Which futures for the 4 noobest guys of these 10 vs 10 matches? A clan is more than 8 uberpros players trying to win a league.
I really dislike the idea of 10v10, mostly because clans got adapted to 10v10 tactics and I think we should just continue with that.

arsenic_vengeur said:
4*3 rounds : Matches will be one hour of organization for 45 minutes of game, and each round will be so important, that teams will camp flags even more. I agree matches are too long, but you are cutting through them way too much, and not in the appropriate manner. The famous 2-hours-matches happen when both teams camp flags the whole 20 rounds, so it is the flag timer thingy that we should discuss. Also 1h30 of real match is more valuable than 1h of flag camping.
Organisation doesn't take THAT much time. Surely training and warming up before the match can take some time, but that's part of it if you want to perform and that can be fun too. Besides, 45 minutes of game is still quite a lot and way more decent then the 2 hours it's now. I do agree on your flag point though, it's still a factor of luck and it's pretty gay.

arsenic_vengeur said:
Class restrictions :
The more you put class restrictions the more you diminish the differences between factions and maps.
So if it is Nords playing in Nord Town, you must go with 3 cavs even if you dont want it? Class restrictions are defined for each map?
If some commander wants to go cav spam trololol to surprise his enemy right in the middle of a match, he cant because it is forbidden? I suggest you also set up rules like no more than a hammer, no more than two pikes, no more than 3 javs, 2 shields turtling forbidden, cause they also make things disproportional, unsymetrical and uneven.
I also dislike the idea of class restrictions a lot, because assigning classes is a huge part of the strategy. Go with 8 infantry with all throwing weapons to rush their archers, go with loads of cavalry to dominate the open fields to allow your archers better shooting positions, spam archers to skirmish, they're all tactics and in the end the real winner of the ENL will be who can use or counter any tactic on any map. Against RRush we, CoR, failed because we played maps that favoured their skirmishing skills and they took loads of archers to do this tactic, does this mean the rules are unfair because we might have won on other maps? No, it means we should focus on training countering the tactics for the next league. Classes are a huge part of strategy, I do not want to see them restricted.

Summarized: I disagree with some of the new rules, but this is not my league and so it's not my choice. It can however be my own choice to not participate in the next league if the rules are too messed up to my own liking.
 
I agree absolutely with marcus' and archers latest posts!

All in all:

8 vs. 8 - NO

12 rounds - okay but for me not necessary

Class restrictions - NO NO NO NO NO NO
 
I pretty much completely agree with Marcus, except that I'd go further and no restrictions at all to anything class related, too many restrictions and some clans are bound to forget things in the heat of a match, what happens then?

I'd agree matches could be shorter though.

As Archer says, I disagree with some of the rules.

Edit: I'd also keep it 10 v 10 as that is what clans have got used too, if it were up to me I'd even say 12v12, but I appreciate that many clans don't have alot of active players.
 
arsenic_vengeur said:
And also less people play. Which futures for the 4 noobest guys of these 10 vs 10 matches? A clan is more than 8 uberpros players trying to win a league.
That's not true. If those people happen to form an own team (and not necessarily found a new clan) there are even more players playing. Flust emphasised that teams are participating in the ENL and not clans - 8vs8 could promote this distinction to really have an impact.

arsenic_vengeur said:
So if it is Nords playing in Nord Town, you must go with 3 cavs even if you dont want it?
No. Even with a 3 per class-limit (and Flust mentioned that he's thinking more along the line of 4), you'd only need to use 2 cavs. With a limit of 4 you wouldn't need to use any at all.
arsenic_vengeur said:
I think the vast majority of players are against class restrictions.
Who knows? And who knows how many would be against it if they actually read what Flust wrote - or gave it at least a try (I think Flust also wrote something about testing it in some sort of tournament after this cycle - evaluation in a broader sense (along with reports like spainer's about their match against AB with class-restrictions) seems a bit more meaningful than being against it without any reasonable cause).
Lord_David said:
I pretty much completely agree with Marcus, except that I'd go further and no restrictions at all to anything class related, too many restrictions and some clans are bound to forget things in the heat of a match, what happens then?
captain lust said:
Enforcing isn't a problem, it would be done within the ENL Admin Mod. That point has been covered.

Arch3r said:
I also dislike the idea of class restrictions a lot, because assigning classes is a huge part of the strategy. Go with 8 infantry with all throwing weapons to rush their archers, go with loads of cavalry to dominate the open fields to allow your archers better shooting positions, spam archers to skirmish, they're all tactics and in the end the real winner of the ENL will be who can use or counter any tactic on any map.
You wouldn't need to counter archer-spam with infantry-spam (and call it "tactic"). It also would be pretty short-sighted to think that class-restrictions (in Flust's sense) would make tactical considerations concerning classes less necessary - especially since the class-distribution isn't as rigid as some seem to think it would be (if it would be 5:5:5 there literally wouldn't be any difference to the situation in most matches right now).

The occasional "all go naked-cav" is in most cases not a tactical decision anyway.

Flust seems to hope, with his considerations about those - hypothetical - rule-changes (including the class-restrictions), to reach that the Warband-scene will become more competitive/professional (in the sense of the ESL), where the individual players will have more impact on the result of a match (and team-members hardly change over the course of one season). This is in my opinion delusional as far as Warband is concerned but may initiate a development in that direction for the time M&B2 comes out - whether one appreciates such a (possible) development or not is not really of concern right now but could be considered before rejecting all those considerations on the basis of the present situation.
 
Lord_David said:
Edit: I'd also keep it 10 v 10 as that is what clans have got used too
I fail to accept this as a legitimate factor. For a long time, 8vs8 was the standard, ENPL came along and we played 12vs12. The 2011 Nations Cup and ENL solidified 10vs10 as the standard but I don't see why clans/teams would have a hard time adapting as it never seemed much of a problem before.

ModusTollens said:
Flust seems to hope, with his considerations about those - hypothetical - rule-changes (including the class-restrictions), to reach that the Warband-scene will become more competitive/professional (in the sense of the ESL), where the individual players will have more impact on the result of a match (and team-members hardly change over the course of one season). This is in my opinion delusional as far as Warband is concerned but may initiate a development in that direction for the time M&B2 comes out - whether one appreciates such a (possible) development or not is not really of concern right now but could be considered before rejecting all those considerations on the basis of the present situation.
Essentially this is it. I mean, I don't like to think of everything we're doing right now as some sort of preparation for M&B2 but when it does come around, I certainly think it's in our interests to have adopted a ruleset which is competitively viable.
 
Ah ye, I stand corrected, the first Nations Cup was 8v8 not 10v10. Anyways, I'm willing to try 8v8 but I really see no use in class restrictions...Hm...although ranged spam is kinda gay, I'll agree on that.
 
Back
Top Bottom