Herr Arch3r has a point. There's no need for 20 rounds to establish a winner anyways.
Troop | Lvl | Str | Irn | P Str | P Drw | P Thr | Rid | Ath | Shd | Hs A | W. Profs |
| |||||||||||
Khergit Horse Archer | 21 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 80 ,80 ,80 ,150,60 ,100 |
Khergit Lancer | 21 | 14 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 115,115,115,115,115,115 |
Troop | Lvl | Str | Irn | P Str | P Drw | P Thr | Rid | Ath | Shd | Hs A | W. Profs |
Nord Archer | 15 | 11 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 90 ,90 ,90 ,150,60 ,80 |
Nord Huscarl | 24 | 14 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 110,135,100,40 ,60 ,140 |
Nord Scout | 19 | 14 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 105,105,105,105,105,105 |
Troop | Lvl | Str | Irn | P Str | P Drw | P Thr | Rid | Ath | Shd | Hs A | W. Profs |
Rhodok Crossbowman | 20 | 14 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 100,100,100,60 ,180,90 |
Rhodok Sergeant | 20 | 14 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 0 | 110,100,140,30 ,50 ,110 |
Rhodok Horseman | 20 | 14 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 100,100,100,100,100,100 |
Troop | Lvl | Str | Irn | P Str | P Drw | P Thr | Rid | Ath | Shd | Hs A | W. Profs |
Sarranid Archer | 19 | 12 | 2 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 80 ,80 ,80 ,150,60 ,80 |
Sarranid Footman | 19 | 12 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 110,100,130,30 ,50 ,120 |
Sarranid Mamluke | 19 | 14 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 110,110,110,90 ,60 ,110 |
Troop | Lvl | Str | Irn | P Str | P Drw | P Thr | Rid | Ath | Shd | Hs A | W. Profs |
Swadian Crossbowman | 19 | 14 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 90 ,90 ,90 ,60 ,180,90 |
Swadian Infantry | 20 | 14 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 105,130,110,40 ,60 ,110 |
Swadian Man at Arms | 20 | 14 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 130,110,120,? ,? ,? |
Troop | Lvl | Str | Irn | P Str | P Drw | P Thr | Rid | Ath | Shd | Hs A | W. Profs |
Vaegir Archer | 19 | 12 | 2 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 80 ,80 ,80 ,150,60 ,80 |
Vaegir Spearman | 19 | 12 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 110,100,130,30 ,50 ,120 |
Vaegir Horseman | 19 | 14 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 110,110,110,90 ,60 ,110 |
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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: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?
That's an assertion you're making with no real logical grounds and one which I doubt. Very much.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.
And what's that got to do with the reason I gave for finishing a match after 15 rounds being ridiculous?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.
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: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.
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.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.)
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.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.
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: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.
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: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.
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.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.
Andrej1 said:I agree absolutely with marcus' and archers latest posts!
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: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.
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:So if it is Nords playing in Nord Town, you must go with 3 cavs even if you dont want it?
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).arsenic_vengeur said:I think the vast majority of players are against class restrictions.
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.
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).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.
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.Lord_David said:Edit: I'd also keep it 10 v 10 as that is what clans have got used too
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.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.