At some point during the time I was the most active, I peaked at around 90h / two weeks. That's 45h / week, which translates to a full time job in time (note: I was on quarantine due to sickness, hence why I had so much time ). At that specific point in time, my skill also peaked because I got consistent in the way I played. There's not a single player in Warband to have had that amount of playingtime consistently since release! And even if a player had that much time, how much of it would be 'efficent' playing?
I was in CoR after 500 hours of warband. I joined AE at around 1000-1500 hours. At 2000-2500 I was arguably considered one of the best cavalry in the scene and by far the best Swedish player. SikiciOttoman for a fact played more than 90h so saying you're the most consistent without even backing it up is just an unnecessary claim lol
How do you know i played more than 90h/2weeks? If you do rely on steam stats.My pc was open 24/7 and most of times game was open also.
I admit i was playing more than 6H some day but not everyday.And that was untill summer 2011 (RN rip 2011 july).
You should talk about you and your clan also,how much time were you spending for being best clan/cavalry while most of strongest clan were inactives.
I joined RN after 100-150H btw.When we met eachother in game we had approximatively same amount of hours Shemaforash iirc.
This discuss is useless i know but i had to answer.
I think it's a numbers game. It is sort of the small pond syndrome you would see before the internet was a thing. You may be king of your local scene, but once the pool of players open up, you end up getting put in your place. I think fighting games may be a good analogy on this as the scene seemed to be very local based, but the people that would win the big get togethers always seemed to be from a large city where they would have more people in the competitive pool.
The MOBA/CS/RTS scene is just another world compared to warband, the player pool is world wide and exponentially bigger, and with money on the line, opening another level of competitiveness that really isn't on the table for warband.
So, it may be that some of the current or past warband top players really could end up being the best, it is just that the player pool is so small it is has never really been a valid test.
In all honesty, I don't think warband as a game would hold up to that level of exploitation, it would need a dev team watching and reacting to problems. I imagine every 'win' tactic done to 100% efficiently and consistency, I don't think it would be very pretty. Again I know people work at that now its just, imagine a pool of 1 million plus people working at it.
As I was once told by a man of the bog, "It's not about the hours you have, it's about how you use them."
Player A gets Warband and plays it, let's say, five hours a day. Two of these hours each day are spent on SP, two more of these are spent on Siege and the final hour is spent on IG_BG. After a year, this player has 365 hours on IG, 730 on SP and 730 on Siege - his total hours are now 1825.
Player B gets the game because he's interested in the competitive scene, he also plays five hours a day. He spends all five of these hours on IG_BG, so he's got 1825 total hours.
SP doesn't require blocking to succeed - fill your army with Swadian Knights and win - so let's give it a skill modifier of 0.002x per hour (after one year this gives 1.46x base level). Now onto Siege; the level here is also low however blocking is still utilised, albeit to a far lesser extent - skill modifier here is 0.004x per hour (after one year this gives 2.92x base level). Playing on IG, in contrast, exposes you to players of all skill levels; one moment you're fighting someone new to the game and the next you're fighting some sick inf from a top team. This variety constantly forces you to adapt and the exposure to said high level players influences how you play and you find yourself copying them in order to increase your skill level - thus the skill modifier here is 0.010x per hour.
Player A's skill modifiers are:
1.46x from SP
2.92x from Siege
3.65 from IG
Because skill is accumulative they are added = 8.03x base level after one year.
Player B's skill modifiers are:
18.25x from IG
= 18.25x base level after one year.
I know that using calculations like this is inaccurate for factors such as: different people develop at different rates, a person may not care about getting better and so ignore why they die or not try to copy the better players and that it also depends who is on each server at a given time and who the come into contact with.
The purpose is not to try and accurately work out how much a player has improved (I've played 800 or so hours on IG and I'm definitely more 9x better than I was when I first started, which is the number my above calculations would give me), the purpose is only to show how depending on how a player spends their hours affects their skill most.
If a player starts to play a game with the intention of joining the competitive scene (as is the case with a number of new players of other E-Sports), then they're going to spend their time trying to improve. With Warband, I know nobody that started playing so that they could join the competitive scene, it just isn't what's supported by the game - the competitive side is poorly advertised by TW (yes for NC it was, and you know what, there were record numbers of viewers on some of the games there, I think one stream hit 400?) and so people don't start playing because they're interested in the competitive scene or want to join it. I started playing because in 2012 because it was like Total War in first person. I stopped playing for over a year until I downloaded the FI2 mod, I joined a clan on there and after a while found myself in LGN46, who later joined WNL4 and from there I've gotten involved with the competitive scene. My motivation to play wasn't to improve, for 1k of my hours I was killing bots on the Invasion mode, where skill isn't really required, and I know for a fact I didn't focus on getting better because there was no need to.
The top level is increasing in terms of skill, undoubtedly, as you can see when top teams from the past come back and are unable to be considered top teams again, however you can also say that the level is increasing incredibly slowly because there is no need for the current top players to spend huge amounts of time improving. A current top player can not play for a few weeks, do a little warmup before a match and see only a small dip in their skill level, yet they'd still be at a level considered incredibly high. This is because there is no real need to improve a huge amount; that example player didn't have to spend a few days getting back on form because the other players are so sharp that he wasn't able to compete with them while rusty, rather that his level was still considered very high.
The AE team don't need to go nolifing on IG_BG 10h a day desperately trying to increase their skill, tryharding the entire time that their on there because they need to get better to face against a top team. Instead, they're already a top team and they could spend 2h a day playing and come match time they'd still be considered a top team. Of course, in CS:GO this may also be the case; let's say we have two top teams that are at exactly the same level - team X and team Y. Team X play 2h a day each, team Y play 5h a day each and the two teams have a match each weekend. The first weekend there would not be any real notable difference, the same for the first few weeks, but after a while it will get to a point where Team Y has developed a lot more than Team X and so Team Y will be able to consistently get more favourable results against Team X after a month or two.
It simply isn't necessary for already top teams to play for huge amounts of time, because they're already there and the other top teams are also already there and so there is no need for any of them to play so much to get better than their competitors. The incentive isn't there, or they don't have the time. In other E-Sports, a team that doesn't have the time to play a huge amount consistently will quickly become obsolete and replaced by some new team that's playing 10h a day.
The incentive that would drive top players and teams to improve isn't really there - they're already equal to the other top teams, and there's not a huge reward that they need to play huge amounts for, so why bother?
While it isn't strictly tied to the skill level, another thing that you see from these other E-Sports are personal streamers. People streaming as they play, they get sponsors on their stream, they get huge viewerbases from the other competitive players that want to watch them play and such - or it's simply someone with a great personality, but generally with these games it's the top tier players that get lots of views on their stream. Streams can motivate players to get better, as you can see in things such as the Hearthstone streams. The top players are also the players that get lots of views on their stream and it can work both ways - either a streamer gets so many viewers that they can afford to stream full-time and as a result of this excessive playing their skill level increases a huge amount - or that a top player who is well known decides to stream and they get lots of viewers because they're so well known and lower tier players want to see how they play.
Just some food for thought.
If a player starts to play a game with the intention of joining the competitive scene (as is the case with a number of new players of other E-Sports), then they're going to spend their time trying to improve.
The top level is increasing in terms of skill, undoubtedly, as you can see when top teams from the past come back and are unable to be considered top teams again, however you can also say that the level is increasing incredibly slowly because there is no need for the current top players to spend huge amounts of time improving.
A current top player can not play for a few weeks, do a little warmup before a match and see only a small dip in their skill level, yet they'd still be at a level considered incredibly high.
The incentive that would drive top players and teams to improve isn't really there - they're already equal to the other top teams, and there's not a huge reward that they need to play huge amounts for, so why bother?
While it isn't strictly tied to the skill level, another thing that you see from these other E-Sports are personal streamers. People streaming as they play, they get sponsors on their stream, they get huge viewerbases from the other competitive players that want to watch them play and such - or it's simply someone with a great personality, but generally with these games it's the top tier players that get lots of views on their stream. Streams can motivate players to get better, as you can see in things such as the Hearthstone streams. The top players are also the players that get lots of views on their stream and it can work both ways - either a streamer gets so many viewers that they can afford to stream full-time and as a result of this excessive playing their skill level increases a huge amount - or that a top player who is well known decides to stream and they get lots of viewers because they're so well known and lower tier players want to see how they play.
Just some food for thought.
At some point during the time I was the most active, I peaked at around 90h / two weeks. That's 45h / week, which translates to a full time job in time (note: I was on quarantine due to sickness, hence why I had so much time ). At that specific point in time, my skill also peaked because I got consistent in the way I played. There's not a single player in Warband to have had that amount of playingtime consistently since release! And even if a player had that much time, how much of it would be 'efficent' playing?
I was in CoR after 500 hours of warband. I joined AE at around 1000-1500 hours. At 2000-2500 I was arguably considered one of the best cavalry in the scene and by far the best Swedish player. SikiciOttoman for a fact played more than 90h so saying you're the most consistent without even backing it up is just an unnecessary claim lol
How do you know i played more than 90h/2weeks? If you do rely on steam stats.My pc was open 24/7 and most of times game was open also.
I admit i was playing more than 6H some day but not everyday.And that was untill summer 2011 (RN rip 2011 july).
You should talk about you and your clan also,how much time were you spending for being best clan/cavalry while most of strongest clan were inactives.
I joined RN after 100-150H btw.When we met eachother in game we had approximatively same amount of hours Shemaforash iirc.
This discuss is useless i know but i had to answer.
At some point during the time I was the most active, I peaked at around 90h / two weeks. That's 45h / week, which translates to a full time job in time (note: I was on quarantine due to sickness, hence why I had so much time ). At that specific point in time, my skill also peaked because I got consistent in the way I played. There's not a single player in Warband to have had that amount of playingtime consistently since release! And even if a player had that much time, how much of it would be 'efficent' playing?
I was in CoR after 500 hours of warband. I joined AE at around 1000-1500 hours. At 2000-2500 I was arguably considered one of the best cavalry in the scene and by far the best Swedish player. SikiciOttoman for a fact played more than 90h so saying you're the most consistent without even backing it up is just an unnecessary claim lol
Just to make it clear:
What I mean is that nobody has been able to keep that amount of played hours / day for 3-4 years, so Warband has no (even remotely close) comparable player or team.
I didn't say I was the most consistent, I didn't claim to be 'the most consistent' either. I said I played consistent (considering that my skill often relates to how I feel on that given day, that says a lot). I've seen players with 1240h / two weeks, but that usually doesn't last long because, like always, life catches up eventually.
What I mean is that nobody has been able to keep that amount of played hours / day for 3-4 years, so Warband has no (even remotely close) comparable player or team.
This is nonsense. I mean plenty of pros in other games rise to the top within 1-2 years. If that wasn't the case, the games simply wouldn't be as competitive.
It's no good having a barrier to entry as high as 3-4 years of intense play because you will always lack high level teams and fail to encourage new talent. It's not sustainable.
Scarlett in SC2 was a top level player beating high level Koreans after 1 year of play.
Honestly, I think a lot of people are overstating the difference in level between our top tier and that of other games. The best point I've seen made is that other games have the advantage of much larger scenes with a greater number of high level teams. What this does is enable the meta to shift more rapidly, due to the increased competition (teams will naturally be experimenting more and forced to work harder) but I don't think the discrepancy in time spent is too great. Around 1.5-2x as I said. When you consider that, for a lot of players, much of this time will be spent mastering a second class to a high level, the actual level of play wouldn't look mind-blowingly different from what we see when Warband is played at its best.
The difference would be more confident and deliberate tactical changes from round to round, as well as better coordination on free hits. Perhaps archers and infantry would find efficient ways of communicating to synchronise support better - e.g. archers calling out targets to ready the inf for a free hit when the arrow stuns, better ways to keep tabs on the HP of opponents in order to aid decision-making.
There is ground to make in these areas but the idea that a current top player would be completely lost in a hypothetical professional Warband scene is not convincing to me.
Honestly, I think a lot of people are overstating the difference in level between our top tier and that of other games. The best point I've seen made is that other games have the advantage of much larger scenes with a greater number of high level teams. What this does is enable the meta to shift more rapidly, due to the increased competition (teams will naturally be experimenting more and forced to work harder) but I don't think the discrepancy in time spent is too great. Around 1.5-2x as I said. When you consider that, for a lot of players, much of this time will be spent mastering a second class to a high level, the actual level of play wouldn't look mind-blowingly different from what we see when Warband is played at its best.
I agree with most of this, I also think that increasing the size of the pool would simply lead to a more rapid change in meta. However I don't really understand why you think people would multi class more? I used to be a big proponent of it since it made team selection easier but now I am heavily against it and I think the number of people multi classing is a lot less now. People have a class they specialise in and put most of their efforts into, it's hard to stay top level otherwise.
I assume if people started spending twice as much time on the game and playing in more competitive leagues, this would only be exacerbated. There would also be little reason to have many multi-class players either unless the meta involved rapid shifts in class configuration; up to now that has not worked well, changing to a whack build generally falls on its face because people scout it and can then punish it heavily.
To answer the original question though, I think the top teams as they are would probably drop down a level, but that is assuming they had equal time to play as a theoretical new esports team (they aren't all composed of the highest end players but I assume they have at least some). If they didn't have the same play time expect them to become fourth rate. Players like Peter are pretty exceptional within the warband scene, so I think its reasonable to assume we have some players who are literally top level irrelevant of how big the scene is, although I am saying that assuming they had an equal chance to step up and play with the same amount of time and support.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
). At that specific point in time, my skill also peaked because I got consistent in the way I played. There's not a single player in Warband to have had that amount of playingtime consistently since release! And even if a player had that much time, how much of it would be 'efficent' playing?
