Where do we go from here?

Best answers
0
With the conclusion of another ENL cycle, I'm again wondering (like many of you) what can be improved. I've always wanted to see the community progress rather than stagnate and even though the ENL is a longstanding competition, I think it has driven progress throughout. Attitude has changed a lot since the ENL began and I'm proud of all its successes. But where do we go from here? I mean the situation isn't perfect. We're not massive scene with hundreds of competitive teams and thousands of dollars of prize money. That's certainly the situation I'd like us to be in... though I don't know if that's an opinion shared by everyone.

I have a number of views on the best way to progress from here and would like to hear everyone's thoughts on those. As long as they are well reasoned and constructive of course.

Match Format

The more I play and watch and think about the current match format, the clearer its imperfections become in my eyes.

The first problem of it is its suceptibility to map imbalance. As it stands, one map can render the other redundant if a team dominates on it. Likewise, a map can render itself almost redundant if it's particularly imbalanced. We've seen this before when a match has one map as Port Assault (for example) and the other as Field by the River (for example). Given the nature of Port Assault, it's very tricky to dominate on the map. Not impossible (nothing seems to be, in this game) but on average, scores on the map tend to be fairly close. However, Field by the River could allow a team a much better chance of getting a high score due to it's relatively balanced nature. Unless there is serious faction imbalance, then a team that wins on one side of the map could be expected to win on the other side.

This problem has been largely ignored arguably it isn't really a problem. It doesn't cause any inherent advantage to one team or another. It happens that one team might benefit on a case by case basis.

The second problem is watchability. As more matches are getting streamed and the interest is somewhat growing, it's frustrating to see how matches can seem to be over by the time the second map starts. One team might be left with a mountain to climb and with a near impossible task to pull back rounds due to a specific map and faction set up (this links back to the first problem). The level of uncertainty that makes anything interesting or entertaining to watch has been vanquished.

The third problem is the expectation of teams to play redundant rounds. In the ENL, these rounds aren't always redundant since round difference counts etc. but rounds are already an imperfect decider for separating teams and motivation to play after having lost in other competitions is rightfully lacking. There have also been suggestions that not playing such rounds is dishonourable. Something which I think is a shame because that really shouldn't be an issue and a respectful team that respectfully doesn't want to waste their time doesn't deserve criticism of that sort in my opinion. That's something that should be saved for rude and childish individuals of which, in this community, there are (thankfully) relatively few. In my opinion anyway. But sorry for waffling.

I think I had another problem to talk about but I'll edit it in, if I can remember it.

What I can remember is my proposal for a revised match format.

Like now, maps and factions would be predermined (the method is irrelevant but in any competitions I might run, they would probably be random). However, instead of two setups, you would have three. Closed, Mixed and Open.

As an example, these might be:

Closed: Sandiboush - Nords vs Sarranids
Mixed: Ruins - Rhodoks vs Sarranids
Open: Field by the River - Nords vs Swadia

From this point onwards, it's effectively the same system used in the NASTe competition. If you aren't familiar with that, I'll explain it below.

Team 1 would pick the first map to play. Say it was Ruins - Rhodoks vs Sarranids. This would be played in the same way as a map in the current format. Switching sides etc. (though it might need to be shorter) and you'd play until a team got over half the total rounds for that map. Say it was 6, you'd play until a team reached 4 or it got to 3-3, in which case the map would be a draw. Let's say that is the case and the first map is drawn. Then Team 2 picks the next map from the remaining two. Let's say it's Sandiboush - Nords vs Sarranids. Team 2 gets to 4 while the opponent is on 1, it ends at 4-1. Team 2 would then win and a third map would not need to played. The same would apply if a team had won both of the first two maps.

If however teams were a map each (or 0 maps each, 2 draws) then a third map would be played. This will always be the remaining map from the three that are given at the start and it would be played in exactly the same way (3 rounds a side, as proposed).

If there was a draw after that, you could simply continue swapping sides every round on the third map until one team went two ahead. This would be fair since it was the map neither team picked.

This system solves all of the above problems and means that there is no point where a team cannot win the match, before the match is finished. I propose that we switch entirely to a system of wins and losses, regardless of what happens to tournament formats. I have been thinking this would be a good idea for a long time (long before IG won the title) and that result had no bearing on my thoughts, nor do I intend for it to take away from their victory in any way.

Tournament Format

The ENL has been a great success, in my eyes (as I've already mentioned). However, I think now is the time for focus to shift elsewhere... Depending on interest, I actually think it might be a good idea to keep it going but really, I'd like to start pushing tournaments.

As it stands, though, mobility in the ENL is too low and new, strong teams shouldn't have to wait so long to compete at a top level. Infact, I don't think they should have to wait at all.

This isn't a regressive step, back to what we had with the ENPL or anything like that. I want these tournaments to be professional and fast affairs. 2 weeks and over.

Many of you may wince at the prospect of playing such a fast tournament but I say it's the best way of moving forward and I want to run a test tournament very soon to see how it works. I'm thinking single elimination with a scheduling system somewhat similar to that of Division C's but more rigid.

I'd also like to start thinking about somehow integrating prize money, even small amounts into these competitions. Cheating is an issue and the only real defence we have against that right now is the game itself and how cheating can never really be as devastating as it is in other games. Though it is a real issue and a key limiter to progress in this area. That's something I'm very concious of and I would say it's important any integration of money into these competitions is done properly to avoid it backfiring.

I'll take questions on this because there's not really much else to say. I know people will have concerns but I'd like to address them directly.

Khergits

Bring them on. We're going to try and push out a release for the ENL Admin Mod very soon, based on 1.153 and then I'll set up a platform for them to be tested. Additionally, any testing you want to do would be welcome. I don't want to apply arbitrary restrictions like (horse archers can't take horses) or anything. We've avoided doing that in the past and I think in doing so, we dodged a massive bullet. Messing with the game is a slippery slope and an all round bad idea for the time being. Personally, I'm gutted that jump reloading was "fixed" in the latest patch but that's something I'm just going to have to learn to suck it up and take it (no sniggering, please).

Fight and Destroy

I've talked about testing this for a long time. It's a game mode we never threw much at but I think it could be an incredible amount of fun. Once this release out (sorry about that, I wanted to postpone making this thread a few days but discussions were starting anyway) we'll get some testing done for that. With the right ruleset, I think it can work.



That's all I've got to say for now. Please post with your angry thoughts (and with your less angry ones... I feel like people forget to do that and it's not very helpful for getting an idea of overall reaction to these sorts of proposals).
 
Best answers
0
Wow... TL:grin:R:

I think we should switch to NASTe match rules but with predetermined map/faction setups for each map type (closed, mixed and open).

I think we should shift emphasis away from the ENL and start running individual tournaments that last a couple of weeks at the most.

Let's test Khergits out.

Let's also test Fight and Destroy.
 

Harkon Haakonson

I am woman, hear me roar!
Marquis
M&BWB
Best answers
0
captain lust said:
I think we should shift emphasis away from the ENL and start running individual tournaments that last a couple of weeks at the most.
Honestly, I think a league is more exciting and prestigious than just tournaments. When you win a tournament, you're done, but a League evolves, opponents shift Divisions, champions are dethroned... :smile:
 
Best answers
0
Harkon Haakonson said:
champions are dethroned... :smile:
...or not! :razz:

Anyway, I'm inclined to disagree. Leagues have great and climactic moments but if you look at what happened with RNGD, for example. Losing to Trinity early doors and losing motivation with it. Their influence on the division became a negative one and I don't really blame them for it. Without proper incentives stacked for each position (like in a professional sports league) incentives just aren't there and leagues don't work as they're supposed to. The great climactic moments don't come at the end like in a tournament. The flow is somewhat unsteadier and can be frustrating.

I want to try getting these tournaments going anyway.

Mupf aka Miwiw said:
captain lust said:
Let's test Khergits out.
Stop taking drugs.
If I stopped taking meth, I'd be even more useless at verifying matches and updating tables that I am now :???:.

But as for Khergas, they've taken a significant nerf in the latest patch. I don't see the harm in trying them.
 

Maynd

Grandmaster Knight
WBWF&SNW
Best answers
0
Fight and Destroy, not really sure what you have in mind? Switch from battle to F&D?

I like the league format, although the actual duration of it might be to long. Why not mix league and elimination brackets?
Having a group stage prior the the single elimination seems interesting and exciting.
Regarding the Naste rule set, I do believe that the actual one that we have is great, going back to team picking their maps wont really fix the unbalance problem.
 
Best answers
0
Maynd said:
Fight and Destroy, not really sure what you have in mind? Switch from battle to F&D?
Who says switch? Why not both?

Maynd said:
I like the league format, although the actual duration of it might be to long. Why not mix league and elimination brackets?
Having a group stage prior the the single elimination seems interesting and exciting.
Possibly although groups are often difficult. Especially once a team loses two games and is expected to play the last. That's the kind of situation I really want to avoid.
 

Mordgrim

Knight
Best answers
0
captain lust said:
As an example, these might be:

Closed: Sandiboush - Nords vs Sarranids
Mixed: Ruins - Rhodoks vs Sarranids
Open: Field by the River - Nords vs Swadia

From this point onwards, it's effectively the same system used in the NASTe competition. If you aren't familiar with that, I'll explain it below.

Team 1 would pick the first map to play. Say it was Ruins - Rhodoks vs Sarranids. This would be played in the same way as a map in the current format. Switching sides etc. (though it might need to be shorter) and you'd play until a team got over half the total rounds for that map. Say it was 6, you'd play until a team reached 4 or it got to 3-3, in which case the map would be a draw. Let's say that is the case and the first map is drawn. Then Team 2 picks the next map from the remaining two. Let's say it's Sandiboush - Nords vs Sarranids. Team 2 gets to 4 while the opponent is on 1, it ends at 4-1. Team 2 would then win and a third map would not need to played. The same would apply if a team had won both of the first two maps.

If however teams were a map each (or 0 maps each, 2 draws) then a third map would be played. This will always be the remaining map from the three that are given at the start and it would be played in exactly the same way (3 rounds a side, as proposed).

a system of wins and losses, regardless of what happens to tournament formats. I have been thinking this would be a good idea for a long time (long before IG won the title) and that result had no bearing on my thoughts, nor do I intend for it to take away from their victory in any way.
I like this NASTe thing of organising matches. It might solve some problems.

However I think short two week tournaments take away the allure of a League. With just a series of small tournaments there is no "BIG THING" to win and a win in any of the smaller tournaments feels like small potatoes.

I think just refurbishing our well tested League with the NASTe match format would be a winning concept.

Regarding Khergits Im still against it. Despite them receiving a nerf they still have attributes which sets them completely apart from all other factions. So keep the ´gits out of serious competition is my advice.
 

Duken96

Grandmaster Knight
WB
Best answers
0
I think that one tournament every 2/3 weeks would be excessive: some teams can't play 2 matches ore more every week.

Maynd said:
I like the league format, although the actual duration of it might be to long. Why not mix league and elimination brackets?
Having a group stage prior the the single elimination seems interesting and exciting.
Yeah, that would be interesting! 
I never played F&D but i think battles are better!
 

Maynd

Grandmaster Knight
WBWF&SNW
Best answers
0
captain lust said:
Possibly although groups are often difficult. Especially once a team loses two games and is expected to play the last. That's the kind of situation I really want to avoid.
Not if you pick the last ones into a different/side brackets, running at the same time. For instance:

Group A
Team 1 (joins the other teams on the main bracket, Bigger cup or A cup)
Team 2 (joins the other teams on the main bracke, Bigger cup or A cup)
Team 3 (joins the other teams on the lower bracket, Smaller Cup or B cup)
Team 4 (joins the other teams on the lower bracket, Smaller Cup or B cup) or (joins the other teams on the lower lower bracket, Smaller Cup or C cup)

This way you have the desire amount of tournaments you are looking for, plus you have different goals for different teams expectations and performances (A,B and C cup).
 
Best answers
0
Just to be clear, I don't mean a tournament every 2/3 weeks. I just mean that 2 weeks is how long they should last. Each tournament could have a month or two in between but the crucial thing is that any team involved isn't waiting around to get promoted or whatever.

As for the concerns about adding importance to them... that's essentially why I want to start adding some money into the mix. I'd like to see teams start actually playing for something. Even if it isn't much.

The thing about Fight and Destroy is that it can often work out a lot like battle. There's just some extra tactical depth and a little less waiting around. It could be very interesting in my opinion.

And just to reassure you about Khergits, I'm approaching them with just as much skepticism as anyone. These are called tests and that's exactly what they are.

Maynd said:
captain lust said:
Possibly although groups are often difficult. Especially once a team loses two games and is expected to play the last. That's the kind of situation I really want to avoid.
Not if you pick the last ones into a different/side brackets, running at the same time. For instance:

Group A
Team 1 (joins the other teams on the main bracket, Bigger cup or A cup)
Team 2 (joins the other teams on the main bracke, Bigger cup or A cup)
Team 3 (joins the other teams on the lower bracket, Smaller Cup or B cup)
Team 4 (joins the other teams on the lower bracket, Smaller Cup or B cup) or (joins the other teams on the lower lower bracket, Smaller Cup or C cup)

This way you have the desire amount of tournaments you are looking for, plus you have different goals for different teams expectations and performances (A,B and C cup).
I think you'll find that C is a bigger cup...

ehehehe

Anyway I'm not hugely convinced of the merits of that. I want these tournaments to be fast affairs, rather than getting tangled in a tier system. To avoid the problem of getting an unlucky draw (i.e. in the winner's quarter) I did have an idea of some kind of playoff between teams that were knocked out by the winners, to potentially fight it out for 3rd place (along with the team knocked out in the semi final by the losers). If that makes sense :???:.
 

corey43

Baron
M&BWBWF&SNW
Best answers
0
Personally I'd prefer us to stick with the league, even if it needs to undergo changes, and this NASTe thing seems pretty good.

About the tournaments, I just don't think they bring much other than a faster pace, which some teams might not be able to keep up with. They could however act almost like cups in sports, a competition on the side where teams can take serious or not depending whether they want to. There could be some kind of incentive for actually trying to win, maybe a tournament win rewards them with a playoff for a higher division, or even a place. This could help new, stronger teams rise faster while those who are more interested in just playing where they are currently don't have to take the competition seriously, and can serve as a practice for new players and tactics. Once eliminated can simply have a break.

I think one tournament should be for the B and C divisions, excluding A teams. One other which includes all, but I don't know what would incentivise the A teams to compete.

Meh, I'm not good at these discussion, but it's an idea to do with what you like.
 

Alex_C

Baron
WBWF&S
Best answers
0
Here are my extremely angry thoughts, I can barely contain the levels of unbridled rage going through me right now after reading these suggestions, GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH:

The whole NASTe-esque Closed-Mixed-Open system seems like a great step forward, can't think of any real problems with it.

Regarding the tournament format:

I'd personally like to see the ENL continuing, maybe as a more slow and long-term alternative running in the background alongside the smaller tournaments. I think it adds a great deal in terms of allowing any clan to compete, and even the least competitive clan will still get to play as many matches as the most. I don't see any way of running a single elimination tournament where this holds true. I suppose this doesn't require that the ENL keeps running, maybe as you mentioned a while back have a ladder running in the background to these tournaments, and possibly seeding them etc.

Something I'm not so sure about is prize money. Who would get the prize money? Would a team like IG with their like one-hundred strong roster have to distribute the money between all of them? Or would just the self-appointed leader get the money? Seems like it could cause more trouble than it's worth internally in some clans too I guess.

Regarding Khergits:

I'm all for testing them thoroughly, but I seriously doubt they'll work/be balanced. Would be good to be proved wrong on this front though.
 

Morii

Sergeant Knight
Best answers
0
2 things, might add moar later;

-NASTE format might create some problems with planning for many people; where matches now take around an hour(?) with the NASTE system they can suddenly be very short ór quite long, almost impossible to say up front. You could size everything down to make the possible difference smaller, but then you just end up with very-very-short to short matches, which kinda sucks.

-I heard rumours about an idea for one big persistent ladder with (unrelated?) occasional small tournaments. I found it interesting since in that way you could have both a persistent struggle ánd quick exciting ways to fame (and possibly money). Comments? (fu Alex ninja)
 

Lord Rich

Grandmaster Knight
Best answers
0
captain lust said:
Match Format

The more I play and watch and think about the current match format, the clearer its imperfections become in my eyes.

The first problem of it is its suceptibility to map imbalance. As it stands, one map can render the other redundant if a team dominates on it. Likewise, a map can render itself almost redundant if it's particularly imbalanced. We've seen this before when a match has one map as Port Assault (for example) and the other as Field by the River (for example). Given the nature of Port Assault, it's very tricky to dominate on the map. Not impossible (nothing seems to be, in this game) but on average, scores on the map tend to be fairly close. However, Field by the River could allow a team a much better chance of getting a high score due to it's relatively balanced nature. Unless there is serious faction imbalance, then a team that wins on one side of the map could be expected to win on the other side.

This problem has been largely ignored arguably it isn't really a problem. It doesn't cause any inherent advantage to one team or another. It happens that one team might benefit on a case by case basis.

The second problem is watchability. As more matches are getting streamed and the interest is somewhat growing, it's frustrating to see how matches can seem to be over by the time the second map starts. One team might be left with a mountain to climb and with a near impossible task to pull back rounds due to a specific map and faction set up (this links back to the first problem). The level of uncertainty that makes anything interesting or entertaining to watch has been vanquished.

The third problem is the expectation of teams to play redundant rounds. In the ENL, these rounds aren't always redundant since round difference counts etc. but rounds are already an imperfect decider for separating teams and motivation to play after having lost in other competitions is rightfully lacking. There have also been suggestions that not playing such rounds is dishonourable. Something which I think is a shame because that really shouldn't be an issue and a respectful team that respectfully doesn't want to waste their time doesn't deserve criticism of that sort in my opinion. That's something that should be saved for rude and childish individuals of which, in this community, there are (thankfully) relatively few. In my opinion anyway. But sorry for waffling.
Certainly agree on the latter points, it ruins the experience of watching the match if you already pretty much know a team is going to win and watching redundant rounds has no suspense. Likewise playing redundant rounds has also been something I never liked, when a team wins the loser should be able to say 'gg' and leave respectfully, not get dragged through half a dozen more rounds of defeat.

The first point is true but not something that we need to worry about so much I think, as you say its not really a problem as both sides have to fight in the same circumstances and I wouldn't say either side of any of the maps currently played is not winnable.

captain lust said:
Like now, maps and factions would be predermined (the method is irrelevant but in any competitions I might run, they would probably be random). However, instead of two setups, you would have three. Closed, Mixed and Open.

As an example, these might be:

Closed: Sandiboush - Nords vs Sarranids
Mixed: Ruins - Rhodoks vs Sarranids
Open: Field by the River - Nords vs Swadia

From this point onwards, it's effectively the same system used in the NASTe competition. If you aren't familiar with that, I'll explain it below.

Team 1 would pick the first map to play. Say it was Ruins - Rhodoks vs Sarranids. This would be played in the same way as a map in the current format. Switching sides etc. (though it might need to be shorter) and you'd play until a team got over half the total rounds for that map. Say it was 6, you'd play until a team reached 4 or it got to 3-3, in which case the map would be a draw. Let's say that is the case and the first map is drawn. Then Team 2 picks the next map from the remaining two. Let's say it's Sandiboush - Nords vs Sarranids. Team 2 gets to 4 while the opponent is on 1, it ends at 4-1. Team 2 would then win and a third map would not need to played. The same would apply if a team had won both of the first two maps.

If however teams were a map each (or 0 maps each, 2 draws) then a third map would be played. This will always be the remaining map from the three that are given at the start and it would be played in exactly the same way (3 rounds a side, as proposed).

If there was a draw after that, you could simply continue swapping sides every round on the third map until one team went two ahead. This would be fair since it was the map neither team picked.
I actually quite like the sound of this system, seems fair and still forces random selection of maps. I do have a problem with one part of it however and that is the victory conditions on the third map. You seem to be suggesting here that there would be no possibility for the match as a whole to be a draw. Could we not just have the possibility of a draw (all 3 maps drawn) because otherwise those 2 points ahead rules would make it a very long game (potentially unending XD).

As I see it currently the minimum number of rounds played with this suggested system would be 8 (one team winning both the first two maps outright). The maximum number of rounds played would be 18 if match draws were allowed. This seems like a good number to be as that would be pretty rare, however given that teams would have to do plans for 3 maps instead of two now we can also probably expect an increased amount of time between all the sets, probably an overall increase of 50%. The result of this is that I would guess that these matches would be longer than the matches in the current rules. Even for an early win playing only 8 rounds there would be the same amount of pre match prep as for 4 sets.

I will probably write something later when I have had more time to think about it, but for now I do like some aspects of the suggested system and I think generally I would just like to have it streamlined a bit to make sure matches are over in a reasonable amount of time (definitely not above 2 hours) and also so we can reduce the amount of fluff and prep time without hindering the teams and forcing them to fight unprepared.

captain lust said:
Tournament Format

The ENL has been a great success, in my eyes (as I've already mentioned). However, I think now is the time for focus to shift elsewhere... Depending on interest, I actually think it might be a good idea to keep it going but really, I'd like to start pushing tournaments.

As it stands, though, mobility in the ENL is too low and new, strong teams shouldn't have to wait so long to compete at a top level. Infact, I don't think they should have to wait at all.

This isn't a regressive step, back to what we had with the ENPL or anything like that. I want these tournaments to be professional and fast affairs. 2 weeks and over.

Many of you may wince at the prospect of playing such a fast tournament but I say it's the best way of moving forward and I want to run a test tournament very soon to see how it works. I'm thinking single elimination with a scheduling system somewhat similar to that of Division C's but more rigid.
I think I would really need more info on the specifics of what you are suggesting but I do agree with what the others are saying, having a general league is more interesting in general than a tournament because there is more potentially to play for. If a tournament is small and fast then it will probably be fun but lack the prestige of winning something like the ENL.

Also elimination based tournaments tend to mean that weaker clans would only get one or two matches. I like the league more because it filters clans and lets even beginner or newly formed clans continue to compete.

I do agree on the mobility aspect however, currently its too slow and clans change too fast for the system to keep up. Thats why I prefer the idea of having a single large ladder with all the clans in similar to division C. I think its a more interesting format as well since you don't know who will pick who. Perhaps it could also use a seed system for the first weeks picks in order to ensure the strongest clans don't immediately fight each other. That would be based on the rankings from the previous ENL.

As for the fast tournaments I would say run them! The ENL isn't active constantly and I think it would be nice to have them, however I do think it would be a mistake to try and make teams play any more than 1 match a week. It can already be difficult sometimes getting a single date agreed on a week, I fear if the tournament demands more it would simply make it impractical for some teams to enter.

captain lust said:
Khergits

Bring them on. We're going to try and push out a release for the ENL Admin Mod very soon, based on 1.153 and then I'll set up a platform for them to be tested. Additionally, any testing you want to do would be welcome. I don't want to apply arbitrary restrictions like (horse archers can't take horses) or anything. We've avoided doing that in the past and I think in doing so, we dodged a massive bullet. Messing with the game is a slippery slope and an all round bad idea for the time being. Personally, I'm gutted that jump reloading was "fixed" in the latest patch but that's something I'm just going to have to learn to suck it up and take it (no sniggering, please).
Said this in the other thread, I am happy to test them and if they are found to be balanced I see no reason not to include them. I would say however that it is pretty likely they aren't balanced and that even if the results do show they aren't it may be misleading due to the lack of recent experience using them in the competitive scene.

captain lust said:
Fight and Destroy

I've talked about testing this for a long time. It's a game mode we never threw much at but I think it could be an incredible amount of fun. Once this release out (sorry about that, I wanted to postpone making this thread a few days but discussions were starting anyway) we'll get some testing done for that. With the right ruleset, I think it can work.
We've discussed this briefly before but I still think that the way the maps themselves are set up with the two objectives is almost always going to heavily benefit one team or the other. I think it makes the maps very hard to balance and the layout of the two siege weapons often places the defender in an untenable position where they have to stop the attackers getting to two positions while also defeating the attackers. It often ended in a lot of drawn rounds in public play where the defenders couldn't stop the attackers taking out at least one of the objectives but then the attackers couldn't take the second one.

I really don't think any minor rule changes are going to sort that out and you would need something drastic with either specifically designed or modified maps or maybe even unbalanced number of players on the defending/attacking teams.

Also just as an extra nugget of knowledge to help continue the discussion, maps can include more than two siege weapons in them however the attackers still win if they destroy two of them and there are still only two points available to either side.
 

Killfacer

Marquis
WB
Best answers
0
I know you've mooted the idea before and a few others have mentioned it above but i'll just restate my support for the idea. I really think having a singular ladder would create a competitive and dynamic league. Merging all of the divisions into one ladder would mean you had no more dud matches, you wouldn't have any more teams in divisions that everyone thrashes 16-0. This would be better not only for competitiveness but also for the clans that get repeatedly thrashed, as they will be fighting clans actually on their level. It also nullifies the importance of drop-outs, meaning that they no longer matter.

All in all I think the idea has much to commend it and ticks many boxes (competitiveness and mobility being key ones).
 

Lord_David

Knight
Best answers
0
The Naste system looks good, but could cause matches of varying time as Morii said (might cause clashing on server over busy days, matches going on longer than expected) or people not understanding it fully (like me for example :razz:) but overall I like the idea, and I'm sure it could be adapted to suit any problems.

I'm against any prize money, we've been doing well without it and then there is the problem as Alex said of how the money is distributed and I think could cause alot of problems.

Also I'd prefer a longer league set up to a quick tourney, as Mordgrim I think, said it would take away the feeling of a long and hard fought victory.

With Khergits I'm all for testing but I don't really think they would work, but you never know.

Not sure about the Fight and Destroy thing, don't really like the idea tbh.
 

BaronDeMoroz

Squire
Best answers
0
Khergits

I support the idea that it would use the Khergits without testing.
But probably will be a testing.

if the test shows negative result. I offer this idea:

Do not exclude Khergits in the random system. and automatically change the second fraction in map on khergits.

I think no one can deny. What Khergits - Khergits  is balanced. On any map.