Which gold amount do you prefer?

[Catholic]

Cav have no more options than they had before. But hell, I'll just stop. Either you're convinced you're the end-all-be-all of cav, in which case there's no point, or you are, in which case there's also no point. In either case, you're much more experienced, so I'll concede there. That's not an insult, I'm merely admitting my focus is as a leader and community member, not cav.

But you brought up something new that struck me.

I will still continue to hate on 1000g just for the shear unbalance of it.

When the hell did 'balance' become an argument? So far it's been fun and tactical maneuverability, not balance. How is 1000g unbalanced?

Are you referring to archers? Because I haven't seen much archer spam in BIT. There is no 'all archer' tactic on any map. There was 'all crossbow' on 1500g on Nord Town, but ironically, 1000g killed it!

Balance is better in 1000g because guess what, you actually see Swadia and Vaegirs played on Nord Town. You actually see Sarranids played AT ALL. You see something that's not all-cav on Random Plains. Every faction is basically viable on every map. There is no faction domination. You don't press the win button most of the time if you're Swadia on either Plains. That's balance. That allows you to see innovation in every strain and every faction, not just the ones that happen to be dominant. That gives you the opportunity to even bother trying playing Swadia on Nord Town, something that would have been completely ****ing retarded in 1500g. The fact Sarranids have good infantry actually matters now, and means they're not weaker-Vaegirs-but-with-good-Sarranid-horse. You don't go constant all cav on Plains or pray the other team doesn't and instead make a run for MOTF after 3 minutes of sitting there twiddling your thumbs every round. You actually see intense 9-7 and 6-10 matches.

That's what 1000g has done so far. It hasn't destroyed cavalry, because you still see cavalry make a huge impact on matches. It hasn't overpowered archers, because infantry are still the main game-makers. And it hasn't caused ridiculous amounts (hell, were there even more than 2 in BIT?) of drawn rounds, because the 360 round timer is superior to Europe's 300 and rounds are replayed, so there's ****all point in it anyway.

Every fear and concern that went into 1000g has been nullified, and every thing that we thought would come out of it that is positive has happened. This isn't Cav&Lance: Warhorse. You cannot stare into cav options and declare that, because your role has changed, the entire gold setting is ****. You don't see Angus and Scott Ray at the top of scoreboards anymore, but are they still key? Hell yes. Are they in a different position? Yes. Does the fact that cavalry don't get top kills on infantry-based Nord Town say something about the positive effect 1000g has had on balance? Most definitely, yes!

 

[Gelden]

Either you're convinced you're the end-all-be-all of cav, in which case there's no point, or you are, in which case there's also no point.

I think somewhere you've mistook me for an egotistical ******* 

But you brought up something new that struck me.

I will still continue to hate on 1000g just for the shear unbalance of it.

When the hell did 'balance' become an argument? So far it's been fun and tactical maneuverability, not balance. How is 1000g unbalanced?

Are you referring to archers? Because I haven't seen much archer spam in BIT. There is no 'all archer' tactic on any map. There was 'all crossbow' on 1500g on Nord Town, but ironically, 1000g killed it!

Please don't judge 1000g from what you've seen in BIT.  It's one tournament, and the first of its kind in NA.  People are trying to adapt, and you sure as hell haven't seen meta-game 1000 in BIT.

Balance is better in 1000g because guess what, you actually see Swadia and Vaegirs played on Nord Town. You actually see Sarranids played AT ALL. You see something that's not all-cav on Random Plains. Every faction is basically viable on every map. There is no faction domination. You don't press the win button most of the time if you're Swadia on either Plains. That's balance. That allows you to see innovation in every strain and every faction, not just the ones that happen to be dominant. That gives you the opportunity to even bother trying playing Swadia on Nord Town, something that would have been completely ****ing retarded in 1500g. The fact Sarranids have good infantry actually matters now, and means they're not weaker-Vaegirs-but-with-good-Sarranid-horse. You don't go constant all cav on Plains or pray the other team doesn't and instead make a run for MOTF after 3 minutes of sitting there twiddling your thumbs every round. You actually see intense 9-7 and 6-10 matches.

I think we also have different views on what 1500g was.  Personally, I saw (and picked personally) sarranids all the time on open maps, and saw them beat nords and vaegirs using cav strategies.  We've also been through the all-cav a thousand times.  You really can't prove that it was the issue you make it out to be, and can't prove that it couldn't be overcome.  I'll admit, there is an obvious faction balance with 1000g, but I also think there is a class unbalance that isn't getting attention.

That's what 1000g has done so far. It hasn't destroyed cavalry, because you still see cavalry make a huge impact on matches. It hasn't overpowered archers, because infantry are still the main game-makers. And it hasn't caused ridiculous amounts (hell, were there even more than 2 in BIT?) of drawn rounds, because the 360 round timer is superior to Europe's 300 and rounds are replayed, so there's ****all point in it anyway.

Again, you can't make those conclusions based on one season of what is essentially a transitional tournament where teams are experimenting with 1000g for the first time.  Although I do prefer the 360 round timer.

Every fear and concern that went into 1000g has been nullified, and every thing that we thought would come out of it that is positive has happened. This isn't Cav&Lance: Warhorse. You cannot stare into cav options and declare that, because your role has changed, the entire gold setting is ****. You don't see Angus and Scott Ray at the top of scoreboards anymore, but are they still key? Hell yes. Are they in a different position? Yes. Does the fact that cavalry don't get top kills on infantry-based Nord Town say something about the positive effect 1000g has had on balance? Most definitely, yes!

You're making a ton of assumptions here, and turning what was once a civil argument into something personal.  You're basically attaching a biased to everything I've said.  Look at me as if you haven't seen me play cav, because not once have I stated "I'm good at cav, so you should listen to me".  Or even tried to convey that.  Then maybe we can be civil again.

I originally came into this 1000g argument because I wanted to point out some obvious unbalance between the classes.  I supported my arguments with numbers and reason, and not once have you addressed it.  Not just cav, I found archers get pretty OP equipment options too.

So you've obviously taken me the wrong way, because I'm not solely arguing from a cav point of view, I couldn't care less about my KDR or whether Scott Ray is doing well (no offense Scott).  I've pointed out many imbalances to 1000g throughout this discussion, so it struck me that this

I will still continue to hate on 1000g just for the shear unbalance of it.

struck you.

 

[Catholic]

Okay, I went and died a few times in Warband and lost a miserable match in Starcraft 2. I'm back to relaxing and verbally fencing you. Although honestly, if you think I'm hitting you personally, try debating Orion sometime or half the Off-Topic folks.

I think somewhere you've mistook me for an egotistical ******* 

That was actually an angry compliment.

Please don't judge 1000g from what you've seen in BIT.  It's one tournament, and the first of its kind in NA.  People are trying to adapt, and you sure as hell haven't seen meta-game 1000 in BIT.

:/ You know the entire point of BIT was to test a new ruleset. CheesePizza actually digressed and said, "We don't need an entire tournament to test 1000g! We should just use my anecdotal data!" Are you assuming we really should, you know, run more tournaments just to test 1000g?

If not, then that's the data I have. I have no more data, because I don't participate in the EU scene and the EU scene is not the NA scene. Furthermore, the BIT conclusion post hasn't been made yet. If you want me to not reference BIT, then I honestly have no reference point except for theory, which makes all of BIT actually redundant.

You're making a ton of assumptions here, and turning what was once a civil argument into something personal.  You're basically attaching a biased to everything I've said.  Look at me as if you haven't seen me play cav, because not once have I stated "I'm good at cav, so you should listen to me".  Or even tried to convey that.  Then maybe we can be civil again.

No, it is just that you have consistently gone at the argument from a cav perspective, and so you see it from a cav lens. You don't have options, ergo 1000g is broken. I don't mean to insult you by generalizing like that at all, but the logical train you've followed is:

cav is weak compared to other classes -> 1000g is imbalanced -> 1000g is bad.

What I'm targeting is not only the first link but the second, and you've defended the first but not the second. You understand? I'm going at this argument from a very general strategy perspective, while you're going at it from cav. That's what makes this debate frustrating.

I originally came into this 1000g argument because I wanted to point out some obvious unbalance between the classes.  I supported my arguments with numbers and reason, and not once have you addressed it.  Not just cav, I found archers get pretty OP equipment options too.

Alright, I'll go back to the very beginning. Maybe we can start there instead of jumping everywhere.

You compared equipment options for cavalry, infantry, and archers. In particular, you calculated the armor ratings. Now, here is my response.

You calculated armor, but you missed the fact the classes are different in these ways:

- Cav are superior to infantry and archers in that they can maneuver. This is key. This is why they're a support role. They're not meant to be tanks, they're meant to move around fast and inflict damage where they're needed.

- Cav have a horse to soak up damage.

- Archers have less health.

- Archers do less melee damage.

- Cavalry can bump.

Now here is the crux of my argument. When you have cavalry that have the same defense as the other classes (or, with 1500g and heavy cav, way more), can maneuver very fast, can deal disproportionally high damage at a single lance strike, and can bump, then that isn't a support role. They can tank, thanks to heavy cav and/or armor, they can inflict high damage, and then can maneuver quickly and bump. That made cavalry overpowered.

Now, with 1000, you have some choice. You can have very high maneuverability with a courser but low health, you can have a hunter and tank more but do less damage, you can have high maneuverability with a courser, armor, but weak damage.

In short, cav can still perform everything they did, just not all at once. Now you're forced to choose. Now you have a variety, and cav is a support role, not an every-role.

 

[Gelden]

So my laptop chose tonight to finally perish. I'll bite back as soon as I can. /cellphone

 

[Trebron]

cav is weak compared to other classes -> 1000g is imbalanced -> 1000g is bad.

Yeah it's bad for bad players

Spoiler

buff pls

 

[Shemaforash]

cav is weak compared to other classes -> 1000g is imbalanced -> 1000g is bad.

Yeah it's bad for bad players

 

[killer-blead]

Who needs have when you have rocket-skates powered infantry?

 

[Cri11e]

This poll is very biased.
Everybody knows that casual players who play warband now and then do not normally have a taleworlds account.
Yet alone barely know there is one.

 

[Golradir]

yea i want a recount

 

[sotamursu123]

There is no faction domination.

sandibush nord vs swadia gg

 

[killer-blead]

Nord vs Sarranids on San'di'bush GG Sarranid paper shields.

 

[sotamursu123]

Nord vs Sarranids on San'di'bush GG Sarranid paper shields.

sarranids are actually the faction able to fight against them imo

 

[Tactics]

1000, of course.

 

[Gelden]

No, it is just that you have consistently gone at the argument from a cav perspective, and so you see it from a cav lens. You don't have options, ergo 1000g is broken. I don't mean to insult you by generalizing like that at all, but the logical train you've followed is:

cav is weak compared to other classes -> 1000g is imbalanced -> 1000g is bad.

What I'm targeting is not only the first link but the second, and you've defended the first but not the second. You understand? I'm going at this argument from a very general strategy perspective, while you're going at it from cav. That's what makes this debate frustrating.

Actually, I don't know how you can make this assumption.  I'm scratching my head here, cause yeah, I did come into this argument due to my arguments about cavalry unbalance, but since you decided to address me, I wasn't looking at the 1000g debate from cav-lens at all.

Spoiler

I think we have different views on innovation.  To me, just because you change something from the norm doesn't make it innovation.  Innovation isn't simply change.  There needs to be improvements.  So it becomes an argument of if 1000 improves the enjoyment of competitive play.

You say you've seen an array of tactics being used and close matches which prove it's innovative.  For me, this is because the community isn't used to the gold, so they're trying different things to see if they work.  Soon enough you will have people using the same strat/load outs akin to all cav.  It took the NA community a few years to figure out all cav is what cool people do.  And you know what? People were actually figuring out how to negate it. <-- THIS is innovation!  Just so we're clear: Just because you "see all kinds of tactics being used" does not mean it's innovative.  It's change, and clans adapting to said change.

In the early days of NA tournaments on 1500g things are just as you describe.  Anybody remember how successful, how fun KBOOB was? Anybody take a guess how much gold was used here?  How about NASTE season 1?

I'm glad we can take it into your "home field".  Although I was simply pointing out one issue with 1000 gold, I'll point out a few more flaws in your argument.

Please feel free to point out my cavalry bias that has become an unfortunate manifestation in your mind.  I'll post more quotes from the bulk of my arguments I've made so far.

Spoiler

I'm sorry to hear that, I'm quite new to the discussion.  I've seen some good arguments from both ends tbh, and either side to me aren't getting anywhere.  Ghaern has brought up some good points in the past and has been vastly ignored, even though he's been a strong player in this community for years (as an example).  Both sides are as bad as each-other.

Spoiler

Basically I was using those tournaments to support my argument that change will make matches closer and mix up tactics on both sides for a while.

To elaborate: Kboob was a very early tournament for the NA competitive scene.  Certain clans were finding their way and 1500g hadn't been displayed a whole lot before that at high competitive levels, which resulted in it being just how you describe BIT.  Basically, it's clans trying new things.

It wasn't meant to be "1500 IS DA BEST CAUSE KBOOB" 

Spoiler

Ok, so we'll continue and try to get somewhere.

So a big part of your anti 1500/1200 gold argument is all-cav strats are too prominent, and are the anti-christ to innovation in the competitive scene (hope I got this right).

I mentioned that it took the NA community years to come up with the all-cav thing.  Would you agree with that? It really only saw a peak in CJT, and in various scrims not associated with tournaments in the past few months before BIT.  That implies there was some sort of innovation happening over these years to reach that point.  There were all sorts of strategies deemed to be the be-all-end-all strats, but they were usually negated by teams.  Think rock paper scissors.  Now all cav comes along and everybody and theirs mothers are worrying about it.  In your case, you're worrying about it because you want to see different strategies used on Random Plains.

So really this is such a ridiculously narrow thing to worry about in the scope of competitive warband; One strategy used on one particular map (and that map has to have certain properties about it (ie. flat) for this strat to work. 

But like all strategies deemed "auto-win" in the past, we should give the community time to conquer it, instead of complaining about it and trying to change things (like the gold) and calling it innovation. 

Spoiler

It's hard to compare the EU scene to NA.  But first of all, saying 1000g works in EU, so it should work here is redundant, because I could say 1500g worked here as well, and that's not getting us anywhere.  It is important to look at the EU scene, I agree.  Like I said, however, it's harder to examine because we (me and you) don't have first hand experience to the extent we have here in NA with tournaments.  We can go on heresy and word of mouth all day and achieve nothing.  Please list examples of innovation and tactics, because honestly I don't believe you.  I've played in NC for the past 2 years against European teams and haven't experienced anything special not involving archer spam.  Other than cheap/shady tactics that involve getting a draw. (I'll give it to them, they have amazing archers over there).

Spoiler

I do believe archers are a little OP compared to inf/cav.  I URGE you to go on a server tonight and go through each class and faction at 1000 gold and note how many options archers get compared to other classes.  This is an obvious unbalance.  Look at my numbers a page (or two) back.  Archers at a 1000, baring they dont upgrade their bow and arrows, have access to pretty much all their armor, which actually on average tops any other class by far.  This is fair how?  Also, while you're checking that out, make sure to go through all the cav on each faction and see how many options they get to choose gear.

There are perfectly valid reasons why people are against 1000g.  Personally, I have nothing against change.  It can be a good thing!  I just want to see that the change is justified and so far for me it isn't.

Spoiler

I just messaged a few people and asked them "when do you think the all-cav strat was first utilized, give me a time period" just to see if my memory was serving me correctly, and got a unanimous "after NASTE season 2".  One person said it started at the end of  NASTE season 2 by wappaw.  They're right.  I can PM you these steam convos if you request.

We could be here all day theory crafting, I'm sad you would even bring that into an argument.  It isn't the "GOD" strat you and others make it out to be.  Being in wK, a heavy cavalry clan during CJT, I saw it prevail, and fail on multiple occasions.  It's a valid tactic that gets used by good cav teams on flat maps.  Whether it can be negated or not, we could never get to the bottom of, but my point is there is a chance it could be, given the community time to progress.  The window to use it is already almost narrow enough for this not even to be a valid argument in the overall discussion of 1000g.  But if all you can come up with is attempting theory craft a solution to it, then this gets us nowhere, as we can both come up with bull****.

Spoiler

I kinda thought this argument would get here eventually.  1000g may have mixed things up for the time being because it's different and has forced teams to think outside of their 1500g comfort zone.  This doesn't mean it's better, or more balanced (or at least no arguments have sufficiently convinced me, in fact over the course of these arguments I'm now convinced 1000g is very unbalanced).  But it's a good point you make that we should have 1000g until we tire of it (or it turns more archer spammy, or what have you).

Spoiler

I think we also have different views on what 1500g was.  Personally, I saw (and picked personally) sarranids all the time on open maps, and saw them beat nords and vaegirs using cav strategies.  We've also been through the all-cav a thousand times.  You really can't prove that it was the issue you make it out to be, and can't prove that it couldn't be overcome.  I'll admit, there is an obvious faction balance with 1000g, but I also think there is a class unbalance that isn't getting attention.

That's pretty much 90% of the words I've posted in this thread.  The only time I bring up cav is to address the all cav issue, which you brought up in the first place.  Admittedly, I have said a sentence or two explaining why I think cav are gimped, but that's because I was provoked to illicit such a response.  Such occasion:

I have completely ignored the argument, oftentimes used by Mad Dawg, that you have to actually make a tactical choice of equipment for 1000

How many choices do cav get compared to other classes, as outlined in my previous posts, and supported by numbers and experience

You actually started to make sense at the end of your last post, but as you can imagine I'm pretty pissed that I had to re-read this thread to make sure you were actually making **** up, and thus will probably tell you what I think at the next pick-up I see you at, in the middle of battle, in admin chat.

 

[MalagaN]

1000 ofcourse

 

[Golradir]

why would you do that

 

[sotamursu123]

1k for true men
1,5k for those who never get 1,5k in 1k rules cuz dying.

 

[Zaffa]

1k is more balanced and allows for better progression.

Just looking at rhodok xbows at 1k vs 1.5k is a good example of why 1k is superior.