WTFFS - Round 1 Fixtures | Deadline 05/02/2012
- Thread starter captain lust
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Wolfpack got 2 pts at first map D: not 1!
The Syndicate vs the Order of Malta - 4:8
We'll post our comments a bit later.
We'll post our comments a bit later.
BoomstickS3000
Baron
FF 2 - 10 RNGD
(7v8 for 2 rounds)
(Last round was 8v8
)
Good game, although not close, I really enjoyed it. Some rounds were pretty close though. (Especially on Port Assault)
(Last round was 8v8
)Good game, although not close, I really enjoyed it. Some rounds were pretty close though. (Especially on Port Assault)
About the new rules:
- 8 vs 8 is great, as the classes restriction is too. No objection about that.
- I don't know how to justify this, but 12 rounds are too short in my opinion. Maybe a 16 rounds format would be better.
Maybe just for the fun! 3 Rounds with each faction seems really too quick for me! ( crappy argument, i know )
PS: Good game yeah, great match. FF = Fair & Funny
- 8 vs 8 is great, as the classes restriction is too. No objection about that.
- I don't know how to justify this, but 12 rounds are too short in my opinion. Maybe a 16 rounds format would be better.
Maybe just for the fun! 3 Rounds with each faction seems really too quick for me! ( crappy argument, i know )
PS: Good game yeah, great match. FF = Fair & Funny
Eh, It was 6-6 for REF and CoR. We did some rounds on Nord Town to break the draw. Didn't want to keep it long so we thought we'd do 2 rounds, switching spawns after one round to make it fair but it didn't break the draw at first. We did it again and CoR won those 2 rounds.
I'll try to upload some Screenshots in a bit. Though, draws are awful.
The last 2 rounds of Nord town, as tiebreakers.
I'll try to upload some Screenshots in a bit. Though, draws are awful.
The last 2 rounds of Nord town, as tiebreakers.
Yep good game FF.
I want to say that in my opinion class restriction is a good thing because it gives more importance for management of teams.
8 vs 8 privileges team play.
3 rounds bring a lot of changements but i can't say if it's better or not for the moment. Match is ended much more quick, but i permit to people to have more breaks as each rounds is more important.
Also, generalise such rules could allowed teams to make more matches during the week and make the community more active.
I want to say that in my opinion class restriction is a good thing because it gives more importance for management of teams.
8 vs 8 privileges team play.
3 rounds bring a lot of changements but i can't say if it's better or not for the moment. Match is ended much more quick, but i permit to people to have more breaks as each rounds is more important.
Also, generalise such rules could allowed teams to make more matches during the week and make the community more active.
Alright well done to all teams for getting your matches played on time. I'm going to arbitrarily pair the teams up for the next round to get some potentially more even matches going... certainly it would be a problem if closely matched teams ended up drawing too often, so I think that needs testing.
I understand a lot of you are biding your time with feedback but some initial response also suggests that you've been finding the matches too short. That's something I think the more even match ups could help with again, since things tend to grind out a little longer when everything's to play for.
Good job Syn for getting yourselves an opponent and I'm looking forward to everyone's continued feedback. Great to see there's already some positive reaction to the 8vs8 in particular.
I understand a lot of you are biding your time with feedback but some initial response also suggests that you've been finding the matches too short. That's something I think the more even match ups could help with again, since things tend to grind out a little longer when everything's to play for.
Good job Syn for getting yourselves an opponent and I'm looking forward to everyone's continued feedback. Great to see there's already some positive reaction to the 8vs8 in particular.
I know my question is extremely noob, but please enlighten me :
Is there something to win in this tournament or we just play for fun? Because yesterday we did a draw with REF we took 1 hour to decide how we would settle the situation cause we thought it was direct elimination (well I thought that and I told everybody we would be eliminated if we lost). Not like if I care much, indeed we will still play our best but I just wanted to know. In other words is there a winner at the end?
My personal opinions (which might differ from the opinions of my clans) about yesterday match :
- i am pretty sure that 4*3 rounds encourages draws especially if maps are unbalanced (Port Assault). But funnily I think it is a good thing if it is to be applied to a league. Though, if it is a direct elimination system like Nations Cup or play-offs, the tie-break part has to be specified clearly and well-fathomed.
- I'd favor 4*4 rounds rather than 3*4 rounds cause I feel a bit like if I go to MacDonalds and only get a box of 4 nuggets, that is not enough. 4*4 rounds might be the best solution to please everyone, people with real life and people without.
- 80% Gold : three rounds is not enough to see a difference compared to normal system, so I cant tell. I still saw some players afford a warhorse, so it doesnt ruin this possibility entirely. I agree with diminishing gold bonus.
Imo we should set combat gold to 100% because it is a bit logical that good players can tank themselves, but it sucks that round bonus is so high. If you are a noob hiding in a corner, at the end of the match you can have tank equipment thanks to your friends doing all the work. If you set (I take the strongest example voluntarily not because I favor it) 100% on combat gold and 0% on "surviving" gold, then the winning team with be made of tanks and crap-equipment guys and that still leave a chance to the opponent. Right now almost everybody in an easily winning team gets the haubergeon.
Is there something to win in this tournament or we just play for fun? Because yesterday we did a draw with REF we took 1 hour to decide how we would settle the situation cause we thought it was direct elimination (well I thought that and I told everybody we would be eliminated if we lost). Not like if I care much, indeed we will still play our best but I just wanted to know. In other words is there a winner at the end?
My personal opinions (which might differ from the opinions of my clans) about yesterday match :
- i am pretty sure that 4*3 rounds encourages draws especially if maps are unbalanced (Port Assault). But funnily I think it is a good thing if it is to be applied to a league. Though, if it is a direct elimination system like Nations Cup or play-offs, the tie-break part has to be specified clearly and well-fathomed.
- I'd favor 4*4 rounds rather than 3*4 rounds cause I feel a bit like if I go to MacDonalds and only get a box of 4 nuggets, that is not enough. 4*4 rounds might be the best solution to please everyone, people with real life and people without.
- 80% Gold : three rounds is not enough to see a difference compared to normal system, so I cant tell. I still saw some players afford a warhorse, so it doesnt ruin this possibility entirely. I agree with diminishing gold bonus.
Imo we should set combat gold to 100% because it is a bit logical that good players can tank themselves, but it sucks that round bonus is so high. If you are a noob hiding in a corner, at the end of the match you can have tank equipment thanks to your friends doing all the work. If you set (I take the strongest example voluntarily not because I favor it) 100% on combat gold and 0% on "surviving" gold, then the winning team with be made of tanks and crap-equipment guys and that still leave a chance to the opponent. Right now almost everybody in an easily winning team gets the haubergeon.
Till now:
I've detected a drastic reduction on overall game play due to this aspects:
a) 8 Players: Rounds tend to be faster since there are less players
b) 3 Rounds: Less rounds to play
a + b = Very short matches
Imo, the current 4 rounds set from the NC seems to fit more in the 8 vs 8 system so you either choose between raising to 10vs10 with 3 rounds, or 8vs8 with 4 rounds. I believe this could somehow balance the huge difference between the old rule-set and the rule-set we are now testing.
Regarding class limitation, I didn't notice any difference in the overall gameplay, the same applies to gold bonus, so its good.
I've detected a drastic reduction on overall game play due to this aspects:
a) 8 Players: Rounds tend to be faster since there are less players
b) 3 Rounds: Less rounds to play
a + b = Very short matches
Imo, the current 4 rounds set from the NC seems to fit more in the 8 vs 8 system so you either choose between raising to 10vs10 with 3 rounds, or 8vs8 with 4 rounds. I believe this could somehow balance the huge difference between the old rule-set and the rule-set we are now testing.
Regarding class limitation, I didn't notice any difference in the overall gameplay, the same applies to gold bonus, so its good.
All i saw from this was a heckload of motf
BoomstickS3000
Baron
I didn't like the shorter round time tbh.
I've played 2 matches with just 500 seconds play time, and nearly every round there was a flag spawn and mostly insufficient time to kill off the last enemy while you had a big advantage of 3v1 or higher.
Keep the round time as it was before the tournament please.
I've played 2 matches with just 500 seconds play time, and nearly every round there was a flag spawn and mostly insufficient time to kill off the last enemy while you had a big advantage of 3v1 or higher.
Keep the round time as it was before the tournament please.
Not really lol. Originally it was going to be a knockout thing but when it became clear there weren't going to be 16 teams, I just decided to do 3 rounds of matches. That way more matches get played and everyone gets a good chance to test things out. I might do a "playoffs" thing at the end maybe by arranging teams according to wins but it's not something that is going to mean an awful lot.arsenic_vengeur said:
I'm concerned about the draws thing as well. While it can benefit a league to have variety in points and match outcomes, I don't want draws being an inevitablility with closely matched teams. Initially, I don't think that's what has been shown but hopefully this match week will give us a clearer idea of the problem. I'm also hoping that the 5 minute rounds will possibly bring about more round draws (which get dismissed and insulted too lightly, in my opinion), widening the spectrum of common match results to help decrease the chance of draws. Though it's something that I am definitely thinking about.arsenic_vengeur said:
I hadn't put much thought into the tiebreaker situation since the rulest is for a league. However, it does need to be clarified for the playoffs and I'll do that later today.
Well continuing your analogy, I would say that only having 4 nuggets allows you to go round the corner and get something from Burger King as wellarsenic_vengeur said:
. Without being a fat bastard like me who gets a supersize meal from both (still in the analogy - I play a lot of matches... not fat irl). 12 rounds will do a lot to open things up for other competitions, which is something I really want to push for. As others have said, it will help to enable casual scrimming and bring about more frequent matchplay. Something that is a staple of a thriving competitive scene.I'm still keeping an open mind about this because I understand this is a common concern but I do want to keep pushing the advantages of cutting matches to* 12.
I'd question how important kills really are in determining "good" players...arsenic_vengeur said:
With the gold, it's sort of a tricky situation. Personally, I'm kind of cautious about doing anything too drastic with it. I think scaling the bonuses relative to the starting gold is a sensible and modest change. It's not like it's a massive problem and the round reduction will (possibly) help to combat it already... although that's been drawn into question. Still not quite sure about that.
Class restrictions:
8vs8
12 rounds
Gold bonus (80% for combat and round)
Round length (5 minutes).
Regards!
Class restrictions weren’t a surprise for us, because we tend to play as a mixed team, even using four horsemen on closed maps from time to time.
Nevertheless, I have to say against this restriction:
1. I’m against any limitations placed on the teams’ freedom of choice in general.
2. Balancing the teams leaves less space for tactics. In this case, when preparing for a match, you can be sure that that there’ll be no infantry-only or archers-only teams. This fact takes its share of excitement from the game.
3. The Hungarian server didn’t place class limitations during our game. As a result, it was very difficult to change the class ratio within our squad during every 3-round streak (in order to efficiently use the weaknesses of our rivals) and follow the rules at the same time. For instance, we’re using four footmen, two horsemen and two archers. I decide to replace one horseman with an archer. I ask one of the horsemen to take infantry next round (as he’s a poor archer) and tell one footman to spawn as an archer. I’d like to remind you that all this is taking place during the fight. The footman hasn’t heard me and hasn’t changed his class. As a result, we’ve got five footmen, so the rules are violated and, technically, the round’s already lost.
So, I’ve got a question: why complicate the rules? Why impose additional limitations and, thus, increase the team’s chances to screw up somewhere and get additional penalties? The previous discussions have concluded that this measure would save us from the so-called “cavalry spam” or save an all-infantry team from being overwhelmed by a gang of archers. In my opinion, there’s nothing unnatural in such things. A well-balanced team will be able to oppose them successfully.
Nevertheless, I have to say against this restriction:
1. I’m against any limitations placed on the teams’ freedom of choice in general.
2. Balancing the teams leaves less space for tactics. In this case, when preparing for a match, you can be sure that that there’ll be no infantry-only or archers-only teams. This fact takes its share of excitement from the game.
3. The Hungarian server didn’t place class limitations during our game. As a result, it was very difficult to change the class ratio within our squad during every 3-round streak (in order to efficiently use the weaknesses of our rivals) and follow the rules at the same time. For instance, we’re using four footmen, two horsemen and two archers. I decide to replace one horseman with an archer. I ask one of the horsemen to take infantry next round (as he’s a poor archer) and tell one footman to spawn as an archer. I’d like to remind you that all this is taking place during the fight. The footman hasn’t heard me and hasn’t changed his class. As a result, we’ve got five footmen, so the rules are violated and, technically, the round’s already lost.
So, I’ve got a question: why complicate the rules? Why impose additional limitations and, thus, increase the team’s chances to screw up somewhere and get additional penalties? The previous discussions have concluded that this measure would save us from the so-called “cavalry spam” or save an all-infantry team from being overwhelmed by a gang of archers. In my opinion, there’s nothing unnatural in such things. A well-balanced team will be able to oppose them successfully.
8vs8
Hmmm, I understand what this rule’s about: it’s about making the games more dynamic and increasing the value of every fighter’s life. I can’t say that I like this point as well. Do you remember those times right after the release of the game, when the 22nd battle server gathered up to 120 players? Yes, the battles were long, but they were exciting as well. And it’s possible to have a lot of fun when playing 20vs20 matches. And what have we got with 8vs8? By losing one player, the team almost surely loses any chance to win the round. Evidently, all the tactics limit themselves to hiding somewhere, to trying to be the first to find the enemy and make some frags. No surprise cavalry charges. No massive infantry clashes. Only the two teams camping on their sides of the map and doing their best to preserve their numbers. That’s boring. And what if one player suddenly gets disconnected? Does it mean losing the round a priori?
Furthermore, in a 8vs8 match everything depends on every player’s personal skill. As a result, a team which is lucky to have experienced players within its ranks will always be victorious. I remember when we had a few trainings with IG with over 15 players in each team. IG was stronger and we lost, but the game itself was challenging. We used different tactical moves, even made up some of them right in the field. There was, at least, an illusion that we can oppose them and that we were tough to kill. So it was pleasant to play with a strong rival. And now imagine an 8vs8 match with IG: a couple of well-placed headshots in the beginning of the round - and that’s it. No tactics, no resistance, no pleasure. Only the annoyance from a quick defeat and of the comprehension of your helplessness. I doubt that weaker teams would like to take part in a tournament which is nothing but irritating this way.
In addition, most rounds we played ended with a duel. When more people take part in a match, a duel becomes a rare thing, so it looks epic and very thrilling. But when you see one almost every round… Shall this tournament be a tournament for teams or duelists?
A 10vs10 setting was a very good decision. In fact, it might be interesting to consider holding 12vs12 matches. As for 8vs8, they’re much like the 5-a-side tournament. Well, and there’s the NC which is an 8vs8 tournament as well, and this one’s really worth watching, as every country is represented by the finest players. And every life will be valuable over there. As for the ENL, such a restriction’s not very sensible. Most teams have only a couple of really good fighters, and the rest are quite average players. Such rosters don’t make 8vs8 matches thrilling.
Furthermore, in a 8vs8 match everything depends on every player’s personal skill. As a result, a team which is lucky to have experienced players within its ranks will always be victorious. I remember when we had a few trainings with IG with over 15 players in each team. IG was stronger and we lost, but the game itself was challenging. We used different tactical moves, even made up some of them right in the field. There was, at least, an illusion that we can oppose them and that we were tough to kill. So it was pleasant to play with a strong rival. And now imagine an 8vs8 match with IG: a couple of well-placed headshots in the beginning of the round - and that’s it. No tactics, no resistance, no pleasure. Only the annoyance from a quick defeat and of the comprehension of your helplessness. I doubt that weaker teams would like to take part in a tournament which is nothing but irritating this way.
In addition, most rounds we played ended with a duel. When more people take part in a match, a duel becomes a rare thing, so it looks epic and very thrilling. But when you see one almost every round… Shall this tournament be a tournament for teams or duelists?
A 10vs10 setting was a very good decision. In fact, it might be interesting to consider holding 12vs12 matches. As for 8vs8, they’re much like the 5-a-side tournament. Well, and there’s the NC which is an 8vs8 tournament as well, and this one’s really worth watching, as every country is represented by the finest players. And every life will be valuable over there. As for the ENL, such a restriction’s not very sensible. Most teams have only a couple of really good fighters, and the rest are quite average players. Such rosters don’t make 8vs8 matches thrilling.
From my point of view, it’s a bad decision, too.
Usually, when there’s a match between two teams which haven’t fought each other yet, only by the third round you start comprehending the enemy’s weaknesses and, as a result, use them in the 4th and the 5th rounds. Playing only three rounds means having a random result which doesn’t give an objective assessment of any team’s strength. I hope that the ENL is aimed at estimate the current “power” of existing teams. Or else, what’s the point playing all these matches? Let’s just roll the dice and put down the results.
I presume that most 12-round matches between teams unfamiliar to each other will be carried out as follows: two teams start camping, afraid to make a tactical mistake. Does it sound familiar? It’s much like 8vs8 games which have been described earlier.
We discussed the changelog with our opposing team after the match. Both sides came to the conclusion that the limitation to 12 rounds had been the greatest disappointment by far.
Many voted for 12-round matches saying that they would decrease the overall length of the games and the teams would have more spare time left. But is that really good enough?
Let’s say, a team has three trainings a week, preparing for the game. The players are most likely to put off all their plans IRL, the evening the event takes place is Warband time now (well, in case of Russians it’s most likely to be the night, actually). They all attend the game, and what do they get in the end?
Scenario №1: the quick death of a couple of fighters within the first 10 seconds because of a tactical failure and the almost instant end of the round, as every single life counts and your or the enemy’s team simply has an advantage. Let’s say, it all takes 40 seconds. 12 rounds 40 seconds each account for 480 seconds, or 4 minutes, in total. A week of trainings, the entire lost evening (yeah, the evening will be lost anyway, because all the evening’s chores have been postponed already). Some teams get ready for the game for an awfully long time. And all this is done for 8 minutes of playing time, when one of the teams gets dominated, not given a chance to fight back.
Scenario №2: both sides are defending their positions, caring for every player’s life and being afraid to make a tactical mistake. Realizing that there won’t be a chance to right the wrongs as there are only three rounds for every spawn. As a result, we have 12 full 5-minute rounds, or one hour, of refined depression and boredom. Once again, we ask ourselves: what’s the point spending so much time on trainings and the entire evening on the match? Where’s all the fun gone?
There are two more changes. I think that they’re not that crucial, but I shall comment on them anyway.
Usually, when there’s a match between two teams which haven’t fought each other yet, only by the third round you start comprehending the enemy’s weaknesses and, as a result, use them in the 4th and the 5th rounds. Playing only three rounds means having a random result which doesn’t give an objective assessment of any team’s strength. I hope that the ENL is aimed at estimate the current “power” of existing teams. Or else, what’s the point playing all these matches? Let’s just roll the dice and put down the results.
I presume that most 12-round matches between teams unfamiliar to each other will be carried out as follows: two teams start camping, afraid to make a tactical mistake. Does it sound familiar? It’s much like 8vs8 games which have been described earlier.
We discussed the changelog with our opposing team after the match. Both sides came to the conclusion that the limitation to 12 rounds had been the greatest disappointment by far.
Many voted for 12-round matches saying that they would decrease the overall length of the games and the teams would have more spare time left. But is that really good enough?
Let’s say, a team has three trainings a week, preparing for the game. The players are most likely to put off all their plans IRL, the evening the event takes place is Warband time now (well, in case of Russians it’s most likely to be the night, actually). They all attend the game, and what do they get in the end?
Scenario №1: the quick death of a couple of fighters within the first 10 seconds because of a tactical failure and the almost instant end of the round, as every single life counts and your or the enemy’s team simply has an advantage. Let’s say, it all takes 40 seconds. 12 rounds 40 seconds each account for 480 seconds, or 4 minutes, in total. A week of trainings, the entire lost evening (yeah, the evening will be lost anyway, because all the evening’s chores have been postponed already). Some teams get ready for the game for an awfully long time. And all this is done for 8 minutes of playing time, when one of the teams gets dominated, not given a chance to fight back.
Scenario №2: both sides are defending their positions, caring for every player’s life and being afraid to make a tactical mistake. Realizing that there won’t be a chance to right the wrongs as there are only three rounds for every spawn. As a result, we have 12 full 5-minute rounds, or one hour, of refined depression and boredom. Once again, we ask ourselves: what’s the point spending so much time on trainings and the entire evening on the match? Where’s all the fun gone?
There are two more changes. I think that they’re not that crucial, but I shall comment on them anyway.
I haven’t seen much difference here. Most players know well enough how much gold they’ll get for their victories and frags and are able to invest appropriate amounts of gold into the necessary equipment.
With the different bonuses, some guys were making mistakes choosing their gear and spawned on wrong horses or with wrong shields. This change doesn’t bring anything but inconvenience. Well, it was aimed to limit the number of armor tanks, but they’ll stay anyway. Moreover, some factions allow the players to buy some decent armor even for the starting 1000 gold.
With the different bonuses, some guys were making mistakes choosing their gear and spawned on wrong horses or with wrong shields. This change doesn’t bring anything but inconvenience. Well, it was aimed to limit the number of armor tanks, but they’ll stay anyway. Moreover, some factions allow the players to buy some decent armor even for the starting 1000 gold.
For two years 5-minutes rounds have been the universal standard for the matches within the Russian community.
The ENL summer cycle was the first time we dealt with 6-minute rounds. And, you know, making the rounds 6 minutes long was a great decision.
Firstly, six minutes allow a team to reach any flags from any spot on every map, just in time to give the enemy the last fight. For example, on the Field by the River a team which is standing near the castle won’t be able to get to the flags if they appear near the windmill in a 5-minute round. 6-minute rounds make it possible.
Secondly, while playing 6-minute rounds, I noticed that pore emphasis is placed on tactics. Captains knew that they had more time at their disposal and kept trying to outflank the enemy somewhere. If a team is determined to wait till the flags show up, 5-minute rounds limits their options to camping, once again. The shooters hurl a handful of arrows at each other, and that’s it. Why send the troops anywhere, trying to get them behind the enemy lines, if the flags are about to appear in just a little bit? This change seems the least important of those described earlier, though.
The ENL summer cycle was the first time we dealt with 6-minute rounds. And, you know, making the rounds 6 minutes long was a great decision.
Firstly, six minutes allow a team to reach any flags from any spot on every map, just in time to give the enemy the last fight. For example, on the Field by the River a team which is standing near the castle won’t be able to get to the flags if they appear near the windmill in a 5-minute round. 6-minute rounds make it possible.
Secondly, while playing 6-minute rounds, I noticed that pore emphasis is placed on tactics. Captains knew that they had more time at their disposal and kept trying to outflank the enemy somewhere. If a team is determined to wait till the flags show up, 5-minute rounds limits their options to camping, once again. The shooters hurl a handful of arrows at each other, and that’s it. Why send the troops anywhere, trying to get them behind the enemy lines, if the flags are about to appear in just a little bit? This change seems the least important of those described earlier, though.
Regards!
