New Ideas for an Experimental TO Tournament



  • picks and bans will be more involved from both parties (with team/player specific bans) instead of having 1 “nobody is actually happy” weapon restriction list

    either way spook will never play maul again if this goes through



  • @kwazi:

    picks and bans will be more involved from both parties (with team/player specific bans) instead of having 1 “nobody is actually happy” weapon restriction list

    either way spook will never play maul again if this goes through

    Time to brush off the old dubaxe



  • If you’re good at chivalry it doesn’t matter as much what weapon’s in your hands.



  • @Kim:

    Time to brush off the old dubaxe

    You knaves think you know fear now



  • @kwazi:

    either way spook will never play maul again if this goes through

    Winner of kendo or 1v1 gets first pick :D



  • @Frodiziak:

    The picks and bans idea should be tweaked around tho, in dota its easy to ban due to the sheer number of heroes you can pick, but in our case we should do it a bit differently.

    1 game = 2 rounds

    There should be a ban phase each round,and add a rule to make it so the same weapon cant be banned twice in a game.

    This is definitely interesting, and now that Picks and Bans definitely seems to be the option in the lead I think the very simplistic system I suggested should be changed and improved.

    We have a good amount of time before the tourney so I will talk to a lot of people and will tweak the system greatly.



  • I’d also like to add that I think it’d be better to have a preset weapon list BEFORE kendo to prevent people from using cheese weapons, like a knight with a holy water sprinkler and shield. These things are just ridiculously gimmicky and everybody knows it, and it’s nearly impossible to beat it against anybody decent.



  • I’d prefer to see a preset weapon list, it would give people sometime to actually prepare with the allowed weapons. I thought your list looked pretty good as is I’d just like to see Javs removed.



  • @Aurane:

    I’d also like to add that I think it’d be better to have a preset weapon list BEFORE kendo to prevent people from using cheese weapons, like a knight with a holy water sprinkler and shield. These things are just ridiculously gimmicky and everybody knows it, and it’s nearly impossible to beat it against anybody decent.

    this just in HWS and shield knight is OP

    in fact its so OP nobody uses it out of respect for the enemy



  • Allow each team to ban 1 weapon per class topkek.

    Maul*, Messer, SoW - one of these will see play, teams must pick their poison

    Zwei*, Brandi*, …Halberd? Spear? - Nah, I think every team would ban Zwei and Brandi.

    Norse*, HWS, Flanged Mace - I guess any non-Lg team will ban Norse and HWS.

    Crossbows, Javelins… - There sure are a lot of choices when it comes to archer, lol.

    Yeah, people will give you hell for the pre-determined list methinks. “wut u banning my skillhok mang??/ it’s less OP than spe4r!!! - wow u ban my maul but not dubaxe so sp00k can win torney for u guyz?? gg no n0rse sw0rd and not even hatchet but u still allow morning star with its instant stab?? STOPID ODMINS BIASED BY TEMBEST DERR LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE.” At least bans will direct the hate wave away from the Tournament Admins.



  • i think its a bad idea in general because a lot of people focus really hard on 1 weapon, if that gets banned GG



  • There are advantages and disadvantages obviously, but the one thing I’d be absolutely opposed to would be a 49% class balance rule.

    Don’t have an MAA on your team? Guess who is runnin double archer. Oh wait, can’t do that… so guess one of you guys is just gonna have to play MAA and shut up and like it.

    Seriously though, the primary point of 6v6 is that it allows for much more variety in class compositions… this completely negates that benefit.

    As for pick and ban weapons phases, it could work experimentally. Would add a layer of strategic depth potentially, but this is still ultimately a game. I know that if I spent hours with a weapon that wasn’t OP, it would detract from my fun significantly if I had to play with another weapon. Then again, playing against certain weapons is relatively anti-fun for everyone else… so yeah. I’m also assuming that this is primaries only, otherwise banning something like Vg throwing axes and knives would be dumb. SMOKES EVERYWHERE!



  • @zombojoe:

    i think its a bad idea in general because a lot of people focus really hard on 1 weapon, if that gets banned GG

    That’s what makes it interesting in my opinion, it gives people an incentive to use different weapons. As long as the banned weapons list is posted at least 2 week before the tourny that’s more then enough time for clans to prepare. I’d say have a council of representatives from the core active clans decide on a list and it’s fair. Let’s be real here we all know which weapons are clearly better then the others.



  • @HeightofAbsurdity:

    There are advantages and disadvantages obviously, but the one thing I’d be absolutely opposed to would be a 49% class balance rule.

    Don’t have an MAA on your team? Guess who is runnin double archer. Oh wait, can’t do that… so guess one of you guys is just gonna have to play MAA and shut up and like it.

    Seriously though, the primary point of 6v6 is that it allows for much more variety in class compositions… this completely negates that benefit.

    The primary purpose of the 49% rule is to negate the triple knight meta. If enough people don’t like the idea of 1 archer per team it won’t be implemented. Running 3 knights decreases class variety. With 49% there will be more vanguards and men at arms in play.



  • @Omega:

    The primary purpose of the 49% rule is to negate the triple knight meta. If enough people don’t like the idea of 1 archer per team it won’t be implemented. Running 3 knights decreases class variety. With 49% there will be more vanguards and men at arms in play.

    Pick and Bans = No more Mauls and Messer
    49% = Archer buff since they can now kill more vanguards/Giant Buff for teams with 2 good MAA’s.

    I still think it should always remain 1 archer and 1 firepot limit though.



  • @ChuckingIt:

    Pick and Bans = No more Mauls and Messer
    49% = Archer buff since they can now kill more vanguards/Giant Buff for teams with 2 good MAA’s.

    I still think it should always remain 1 archer and 1 firepot limit though.

    Not at all likely that both messer and maul will be banned. Also you’re forgetting the “picks” part of It. Team that wins kendo gets first pick of the weapon they want in the game.



  • @Omega:

    Not at all likely that both messer and maul will be banned. Also you’re forgetting the “picks” part of It. Team that wins kendo gets first pick of the weapon they want in the game.

    First: I can see maul and messer being banned a lot. Like… most common bans along with LXB and Short Spear a lot. Especially if triple knight is allowed, but even with a 49% rule in place I know Lg would ban both of those if don’t think the enemy archer is a large threat. You can say that the teams would simply pick one of them before the ban phase, but that is why I also have to say:

    Second: In every other game, bans precede picks (with good reason), even in things like Dota 2 where drafts and picks are commonly intermingled rather than given separate phases (like in LoL). If the thought process is to add strategic depth or to limit abusively strong weapons, then having picks before the bans defeats the purpose. The only way I even see picking rounds making sense would be:

    T1 Ban, T2 Ban, T1 Pick, T2 Pick, T1 Ban, T2 Ban.

    Still, I think it makes much more sense to just to have each team ban two weapons:

    T1 Ban, T2 Ban, T2 Ban, T1 Ban.

    Winner of the Kendo can pick whether they want 1st and last or 2nd and 3rd.

    Third:
    @Omega:

    The primary purpose of the 49% rule is to negate the triple knight meta. If enough people don’t like the idea of 1 archer per team it won’t be implemented. Running 3 knights decreases class variety. With 49% there will be more vanguards and men at arms in play.

    My point was that the whole reason 6v6 is desirable is the greater variety in class. You saw, while triple knight meta is still prevalent, other teams run other setups. When it was a 5v5 setup, you would have 2K, 1V, 1M, and 1A. With this 6v6 49% rule, you would see 2K, 2V, 1M, and 1A. The only other possibilty would be 2K, 1V, 2M, and 1A, which is unlikely to happen. In a 6v6 50% rule, especially if you utilize picks and bans to make a class more viable (getting rid of lxb and SoW or short spear to help run a double or even triple vg comp or banning messer and zwei to make double MAA more viable), you still see 2K, 2V, 1M, 1A in addition to the more common triple knight meta. Hell, vs a non-top tier archer and the multitude of anti-knight weapons that other knights have as well as the strong synergies lots of vg weapons have, it is already arguably optimal in those cases.

    The main thing though is that knight is the most popular class in the game. Especially in smaller clans, it isn’t uncommon for the majority of one clan to have way too many either knight or Vg mains. Still, it is better they play what they main in most cases than have them play off-class, which can completely ruin the experience for some of them. Especially when all you have is Knights and Vg’s and one of them is shoved into MAA, because the single archer limit is necessary and I don’t see that getting voted out.

    So if you’re gonna go the 49% rule route, why not just drop to 5v5 so we can have more teams, give the smaller clans an easier time getting folks so there are less DQ’s and more scrims that happen?



  • Very well said Height, I remember explaining why I liked 5v5 more and you and Omega gave very good counterpoints to why 6v6 should be the main competitive format. 49% rule would remove a big reason as to why you guys said 6v6 is the superior format: class diversity.



  • @a:

    Very well said Height, I remember explaining why I liked 5v5 more and you and Omega gave very good counterpoints to why 6v6 should be the main competitive format. 49% rule would remove a big reason as to why you guys said 6v6 is the superior format: class diversity.

    49% is only going to affect 3 knights, which is the only class a team would consider running 3 of. So 49% does in fact increase diversity. With 3 knights running 2 maa would never happen, or most likely 2 vanguards either.

    Also another major strength of 6v6 as I stated in the reddit thread is the better tactics and flanking you can achieve by splitting your forces in different ways.



  • @Height

    Too much in your post to quote haha. I think the idea of bans first is a good one and will probably be the way we do it on second thought. Only bans is interesting and something to consider, though in that case I think one ban for each team would suffice.

    Another option as suggested by Frodiziak is that there are picks and bans each round and the same bans can’t be made twice.

    6v6 is non-negotiable, it’s the more popular format and the superior one in my opinion. There is more diversity and strategy. I’ll probably make another poll too see the opinions on 49% rule, but I strongly feel it’s the right call.


Log in to reply