New Ideas for an Experimental TO Tournament



  • @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.



  • 1st
    @Omega:

    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.

    My previous statement on class diversity still stands. If you take the 49% rule, then the ONLY real options you have are

    2K, 2V, 1M, 1A. (Everyone will run this)*
    2K, 1V, 2M, 1A. (Occasionally you MIGHT see this, but rarely)*
    2K, 2V, 2M, 0A. (All melee is optimal in certain situations. Bad setup for it though)

    You’ll see about 80% of the former, 15% of the second, and 5% of the latter.

    Under the current system, these setups have times when they’re not just viable but OPTIMAL:
    3K, 1V, 1M, 1A (Standard 3K Setup that everyone uses)
    2K, 2V, 1M, 1A (Setup that works almost just as well, and might be more optimal w/ picks and bans) (Note that both T and F in the last tourny ran this setups as well as their 3K Setups)
    3K, 1V, 2M, 0A (An all melee setup that doesn’t give the enemy archer twice the Vg food to eat)
    3K, 2V, 1M, 0A (An all melee setup that still is beefier with that third knight. Was ran last tourny)

    You see about 70% of the former, 25% of the second, and 5% of the latter 2.

    I fail to see how this gives any number of more optimal setups… you’re just trading one devil for another. On the other hand: Knight is the most popular comp class in the game, MAA and archer being the least popular. Playing offclass is anti-fun for the player and quite often deleterious to the team, and a 49% rule will mean that teams might have to shove non MAA players into the MAA role. You’re thinking from the perspective of a team that has ample amounts of whatever position you guys need. As someone from a smaller clan (Lg purposely restricts our numbers and are quite selective, even if we aren’t considered a smaller clan by most) and who helped start up Genesis recently, I can tell you that if Chris isn’t online Lg wouldn’t want to run someone off-class as MAA _and in Genesis we had people having to play off-class in scrims already with the 50% rule because we had so many Knights and Vg’s, which already went miserable for the off-class MAA when it happened. It would be even worse in the 49%. The 50% gives teams wiggle room that is much needed. Hell, in Genesis starting out we won scrims with 3Vg’s and I was playing Archer (though I main Vg) because we had so many Vg’s on. That wouldn’t be allowed in the 49%.

    In summary:
    49% will either yield equivalent or less class diversity at the highest teirs of play.
    49% will yield less class diversity for lower teirs and force many of them to play offclass, which isn’t fun.

    2nd

    @Omega:

    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.

    @Omega:

    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.

    First I’d just like to say you are allowed to do what you want to do obviously since it will be your tournament. But your case for the superiority of the 6v6 format over the 5v5 format hinged on 2 advantages: Class diversity and force splitting. I would also add to that the feel of a more full battlefield, especially on larger maps. If you remove class diversity, then you have force splitting/flanking and this feel of a full battlefield. We might also add to the list that it is popular right now as you just said. (though then I feel you have to admit this as a disadvantage for the 49% rule since the 50% rule has been in place far longer than the 6v6 format. In fact, since I returned in September, 2 of the 4 tournies hosted so far were 5v5’s. 6v6 started mid-November).

    On the otherhand, 5v5 has about equivalent class diversity to 6v6 49%.

    2K, 1V, 1M, 1A will be standard.
    2K, 2V, 0M, 1A is viable but subpar.
    2K, 2V, 1M or 2K, 1V, 2M are standard no melee.

    And 5v5 has a ton of other pros. While some people like a more full battlefield, others like less cramped battlefields where they feel they have more room. 5v5 is a more popular competitive esports format (Bada and a few others used to call it the “Golden” number when we were initially discussing format sizes years ago). It is easier for streamers and viewers to follow the action and get to know the players on the teams producing more drama. It would result in less DQ’s because the difficulty in getting an extra person raises exponentially with each new person. It would result in more scrims since teams would need fewer people. It would just be a shit ton easier for start up teams in general. Also, 5v5 gives larger clans a chance to sport two teams. While in the 6v6 era it is hard to put up two teams because of the previously mentioned exponential difficulty increase in sporting a 6th, in the 5v5 era it wasn’t that uncommon at all. This led to more players getting to play and more teams in the tournament :)

    And as far as force splitting, while there are more combinations possible in a 6v6 there are still plenty available in a 5v5. Assuming we’re just talking about splitting melee forces, you can have 3 main + a lone wolf, 2 pairs of 2, 2 man 1 solo flanker and 1 solo to intercept melee headed for the archer. Hell, that last one Lg used to run all the time when we had Teeman and Chris. Variety still exists, just to a slightly lesser degree.

    So if class diversity is no longer a pro, then the list looks like this:

    6v6

    More variety in force splitting
    More people/Battlefield feel
    Current Popularity

    5v5

    Less cramped battlefields
    Most Popular eSport format
    Easier for streamers/viewers to follow
    Fewer Tournament DQ’s
    Easier for New teams to start up since they need less people
    Large clans can submit multiple teams, meaning more people get to play and the tourny is larger.
    Fewer People = Marginally less stress on server as well as player’s computer if they haz a potato.
    Easier to find servers that can hold all match personnel (I swear, every tourny we have to use servers that get maxed out which holds things up).

    Of course, there are small balance reasons to prefer one over the other, though I see no need to get into those as I view them as more or less negligible and debatable._



  • I agree with Height’s doctoral thesis even though it made me really tired.



  • No list. Archers have only a couple viable weapons anyway. Sling is useless especially without flinch and javelin is way above crossbow and longbow, so it would end up giving an unfair advantage to the few that actually use javelins.
    My point is that everyone has a different opinion on balance that depends on their experience. If no one’s ever really used a certain weapon well with or against them, they won’t consider it op even if that’s what it is. This is especially true in such a small comp scene.

    From my point of view the problem with picks and bans is that if the enemy archer mains javelin and I ban it, he can use short spear or heavy javs instead where as if he bans lcb, there’s nothing quite like it. It requires a completely different playstyle from the rest of the crossbows.



  • Considering what JP just mentioned. Wouldn’t it be better to ban a weapon class then instead of one specific weapon? For example the whole crossbow class (light/medium/Heavy) or the whole heavy blunt class (warhammer/GM/Maul).



  • I agree with Height’s last post about the 49% idea. Let’s keep it at 50 for his stated reasons.

    I also think the idea of banning a weapon class as opposed to a single weapon is a great idea. It will give teams much more tactical opportunity with bans. Combine that with new bans for each round and not being able to ban the same weapon class twice, it should be fairly balanced.



  • bans are bad dont make this game like dota where 99% of the games are won based on the draft



  • Mercs mod with all custom-maps and dankforest for grand final tiebreaker/10 tourney.



  • I like picks and bans. If you can only compete “optimally” with one weapon then it is time to click a different square box on the loadout screen.


Log in to reply