Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
Rules discussion
Topic Started: Feb 12 2013, 04:19 PM (511 Views)
Lancer

If anyone has any specific questions regarding the rules please raise them here.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pirx

Just to confirm:

Does all roman factions are treated as 1 faction? that is: if u take Julii so I cannot take Scipio in other battle?

Also: if i take Julli in 2v2 or 3v3, does the opponents may take Scipio in the same battle?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lancer

Yeh, all the Roman factions will be treated as 1 faction.

And you and your opponents may take any of the roman factions in the same battle.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pirx

"In the event of a tiebreaking game, the match will be Rome vs Rome, on grassy flatlands, with 20,000 denarii and TWPL rules."

In 3v3 format you mean that there will be 3 Romes vs 3 Romes, 60k?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lancer

Yeh, that's what we mean. It seemed the fairest way to do it. But we are open to any advice.

Perhaps allowing any of the factions would be better since the mixture perhaps offsets the imbalance that would be present in a 1v1? And it would be more interesting. I'd welcome any opinions on this.

Edit: Likewise the same situation is perhaps applicable to the 2v2.
Edited by Lancer, Feb 18 2013, 04:44 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pirx

Well, I guess thats fair.

On the other hand, just an impression. This 20k TWPL Rome only is like .. hmm .. how to put this - little of salt in the candy. You host 15k tourney in general but make totally different "environment" for the battle which is decisive to get to the final (as we will most probably have semis after the group). And also in the final same rule applies as i understand.

Most of clans which entered the tourney dont play much 20k, twpl. Also, in all games they diverse factions to make it funny. 3 Romes in 3 Romes is normal thing but on 30k which is played only by few clans which arent registered here.

Donno tbh, maybe in case of a draw 1-1 in the semi, I would give the team which picks second in the final battle to decide whether they wanna do Rome vs Rome or normal picking (with factions left after 2 battles). The last option would be rather more exciting for me. As this would bring more tactic with picking factions to the whole match.

But for sure I would rethink this 20k twpl.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lancer

We decided on 20k twpl since 15k cwb Rome vs Rome is just cav spam nowadays (at least in a competitive sense)

But I agree that mixed factions for tiebreaker would be more exciting and tactical. Will discuss this with other admins.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pirx

Well, like I said - most of us dont play 20k, many never did. So this will probably have impact on the level of the final match. There will be much randomness like it happens when you play new money.

Just for the record - donno if we all agree on this: from my experience the team that picks first and has to attack is in worse position than defending team. This is due to the fact that the defending team may counter each faction picked by attacking one (121212). That is why i have such idea:

2 groups are rather obvious thing. So 2 best teams in each group enter semis (Group I: team A - 1st place, team B - second place; Group II: team C - 1st place, team D - second place).

Than in the semis games are played like this:
1st semi: team A vs team D
2nd semi: team C vs team B

where teams A and C are defending in 1st and third battle (in case of tiebreak).

In such situation teams which won their groups are privileged. But they earned that by winning group so i think its fair. It will also make group competition even more important.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moussolini

wouldn't 12,5k twpl be better then or even 15k but twpl rules to avoid that mass cav spamming?

20k might be too different and odd for those with no experience in it ofc.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SkullKrusher
Administrator
Well 20k twpl is even for every player. Standard armys so i wont change that!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The_Illyrian
Member Avatar

I can't speak for Lancy, but one of the reasons I agree w/20k is so that we see a wider variety of skills. The game should be about the best micro, not who can think up the cleverest faction counters. Micro will not change because you have 5k more munnies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lancer

I agree that picking first and attacking places the team at a disadvantage. Rewarding group winners is a good way to mitigate that problem for the semi-final, but it will still leave one team at a disadvantage in the final. Solution for that might be if one team wins 2-0, and the other wins 2-1, reward the team who won 2-0 with defending position. But if they both win 2-0 or w/e then the problem remains.

Rather than 121212 picking there’s potential for 121221 picking, which still leaves team 1 being countered twice instead of once. Could offset this by allowing team 1 to attack. Perhaps this would work as a contingency if both finalists have the same score in the semi-final. Otherwise use your system.

But that's if the rules are changed

--

I agree Illyrian that 20k would probably showcase a greater variety of skills, albeit on a limited scale being that it’s RvR (20k twpl Rome v Rome would largely be 6 praets g/g, 6 urbans g/g archers and maybe some pila shields or triarii or something). But there’s still the question of experience. Micro won’t change but experience will. And can sympthaise with Pirx's position that this is primarily a 15k tournament.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pirx

"The game should be about the best micro, not who can think up the cleverest faction counters."

Why not? What is the most exciting thing about 3v3 format is that the tactic is very important if not crucial. You pick wrong factions, which dont work well together - you are closer to defeat.

"Micro will not change because you have 5k more munnies."

Not sure what u understand by Micro, but playing 60k differes a lot from playing 45k.

I guess u guys need to answer between yourself for to two questions:
- whether you wanna remain Rome vs Rome rule rather than change it to normal picking of whats left after two battles (if yes, than i guess 20k twpl is ok),

- if you wanna make it a normal picking than why not leaving it 15k.

But in the end we will of course accept your decision.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pirx

You are right Lancer that we still have issue with the final even if you implemented my proposition.

Well, than make it 4 games on 15k with normal picking (that way in 4th battle there will be gauls vs dacia hehe, fun :D). And decider Rome vs Rome (if necessary) but ... hmm not on 20k?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aragon

The_Illyrian
Feb 19 2013, 02:16 PM
I can't speak for Lancy, but one of the reasons I agree w/20k is so that we see a wider variety of skills. The game should be about the best micro, not who can think up the cleverest faction counters. Micro will not change because you have 5k more munnies.
How on earth is 20k more diverse than 15k? The lower the money the more relevant factions become. At 20k the only factions that mean shit are Rome, Sele, Egypt and Brits (rushing). And yes micro does change between moneys. Not from 45k to 60k but between 15k and 20k the difference is enormous.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lancer

Certainly if normal picking I would say leave it at 15k. Because I agree that jumping from 15k to 20k but having any faction available would be almost completely alien to most players. I don't think it's quite so bad if just RvR since I think most have more of an idea of how to play it. But I may be making assumptions here.

I would support making the decider on 15k cwb with normal picking, since the greater variety of factions and counter picking would even the situation somewhat, increase strategy and make things more interesting.

1v1 I still think should be a RvR, with twpl rather than cwb rules (since there are less factors involved than in a team game). 15k may work as Moussolini suggests, but I still think it'd be almost exclusively dependent on the cavalry.
Edited by Lancer, Feb 19 2013, 04:43 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lancer

Another issue is how long would people suggest for the group stage? Atm, we are thinking 1 1/2 to 2 weeks for the 1v1, 2 weeks for the 2v2, and longer for the 3v3. Perhaps 3-4 weeks. Want to balance enough time to realistically get the games done while at the same time not allow things to drag on for too long.
Edited by Lancer, Feb 19 2013, 05:14 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The_Illyrian
Member Avatar

What I mean is that a player's ability to see the whole picture of the battlefield (Macro) and the ability to react in time with units and with correct attacks/formations (Micro) does not change because the money is different. Tactics change, micro does not. But, I am one person who is not playing in the tourney, and if you guys want 15k normal picking, then it shall be so! :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moussolini

well it's up to the admins obviously to decide how to do this... because wether or not you got twpl, on 12,5k and 15k it will mostly be 6 gg praets for sure.... but on 20k it will be 6 gg praets aswell, but infantry will have alot more to say, and how you use the urbs and/or triarii if you got them etc... then again archers might have lesser value aswell as light cav ofc... but I honestly do not care if it is 20k or 15k, it's the hosts tourny so it's up to them really.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pirx

When it comes to timeframes, well, I think that 2 weeks is max that should be used in this tourney, nevermind whether its 1v1, 2v2 or 3v3. Imo more deadly to the tourney is when timeframes are long. Because active teams will probably play their games within 1st week. And they will have to wait for lazy teams. At the stage of 3rd match all will lose their initial excitement.

So I would say 2 weeks both for 2v2 and 3v3 matches. In both of this tourneys we have almost the same people so if they are active in 2v2 than they should also be in 3v3. Especially that there are reserves to play.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Tournament Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1

Theme created by Heretic/Hawtsauce and converted by Jenny of the ZetaBoards Theme Zone.