Civ rules for next tournament?

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 31 Aug 2015, 20:19

How about we allow otto and iro, but at the beginning of each series we allow each player to chose 2 or 3 civs which the other player can't play for the whole series? We will see more civ variety. Most people will probably ban otto and iro, so we won't see much of those but we will see them a little bit if both players agree not to ban them. We will also see more of the lower civs since the 3rd civ banned will be something like china or germany.

medinos · Post by **medinos** » 31 Aug 2015, 20:32

Yeah it would be pretty interesting like every player can ban 1-2 civs 3 would be too many...
But we would allow all civs...

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 31 Aug 2015, 20:41

The only thing I don't like is having to see iro mirror, that is boring as shiiiiiiiit but otto mirror is more ok and iro vs otto is interesting

airgorden · Post by **airgorden** » 31 Aug 2015, 20:42

But instead of banning OP civs, would your opponent not just ban the civ or civs that you are best with, in order to gain the advantage rather than for the balancing aspect. Wouldn't that lead to a tourney of a lot of OP vs balanced civs.

PoniPoika · Post by **PoniPoika** » 31 Aug 2015, 20:48

airgorden wrote:But instead of banning OP civs, would your opponent not just ban the civ or civs that you are best with, in order to gain the advantage rather than for the balancing aspect. Wouldn''t that lead to a tourney of a lot of OP vs balanced civs.

But the opponent banning the civs you are best at is not a problem. The result would still be Otto and iro being banned most of the time, but would also favour whichever player has a more diverse civ pool. Whether two or three civ bans would be appropriate is a mater of opinion. This would also be a rather elegant solution to people complaining about civs like ger/japs/india etc. In addition it allows for more diversity and player power without creating balance issues.

deleted_user0 · Post by **deleted_user0** » 31 Aug 2015, 20:50

These rules are good.

Post by **n0el** » 31 Aug 2015, 20:54

I think it would be fun to see a tournament where each player has to preselect their civs per map. It could lead to some interesting matchups

gibson · Post by **gibson** » 31 Aug 2015, 20:54

It's an awful idea. It is extremely biased towards people who are good with a wide variety of civs, while those who can only play 3 or 4 civs (which is let's be honest most people) will be screwed.

PoniPoika · Post by **PoniPoika** » 31 Aug 2015, 20:58

gibson wrote:It''s an awful idea. It is extremely biased towards people who are good with a wide variety of civs, while those who can only play 3 or 4 civs (which is let''s be honest most people) will be screwed.

Which is a good thing lol? Diversity in skillset should be rewarded.

gibson · Post by **gibson** » 31 Aug 2015, 20:59

ponipoika wrote:
gibson wrote:Its an awful idea. It is extremely biased towards people who are good with a wide variety of civs, while those who can only play 3 or 4 civs (which is lets be honest most people) will be screwed.

Which is a good thing lol? Diversity in skillset should be rewarded.

So basically you want the tournament to be about who can play the widest variety of civs on average the best rather than who the actual best player is.

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 31 Aug 2015, 21:02

gibson wrote:It''s an awful idea. It is extremely biased towards people who are good with a wide variety of civs, while those who can only play 3 or 4 civs (which is let''s be honest most people) will be screwed.

It doesn''t have to be 3 civs, it can also be only 2. Which would be the same as the previous tournaments.

momuuu · Post by **momuuu** » 31 Aug 2015, 21:03

Meh, some people only main a few civs and would really want to play those over laming otto or iro. I think the civ restrictions are fine atm.

pecelot · Post by **pecelot** » 31 Aug 2015, 21:05

We don't want to see players who are good at only 3-4 civs to go far in the tournament, do we?
This sounds like a good idea, it can lead to some interesting MU. Imagine your opponent being very good with India and Japan, you can ban them + let's say Iro, so you have an advantage, but he still can play Otto! It's your choice.
About the map poll... Current system works fine IMO, but it would be nice to see some additions, like players' home maps. Let's say we have kynesie vs H2O. The first one picks Indonesia for water, the second one picks Cascade Range for India. The rest would be random

gibson · Post by **gibson** » 31 Aug 2015, 21:06

ovi12 wrote:
gibson wrote:Its an awful idea. It is extremely biased towards people who are good with a wide variety of civs, while those who can only play 3 or 4 civs (which is lets be honest most people) will be screwed.
It doesnt have to be 3 civs, it can also be only 2. Which would be the same as the previous tournaments.

well I shouldnt say its an awful idea because its not an awful idea. Like I said I just think it favors players who are more diverse, rather than those who are more skillful.

Garja · Post by **Garja** » 31 Aug 2015, 21:09

Civ veto is not happening.

princeofkabul · Post by **princeofkabul** » 31 Aug 2015, 21:09

Piroshiki reading these rules and facepalming.

gibson · Post by **gibson** » 31 Aug 2015, 21:09

pecelot wrote:We don''t want to see players who are good at only 3-4 civs to go far in the tournament, do we?
This sounds like a good idea, it can lead to some interesting MU. Imagine your opponent being very good with India and Japan, you can ban them + let''s say Iro, so you have an advantage, but he still can play Otto! It''s your choice.
About the map poll... Current system works fine IMO, but it would be nice to see some additions, like players'' home maps. Let''s say we have kynesie vs H2O. The first one picks Indonesia for water, the second one picks Cascade Range for India. The rest would be random

Literally like all players are only good with four civs. Not like their bad with others, but if they played another similarly skilled player with one of their "bad" civs they would loose just about everytime. It makes the tournament about how big the players skill drop off is from their top civs rather than their actual skill.

PoniPoika · Post by **PoniPoika** » 31 Aug 2015, 21:09

Well that's not really an accurate representation of the ramifications. I mean, if we assume two civ vetos per person, it would take something pretty extreme for those two not to be iro and Otto. And that just means you are preventing people from just playing a couple of civs until late in the tourney (read: NaturePhoenix in the pk tourney, kynesie in the last one). I would argue that having some civ diversity is a key element in actually being good at the game. If we take the rules from the most recent tourney but add this tweak, players in even a bo9 would only have to be able to play 7 civs max, and that includes iro and otto.

gibson · Post by **gibson** » 31 Aug 2015, 21:10

pecelot wrote:We don''t want to see players who are good at only 3-4 civs to go far in the tournament, do we?
This sounds like a good idea, it can lead to some interesting MU. Imagine your opponent being very good with India and Japan, you can ban them + let''s say Iro, so you have an advantage, but he still can play Otto! It''s your choice.
About the map poll... Current system works fine IMO, but it would be nice to see some additions, like players'' home maps. Let''s say we have kynesie vs H2O. The first one picks Indonesia for water, the second one picks Cascade Range for India. The rest would be random

Literally like all players are only good with four civs. Not like their bad with others, but if they played another similarly skilled player with one of their "bad" civs they would loose just about everytime. It makes the tournament about how big the players skill drop off is from their top civs rather than their actual skill.

gibson · Post by **gibson** » 31 Aug 2015, 21:11

Fuxkin double post

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 31 Aug 2015, 21:17

garja wrote:Civ veto is not happening.

Why not?

Mr_Bramboy · Post by **Mr_Bramboy** » 31 Aug 2015, 21:37

That'd be dumb. Imagine me banning a colonel's 3 best civs out of the 4 civs he plays. Should I win that even though he is the better player because he doesn't play enough civs?

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 31 Aug 2015, 21:41

bramboy wrote:That''d be dumb. Imagine me banning a colonel''s 3 best civs out of the 4 civs he plays. Should I win that even though he is the better player because he doesn''t play enough civs?

He can also ban your 3 best civs. And if youre banning his non iro otto civs and he bans your iro otto, he has the option to play a few games with to get the hang of iro and otto before the series and then easily win.

That''s why I think most ppl will just ban each other''s otto iro. Like people would even ban kynesie''s iro probably over a water civ.

gibson · Post by **gibson** » 31 Aug 2015, 21:43

ovi12 wrote:
bramboy wrote:Thatd be dumb. Imagine me banning a colonels 3 best civs out of the 4 civs he plays. Should I win that even though he is the better player because he doesnt play enough civs?
He can also ban your 3 best civs. And if youre banning his non iro otto civs and he bans your iro otto, he has the option to play a few games with to get the hang of iro and otto before the series and then easily win.

the point is what if bram can play 7 civs well and the other guy can only play four. Bram wins because he knows more civs, not because he was the better player.

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 31 Aug 2015, 21:44

gibson wrote:
ovi12 wrote:He can also ban your 3 best civs. And if youre banning his non iro otto civs and he bans your iro otto, he has the option to play a few games with to get the hang of iro and otto before the series and then easily win.
the point is what if bram can play 7 civs well and the other guy can only play four. Bram wins because he knows more civs, not because he was the better player.

Still cant win vs colonels otto iro. And a colonel is still quite good even with his bad civs...

ESOC

Top Live Streams

Legacy AoE3