AoE3 Global Championship 2021 - Tournament Rules & Information

[Riotcoke]

I think having at least some sort of civ rules is always great, I don't wanna see someone play their best civ over and over, I like the rule of being able to win with something just once in a series. But I also think it's cool to see people on their best civs, not on their meh civ because their best civs got taken away. If you get to a bo7 or bo9 you already need 4 or 5 civs to win and your civ pool already starts to matter. now you'll need like 10 civs if your opponent takes your best

Honestly if you were to ask me, I'd have it that if you play a civ you can't play it again, win or lose. But these are the rules that Trevor and Noel have chosen for the sake of viewer experience.

[don_artie]

I think having at least some sort of civ rules is always great, I don't wanna see someone play their best civ over and over, I like the rule of being able to win with something just once in a series. But I also think it's cool to see people on their best civs, not on their meh civ because their best civs got taken away. If you get to a bo7 or bo9 you already need 4 or 5 civs to win and your civ pool already starts to matter. now you'll need like 10 civs if your opponent takes your best

Honestly if you were to ask me, I'd have it that if you play a civ you can't play it again, win or lose. But these are the rules that Trevor and Noel have chosen for the sake of viewer experience.

alright I understand, I do think viewer experience is important. But as a viewer I personally rather see people on their best

[Riotcoke]

I think having at least some sort of civ rules is always great, I don't wanna see someone play their best civ over and over, I like the rule of being able to win with something just once in a series. But I also think it's cool to see people on their best civs, not on their meh civ because their best civs got taken away. If you get to a bo7 or bo9 you already need 4 or 5 civs to win and your civ pool already starts to matter. now you'll need like 10 civs if your opponent takes your best

Honestly if you were to ask me, I'd have it that if you play a civ you can't play it again, win or lose. But these are the rules that Trevor and Noel have chosen for the sake of viewer experience.

alright I understand, I do think viewer experience is important. But as a viewer I personally rather see people on their best

You have to understand most viewers don't know the difference between excellence and mediocracity, this is a point ESOC have always failed to see. Diversity, in most viewers eyes, is better than repetivie excellence.

[don_artie]

Show hidden quotes

I think having at least some sort of civ rules is always great, I don't wanna see someone play their best civ over and over, I like the rule of being able to win with something just once in a series. But I also think it's cool to see people on their best civs, not on their meh civ because their best civs got taken away. If you get to a bo7 or bo9 you already need 4 or 5 civs to win and your civ pool already starts to matter. now you'll need like 10 civs if your opponent takes your best

Honestly if you were to ask me, I'd have it that if you play a civ you can't play it again, win or lose. But these are the rules that Trevor and Noel have chosen for the sake of viewer experience.

alright I understand, I do think viewer experience is important. But as a viewer I personally rather see people on their best

You have to understand most viewers don't know the difference between excellence and mediocracity, this is a point ESOC have always failed to see. Diversity, in most viewers eyes, is better than repetivie excellence.

well yeah the way this is set up is for the casual viewers I guess, but it hurts the players and the 'better' viewers. We'll see how it goes I suppose, just personally not much of a fan

[Riotcoke]

Show hidden quotes

I think having at least some sort of civ rules is always great, I don't wanna see someone play their best civ over and over, I like the rule of being able to win with something just once in a series. But I also think it's cool to see people on their best civs, not on their meh civ because their best civs got taken away. If you get to a bo7 or bo9 you already need 4 or 5 civs to win and your civ pool already starts to matter. now you'll need like 10 civs if your opponent takes your best

Honestly if you were to ask me, I'd have it that if you play a civ you can't play it again, win or lose. But these are the rules that Trevor and Noel have chosen for the sake of viewer experience.

alright I understand, I do think viewer experience is important. But as a viewer I personally rather see people on their best

You have to understand most viewers don't know the difference between excellence and mediocracity, this is a point ESOC have always failed to see. Diversity, in most viewers eyes, is better than repetivie excellence.

well yeah the way this is set up is for the casual viewers I guess, but it hurts the players and the 'better' viewers. We'll see how it goes I suppose, just personally not much of a fan

That's how marketing goes, you appeal to the mass market, the top 10 percent get fucked most of the time.

[TheNameDaniel]

I think having at least some sort of civ rules is always great, I don't wanna see someone play their best civ over and over, I like the rule of being able to win with something just once in a series. But I also think it's cool to see people on their best civs, not on their meh civ because their best civs got taken away. If you get to a bo7 or bo9 you already need 4 or 5 civs to win and your civ pool already starts to matter. now you'll need like 10 civs if your opponent takes your best

Honestly if you were to ask me, I'd have it that if you play a civ you can't play it again, win or lose. But these are the rules that Trevor and Noel have chosen for the sake of viewer experience.

In other RTS games e.g. SC2 there are 4 playable factions, its much easier to master them, AOE 2 on the other hand has a bunch of civs but the core builds and mechanics are similar the civs are not as unique as those in AOE 3 it takes significantly longer to master these. I do agree that its sometimes boring to see france mirrors and the same 4-5 civs in most series but it also provides for good games.

Perhaps allowing for 1 or 2 veto's for each player so neither player can play these civs would be better since as mitoe mentioned in his post that if he was to play Lukas whoever got china would be at an advantage, if they were allowed to veto a civ for a series it could lead to more strategic civ picks. For instance if both players main similar civs but one has a larger civ pool they can veto these and still be better off but they wouldnt have such a large advantage as previously. These are just my thoughts tho, this could also lead to boring games as most players would probably veto the same civs.

[Riotcoke]

I think having at least some sort of civ rules is always great, I don't wanna see someone play their best civ over and over, I like the rule of being able to win with something just once in a series. But I also think it's cool to see people on their best civs, not on their meh civ because their best civs got taken away. If you get to a bo7 or bo9 you already need 4 or 5 civs to win and your civ pool already starts to matter. now you'll need like 10 civs if your opponent takes your best

Honestly if you were to ask me, I'd have it that if you play a civ you can't play it again, win or lose. But these are the rules that Trevor and Noel have chosen for the sake of viewer experience.

In other RTS games e.g. SC2 there are 4 playable factions, its much easier to master them, AOE 2 on the other hand has a bunch of civs but the core builds and mechanics are similar the civs are not as unique as those in AOE 3 it takes significantly longer to master these. I do agree that its sometimes boring to see france mirrors and the same 4-5 civs in most series but it also provides for good games.

Perhaps allowing for 1 or 2 veto's for each player so neither player can play these civs would be better since as mitoe mentioned in his post that if he was to play Lukas whoever got china would be at an advantage, if they were allowed to veto a civ for a series it could lead to more strategic civ picks. For instance if both players main similar civs but one has a larger civ pool they can veto these and still be better off but they wouldnt have such a large advantage as previously. These are just my thoughts tho, this could also lead to boring games as most players would probably veto the same civs.

From a marketability point of view you just want as much of a variety as possible honestly. Again you do have the argument that someone like GUA or Kynesie could be blocked by just picking their civ, but at the same time that just shows their limited ability does it not?

Maybe a veto system is better, but can you not agree that trying something different to increase the number of played civs is better than stagnating with players just knowing 5 civs total so they can do at max a BO9?

[vividlyplain]

I like the rule, but it wouldn’t hurt to give players a favourite civ they can always have in their pool imo. Either way, it will be a thrilling tourney with so much on the line!

[TheNameDaniel]

Show hidden quotes

I think having at least some sort of civ rules is always great, I don't wanna see someone play their best civ over and over, I like the rule of being able to win with something just once in a series. But I also think it's cool to see people on their best civs, not on their meh civ because their best civs got taken away. If you get to a bo7 or bo9 you already need 4 or 5 civs to win and your civ pool already starts to matter. now you'll need like 10 civs if your opponent takes your best

Honestly if you were to ask me, I'd have it that if you play a civ you can't play it again, win or lose. But these are the rules that Trevor and Noel have chosen for the sake of viewer experience.

In other RTS games e.g. SC2 there are 4 playable factions, its much easier to master them, AOE 2 on the other hand has a bunch of civs but the core builds and mechanics are similar the civs are not as unique as those in AOE 3 it takes significantly longer to master these. I do agree that its sometimes boring to see france mirrors and the same 4-5 civs in most series but it also provides for good games.

Perhaps allowing for 1 or 2 veto's for each player so neither player can play these civs would be better since as mitoe mentioned in his post that if he was to play Lukas whoever got china would be at an advantage, if they were allowed to veto a civ for a series it could lead to more strategic civ picks. For instance if both players main similar civs but one has a larger civ pool they can veto these and still be better off but they wouldnt have such a large advantage as previously. These are just my thoughts tho, this could also lead to boring games as most players would probably veto the same civs.

From a marketability point of view you just want as much of a variety as possible honestly. Again you do have the argument that someone like GUA or Kynesie could be blocked by just picking their civ, but at the same time that just shows their limited ability does it not?

Maybe a veto system is better, but can you not agree that trying something different to increase the number of played civs is better than stagnating with players just knowing 5 civs total so they can do at max a BO9?

I get your arguement but these players are known for these civs and have certain playstyles that bring in their own audiences, from what I saw lots of people that watch esoc love kynesie because of his playstyle and civ choice so you would also be alienating those viewers. In terms of marketing where is the market research that viewers would rather watch tournaments with civ variety. Combined with the small playerbase there will always be those core viewers that want to see the best matches possible, if players wanted to see variety of civs they should go watch a streamer that does this.

[TheNameDaniel]

I like the rule, but it wouldn’t hurt to give players a favourite civ they can always have in their pool imo. Either way, it will be a thrilling tourney with so much on the line!

I think this is a good idea, whether under this system or a veto system each player should be able to pick one civ that they get automatically.

[don_artie]

yeah I do definitly agree some more diversity is welcomed, having a civ pool of just 5 civs to be able to play a best of 9 and that's it, shouldn't be enough for the very top player. I'm glad some sorta rule is introduced to mix it up, I just think current version is too harsh. Love that one 'super pick' idea

[Riotcoke]

Show hidden quotes

I think having at least some sort of civ rules is always great, I don't wanna see someone play their best civ over and over, I like the rule of being able to win with something just once in a series. But I also think it's cool to see people on their best civs, not on their meh civ because their best civs got taken away. If you get to a bo7 or bo9 you already need 4 or 5 civs to win and your civ pool already starts to matter. now you'll need like 10 civs if your opponent takes your best

Honestly if you were to ask me, I'd have it that if you play a civ you can't play it again, win or lose. But these are the rules that Trevor and Noel have chosen for the sake of viewer experience.

In other RTS games e.g. SC2 there are 4 playable factions, its much easier to master them, AOE 2 on the other hand has a bunch of civs but the core builds and mechanics are similar the civs are not as unique as those in AOE 3 it takes significantly longer to master these. I do agree that its sometimes boring to see france mirrors and the same 4-5 civs in most series but it also provides for good games.

Perhaps allowing for 1 or 2 veto's for each player so neither player can play these civs would be better since as mitoe mentioned in his post that if he was to play Lukas whoever got china would be at an advantage, if they were allowed to veto a civ for a series it could lead to more strategic civ picks. For instance if both players main similar civs but one has a larger civ pool they can veto these and still be better off but they wouldnt have such a large advantage as previously. These are just my thoughts tho, this could also lead to boring games as most players would probably veto the same civs.

From a marketability point of view you just want as much of a variety as possible honestly. Again you do have the argument that someone like GUA or Kynesie could be blocked by just picking their civ, but at the same time that just shows their limited ability does it not?

Maybe a veto system is better, but can you not agree that trying something different to increase the number of played civs is better than stagnating with players just knowing 5 civs total so they can do at max a BO9?

I get your arguement but these players are known for these civs and have certain playstyles that bring in their own audiences, from what I saw lots of people that watch esoc love kynesie because of his playstyle and civ choice so you would also be alienating those viewers. In terms of marketing where is the market research that viewers would rather watch tournaments with civ variety. Combined with the small playerbase there will always be those core viewers that want to see the best matches possible, if players wanted to see variety of civs they should go watch a streamer that does this.

You're not going to find marketing research that states diversity within Esports broadcasting influences viewer retention, mostly as market research on gaming in general is very sparse (As I found when doing my dissertation). Overall however you can look at the trends from other games especially regarding maps, CSGO is a good example with valve shifting the map pool to increase viewership because of the repetetive nature of the old maps.

The core viewership for purely competetive gameplay is smaller than the gameplay for variety, you can see this with content creators. Pre-DE days for example the two largest were SamRev and the spanish guy i've forgotten the names of which dwarfed ESOC in terms of viewercounts.

[I_HaRRiiSoN_I]

time to host a seasonal major FFA championship

[Kaiserklein]

I don’t think anyone capable of making the round of 8 would get screwed by that rule at all

What? Like Mitoe said, so many could get totally fucked by that rule. I think you underestimate the actual impact of it. I for one am just handicapped if I can't pick France in a tournament, or Germany to some extent. And then some other civs to a lesser extent as well.

That’d be fun to watch

And really fun as a top player for sure, being forced into playing civs you don't master at all, in a $5000 tourney. Sounds just great. It's a bit like playing the GUA random civ tourney, except that was for 50 fucking bucks.
Not sure how watching trash plays is fun anyway. If people even sign up with these rules...

[Kaiserklein]

It's only flawed if your crutch is a few civs, if you're a top player you should be able to play all civs to a high standard.

How can you say that while knowing the top scene in this game? Do you think I'm not a top player, or do you think I'm able to play all civs to a high standard? And the same goes for basically every other top player except a couple.

Like it's so interesting seeing GUA play brit 3x in a row in a BO5 vs a better player as it's one of three civs he plays, or it's so fun seeing Kynesie play Port or Japan at least twice in litreally every series.

I personally think it's really boring, but we both know a bunch of viewers actually enjoy watching that. At least the Kynesie part

Remeber that the point of tournaments isn't just to throw money at top end players. View count matters both funding new tournaments and expanding esoc, so the more interesting we can make a tournament for viewers the better. THE PRIZE POOL IS THE INCENTIVE TO PLAY NOT THE REASON THE TOURNAMENT IS HOSTED.

Good rules is a big incentive to play, not just the prize money. Seeing how few top players are still playing this game, I wouldn't gamble on funky rules.

That's how marketing goes, you appeal to the mass market, the top 10 percent get fucked most of the time.

The top 10% includes the top players featured in the tourney. You don't wanna fuck those too much if you want them to play in your tourney.

[Riotcoke]

You have to try new things @Kaiserklein . Nobody is saying we can't use these rules for one tournament, gain the viewership from it, then go to a different system.

Again I disagree with the rules as they are, I'd rather have a draft where you have to play 9 possible civs in a bo5 than this, but again you can see why it's been chosen.

[Kaiserklein]

I don't see how the biggest cash tourney event for the past 10 years is the best time to try new rules.

Also I think you guys got it all wrong because viewers just get hyped for big names and big prize pools. You can have the good old standard esoc rules, in close series with very top players, and people loving it. Hey I'm sure if you ask viewers about what their favourite match was, most don't give a shit about the format, they'll just tell you like "blackstar vs H2O" or something. Just high level games and close series really.

Maybe I'll change my mind about this tomorrow when I'm more sober, but right now I feel like I'm just not signing up if we have this kind of rule. It's hard enough to have fun playing this game without adding extra pain lol.

[dicktator_]

The civs rules kinda suck for the players. In aoe2 the civs are similar enough that it's reasonable to expect the top players to be able to play most of them at a high level, and so these rules are great. Aoe3 is kinda in between aoe2 and sc2, where everyone plays one race and sticks to it, in civ diversity. In aoe3 the civs are different enough that mastering all is a big ask, so playing roughly half at a tournament ready level seems to be what most people go for, usually a few core civs and then some countercivs or surprise picks. That's just what people go for, as it's better to be amazing at 5-8 civs than to just be really good at 15 civs. Now for a bunch of players, they have to plan around the fact that some of their core civs, if their opponent also plays them, may get taken. With that said, this system is amazing for viewers and casters. It gives casters stuff to talk about during the age 1, and for viewers seeing how the draft plays out will be cool. I think some compromise, like the favorite civ suggestion, would be good.

Also I really don't like the "top players should be able to play all civs" argument.

[don_artie]

well I mean some sort of mixing up is definitly good, it probably just went from one extreme to another now and I think there should be a decent middle ground instead. Also some people being sorta done with the game (like you kaiser), no rule set would change that i'm afraid. I feel like i'm such a minority actually enjoying playing aoe3 haha. This will most likely be the first time I get to participate in a 1v1 tourney and i'm excited for that

[n0el]

I think some compromise, like the favorite civ suggestion, would be good.

This is going to be added into the rules.

[ziper]

Once a civilization or map has been selected in the draft, it is no longer available to be chosen by the other player with the exception of the last civilization pick for each player. This selection is considered a POWER PICK and may be used to select a civilization that is already in the other player's roster.

I like this POWERFUL change

[helln00]

so its either going to be the comeback pick or the win more pick

[Aizamk]

I hope nobody blocks me from playing my main civ USA

[Squamiger]

i hesitantly like the civ rules and hope that encouraging more diverse civ pools will lead to interesting games. I'm also a little nervous that if you force top players to play a civ they don't know, it will result in really boring games because one player will just right click the other and win bc they didn't do the build order correct or something

[I_HaRRiiSoN_I]

Previous rules encouraged hard counter picks instead of planning out a series. Quite often players wouldnt pick civs like Dutch, Japan, China, port (on land) first as it opened them up to a massive counter pick. This sort of led to the France meta of picking a nuetral civ first to avoid being counter picked.

This sequential way of picking civs should give player A 2 garunteed strong civ picks regardless of opponent and that player B picking the 2nd and 3rd civ while also having his power pick go second (and Last) is an interest dynamic.

So yes if players want to pick their mains they can, but it also allows to draft unique teams with respect to map pool and and other players draft. This should lead to more civ variance, more competitive games in "civ mu win counterpicking" situations and more hectic games.

Also as the players have the civ draft list for a week then they can prepare specific strategies instead having a consideration of all 17^2 MUs and detailed MU of 5 civs vs all 17 opponents.

I'm really excited for the civ drafting and the power pick (my idea) is a compromise between the 2 ideas and picks the best of both

The amended rule:
5.1 - Prior to the match, the players will hold a civilization and map draft with a tournament admin. For best-of-7 series', each player will draft 5 civilizations and 3 maps from the available pools. For the the best-of-9 grand finals, each player will draft 6 civilizations and 4 maps from the available pools. Maps may only be played ONCE per series, but civilizations may be played until the player has won using that civilization. Once a civilization or map has been selected in the draft, it is no longer available to be chosen by the other player with the exception of the last civilization pick for each player. This selection is considered a POWER PICK and may be used to select a civilization that is already in the other player's roster.