AoE3 Global Championship 2021 - Tournament Rules & Information

[Kaiserklein]

honestly I like the rules as they are now, you are guaranteed as least 2 of your best civs. Lets say you are the higher seed and come into a b07 with a civ pool of : otto, russia, germany, france, dutch and you are first pick.

Player A civilization pick - you pick france
Player B civilization pick - your opponent counter picks germany
Player B civilization pick - your opponent counter picks dutch
Player A civilization pick - you pick russia
Player A civilization pick - you pick otto
Player B civilization pick - picks x
Player B civilization pick - picks x
Player A civilization pick - picks x
Player A civilization POWER pick - picks germany
Player B civilization POWER pick - picks x

This means you will still have 4 of your best picks, with only a 5 civ pool, no matter what happens.

Small nuance, but it's not really "4 of your best picks". More like you're guaranteed your 2 best civs as player A, and B will be able to ban your 3rd best civ no matter what. Then you can pick your next 2 civs. But yeah it's not as drastic of a rule as it seems at first glance.
However let's not forget about the maps (which are also drafted by players). If you're gonna need to pick a civ for a no TP map, for a pond/water map, for a 4/5 TP map, etc, while also trying to pick some civs you're good at, while the other players bans some of these civs... I think you inevitably end up having games where a player is playing a civ he doesn't master, or a civ that doesn't work on the current map, or just a bad MU.
Even with nearly all civ available, I've been forced into bad MUs or civs I'm not very good at in tournies before, on a regular basis. I can only imagine it gets worse with these civ rules.

I think it's currently just being blown a lot out of proportion. We're a relatively small community with honestly pretty big tourneys for our size, being able to participate in a 5k tourney on a game this size is just awesome imo. If some of the top players are unhappy with the game (either due to bugs or just burnt out or whatever) and not playing it because of that, that is their choice. It is not because of the rules, and trying to create the narrative of someone like hazza not playing due to the rules is just disrespectfull to the organisors.

It's both because of the rules and because of the game bugs. I have no idea how saying so is disrespectful, that makes no sense. It's just the truth lol. If I liked the rules I would have directly signed up, but now instead I'm hesitating. Might be the same for hazza or others.
And it's not just the civ rules btw, but rules overall. I've experienced that if the game bugs or crashes or anything past 2 mins, admins won't give me a rehost no matter how far ahead I am, if my opponent is enough of a dick to take the win. So yes, the game is buggy and that's the main problem, but admins not adapting to it is also a problem.

Being able to just play a game and win up to $1500 is awesome, show some respect to the organisors.

Yeah it's awesome, but that doesn't mean we can't criticize the rules. And again idk how that would be a lack of respect.

Hazza didn't play the tabletopper and that had nothing to do with the rules of the tourney, he just isn't (or wasn't) feeling the game enough to sign up.

You don't know about that. Hazza was #1 but then his elo decayed. Then he had to win 2 series against good players, while the new #1 elo could just do nothing and be in finals. That's pretty frustrating. I think Sam also became much less motivated when knusch stole his #1 spot by 1 elo 30 minutes before the deadline. Again that's due to the rules, and while he still played it, that was reflected in his gameplay.

I'm sure the tournament organisors would love for the best players to sign up, but it's not their fault if they don't.

It's not their fault. It's just their choice, the choice of favouring a "fun" format for viewers, over a more competitive format for players. We can't blame them for that choice, just like no one can blame us if we don't want to sign up.
In a not-so-fun, not-so-competitive game, having this kind of rules just adds extra pain in my book.

They create a nice tournament which you should just feel gratefull for, they are not the ones to put bug in the games or anything like that. It shouldn't be expected of them to just fullfill every wish of a top player every step of the way either. If we don't see the top players participating that does really suck as a viewer, but find someone else to blame than the organisors please

Surely there's a middle way between "fullfill every wish of a top player" and "just care about what the viewers want to watch".

[Kaiserklein]

Anyway, like Mitoe said, this format doesn't bring more diversity, rather the opposite. And I'm still convinced it will just lower the level of play overall.

Maybe players could draft 7 civs each? That way at least all the civs would have some chance to be played in a series. And you'd have more options on less standard maps like no TP, water etc.

[Le Hussard sur le toit]

I think a solution could be to add a second power civ (or a joker power civ that you can only play once even if you lose with it - that would at least enables you to pick a civ for a specific map if you want to).

Anyway I hope the top players concerns can be alleviated as I would find it difficult to get hyped for a tournament without Kaiser, Hazza, diarouga and Mitoe...

[don_artie]

Too lazy to quote everything correctly so i'll just respond like this;

1: yes you are right, you get your civ 1,2,4,5 not 1,2,3,4. However this does mean your opponent has 2 civs in his pool he might be worse at just for the sake of counter picking your third
2: I do honestly believe it was because of bugs, balance issues etc that hazza decided to sit out of the tabletopper. That's just from personal experience with him.
3: Disrespectfull was some excessive wording on my part, lets just say I felt like they were getting more flack than was needed
4: Sure I can imagine that being frustrating for sam, but it was fair imo. A certain date+ time being given as cut off point to see what the ladder looks like at the time sounds good to me.
5/6: This is where I feel like it gets blown out of proportion, looking at this tourney and these rules it doesn't strike me as 'fuck the players we only care for the viewers', they just tried 1 new rule in hopes of creating some more diversity.

[miggo1999_]

Hyped tbh

[EGCTV]

This is all so useful and interesting for me from a personal perspective, because this balance between 'what viewers want vs what players want', is something I'm pretty obsessed with. 

As it happens, I think it's not as clear cut as many people make it out to be. What I'm pretty certain of, however, is that no one wants to watch French mirrors on repeat, but I also think Kaiser is correct in that forcing players to play way below their best also doesn't result in great matches. In the end, the truth is that there's likely a time and a place for everything. 

Ultimately the top players are entitled to their opinions. And while tournament organizers shouldn't exclusively pander to these players, I also don't see why top players should pander to organizers/audience either. Sure the prize money is very nice, but no one got into AOE 3 to make a living out of it. They're not circus animals compelled to perform for us, and if they feel on balance that they'd rather not participate, then that's legitimate. The onus is on those of us in the space of making events to do our best to find that compromise that makes players want to play AND people want to watch (and for what it's worth, I really hope Kaiser does play, and I do think this event strikes a reasonable balance). I, of course, experienced the wrong side of this when Haitch didn't play in the recent Table Topper. Whether it was because of the bugs, the tournament structure, or a bit of both isn't really relevant. I had to accept (and do accept) that there will be occasions where things don't align for some players.

We see things like this happening all the time in the sports world, with the battle between traditional structures that players love and more intense formats that audiences love. Cricket is probably the best example, where players want 5 day tests and audiences (to a large extent) want 3 hour 20/20 smash fests. Look at snooker and you see the exact same dynamic playing out (really doxxing myself as a non-American over here).

On another issue:

I listened to kaisers interview and im not fully sure he had fully understood the civ picking rules but again he is welcome to make his own decision. What complicates the matter for him (in my opinion, im probably wrong here) kaiser just won $1375 in a 5 player tournament for winning 3 series and knusch got paid $500 for winning 0 games. Compare this to 1st place in the seasonal is $1500 i think. THe global champioship has very generous prizes throughout the prize paying positions but it might not inspire the top player as they can just go for another table topper.

Regarding this. I get it, and it's a fair debate to have. Few things to say on it.

1. To avoid this issue, I've actually made the decision to pause the Table Topper until after the World Championships. I think that kind of prize pool over one weekend and showing #1 v #2 in that way would not be fair on anyone, and would dilute the audience. Having one top tier tournament at a time is quite sufficient. I'll announce more info soon, but I will be replacing that with a series of much more casual show matches that are less focused on traditional matchups.

2. Totally disagree with the characterisation that Knusch won $500 for winning 0 games. At the time he ranked #1, he was on a huge win streak and I don't think ranking 1st on the ELO ladder is academic. I do understand that in the end things went a little different to envisaged, and I get why Sam would have been disappointed to lose out by 1 point in the middle of the night. In particular, tuk tuks and other cheats really hurt the concept and stopped the huge deadline grinds materialising. For what it's worth, I also think Kaiser had to achieve something impressive for his prize (3 won series in a row and 3 US mirror wins). 

I'm not saying the Table Topper quals have gone exactly as I thought they would, but at least in theory I see it like the UEFA Champions League. Sure if you win zero games in the group stage you get $10m for winning 0 games. But not really... you got it for winning your league the year before... 

My decision to begin my project with the Table Topper was quite conscious in that I wanted to do a big project but also to invest in the prestige of the game as a whole by making the ELO ladder mean something. I don't get any views or subs or other benefit from top players grinding the ladder to be near the top, but the entire game ecosystem should.

3. Finally on this Table Topper vs WC matter. I do see them as totally different beasts, and I hope the community does too. Of course in terms of pure $ value per game played, the TT is more valuable; but that's not the only thing that matters. My final sporting analogy: horse racing. The most valuable prize money is in the big events in the Middle East (Dubai World Cup etc). But if you asked a trainer/owner if they'd rather win that or the Kentucky Derby or Ascot Gold Cup, they wouldn't hesitate. Winning the major community events is timeless, and worth more than just the prize money.

So whether or not ESOC agree with my analogy I don't know, but I certainly see us as the Dubai World Cup and ESOC as the Derby. The Table Topper is very exciting and gets great audiences, but I don't think people will remember who won the March Table Topper the way they remember who won the ESOC World Championship. 

That's another reason why I really wanted to be part of this event and involved in ESOC events in general. While I'm trying to do something a little different, everyone in the ecosystem needs a strong organized community running sick legacy events.

K that turned into a dissertation. 

[Squamiger]

just some input in response to no one in particular: one of my favorite tourneys from the EP days was the Underused Civ Cup. That was a tourney that forced everyone to play the civs they were less comfy with, and it produced some really great games I thought. It just created a set of civs that people wanted to see more, and banned others, and then used normal civ pick rules

[Mitoe]

Ultimately the top players are entitled to their opinions. And while tournament organizers shouldn't exclusively pander to these players, I also don't see why top players should pander to organizers/audience either. Sure the prize money is very nice, but no one got into AOE 3 to make a living out of it. They're not circus animals compelled to perform for us, and if they feel on balance that they'd rather not participate, then that's legitimate. The onus is on those of us in the space of making events to do our best to find that compromise that makes players want to play AND people want to watch (and for what it's worth, I really hope Kaiser does play, and I do think this event strikes a reasonable balance). I, of course, experienced the wrong side of this when Haitch didn't play in the recent Table Topper. Whether it was because of the bugs, the tournament structure, or a bit of both isn't really relevant. I had to accept (and do accept) that there will be occasions where things don't align for some players.

Just to add to this, my perspective is actually mostly as a viewer. If these kinds of restrictions are arguably going to make for lower quality games, then I struggle to see how it could be good for the audience. People complain about mirrors, about popular civs, etc. but ultimately what everyone wants to see is strong AoE3 with close and exciting games. I think imposing these limitations generally leads to less interesting and more one-sided gameplay, even if the matchups might arguably be more unique or interesting. To me this seems like it would be unhealthy for viewership. If a semi-final or even finals match has a lot of games that are lost simply because the players were not as comfortable, or had less options available to them, then that kills a lot of the hype for me as a viewer.

As an individual (not speaking for other players here), I personally am going to play regardless of the rules. These rules actually favour me over a lot of other players, I think, because I have a deeper/larger pool of civs to draw from than most players--or so I would like to believe anyway.

just some input in response to no one in particular: one of my favorite tourneys from the EP days was the Underused Civ Cup. That was a tourney that forced everyone to play the civs they were less comfy with, and it produced some really great games I thought. It just created a set of civs that people wanted to see more, and banned others, and then used normal civ pick rules

And just to briefly respond to this, I would say that while the tournament was fun to watch, it was also a short one-day event with a smaller prize pool. I don't think it's fair to say that it forced "everyone" to play civs they were uncomfortable with, all it did was give the players who were comfortable with those civs a big advantage. That's why I won the tournament, because I am comfortable with those civs where many others are not.

Overall the general concern should be whether or not the rules are fair.

For short events, showmatches, or smaller prize pools, I think it makes sense for rules to sometimes be a bit less generic and favour certain playstyles or civilizations over others. However, for a big and long tournament like this one, I think rules should try to be as fair and welcoming to all playstyles as possible. To me this tournament seems like an opportunity to increase DE's competitive playerbase as well as its audience, but currently I am afraid that these rules might dissuade some players from competing because of their complexity and the way it favours players with larger civ pools, and while it may seem nice for the audience I am currently not convinced that it actually makes the competition more interesting to watch.

[WickedCossack]

Just to add to this, my perspective is actually mostly as a viewer. If these kinds of restrictions are arguably going to make for lower quality games, then I struggle to see how it could be good for the audience. People complain about mirrors, about popular civs, etc. but ultimately what everyone wants to see is strong AoE3 with close and exciting games. I think imposing these limitations generally leads to less interesting and more one-sided gameplay, even if the matchups might arguably be more unique or interesting. To me this seems like it would be unhealthy for viewership. If a semi-final or even finals match has a lot of games that are lost simply because the players were not as comfortable, or had less options available to them, then that kills a lot of the hype for me as a viewer.

I know we disagree on this but I think the "limitations" can help a lot with the match prep after the draft. When you analyse the map pool and both selected civ drafts I think you can reliably plan out the exact MU's you will be playing (to a higher degree than if all civs are available), which should itself motivate any strat planning as hopefully nothing goes to waste. That should help boost any inital MU weaknesses.

But even you wanted to argue the strat loss is still significant I think at the end of the day only <1% of people watching are going to recongnise, for example, a player had a window to scout and identify they could've cut 5 musk to age faster in a particular MU because they had played it 200 times beforehand and know what to look for etc The exciting micro moments shouldn't be taking a hit here.

Agree with most of what big don has said.

I really enjoy civ variety within a series and personally value that as a veiwer over someone god-mode-ing the same civ.

[Astaroth]

People complain about mirrors, about popular civs, etc. but ultimately what everyone wants to see is strong AoE3 with close and exciting games. I think imposing these limitations generally leads to less interesting and more one-sided gameplay, even if the matchups might arguably be more unique or interesting.

The question is - is that really going to be the case? I agree that forcing Kynesie to only play e.g. France or Kaiser to play only Aztec would be bad for a tournament because these are not their main civs and they are maybe not comfortable with them.

But at least from a viewer perspective, I'm not sure if the games will become less exciting if e.g. Kaiser plays 1 out of 5 games with, say, Ports or Russia, a civ which might not be in his top3 favorites (change civ if applicable, it's just an example).

As a viewer, I do find mirrors generally (not always) a bit boring because usually (again, not always) there tends to be one main build and it really comes down to the slightly better robotic execution or micro. A prime example is the Brit mirror.

All of that is not to say that I don't understand the players - it is of course much more fun and competitive for them if they can choose freely. But as a viewer, I'm not convincing a bit more diversity necessarily leads to less entertaining games to watch.

[_NT_sven]

Just noticed that the sign up deadline on my ESOC is actually before 2021-05-10 instead of May 7th.

[Cometk]

Just noticed that the sign up deadline on my ESOC is actually before 2021-05-10 instead of May 7th.

There will be an announcement shortly that explains the extension

[_NT_sven]

Just noticed that the sign up deadline on my ESOC is actually before 2021-05-10 instead of May 7th.

There will be an announcement shortly that explains the extension

hmm, that's alright, but I hope you don't mean the calculation of ranking is also extended?

[Cometk]

Just noticed that the sign up deadline on my ESOC is actually before 2021-05-10 instead of May 7th.

There will be an announcement shortly that explains the extension

hmm, that's alright, but I hope you don't mean the calculation of ranking is also extended?

No, it is not. Qualification for the Top 32 has been frozen as of Friday, 23:59 GMT (that is, about 20 minutes ago).

[Squamiger]

who made the cut? wheres the list!

[cezzarmert]

where is the amateur division list ?

[vividlyplain]

where is the amateur division list ?

Soon TM
viewtopic.php?p=536638#p536494

[ziper]

When will the map set C be released? I only found set A and B in game.

[look]

final amateur BO5? have something wurong

[zzwwjj]

In the three games, the video of the last game can be played, but the upload display error cannot be submitted. What should I do?

[musketeer925]

In the three games, the video of the last game can be played, but the upload display error cannot be submitted. What should I do?

Hi, can you try uploading them to an external fileshare site, or send them to me on Discord?

If I can get a copy of the recs, I would be able to fix the upload tool.

[zzwwjj]

In the three games, the video of the last game can be played, but the upload display error cannot be submitted. What should I do?

Hi, can you try uploading them to an external fileshare site, or send them to me on Discord?

If I can get a copy of the recs, I would be able to fix the upload tool.

how to send to you?

[zzwwjj]

I don't have any other social software. How do I operate it.

[LazarosVas]

Can someone please update the pro division bracket scores? They have been the same for weeks even though a lot of matches have been played.

[EAGLEMUT]

Can someone please update the pro division bracket scores? They have been the same for weeks even though a lot of matches have been played.

Hmm, I'm not sure where you're looking, but you should be looking here: global-championship-2021/gsl-groups