Counterpick Rules and Discussion

User avatar
United States of America lesllamas
Lancer
Posts: 620
Joined: Sep 14, 2015

Counterpick Rules and Discussion

Post by lesllamas »

Hey all, this is a thread with which to discuss the rules regarding counterpicks. Of course, the rules for the tournament that is currently underway are what they are, and should not be tampered with mid-tournament. However, with the hope of more tournaments to come in mind, I figured I would share my take on how counterpicks should work in AoE3 tournaments, and provide a couple other examples of how civ selection might be regulated.

Because often on this forum, personal legitimacy and "credentials" are often questioned in place of addressing the argument, I'll leave this: http://www.ssbwiki.com/GENESIS_3. That was a tournament last month that I and a team of 14 other TO's planned, organized, and ran--with a lot of logistical help from Nintendo of America. I don't mean to put this here as if to make my argument for me. I put it here to say that I and many others have had long and extensive discussions about the theory behind counterpicking rules.


For ease of discussion, I will discuss everything in terms of a BO5 series.
The Current Rules

-Players A and B agree to a matchup (to be called a "neutral" matchup) for game 1 in a Best of 5 series. Player A wins game 1.
---In game 2, the winner of game 1 must select their civilization first, thus allowing the loser to "counterpick" their opponent's civilization.
------The subsequent games alternate giving the winner of game 1 and the loser of game 1 the ability to counterpick their opponent, regardless of each game's outcome.

Visualized, the counterpicks work like this: N L W L W


My Suggestion

-Players A and B agree to a matchup (to be called a "neutral" matchup) for game 1 in a Best of 5 series. Player A wins game 1.
---In game 2, the winner of game 1 must select their civilization first, thus allowing the loser to "counterpick" their opponent's civilization.
------In subsequent games, the loser of the previous match will be given the ability to counterpick their opponent.

The arguments against this I anticipate are: 1) Why would you punish a player for winning, 2) Counterpicks aren't that important anyways, and 3) The current rules are a fair system that isn't broken, so why fix it?

All of which I will now address.

Why would you punish a player for winning?

This does not punish the winning player. Consider the visualization above: N L W L W--each player has access to 2 counterpicks in a BO5 set. Under a "loser counterpicks" format, neither player will ever have access to more than 2 counterpicks in a set. Once you've lost 3 times, you've lost the series. Here are the visualizations of what a set might look like under a "loser counterpicks" format:

N L L
N L W W
N L L W
N L W L W (L wins g5)
N L W L W (W wins g5)
N L W W L
N L L W W

If you take a few minutes to study what each of those above means, you'll notice that the burden is always on the loser of the neutral game 1 to win at least one game on an opponent's counterpick (while winning on both of their own) to win the set. Never, at any point, do you incur a disadvantage when you win a game. Think of it like you and your opponent are each holding two playing cards, which when played, give you the counterpick advantage. When you win a game, you force your opponent to use one of his 2 cards, and hold on to your own. If you are in the situation where you have to use both of your counterpicks immediately in the set, then you must go the rest of the set playing on your opponent's counterpicks while on set-point (i.e. facing elimination). At no point is it disadvantageous to win a game, and in every situation winning a game makes your opponent's task significantly more difficult. Winning the first game gives you what I would call the "counterpick advantage," where your opponent will have to win on at least one of your counterpicks to win the set, or both of them if you steal a game on their counterpick.

"But lesllamas, what about the momentum having two counterpicks in a row could give your opponent?"

If your opponent has two counterpicks in a row, it means you've won on their counterpick, and are either up 2-0 (in which case momentum should be entirely in your favor anyways) or 2-1 ( N L W W L) and should be in a position of counterpick advantage.

Counterpicks aren't that important anyways

This is probably the most valid counter-argument there is. As I understand it, in prior tournaments both players had to agree upon a matchup in each game. The problem that this led to was the refusal of some players to do anything other than mirrors (effectively giving them the ability to dictate the matchup while avoiding any others the opponent might want to play). And so, this counterpick system was put into effect to counteract that. If you believe that civ counterpicks aren't really that important, then I would suggest using a "Double Blind" civ selection process, by which both players would privately submit their civ selection to a 3rd party (preferably a caster or TO) before the match and then become mutually locked in to their civilizations for that game.

However, if you think civilization counterpicks are important, then....

The current rules are a fair system that isn't broken, so why fix it?

The current rules lead to a number of undesirable scenarios.

For example, if player 1 goes up 2-0, they will get to play an elimination game on their own counterpick. Or if player 2 goes up 2-1, they will play an elimination game on their counterpick, and the winner of the first game will not have an opportunity to use their remaining counterpick.

Under "loser counterpicks", no player will ever lose a set before they have had the opportunity to use their counterpick resources. If you think of it again like two players are holding playing cards, there will never be a situation where a player loses a set while still holding a card.

Allow me to use a metaphor to explain why this is a more fair option:

Imagine two basketball teams (The Celtics and Lakers) are playing a game where the first team to three baskets wins. Initial possession is decided by a jump ball, and the Celtics get the ball and score first, going up 1-0. The ref then gives the ball to the Lakers, who drive down the court but have their pass stolen and the Celtics score again, going up 2-0. The ref then gives the ball to the Celtics, despite the fact that they just scored. The Lakers feel cheated, but the ref reminds them that after every score possession will be given to the teams in alternating fashion.

The point I'm illustrating is used in practically every sports competition where possession of the ball is important--when the other team scores, you get to possess the ball. This is in no way a punishment for the other team scoring--it's simply what's been determined to be fair play. It would certainly be unreasonable to give the ball back to the winner, thereby punishing a team for losing. Alternating possession is a little less unreasonable, but it still leads to undesirable scenarios that can be avoided via a "loser counterpicks" system.
User avatar
United States of America rickytickitembo
Dragoon
Posts: 266
Joined: May 7, 2015
ESO: RickyTickiTembo
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Counterpick Rules and Discussion

Post by rickytickitembo »

Is there a tl;dr?
My favorite donut is chocolate Aiz.
User avatar
United States of America lesllamas
Lancer
Posts: 620
Joined: Sep 14, 2015

Re: Counterpick Rules and Discussion

Post by lesllamas »

TL;DR doing alternating counterpicks instead of loser gets to counterpick makes for scenarios where a person is down 2-0 going into an elimination game where their opponent gets the counterpick, etc. Doing loser counterpicks eliminates these kinds of scenarios without negatively impacting the winner of a game.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Counterpick Rules and Discussion

Post by Garja »

Winner picks first was a rule already adopted in other AOE3 tourneys. Ideally a winner pick first rule wants to lead to 1-0, 1-1, 2-1, 2-2, 3-2, ... series. Note that it is not necessarily about fairness. It is about the sake of longer matches.
Picking first in AOE3 is definetely more important than just "giving the ball posses" so it can't really compared to that. It is more like having white or black pieces in chess, which in fact happens in turn regardless of the outcome of the game.
Because of that, the rule of choice for this tourney is alternate picking order. The loser of the first game still retains the 2nd move advantage and with that the chance to even up the score. After that however it is going to be alternate pick.
Image Image Image
No Flag abbadan
Skirmisher
Posts: 128
Joined: Jun 7, 2015

Re: Counterpick Rules and Discussion

Post by abbadan »

I was thinking about starting the matches with a "blind pick" game: each player would message his civ pick to the moderator/observer, without the other player's knowledge, then play them. This would make each player take the civ he wants most for this map, and try to psychologize the other player's pick (if he wants to try and grab a civ advantage.)
User avatar
United States of America lesllamas
Lancer
Posts: 620
Joined: Sep 14, 2015

Re: Counterpick Rules and Discussion

Post by lesllamas »

Garja wrote:Winner picks first was a rule already adopted in other AOE3 tourneys. Ideally a winner pick first rule wants to lead to 1-0, 1-1, 2-1, 2-2, 3-2, ... series. Note that it is not necessarily about fairness. It is about the sake of longer matches. 1
Picking first in AOE3 is definetely more important than just "giving the ball posses" so it can't really compared to that. It is more like having white or black pieces in chess, which in fact happens in turn regardless of the outcome of the game. 2
Because of that, the rule of choice for this tourney is alternate picking order. The loser of the first game still retains the 2nd move advantage and with that the chance to even up the score. After that however it is going to be alternate pick. 3


1) Making a ruleset less fair to expedite a match is a terrible way to go about running a tournament. 3-0's will absolutely still happen between unevenly matched opponents. If a series does indeed go the full 5 games, that should tell you that the two opponents aren't too far apart in skill level and you should strive to create the most balanced playing field possible for them.

2) In chess, White wins ~5% more often than black. I don't see how you could call this a bigger advantage than having possession of a ball in a first to 3 contest. The point is still moot, though, as it says nothing about the fairness of the sequencing of counterpicks. You contradict yourself if you say that counterpicks are very important, and then say that you model your rules after chess. Additionally, if you think counterpicks are very important, then shouldn't it be absolutely fucking crucial to get the most fair ruleset for them?

3) I am saying nothing of the thought process that went into deciding this tournament's rules. Rather, this is geared towards future tournaments (as stated in the first part of my initial post).

4) I have yet to see (here or when you were in twitch chat) a reason why loser's counterpick is in any way not a more fair system.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Counterpick Rules and Discussion

Post by Garja »

1) the same is true with alternate pick. If players are evenly matched the series goes all the way to the last game. If a player loses both the first game and also the game where he counterpicks then he is probably just worse so he totally deserves to be in that situation. Alternate pick is just fair in that sense.
2) white may only win 5% more games but it often decides whether or not the game will be a draw. In AOE3 picking 2nd atleast gives the chance to pick a MU that you know well and leads to a fair game. It is indeed crucial so it has to be neutral aka alternated. Winner picks first gives more than one chance to comeback.
3) The ruleset for this tourney is the consequence of previous tourneys. As I said there have been already tourneys with winner picks fist and the current ruleset is an improvement in that sense. So I don't see the reason to go back to that.
4) Again because it gives the loser moe than just one chance to even the score (in a bo3 2 attempts in a row). It not necessarily unfair but it is a biased system. Biased toward longer matches.
Image Image Image
User avatar
United States of America lesllamas
Lancer
Posts: 620
Joined: Sep 14, 2015

Re: Counterpick Rules and Discussion

Post by lesllamas »

1) This just isn't true. In such a short series, it's entirely possible, if not likely, that a single game between two evenly matched players could be skewed by cheese, lag, treasures, or other unusual circumstances. So if in a series like Sam vs Raphael, Raphael wins a close game 1, cheeses out a win in game 2, your logic says that Sam "is probably just worse so he totally deserves to be in that situation". Of course, in a series between two completely unevenly matched players, counterpick order practically doesn't matter, so it's not even worth considering or discussing.

2) You fail to understand the basic math. In winner picks first, neither player will ever have more counterpicks than the opposing player. This was explained above, and there's no scenario in which you can argue it is not neutral.

3) "There have been tourneys that have done this" is in no way a logical argument. If you want that to hold any weight, then you'll have to explain the thought process that went into moving away from that.

4) Again, basic math. It does not give the loser more than just one chance to even the score. It is impossible in a best of 3 to have the same person counterpick twice in a row. The fact that you brought that up makes me think that you haven't thought this through at all. Perhaps I'll have to flesh this out for you.

In a BO3, the loser of the first match can either win on their counterpick, or lose on it. If they win on it, the other player gets to counterpick (i.e. they each get 1). If they lose, the set is over. Plain and simple. In a BO5, they still get one chance to tie up the set at 1-1, but their second and final counterpick should they lose that game only grants them the opportunity to bring the set to 2-1, after which point only the person who is ahead will have the ability to counterpick. They still only have one opportunity to tie the set back up. If they alternate taking games (the only scenario where the second counterpick could tie the set back up), then there's no difference between this system and alternating pick for that particular set.

It could result in a handful of 3-1's that might otherwise be 3-0, but that hardly seems like enough of an incentive to utilize a suboptimal counterpicking system.
User avatar
Russia yurashic
Howdah
Posts: 1303
Joined: Feb 28, 2015
ESO: Yurashic
Location: Russia

Re: Counterpick Rules and Discussion

Post by yurashic »

Why would you write walls of text when everything is fine?
User avatar
United States of America lesllamas
Lancer
Posts: 620
Joined: Sep 14, 2015

Re: Counterpick Rules and Discussion

Post by lesllamas »

Why would you bother responding to a discussion you think is pointless?
User avatar
India Nymphomaniac
Dragoon
Posts: 380
Joined: Feb 17, 2015

Re: Counterpick Rules and Discussion

Post by Nymphomaniac »

Rather than changing it to loser picks second; one should consider changing the rules to determine the first match-up. As already visible in this tournament, players like h2o who are good mechanically can simply force a mirror in the first match and thus secure the advantage. Having something like blind pick for first game will be better imo, just players picking their best civs considering the map.
User avatar
United States of America lesllamas
Lancer
Posts: 620
Joined: Sep 14, 2015

Re: Counterpick Rules and Discussion

Post by lesllamas »

^I mentioned that possibility in the initial post. I actually really like the concept of blind picking in AoE3 because it adds a level of prediction and mindgames with your opponent that's fun to guess at, but I don't think there's much particularly wrong with agreeing to a matchup either.
User avatar
India Nymphomaniac
Dragoon
Posts: 380
Joined: Feb 17, 2015

Re: Counterpick Rules and Discussion

Post by Nymphomaniac »

The thing wrong with agreeing to a match up is that some players will force a mirror with their opponent and with the current rules favoring the winner of first game, this essentially becomes same as earlier tournament where the same player will again go for mirrors in 3 and 5th games (assuming he loses in 2 and 4th).
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: Counterpick Rules and Discussion

Post by deleted_user0 »

Welcome to the wonderful world of arguing with garja. Now take a deep breath and just imagine the torment everyone with a green nametag has to suffer
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: Counterpick Rules and Discussion

Post by deleted_user0 »

lesllamas wrote:^I mentioned that possibility in the initial post. I actually really like the concept of blind picking in AoE3 because it adds a level of prediction and mindgames with your opponent that's fun to guess at, but I don't think there's much particularly wrong with agreeing to a matchup either.


Blind picks dont belong in a tournament of rts. Its about strategy not gambling. Playing mindgames at the strategical level is deep and exiting enough.

Loser picks last is fine. Alternatively one could work with vetoes, but it would the whole process more complicated to oversee
User avatar
United States of America lesllamas
Lancer
Posts: 620
Joined: Sep 14, 2015

Re: Counterpick Rules and Discussion

Post by lesllamas »

In my initial post, I said blind pick would only be desirable if you were of the opinions that counterpicks really didn't matter much. I don't think it's necessarily a terrible option for neutral, but like I said, there really isn't any problem with agreeing to a matchup.

The only way I could see vetoes and bans being used in a practical way would be if it was done in the scheduling thread. Definitely too hard to implement unless every game is casted or observed. Something that might be worth implementing though, is having the two players determine the map pool in the scheduling thread via alternating bans (i.e. 9 legal maps are offered, and the two opponents each ban two maps that they don't want to play on to get a pool of 5 maps). This may punish players like Kynesie though, who might just enter every series without any water maps, for example. I'm much less certain about it than I am of loser's counterpick.
France iNcog
Ninja
Posts: 13236
Joined: Mar 7, 2015

Re: Counterpick Rules and Discussion

Post by iNcog »

I think that the current picking rules are fair, they've been discussed over before and I'm quite sure that they're OK.

However I don't see a problem with discussing possible optimizations.
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/incog_aoe
Garja wrote: ↑
20 Mar 2020, 21:46
I just hope DE is not going to implement all of the EP changes. Right now it is a big clusterfuck.
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 9314
Joined: Apr 26, 2015
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

Re: Counterpick Rules and Discussion

Post by zoom »

yurashic wrote:Why would you write walls of text when everything is fine?

Because he doesn't feel everything is fine, most likely.
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 9314
Joined: Apr 26, 2015
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

Re: Counterpick Rules and Discussion

Post by zoom »

Garja wrote:1) the same is true with alternate pick. If players are evenly matched the series goes all the way to the last game. If a player loses both the first game and also the game where he counterpicks then he is probably just worse so he totally deserves to be in that situation. Alternate pick is just fair in that sense.
2) white may only win 5% more games but it often decides whether or not the game will be a draw. In AOE3 picking 2nd atleast gives the chance to pick a MU that you know well and leads to a fair game. It is indeed crucial so it has to be neutral aka alternated. Winner picks first gives more than one chance to comeback.
3) The ruleset for this tourney is the consequence of previous tourneys. As I said there have been already tourneys with winner picks fist and the current ruleset is an improvement in that sense. So I don't see the reason to go back to that.
4) Again because it gives the loser moe than just one chance to even the score (in a bo3 2 attempts in a row). It not necessarily unfair but it is a biased system. Biased toward longer matches.

Whites win!

RACE WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR!!
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: Counterpick Rules and Discussion

Post by momuuu »

I dont see much difference between the two systems. Your suggestion gives players that'd probably lose 3-0 a chance to go 3-1 instead, which I guess is fine.

The true unfairness of the counterpicking system, for as much as it exists, lies somewhere else. Let me start out by saying that the notion that counterpicking isnt that advantageous is wrong imo. This game has match ups like Dutch vs germany that give something like a -30% chance to win. Theres many that are at least -15%, which is pretty big.

The thing is, there are a few civs that dont have a good counter, france and germany most notably. If say, both players start with a france mirror, it can be unfair with both systems. Player a wins, then picks germany first, which results in german mirror. He wins that again. Then in game 3, he has to pick first but has no good civs left which means itll be the first real counterpick. Then game 4 and 5 are france and german mirrors again if it gets to that. So basically the one that has to pick first on game 3 has a small disadvantage. I am not sure if there are scenarios in your system that'd be more disadvantageous or less than what it is right now. I cant think of any.

The biggest problem with the system is the maps though. The two top civs kinda require a standard TP map, so having a first pick on one of the weirder maps can be bad. For example first picking on bengal is suboptimal imo since france and germany arent really the top civs there.

To be honest, the bigger problem might be that it encourages playing the top dogs. Some civs have atrocious match ups (japan vs aztec osmane vs stanley is an example) or at least 1 terrible match up, which makes them basically unplayable. Ive found the picking rules a lot of fun so far though. What Id love to see tested is a pick first + ban one civ. For example pick Japan but then ban aztec (makes them a pretty decent choice on many maps) or pick dutch and ban germany. Yes it would make things more complicated, but that is also a lot of fun. Ive found preparing for opponents/maps this tournament a lot of fun, especially since my limited civ pool made that quite the struggle. Would beore fun to be able to ban, especially since I could then play my favorite civ dutch at all (it was honestly, apart from the first mu, impossible to pick dutch first).

I think, theoretically, that I would enjoy that the most.
France iNcog
Ninja
Posts: 13236
Joined: Mar 7, 2015

Re: Counterpick Rules and Discussion

Post by iNcog »

The thing is that an intelligent player who thinks ahead and plans out the series will not use civs which have no real counter-pick right off the bat, if they're smart. They'll agree to an even match up without using France or Germany, since those are civs which are better off used when you pick first anyway. Dutch vs China is an example of a match-up which is deceptively close. Portuguese remain largely unexplored in competitive play and are said to be the top civ on water maps (as long as you don't brainlessly send schooners and make 50 fishing boats) by some top players. People blindly play Japan into civs which do quite well vs them (France, Azzy) without considering to save that civ versus other tournament civilizations such as China or India. Spain is perhaps a one-dimensional civilization but a well-executed Spanish FF can still be very effective versus some civilizations. Even Germany vs France can favor both civs, depending on which builds players use.

These rules reward players with better game knowledge and who can think ahead and plan out their series, as well as prepare for opponents. This is a good thing. These rules do not favor mechanical brute-force players who will only play the strongest civilizations with the strongest strategy or only mirror. These rules don't favor players who play Euro-only civs either.

That is why these rules are quite good. There are 14 different civilizations and on the ESOC patch the way they interact with one another is very different. The player will better mechanics, decision-making and civ knowledge should still win vs a lesser opponent who might have a "favorable" match-up. If, on top of better mechanics, micro, decision-making you have a player who has ALSO done research on a certain match up (can be map specific even), then really the effects of counter-civ'ing is largely overblown.
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/incog_aoe
Garja wrote: ↑
20 Mar 2020, 21:46
I just hope DE is not going to implement all of the EP changes. Right now it is a big clusterfuck.
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: Counterpick Rules and Discussion

Post by momuuu »

In what aspect doesnt two smart players result into 2 french mirrors and 2 german mirrors atm though?
France iNcog
Ninja
Posts: 13236
Joined: Mar 7, 2015

Re: Counterpick Rules and Discussion

Post by iNcog »

I would argue that if they mirror they want mechanics to decide the match; I'm not sure that that is the smart decision to make with these civ rules.
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/incog_aoe
Garja wrote: ↑
20 Mar 2020, 21:46
I just hope DE is not going to implement all of the EP changes. Right now it is a big clusterfuck.
User avatar
India Nymphomaniac
Dragoon
Posts: 380
Joined: Feb 17, 2015

Re: Counterpick Rules and Discussion

Post by Nymphomaniac »

iNcog wrote:These rules reward players with better game knowledge and who can think ahead and plan out their series, as well as prepare for opponents. This is a good thing. These rules do not favor mechanical brute-force players who will only play the strongest civilizations with the strongest strategy or only mirror. These rules don't favor players who play Euro-only civs either.

This is where u are wrong. People can still force mirror and win a series based on their mechanical skills. Not saying its bad, but I don't think these rules can effectively enforce non-mirror matches without changing the rules for 1 st game agreeable match-up.
Consider this example. h2o vs pricce. h2o forces aztec mirror in game 1 and wins. Now he knows that by these rules he has 2 counter picks available in a BO 5 so instead of going for counter-picking he can simply mirror and seal the deal. Any other games he wins are bonus. So smart players like h2o or even garja who are infamous for forcing mirrors in past events have nothing changed in this one as well. Just they will get their mirrors in alternate games when they get to counter pick.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Counterpick Rules and Discussion

Post by Garja »

lesllamas wrote:1) This just isn't true. In such a short series, it's entirely possible, if not likely, that a single game between two evenly matched players could be skewed by cheese, lag, treasures, or other unusual circumstances. So if in a series like Sam vs Raphael, Raphael wins a close game 1, cheeses out a win in game 2, your logic says that Sam "is probably just worse so he totally deserves to be in that situation". Of course, in a series between two completely unevenly matched players, counterpick order practically doesn't matter, so it's not even worth considering or discussing.

2) You fail to understand the basic math. In winner picks first, neither player will ever have more counterpicks than the opposing player. This was explained above, and there's no scenario in which you can argue it is not neutral.

3) "There have been tourneys that have done this" is in no way a logical argument. If you want that to hold any weight, then you'll have to explain the thought process that went into moving away from that.

4) Again, basic math. It does not give the loser more than just one chance to even the score. It is impossible in a best of 3 to have the same person counterpick twice in a row. The fact that you brought that up makes me think that you haven't thought this through at all. Perhaps I'll have to flesh this out for you.

In a BO3, the loser of the first match can either win on their counterpick, or lose on it. If they win on it, the other player gets to counterpick (i.e. they each get 1). If they lose, the set is over. Plain and simple. In a BO5, they still get one chance to tie up the set at 1-1, but their second and final counterpick should they lose that game only grants them the opportunity to bring the set to 2-1, after which point only the person who is ahead will have the ability to counterpick. They still only have one opportunity to tie the set back up. If they alternate taking games (the only scenario where the second counterpick could tie the set back up), then there's no difference between this system and alternating pick for that particular set.

It could result in a handful of 3-1's that might otherwise be 3-0, but that hardly seems like enough of an incentive to utilize a suboptimal counterpicking system.

1) Short series are more bloody that's just fine. Also if two players are really evenly matched then expect alternate wins anyway.
2) It is not about number of counterpicks but rather their order.
3) It is kinda an argument in the sense that your option was indeed considered but discarded. It is possible that in future it will be adopted, sure, but not because it is necessarily more fair.
4) I meant BO5, sorry. In a BO5 one player can have counterpicks twice in a row. That was undesired hence this rules. In a BO3 obviously alternated and winner pick first coincide.

I forgot to mention another thing.
This ruleset clearly leads to less combinations of picking orders as opposed to the winner pick first method. It is then more possible to plan the civ strategy before hand.
Image Image Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV