Counterpick Rules and Discussion

[zoom]

It seems to me Jerom's post discusses balance more (in substance) than it does civilization-picking.

P.S. Here we go again!!

[iNcog]

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.

Isn't the last game reset though? True it's a mirror.

[britishmusketeer]

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.

This logic is kinda flawed. H2o can't force a mirror g1 because its a free pick. If prince wanted to avoid a mirror he could have. Then you are saying h2o can mirror instead of counter, but he could just as easily pick a counter civ and I would say that if your opponent is using his counterpicks to mirror you should be happy about it.

[Nymphomaniac]

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.

This logic is kinda flawed. H2o can't force a mirror g1 because its a free pick. If prince wanted to avoid a mirror he could have. Then you are saying h2o can mirror instead of counter, but he could just as easily pick a counter civ and I would say that if your opponent is using his counterpicks to mirror you should be happy about it.

well I am just saying that based on what I saw. Even in game 1 vs zoi who was considerably lower in skill than h2o, he just forced an aztec mirror. Not sure if other guy can similarly keep forcing non-mirrors, just didn't happen in tournament till now. Guess will have to wait for Boneng Garja series.
Regarding 2nd point I know he can counter civ (need not force mirror), but if he can win the games by just practicing 14 MUs (mirrors), there's no need to practice or learn other counter builds. Note that I am just pointing a flaw in the rules, which if abused by players with good mechanical skills will render the new rules useless. Again Acer vs h2o today, every game h2o got to counter pick he just mirrored. Not saying its bad, actually its smart on his part. He knows his strength and is abusing the civ rules properly.

[britishmusketeer]

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.

This logic is kinda flawed. H2o can't force a mirror g1 because its a free pick. If prince wanted to avoid a mirror he could have. Then you are saying h2o can mirror instead of counter, but he could just as easily pick a counter civ and I would say that if your opponent is using his counterpicks to mirror you should be happy about it.

well I am just saying that based on what I saw. Even in game 1 vs zoi who was considerably lower in skill than h2o, he just forced an aztec mirror. Not sure if other guy can similarly keep forcing non-mirrors, just didn't happen in tournament till now. Guess will have to wait for Boneng Garja series.
Regarding 2nd point I know he can counter civ (need not force mirror), but if he can win the games by just practicing 14 MUs (mirrors), there's no need to practice or learn other counter builds. Note that I am just pointing a flaw in the rules, which if abused by players with good mechanical skills will render the new rules useless. Again Acer vs h2o today, every game h2o got to counter pick he just mirrored. Not saying its bad, actually its smart on his part. He knows his strength and is abusing the civ rules properly.

You can play a non mirror if thats what you want in g1. And by the 'only need to practice 14 MUs' logic, you could just learn 1 counter civ for each civ they could play.

[momuuu]

It seems to me Jerom's post discusses balance more (in substance) than it does civilization-picking.

P.S. Here we go again!!

Well balance is a core part of civ picking rule. Its the only reason counterpicks exist in the first place.

At the moment, france and germany dont have 'a counter' so are the best civ to pick first. Dutch and Japan, for example, are civs with extreme counters, so they simply cannot be picked first, ever. Thats plain suicide. You should literally always pick french or germany first if you are any good with those civs.

Thats why I suggested the banning option. Which isnt about balance at all, but the reason behind my suggestion is the state of the balance. Which is the only reason this topic even exists.

To be fair, a tournamemt is never going to see all match ups in this game. Some of them are so brutal that they should be avoided at all cost. But at the moment, these rules are still resultimg in repetitive civ picks more so than unfairness.

[Garja]

Unless you make series bo15 or something, players will always play more or less the top 5 civs, regardless of how good the balance is.

[Mimsy for President]

WARNING : Controversial opinion although a bit off-topic ; Not for the faint-hearted

- Maximum 2 mirrors per confrontation.
- Ban the Chinese mirrors on Tibet and the Indian, Aztec and Russian mirrors on Cascade Range.

[_H2O]

Rule sets where the person who wins a game is at a disadvantage because of it are not fair. It defeats the purpose of winning.

This rule set is completely fair. In order to win the series you must pick first more times than your opponent. If you cant win with counter civ why should you get to keep trying to counter civ over and over again.

[lesllamas]

Rule sets where the person who wins a game is at a disadvantage because of it are not fair. It defeats the purpose of winning this is a laughable conclusion to make--the purpose of winning is to advance your score to the necessary threshold to win the set.

This rule set is completely fair. In order to win the series you must pick first more times than your opponent Completely and utterly false, regardless of whether you're talking about the current ruleset or the loser's counterpick one, which is unclear here. If you cant win with counter civ why should you get to keep trying to counter civ over and over again. You get to try once over again, which is the exact same number of counterpicks you would ever have in the current ruleset

It's almost like you didn't bother to read the initial post at all.

"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."

[lesllamas]

Let me ask you a follow-up question: do you think it is more fair, less fair, or just as fair as the current ruleset to have alternating counterpicks, except where the winner of game 1 gets to counterpick first?

i.e. G1 neutral player A wins, Player A counterpicks, Player B counterpicks, Player A counterpicks, Player B counterpicks

[Goodspeed]

lesllamas you are right in that there is little difference between alternating picks and winner picks first, but there is a difference in that winner picks first gives the losing player more chances for a come back. I don't see any reason to change it at this point.

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.

You say these are "undesirable situations". I can see where you're coming from but personally I don't consider this a problem.

[Goodspeed]

Show hidden quotes

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.

This logic is kinda flawed. H2o can't force a mirror g1 because its a free pick. If prince wanted to avoid a mirror he could have. Then you are saying h2o can mirror instead of counter, but he could just as easily pick a counter civ and I would say that if your opponent is using his counterpicks to mirror you should be happy about it.

well I am just saying that based on what I saw. Even in game 1 vs zoi who was considerably lower in skill than h2o, he just forced an aztec mirror. Not sure if other guy can similarly keep forcing non-mirrors, just didn't happen in tournament till now. Guess will have to wait for Boneng Garja series.
Regarding 2nd point I know he can counter civ (need not force mirror), but if he can win the games by just practicing 14 MUs (mirrors), there's no need to practice or learn other counter builds. Note that I am just pointing a flaw in the rules, which if abused by players with good mechanical skills will render the new rules useless. Again Acer vs h2o today, every game h2o got to counter pick he just mirrored. Not saying its bad, actually its smart on his part. He knows his strength and is abusing the civ rules properly.

You can play a non mirror if thats what you want in g1. And by the 'only need to practice 14 MUs' logic, you could just learn 1 counter civ for each civ they could play.

Except you'll be at a loss when you're the one who has to pick first.

[zoom]

I think it's just as fair (disregarding balance).

I really can't decide which system I prefer...

[deleted_user0]

Typical zoo posting to let every one know he has no opinion and agrees with everyone

[Garja]

Let me ask you a follow-up question: do you think it is more fair, less fair, or just as fair as the current ruleset to have alternating counterpicks, except where the winner of game 1 gets to counterpick first?

i.e. G1 neutral player A wins, Player A counterpicks, Player B counterpicks, Player A counterpicks, Player B counterpicks

Probably slightly less fair than the current ruleset just because the second match is the only one where makes sense to give a little advantage to the loser.
More or less is the same tho. Could be a coin toss to decide who counterpicks first and it still would be fair, as long as next counterpicks are alternated.

[zoom]

Don't you understand how winner's pick is just as fair though?

The only difference is that it lends itself toward longer series. It's equally fair.

[lesllamas]

lesllamas you are right in that there is little difference between alternating picks and winner picks first, but there is a difference in that winner picks first gives the losing player more chances for a come back. I don't see any reason to change it at this point.

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.

You say these are "undesirable situations". I can see where you're coming from but personally I don't consider this a problem.

this is the repeated claim that has absolutely no substantiation whatsoever. In what way does winner picks first give any player more resources to come back with than alternating pick? The only difference between winner picks first and alternating pick is that each player is guaranteed to be able to use both of their counterpicks in any given set.


The undesirable situations that I'm talking about arise only when somebody loses on their own counterpick. If everybody wins on their own counterpicks, then the order is exactly the same as alternating pick. If the loser of game 1 loses on their first counterpick, they must face an elimination game on an opponent's counterpick when they still have a resource tied up later in the set. Similarly, the WINNER of game 1 can be put in this position by losing THEIR first counterpick, facing an elimination game in game 4 while they have a resource that they may never have a chance to use tied up in game 5.

As such, the "more chance for a comeback" that Garja and you have mentioned now, is really just a chance for the loser of g1 to make 2-0 into 2-1 (with the burden of having to win 2 straight games on the opponent's counterpicks), and the winner of game 1 to even up the series while forfeiting the right to the counterpick in game 5.

The only difference is in how the counterpicks are sequenced in certain scenarios. It guarantees that in every set, each player will access every chance they have to win, and that losing on their first counterpicks won't leave them facing elimination coming into a game that is stacked against them.

[Goodspeed]

The difference is apparent when the winner of game 1 is up 2-0, as you described yourself. Winner picks first then favours the losing player while alternating picks does not. I get that he still has to win at least one game where he got counter picked, but that one extra game where the loser gets to counterpick can shift momentum plus civs are reset after that game which makes it easier for him to pick a civ which is not counterable in game 4. The maps may or may not be an important factor (example: this round of 16 where cascade range is the 4th map, on which India is not really counterable).

My point being that the difference is small, but there is a difference (you seem to be in denial about this?) and I don't consider winner picks first a fairer alternative to the current rules.

[lesllamas]

Let me ask you a follow-up question: do you think it is more fair, less fair, or just as fair as the current ruleset to have alternating counterpicks, except where the winner of game 1 gets to counterpick first?

i.e. G1 neutral player A wins, Player A counterpicks, Player B counterpicks, Player A counterpicks, Player B counterpicks

Probably slightly less fair than the current ruleset just because the second match is the only one where makes sense to give a little advantage to the loser.
More or less is the same tho. Could be a coin toss to decide who counterpicks first and it still would be fair, as long as next counterpicks are alternated.

So you said earlier that players should be expected to win on their own counterpicks, or else they probably deserve to lose. Do you not see how if this is the case, player B could never be expected to win a set? Player A would reach 3 wins after 4 games.

The points I am trying to make by bringing this up are

A) Sequencing of counterpicks matters, even if both have an equal number distributed over the set
B) It is wrong to simply assume that players will win on their own counterpicks in a fairly matched contest
C) Accepting B, it is important to order the sequencing of counterpicks with the knowledge that in certain cases, players will lose on their first counterpick.

[lesllamas]

The difference is apparent when the winner of game 1 is up 2-0, as you described yourself. Winner picks first then favours the losing player while alternating picks does not. I get that he still has to win at least one game He must win two in a row on his opponent's counterpick, not 1 where he got counter picked, but that one extra game where the loser gets to counterpick what. extra. game? In no situation does he gain an additional counterpickcan shift momentum plus civs are reset after that game which makes it easier for him to pick a civ which is not counterable in game 4. The maps may or may not be an important factor (example: this round of 16 where cascade range is the 4th map, on which India is not really counterable).

My point being that the difference is small, but there is a difference (you seem to be in denial about this?) and I don't consider winner picks first a fairer alternative to the current rules.

From initial post about momentum: "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 (edit: after beginning the set at a counterpick disadvantage--effectively a two game swing).

[britishmusketeer]

You can play a non mirror if thats what you want in g1. And by the 'only need to practice 14 MUs' logic, you could just learn 1 counter civ for each civ they could play.

Except you'll be at a loss when you're the one who has to pick first.

You would also be at a loss if you only know mirrors which is my point. Edit: Wait was gs responding to my comment or Nymphomaniac's?

[lesllamas]

Except you'll be at a loss when you're the one who has to pick first.

I think what he was trying to say (which has a lot of faulty assumptions) is that a player could theoretically be obstinate enough to force a mirror in game 1, and should they win, basically forget about preparing for their opponent's counterpicks and just bank on their ability to win two mirrors on their own counterpicks. Which would be a horrible way to approach a set, of course.

[Goodspeed]

The difference is apparent when the winner of game 1 is up 2-0, as you described yourself. Winner picks first then favours the losing player while alternating picks does not. I get that he still has to win at least one game He must win two in a row on his opponent's counterpick, not 1 where he got counter picked, but that one extra game where the loser gets to counterpick what. extra. game? In no situation does he gain an additional counterpick

He gets an additional chance to stay in the series. The difference between 3-0 and 2-1 is big, as I'm sure you're aware. As mentioned, in a best of 5 civs reset after game 3 plus the map may or may not be an important factor. That counter pick the loser gets when he's down 2-0 in your suggested rule set can make the difference between him winning the series or losing the series, is my point, and imo there is no reason why he should get that chance.

[lesllamas]

The difference is apparent when the winner of game 1 is up 2-0, as you described yourself. Winner picks first then favours the losing player while alternating picks does not. I get that he still has to win at least one game He must win two in a row on his opponent's counterpick, not 1 where he got counter picked, but that one extra game where the loser gets to counterpick what. extra. game? In no situation does he gain an additional counterpick

He gets an additional chance to stay in the series. The difference between 3-0 and 2-1 is big, as I'm sure you're aware. As mentioned, in a best of 5 civs reset after game 3 plus the map may or may not be an important factor. That counter pick the loser gets when he's down 2-0 in your suggested rule set can make the difference between him winning the series or losing the series, is my point, and imo there is no reason why he should get that chance.

Yes, he does have a better chance to stay in the series for at least one more game. But it cuts equally both ways--the winner of game 1 can be in the exact same situation should he fail to win on his first counterpick. Also, the difference between 3-0 and 2-1 is big in that the series is either over or it isn't, which is indeed big.

The civ reset is probably the best point you've brought up, though I'm not particularly convinced that it's consequential unless the two players have a very particular (i.e. limited) civ pool.

I vigorously dispute this: That counter pick the loser gets when he's down 2-0 in your suggested rule set can make the difference between him winning the series or losing the series.----It can only make the difference between losing the series and remaining in a series with the odds stacked heavily against him. If he proceeds to win that series, then I would suggest that the rule change was a resounding success, because he had the opportunity to clutch out games that should be tilted in his opponents' favor and did so. Adaptation over the course of a short set is a facet of any tournament play, and IMO a player who has 3 straight chances to close out his opponent, with 2 straight counterpicks, and cannot do so, should not deserve to win that set.

If you argue that the 3rd game counterpick is particularly important, and I were to concede that, then you must concede that the current ruleset gives the strongest counterpick to any player up 2-0, and always to the winner of the first game. I think it is a mistake to err on the side of prematurely ending sets.