[Unofficial] [Civ rules] Poll about Autumn 2018

[princeofcarthage]

This poll is regarding what community thinks/wants to see in the tournament regarding civilization rule-set for Autumn 2018. Comment your answers in detail and vote!

[Vinyanyérë]

I like the idea of using non-majors to screw with the format and find out what systems may work better than what's previously been used for major tournaments. But when it comes to actually having a major, I'd prefer its format to be whatever's been used in the past (providing that past formats are good) unless there were substantial evidence that a different format works better. I don't think that there is substantial evidence that a different format works better (note that this isn't the same as claiming "there is no evidence that a different format works better" or "there is not substantial evidence that a different format works well"), so I'd like to keep the format as is until either more data is collected and that data indicates that a format change is better or strong arguments to change the format are made.

[momuuu]

I think conquest mode (a common hearthstone format) could actually work really well. But the current system is fine too.

[Hazza54321]

No civ resets #learnmorethan2civs

[edeholland]

I think conquest mode (a common hearthstone format) could actually work really well. But the current system is fine too.

Could you give a quick rundown of how that would work?

[momuuu]

I think conquest mode (a common hearthstone format) could actually work really well. But the current system is fine too.

Could you give a quick rundown of how that would work?

Iirc you sign up with for example 5 civs and then you have to win a game with each to win a bo9. Once youve won with that civ you cant use it anymore.

[edeholland]

I think conquest mode (a common hearthstone format) could actually work really well. But the current system is fine too.

Could you give a quick rundown of how that would work?

Iirc you sign up with for example 5 civs and then you have to win a game with each to win a bo9. Once youve won with that civ you cant use it anymore.

It sounds like it could mean we see the same 5 civs every time, but then again, we thought the same win the mono-civ-cup, and iirc there were 8 different civs in the RO8.

[KINGofOsmane]

as long as u guys dont use the map rules from the weekend tourneys i am fine

[momuuu]

Show hidden quotes

I think conquest mode (a common hearthstone format) could actually work really well. But the current system is fine too.

Could you give a quick rundown of how that would work?

Iirc you sign up with for example 5 civs and then you have to win a game with each to win a bo9. Once youve won with that civ you cant use it anymore.

It sounds like it could mean we see the same 5 civs every time, but then again, we thought the same win the mono-civ-cup, and iirc there were 8 different civs in the RO8.

Id say people tend to play their 5-6 best civs and surely there is little consensus as to what civs players prefer.

[Garja]

I dont think that setup is bad but I dont like it in AOE3 and with usual map rules. In the end it just gives the opportunity to play your main civs over and over and with the same strat even (because it changes the MU so the same strat might work). It is quite an accomodating rule in every sense.
Imo the main tourneys should be either no resets or even one civ only. It is supposed to be a test of skills, don't need fancy rules to make things more complicate.
If anything we could use that rule but limit the number of civs to 2-3 only.

[momuuu]

If we go purely by skill rules, there should be free picking and no civ limitations at all. No limitations at all. Otherwise you're just considering skill within the limitations you imposed.

I always thought the rules were primarily for civ/mu variety. Which is why a shake up in the format might be nice. We've seen people always first pick the all around civs and end up seeing many average mus. A conquest format might lead to different civs and match ups.

[Garja]

Ye well no restriction at all could also be fine. I mean neither rule is bad, just it all depends on what we want to accomplish.
No restrictions means you can do lot of one tricks in the series by picking a civ and strat you might know the opponent has problems with. It's not necessarily bad but it becomes bad when you keep borrowing strats from others. In that sense you're both being consistently helped to make your way through and also most of games will adhere to the meta.
I don't like conquest mode because it pushes for comebacks like winner picks first rule, but arguably harder. Also I find the required number of civs not optimal to test neither civ knowledge depth nor civ knowledge widht. It seems to me a ruleset better suited for a single long showmatch.
Mono civ is imo the best setup for a serious tourney with the open format. If that's too restrictive then 2 or max 3 civs. This way you know opponent civs in advance so you can plan stuff ahead and meanwhile he can't ask for help just before each game. At the same time with 2-3 civs you basically have a proper civ for almost every map and there is room for performing more than one strat/playstyle with the same civ.

[Mitoe]

My view on this is that we do want some civ restrictions to encourage diversity and limit specific civ dominance, but I don't think we should place such harsh limitations on it as having no resets.

While being versatile and having a decent number of civs at your disposal is important for any competitive player in AoE3, it's not the only thing that matters. Realistically, most players--even top players--only know 1 - 3 civs inside and out, maybe 4 if they're really active. Then most other civs, if they have any, are more niche situations / matchups.

The thing I dislike about restricting civs so much that you have to play something different all the time, is that you inevitable reach a situation where one or both players don't really know how best to play the matchup / map / situation, and you get a one-sided or sloppy game that's not very fun to play or to watch. You essentially force a greater quantity of matchups at the expense of the quality of each game.

I think the current system has a good balance between civ diversity and player skill.

[spanky4ever]

If you had an option RE..I would vote for it.

[macacoalbino]

Is there any chance we see civ veto for a series in an Esoc tourney? (Not necessarily a major)

[edeholland]

If you had an option RE..I would vote for it.

I will take the bait. Why?

[spanky4ever]

If you had an option RE..I would vote for it.

I will take the bait. Why?

My main argument for that would be that most ppl play RE.
Even though I really like the patch in general, it has become a kind of "elitist" patch.
From a spectator point of view, it could be nice to have a tournament that are played on the "normal" patch.
As a player, the tips I gained by being a spectator on RE, would be more relavant to my own game.
It could also be interesting to see how big the differences to RE actually are now, and if our very good players would play the game in a very different manner than on EP.

[flontier]

On re you will just see a lot less diversity in the civ choice, and people complaining because they see always same civs be played, nothing more original. check old tournament play on re if you want to see the change, its really not more interesting.

i voted civ reset because i can't understand how we could play without the civ reset in a game not perfectly balanced.

[spanky4ever]

On re you will just see a lot less diversity in the civ choice, and people complaining because they see always same civs be played, nothing more original. check old tournament play on re if you want to see the change, its really not more interesting.

i voted civ reset because i can't understand how we could play without the civ reset in a game not perfectly balanced.

You could b right, but I bet you are not though. I for one, would not mind watching more Iro being played again.

[_H2O]

RE is not playable compared to EP. We won’t be doing anything on RE. Iro are getting play on EP right now and it’s actually fair gsmes.

[spanky4ever]

yeah, thought that much, but @edeholland asked me what I think, so there it is

[n0el]

i voted civ reset because i can't understand how we could play without the civ reset in a game not perfectly balanced.

What does this have to do with civ balance?

[flontier]

i voted civ reset because i can't understand how we could play without the civ reset in a game not perfectly balanced.

What does this have to do with civ balance?

You can just play the best civs with 2-3 differents builds all tournament and we'll come back to this kind of series : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ_R4P3UvPY

[edeholland]

If you had an option RE..I would vote for it.

I will take the bait. Why?

My main argument for that would be that most ppl play RE.
Even though I really like the patch in general, it has become a kind of "elitist" patch.
From a spectator point of view, it could be nice to have a tournament that are played on the "normal" patch.
As a player, the tips I gained by being a spectator on RE, would be more relavant to my own game.
It could also be interesting to see how big the differences to RE actually are now, and if our very good players would play the game in a very different manner than on EP.

While I understand your point, the patch is still relatively close to RE, so I think a tournament on RE wouldn't be interesting enough to make up for the horrible balance.

[[Armag] diarouga]

i voted civ reset because i can't understand how we could play without the civ reset in a game not perfectly balanced.

What does this have to do with civ balance?

You can just play the best civs with 2-3 differents builds all tournament and we'll come back to this kind of series : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ_R4P3UvPY

Lol, the 2 biggest lamers of all time.