[Unofficial] [Civ rules] Poll about Autumn 2018

[edeholland]

I wouldnt even consider signing up if people could ban my favorite civs tbh.

I'm talking about banning 1 civ, not 5

maybe im biased in this but i've played League of Legends for over 4 years where 10 champs out of the 130 available are getting banned before every game and it works very well.

I don't see the gain of banning civs really? Both players take out the enemies best civ, making the overall series less exciting and on a lower level?
You also don't let people prepare against a civ, instead you just let them ban it.

I wouldnt even consider signing up if people could ban my favorite civs tbh.

I wouldn't consider watching you if you couldn't play Dutch, lol

[lemmings121]

I like the traditional rules.

The only option that I find even better is the civ rules of the bo27, where you can play every game with any civ, as long as you havent won any games in the serie with with that civ. So in a bo3 you must win with 2 diferent civs, 3 civs in a bo5, etc...

(cant go the usual main civ win, random civ lose, main civ again win)

[momuuu]

I wouldnt even consider signing up if people could ban my favorite civs tbh.

I wouldn't consider watching you if you couldn't play Dutch, lol

That doesnt really make much sense, does it? If you were to look at the facts at least.

The thing is mostly that it feels unfair and unfun if the civ you like playing the most gets banned.

[bwinner]

I wouldnt even consider signing up if people could ban my favorite civs tbh.

I wouldn't consider watching you if you couldn't play Dutch, lol

That doesnt really make much sense, does it? If you were to look at the facts at least.

The thing is mostly that it feels unfair and unfun if the civ you like playing the most gets banned.

It basicly handicap player that are very specialized in one civ like you. I wouldn't mind getting one of my civ vetoed at all while I would veto india all the time and it would be funnier for me.

Though edeholland is right when he says it lowers the global level.

[Garja]

It's a gimmick rule for how RTS games traditionally work.

[BrookG]

I don't know if that would work, but a crazy idea would be to sign up with at least 2-3 civs. Rather than banning a certain civ, which would draw the fun and skill out of many, or doing a mono-civ tourney, which is better for a special event rather than a main, you could force the player to play at least these 2-3 civs they know really well.

[ChewSick]

I don't know if that would work, but a crazy idea would be to sign up with at least 2-3 civs. Rather than banning a certain civ, which would draw the fun and skill out of many, or doing a mono-civ tourney, which is better for a special event rather than a main, you could force the player to play at least these 2-3 civs they know really well.

yeah but that's exactly what the current rules are made for, so you cannot play only 2-3 civs

[BrookG]

I don't know if that would work, but a crazy idea would be to sign up with at least 2-3 civs. Rather than banning a certain civ, which would draw the fun and skill out of many, or doing a mono-civ tourney, which is better for a special event rather than a main, you could force the player to play at least these 2-3 civs they know really well.

yeah but that's exactly what the current rules are made for, so you cannot play only 2-3 civs

You dont get my point exactly. I am not saying to exclude the other civs, rather than force the players to play the civs they are good with. This suggestion could take effect in rounds with many games (BO7/BO9). For instance, in a BO3/BO5 it's kinda useless. Trying to elevate the discussion with a fancy idea.

[momuuu]

I don't know if that would work, but a crazy idea would be to sign up with at least 2-3 civs. Rather than banning a certain civ, which would draw the fun and skill out of many, or doing a mono-civ tourney, which is better for a special event rather than a main, you could force the player to play at least these 2-3 civs they know really well.

This is what I suggested. A hearthstone like conquest format. It gives a good mix between civ/match up variety and knowing civs in depth.

[bwinner]

I don't know if that would work, but a crazy idea would be to sign up with at least 2-3 civs. Rather than banning a certain civ, which would draw the fun and skill out of many, or doing a mono-civ tourney, which is better for a special event rather than a main, you could force the player to play at least these 2-3 civs they know really well.

This is what I suggested. A hearthstone like conquest format. It gives a good mix between civ/match up variety and knowing civs in depth.

I made it easier to prepare some MU, I like it.

[Garja]

Isn't conquest like you have to play all the civs you sign up with?
2-3 civs is fine but it should up to the player to use them at discretion.

[BrookG]

I m not familiar with hearthstone conquest mode. A couple of civs free to use at will indeed, and then after the player won with one it's blocked. To be fair, it's not a secret what civs people are good with, why not take that to its extreme?

[macacoalbino]

You bring say 5 civs, you have to win a game with each of these to win a series
Basically you make it a pocket BO27 sorta game.
I actually like the idea. But i think in HS there is a veto to a hero in each series, thats why i bring the point

[ChewSick]

You bring say 5 civs, you have to win a game with each of these to win a series
Basically you make it a pocket BO27 sorta game.
I actually like the idea. But i think in HS there is a veto to a hero in each series, thats why i bring the point

i really don't understand this system. if you have to win a game with your set 5 civs, you will only play those 5 civs and make the games much less diversed. or what am i missing?

[macacoalbino]

Yeah it diminishes players available civs but I think it is interesting in the sense that players have yet another strategical choice to make: bringing 5 civs to beat them all, not to mention the ordering you choose these civs in order to be left with a strong one in the end.
Idk its just different, in a way that I think it would be fun trying in a minor event. If the experience is good, imagine having 2 majors, the first with current civ rules and the second with conquest rules. Then maybe you could have a match between the 2 winners. Think about the possibilities ^^

[Garja]

I meant free pick like even just using one of those 2-3 civs if you wish so. The aim here would be to limit the civ at your disposal. Very much like the mono civ rule but a bit less.

[henwooda]

What if a civ reset after a certian amount og games have gone by? for example, if i were in a 5 match series then maybe after 3 matches, the first civ i used would reset, and so on until the series finishes. THis could be used in the later stages of the tournament for an experience not seen in previous parts of the torunament where poeple might be able to play one civ 3 times. idk if this is good but its just an idea.

[momuuu]

Yeah it diminishes players available civs but I think it is interesting in the sense that players have yet another strategical choice to make: bringing 5 civs to beat them all, not to mention the ordering you choose these civs in order to be left with a strong one in the end.
Idk its just different, in a way that I think it would be fun trying in a minor event. If the experience is good, imagine having 2 majors, the first with current civ rules and the second with conquest rules. Then maybe you could have a match between the 2 winners. Think about the possibilities ^^

I think the diversity is created by enabling some new match ups that dont occur often in the old system. The old system focuses heavily on safe civs and safr match ups because of the first/counterpick system. Youre looking to learn how to beat germany/france/india/brits or whatever the safe civs are. With conquest I think new match ups will come forward. Civs like Japan might see some more use for example. It also promotes mastery/preparation, as you will know the possible match ups (5 civs vs 5 civs means there are still 25 possible match ups to prepare for). I could see how the mix of the two systems overall provides the most diversity.

[macacoalbino]

If you think about it, in a BO3 only 2 civs are used most of the time by each player. In conquest rule, each will be forced to play 3 civs. Theres more variety this way. I really think this should be tested honestly

[Garja]

5 civs is still a lot to prepare and prepare against

[BrookG]

Then why not reduce 5 to 3?

[lemmings121]

I like the traditional rules.

The only option that I find even better is the civ rules of the bo27, where you can play every game with any civ, as long as you havent won any games in the serie with with that civ. So in a bo3 you must win with 2 diferent civs, 3 civs in a bo5, etc...

(cant go the usual main civ win, random civ lose, main civ again win)

Yeah it diminishes players available civs but I think it is interesting in the sense that players have yet another strategical choice to make: bringing 5 civs to beat them all, not to mention the ordering you choose these civs in order to be left with a strong one in the end.
Idk its just different, in a way that I think it would be fun trying in a minor event. If the experience is good, imagine having 2 majors, the first with current civ rules and the second with conquest rules. Then maybe you could have a match between the 2 winners. Think about the possibilities ^^

A combination of this also seems nice. you sign up with 5 civs.
In game1 you can play with any of your 5 civs, if you won game1, you have only 4 left. if you lost, you still have 5 civs in your pool.


In the earlier rounds, this gives flexibility to newer players (while still forcing them to win with 2 diferent civs in a bo3)

And in the later rounds, it forces players to realy know well their 5 civs. (imagine a bo9 where you start with a 4-0 vs someone. You only have one civ left to use to finish off the series)

[Garja]

Then why not reduce 5 to 3?

Ye it sohuld be 2-3 but you don't have to win a game with each of them.

[BrookG]

Then why not reduce 5 to 3?

Ye it sohuld be 2-3 but you don't have to win a game with each of them.

And then they can play with whichever civ, or with the old rules

[DjinnOfSorrow]

I love the blind pick rule. First match out of the gate both blind picks then winner picks first. As far as reusing civs I think after the half way point reseting is fine. Or maybe a handicap where if the low man is down 2 then he gets a reset. Then the high man gets a rest if he loses that match.