A new format for competitive play

[Le Hussard sur le toit]

Hi guys !

This is almost my first post on this forum, but given all the debates that happened lately about map and civ choices in tournaments I'd like to discuss a format which I think may help.
In game and decision theory there is a well-known and simple way to create options that are equally fair to everyone.
The way it works is very simple : player 1 chose a match-up. Then player 2 chose which side of the match up he wants to play. Roles are exchanged after every game.
Example : Map is New England. P1 chose Ottos vs China, P2 decides to play China.

I think this would have the followings advantages:
- fairer MUs.
Both players should be happy with the MU. Why ? P1 can chose any MU he wants, and he will pick one that HE thinks is fair, so he will be happy playing both sides. If P2 thinks the MU is unfair he can pick the civ he prefers so he should also be quite happy. It becomes impossible to counterpick your opponent's civ.

- increased civ diversity.
When MU are decided the classical way, players are forced to chose a civ that is well adapted to the maps. For example, on Thar desert there are very few viable civs.
In my format, P1 can chose two civs that are equally bad for the map. For example China-Germany or Port-Brit on Thar desert may now happen.

- as a consequence it solves some balance issues because bad civs can still be paired against one another.
- it favours players who can play a lot of civs and have good knowledge of the game, so this requires more skills than auto-picking Germany on Kamtchatka, Russia on Thar desert and so on.

So what are your thoughts ?
Want to give it a try ?

[yoqpasa]

Problem is players would abuse the fact that we all know what civs our opponents are good at. Imagine Iamturk picking India vs Japs against Kaiserklein.

[bwinner]

Maybe a good idea for a future @giveuanxiety tourney?

[Le Hussard sur le toit]

Problem is players would abuse the fact that we all know what civs our opponents are good at. Imagine Iamturk picking India vs Japs against Kaiserklein.

Yeah it would favours players that are good with almost every civ. Which I think is a good thing for the viewers actually because they want diversity, and it would give players an incentive to play different civs.

[Interjection]

It all sounds good in theory but I think what you actually end up with is less interesting games. As pointed out earlier, not every player is strong with every civ - leading to poorer gameplay as people are forced into unfamiliar matchups which they don't necessarily know how to play or enjoy playing... So they don't try as hard. Or at all.

Some of the most frequently suggested smackdowns are ones where e.g., players choose their opponents civ, or you get to veto civs. But Ive never done them as it's hard enough to find players to participate as it is and this sort of thing makes it less fun for them to play

I've spent a great deal of time thinking about formats, both professionally and otherwise. I generally think the best way to manipulate civ diversity is with maps and veto/picking rules. A good format, though quite hard to admin, is a system where players get to pick maps from a limited pool and put them in the map pool. Similar to NWC best of 5s during the LAN

[Scroogie]

I really like this idea. To prevent the unfamiliar civ problem Player 2 can maybe pick like 3 civs, and one of them hast to be in the MU.
For example, Kaiser vs Tabben:
Kaiser says Germans, France, Spain.
Tabben proposes Spain vs China.
Kaiser can now pick his preferred civ, into a worse matchup or surprise tabben by picking China, giving him the civ advantage. Maybe he even practiced China in secret?
This makes the civ selection process a lot more dynamic imo.

[jesus3]

Yoqpasa and Inter have brought up some good arguments against it. However, with GUA's subscriber tourneys we now have a test ground for some fun experiments, of course entirely depending on him if he wants to do it. I think it'd be a great idea for future GUA tourneys @giveuanxiety

[I_HaRRiiSoN_I]

Shouldnt be too complicated, dont like the ruleset then dont sign up! I'm sure lots of majors - colonels will be up for it.

[Interjection]

I think it's worth a try, it would be fun to see how Kaiser handles Japan Vs India haha

Would there be a rule that you can't pick mirrors?

[Mr_Bramboy]

@giveuanxiety

[giveuanxiety]

It is an interesting rule, I dont think it works for competitive / standard tournaments. It really just feels like a much stronger civ counter than what currently exists, and players would always just pick the 2 civs their opponent is the worst at.

[Le Hussard sur le toit]

I think @Interjection and @yoqpasa raise an interesting issue. The solution proposed by Scroogie may work although it complicates things a lot : P1 picks 3 civs he is confortable with, P2 chose a MU with at least one of those civs, then P1 chose which side he wants to play.
Or at the beginning of the match each players gives a list of 6-7 civs he likes and the other player must always include one of the civs in his MUs.

Concretely it would look like this:
- you can not propose a MU if it has already been played.
- you can not propose twice the same civ but your opponent can if it's in a different MU (with maybe a reset if it's a long match).
- mirrors are banned. However, the last game of each match should always be a mirror.

Example (BO 7):
Game 1 : P1 propose Germany vs France, P2 chose France. Player 1 can never again propose either Germany or France, and P2 can propose France or Germany but not both.
Game 2 : P2 propose India vs France, P1 chose France
Game 3 : P2 propose Brit vs Port, P1 chose Port
Game 4 : P1 propose Russia vs India, P2 chose India
Game 5 : P1 propose Otto vs China, P2 chose China
Game 6 : P2 propose Sioux vs Germany, P1 chose Germany
Game 7 (tie-break) is a mirror

Variants : - using the usual way to decide MU for some games.
- maps can also be chosen like this (P1 picks a map, P2 picks a MU, P1 picks a side).
- at the beginning, each player picks one map where he will chose his civ freely, but he will have to pick first. Then Kaiserklein is assured to play Germany and Mitoe is certain to play China at least once but they have to risk getting counterpicked.

[Le Hussard sur le toit]

It really just feels like a much stronger civ counter than what currently exists, and players would always just pick the 2 civs their opponent is the worst at.

I agree with the second part but why is it a stonger civ counter ? You can not propose an unfair MU because the other player will chose the best side of course.

[giveuanxiety]

It become really unfair because one player can chose 2 civs that their opponent has never played.

[Kaiserklein]

Problem is players would abuse the fact that we all know what civs our opponents are good at. Imagine Iamturk picking India vs Japs against Kaiserklein.

Yeah it would favours players that are good with almost every civ. Which I think is a good thing for the viewers actually because they want diversity, and it would give players an incentive to play different civs.

This is true to some extent. However, keep in mind the players won't be happy about it. Being forced to play civs you don't know in tourney just sucks. And pretty much no one plays all the civs, at least not at their best level. So the rules would probably just be unpopular.
Besides, it could mean lower quality games. Say I'm playing vs lukas, he would just force an aztec mirror, or japan mirror for example, and I'd most likely lose. Then I'd force a french or ger mirror, and this time he'd lose. So viewers would just watch one sided games and lower level gameplay overall. I'd rather watch higher level gameplay.

And since people currently don't really bother to learn new civs for tournaments, even if they're strong (example: I should have learnt india for no tp maps, and some other players should have learnt iro or ger for tp maps), I'm not even sure we'd really see people learn new civs in that format.

[WickedCossack]

I assume mirrors would be banned otherwise it goes against the concept of achieving a high level of diversity which seems to be the point of the rules.

Yes it favours people with a larger civ pool but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I'd rather have more civs than less civs (TWC event.)

I think the rules would be enjoyable to try out for a weekend or smaller (<£500) event at the least. Stick to classic rules for the major events though.

I do like the prospect of getting random MU's like Iros vs China on thar desert for example, would certainly be a test of different skills.

[Kaiserklein]

Mirror was just the obvious example of a way to force your opponent into a match up you know and he doesn't know. But it also works with other match ups, for example lukas could force aztecs vs china, and I could force fr vs ger. And then we're back to the same situation with the same problem.
Besides, banning mirrors is questionable, as it's the only really fair match ups in the game. So I'm not sure that's desirable.
I totally agree these rules could be tested in a smaller event, but not in the major ones yeah

[Le Hussard sur le toit]

@Kaiserklein : Thanks for your answer. Mirrors and repeated MUs would be banned of course, so he can not force you for ever to play civs you don't like (particularly since he also need to pay attention to balance). If he proposes on civ, he can never propose it again.
For example looking at your games I can see the only civs you look unfamiliar with are the TAD civs and aztecs, so that would be at worse 2 games with completely unfamiliar civs. And since aztec-japan or china-india may be very unbalanced depending on the map, that gives even less opportunities to your opponent.

Anyway this kind of alternative format can only work is the best players want to give it a try, so it's up to you !

PS: mirrors are certainly fair and fun to watch if there are not too many of them, but the mandatory Russ mirror on Thar desert is getting quite boring...

[Kaiserklein]

@Kaiserklein : Thanks for your answer. Mirrors and repeated MUs would be banned of course, so he can not force you for ever to play civs you don't like (particularly since he also need to pay attention to balance). If he proposes on civ, he can never propose it again.

Yeah I get it, it's just that seeing your average player doesn't master all civs at all, I think it's very easy to force him into civs he can't play.
And even if you don't pick 2 civs he doesn't play, you can pick 1 civ he plays and 1 civ he doesn't, as long as it's a bad match up for the civ he plays. For example, vs someone who plays dutch and doesn't play ger, I could force ger vs dutch. Either he'd play ger and I'd win cause he can't play the civ, or he'd play dutch and lose cause the match up sucks. Resulting in low quality games either way, pretty much. So if there's 5 civs the guy doesn't master (which is true for a lot of players) you can probably screw him 5 times.

For example looking at your games I can see the only civs you look unfamiliar with are the TAD civs and aztecs, so that would be at worse 2 games with completely unfamiliar civs. And since aztec-japan or china-india may be very unbalanced depending on the map, that gives even less opportunities to your opponent.

There's still a bunch of civs I wouldn't usually pick in tourney. Besides not everyone play as many civs as me anyway. And a given match up favouring you barely matters if you can't play the civ well tbh, so that's not really an argument.
And again, I could just end up being forced to play india vs brits (I can't play india, and I won't beat it with brits either), aztecs vs dutch, spain vs japs, ports vs china, etc.

Anyway this kind of alternative format can only work is the best players want to give it a try, so it's up to you !

Well not really, it's up to esoc or whoever else organizes a tourney to adopt this format. Then we can test it. Like I said I don't mind this format if it's not in a major tournament, could be fun.

PS: mirrors are certainly fair and fun to watch if there are not too many of them, but the mandatory Russ mirror on Thar desert is getting quite boring...

Well that's a balance issue, ideally it wouldn't be that way. Hopefully it will be better in next EP. Either way, if the balance doesn't improve, the games will be boring on no tp maps, mirror or not. And like I said, it's just sad to remove the only perfectly fair match ups from competitive play...
And same stuff, on no tp it's even easier to force your opponent into a garbage mu. Just pick a no tp civ he can't play, vs a tp civ he can play, and you just win either way.

[Superfly47]

I really like this idea. To prevent the unfamiliar civ problem Player 2 can maybe pick like 3 civs, and one of them hast to be in the MU.
For example, Kaiser vs Tabben:
Kaiser says Germans, France, Spain.
Tabben proposes Spain vs China.
Kaiser can now pick his preferred civ, into a worse matchup or surprise tabben by picking China, giving him the civ advantage. Maybe he even practiced China in secret?
This makes the civ selection process a lot more dynamic imo.

If you're looking for another format. If there is another caster or well-known player who has ability to you. You could do a smackdown vs that person. Or do another coaching video.

[Scroogie]

I really like this idea. To prevent the unfamiliar civ problem Player 2 can maybe pick like 3 civs, and one of them hast to be in the MU.
For example, Kaiser vs Tabben:
Kaiser says Germans, France, Spain.
Tabben proposes Spain vs China.
Kaiser can now pick his preferred civ, into a worse matchup or surprise tabben by picking China, giving him the civ advantage. Maybe he even practiced China in secret?
This makes the civ selection process a lot more dynamic imo.

If you're looking for another format. If there is another caster or well-known player who has ability to you. You could do a smackdown vs that person. Or do another coaching video.

I'm not sure what you mean.

[Superfly47]

I really like this idea. To prevent the unfamiliar civ problem Player 2 can maybe pick like 3 civs, and one of them hast to be in the MU.
For example, Kaiser vs Tabben:
Kaiser says Germans, France, Spain.
Tabben proposes Spain vs China.
Kaiser can now pick his preferred civ, into a worse matchup or surprise tabben by picking China, giving him the civ advantage. Maybe he even practiced China in secret?
This makes the civ selection process a lot more dynamic imo.

If you're looking for another format. If there is another caster or well-known player who has ability to you. You could do a smackdown vs that person. Or do another coaching video.

I'm not sure what you mean.

A smackdown when we get to see Interjection play someone with same ability as himself. He did a match years ago when an expert coached him in the video.

[Scroogie]

Show hidden quotes

I really like this idea. To prevent the unfamiliar civ problem Player 2 can maybe pick like 3 civs, and one of them hast to be in the MU.
For example, Kaiser vs Tabben:
Kaiser says Germans, France, Spain.
Tabben proposes Spain vs China.
Kaiser can now pick his preferred civ, into a worse matchup or surprise tabben by picking China, giving him the civ advantage. Maybe he even practiced China in secret?
This makes the civ selection process a lot more dynamic imo.

If you're looking for another format. If there is another caster or well-known player who has ability to you. You could do a smackdown vs that person. Or do another coaching video.

I'm not sure what you mean.

A smackdown when we get to see Interjection play someone with same ability as himself. He did a match years ago when an expert coached him in the video.

Got it. Dont have time till new year but after that could be interesting. I'm about 1.lt/Captain strength if you're interested @Interjection

[Thrar]

I think the AoE2 ECL pick/ban draft format for maps worked well there.

For example for a best of 3, there might be a pool of 5 maps, without any order. Player A picks a map for the first game, then player B picks a map for the second game, then each player bans one map, and the final game is played on whichever map is remaining. This way there is a strategic element as players try to pick maps that suit their playstyle, and admins can still ensure overall map diversity by preparing a well-rounded overall map pool. Also, because the map order is determined during the draft, there is no last map that hardly ever gets played, like in NWC.

With a map draft like this in place, I don't think civ draft needs to be changed. Most players have a pool of 2-3 civs that they know well, and maybe a few more they can manage if need be. Forcing players to play something they're unfamiliar with will just lead to lower quality games and frustrated players since they won't be able to bring their A game.

[Amsel_]

People raise a good point that it can be abused by picking the civs you're good at and your opponent is bad at. But I don't think that is is necessarily disqualifying, because it seems fine to reward someone who can play every civ, and penalize someone who only plays a handful. I would enjoy seeing this tested out in a tournament, but overall I think the current system is better. On a similar note, I think it would be fun to see games with blind picking (because we'd get more variety in match-ups), and maybe even an undisclosed map; but, while fun to watch, that would damage the competitive element of tournaments as wins will be attributed to luck instead of skill.

Here's my pitch: Players draft a pool of five or so civs before the series starts. Before the match, they pm the host which civ they're going to use. Then, when both players see the match-up, they can green up or throw the match out. Each player gets one of these "Throwouts" per series. It's basically just saying "I don't like this match-up, let's pick new civs." However, the player who used their Throwout still exhausts the civ they chose for that match-up; their opponent, if they wanted to, could pick the same civ again.

You could also combine my civ-pool idea with OP's. It means that the player choosing will always have one of their good civs as an option. That doesn't get rid of all problems, but it ameliorates the main concerns of only picking civs your opponent is bad at.