Tournaments should no longer have civilization rules

[Mitoe]

.

[Cometk]

Agree

[sebnan12]

does that mean nobody picks first? if yes itss garbage idea

[princeofcarthage]

"." is a really good argument for why you think the (title)

[dicktator_]

The best civ restriction is the restriction that states that for each player, only a single civ can be played for the entire tournament. No civ restriction may be the next best option though

[EAGLEMUT]

does that mean nobody picks first? if yes itss garbage idea

No I think he means you can just pick any repeat civs.

[Cometk]

does that mean nobody picks first? if yes itss garbage idea

nah, instead it means that you can play any civ as many times as you like, even if you've won with it already. you would still have winner-picks-first or alternating pick methodology

[Riotcoke]

Yes please, i'd love to see turk play japan in for every game in a bo7. Diversity makes the game more fun, the only reason you can have tournies is the entertainment they bring, ultimately you have to keep that entertainment.

[Astaroth]

Why not just have hidden pick, no repeat?

[sebnan12]

@EAGLEMUT @Cometk in that case yea 100% agree

[aligator92]

It would certainly allow the new forum favorite GreatScythe11 to finally compete in an ESOC event. So I am a bit surprised @Cometk is actually in favor of this change

[Kaiserklein]

He means you agree on a mu, and if you can't it's blind pick. Apparently it worked in the first esoc tourney. If it does work, it's obviously superior to counterpicking rules.

[Cometk]

Civilization restrictions, in part, originate from when the game was imbalanced. After years and many iterations of the EP, we've assuredly reached a point of stability in balance where artificially increasing civilization variety is no longer necessary. Besides that, by eliminating civilization restrictions, we allow ourselves to more accurately gauge relative civilization strength as per player confidence in the selection menu (at least insofar as the map pool also allows for any civilization to be viable). When you intentionally dictate that players cannot play some civilizations where they might still be confident in their ability to play them, that skews the statistics we gather.

Basically, if there are balance issues, we should be able to more quickly and accurately identify them using tournaments with no civilization restrictions than with them.

[Riotcoke]

It's boring though.

[Cometk]

It's boring though.

Seeing players play to their absolute best is exhilarating! If nobody can legitimately come up with a strategy to defeat Kaiserklein's Germany, it's a good thing for us to know.

[Riotcoke]

That's the problem though, the majority of viewers aren't the people who would appriciate that, you can see that by how disliked mirrors are, you can see this on the youtube and twitch comments. Again both how competetive a tournment is and the entertainment is important you need to find the mix. I agree that NWC rules are actually pretty bad, it gives you a negative for winning which shouldn't really be a thing but at the same time they give diversity, which is what also improves entertainment so it's a happy middle ground.

[Bucknasty]

Make a civ draft with bans and all that shit

[[Armag] diarouga]

1) If he means people should agree to a MU instead of winner picks first, then it's a good idea in theory, but we stopped doing that because people couldn't agree on a MU and it created drama. Furthermore, alternative pick encourages preparation as you can try to guess what civ your opponent will pick on a specific map. I guess we could try to host tournaments without alternative picks, but I don't think it should become the standard.
Or well, actually I'm not sure, alternative pick also means that you're forced to take bad MUs sometimes, which is unfair for the better player. The biggest issue is that people won't manage to agree on a MU I guess.

2) If no civ restriction means that you can play the same civ in all your tournament games then it's a very bad idea. First, we'll never reach perfect balance and there will always be a stronger civ overall, so some series might end with only mirrors. Imagine a seasonal final with fre mirrors only ? How boring would that be ?
Furthermore, experience shows that the best way to climb the ladder is to play only one civ. Just check the 1v1 max elo :

nagayumi played 100% jap
H2O is an exception but he played as many mirrors as possible
darwin played 100% Russia
Irish played 100% France
Erik played 90% Fre/Ger
snsjack played 100% China
shmras played like 80% Otto

and so on

And I believe that it would be the same in tournaments then. The best strategy would be to try hard with one civ (just like stracraft players only play one race), and practice a bit with a 2nd a 3rd civ in case your opponent has a counter start, and we'd see no civ diversity.
Currently, being able to play 10 civs at the top level is an advantage in tournament, and without any civ rule it wouldn't, as you'd only need to play 3 civs.

[kaister]

I actually really like the NWC rules. You gotta win with multiple civs, and you need to plan out what games you want to play what civ. Another thing is my civ pool struggles against Germany. Anyone who plays Germany would be doing a disservice to himself picking anything else besides Germany against me. And the series would turn into the same Mu 3 times on 3 different maps would it not?

[[Armag] diarouga]

It's boring though.

Seeing players play to their absolute best is exhilarating! If nobody can legitimately come up with a strategy to defeat Kaiserklein's Germany, it's a good thing for us to know.

Seeing players play to their best is nice, and we have that in mono civ cups. It would be fine to host a week-end tour without any civ rules too, but no civ rules in seasonal tournaments would be a disaster.
1) We'd lose a lot of civ diversity, and watching creative play in rare match ups is also exhilarating
2) By removing civ rules you're giving a big advantage to the players who only try hard a few civs, and to me the better player is the one who's better at the game overall, not better at one civ.

[kaister]

Honestly I’ve been learning new civs recently since I’ve realized a lot of the the in tournees my small civ pool leads to me counter picking into mus I wouldn’t if I had a better civ pool. I agree a game between two players best civs is better than a game between their 7th best civs, but I think being able to play 7 civs competitively should be rewarded over 2/3

[knusch]

i rather forfeit than playn vs kaiser's ger 5x in a row xD

[[Armag] diarouga]

Ye. NWC rules were great in that regard. Winner picks first was awkward because as Riot said, it gives you a negative for winning, but having to win with different civilisations was a great way to add diversity and force the players to be good overall, and not just with one civ.

The "standard" ESOC rule with civ reset is worse imo because you can win a BO3 with only one civ, and you can win BO5s with 2x your best civ/a 2nd civ.

[howlingwolfpaw]

`I find it more an assessment of skill when a player can win out of any civ or vs any civ. To me that shows balance in skill. Mastery of 1-2 civs is great and all but I enjoy watching Soliders stream the most, in part because he does so many random civs it really shows how diverse of a player he is and shows a tremendous respect for the game and all civs. Ultimately its up to the community and players and there are enough tourneys to do them each different so I do see a value in it, but then like some have said its just going to be about who can beat a single players strat on a single civ. If those types of players only stick to one civ then it could even make that civ look more OP than it is when they could be making less popular civs seem just as strong because the player is the element that brings it up a notch.
I like the idea of blind (secret) picking though.
And mirrors are such a pain to watch. I usually tune out for those even though I still have the page open.
perhaps rules until the finale? in which alternates picking (not by winning) all civs allowed but no mirrors? so at least in the finale it is about the ultimate strategy, while the qualifying rounds prove who is the most diverse player.
just some thoughts
anyway thanks to all who do contribute, play and plan these.

[[Armag] diarouga]

I like the idea of blind (secret) picking though.

It's the most entertaining but it's not competitive, so it can't be used in the competitive seasonal tournaments.

perhaps rules until the finale? in which alternates picking (not by winning) all civs allowed but no mirrors? so at least in the finale it is about the ultimate strategy, while the qualifying rounds prove who is the most diverse player.

Again, from a competitive point of view, I don't think it's fair to change the rules just for the finals.
Furthermore, reaching the finals is already something, and the best strategy for the players would still be to try hard with 1-3 civs in order to reach the finals.

Honestly it would make aoe3 super boring for me as a player. I cannot enjoy playing only one or two civs (although I've tried), and this is what I'd have to do to be competitive.