Tournaments should no longer have civilization rules

[Mitoe]

@Mitoe id say forcing your opponent into a weird situation they’re unfamiliar with should be rewarded. Also makes saving your best civs for A specific map/match up later more viable.

Why? It's not fun for anyone. Spectating is especially boring in such situations.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Well it's the only way you can do what mitoe wants and not have a boring as fuck tourney for viewers.

mono-civ tournaments aren't boring though, in fact the New Year's Classic produced some of the most strategically interesting games of the year

Exactly. Don't know how it could be boring. At least everyone gets to play civs they know instead of being forced into fringe civs or situations where they have little clue what they are doing.

"civs they know". You need 3 civs to win a BO5, 4 to win a BO7. If someone can't play 4 civs, then he doesn't deserve to win a BO7. And that's why all the top players can play around 6-7 civs, and they have some clue what they're doing.
Pr25-30 players can usually only play one civ, and it's boring to watch them play another civ, but that's because they're not good at the game, not because of the tournament rules.

[[Armag] diarouga]

@Mitoe id say forcing your opponent into a weird situation they’re unfamiliar with should be rewarded. Also makes saving your best civs for A specific map/match up later more viable.

Why? It's not fun for anyone. Spectating is especially boring in such situations.

Aizamk forces people into weird situations, is it boring to watch aizamk's games as a result ?
And anyway, if your opponent prepared to a MU you don't master, then he should be rewarded and you deserve to lose.
I agree that sometimes it feels like tournament series are decided by MUs but that's because of the alternative pick, not the civ restrictions.

[Riotcoke]

Show hidden quotes

Well it's the only way you can do what mitoe wants and not have a boring as fuck tourney for viewers.

mono-civ tournaments aren't boring though, in fact the New Year's Classic produced some of the most strategically interesting games of the year

Exactly. Don't know how it could be boring. At least everyone gets to play civs they know instead of being forced into fringe civs or situations where they have little clue what they are doing.

So they're not as good at the game overall?

you critically do not understand width vs depth

You need a mixture of both. Think about games that are far larger than aoe3 competetively. In the FPS genre you have map bans, and whilst you tend to have people 'maining' a type of play skilled players have to be well rounded enough to play well in every style to do well. In Mobas players do play in one role but they have to play more than one charchter to be at a higher level which is granted due to the pick ban system. Like it's entirely feasable to have depth be provlant in a game, but you also have to be considerate of width to increase overall skill needed.

[[Armag] diarouga]

And by the way, we could use the same argument about maps.
By now, all the players know and master kamchatka. Thus, it's fair to say that they play better on kamchatka, and worse on the other maps. Why don't we host a tournament with kamchatka only ? The quality of the games is so poor on Klondike or Fraser River, people make so many mistakes, and it's boring to watch !

It doesn't work like that, being able to win with different civs is a skill, just like being able to play on different maps is a skill, and you can't remove that from tournaments.

Actually, we can make the same argument about everything. If we want to compare the level of two students, are we going to give them both a maths and an english exam, and declare that the best student is the one who had on average the better marks, or are we going to ask them to pick either maths or an english exam and compare the two marks ?

[Riotcoke]

Also realistically if you wanted the way tournaments to change to stay competeive whilst reducing the counterpick element, it's probably far better to have a veto system, but this is heavily disliked by players as could be seen in the 1st empire cup.

[howlingwolfpaw]

hmmm what about..... gonna be unpopular opinion but diversity of ideas can inspire better ones.

setting up historical battles. like
brit vs india on deccan
china vs japan on honshu like map
etc...

would make it easier for caster who just need to do a random flip to start game, and matches are designed to be interesting or epic matchups.
or something like that where everything is pre-decided by the tourny staff, to make a balanced matchup on a map that would be good for each civ.
and each player has to play a roll, ( decided by a flipped coin?, still get a veto flip if result not what you wanted, but could be vetoed by other player as well to keep matchup so both players used veto)

[[Armag] diarouga]

Veto is what is used in the other competitive games ye (map veto on starcraft, hero veto on mobas), that's because we don't want players to become one trick poneys.

[kaister]

There’s also a middle ground. say player A wins game 1, he then picks 2 civs, say Brit and Iro. Then Player B counters with Germany. Player A gets to pick which one of the two civs he wants to play. Can still be soft countered, but not hard countered anymore. But shit gets complicated and it might benefit the winner now

[Cometk]

And by the way, we could use the same argument about maps.
By now, all the players know and master kamchatka. Thus, it's fair to say that they play better on kamchatka, and worse on the other maps. Why don't we host a tournament with kamchatka only ? The quality of the games is so poor on Klondike or Fraser River, people make so many mistakes, and it's boring to watch !

It doesn't work like that, being able to win with different civs is a skill, just like being able to play on different maps is a skill, and you can't remove that from tournaments.

Actually, we can make the same argument about everything. If we want to compare the level of two students, are we going to give them both a maths and an english exam, and declare that the best student is the one who had on average the better marks, or are we going to ask them to pick either maths or an english exam and compare the two marks ?

in this system - yes, the quality would be higher, because everyone learns to play Kamchatka to excellency - but there is zero diversity, because there is only ever one map

in the system of removing civ restrictions - the quality should be higher, because players may play their preferred civ more often than otherwise, but, in a balanced game, the diversity won't necessarily suffer, as all civ choices should be (roughly) even in strength. and even when they are not, civs also perform differently per different maps

[dansil92]

If you have a zero civ rule tourney, i think you would have to have an extremely diverse map pool, like say, high plains, gran chaco, fraser river, baja california, indonesia. Then you can play whatever civ you want but you wont see say, full Germany or whatever every single game

[[Armag] diarouga]

hmmm what about..... gonna be unpopular opinion but diversity of ideas can inspire better ones.

setting up historical battles. like
brit vs india on deccan
china vs japan on honshu like map
etc...

would make it easier for caster who just need to do a random flip to start game, and matches are designed to be interesting or epic matchups.
or something like that where everything is pre-decided by the tourny staff, to make a balanced matchup on a map that would be good for each civ.
and each player has to play a roll, ( decided by a flipped coin?, still get a veto flip if result not what you wanted, but could be vetoed by other player as well to keep matchup so both players used veto)

That's very fun, but not competitive at all.

First of all, how do you decide if a MU is balanced ? We tried to do that in the NWC 1 tournament, but the meta evolved a bit during the tournament and it turned out we were wrong and some MUs were just bad.

Furthermore, Mitoe is asking for a total freedom of pick. You pick your civ AND the MU, and with your system you can neither pick your civ nor the MU.
That is fun and interesting, but it leads to situations were both players are uncomfortable which is what Mitoe wants to avoid.

[[Armag] diarouga]

And by the way, we could use the same argument about maps.
By now, all the players know and master kamchatka. Thus, it's fair to say that they play better on kamchatka, and worse on the other maps. Why don't we host a tournament with kamchatka only ? The quality of the games is so poor on Klondike or Fraser River, people make so many mistakes, and it's boring to watch !

It doesn't work like that, being able to win with different civs is a skill, just like being able to play on different maps is a skill, and you can't remove that from tournaments.

Actually, we can make the same argument about everything. If we want to compare the level of two students, are we going to give them both a maths and an english exam, and declare that the best student is the one who had on average the better marks, or are we going to ask them to pick either maths or an english exam and compare the two marks ?

in this system - yes, the quality would be higher, because everyone learns to play Kamchatka to excellency - but there is zero diversity, because there is only ever one map

in the system of removing civ restrictions - the quality should be higher, because players may play their preferred civ more often than otherwise, but, in a balanced game, the diversity won't necessarily suffer, as all civ choices should be (roughly) even in strength. and even when they are not, civs also perform differently per different maps

But people are still going to play their favourite civ unless it's a bad MU. Looking at the top 10 :
turk is going to play more Japan than he usually would, same for knusch and osmane. If they don't get bad maps/MUs, they might even play Japan every game because why not.

Lukas is going to play more China than he usually would. And again, if it goes his way, there is no reason for him not to play China every game.
Tit is going to play India every game and so on.

Without a doubt, we're going to have less civ diversity.

as all civ choices should be (roughly) even in strength

But that's never going to happen let's be honest. EP6 was the most balanced EP we'll ever get (because yes EP9 will add more diversity to the game, but it won't be as balanced because of all the changes), and we could still clearly see that some civs were better than others.

[howlingwolfpaw]

yeah its more of an exhibition style game but I am just thinking of new things

I am not well versed in the history of tourney rules. and evolution of.

I thought the play a civ you like until you win with it was a good idea too. So it at least makes sure the best chance to get wins with your best civs.

[Cometk]

And by the way, we could use the same argument about maps.
By now, all the players know and master kamchatka. Thus, it's fair to say that they play better on kamchatka, and worse on the other maps. Why don't we host a tournament with kamchatka only ? The quality of the games is so poor on Klondike or Fraser River, people make so many mistakes, and it's boring to watch !

It doesn't work like that, being able to win with different civs is a skill, just like being able to play on different maps is a skill, and you can't remove that from tournaments.

Actually, we can make the same argument about everything. If we want to compare the level of two students, are we going to give them both a maths and an english exam, and declare that the best student is the one who had on average the better marks, or are we going to ask them to pick either maths or an english exam and compare the two marks ?

in this system - yes, the quality would be higher, because everyone learns to play Kamchatka to excellency - but there is zero diversity, because there is only ever one map

in the system of removing civ restrictions - the quality should be higher, because players may play their preferred civ more often than otherwise, but, in a balanced game, the diversity won't necessarily suffer, as all civ choices should be (roughly) even in strength. and even when they are not, civs also perform differently per different maps

But people are still going to play their favourite civ unless it's a bad MU. Looking at the top 10 :
turk is going to play more Japan than he usually would, same for knusch and osmane. If they don't get bad maps/MUs, they might even play Japan every game because why not.

Lukas is going to play more China than he usually would. And again, if it goes his way, there is no reason for him not to play China every game.
Tit is going to play India every game and so on.

Without a doubt, we're going to have less civ diversity. And if there's a civ balance issue, we might even see that civ being played all the time, or almost.

i do agree that there would be less civ diversity overall than NWC rules (unlike what Mitoe suggests) - however, i think civ diversity would still be to an acceptable degree with a no civ restriction ruleset

[[Armag] diarouga]

Show hidden quotes

And by the way, we could use the same argument about maps.
By now, all the players know and master kamchatka. Thus, it's fair to say that they play better on kamchatka, and worse on the other maps. Why don't we host a tournament with kamchatka only ? The quality of the games is so poor on Klondike or Fraser River, people make so many mistakes, and it's boring to watch !

It doesn't work like that, being able to win with different civs is a skill, just like being able to play on different maps is a skill, and you can't remove that from tournaments.

Actually, we can make the same argument about everything. If we want to compare the level of two students, are we going to give them both a maths and an english exam, and declare that the best student is the one who had on average the better marks, or are we going to ask them to pick either maths or an english exam and compare the two marks ?

in this system - yes, the quality would be higher, because everyone learns to play Kamchatka to excellency - but there is zero diversity, because there is only ever one map

in the system of removing civ restrictions - the quality should be higher, because players may play their preferred civ more often than otherwise, but, in a balanced game, the diversity won't necessarily suffer, as all civ choices should be (roughly) even in strength. and even when they are not, civs also perform differently per different maps

But people are still going to play their favourite civ unless it's a bad MU. Looking at the top 10 :
turk is going to play more Japan than he usually would, same for knusch and osmane. If they don't get bad maps/MUs, they might even play Japan every game because why not.

Lukas is going to play more China than he usually would. And again, if it goes his way, there is no reason for him not to play China every game.
Tit is going to play India every game and so on.

Without a doubt, we're going to have less civ diversity. And if there's a civ balance issue, we might even see that civ being played all the time, or almost.

i do agree that there would be less civ diversity overall than NWC rules (unlike what Mitoe suggests) - however, i think civ diversity would still be to an acceptable degree with a no civ restriction ruleset

It would be at first, because most of the top players are used to playing several civs, but it would quickly change.
As I pointed out, roughly half of the players, would play only one civ or almost. It's boring for the viewers, and even more for the players. Let's assume you're facing Tit, you know you're going to play every game against India, how is that fun ?
Same could be said about Lukas, turk or botto, it's not fun to play against an opponent who only plays one civ. Furthermore, if you figure out a strat that does well against his civ and go for that strat every game, it would be the same MU every game, with 0 diversity.
Myself, I'd probably only practice 3 civs because that's all you need for a tournament without any civ rules.

Anyway, let's agree to disagree about how big the impact would be on civ diversity, what about skill ?

Don't you think that you should have to win with more than one civ in a BO5 ? By removing the civ rules, you're explicitly saying that it's okay to win a series with only civ, and I disagree with this.

[Riotcoke]

Skirmisher would be top 5!

[Cometk]

Anyway, let's agree to disagree about how big the impact would be on civ diversity, what about skill ?

Don't you think that you should have to win with more than one civ in a BO5 ? By removing the civ rules, you're explicitly saying that it's okay to win a series with only civ, and I disagree with this.

Yeah, I think it would be fine. If somebody is electing to only play one civilization, it's basically a mono-civ tournament except you as their opponent get to choose any civ you want.

[Le Hussard sur le toit]

Solution to all problems : stop picking up civs. Try picking up MUs (then the other player chose his side).

[iNcog]

Re veto: I think the veto mechanic was good fundamentally but it was too complicated and we were going for simplicity in order to make things easier on players. Veto was scrapped to save time for all involved and further streamline event.

[iNcog]

If we scrap civilization rules by the way, then probably it means that you need crazier and more different maps. Meaning more Yalu River. Which I'm all for, honestly quite enjoyed the Yalu River game.

You can Germany 5 times in a row and might still get diverse games because Germany isn't going to excel on every map type.

[charlemango]

It seems that counterpicking is too strong. You can have a civ that's good in 90% of matchups but one bad matchup and you can't choose it as your main civ in tourneys. Brit is always voted as a top civ but in nearly every tourney game I watch it loses to Russia.

Instead of no counterpicking I believe a more feasible route is to allow each player to "re-counter" once per match.

Example: player 1 chooses Brit, player 2 chooses Russia, player 1 re-counters with Germany. Final mu is russ vs ger.

The mere threat of getting recountered would prevent player 2 from choosing the hardest counter civ sometimes.

[Garja]

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.

I'd actually love to see it get countered every game, maybe even with a different civ every time.

[Garja]

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.

1) Should probably have to stick to the alternate pick or give a max amount of selectable civs (e.g. 3) so that it reduces the amount of counterpicking.
2) The current meta/player level is so far off from that it's not even a problem. If it happens that one civ is clearly the best then ESOC patch will have a purpose (not just civ tweaks but also trying new maps and stuff).

And if everyone tryes hard with a civ there is still diversity since not everyone plays the same.

We had no counterpicking rules in the first esoc tournament. Only had to force blind pick a single time.

I'm just sick of tournaments this last year being more about matchups and counterpicks rather than skill.

I agree and that's even more stressed by the fact the activty has kinda shrinked so there is even less room for details to make a difference. Everyone seems to copy pasta for the most part.

Show hidden quotes

Well it's the only way you can do what mitoe wants and not have a boring as fuck tourney for viewers.

mono-civ tournaments aren't boring though, in fact the New Year's Classic produced some of the most strategically interesting games of the year

Exactly. Don't know how it could be boring. At least everyone gets to play civs they know instead of being forced into fringe civs or situations where they have little clue what they are doing.

"civs they know". You need 3 civs to win a BO5, 4 to win a BO7. If someone can't play 4 civs, then he doesn't deserve to win a BO7. And that's why all the top players can play around 6-7 civs, and they have some clue what they're doing.
Pr25-30 players can usually only play one civ, and it's boring to watch them play another civ, but that's because they're not good at the game, not because of the tournament rules.

It's not about the 4 civs to win a BO7, it is the combination of the 4 civs with the 4 civs of the opponent and various possible branches depending on who wins which map.

The best civ restriction rule would actually be so that a player can only bring a set number of the civ to the tourney (e.g. 3) and stick with that. This way you ensure higher level of play and good-fair-bad MUs.

I'd like to point out that in the monociv cup there was ton of civ diversity among the top players.

And by the way, we could use the same argument about maps.
By now, all the players know and master kamchatka. Thus, it's fair to say that they play better on kamchatka, and worse on the other maps. Why don't we host a tournament with kamchatka only ? The quality of the games is so poor on Klondike or Fraser River, people make so many mistakes, and it's boring to watch !

It doesn't work like that, being able to win with different civs is a skill, just like being able to play on different maps is a skill, and you can't remove that from tournaments.

Actually, we can make the same argument about everything. If we want to compare the level of two students, are we going to give them both a maths and an english exam, and declare that the best student is the one who had on average the better marks, or are we going to ask them to pick either maths or an english exam and compare the two marks ?

That's actually very bad comparison. It just doesn't stand. If anything the map pool has to be somewhat diversified and fixed so that each civ has some good/neutral/bad maps. At the same time they have to be somewhat standard so that one civ is not the clear best (e.g. no Indonesia).

i do agree that there would be less civ diversity overall than NWC rules (unlike what Mitoe suggests) - however, i think civ diversity would still be to an acceptable degree with a no civ restriction ruleset

To be fair NWC rules were overkill. Too long series and too much diversity. At least maps were the same for the whole thing.

[n0el]

The problem with free pick is that it will end up with a lot of mirrors. You can do no restriction on civs and still do counter picking or you can lock civs blindly.