ESOC Grand Tour Season 1 Playoffs

[zoom]

Cool. I like this event format, overall. In the future, however, I hope it will be done in addition to, rather than in replacement of, actual tournaments. That's the best way to encourage play and promote the competitive scene.

Good work and thanks to everyone involved, in any way.

Should have done the QFs one at a time. There's plenty of time for it.

[Ashvin]

I like the new graphix

[Kaiserklein]

The civ and map picking rules are shit btw. They're poorly explained and they also heavily advantage the loser for no reason.
Just use normal tourney rules, they're better and then players/casters don't have to waste 10 min to understand how the picking works.

[Hazza54321]

also spend 2hrs choosing a map for no reason, taking it in turns to veto but play it later in the series anyway EleGiggle

[princeofcarthage]

There is a very long post and flow about how civ and map rules work, main thing is people don't even take 5 min to read tournament rules and are first to blame. You have seen the example very recently in the challenge thread.

[deleted_user]

There is a very long post and flow about how civ and map rules work, main thing is people don't even take 5 min to read tournament rules and are first to blame. You have seen the example very recently in the challenge thread.

Yes, welcome to running a tournament.

[Kaiserklein]

There is a very long post and flow about how civ and map rules work, main thing is people don't even take 5 min to read tournament rules and are first to blame. You have seen the example very recently in the challenge thread.

The rules are over complicated and counter intuitive. So don't act like it's just because people suck.
Plus, even by reading the whole post it's still not clear. "vetoes" and "bans" are mixed, you don't really know what applies to the current game and what applies to the whole series.

Why even make it so complicated? The usual tourney rules are just great. It took a few tourneys for esoc to finally find some solid rules, why change it now that players are used to it and everyone is happy... These rules just delay the games because of the insane amount of vetoes/because it takes time to understand them, and they're also not competitive since they constantly favour the loser way too much and make it impossible for the players to really prepare a series, since you can't know the maps before the series.

[princeofcarthage]

In game 1 maps are vetoed till one remains starting with higher seed turn by turn.
From game 2 winner vetoes, loser chooses map, winner picks civ, loser counterpicks.

Whats so complicated about this? Unless it is not read and complicated by players themselves?

This method allows players to have a say in map order rather than being forced into one map, this adds another level of depth and strategy. It also tests your game knowledge and how well you are prepared to handle any situation. If casters can cast the vetoes and explain the thinking or their opinion behind this it can also be fun to watch. Aoe 3 is where your game starts right when you join lobby, right from choosing a favourable map to favourable match up and this perfectly captures that strategy and planning in a way which has never been attempted before.

Yes its not perfect, but have your point that it wastes time is wrong but the map itself can potentially choose a winner if the map and civ selection is done in a good way.

[Kaiserklein]

What's complicated is that you need to veto like 6 fucking maps before even getting your first map, and then you gotta veto another fucking map per game. Does this not sound to you like it's more complicated than just selecting the maps from the map pool in their order? Plus, like I've already explained, it was not made clear in the rules which veto is for which context (whole series or just 1 game). Or maybe we are just all retarded, both players and casters, so we didn't understand the rules, however simple and clear they are?

Having the loser both choosing the map and counterpicking is not "adding another level of depth and strategy". It's just called "trying to make it as hard as possible for the better player to win". It is not competitive. Why the fuck would a player get punished for having won a game?
And what kind of strategy are you talking about? "Oh, I'm going to pick a map my opponent hates as much as possible, and then I'm going to counterpick him with the worst match up possible"... Is that "strategy"? There's way more strategy when trying to actually figure out some strats, before the series, on a map that you know will be played in a series, instead of just picking the shittiest stuff for your opponent 2 minutes before playing. There has always been a lot of strategy before the series and also in the lobby, but these rules just make the strategy more random and brainless (it entirely relies on who's gonna win each game, which you can't plan). Meanwhile, you're acting like it's a super innovative concept that no one ever tried before... Well, at least we know why no one tried it.

Maybe we should stop trying to systematically change everything. I do appreciate that you guys are trying to bring some new concepts, but at some point it's just too greedy. Not everything at the same time: the 1-day-tourney concept, the DM and KOTH tourneys, the weird points system, and now completely new rules for the playoffs, out of nowhere... And then drama.

[Kynesie]

Rules are clear and well explained. If someone says he didn t understand them, he did not really try or didn t read them...
If some think they are not good, that's another problem, but you have to talk about it when the rules are just out, not after somes games are played...

[WickedCossack]

Thought I'd read the relevant rule to see what all the fuss was about.

For Game 1, players will veto maps in alternating fashion until just 1 map remains. The higher seed player will initiate the vetoing. The last map remaining will be the map played upon for Game 1.

After Game 1, the winner of the previous match will ban a single (1) map from the map pool, or two (2) maps if it is the Grand Finals. The loser of the previous match will then select a map from the remaining pool to be played and the winner will lock his civilization. The loser will then choose his civilization and the next game will commence.

The first paragraph is pretty clear but the second is not. I actually can't work out what you're supposed to do.

There's not enough maps in the pool for the winner of the previous match to ban a map as suggested. Presumably the winner's map "ban" is some sort of temporary exclusion before it is reintroduced to the pool for the next match?

[EAGLEMUT]

Yep, the confusing part is that throughout all past events ever hosted, map veto/ban meant that the map is removed from the series. Now it suddenly means that the map is removed only from current match and reintroduced again in the next one.

[Snuden]

Seems pretty simple to me. The issue might be that most people start to assume things rather than just read what is written.

[Kaiserklein]

Yeah imo the veto system is pretty confusing. But the biggest problem is that the loser gets to pick the map and to counterpick. I just think that's really not competitive, as well as pretty boring to watch because the games are predictable since the loser of one game will very often win the next game.

[Garja]

Dunno if competitive or not but it gives a bit too much advantage to the loser. I dont think there is the necessity to do that in the current state of balance.

Best pick system would be every player choses his own map at turn. Game1 is an admin map.

[gibson]

map pick like in some csgo tourneys. 7 map pool for bo3. Player 1 vetoes a map, player 2 vetoes a map, player 1 picks a map, player 2 picks a map, player 1 vetoes a map, player 2 vetoes a map, the 2 maps they picked and the last map remaining is the map pool.

[zoom]

To whoever suggested it, I think a major tournament and this season running simultaneously would be way too much going on.

Streams every Sunday gets to be too much for me to keep up with as is, not to mention player and caster fatigue that would result.

I've always been a fan of some kind of ongoing league in the background, that doesn't really get streamed but is just to promote competitive play.

I don't see anyone making such a suggestion. I am saying that one grand tour and one tournament per year is pathetic. There should be at least two tournaments per year and more outside of – not during – them.

[zoom]

Cool. I like this event format, overall. In the future, however, I hope it will be done in addition to, rather than in replacement of, actual tournaments. That's the best way to encourage play and promote the competitive scene.

Good work and thanks to everyone involved, in any way.

Should have done the QFs one at a time. There's plenty of time for it.

Well, I got that all wrong, thankfully.

[zoom]

This per-map vetoing is a mess. Vetoes are done before series start. It's especially confusing when previously vetoed maps return for the next game. Only civilization picks should be per map, I think.

[zoom]

Cool. I like this event format, overall. In the future, however, I hope it will be done in addition to, rather than in replacement of, actual tournaments. That's the best way to encourage play and promote the competitive scene.

Good work and thanks to everyone involved, in any way.

Should have done the QFs one at a time. There's plenty of time for it.

Well, I got that all wrong, thankfully.

Or was it changed? OP rather implies that it was.

[Ashvin]

I love how you make icons black and white.