Welcome Guest ( Log In  ·  Register)



3 Pages  1 2 3 > 
Reply to this topicStart Poll
TAD Tournament - Tournament Information
[ Standard ] · Linear+
Amhaye
post Dec 22 2014, 04:51 PM
Post #1


Civilian
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6

Submissions: None
Joined: 21-May 13

Member No.: 112,143






Age of Empires 3: Spring Championships

The tournament information can be found here


This post has been edited by Amhaye: Feb 14 2015, 12:00 AM

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Umeu
post Dec 23 2014, 06:50 AM
Post #2


Brigadier
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2,156

Submissions: None
Joined: 5-March 11

Member No.: 107,165






BO11?!!?

i hope its not boneng vs heroes in the finals, you will be garantueed that every game atleast one of them will camp the corner of the map for 60 minutes, trying to play their way out of a hopeless situation. your finals will take longer than a cricket match :P

anyway, nice effort, i hope it will succeed! GL to all the participants


btw have you posted it on the official forums too, and perhaps pk?

This post has been edited by Umeu: Dec 23 2014, 08:37 AM

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garja
post Dec 23 2014, 09:09 AM
Post #3


Colonel
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,625

Submissions: 2
Joined: 24-August 08

Member No.: 68,909






Ye if there is one thing we can learn from PK tourney is no bo9-bo11, they're overkill

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Umeu
post Dec 24 2014, 10:49 AM
Post #4


Brigadier
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2,156

Submissions: None
Joined: 5-March 11

Member No.: 107,165






QUOTE(Garja @ Dec 23 2014, 02:09 PM)
Ye if there is one thing we can learn from PK tourney is no bo9-bo11, they're overkill
*



also you might want to take a look at your civ rules, most notably civ rule 2.3

because imo right now your civ rules massively encourage playing iro otto india etc in game1 and as a result whoever wins game1 is massively favored.

take a bo3

game1
p1 goes iro, p2 goes otto
p1 wins

game2
p1 goes brits, p2 goes anything
p2 wins

now with 1-1 a piece, your rule 2.3 excludes p2 to play anything that can reasonably be excepted to stand up to india iro otto japan (dunno why sioux is in there, aztec or even brits would make more sense), specially since map3 is sag, which is a good map for all 4 of these civs.

game3
p1 goes iro p2 can't play an op civ and will most likely lose.

in any case, it's pretty unfair that one player gets such a big handicap in a crucial game in a series, based only on the fact that he lost the first game, which shouldnt matter too much in an extended series.


a bo5 or 7 wouldnt pan out much different

game1
p1 goes iro, p2 goes otto
p1 wins

game2
p1 goes brits, p2 goes iro
p2 wins

game3
p1 goes india, p2 goes brits
p1 wins

game4
p1 goes french, p2 goes otto
p2 wins

game5
p1 goes iro, p2 goes anything and loses

for bo7 there would be a game6 also
p1 goes germans, p2 goes PORTS
p2 wins

and here comes the real problem with this rule, even tho p2 won the previous game with ports for crying out loud, he is now not allowed to play a civ that can match what p1 is allowed to field in the final game.


(unless rule 2.1 means you cant play any of the op civs more than twice. aka either iro iro, or otto iro, or jap india will make you reach your cap, then it would be slightly more fair in a bo5+)

This post has been edited by Umeu: Dec 24 2014, 10:50 AM

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garja
post Dec 24 2014, 11:39 AM
Post #5


Colonel
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,625

Submissions: 2
Joined: 24-August 08

Member No.: 68,909






problem with the winning civ rule is that you have series of one win apiece in every round. It is much better to ban winning and losing civ after everygame

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Umeu
post Dec 24 2014, 12:15 PM
Post #6


Brigadier
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2,156

Submissions: None
Joined: 5-March 11

Member No.: 107,165






QUOTE(Garja @ Dec 24 2014, 04:39 PM)
problem with the  winning civ rule is that you have series of one win apiece in every round. It is much better to ban winning and losing civ after everygame
*



i would agree if the max best of would be a bo7. and the winner of the previous has to lock in his civ first in the next one.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garja
post Dec 24 2014, 02:39 PM
Post #7


Colonel
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,625

Submissions: 2
Joined: 24-August 08

Member No.: 68,909






I don't get why the winner has to be penalized more than the loser.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Amhaye
post Dec 24 2014, 08:18 PM
Post #8


Civilian
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6

Submissions: None
Joined: 21-May 13

Member No.: 112,143






We changed the civilization restrictions now for every bracket stage. This should improve the balance of the match-ups and the laming in the tournament as you can not play a 'lame' civ more than once in a BO3, more than twice in BO5 and 7 and not more than three times in a BO9/11.

This post has been edited by Amhaye: Dec 24 2014, 08:35 PM

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Umeu
post Dec 24 2014, 08:29 PM
Post #9


Brigadier
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2,156

Submissions: None
Joined: 5-March 11

Member No.: 107,165






QUOTE(Garja @ Dec 24 2014, 07:39 PM)
I don't get why the winner has to be penalized more than the loser.
*



its not so much that there has to be a penalty, but you have to find a way to counter endless civ changing, and it makes more sense to give this (slight) disadvantage to the one that already has an advantage, instead of the one who has a disadvantage.

ps what are the changes, i dont see any on the site.

This post has been edited by Umeu: Dec 24 2014, 08:33 PM

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Amhaye
post Dec 24 2014, 08:37 PM
Post #10


Civilian
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6

Submissions: None
Joined: 21-May 13

Member No.: 112,143






(You should now, i changed it :D)

We also had another concept:
The player who loses a game may pick the next map.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Umeu
post Dec 24 2014, 08:47 PM
Post #11


Brigadier
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2,156

Submissions: None
Joined: 5-March 11

Member No.: 107,165






QUOTE(Amhaye @ Dec 25 2014, 01:37 AM)
(You should now, i changed it :D)

We also had another concept:
The player who loses a game may pick the next map.
*




ah i see it now. does that mean that any of those 5 civs can only be used once? or that each of them, can only be used once

anyway, i dont like the map concept, for a tournament imo things should be as fair as possible, so both sides should have the same advantages and disadvantages, i prefer a predetermined mapset, although it should be balanced out, giving all types of styles the chance to appear. i think PK clan did a pretty good job at that usually, although their first map was sometimes a bit problematic.



This post has been edited by Umeu: Dec 24 2014, 08:50 PM

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garja
post Dec 24 2014, 10:05 PM
Post #12


Colonel
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,625

Submissions: 2
Joined: 24-August 08

Member No.: 68,909






QUOTE(Umeu @ Dec 25 2014, 03:29 AM)
QUOTE(Garja @ Dec 24 2014, 07:39 PM)
I don't get why the winner has to be penalized more than the loser.
*



its not so much that there has to be a penalty, but you have to find a way to counter endless civ changing, and it makes more sense to give this (slight) disadvantage to the one that already has an advantage, instead of the one who has a disadvantage.

ps what are the changes, i dont see any on the site.
*


But that problem is easily solved by just banning both winning and losing civ (basically banning all already used civs for each player).
The only thing is that it would reasonably lead to only mirrors which btw is fine since it's planned to have bo9/bo11

I agree that custom map pool and map choice don't fit together.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Neur0n
post Dec 24 2014, 10:24 PM
Post #13


Lance Corporal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 53

Submissions: None
Joined: 30-April 13

Member No.: 112,015






Why not just simply play FP 1.2, if you go to such great lengths to fix the imbalance in the game by making up such complicated rules, that more than 100 players will have trouble understanding or following.

Or do the whole tourney exclusively with euro civs (no Otto) and then nobody will complain about lame stuff. It might actually be more impressive if a player can win the tourney without ever using Iro, India, Otto, etc. So why not do a tourney without them?

This post has been edited by Neur0n: Dec 24 2014, 10:25 PM

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alaron
post Dec 25 2014, 03:42 AM
Post #14


Lance Corporal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 82

Submissions: None
Joined: 5-November 09

Member No.: 78,910






I agree that the map set should be predetermined. The map counter-pick idea was suggested by someone outside of the tournament administration, and was only briefly considered; predetermined maps are much more fair.

QUOTE(Neur0n @ Dec 24 2014, 09:24 PM)
Why not just simply play FP 1.2, if you go to such great lengths to fix the imbalance in the game by making up such complicated rules, that more than 100 players will have trouble understanding or following.

Or do the whole tourney exclusively with euro civs (no Otto) and then nobody will complain about lame stuff. It might actually be more impressive if a player can win the tourney without  ever using Iro, India, Otto, etc. So why not do a tourney without them?
*



Well, Fanpatch isn't perfect; balance is still an issue, though smaller than on RE patch. Additionally, very few active players have actually played fanpatch, and those that have haven't played it for a long time. To offer a tournament on a completely different patch and force everyone to adapt to a new metagame for each civ is a bit much to ask. Not to mention that this would split the community, even if only temporarily, with many players playing on FP and many on RE. Besides, we're going to be using balanced maps (which was the best part about FP) anyway, so that should help.

As for hosting a tournament solely with Euro civs, I don't know that it's such a great idea either. For one, that would make the matchups and games a lot less diverse, as many Euro matchups involve similar units and compositions. More importantly, not everyone will agree that the excluded civs are any better (or worse) than many of the Euro civs. It's debatable China and Aztec, and even India and Sioux, are really any better than Euro civs.

I suppose banning the Iroquois and Ottomans is doable... maybe even a decent option; I would be interested in hearing people's opinions on that. At the very least it would make the first couple of games more interesting, and on balanced maps I think the majority of the matchups would actually be fairly well balanced. This would also allow for some more acceptable civilization rules. Thoughts?

This post has been edited by Alaron: Dec 25 2014, 03:44 AM

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Neur0n
post Dec 25 2014, 07:00 AM
Post #15


Lance Corporal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 53

Submissions: None
Joined: 30-April 13

Member No.: 112,015






One more thing I forgot. I think some maps have been overplayed and overrepresented in tourneys and in 1v1 challenges (like the smackdown ones).

We've already seen tens of games on Great Plains, Siberia, Saguenay, New England and Yucatan. We've probably seen every possible matchup and strat on GP and Siberia, it's getting really hackneyed. I like that you included Pampas, which is a nice map, Himalayas too (although it has its problems).

But if we're going to see another tourney with Great Plains-Saguenay-Siberia-Painted Desert-New England it's going to get boring. I'm sure everyone can't wait to see who ships first caravels in the pond on NE... and who walls up first on Saguenay and does a FI with a fishboom. We can't wait to see those strats... Or who will do a semi/FF on Siberia with raids. We've never seen that... Or who will wall up on New England and put a fort behind the wall and do a water boom... etc etc.

I think it's time to give more maps a chance to be played competitively. One possibility would be to include Bayou and Sonora, possibly with a small modification, so that they would always have a starting hunt close to the TC.

And maybe we would start seeing new gameplay in a tourney, instead of the same old laming ships and fishboom on Sag/NE and FF on Siberia. I'm sure nobody could predict most players would (semi)FF on Siberia...

Other maps which are also playable:

Andes (FP 1.2, no river)
Deccan
Great Lakes
Silk Road
Yellow River
Rockies (why not, FP 1.3 version maybe)

I think it would be a great idea to start including these maps in tourneys, because using the same maps will pretty much show the same old gameplay that we see in smackdowns and that we've seen in previous tourneys. If these maps have some problems which are fixable, I can help fix them, so you can have a special tourney version which is playable competitively.



User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages  1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicTopic Options
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
 




Time is now: 7th December 2021 - 10:40 AM
About Us  ·   Advertising  ·   Contact Us  ·   Terms of Use  ·   Privacy Policy