Main page

5/60 division is an experimental division. As the chanpionship is approaching the finishing line I would ask all teams to post here impression about 5/60 regulations, your feedback will help us in organizing following events.

I love everything about the tourny except one thing. Could there be a score board in the waiting area for those not in game? man thats very tense wondering whats going on w/o one lol

Its been alot of fun. My feedback would be the following.

Allow standard company formation the ability to specify divisional tier/points and only require 1 other company to trigger a battle. I would think the shear amount of teams for this tourney should prove how people would enjoy being able to form a 5/60 company and jump into a random battle without having a XX/90 company completely smash them ruin everything and said company dissolve. It's my opinion that the current complete openness of the company battle system is the main reason its a ghost town outside of organised tourneys.

Example of option when forming a company for regular battle;

Division I 5/60
Division II 8/90
Division III 10/140

I would bet my house on Div I being the most popular and active.

love the idea of 5/60, prob a bit more balanced then the 6/60. that we had before. but in saying this, need to give us more time.

agreed with all of the above, 5/60 was a better balance than a 6/60, a hour eairlier would be nice for the UTC+8 that way it would be 7/730 in GMT 8 9/930 in GMT +10 and 11/1130 in NZ instead of being  9ish, 11ish and 1ish

5/60 regulations are OK by me.

Hello from the co-leader of Brothers Grim(BG). As a clan that that likes to play all brackets(semi -finals Ural Steel 6/60 2 teams in quarter-finals of Boot Camp5/50 and a company that tends to regulary win in company battles). We would LOVE to see company battles with lower tier tanks. I agree with the above mentioned tier 5/8/10 battle matches as a good division of tanks. This way everybody gets to play with a large group of friends or soon to be friends in similar strength tanks.

Taylynmage(BG)
Brothers Grim

I think the tier setup is fine, but the matches are too early. They're at 6:00 PM on the west coast, way too early when people generally get out of work at 5:00 in the US.

 Hypnotik, on May 13 2011 - 18:46, said:

Yep. For the remaining 3/4 of America, the time is better.  Ranges from seven p.m. for Denver, to eight for Chicago,
and nine for Miami. Starting the game later risks annoying the East Coast crowd.  Might as well face it, any picked
time will upset one minority group or another.

The 5/60 tourny was fun but in my opinion i saw 2 kinda larger problems with this tourny and they more or less coincided with each other.  The must have 2 wins or u both go home thing was a bit of a problem lets say your team wins the first round and after that the enemy camp drawing u out for the next 2 battles.  Then the 4th battle the team with 1 win is forced to either try to break the camp with an all out rush or pray the other team wants the win just as bad and tries rushing themselves regardless o the outcome if the team with 1 win going into round 4 doesnt win chances are the 5 match is going to be ugly.  When u face a team that once u got up by 1 win then they would rather u both get knocked out then win it made this tourny favor those kind of teams forcing the other team to take all the risks.   Now this problem i dont think would of occurred if 1 of 2 things happened  either the rules that are being used for the Ural Steel finals are used(1 win and 4 draws= win) i know i know that makes camping just as bad or u make the matches 5/50.   WIth 5/50 it would of forced teams to use light tanks and lower tanks making the matches much more exciting.  Because with the 6/60 it allowed teams to run with almost all tier 5 tanks which meant if a team wanted to camp it was quite easy to set up with the points and tiers.  Personally if u are going to lower the maximum tier then you should lower the points or up the minimum players.  

For example if u face a team that went with lets go 2 tier 5 Tds(10 points) 4 kvs(20 points) 3 tier 5 mediums(15 points) and 5 su 26(15  points) which makes 14 tanks and a nice camping set up if u only use the su-26s for defense.  Countering this really isnt that easy if the enemy team plays right being u cant swarm them with numbers but if u could field in theory 20 tier 3 tanks u could swarm with just numbers and it would make for a much more interesting fight.

I dont know how other feel about it but in the end the only real problem i guess i had is either the point limit should of dropped or the maximum number of players should of been increased.

I agree with the above post. The 'first to two wins' doesnt take into account the differences in map sides, and consequently if one side of the map has an advantage (magical forest anyone?), then the team that starts on that side will win if the two teams are theoretically equal, for instance Side A has an advantage, Team 1 starts on side A, they win the first match, team 2 wins the second (when they start on side A) and then Team 1 gets side A again and because of that Team 1 gets the win and the match.

It would be better to either to say whoever makes it to +2 over the enemy, i.e. 3 to 1 is a win for 3, 2 to 0 is a win, 4 - 2 is a win.

The other way to do it would be to say that two scrims count as one point. So if a team wins both sides, they get a full point, if each team wins a side, then each team gets .5 points, and if its a win and a draw, whoever got the one win gets the point. Then whoever would makes it to 2 points first wins, and that would be essentially 4 matches at a minimum.

Or, just play out all 5 matches, and whoever has the most wins takes it.

As it is now, it doesnt really feel logical to me. Whoever makes it to 2 wins out of 5? Thats still 3 more rounds that the other team could win. And what if a team goes 1 and 1. And then the next round one team wins 1. The other team gets no chance to reply.

It just doesnt take into account the differences in map sides, and none of the maps have equal sides.

 Pleatincil, on May 13 2011 - 21:46, said:

Interesting theory.  

Clan OTG faced that kind of passive arty heavy tactic for the first three matches of Boot Camp,
and yet they managed to win each time with only two to three arty on their side.  They finally lost
when faced with an opponent using a similar setup to their arty lite order of battle.

5/60 Is fun, lots of tactic possible, almost all type of tank are represented in t5 and unlike t8 or even t6 it lets you to prepare you well in a reasonable amount of time. just one thing, PLEASE announce the date of the tournament BEFORE the end of the inscription.

We may not of lasted long in the tourney, but RG really enjoyed the 5/60 format, its a nice break from the go big or go home co battlefield;

I think it will go a long way to bring in some of the newer players to enjoy other aspects of WoT

 taylynmage, on May 13 2011 - 17:52, said:

I couldn't agree more!!! This would make tank companies so much more fun, and popular.
We (AOD) would start running WAY more company battles if they would implement this.

Soemthing like....tier 5, tier 8, tier 10.

I would like to see another tournament setup used besides the single elimination, win 2 to advance system used. I think a Swiss Tournament system would produce more interesting tournaments for the participants. http://en.wikipedia....stem_tournament

  The scoring system I would implement would be 3 points for a win, 1 for a loss, 0 for a draw. After 3 games the team with the highest score is declared the winner of the match. You could also score each team's efficiency by scoring the results of the battle by awarding points for the vehicles each team destroys. IE your team gets 3 points for every heavy tank and SPG they destroy, 2 points for mediums and ATG's and 1 for light tanks. In the event of teams having the same score, efficiency ratings would be used to determine rankings for the next round. This would allow you to reduce the number of games needed per match to 3 while encouraging battles which would not result in draws.

  The tournament would start with a random draw, with each team being assigned to a 8 team bracket. After the first round teams are ranked based on their scores and we move onto round two. In round two, The highest scoring team plays, the 3'rd highest ranked team and 2 plays 4, 5 plays 7 and 6 plays 8. In the third round, team 1 plays 2, 3 plays 5, 4 plays 6 and 7 plays 8. The team with the highest total score being declared the winner of the bracket. If there are enough teams to fill 8 brackets, we then move onto a champion bracket.

  In the Champion Bracket we forgo the "ranking round", teams instead being ranked by their total score and efficiency rating. In the championship bracket 1 plays 3, 2 plays 4, 5 plays 7, 6 plays 8, in round 1. In round Two; 1 plays 2, 3 plays 5, 4 plays 6, and 7 plays 8. If there are less than 8 brackets, you move to a single round elimination and 1 plays 6, 2 plays 5, and 4 plays 6. Dropping games as determined by the total number of brackets. The winner of the tournament is the team with the highest score total score.        

  The point of the tournament is really to get people involved and playing. A Swiss tournament allows all the participates to play thought the entire tournament while producing a more lively atmosphere. The Swiss tournament system is really a much better model for determining who the best team really is and would help to get rid of many of the dead brackets, in which no one advances. Elimination tournaments are designed for highlighting the drama for fans, Swiss Tournaments are designed for the enjoyment of those participating.

The 5/60 format was great. Here is what I think would make for a good alternate version.

1. Create a league with divisions of 4 for the next event. Each team in a division has to play a best of 5 format with each of its division mates. Top 2 teams from each division gets to advance to a single elimination bracket structure such as we had here.
2. For the division matches rotate through a series of maps either randomly selected... or let each team choose their home field map which they get to use for their designated home games. Map should be know though before ppl finish readying for a match.
3. Allow the reserves list to be a bit larger under this longer "season" format.
4. As others stated a scoreboard update would be nice, but even nicer would be a detailed scoreboard showing draws,wins,losses, length of each game, and order of course the order in which the wins/losses/draws occurred.

Advantage of this system is it would allow more of the teams who get eliminated early to get more participation before they are out of the event. It would also allow the event to run a bit longer. The more detailed scoreboard might give people a little bit of intel to chew on as well which is nice. Disadvantage is a longer season for some, but this can be countered by adding a few more to the reserves lists which has the added benefit of giving teams more flexibility in what they bring to a map.

This whole event was fun. The only problem was in the organization beforehand.
You had to sign up blind. No dates or times announced and no option to replace people on the locked roster once the times where announced.
Also the signup process was not spelled out well, and alot of teams got rejected notices at first because of this.
Great, fun matches, just make the process clear cut for the players.

 Morimiko, on May 15 2011 - 22:33, said:

This. Half our guys discovered they wouldn't be able to play once the times and dates were announced.

 diego999, on May 15 2011 - 23:26, said:

Very interesting.

This raises the question, at which theoretical times and dates would over half of your guys actually commit to?