54 replies to this topic

[keptin]

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

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.

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

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

THIS^, and the fact we only had a few days notice once times were announced.

[Faratia]

The tournament itself is great, although I do have to say it's quite late for the Oceanic players to participate in the UTC+8 tournament.

9PM for UTC+8 timezone itself is a little late, maybe if we move it a little earlier it will be better for all the Asian/Oceanic players.

The only negative thing I can point out is probably the setup part of this tournament.

I think it was rushed and all the things leading up to the tournament were really chaotic.

Maybe we're all do better next time.

[Macdandee]

I enjoyed the 5/60 vehicle availability, enjoyed it more than 6/60 for sure.  It made for some interesting group make ups.

The timing is always going to be off for someone, but more advanced notice of the times and dates would have been welcome.

The brackets themselves were just odd, too many bye's early on.  There are automated bracketmakers online that make the whole process easy and sensible.

I'm still not sure about the whole 2 wins in 5 match thing.  On strong defense maps (which this was) it can make for some awful turtles.  Think I'd prefer a points system.

I like the automated invite thing a lot more than the old "agree on a time/date" system.  The old system was a huge chore for the guys trying to set up the match times...and called for officals to set times way too often.

Overall though, it was great fun....thanks to the organizers and participants.

Macdandee

[Damonvile]

I enjoyed the tournament itself and think the 5/60 was a nice balance. My only issue with it and what will keep me from ever playing in another is how often you have to fight battles.

I hate to use the saying I have a life.....but, I do. I live on the west coast so the matches were at 6:00 pm for me. My team went to the 4th round. This meant I had to rush home from work, skip dinner and blow off the wife 4 nights in a row all to play a game. If there were double the number of teams or we kept winning this could have gone on 4 or 5 more nights before it finished. I can't commit to showing up to one of these for 5-10 nights in a row and I know many on my team can't and wont again either.

If they ran 3 nights in a week and just took longer to decide a victor ( run multiple weeks ) they'd be more casual clan friendly. I don't expect the outcome would be any different but this aspect of the game would be more accessible to more players at least.

[cdauch]

Thought the balance was good but thought the map was not so good.  It seems to me that whoever starts on the South side is at a disadvantage.  I would love to see some tourneys with lower tier tanks only.

[SirBarnick]

Now that Drill Camp is over (congratulations to AOD on their victory) I'd like to bring up a few concerns about how WG is running them and what improvements should be made.

1. 2 win requirement. I'm guessing this is a cultural thing.  In the US we are not accustomed to this.  In the vast majority of our sports a draw is reprehensible, and in ALL sporting tournaments there is ALWAYS somebody advancing in a bracket.

In the current system WG has implemented it is possible (though unlikely) that the winner of a tournament could never play a single game!  All it takes is a first round bye (which happened for 80% of the teams in Drill Camp) and for everyone else in their direct tree to force draws (which is not that hard).  Since nobody advances in a draw the hypothetical team can get all the way to the finals... and not have a competitor to play.

I'm guessing that in Russia this is normal, and maybe in the EU also.  I have no idea.  But in the US this is offensive.  To have a winner without actually winning anything?!  Can you imagine if the Superbowl were won this way?  In Drill Camp half the teams in the quarter-finals got there without playing the previous round (if memory serves... I'll verify this later).

I recommend changing this system.  If 2 wins are achieved then then that team advances.  If a match goes to 5 games, then the team with 1 win advances.  If both teams have 1 win, then choose some other requirement (most damage dealt, most tanks killed, etc) and advance that team.  Somebody has to advance.

2. Match times.  Its good to see WG looking at the issue of match times, but the poll they recently added shows they still haven't grasped the issue fully.

Having one set time for matches for every day of the tournament ensures that somebody in the NA is being left out.  In this most recent tournament times were set at 9PM Eastern.  That is 6PM Pacific.  It is tough for people working 9-5 jobs to leave work at 5PM to get home, do things they need to do there, then log in to play a tournament game.  I know my team mates struggled with this... even with alternates we barely had enough available people for each of our games.

In the new poll WG is now giving us the option to choose a later time. This helps the folks on the Pacific timezone a lot, but now we are starting to screw the people on the Eastern timezone.  Younger players may not be able to stay up as late as 10PM (let alone the potential 90 minutes a round can take).  Some older players, like yours truly, have to be at work at 6AM the next day... any later 9PM makes it difficult for me to stay up for the round.

I suggest having a wide time frame in which the matches can occur, and ensuring they are spread out for the length of the tournament.  For example, a game start time should be scheduled between 8PM Eastern and 9PM Pacific (this is a 4 hour span).  This means that some players on the Pacific will miss the early matches and some Eastern players will miss the late matches, but they all have a chance of at least playing in a couple of games in the tournament.

3. Better communication and planning.  Everything seemed like a surprise during Drill Camp.  There were no specific dates for anything.  Opening registration date and times, closing registration date and times, first round date and times... all of these were announced and implemented at the last second.  It was horrible.

This issue seems pretty easy to fix.  Just decide and these dates and times and put up a web page with the info.

Also, the bracket web page could use a lot of help.  Teams with long names were impossible to find.  For example, Iron-Raiders had 5 teams in the tournament, all named "Iron Raiders : Team [X]" but the bracket cut off the teams name to just "Iron Raiders: Team".  Also, the bracket page was entirely too big... please look at any number of web pages for the NCAA Championship brackets... nearly all of them fit just fine on a 800x600 web page and that tournament has 64 teams involved.  WG had lots of examples to draw from but chose probably the worst possible site format to display it in.

4. Better Signup Process. While my team had no issue with this, apparently a lot of teams almost got excluded from the tournament because they didn't click some required link on their signup page.  I don't recall how many teams it was, but I'm pretty sure it was at least 15% of them.

The solution to this is pretty easy too.  Have a designer come up with a scheme and some non-technical people test it.  I think having multiple steps was a bad idea.  If a team requires a password to join, I dont think there is any need to require the team leader to come back and click a "finalize" link (or whatever is was).  If they have too few or too many members at the end of registration then thats their own fault.  Possibly send the team leader an email 24 hours before the registration ends to remind them to verify their team's roster.

These are the things I noticed and in the order of importance to me.  Naturally I expect many people to disagree with various parts of my post and I can only hope that when they point out how dumb one of my ideas is that you'd please say why its not a good idea and what, if anything, should be done instead.

Merged with appropriate topic /SE

[Tanitha]

SirBarnick, on May 16 2011 - 19:33, said:

Now that Drill Camp is over (congratulations to AOD on their victory) I'd like to bring up a few concerns about how WG is running them and what improvements should be made.

Nicely summed up..

1. I agree with what you wrote. However I agree with WOT's efforts to not have a campfest each round, and constant draws.
It would be nice when they get the gameplay modes of one base/cap in the middle. Maybe the anti camping rules wont be needed as much then.

3. They cant give some info, until they know the number of teams entered. After more comps, WOT will be able to guess the numbers better and plan ahead more. The communication and planning is improving, but, it could still be improved more.

4. It doesnt seem to be a "follow your nose" foolproof system, Yes, a lot of teams weren't signed up properly. It would be nice if the system was more obvious that required little reading of requirements.. Most people dont like reading a lot of instructions or fine print.

[SirBarnick]

bugwar, on May 15 2011 - 23:51, said:

Very interesting.

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

The point is that he wouldn't have had those team members if the time and dates were announced ahead of time... only people that could commit would have signed up.  Instead we had teams that couldn't field all their players.

[SirBarnick]

Tanitha, on May 16 2011 - 19:50, said:

1. I agree with what you wrote. However I agree with WOT's efforts to not have a campfest each round, and constant draws.
It would be nice when they get the gameplay modes of one base/cap in the middle. Maybe the anti camping rules wont be needed as much then.

Well, I can agree about preventing campfests and whatnot, but they didn't do that. Every team we faced up to the semi-finals camped.  If they couldn't win, then the goal became spoiling... just taking the other team out of the tournament rather than trying to advance themselves.

Somebody else suggested a Swiss Tournament format and I mostly concur with that.  I'd like to see something more like the World Cup which has pools, then the winner of each pool ends up in a bracket.  You don't need to know how many teams are going to be involved in advance, everyone gets to play more than 1 round, and it adds to the drama of the tournament.  It solves so many issues.

I like the current base/cap mode, but I'd certainly be interested in seeing other formats also.

[bugwar]

SirBarnick, on May 16 2011 - 19:33, said:

Merged with appropriate topic /SE
... and for everyone else in their direct tree to force draws (which is not that hard). Since nobody advances in a draw the hypothetical team can get all the way to the finals... and not have a competitor to play.

I'm guessing that in Russia this is normal, and maybe in the EU also. I have no idea.

Interesting opinion.

In the current Russian beta of 'Clan Wars', each day WOT uses a single elimination ladder to find which clan gains possession of a starting province.
Up to 64 teams compete in each ladder, with over a dozen ladders involved.  Guess how often a clan gets to a landing zone without having to fight
another clan for it???  From my observations of the game, it hasn't happened.

While proving a negative is usually difficult, the tournament ladder system WOT uses has not demonstrated the abuse noted in your post.

Of course, since I like the system currently used, my view can be disparaged as that of a mere fan boy.

[SirBarnick]

bugwar, on May 16 2011 - 20:38, said:

Interesting opinion.

In the current Russian beta of 'Clan Wars', each day WOT uses a single elimination ladder to find which clan gains possession of a starting province.
Up to 64 teams compete in each ladder, with over a dozen ladders involved.  Guess how often a clan gets to a landing zone without having to fight
another clan for it???  From my observations of the game, it hasn't happened.

While proving a negative is usually difficult, the tournament ladder system WOT uses has not demonstrated the abuse noted in your post.

Of course, since I like the system currently used, my view can be disparaged as that of a mere fan boy.

Well, I wasn't stating an opinion... its a fact.  I concede that its unlikely to happen, and perhaps never will, but it certainly can happen.  All you need for it to be reality is a first round bye, and several other teams in your specific branch willing to settle for draws.  As I mentioned earlier, 50% of the teams in the Drill Camp semi-finals did not even play a game in the quarter-finals.

However, I was purely speaking of tournaments.  I don't feel so strongly about this topic in regards to clan wars.

[TheCheez]

Barnick
I do agree with you in principle although I can't think how advancing someone no matter what would end any camping. Lets use your metrics as a starting point: 1:0 advances and 1:1 advances the most damage. Why would you do anything but get cover and turtle the shite out of it? Even more once you have a win.

Camping may not win, but it's hard to lose that way. Right now a team needs to stick their necks out to get those 2 wins, what can replace that motivation?

[SirBarnick]

TheCheez, on May 17 2011 - 14:45, said:

Barnick
I do agree with you in principle although I can't think how advancing someone no matter what would end any camping. Lets use your metrics as a starting point: 1:0 advances and 1:1 advances the most damage. Why would you do anything but get cover and turtle the shite out of it? Even more once you have a win.

Camping may not win, but it's hard to lose that way. Right now a team needs to stick their necks out to get those 2 wins, what can replace that motivation?

My response is that any decent team can crack a camp.  Every team we played in Drill Camp, expect for AOD in the semi-finals, camped both matches in the round.  All but one of those games were easily won (the exception being a tougher fight but still ended in victory). In my experience, camping is almost a guaranteed loss.

But, for the sake of argument, lets say I'm wrong.

I mentioned briefly in another post that I'm an advocate of tournament system the World Cup uses.  It starts off as several pools... a mini Swiss Tournament where each team in the pool plays another.  Wins are worth 3 points, draws are worth 1, and loss is 0.  The best score from each pool advances to the second phase of the tournament (which is a more traditional bracket).

Now settling for a draw is a bad idea.  If you settle for a draw, but some other teams go for the wins, they will have more points at the end of the first phase.

I know this doesn't solve everything.  I'm just tossing out ideas.  Perhaps it will provide a spark for somebody else to come up with a better idea.  But I think that anything would be better than the current system.  I'd prefer camping.

[loganov]

SirBarnick, on May 16 2011 - 19:33, said:

I recommend changing this system.  If 2 wins are achieved then then that team advances.  If a match goes to 5 games, then the team with 1 win advances.  If both teams have 1 win, then choose some other requirement (most damage dealt, most tanks killed, etc) and advance that team.  Somebody has to advance.

I don't think that teams without sufficient wins should move forward.  Force teams to play aggressive.  I will say, however, that a lower quality team that's camping can hold off a slightly better team that's on the attack.  This game favors the camper.  That's fine.

I never want to see a scenario where the slightly worse team gets any opportunity to move forward because they camped it up. If you cannot get 2 wins in 5 matches, you should not advance.  If that means that 2 teams do not advance, then so be it.

Our tournament team focused VERY hard on breaking the "turtle".  We expected to see it a lot in the tournament.  We have run months of drills on small unit tactics of breaking tough defenses with teamwork at all levels.  We went very heavy on arty and picked beefy scouts (Leopards) so that we could punish campers with "fire from sky".  It worked.  Those teams that camped against us died.  For some, their last act was to witness 3 KVs coming over the hill at the same time with arty trails darkening the sky above them.

Camping teams should be punished until they realize that they will never become tournament champions without playing aggressively and playing well.  This will be a hard lesson for some to learn.  I can live with that.  I would rather see some teams be unfairly punished than a camping team to ever get the chance to move on to the next round.  Period.

Everything in my above post applies to Ural Steel, The Drill, and any future tournament.

Schperling, on May 13 2011 - 10:38, said:

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.

As for my own opinions on the 5/60?  A great division.  I think it was fantastic.  Tier 5 is my favorite in the game.  I like having a diverse garage where the emphasis isn't entirely on which tank weighs the most.

The map?  Westfield is great.  Fun, open areas.  Nearly equal sides of the map with little advantage to one side or the next.  A map that rewards players who are more familiar with it (spawn locations, which buildings are destructible, etc).  A map that requires a lot of tactical terrain considerations with all of the hills.  One whose sheer size forces artillery to be creative.  Lots of cover and elevated terrain that naturally shields an aggressive team and forces a team to use scouts effectively to survive.  Seriously, this was one of the best tournament maps for scouts ever.

Things to do better?  Pick a time and stick with it.  Determine and announce the match times BEFORE teams have to be organized, so that we can organized teams based on who can play and when.  Nothing worse than putting a great player on a team with the hope that the times will work out, only to find that the schedule is an hour earlier than predicted and now he can't play due to his normal work schedule.

Communication.  Traditionally not a Wargaming.net strong point when it comes to tournaments.  This applies to the above point, too.  Decide things earlier, then let everyone know as soon as the decision is made, then don't change your mind!  The times of tournament matches were not announced well-enough in advance, and then they kept changing.  Also, communication of prizes was late and quite poor once decided.  You had to seriously dig to find it.

Overall, the choices Wargaming.net made with this tournament were fantastic (tiers, map, etc.), but the execution could have been better (communication, planning, etc.).

Cheers,

Logan

[Dark_MadMax]

Damonvile, on May 16 2011 - 10:28, said:

I enjoyed the tournament itself and think the 5/60 was a nice balance. My only issue with it and what will keep me from ever playing in another is how often you have to fight battles.

I hate to use the saying I have a life.....but, I do. I live on the west coast so the matches were at 6:00 pm for me. My

On east coast matches start at 9 and I personally wouldnt mind them moving it to 10 or 11 if that would allow more west coast guys to participate.

[Primarck]

loganov, on May 17 2011 - 16:04, said:

I don't think that teams without sufficient wins should move forward.  Force teams to play aggressive.  I will say, however, that a lower quality team that's camping can hold off a slightly better team that's on the attack.  This game favors the camper.  That's fine.

I never want to see a scenario where the slightly worse team gets any opportunity to move forward because they camped it up. If you cannot get 2 wins in 5 matches, you should not advance.  If that means that 2 teams do not advance, then so be it.

Our tournament team focused VERY hard on breaking the "turtle".  We expected to see it a lot in the tournament.  We have run months of drills on small unit tactics of breaking tough defenses with teamwork at all levels.  We went very heavy on arty and picked beefy scouts (Leopards) so that we could punish campers with "fire from sky".  It worked.  Those teams that camped against us died.  For some, their last act was to witness 3 KVs coming over the hill at the same time with arty trails darkening the sky above them.

Camping teams should be punished until they realize that they will never become tournament champions without playing aggressively and playing well.  This will be a hard lesson for some to learn.  I can live with that.  I would rather see some teams be unfairly punished than a camping team to ever get the chance to move on to the next round.  Period.

Everything in my above post applies to Ural Steel, The Drill, and any future tournament.





As for my own opinions on the 5/60?  A great division.  I think it was fantastic.  Tier 5 is my favorite in the game.  I like having a diverse garage where the emphasis isn't entirely on which tank weighs the most.

The map?  Westfield is great.  Fun, open areas.  Nearly equal sides of the map with little advantage to one side or the next.  A map that rewards players who are more familiar with it (spawn locations, which buildings are destructible, etc).  A map that requires a lot of tactical terrain considerations with all of the hills.  One whose sheer size forces artillery to be creative.  Lots of cover and elevated terrain that naturally shields an aggressive team and forces a team to use scouts effectively to survive.  Seriously, this was one of the best tournament maps for scouts ever.

Things to do better?  Pick a time and stick with it.  Determine and announce the match times BEFORE teams have to be organized, so that we can organized teams based on who can play and when.  Nothing worse than putting a great player on a team with the hope that the times will work out, only to find that the schedule is an hour earlier than predicted and now he can't play due to his normal work schedule.

Communication.  Traditionally not a Wargaming.net strong point when it comes to tournaments.  This applies to the above point, too.  Decide things earlier, then let everyone know as soon as the decision is made, then don't change your mind!  The times of tournament matches were not announced well-enough in advance, and then they kept changing.  Also, communication of prizes was late and quite poor once decided.  You had to seriously dig to find it.

Overall, the choices Wargaming.net made with this tournament were fantastic (tiers, map, etc.), but the execution could have been better (communication, planning, etc.).

Cheers,

Logan

I'm confused.  Here you profess to be totally against campers...I get that, as I am the same.  Then, I look at the Drill matches, and specifically there was an incident where an AoD team, camped the entire time and made NO effort to win the match.  If you don't speak for your clan, then I apologize, but if you do, then apparently all your folks don't agree with your assessment.  I mean, it's one thing to have a defensive strat.  But to sit behind buildings for the entire match and make zero effort on offense is not that.  

Thoughts?


Primarck

[TheCheez]

SirBarnick, on May 17 2011 - 15:27, said:

My response is that any decent team can crack a camp.  Every team we played in Drill Camp, expect for AOD in the semi-finals, camped both matches in the round.  All but one of those games were easily won (the exception being a tougher fight but still ended in victory). In my experience, camping is almost a guaranteed loss.

If camping isn't the way people are forcing draws...what's the problem exactly? How else do people play spoiler or play to draw except by turtling on their flag and doing everything to stop you from getting the cap/killing all of them?

[loganov]

Primarck, on May 17 2011 - 22:19, said:

I'm confused.  Here you profess to be totally against campers...I get that, as I am the same.  Then, I look at the Drill matches, and specifically there was an incident where an AoD team, camped the entire time and made NO effort to win the match.  If you don't speak for your clan, then I apologize, but if you do, then apparently all your folks don't agree with your assessment.  I mean, it's one thing to have a defensive strat.  But to sit behind buildings for the entire match and make zero effort on offense is not that.  

Thoughts?

Primarck

This is not the way I understood the battles to have been fought.  Funny, you weren't on Team D, so you can't have first-hand knowledge of the battles.  I, however, did play an IR team in the tournament, but I don't have anything negative to say about them.  I may be part of AOD, but I don't speak for my tournament team, Angels of Death, or any other AOD team that participated in the tournament.  I did play on the winning tournament team, however, so I am somewhat qualified to speak on the tournament, I think.

If a team is not both aggressive enough and skilled enough to win 2 games out of 5, whether it be AOD, IR, or any other clan, then it should not get the opportunity to move on.  Period.  This is where I disagree with SirBarnick.

Cheers,

Logan

[Primarck]

loganov, on May 18 2011 - 00:57, said:

This is not the way I understood the battles to have been fought.  Funny, you weren't on Team D, so you can't have first-hand knowledge of the battles.  I, however, did play an IR team in the tournament, but I don't have anything negative to say about them.  I may be part of AOD, but I don't speak for my tournament team, Angels of Death, or any other AOD team that participated in the tournament.  I did play on the winning tournament team, however, so I am somewhat qualified to speak on the tournament, I think.

If a team is not both aggressive enough and skilled enough to win 2 games out of 5, whether it be AOD, IR, or any other clan, then it should not get the opportunity to move on.  Period.  This is where I disagree with SirBarnick.

Cheers,

Logan

I am not saying anything bad about any AoD team either.  I was in the TS channel listening that night, and I have been told it was this way.  Apparently the 2 teams saw the match differently.  I was in the tournament as well, and lost in the round of 16, but we played no true campers.

I was just asking, as from what I have been told, the AoD team made no move to win the match after the first round, and that seemed to go against your philosophy.  If they did make a move to win, and weren't turtling up, then I apologize.


Primarck

[loganov]

Apology accepted.

Cheers,

Logan