Tournament issues imo by Xuph June 25, 2017 at 10:06 AM UTC
There are a few issues in the upcoming tournament which i want to have a community discussion about and hopefully change some stuff we agree about to the betterhere is a list of issues i want to discuss, and these stuff I consider issues you might not, therefore its a discussion. comment your thoughts. I tried to be very not biased since some of these issues i believe if they get fixed they would hurt my own team but i am for it cause im trying to be not biased and for everyone.
1. There wasn't enough time to prepare like ryan and seth said. it takes lots of time to learn a map and practice it, and earn chemistry. also the tourney consists of lots of new maps which are unknown not only to new teams, even to the old teams because the maps are new. it takes time to learn them and scrim on them. i think the dates should be delayed in order to let teams practice more.
2. Roster sizes are too big imo. shadowbladz made a nice post about this (theres a TL:DR at the bottom cause the post is very long) and i will quote it instead of writing on my own cause i think he did a good job describing the problem: "It's actually retarded that people wanted 16 rosters on 8v8, I'll get to 14 in a second. That's literally merging two 8 full team squads together. You never need 8 subs, if your entire main roster possibly wont show up, you probably need a new main roster. Also the "we want to sub people in and out for certain maps" is stupid. It's not fun for players to be stuck into a certain role and only be played for that role, and it's also just not healthy for what's being called a "competitive" tournament. I've seen people using the comparison to sports, where players are only played in certain positions because that's what they're best at, but this comparison makes 0 sense. PGM players also have positions, that part is comparable, but the different maps of PGM and gamemodes ruins that comparison. PGM's gamemodes with their massive differences makes it difficult to be at a top tier level in a position in each of them, but this difficulty should be embraced as what makes PGM such a unique and fun competitive game, it shouldn't be worked around by huge roster sizes. The players who should win should be the best players, not the team that has the best frankenstein monster of players who are good at 1-2 things stitched together.
14v14 falls into the same trap, needing 6 subs is a stretch. Let's say 2 subs don't show up, because they're the kind of people who like you said you never know if they'll show up, you now have 4 subs. That can replace half of your main roster, and that's only under the assumption some of your subs didn't show. If you really have the problem that 6 of your players can't say "oh yeah I can make it" and then don't show up, that's not a problem with the roster sizes, that's a problem with your shit ass team who can't organise themselves. Again the subbing people in and out of matches shit comes up, which again, is retarded. Saying a cannoner shouldn't try to turn himself into a well-rounded player incase it effects his cannoning is retarded. No other "competitive" game favours people who fall into such a small sub-role so hard. People shouldn't be allowed to be a one trick pony player and win tournaments with it.
12v12 deals with a lot of these problems atleast to some extent, because the subbing in and out based on maps/gm is probably never going to stop, it's become a part of PGM tournaments. However just because it's become commonplace doesn't mean it isn't unhealthy to the community and the tournaments.
And I sympathise with the argument of wanting to play with friends. Having to ask your friends to leave or kick them is stupid and annoying, but again, since this tournament is calling itself "competitive". It should to an extent, put the competitive health of the tournament before the social circles of its participants"
TL:DR for shadowbladz: 18 roster sizes are wayy too big and should not be a thing because its a lot bigger than needed and eliminates the ability half of the players in a certain roster to play basically.
3. This is not a big issue but the name doesn't make sense with the map pool. usually you call a next tourney race to victory 2 if it has similarities to race to victory 1. i know both are ctw, but itd make sense if there were half the maps at least were from there.
4. Rei's minimap is allowed. according to raging and falcon, you can see players when using it on the map. it obviously shouldnt be a thing for ctw or any gamemode and i dont think this requires explaination. raging approved it around 5 mins ago when writing this post.
5. I dont like the map pool. No offense to fouled, all of his maps are very good. i love slis maps, but they get repetitive. all the maps in the map pool that are sli-made feature almost the same gameplay. they are made same style. im not implying by any way the style is bad, not at all. it features good gameplay, but when you have lots of em the gameplay gets repetitive, which is the issue imo. im all for creativity and uniqueness so i suggest picking 2 or so of the best maps of sli which imo are sub urban and forestry, which are the best out of all of them. im for giving other players opportunities to get their maps on the map pool too. i would also like to see GD3, Wahiz, and RendCTW on the map pool since they all feature unique style of gameplay. if the map pool is 6 maps, id suggest by my own opinion: Golden Drought 3, Wahiz, Rendezvous CTW, Sub Urban, Forestry, Coral Reef 2. Here is a good poll raging made about the map pool where you can vote about it: http://www.strawpoll.me/13280293/r
Thanks and comment your thoughts
Xuph June 25, 2017 at 10:06 AM UTC
LFT just told me the timing were moved back so thanks for officials to taking note :DPosighdun June 25, 2017 at 11:06 AM UTC
My opinion:1. Agreed
2. 50/50. I personally think whilst having 18 people may be considered too big by some people its pretty much the norm. It works. Why fix something that isn't broken? Avicus is unique with its roster sizes and I don't really see any clear benefits of shrinking the roster size. At the end of the day it's still an 8v8, so a bigger roster size just means more people can have a chance to play. That depends from what angle you look at it though.
3. I wouldn't really call that an issue.
4. I've got no idea.
5. Disagree. Well I kind of agree and disagree. Maps are meh but I think it's better having new maps then bring repetitive maps like Wahiz and Rend, which have already been in at least 2 tournaments. As for GD3 I'm pretty sure the reason it wasn't in the pool is because the owner gave us permission to use the public version.
ImRaging June 25, 2017 at 11:06 AM UTC
My opinion:
1. Agreed
2. 50/50. I personally think whilst having 18 people may be considered too big by some people its pretty much the norm. It works. Why fix something that isn't broken? Avicus is unique with its roster sizes and I don't really see any clear benefits of shrinking the roster size. At the end of the day it's still an 8v8, so a bigger roster size just means more people can have a chance to play. That depends from what angle you look at it though.
3. I wouldn't really call that an issue.
4. I've got no idea.
5. Disagree. Well I kind of agree and disagree. Maps are meh but I think it's better having new maps then bring repetitive maps like Wahiz and Rend, which have already been in at least 2 tournaments. As for GD3 I'm pretty sure the reason it wasn't in the pool is because the owner gave us permission to use the public version.
imryaan June 25, 2017 at 11:06 AM UTC
My opinion:
1. Agreed
2. 50/50. I personally think whilst having 18 people may be considered too big by some people its pretty much the norm. It works. Why fix something that isn't broken? Avicus is unique with its roster sizes and I don't really see any clear benefits of shrinking the roster size. At the end of the day it's still an 8v8, so a bigger roster size just means more people can have a chance to play. That depends from what angle you look at it though.
3. I wouldn't really call that an issue.
4. I've got no idea.
5. Disagree. Well I kind of agree and disagree. Maps are meh but I think it's better having new maps then bring repetitive maps like Wahiz and Rend, which have already been in at least 2 tournaments. As for GD3 I'm pretty sure the reason it wasn't in the pool is because the owner gave us permission to use the public version.
Tazz June 25, 2017 at 11:06 AM UTC
all of apollo will cry if we lowered team sizes?Xuph June 25, 2017 at 11:06 AM UTC
My opinion:
1. Agreed
2. 50/50. I personally think whilst having 18 people may be considered too big by some people its pretty much the norm. It works. Why fix something that isn't broken? Avicus is unique with its roster sizes and I don't really see any clear benefits of shrinking the roster size. At the end of the day it's still an 8v8, so a bigger roster size just means more people can have a chance to play. That depends from what angle you look at it though.
3. I wouldn't really call that an issue.
4. I've got no idea.
5. Disagree. Well I kind of agree and disagree. Maps are meh but I think it's better having new maps then bring repetitive maps like Wahiz and Rend, which have already been in at least 2 tournaments. As for GD3 I'm pretty sure the reason it wasn't in the pool is because the owner gave us permission to use the public version.
on the 5th point, ocn for example used the same good maps lots of tournies. and i will quote you "why fix something that isnt broken?" if the maps work and poeple like them why not use them and use new maps instead. you yourself said they are meh.
ImRaging June 25, 2017 at 11:06 AM UTC
all of apollo will cry if we lowered team sizes?
Xuph June 25, 2017 at 11:06 AM UTC
all of apollo will cry if we lowered team sizes?
Posighdun June 25, 2017 at 11:06 AM UTC
I would like to comment on ur 2nd point. what? ", so a bigger roster size just means more people can have a chance to play. " Its the exact opposite. more people on roster means more subs. less people on roster = more teams. and avicus lacks teams.
on the 5th point, ocn for example used the same good maps lots of tournies. and i will quote you "why fix something that isnt broken?" if the maps work and poeple like them why not use them and use new maps instead. you yourself said they are meh.
XuphWell I'd have to completely disagree with that, some teams can't even get a full 8 on as we've seen time and time again each tournament.
You complained about maps being repetitive, so I don't really understand why you would want maps that have been played already in at least 2 TM's. I get you guys like the maps and that's reason enough but why specifically those maps when there are others that could be used?
ImRagingThe thing is though what a good map is varies between people. Whilst you might like those maps suggested others may think they're terrible. I'd honestly prefer to have good maps but at the same time maps that are new/haven't been played. It's not really fun when the meta and strats for the maps are already there, we want the meta to change.
imryaanJust because they're one and two doesn't necessarily mean they have to have maps from the original one.
Xuph June 25, 2017 at 11:06 AM UTC
Well I'd have to completely disagree with that, some teams can't even get a full 8 on as we've seen time and time again each tournament.
You complained about maps being repetitive, so I don't really understand why you would want maps that have been played already in at least 2 TM's. I get you guys like the maps and that's reason enough but why specifically those maps when there are others that could be used?
The thing is though what a good map is varies between people. Whilst you might like those maps suggested others may think they're terrible. I'd honestly prefer to have good maps but at the same time maps that are new/haven't been played. It's not really fun when the meta and strats for the maps are already there, we want the meta to change.
Just because they're one and two doesn't necessarily mean they have to have maps from the original one.
ViceTechnicolour June 25, 2017 at 11:06 AM UTC
Well I'd have to completely disagree with that, some teams can't even get a full 8 on as we've seen time and time again each tournament.
You complained about maps being repetitive, so I don't really understand why you would want maps that have been played already in at least 2 TM's. I get you guys like the maps and that's reason enough but why specifically those maps when there are others that could be used?
The thing is though what a good map is varies between people. Whilst you might like those maps suggested others may think they're terrible. I'd honestly prefer to have good maps but at the same time maps that are new/haven't been played. It's not really fun when the meta and strats for the maps are already there, we want the meta to change.
Just because they're one and two doesn't necessarily mean they have to have maps from the original one.
Posighdun June 25, 2017 at 11:06 AM UTC
I complained about the style being repeptitive if you'd read right. imagine a map pool with 5 maps that play the same style, that would be repetitive. a map thats been played in the past will not be repetitive in one tournament specifically its not like this map would be constantly played
Spoookeh June 25, 2017 at 11:06 AM UTC
Ofc I disagree with the roster sizes because Apollo have 19-20 players, it would not be very helpful to lower them. But the map pool? I see no point in playing the same maps for many tournaments as it brings the same gameplay and the same strats as before. I wouldn't be completely opposed to GD3 but again it's been played in many OCN tournaments before so teams already know how to play it. These new maps require practice and so interesting tactics are made meaning an interesting tournament for onceXuph June 25, 2017 at 12:06 PM UTC
Ofc I disagree with the roster sizes because Apollo have 19-20 players, it would not be very helpful to lower them. But the map pool? I see no point in playing the same maps for many tournaments as it brings the same gameplay and the same strats as before. I wouldn't be completely opposed to GD3 but again it's been played in many OCN tournaments before so teams already know how to play it. These new maps require practice and so interesting tactics are made meaning an interesting tournament for once
profbananaslug June 25, 2017 at 12:06 PM UTC
i swear i have some kind of weird fifth sense where i can tell a map is a sli map every time just by looking at it for a split secondthere's just a certain je ne sais quoi that makes them instantly recognizable
Xuph June 25, 2017 at 12:06 PM UTC
i swear i have some kind of weird fifth sense where i can tell a map is a sli map every time just by looking at it for a split second
there's just a certain je ne sais quoi that makes them instantly recognizable
Crazy_ June 25, 2017 at 12:06 PM UTC
Rule C.3 talks about mods that aren't allows to be used. Here's what it says about mini map mods that reveal player locations.The mods listed below are strictly not allowed to use:
- Minimaps that reveals the positions of creatures, players or underground caves/tunnels
ImRaging June 25, 2017 at 1:06 PM UTC
Well I'd have to completely disagree with that, some teams can't even get a full 8 on as we've seen time and time again each tournament.
You complained about maps being repetitive, so I don't really understand why you would want maps that have been played already in at least 2 TM's. I get you guys like the maps and that's reason enough but why specifically those maps when there are others that could be used?
The thing is though what a good map is varies between people. Whilst you might like those maps suggested others may think they're terrible. I'd honestly prefer to have good maps but at the same time maps that are new/haven't been played. It's not really fun when the meta and strats for the maps are already there, we want the meta to change.
Just because they're one and two doesn't necessarily mean they have to have maps from the original one.
zicuri June 25, 2017 at 2:06 PM UTC
Rei's minimap does not have radar, does it?zicuri June 25, 2017 at 2:06 PM UTC
RendCTW and Zihaw stop trying to get trash maps into the map pool, why are these super bad? they are huge and skybridging is probably the only safe way to get in thet wool room but it gets super painlopy, a map needs diversity in the gameplay not only one, Sli's maps are good with a few edits they can be better, but rendctw and zihaw are just trash people trying to get these maps just because are the only ones where ''decent teams'' (if they are) are good it's stupid. Second, 18 man roster yeah that's big but it is not time to complain and try to get it lower why? because almost every time has their 18 people done I don't think everyone agree with kicking people this far if this is going to be reduce it needs to be next tourney.ProfessorUtonium June 25, 2017 at 2:06 PM UTC
8 players playing and 10 substhis is always hilarious. I hope the official team realizes how difficult it is to choose who to sub out when you have all 18 players online. Having to put away 10 players is hard including when they've commited time for this tournament. If the cap was 12, it'd be easier and normal. There'd also be more teams if each team size is reduced.
For the maps, I haven't looked at them all yet but the ones I've looked at and played are fine but not really unique in there own way. They've all required heavy skybridge to get into wool.(SubUrban and Forestry).
ill maybe update this post with opinions on maps
probably not cause I gave up giving opinions on map pool after conquest inc
zicuri June 25, 2017 at 2:06 PM UTC
8 players playing and 10 subs
this is always hilarious. I hope the official team realizes how difficult it is to choose who to sub out when you have all 18 players online. Having to put away 10 players is hard including when they've commited time for this tournament. If the cap was 12, it'd be easier and normal. There'd also be more teams if each team size is reduced.
For the maps, I haven't looked at them all yet but the ones I've looked at and played are fine but not really unique in there own way. They've all required heavy skybridge to get into wool.(SubUrban and Forestry).
ill maybe update this post with opinions on maps
probably not cause I gave up giving opinions on map pool after conquest inc
ProfessorUtonium June 25, 2017 at 3:06 PM UTC
Skybride in sub urban and forestry? never seen that playing with squadcat/horizon but I think it is because our play style is differente than yours but still now you know the variety of gameplay the maps provide.
TrailPoint and Seaport, I haven't looked at
CR2, I've only played on it for like 10 minutes after having to leave and get a sub
tomqss June 25, 2017 at 3:06 PM UTC
dont put coral reef on the pool thats all im gonna sayXuph June 25, 2017 at 3:06 PM UTC
Skybride in sub urban and forestry? never seen that playing with squadcat/horizon but I think it is because our play style is differente than yours but still now you know the variety of gameplay the maps provide.
ogel June 25, 2017 at 4:06 PM UTC
dont put coral reef on the pool thats all im gonna say
dev_revs June 25, 2017 at 4:06 PM UTC
1. Totally agree, glad it was changed,2. 8 players get to play, 10 have to sub out? It sucks for players who don't get to play, because half of a team will not get to play, and it looks bad on the leader.
3. All I care about is rendezvous isn't in the map pool, make the maps new and creative pls thx
4. I've played stratus for the past four weeks to prepare for their tournament, all the CTW maps are different and require different gameplay, Kind of tired of the typical two skybridge into wool, get boring after a while.
zicuri June 25, 2017 at 5:06 PM UTC
Tell me that you saw how big trailpoint is and still believe its a good map in the right size.
zicuri June 25, 2017 at 5:06 PM UTC
1. Totally agree, glad it was changed,
2. 8 players get to play, 10 have to sub out? It sucks for players who don't get to play, because half of a team will not get to play, and it looks bad on the leader.
3. All I care about is rendezvous isn't in the map pool, make the maps new and creative pls thx
4. I've played stratus for the past four weeks to prepare for their tournament, all the CTW maps are different and require different gameplay, Kind of tired of the typical two skybridge into wool, get boring after a while.
Xuph June 25, 2017 at 5:06 PM UTC
As I pointed out the maps made by fouled need edits all of them, why I want them to be in the map pool if they need edits, why don't use other maps? Super simple, you need brand new maps not the same ones over and over again, trailpoint is not being used anymore fouled said so I don't think it is an ''issue'' anymore.
zicuri June 25, 2017 at 6:06 PM UTC
yeah i agree completely that rend and wahiz gets repetitive but new maps need good map testing which i dont know if avicus can provide.
Spyrovic June 25, 2017 at 6:06 PM UTC
I don't know why you guys are complaining about the 18 players maximum roster size, yeah it's big but if you think 10 subs is too much then just don't register 18 people. Use your brain people. And if you're can't handle the responsabilities of leading a team then just don't lead a team.Xuph June 25, 2017 at 7:06 PM UTC
I don't know why you guys are complaining about the 18 players maximum roster size, yeah it's big but if you think 10 subs is too much then just don't register 18 people. Use your brain people. And if you're can't handle the responsabilities of leading a team then just don't lead a team.
" Use your brain people."
no aim no brain im a tracer main aj ah haa ah ah ahahhaa
ElementalAssasin June 26, 2017 at 2:06 AM UTC
Never have i seen a team with all 18 players on so i still dont get why people complain about thisRiilo June 26, 2017 at 6:06 AM UTC
Well I'd have to completely disagree with that, some teams can't even get a full 8 on as we've seen time and time again each tournament.
You complained about maps being repetitive, so I don't really understand why you would want maps that have been played already in at least 2 TM's. I get you guys like the maps and that's reason enough but why specifically those maps when there are others that could be used?
The thing is though what a good map is varies between people. Whilst you might like those maps suggested others may think they're terrible. I'd honestly prefer to have good maps but at the same time maps that are new/haven't been played. It's not really fun when the meta and strats for the maps are already there, we want the meta to change.
Just because they're one and two doesn't necessarily mean they have to have maps from the original one.
so why did you name it #2? Just because it is the same game mode doesn't mean it is similar unless it has maps that were from RTV #1.
Posighdun June 26, 2017 at 6:06 AM UTC
"Just because they're one and two doesn't necessarily mean they have to have maps from the original one."
so why did you name it #2? Just because it is the same game mode doesn't mean it is similar unless it has maps that were from RTV #1.
rememes June 26, 2017 at 7:06 AM UTC
ugly skin wtf
" Use your brain people."
no aim no brain im a tracer main aj ah haa ah ah ahahhaa
dev_revs June 26, 2017 at 7:06 AM UTC
Never have i seen a team with all 18 players on so i still dont get why people complain about this
HotAndCrunch June 26, 2017 at 7:06 AM UTC
tracer requires skill :(
*Cough* Eric
Xuph June 26, 2017 at 8:06 AM UTC
Unlike Bastion.
*Cough* Eric
rinn June 26, 2017 at 8:06 AM UTC
ugly skin wtf
" Use your brain people."
no aim no brain im a tracer main aj ah haa ah ah ahahhaa
SeuthyWhy tf did you teach him that