It is easy to rotate templates on 1v1 and 2v2 because there are many templates that are close to the same level on each. But on 3v3, I have yet to see one that many top team players would consider close to Europe's level. I'll speak a lot more about your ideas in a couple days; I don't have enough time today to address them all.

The new proposed format just has too many games. It is going to be administrative hell and once the initial enthusiasm fades, no one will schedule so many games.

I really love playing the Promotion/ Relegation every season. In my opinion a league needs to end quickly. If it takes 4-6 months, you can barely remember who you were playing with! An active player today, could easily go inactive during such a long season impacting the whole league.

Turns out I have more time tonight than I thought I would so I'll answer the concerns voiced here.

Master Ree:
1. Vetoing will ideally be done with one player vetoing a template at a time, however I see the problems with this. This can be easily figured out later on when I see how players are feeling on templates.

2. I also am not sure about the idea of forcing alts, yet this is only for the top 25% of each group. I am thinking that perhaps a way to solve this would be to allow players to play with teammates in a division lower than their current one. This means that they are likely doing most of the work for the team, rather than being carried by superior teammates. It would be up to each individual player whether they'd rather play with alts or players that are ranked as inferior to them in terms of skill.

3. A three-way tie would be decided by a Strategic 1v1 Round Robin between the three players. If all three win once, we'd try a second round robin. If all three win once again, we will switch to an elimination style where one random player gets a bye in the first round. I figure that if they have tied in the actual competition and twice in round robins, they are all very close to the same skill level, and the best way to decide this is by adding a bit of chance rather than playing an infinite number of round robins.

4. Promotions and Relegations will be discussed before the season starts for sure, but at the current time I am unsure on this. I am leaning towards allowing any player to advance out of Round 1 to be able to stay in Group A. Then in the other groups, the top four promote to the next group, and the bottom eight relegate to the lower group. Open spots will be filled by the decisions by a group of players (like Sze, Gnuff, Timi, etc.). For instance, if a player from Group C is deemed as good enough for Group A, he will be added to Group A, and a player who will otherwise play Group D will take his spot. This guarantees twelve spots in each division that will be filled by players who have show they belong there, with the option to add four more. However, there could be more promotions from Group B to Group A depending on who is deemed as "good enough". While this system does have some subjectivity, 75% of the players in each group are decided based on their performance in the previous season. This means that high level players won't have to start at low groups, but it also means that underrated players have a way to earn their way to Group A.

Turtle: See #1 for Master Ree

Beren: I don't like the idea of a Swiss style because a player could lose his first five games, play against five easy opponents and get back to .500, while a superior player beats his first five opponents, but must face top players, and ends up losing his next five, also ending back at .500. I think a Swiss style tournament is fun, but for determining who is the strongest player, it is not a good way to do this. I think some kind of Swiss style league/tournament would be a fun thing to do in the future though, especially if Fizzer were to implement it into warlight.

Chris: I will make the games for Group A. I calculated last night and I believe it was around 120 games. This may sound like a lot, but to make this tournament succeed, I would gladly do it. For lower divisions, someone else will be in charge of creating games. A possible way to simplify the making of the games may be to just cut out the vetoing idea, and instead force players to play in two different Round Robin 1v1 tournaments. I don't like this idea as much but it would cut the games that need to be created if necessary.

Turtle: This is an idea, but I think many players would prefer a combination of the two.

Mod/Ree: Point 4 on the first Master Ree response. It will be loosely promotion/relegation while also allowing top players to go instantly to Group A.

Lolowut: I agree a lot on templates. The templates were voted on the past two seasons by [20A] members. I have seen one unusual template used and this became a fiasco (Ursa Luna 3v3). Szeweningen also used a very unusual template in the Champion's League last time for 2v2 and this is the reason many players quit. I think if we decide to pick the templates for each tournament (rather than letting players veto), it will not be the most standard templates but it will likely be at least similar to what players have played before. In general, high level players do not wish to play competitive events on a completely new template (I don't like this, but it is the truth, and I want a large percentage of high level players to participate in this event). I will ask Szeweningen and Gui to help come up with some new templates for this competition that while not completely new to the high-level players, it will be different enough that they cannot coast on past knowledge of the template.

Hope this clears some things up; please keep asking questions and voicing opinions.

I'm not saying we use an untested template, but there's definitely templates out there that have been deemed strategic and are new that we can use. (Atlantis 1v1, Final Earth 2v2 with 4 starts, not that new but not played much, RoR 3v3, I could list more.) This season lineup was as vanilla as possible. Idk if I'm the only one burned out on the same old, but I'd like to see the league go back to what the purpose was, to diversify how we think and bring us together with interesting/new players. The 2nd part happens and doesn't, depending on the group. The 1st part didn't happen this season with the vanilla.

Edited 10/16/2015 06:24:54

I don't find these templates you mentioned interesting. Who deemed them strategic? Final earth 2v2 with 4 picks still has no dominant picks often. I think maybe with two recon cards to start the game, it may become less about guesses and more about skill, but if it's the same as the ladder settings with the only change being four picks per player, I don't think it is a good idea for high level players. I also find Rise of Rome 3v3 easy to understand and not worth the huge amount of time that goes into playing it. It is repetitive, games last forever, and it is not as complex as Europe. Atlantis 1v1 I don't know if I've ever seen. The point is, if new templates are used, they need to be on par with the best templates or only a small step down in terms of strategy and complexity and time taken to finish a game. I'd like to here some more of your ideas for templates. I think for 1v1, it will be easy to find a template that is strategic and somewhat complex, but for 2v2 and 3v3, it may be tougher.

Edited 10/16/2015 13:19:27

The Strat 1v1 on ME with WR regularly doesn't have dominant picks, but that's no argument for saying that it is not a strategic template. I don't see how failing to have dominant picks is an argument against a template being strategic - it just means you have to win with gameplay, rather than picks, which is a good thing in my opinion.

I really enjoyed this season's templates, but since I am a new player I had never played the 3v3 EU and the 2v2 ME before, so they were completely new for me and I found them amazing.

If you want to talk about boring 3v3 templates, the RoR 3v3 lolo mentioned is one of them without a doubt, and I find the China 2v2 much better than the Final Earth one (but maybe China is old and overplayed too)

actually china isn't old or overplayed, we never played it in any important event unless i remember wrong.

Jsa didn't mentioned the option that basically you that Group stage 2 with the points you neded Group stage 1. So if you win all your games in stage 1, you will start with 12 points, respect a player went 10-2 he will start with 10 points. I think it is fait to incentive since Group stage 1 to play your best. It work like that in volleyball.

Edited 10/16/2015 14:42:23

china 2vs2 was played in the previous clan league

China 2vs2 is cool. bring it!

@ollie oh i didn't know, sorry

yeah it's a great template, one of the best 2v2 IMO

china map sucks

China 1v1 is decent, but China 2v2 is very good.

And your kind of thinking is why 20 is boring. Dismissed 3 really fun templates because they don't fit your taste or play style.

The Strat 1v1 on ME with WR regularly doesn't have dominant picks, but that's no argument for saying that it is not a strategic template. I don't see how failing to have dominant picks is an argument against a template being strategic - it just means you have to win with gameplay, rather than picks, which is a good thing in my opinion.


+1. You say you need dominant picks, and I think you've just been playing too much Europe. You don't always need an islands for a strategic template. There are other ways to win a game than just out-picking and delaying opponents.




I don't find these templates you mentioned interesting. Who deemed them strategic? Final earth 2v2 with 4 picks still has no dominant picks often. I think maybe with two recon cards to start the game, it may become less about guesses and more about skill, but if it's the same as the ladder settings with the only change being four picks per player, I don't think it is a good idea for high level players.

Final earth with SR seems strategic even with just 2 picks, but 4 picks would make for a very interesting template. I think you should ask for more opinions(from players who have played the template extensively) and not brush off templates you're not familiar with as "not a good idea for high level players"

Lolowut, I believe you have some decent points but you bring them forward very poorly. Based on your logic, the duel map is never used by top players. Perhaps we should consider using it in [20] since it is new and unused? I agree with using new templates, but using templates that are boring or very easy to understand are not a good idea.

Now to say I wouldn't pick templates based on my taste or play style is completely off. I won't even be the only one deciding on templates. China 2v2 does not fit my style well, but I would still be willing to use it for an event because I believe it is interesting and requires a different style than many competitive templates.

Rise of Rome is a map that I find very easy to understand, and incredibly boring. My first game on it with alts was against a team of players who I later found out were considered "good" on Rise of Rome, and I beat them without much trouble. I picture that if Rise of Rome were used in [20A], everybody's picks would be identical every game. The games would also last a very long time, which is a major problem considering people already consider it going too long. Maybe with altering some settings, Rise of Rome can become more strategic. But it is still too big to be used in a competitive event.

I like the second half of your post, Master of the Dead. One issue with Final Earth 2v2 is that very few top players have ever played it. Maybe there is a reason for that though? Maybe the top players realized it was not going to be a great template? I will look more into this map though.

I have already made a thread with about eight of the top players on warlight and will see what they want out of this event.

Me personally, I would enjoy completely new settings that have not even been made yet, on a random map that is of average size. I think this is not how most top players think though.

Rise of rome and final earth are boring. You should play some on great lakes and see if you like it

Chris please :P
stop your autopromotion, your map as strategic value isn't great :P

One issue with Final Earth 2v2 is that very few top players have ever played it. Maybe there is a reason for that though? Maybe the top players realized it was not going to be a great template?

Just perfect! Seems like a very logical way to judge how a strategic a template is(avoid playing it!). I wish you well in your quest.


Me personally, I would enjoy completely new settings that have not even been made yet, on a random map that is of average size. I think this is not how most top players think though.

Then in my honest opinion it is time they stopped calling themselves "top players". A top player should adapt to a variety of templates. Get out of their comfort zone and be tested. After that if you feel a template is repetitive/boring I can understand that.


@Chris
Please provide a link to a game and I'll try it out.

A top player should adapt to a variety of templates. Get out of their comfort zone and be tested. After that if you feel a template is repetitive/boring I can understand that.

I know exactly how a template plays out by looking at it, no need to play.