Napoleonic Wars European Cup 2014

[Lubukill]

Group B
Czechoslovakia vs France
0      -     0
Deadline: 12/05/14
Scheduled Time: 11/05, 19:00 GMT
Server: -
Referee: -

[Carolus.]

Bye bye then, have fun guys. Next year 6man teams so make it more even and get more nations

[Lubukill]

6 men team is a bad idea from my point, we would loose all the interest of it, it'd look like a 5vs5 tournament. The interest of 10vs10 is to have a larger front for a larger fight, where strategy and larger scale teamplay matters more than a small scale teamplay or even personal skill.

[Herishey]

6 men team is a bad idea from my point, we would loose all the interest of it, it'd look like a 5vs5 tournament. The interest of 10vs10 is to have a larger front for a larger fight, where strategy and larger scale teamplay matters more than a small scale teamplay or even personal skill.

Maybe 8v8 to start and 7v7 (when teams cannot reach 8 players).

[stylish]

Bye bye then, have fun guys. Next year 6man teams so make it more even and get more nations

I really do understand your frustration, as of now the tournament is kind of favouring the larger playbase nations. But hey, it's fun and hopefully we can fix these imbalances for next year !

Looking forward to wednesday, we will have our match against Austria (Hopefully, LOL)

[Sinjide]

The interest of 10vs10 is to have a larger front for a larger fight, where strategy and larger scale teamplay matters more than a small scale teamplay or even personal skill.

[Evanovic]

On behalf of RebelliouS:

Group B
Poland vs Turkey
0 - 0
Deadline: 12/05/14
Scheduled Time: Sunday, 11th May, 6:00 PM GMT
Server: Gamma
Referee: -

[stylish]

By the way, for the Dutch National team our Vice-Captain Secondary is; Timlef, if you could please update that ?

[Carolus.]

6 men team is a bad idea from my point, we would loose all the interest of it, it'd look like a 5vs5 tournament. The interest of 10vs10 is to have a larger front for a larger fight, where strategy and larger scale teamplay matters more than a small scale teamplay or even personal skill.

I think it might be the other way around. Bigger interest because more nations could sign up(tiny brother Norway etc) and the odds wouldnt be so heavily stacked in favour of the "bigger nations"(since most nations can field about 5-6 really good players) but as belonging to one of those I expect you to oppose this Teamwork would still be a vital part of it. The outcome of a tournament like that would indeed be interesting to see. Im not saying it has to be 6, it was just some random number that slipped out of me, but it needs to be lowered with more than 2 imo.

Bye bye then, have fun guys. Next year 6man teams so make it more even and get more nations

I really do understand your frustration, as of now the tournament is kind of favouring the larger playbase nations. But hey, it's fun and hopefully we can fix these imbalances for next year !

Looking forward to wednesday, we will have our match against Austria (Hopefully, LOL)

Im not frustrated at all, its just simple fact. When you go above 7-8players the minor nations simply cant field enough top tier players. Especially if some of them already turned down a spot on the team from the start. Thats when it gets tough putting a strong team together

If some other nation than UK, France, Germany or The Netherlands makes the final for a change, I'll gladely say I was proven wrong.

[Lubukill]

I think it might be the other way around. Bigger interest because more nations could sign up(tiny brother Norway etc) and the odds wouldnt be so heavily stacked in favour of the "bigger nations"(since most nations can field about 5-6 really good players) but as belonging to one of those I expect you to oppose this Teamwork would still be a vital part of it. The outcome of a tournament like that would indeed be interesting to see. Im not saying it has to be 6, it was just some random number that slipped out of me, but it needs to be lowered with more than 2 imo.

I understand your point of vue, it's true that it would bring more nations and so be more interesting for more players 'cause more could play, but it's, from my point, the interest of coalitions. Small countries that can't field enough players can play with other small nations, and so top tier players can be brought ^^ of course the national identity will be kind of lost, but at least everyone can play this way. I also know that the most players you have, the most good players you have. So I know that every nation can't bring the same amount of good players ^^ We have plenty of players in France, and trust me, plenty of noobs aswell. It's just a question of number at the end, that's why I say that I understand your point.
Also, I don't say that teamplay wouldn't be vital in a 6v6, I just say that it's a smaller scale teamplay. I mean, 6v6 will often go as 2 3 vs 3, and even if it doesn't, the scale of the battle isn't the same as a 10vs10. It's way different, even if the number doesn't look like it is. I personally prefer 10 vs 10, not because I'm from a nation that can bring 10 very good players, but because I find it more interesting in fight. You can't control everything, you have to trust your allies on the other side, if it goes wrong, you have to make yours go right so it'll balance, if the other side goes right, then you just need not to die so you'll be helped. And it's really about teamplay. A high skilled player can always bring it back, but he'll need his friends' help, 'cause winning a 1 vs 8-7-6 is, at this level, pretty impossible. On a 6 vs 6, you can easily find yourself into a 1 vs 3 or 1 vs 2, and it isn't that impossible, personnal skill would be way more important.

To summarize, I personnaly prefer 10vs10, but I understand the arguments for smaller scales, not because I'm not penalized by the actual scale, but because I prefer a larger amount of players to fight with / against, 'cause it makes a better teamplay from my point.

[Carolus.]

Spoiler

I think it might be the other way around. Bigger interest because more nations could sign up(tiny brother Norway etc) and the odds wouldnt be so heavily stacked in favour of the "bigger nations"(since most nations can field about 5-6 really good players) but as belonging to one of those I expect you to oppose this Teamwork would still be a vital part of it. The outcome of a tournament like that would indeed be interesting to see. Im not saying it has to be 6, it was just some random number that slipped out of me, but it needs to be lowered with more than 2 imo.

I understand your point of vue, it's true that it would bring more nations and so be more interesting for more players 'cause more could play, but it's, from my point, the interest of coalitions. Small countries that can't field enough players can play with other small nations, and so top tier players can be brought ^^ of course the national identity will be kind of lost, but at least everyone can play this way. I also know that the most players you have, the most good players you have. So I know that every nation can't bring the same amount of good players ^^ We have plenty of players in France, and trust me, plenty of noobs aswell. It's just a question of number at the end, that's why I say that I understand your point.
Also, I don't say that teamplay wouldn't be vital in a 6v6, I just say that it's a smaller scale teamplay. I mean, 6v6 will often go as 2 3 vs 3, and even if it doesn't, the scale of the battle isn't the same as a 10vs10. It's way different, even if the number doesn't look like it is. I personally prefer 10 vs 10, not because I'm from a nation that can bring 10 very good players, but because I find it more interesting in fight. You can't control everything, you have to trust your allies on the other side, if it goes wrong, you have to make yours go right so it'll balance, if the other side goes right, then you just need not to die so you'll be helped. And it's really about teamplay. A high skilled player can always bring it back, but he'll need his friends' help, 'cause winning a 1 vs 8-7-6 is, at this level, pretty impossible. On a 6 vs 6, you can easily find yourself into a 1 vs 3 or 1 vs 2, and it isn't that impossible, personnal skill would be way more important.

To summarize, I personnaly prefer 10vs10, but I understand the arguments for smaller scales, not because I'm not penalized by the actual scale, but because I prefer a larger amount of players to fight with / against, 'cause it makes a better teamplay from my point.

Then allow every coalition based on the principle that everyone should get to play but keep in mind some neighbouring countries dont really care for each other that much and a coalition is not a possibility. You say more coalitions instead of fewer players for more teams but the downside would be lost national identity, would be kind of a fail if national identity were lost in a nations cup tournament. Every nation cant bring the same amount of top tier players, dont know how you can say that, since it so far from the truth. Teamwork is just as important in a 2v1/3v1 situation, you need it not to teamkill each other and kill the last guy in the enemy team.
The only valid point I can see is that 10 v 10 is more fun for you since you like to have more ppl in the fray.
I would say try something new next time, it wont hurt, 10v10 is too many and thats my oppinion. I would ofc love to see Hekko/Evan do it since they're the best organizers in this community by far 

[close]

Good luck to all the teams still in the tournament!

[Lubukill]

As I already gave my opinion about it for the tournament, I'll take it to PMs for now

[Evanovic]

I'm happy to give some input.
 
The tournament's trying to balance community inclusivity and also giving smaller nations a decent chance against the stronger ones. If the team sizes were too small there would be no point in advertising all over the forums and hyping it up, because only a few chosen people would be able to play in it. It's not like Groupfighting tournaments where we can have an unlimited amount of teams, in a nations tournament you can have only 1 team from each nation so to truly involve the community those teams need to be relatively big. It makes it easier for Team Captains to pick their teams too, they have enough spaces to consider different parts of the community without looking too biased. Imagine a UK team of 6 players, we may have 2 17es, 2 Nr24s and 2 92nds, that could be considered biased, but with 16 slots, we have players from 17e, Nr24, 92nd, 22nd, 78th, 77y all included. To truly get the national community involved it has to be a somewhat big event.

We reckon 16 players is enough to give a lot of community members involvement in the tournament whilst also allowing smaller nations to compete. The minimum possible match size is actually 8 vs 8, this is not far off from 6 vs 6, it was decided with smaller nations in mind. So we have actually compromised as much as we can to make the matches smaller for small nations. The maximum match size is 10 vs 10, which allows larger nations to play more of their players when fighting eachother. But I don't want to take away from some of the 'smaller nations', people should keep their eyes on a couple of these 'smaller nations', they could go far in this tournament; Belgium & Russia are doing particularly well at the moment. In the past other 'small nations' have done well, Denmark for example got to the semi-finals of the first NWEC, Finland almost knocked UK out in the 2nd NWEC (it was 11-10) and in McPero's nations tournament Turkey almost knocked out Netherlands (they lost by 1 round I believe). So there is plenty of evidence of 'smaller nations' having a chance at getting far with these sizes.

[Carolus.]

I understand were you're coming from Evan but as long as its kept like this, sure a minor may reach a semi final with some luck but thats about it. It becomes very uninteresting after a while. Why not keep the 16man team but let the nations decide upon playing with 7, 8, 9 or 10 in the matches, you could even go 16v16 when UK plays France so Lubo gets happy

[Herishey]

Nations have been able to fight 8v8 if they don't have the numbers.