Author Topic: | NWBC | Season 5 | Finals  (Read 52347 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

BlitzkriegMBNW

  • Guest
Re: | NWBC | Season 5 | Match-week 1
« Reply #210 on: March 08, 2022, 10:17:28 am »
“Cavalry being mounted in all-charge is not op!!!1!1!11!”

Offline BearlyHuman

  • Second Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 385
    • View Profile
  • Nick: 92nd_Maj_Robert_Sinclair
  • Side: Neutral
Re: | NWBC | Season 5 | Match-week 1
« Reply #211 on: March 08, 2022, 11:31:17 am »
Spoiler
Spoiler
Love a bit of Kubus slander but good on you for reffing a big comp event solo, I wouldn't have the balls to do it myself.

Respect 💖
[close]
Thank you Kubus for accepting to take care of our match. You did your best and that's what matters in the end regardless of the few hiccups.

Can't stress enough how messages like this are important to balance out some stuff that was written last night. I don't blame anybody, in the heat of the match it's hard to refrain yourself when you are facing questionable decisions. But anyone who experienced referring an NW match (in such a complex format especially) can relate how hard it is for one individual to keep an eye on everything that's happening so as a reference for next time, the slightest touch of empathy shown during and/or straight after the match usually goes a long way. Remember that some banter on TS within your private sphere does not equal +20 messages that - although taken alone wouldn't carry much weight - can be interpreted as rather offensive/aggressive when added up.



About the match itself, I won't lie, I didn't necessarily have a good time but it was still as competitive as it gets. The first round could have set the tone for a really fast & aggro playstyle on both sides but the following ones showed exactly the contrary. From my perspective, the whole encounter can be summed up by both cavalry regiments having the potential to be decisive in the late round, so whoever managed to keep most of it alive was ensured to have a large advantage in the final fight. This led to very delayed rounds, almost no enjoyable (brawly, evenly chaotic) melees on either side and pushed the 'run away, shoot & delay tactics until all charge was called' to an extent that was not particularly entertaining from the infantry perspective. The all-charge itself was no fun-saviour either as we ended up getting circled by cavalry on pretty much every occasion, which for anyone who played competitive cavalry for a time, was the equivalent of giving 25+ dismounted heavies short lances and asking the hussars 'go kill them but please don't take too much time'.

Obviously, as the last part of my sentence hints it, I am not blaming the cavalry on either side for refusing any form of fight till one regiment had taken the upper hand (number wise) on the other neither do I think the rule about staying mounted in all-charge should be re-written. It makes perfect sense and there wouldn't be much point in having cavalry in the first place if you force them to drop all of their advantages as soon as the round gets tense. I am only trying to demonstrate that in matches where both coalitions are on a somewhat even play-ground, the tactics that must be used in order to guarantee the win are simply not enjoyable, at least from the perspective of the infantry.

Now I would still argue the better team won last night. We (IVe) could have at least guaranteed a draw if it wasn't for the huge mental breakdown/tactical mistake/lack of communication (delete as appropriate) from our leadership in the opening round of the second half. From that point on, I believe we lost ourselves the match as the Team 9 coalition was simply way too experienced/skill to let such an opportunity run away from them. Good game, good luck for next and hopefully we'll get you next time.

PS: @Erik As a golden rule for next time, I would argue it's part of the leaders' responsibilities to ensure they are playing with the correct numbers at all times and that the ref(s) should only have to be held accountable for reminding the regiments of the balance that must be observed, not doing the maths for them in the first place. I think you will agree with it's neither fair nor right to expect a solo ref to be checking the numbers of each regiment at the beginning of each round when he has a lot of other things to take care of.
[close]

I'd also like to thank Kubus for reffing. Apart from that one round where he swapped people from the wrong team to spec (which I personally thought was quite funny!), there weren't really any glaring issues with admining that stood out to me as I write this and I think he did alright.
As for the match itself, I think both teams made the same mistake of going too aggro in the first round of each half for that one hill in the corner of the map. I'd say we won based on a better overall strategy although you guys have to be commended for playing smart tactically, especially in situations where our team was cav heavy in the all charge. It was perhaps not the best match to spectate or to be one of the grunts in, but from a leadership perspective I enjoyed the match and the banter we had in TS and am thoroughly looking forward to the next match.

Offline Steinmann

  • King of Börk
  • Brigadier General
  • *
  • Posts: 7176
  • Mutual Owning with Elsse.
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: | NWBC | Season 5 | Match-week 1
« Reply #212 on: March 08, 2022, 12:20:23 pm »
Sorry tardet my tiny brain doesn’t wanna read all that 😴

Offline LaSalle

  • Sergeant Major
  • *
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
Re: | NWBC | Season 5 | Match-week 1
« Reply #213 on: March 08, 2022, 12:31:56 pm »
It was a really cool mixt between fun and tryhard with other regiments, appreciate a lot this format, thanks Kubus for refering

Offline Vegi.

  • Where is my stack?!
  • General
  • ****
  • Posts: 8229
  • Divide and Conquer
    • View Profile
  • Nick: King of Stack
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: | NWBC | Season 5 | Match-week 1
« Reply #214 on: March 08, 2022, 12:32:58 pm »
Sorry tardet my tiny brain doesn’t wanna read all that 😴
Stop looking at my posts Fietta #RentFree

The Master of stack, the voice of racism.

Offline LaSalle

  • Sergeant Major
  • *
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
Re: | NWBC | Season 5 | Match-week 1
« Reply #215 on: March 08, 2022, 12:38:40 pm »
Spoiler
Love a bit of Kubus slander but good on you for reffing a big comp event solo, I wouldn't have the balls to do it myself.

Respect 💖
[close]
Thank you Kubus for accepting to take care of our match. You did your best and that's what matters in the end regardless of the few hiccups.

Can't stress enough how messages like this are important to balance out some stuff that was written last night. I don't blame anybody, in the heat of the match it's hard to refrain yourself when you are facing questionable decisions. But anyone who experienced referring an NW match (in such a complex format especially) can relate how hard it is for one individual to keep an eye on everything that's happening so as a reference for next time, the slightest touch of empathy shown during and/or straight after the match usually goes a long way. Remember that some banter on TS within your private sphere does not equal +20 messages that - although taken alone wouldn't carry much weight - can be interpreted as rather offensive/aggressive when added up.



About the match itself, I won't lie, I didn't necessarily have a good time but it was still as competitive as it gets. The first round could have set the tone for a really fast & aggro playstyle on both sides but the following ones showed exactly the contrary. From my perspective, the whole encounter can be summed up by both cavalry regiments having the potential to be decisive in the late round, so whoever managed to keep most of it alive was ensured to have a large advantage in the final fight. This led to very delayed rounds, almost no enjoyable (brawly, evenly chaotic) melees on either side and pushed the 'run away, shoot & delay tactics until all charge was called' to an extent that was not particularly entertaining from the infantry perspective. The all-charge itself was no fun-saviour either as we ended up getting circled by cavalry on pretty much every occasion, which for anyone who played competitive cavalry for a time, was the equivalent of giving 25+ dismounted heavies short lances and asking the hussars 'go kill them but please don't take too much time'.

Obviously, as the last part of my sentence hints it, I am not blaming the cavalry on either side for refusing any form of fight till one regiment had taken the upper hand (number wise) on the other neither do I think the rule about staying mounted in all-charge should be re-written. It makes perfect sense and there wouldn't be much point in having cavalry in the first place if you force them to drop all of their advantages as soon as the round gets tense. I am only trying to demonstrate that in matches where both coalitions are on a somewhat even play-ground, the tactics that must be used in order to guarantee the win are simply not enjoyable, at least from the perspective of the infantry.

Now I would still argue the better team won last night. We (IVe) could have at least guaranteed a draw if it wasn't for the huge mental breakdown/tactical mistake/lack of communication (delete as appropriate) from our leadership in the opening round of the second half. From that point on, I believe we lost ourselves the match as the Team 9 coalition was simply way too experienced/skill to let such an opportunity run away from them. Good game, good luck for next and hopefully we'll get you next time.

PS: @Erik As a golden rule for next time, I would argue it's part of the leaders' responsibilities to ensure they are playing with the correct numbers at all times and that the ref(s) should only have to be held accountable for reminding the regiments of the balance that must be observed, not doing the maths for them in the first place. I think you will agree with it's neither fair nor right to expect a solo ref to be checking the numbers of each regiment at the beginning of each round when he has a lot of other things to take care of.

You're right but as a hussar, and I think it was the same for 4e, engaging sooner against stacked infantery and cavalry is goddamn difficult/suicidal, so we have to wait for big lines to engage first, all this leads often to excessive delay

Offline Enderby

  • Second Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 128
  • Damien Romero / 4e Huss Since the creation
    • View Profile
  • Nick: 4e_Huss_CvlVt_Enderby
  • Side: Neutral
Re: | NWBC | Season 5 | Match-week 1
« Reply #216 on: March 08, 2022, 01:24:29 pm »
Spoiler
Love a bit of Kubus slander but good on you for reffing a big comp event solo, I wouldn't have the balls to do it myself.

Respect 💖
[close]
Thank you Kubus for accepting to take care of our match. You did your best and that's what matters in the end regardless of the few hiccups.

Can't stress enough how messages like this are important to balance out some stuff that was written last night. I don't blame anybody, in the heat of the match it's hard to refrain yourself when you are facing questionable decisions. But anyone who experienced referring an NW match (in such a complex format especially) can relate how hard it is for one individual to keep an eye on everything that's happening so as a reference for next time, the slightest touch of empathy shown during and/or straight after the match usually goes a long way. Remember that some banter on TS within your private sphere does not equal +20 messages that - although taken alone wouldn't carry much weight - can be interpreted as rather offensive/aggressive when added up.



About the match itself, I won't lie, I didn't necessarily have a good time but it was still as competitive as it gets. The first round could have set the tone for a really fast & aggro playstyle on both sides but the following ones showed exactly the contrary. From my perspective, the whole encounter can be summed up by both cavalry regiments having the potential to be decisive in the late round, so whoever managed to keep most of it alive was ensured to have a large advantage in the final fight. This led to very delayed rounds, almost no enjoyable (brawly, evenly chaotic) melees on either side and pushed the 'run away, shoot & delay tactics until all charge was called' to an extent that was not particularly entertaining from the infantry perspective. The all-charge itself was no fun-saviour either as we ended up getting circled by cavalry on pretty much every occasion, which for anyone who played competitive cavalry for a time, was the equivalent of giving 25+ dismounted heavies short lances and asking the hussars 'go kill them but please don't take too much time'.

Obviously, as the last part of my sentence hints it, I am not blaming the cavalry on either side for refusing any form of fight till one regiment had taken the upper hand (number wise) on the other neither do I think the rule about staying mounted in all-charge should be re-written. It makes perfect sense and there wouldn't be much point in having cavalry in the first place if you force them to drop all of their advantages as soon as the round gets tense. I am only trying to demonstrate that in matches where both coalitions are on a somewhat even play-ground, the tactics that must be used in order to guarantee the win are simply not enjoyable, at least from the perspective of the infantry.

Now I would still argue the better team won last night. We (IVe) could have at least guaranteed a draw if it wasn't for the huge mental breakdown/tactical mistake/lack of communication (delete as appropriate) from our leadership in the opening round of the second half. From that point on, I believe we lost ourselves the match as the Team 9 coalition was simply way too experienced/skill to let such an opportunity run away from them. Good game, good luck for next and hopefully we'll get you next time.

PS: @Erik As a golden rule for next time, I would argue it's part of the leaders' responsibilities to ensure they are playing with the correct numbers at all times and that the ref(s) should only have to be held accountable for reminding the regiments of the balance that must be observed, not doing the maths for them in the first place. I think you will agree with it's neither fair nor right to expect a solo ref to be checking the numbers of each regiment at the beginning of each round when he has a lot of other things to take care of.

You're right but as a hussar, and I think it was the same for 4e, engaging sooner against stacked infantery and cavalry is goddamn difficult/suicidal, so we have to wait for big lines to engage first, all this leads often to excessive delay

Totally agree with LaSalle., It's suicidal to face a inf player face to face or against stacked infantery with the extension of the bayonet, it's like a spear, it's lost in advance. :(

For Erik and numbers, we didn't watch all 30 seconds, but to be honest, it's not just one rider who will make the difference, since you always outnumbered us, from round 2 we put in spec, we didn't do it on purpose, You know that we don't need that, But you are right to point it out.

GG to the admin and to all participants !
« Last Edit: March 08, 2022, 02:22:12 pm by Enderby »

Offline Dusbled

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 1429
  • Squadron Corporal Major of 45thN
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Saphyro
  • Side: Neutral
Re: | NWBC | Season 5 | Match-week 1
« Reply #217 on: March 08, 2022, 02:47:53 pm »
NWBC has always been "waiting for allcharge" sadly :(

Offline LaSalle

  • Sergeant Major
  • *
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
Re: | NWBC | Season 5 | Match-week 1
« Reply #218 on: March 08, 2022, 02:52:00 pm »
Spoiler
Love a bit of Kubus slander but good on you for reffing a big comp event solo, I wouldn't have the balls to do it myself.

Respect 💖
[close]
Thank you Kubus for accepting to take care of our match. You did your best and that's what matters in the end regardless of the few hiccups.

Can't stress enough how messages like this are important to balance out some stuff that was written last night. I don't blame anybody, in the heat of the match it's hard to refrain yourself when you are facing questionable decisions. But anyone who experienced referring an NW match (in such a complex format especially) can relate how hard it is for one individual to keep an eye on everything that's happening so as a reference for next time, the slightest touch of empathy shown during and/or straight after the match usually goes a long way. Remember that some banter on TS within your private sphere does not equal +20 messages that - although taken alone wouldn't carry much weight - can be interpreted as rather offensive/aggressive when added up.



About the match itself, I won't lie, I didn't necessarily have a good time but it was still as competitive as it gets. The first round could have set the tone for a really fast & aggro playstyle on both sides but the following ones showed exactly the contrary. From my perspective, the whole encounter can be summed up by both cavalry regiments having the potential to be decisive in the late round, so whoever managed to keep most of it alive was ensured to have a large advantage in the final fight. This led to very delayed rounds, almost no enjoyable (brawly, evenly chaotic) melees on either side and pushed the 'run away, shoot & delay tactics until all charge was called' to an extent that was not particularly entertaining from the infantry perspective. The all-charge itself was no fun-saviour either as we ended up getting circled by cavalry on pretty much every occasion, which for anyone who played competitive cavalry for a time, was the equivalent of giving 25+ dismounted heavies short lances and asking the hussars 'go kill them but please don't take too much time'.

Obviously, as the last part of my sentence hints it, I am not blaming the cavalry on either side for refusing any form of fight till one regiment had taken the upper hand (number wise) on the other neither do I think the rule about staying mounted in all-charge should be re-written. It makes perfect sense and there wouldn't be much point in having cavalry in the first place if you force them to drop all of their advantages as soon as the round gets tense. I am only trying to demonstrate that in matches where both coalitions are on a somewhat even play-ground, the tactics that must be used in order to guarantee the win are simply not enjoyable, at least from the perspective of the infantry.

Now I would still argue the better team won last night. We (IVe) could have at least guaranteed a draw if it wasn't for the huge mental breakdown/tactical mistake/lack of communication (delete as appropriate) from our leadership in the opening round of the second half. From that point on, I believe we lost ourselves the match as the Team 9 coalition was simply way too experienced/skill to let such an opportunity run away from them. Good game, good luck for next and hopefully we'll get you next time.

PS: @Erik As a golden rule for next time, I would argue it's part of the leaders' responsibilities to ensure they are playing with the correct numbers at all times and that the ref(s) should only have to be held accountable for reminding the regiments of the balance that must be observed, not doing the maths for them in the first place. I think you will agree with it's neither fair nor right to expect a solo ref to be checking the numbers of each regiment at the beginning of each round when he has a lot of other things to take care of.

You're right but as a hussar, and I think it was the same for 4e, engaging sooner against stacked infantery and cavalry is goddamn difficult/suicidal, so we have to wait for big lines to engage first, all this leads often to excessive delay

Totally agree with LaSalle., It's suicidal to face a inf player face to face or against stacked infantery with the extension of the bayonet, it's like a spear, it's lost in advance. :(

For Erik and numbers, we didn't watch all 30 seconds, but to be honest, it's not just one rider who will make the difference, since you always outnumbered us, from round 2 we put in spec, we didn't do it on purpose, You know that we don't need that, But you are right to point it out.

GG to the admin and to all participants !

yup agree seems a bit weird to balance cav by comparison with the other team, a max limit players should be enough

Offline John Price

  • Block guys what is this!?
  • General
  • ****
  • Posts: 21392
  • Destroyer of RGL
    • View Profile
  • Side: Union
Re: | NWBC | Season 5 | Match-week 1
« Reply #219 on: March 08, 2022, 03:34:21 pm »
I would say considering there is already a max limit depending on the size of teams, go a step further and say actually if the all charge is called but the cav makes up what looks to be, 40% of the remaining players then have them dismount or something.

Like if its 30v30 but only 5 cav on each side just let them stay mounted. But if its 30v30 and there is 12 cav alive from that, then perhaps yes make them dismount.

Just an idea
Knightmare is from Albania, no?
Sorry, I can't accept this team.

Offline Scottish Unicorn

  • Most Beloved In All Of NW
  • Board Moderator
  • **
  • Posts: 4098
  • Meowing in chat
    • View Profile
    • My Nudes
  • Side: Neutral
Re: | NWBC | Season 5 | Match-week 1
« Reply #220 on: March 08, 2022, 03:35:30 pm »
That's a dumb idea.

Offline Vegi.

  • Where is my stack?!
  • General
  • ****
  • Posts: 8229
  • Divide and Conquer
    • View Profile
  • Nick: King of Stack
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: | NWBC | Season 5 | Match-week 1
« Reply #221 on: March 08, 2022, 03:37:52 pm »
Referee's doing quick maths for that shit
Stop looking at my posts Fietta #RentFree

The Master of stack, the voice of racism.

Offline John Price

  • Block guys what is this!?
  • General
  • ****
  • Posts: 21392
  • Destroyer of RGL
    • View Profile
  • Side: Union
Re: | NWBC | Season 5 | Match-week 1
« Reply #222 on: March 08, 2022, 03:38:45 pm »
That's a dumb idea.
Thank you for the insightful wisdom Mr Unicorn. Care to actually elaborate on what makes it bad in your eyes so we can theorise a better way?
Knightmare is from Albania, no?
Sorry, I can't accept this team.

Offline Enderby

  • Second Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 128
  • Damien Romero / 4e Huss Since the creation
    • View Profile
  • Nick: 4e_Huss_CvlVt_Enderby
  • Side: Neutral
Re: | NWBC | Season 5 | Match-week 1
« Reply #223 on: March 08, 2022, 03:39:03 pm »
I would say considering there is already a max limit depending on the size of teams, go a step further and say actually if the all charge is called but the cav makes up what looks to be, 40% of the remaining players then have them dismount or something.

Like if its 30v30 but only 5 cav on each side just let them stay mounted. But if its 30v30 and there is 12 cav alive from that, then perhaps yes make them dismount.

Just an idea

I also think that the infantry should lay down their rifles ? Come on, it's not good idea. This the game, why make it complicated ?

Offline John Price

  • Block guys what is this!?
  • General
  • ****
  • Posts: 21392
  • Destroyer of RGL
    • View Profile
  • Side: Union
Re: | NWBC | Season 5 | Match-week 1
« Reply #224 on: March 08, 2022, 03:39:55 pm »
Well then whats the better alternative other than just complaining that all cav have to dismount during the all charge?

I'm not saying thats what should be implemented, actions are created from ideas and thats what it was.

If we aren't going to actually do something about it, then can we make a new rule that bans you guys from complaining about it?
Knightmare is from Albania, no?
Sorry, I can't accept this team.