Well tg is completelly different history than 1v1s, can't compare with wic, but yeah I agree with you.Same with a civpool when announced beforehand. You can prepare strategies but with the added benefit of seeing some other civs. The clownish mayans, goths, turks set used in MoArena is obviously not a great example.
WiC had civ sets, losing team could pick their set first. Arabia invitational had forced mirror matches, 1per set is not all that bad.
maybe cuz of the pathing?I find it fascinating how franks were one of the top picks on arabia before DE and now are an complete afterthought.
Melee units are a catastrophe on DE.I find it fascinating how franks were one of the top picks on arabia before DE and now are an complete afterthought.
There is at least one problem with this, although unlikely to actually happen. Say you had a system where each player wrote their chosen civ for the next game on a paper and handed it to nili so he could make sure there was no mirror match and give the OK for the game to start. If there was a mirror matchup, that civ would be banned from being picked (at least for that map.) So the potential arises for players to somehow choose mirror match ups 35 times in a row and be unable to play even one game.What about hidden pick no repeat and mirror civ picks get banned? This allows for no mirror matchups and also free pick—best of both worlds. This also balances out the civ wins on some maps.
And another problem, a player may intentionally try to get a mirror match up to ban the opponent's favorite civ for that map.
One option to avoid mirrors comfortably could be to make it so players have to choose 2 civs each for a map.
--
In my opinion the variety of maps leads directly to the lack of variety in civilization choice. As long as players see a clear-cut "best" civ or handful of best civs, and as long as there are no bans in play, they will pick those same civs on repeat until the end of time.Hidden pick no repeat has been working NAC3, but there is also variety maps.
Just don't make unbalanced maps where a single civ is overpowered if you don't want one civ to be overpowered? It's easy... no nomad start, no a million sheep, no tons of hunt, no a forest of berries, no lakes with shorefish everywhere, stick to standard resources. Is it that hard? If you still want those maps, at least don't be surprised when chinese, britons, mongols, franks, indians crush any opposition.
In terms of a lan it's pretty simple, not only you have the POV's you can also have overlay guy talking while theyre in the lobby.But what I dont like about the idea is that you would need to create some new program for this kind of civ picking (so players wont have to actually launch a million games), and then casters would have to have the program as well, and then the players would be asked to wait until the casters are ready before they start picking civs, and then it might end up being almost as time-consuming as civ drafting, as you would basically have a mini-draft between every single game.
1.
I dont like the idea where we force players to play Turks, Viet, goths, Teutons or other bad civs. I cant even imagine that giving great close games, not to speak that players often said they really dont want that. I mean srsly, who enjoys playing ranked games with **** civs?
2.
I do think there are potential civs, that are fun to play allow for good gameplay, that simply are not quite in the top tier. For arabia maybe: Burmese, Portuguese, Byzantines, Indians, Berbers. I mean even Franks, Slavs, Vikings were hardly seen. Those are all civs that can provide great games and be fun to play.
3.
I also think whatever system is implemented should be reasonably easy. Don't over complicate things, with 20 ifs and else and exceptions etc... This ends up in confusion, and like e.g. in Two Pools, in a lot of time spent on that.
So how about simply increasing bans? In the spirit of Banning Mongols on Valley, one could ban Aztecs, Chinese, Mayans, Persians on arabia?
Hm while writing this out, I already dont like the idea anymore really...