2023 AoE 2 Nations Cup [$18,622 Prize Pool]

Dear AoE 2 community, this topic (Nations Cup Waiting Room) has hurt me a lot. In summer 2020, I already tried to give the community something similar with the 2020 AOElympics while waiting. Many of us believed the follow-up of the great 2017 Nations Cup would come soon, in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022... But it never came.

Therefore, I am offering you my approach. I will organise the 2023 4v4 Nations Cup, starting in around 5 weeks. Registration will be open until Saturday, January 28, 20 GMT. The qualification stage will begin in the following week.
This will be a tournament for fun and prestige. However, if anyone wants to contribute to a prize pool, you can do so via the tournament's Matcherino page: https://matcherino.com/t/nc23 where you also can see the current donation sum at all times.

---

The exact rules and settings will follow soon, but some important key points are:

• The main event will consist of a group stage (8x4 teams) and a double-elimination knockout stage.
• Max. 4 teams from one nation can enter the main event.
• Teams consist of 4-10 players, substition and addition of backup players will be possible at certain stages of the tournament.
• When a team registers, they have to give list of up to 5 maps which they want to have in the tournament. The maps with the most points will be added to the map pool. So you decide a part of the map pool!
• How exactly the qualifying phase works will depend on the number of registered teams; more about that later.
• A Silver League for teams that don't qualify for the 32-team group stage will happen, if we have enough interested teams.

Staff currently are @Huehuecoyotl22, @enmipho, @paradox303, @welcometorapture and @Akkal.

Any questions and discussion, as well as the registration can start on the 2023 Nations Cup Discord now: https://discord.gg/5fBkzfqHhb

Everybody is welcome!

---

 

Can you please count how many 0xx or below 1k people signed up for this tourny so far? I guarantee there is something wrong with the elementary school math you grew up with, and I recommend a refresher course on addition. If the fact that influenza liked your comment did not tip you off on how **** this take is you might wish to learn other things as well.

Alternatively, you may want to consider that I, or anyone else for that matter, could be making up an exaggerated example in order to illustrate a point in a mildly amusing manner. For the purpose of this discussion players might as well be 18xx and the logic will be the exact same. Of course, if you couldn't realise that on your own then I doubt you'll get it now, and I don't think I can put that down to your education. Fortunately for me, I could not possibly care any less.

 

Alternatively, you may want to consider that I, or anyone else for that matter, could be making up an exaggerated example in order to illustrate a point in a mildly amusing manner. For the purpose of this discussion players might as well be 18xx and the logic will be the exact same. Of course, if you couldn't realise that on your own then I doubt you'll get it now, and I don't think I can put that down to your education. Fortunately for me, I could not possibly care any less.

So why make the exaggerated example? Likely because you know your argument does not sound nearly as convincing, either that or you have problems with putting together a proper argument. Also, I do not think the opinion of people more likely to lose should matter less as they are participants of the tournament just the same. This is my last reply as I tend to not engage with people not willing or, be capable of arguing in good faith. The reason I did so in the first place is to hopefully make you think that maybe what you said is massively dumb, but I clearly failed at this.

 

How anyone can be against making teamwork easier in a team game tournament is beyond me...

If the real reason is because you are worried about the laming then just use that as the reason not some bullshit about noobfying the game.

 

i wonder why the balance changes are discussed only between selected members of the community which are mostly pro players instead of having community polls to decide the fate of the game

 

i wonder why the balance changes are discussed only between selected members of the community which are mostly pro players instead of having community polls to decide the fate of the game

I dont know if this is sarcasm or not but balanced changes also ideally should be voted on by active players(some # of games threshold probably).. PROs have a better understanding of the game and can spot things which are broken but they dont necessarily know what makes the game more fun...

As for shared exploration, I think its a good idea to try out in a tournament, folks like dogao, nicov off course can feel its noobifies the game and it does but IMO it gives some of the lesser teams more chances especially those who does not have buttoned up communication owing to years of playing together like Arg and Brazil etc.

 

So why make the exaggerated example? Likely because you know your argument does not sound nearly as convincing, either that or you have problems with putting together a proper argument. Also, I do not think the opinion of people more likely to lose should matter less as they are participants of the tournament just the same. This is my last reply as I tend to not engage with people not willing or, be capable of arguing in good faith. The reason I did so in the first place is to hopefully make you think that maybe what you said is massively dumb, but I clearly failed at this.

Well, I usually wouldn't reply to a ***** whose first interaction was to try and insult somebody they don't agree with, so in a way I guess we both failed!

 

How anyone can be against making teamwork easier in a team game tournament is beyond me...

If the real reason is because you are worried about the laming then just use that as the reason not some bullshit about noobfying the game.

How anyone can be against keeping communication as an esential part of a teamgame in a team game tournament is beyond me...

Recently I have been playing tgs a lot with my arg friends at night and we barely need to talk about the game lol. Most of the times we just chat about other random stuff. The game doesn't feel exciting at all being played this way. You don't really have much to say, just scroll your screen all the way to your opponent's base or his enemy's and see whats going on.

How hard is it to keep shared vision as a thing in your BF community and leave the rest of the maps alone?

 

For the purpose of this discussion players might as well be 18xx and the logic will be the exact same.

And where do you draw the line?
First it was "let the players vote", then it was "let the players vote, but not the 9xx players", now it's "let the players vote, but not the 18xx players", honestly, where do you draw the line? Or do you want to exclude Players untill you get the result you want?
In a Tournament with 100+ Players participating letting only a small minority vote makes little sense to me, especially since we have a TG-Tournament with big skill-differences inbetween teams since they're nation-based.

 

It's not because they are from Botswana, as much as you might like to imply this is somehow a race issue, but because a large number of low Elo players signing up together (which is what I explicitly said and you knowingly omitted, focusing on the countries instead), however unlikely they might be to win the event, can have a much higher impact on the settings of the entire event than a team that is actually competitive, aims to win the tournament, and whose members (at least some of them) derive their income from prize money.

I didn't mean to imply it as a race/country issue in any way. Apologies if it came out that way.

What I meant is that every vote should matter equally irrespective of whether that team has a chance to win or not. This notion that pro players or teams with a chance to win should have a higher say on how the game should be played seems absurd.

We also need to remember that there are countries with multiple regional languages (India for instance). Shared exploration makes it easier to communicate. From a competitive standpoint, it makes the tourney more balanced.

 

 

We will continue the discussion. But what is sure, is that the number of players per team does not matter. The google form which was posted today requires exactly one vote per registered team.

 

And where do you draw the line?
First it was "let the players vote", then it was "let the players vote, but not the 9xx players", now it's "let the players vote, but not the 18xx players", honestly, where do you draw the line? Or do you want to exclude Players untill you get the result you want?
In a Tournament with 100+ Players participating letting only a small minority vote makes little sense to me, especially since we have a TG-Tournament with big skill-differences inbetween teams since they're nation-based.

If you're asking me directly, then you've either not read my posts or are willingly misrepresenting my position. I wouldn't put settings up for a vote at all. Not everything in life has to be democratic. If people absolutely want to run a poll on it, then at the very least have the settings be voted after the qualifier again, among the teams who are actually in it to win it, to see if those teams want it removed. Those two things I believe I stated quite clearly.

I didn't mean to imply it as a race/country issue in any way. Apologies if it came out that way.

Apology accepted, no harm done. It's easy for stuff to get mixed up in a nation based tournament after all.

As for the rest of your message, and I also address this to the German guy I quoted above, I disagree that we should take the opinion of everyone equally on the settings of a tournament. By this I do not mean that we should disregard every opinion under a certain Elo just because, or that people under a certain Elo can't come up with interesting ideas (most tournament organisers and admins have an Elo well below 2k yet some of their tournaments grew around interesting concepts they came up with). I also have no qualms with changes to the game that cater to the singleplayer community, campaigns, scenarios, even to lower Elo ranked games. Everyone who bought the game deserves to be taken to account (especially if you intend to sell them DLCs afterwards...). I'm not averse to trying new settings, either. But a tournament, especially once that aims for S tier and which takes the mantle of previous Nations Cups, should aim for the highest standard of gameplay, not what will be most pleasurable for the majority of the participants, therefore I will of course value the opinion of, say, dogao, a lot higher than that of a player hovering around 18xx. Similarly, I do not believe we should make everything more "balanced" in the sense of trying to narrow the gap between teams by altering the settings. It's pretty clear that our opinions are not compatible on this issue.

 

Please stop comparing BF to other maps. It's a safe space map that's always been explored. What works for BF will not be the same for other maps.

I don't care for allied vision on TG ladder, though I don't like it. But for tournaments, you have to identify there is a skill gap with communication. And that's a weak ass poll Paradox...some liberals said Yes and we have to treat it as unanimous. Others have expressed why your poll doesn't make any sense so stop the cap.

 

Please stop comparing BF to other maps. It's a safe space map that's always been explored. What works for BF will not be the same for other maps.

I don't care for allied vision on TG ladder, though I don't like it. But for tournaments, you have to identify there is a skill gap with communication. And that's a weak ass poll Paradox...some liberals said Yes and we have to treat it as unanimous. Others have expressed why your poll doesn't make any sense so stop the cap.

 

How anyone can be against keeping communication as an esential part of a teamgame in a team game tournament is beyond me...

Recently I have been playing tgs a lot with my arg friends at night and we barely need to talk about the game lol. Most of the times we just chat about other random stuff. The game doesn't feel exciting at all being played this way. You don't really have much to say, just scroll your screen all the way to your opponent's base or his enemy's and see whats going on.

How hard is it to keep shared vision as a thing in your BF community and leave the rest of the maps alone?

Your argument on communication is flawed so much it is not even funny. Where did I say at any point that I was against keeping communication as an essential part? (That is right... I Didn't, whoops)

Giving ladder games as an example of why communication will be worse is laughable as no one is playing the team game ladder the same way they would in a tournament, and that is just your experience as you put it 'playing with friends'.

Effective communication is far more likely to be improved and seen with shared exploration then without..
It actually gives an increase in the level of gameplay as seen in the community you seem to love to mock these days (for someone who played thousands of bf on voobly)

 

Why put up a silly poll? It's a serious tournament, hopefully this time you will punish teams for not showing up on time or scheduling correctly. Instead of allowing teams to play all of their games the last week of your tournament.. Either you have a solid poll or you have nothing.

 

Why put up a silly poll? It's a serious tournament, hopefully this time you will punish teams for not showing up on time or scheduling correctly. Instead of allowing teams to play all of their games the last week of your tournament.. Either you have a solid poll or you have nothing.

I see the first hit of copium wasn't enough. Better take another hit.

 

I found Nicov on youtube:

Watch a man react to modern technology after 44 years in prison

Otis Johnson was recently released from prison after being locked away for 44 years. He was 25 when his sentence started, and 69 when he was released.On the ...

youtu.be

 

I see the first hit of copium wasn't enough. Better take another hit.

Boomer
It's hard to respond when you know what I'm stating is factual. Half-ass job,Half-ass poll, Half-ass admin.

 

I count 1.5 asses so far. That's a lot of donkey.

 

Boomer
It's hard to respond when you know what I'm stating is factual. Half-ass job,Half-ass poll, Half-ass admin.

Being a half ass is better than being a full ass I suppose Have a great evening!

 

Being a half ass is better than being a full ass I suppose Have a great evening!

I'd rather have your full ass, half would be a shame

 

I found Nicov on youtube:

Watch a man react to modern technology after 44 years in prison

Otis Johnson was recently released from prison after being locked away for 44 years. He was 25 when his sentence started, and 69 when he was released.On the ...

youtu.be

My man, I have fully supported MQ/shiftqueue/shared vision (in ranked games)/DLC with new civs while I have played aok with 12 civs more than 20 years ago. So if your goal is to be a clown who wants to farm some likes at least use an accurate video/meme. Or maybe, just maybe, you can make an effort and provide some argument on why do we need this feature in a tournament? We have never needed it in all these years.

Asking your teammate to flare for help/attack while doing basic build orders seems to demand too much multitask nowadays, it seems!

Your argument on communication is flawed so much it is not even funny. Where did I say at any point that I was against keeping communication as an essential part? (That is right... I Didn't, whoops)

Giving ladder games as an example of why communication will be worse is laughable as no one is playing the team game ladder the same way they would in a tournament, and that is just your experience as you put it 'playing with friends'.

Effective communication is far more likely to be improved and seen with shared exploration then without..
It actually gives an increase in the level of gameplay as seen in the community you seem to love to mock these days (for someone who played thousands of bf on voobly)

And you played multiple nations cup, and team game tournaments with NaBs, a team well-remembered to have an exceptional teamwork and strategies... while in 2023 you want to reduce most of the team communication in the first 20 minutes. Actually funny.

I don't mock the BF community, I still play some rage forest every once in a while. I only mocks clowns who want to dictate & impose drastic changes to something that has always worked well in all these years, while making fun of those (like me) who believe things are being pushed way too far.

 

if your goal is to be a clown who wants to farm some likes at least use an accurate video/meme.

Relax, it was a joke. It's clearly not actually you in the video.

 

Your argument on communication is flawed so much it is not even funny. Where did I say at any point that I was against keeping communication as an essential part? (That is right... I Didn't, whoops)

Giving ladder games as an example of why communication will be worse is laughable as no one is playing the team game ladder the same way they would in a tournament, and that is just your experience as you put it 'playing with friends'.

Effective communication is far more likely to be improved and seen with shared exploration then without..
It actually gives an increase in the level of gameplay as seen in the community you seem to love to mock these days (for someone who played thousands of bf on voobly)

By introducing allied vision you need less communication to achieve the same level of teamwork. This is obvious, you don't even need to flare anymore. Someone just says they need help and you instantly see where and how to help them. Not only that, you can get information of whether or not you should even go to help. Sometimes your army is not strong enough to clear the attack so you are better off counter attacking.

Teamwork will undoubtedly be improved, cuz any difficulties with communication are now completely trivialized with allied vision.

It's ok though, there are no surprises here that bf noobs are leading the way to make the game as boring and easy as possible.

And you played multiple nations cup, and team game tournaments with NaBs, a team well-remembered to have an exceptional teamwork and strategies... while in 2023 you want to reduce most of the team communication in the first 20 minutes. Actually funny.

let's be honest tho did nick even play in a single important game for the nabs team? surely a liability