[KotD3] General Feedback

[Chrazini]

Announcement | Discussion | Registration | Handbook | Questions & Answers | Official Map | Brackets | Discord

General Feedback
If you have any sort of feedback for this event or the "King of the Desert" series as a whole, please share your thoughts here. We are always looking to improve going forward, so all inputs, both positive and negative, are very welcome.​

 

[RobChang]

I am so hyped. However, for this being the major tournament of the year we all are hungering for, I find it worrysome, that laming is not restricted in any way. We saw it in the HC3 finals how dangerous the combination of laming allowed and a very huge top-heavy prizepool is and can destroy the highlight of the tournament for a lot. I can see that you dont want to remove laming at all, because for some its part of the experience as well, but I would like to see some balance of this kinda high-reward low-risk style of play.

You can address it a lot, but I think best idea to play around would be give any boar a circle around his spawn location and when it reaches the border of that circle it will return to spawn position. The radius of that circle should be at minimum distance boar spawn - player tc boar belongs to, but not as much that you can lame a boar across the map. Only when players spawn very close it can be ok to happen, but then the counter-lame is also more possible. At that will be very rarely. Otherwise, if your scout lames a boar it means if you wanna have the additional meat you gotta go forward with vills to kill the boar there. But then your vills are exposed and far away from the tc so you dont have optimal yield of boar meat but still some neat extra income. Vills can die here and the relative balance of meat won/lost is lowered or needed to be bought with a fwd mill.

Also (not relevant) but I think its also more realisitic, that a boar has an area which it tries to protect and doesnt leave his children alone to be lured into a tc on the other end of the continent, just because its aggro when you come too close.

I know it is hard to agree on that topic, some people like Laming simulator tournaments, but I just wanted to address my worries somehow and discuss it.

 

[Chrazini]

I am so hyped. However, for this being the major tournament of the year we all are hungering for, I find it worrysome, that laming is not restricted in any way. We saw it in the HC3 finals how dangerous the combination of laming allowed and a very huge top-heavy prizepool is and can destroy the highlight of the tournament for a lot. I can see that you dont want to remove laming at all, because for some its part of the experience as well, but I would like to see some balance of this kinda high-reward low-risk style of play.

You can address it a lot, but I think best idea to play around would be give any boar a circle around his spawn location and when it reaches the border of that circle it will return to spawn position. The radius of that circle should be at minimum distance boar spawn - player tc boar belongs to, but not as much that you can lame a boar across the map. Only when players spawn very close it can be ok to happen, but then the counter-lame is also more possible. At that will be very rarely. Otherwise, if your scout lames a boar it means if you wanna have the additional meat you gotta go forward with vills to kill the boar there. But then your vills are exposed and far away from the tc so you dont have optimal yield of boar meat but still some neat extra income. Vills can die here and the relative balance of meat won/lost is lowered or needed to be bought with a fwd mill.

Also (not relevant) but I think its also more realisitic, that a boar has an area which it tries to protect and doesnt leave his children alone to be lured into a tc on the other end of the continent, just because its aggro when you come too close.

I know it is hard to agree on that topic, some people like Laming simulator tournaments, but I just wanted to address my worries somehow and discuss it.

Thanks for the feedback - there are definitely some good points.
We don't want laming to dictate the games, so voicing your concern is great. While we're probably not going to ban laming outright, it's something that we can most likely influence in various other ways.

 

[nimanoe]

Could you elaborate on how the seedings will be done? For example which tournaments will be taken into account, how much do you value current rating vs highest rating and how much does previous tournament performance impact the seeding?

I feel like it's better to exactly show how you will seed the players, so that you can't be accused of bias towards or against players.

 

[DracKeN]

1) Why is Ro64 Bo3? I can only find 2 reasons: to be able to cast every single series and so that Ro64 will cause upsets. None of it looks too valid, its draft (possibility of playing vs good counter civs), there are no restarts and laming allowed, it can be way too luck based.
2) "A maximum of 24 player’s seed will be determined by using previous tournament performances."

The tournaments taken into account at this moment is King of the Desert 2, Hidden Cup 3, Red Bul Wololo 1 and Red Bull Wololo 2. Its impact is 100% - the ladder is not taken into account for players where tournament performance is relevant.
The weight of the current rating and highest achieved rating will be 50/50.

I dont see the reason why we need to keep defending the top spots like this, the players who achieved such results should be on top of the ladder before KotD anyways and that should show their shape, the level of practice - not tournaments played on a different game, 2 with a brand new game mode and different maps and 1 with a big mappoll of non ara like maps. Instead of taking care about top24 and not caring about anybody else, the better approach would be making restrictions against abusing the 1v1 rating (the known trick high tg rating - 1 win vs 1000 makes you 2k5) and then leave it to players to get and defend their seeds.
3) "More elevation will now generate around the player’s initial town centre."
That only helps camping (especially in tournaments), less action and then extremely aggresive approaches. Doesnt make any sense.
4) Restriction to laming would also help the game - once again with no restarts, but I guess that would be asking too much.

Regardless Iam very happy for the tournament and Iam looking forward to it, but Iam pretty sure addresing those things would make the tournament better.

 

[Chrazini]

1) Why is Ro64 Bo3? I can only find 2 reasons: to be able to cast every single series and so that Ro64 will cause upsets. None of it looks too valid, its draft (possibility of playing vs good counter civs), there are no restarts and laming allowed, it can be way too luck based.
2) "A maximum of 24 player’s seed will be determined by using previous tournament performances."

I dont see the reason why we need to keep defending the top spots like this, the players who achieved such results should be on top of the ladder before KotD anyways and that should show their shape, the level of practice - not tournaments played on a different game, 2 with a brand new game mode and different maps and 1 with a big mappoll of non ara like maps. Instead of taking care about top24 and not caring about anybody else, the better approach would be making restrictions against abusing the 1v1 rating (the known trick high tg rating - 1 win vs 1000 makes you 2k5) and then leave it to players to get and defend their seeds.
3) "More elevation will now generate around the player’s initial town centre."
That only helps camping (especially in tournaments), less action and then extremely aggresive approaches. Doesnt make any sense.
4) Restriction to laming would also help the game - once again with no restarts, but I guess that would be asking too much.

Regardless Iam very happy for the tournament and Iam looking forward to it, but Iam pretty sure addresing those things would make the tournament better.

1. Because it's a lot of games to play and a lot of games to cast. I already stated that we're looking into making laming less effective in the tournament, so it doesn't dictate the game in a negative way. We don't believe best of three is luck based at all.
2. The reason being that the current ladder is too unpredictable and too unreliable. It doesn't paint an accurate picture of how the players are actually ranked.
   Using tournament performances seemed to us as the most objective and most reliable method.
3. From our tests, this doesn't seem to be the case at all. - in fact, it shows the opposite.
4. Explained above.

 

[echtschade]

I am really hyped for the tournament and looking forward to the GSL format. I am not happy with the semifinals. Should be imo A/B vs C/D.

Right now, this situation could happen:

GSL winner bracket final: A1 vs A2
Quarterfinal: A1 vs B2
Semifinal: A1 vs A2

So you could play against a player whom you played already two rounds before... They shouldn't face each other again so early

 

[Chrazini]

I am really hyped for the tournament and looking forward to the GSL format. I am not happy with the semifinals. Should be imo A/B vs C/D.

Right now, this situation could happen:

GSL winner bracket final: A1 vs A2
Quarterfinal: A1 vs B2
Semifinal: A1 vs A2

So you could play against a player whom you played already two rounds before... They shouldn't face each other again so early

With the current setup, it's technically possible, but it should be extremely unlikely.

 

[Tarsiz]

I'm really not sold on the BO11 format for the final. It is really long (6 games needed to win), and it's gonna be repetitive since it's always the same map.

I feel like anything longer than best of 7 (or best of 9 rarely) is not as competitive - although we just saw a bo21 end up in a 11-10 result. The worst example of that was NAC2 with the disastrous quarters and semis with 3 5-0 (out of 4 total matches...). That being said the players being closer than ever on level might justify such a long format.

I however think the BO9 format of KotD 1 & 2 is better than BO11.

 

[Rey_Fer]

There's something I don't get about the GSL groups format. Isn't it more accurate to play a Round Robin (only one more game per group) and maybe make it Bo4 so that ties are possible and every game counts?

The way it is, I can see this happening:

Stage 1
A vs B (A wins)
C vs D (C wins)

Stage 2
A vs C (C wins and promotes)
B vs D (B wins and D gets eliminated)

Stage 3
A vs B, repeated match

GSL winner bracket final: A1 vs A2
Quarterfinal: A1 vs B2
Semifinal: A1 vs A2

Combined with this, we could potentially have 3 times the same match in a tournament and I don't see it that unlikely, in the top 16 (specially in the top 5 to top 12) many players can take games from each other every day.

The second thing can easily be solved taking the same brackets seen in the World Cup. Seeding it allright you can still assure that Liereyy and Viper will be in different brakets, just let them be Seed 1 & 2 and go to groups A & B that they should win

 

[RobChang]

With the current setup, it's technically possible, but it should be extremely unlikely.

Why rely on luck though it not to happen, if you could avoid it. I think the seeding issue in BoA2 was also because of not counting in that there could be upsets since they were unlikely to happen. But they happened in the end and had their impact.

Stage 1
A vs B (A wins)
C vs D (C wins)

Stage 2
A vs C (C wins and promotes)
B vs D (B wins and D gets eliminated)

Stage 3
A vs B, repeated match

I could see that the 5th match in the group only happens if 2nd and 3rd only didnt not play before and if they did then the old result will be carried over, giving those first round matches a bit more impact because they count to proceed in the end and not are just a preliminary and you only need to win the latter two matches of the group to certainly advance.

Ok, maybe thats not useful, because then you only need one win to get into the next stage, but we could imagine something like an advantage for the winner of the 1st round game. Maybe we can also just make the tie-breaker in case they played before a continuation of the 1st series enlarging it from Bo5 to Bo9 and they will carry over the score and played civs from the first match. Just weird ideas.

 

[Double_N]

I am so hyped. However, for this being the major tournament of the year we all are hungering for, I find it worrysome, that laming is not restricted in any way. We saw it in the HC3 finals how dangerous the combination of laming allowed and a very huge top-heavy prizepool is and can destroy the highlight of the tournament for a lot. I can see that you dont want to remove laming at all, because for some its part of the experience as well, but I would like to see some balance of this kinda high-reward low-risk style of play.

You can address it a lot, but I think best idea to play around would be give any boar a circle around his spawn location and when it reaches the border of that circle it will return to spawn position. The radius of that circle should be at minimum distance boar spawn - player tc boar belongs to, but not as much that you can lame a boar across the map. Only when players spawn very close it can be ok to happen, but then the counter-lame is also more possible. At that will be very rarely. Otherwise, if your scout lames a boar it means if you wanna have the additional meat you gotta go forward with vills to kill the boar there. But then your vills are exposed and far away from the tc so you dont have optimal yield of boar meat but still some neat extra income. Vills can die here and the relative balance of meat won/lost is lowered or needed to be bought with a fwd mill.

Also (not relevant) but I think its also more realisitic, that a boar has an area which it tries to protect and doesnt leave his children alone to be lured into a tc on the other end of the continent, just because its aggro when you come too close.

I know it is hard to agree on that topic, some people like Laming simulator tournaments, but I just wanted to address my worries somehow and discuss it.

Don't forget that in HC3 the maps allowed for far easier laming with short distances and fixed positions and that one player apparantly underestimated those chances. Just the facts that KotD is on arabia and that this player won't make this mistake again will make it highly unlikely that you see something like that again.

 

[DracKeN]

2. The reason being that the current ladder is too unpredictable and too unreliable. It doesn't paint an accurate picture of how the players are actually ranked.
Using tournament performances seemed to us as the most objective and most reliable method.

What? The current ladder is the most active it has been in the long time, but its less reliable than a tournament 2 year ago in a different game? So its ok, that if a player has a result in one of the 4 tournaments and he wont practice at all, hell still get a better seed that someone who didnt even participate in the tournaments, but now plays 10h/day and climb way above him in the ladder? Fine, then at least dont make it 24 seeds, otherwise its clearly better to be seed 48 than seed 30.

 

[Rey_Fer]

I could see that the 5th match in the group only happens if 2nd and 3rd only didnt not play before and if they did then the old result will be carried over, giving those first round matches a bit more impact because they count to proceed in the end and not are just a preliminary and you only need to win the latter two matches of the group to certainly advance.

Ok, maybe thats not useful, because then you only need one win to get into the next stage, but we could imagine something like an advantage for the winner of the 1st round game. Maybe we can also just make the tie-breaker in case they played before a continuation of the 1st series enlarging it from Bo5 to Bo9 and they will carry over the score and played civs from the first match. Just weird ideas.

Could you expand on this? I didn't understand it

 

[Miral]

I'm really not sold on the BO11 format for the final. It is really long (6 games needed to win), and it's gonna be repetitive since it's always the same map.

I feel like anything longer than best of 7 (or best of 9 rarely) is not as competitive - although we just saw a bo21 end up in a 11-10 result. The worst example of that was NAC2 with the disastrous quarters and semis with 3 5-0 (out of 4 total matches...). That being said the players being closer than ever on level might justify such a long format.

I however think the BO9 format of KotD 1 & 2 is better than BO11.

I agree with Tarsiz here. I can understand that you wish a long final that it spans the entire sunday afternoon. But I would rather see a BO7/BO9 with good highligh and path of the two finalist before the final and a break during the final with interview of players to give highligh and tought about the first games of the match.
That way to fill the afternoon would be much better for players, casters and spectators imo.

 

[RobChang]

Could you expand on this? I didn't understand it

My first idea was: If A and B rematch in round 3, the winner of the round 1 match (here A) will automatically advance and there is no match. If instead A and D match, they will play regularly. But I dont like this idea, because it would reduce the whole thing of the GSL groups too much.

My other idea was: If A and B rematch after they faced in round 1 before, they will just continue with their round 1 match. Which was Bo5 and for instance with score 3-2 for A. The round 3 match will continue there: So score starts with 3-2 before the first game and they play until someone has 5 wins (Bo9 both combined then) and all civs played in the round 1 match are not to be drafted again in the draft. So the new games will have different matchups and the first game between the two is not entirely useless for the advancement.

Another advantage for a possible rematch in round 3 is that the winner of round 1 gets a 1-0 lead and they play standard Bo5 but also civ wise continue where they stopped. So civs drafted and played are out and such to make it less a repetition of the round 1match but a continuation with the possibility to come back.

 

[eC_Gurke]

Bo11 final seems to long. Bo7 feels like just right, even Bo9 is already very long, imo.

 

[Rey_Fer]

Bo11 final seems to long. Bo7 feels like just right, even Bo9 is already very long, imo.

Bo9 is a minimum for me. It's a grand final aferall.

interview of players to give highligh and tought about the first games of the match.

doesn't seem professional to break the player's concentration in the middle of a match

My first idea was: If A and B rematch in round 3, the winner of the round 1 match (here A) will automatically advance and there is no match. If instead A and D match, they will play regularly. But I dont like this idea, because it would reduce the whole thing of the GSL groups too much.

My other idea was: If A and B rematch after they faced in round 1 before, they will just continue with their round 1 match. Which was Bo5 and for instance with score 3-2 for A. The round 3 match will continue there: So score starts with 3-2 before the first game and they play until someone has 5 wins (Bo9 both combined then) and all civs played in the round 1 match are not to be drafted again in the draft. So the new games will have different matchups and the first game between the two is not entirely useless for the advancement.

Another advantage for a possible rematch in round 3 is that the winner of round 1 gets a 1-0 lead and they play standard Bo5 but also civ wise continue where they stopped. So civs drafted and played are out and such to make it less a repetition of the round 1match but a continuation with the possibility to come back.

mmmmm ok I see your point. However, I see it'd give too much advantage to the winner in previous rounds which isn't something really good.

What I fear the most is that we will have repeated match-ups

 

[Miral]

Bo9 is a minimum for me. It's a grand final aferall.


doesn't seem professional to break the player's concentration in the middle of a match


mmmmm ok I see your point. However, I see it'd give too much advantage to the winner in previous rounds which isn't something really good.

What I fear the most is that we will have repeated match-ups

I meant disqualified players. Sorry I did not make myself clear. As in Wololo2 Viper or Yo would have come and give highlight about the remaining civ, what made a player win a given map etc ...

 

[Jean_souz]

Hey, I know it may not be so important since it is not going to affect who is going to win, but RBW showed that it is possible to include more players without increasing the length of the tourney. Wouldnt it be possible in KOTD3? I mean, make the top 32 players already qualified for the Ro32 and, then, a simplistic qualify from 33 to 128 - or something like that. I know that this is not something that you would like to stream and will give much more work for the admins, but it is a nice incentive to the community. Congrats for all the hard work and thank you for your job!

 

[Memeluke]

24 players having their spots assigned because of past tournament results is waaaay too many imho. I can see why you don't want theviper or liereyy close to seed 20 or 30, but pretty much everybody else is either gonna be mega high rated in two weeks, or really not worthy of a good seeding anymore. I don't see how is the ladder that inaccurate, if everybody tryhards and basic point exploits get checked by Chrazini... I guess the only hard to detect one is account sharing (but it's equally hard to stop it in real tournaments...).

 

[Rey_Fer]

As I understood it, they qualify through ladder and they can be seeded though tournament results (am I right Chrazini?) although I cannot think of anyone that has achieved consistently good results in KOTD2, HC2, RBW1&2 and can't get int the top 64

 

[Chrazini]

There's a lot of great points and arguments in this thread, so we're going over how players progress from the group stage into the quarterfinals once again. Thanks for the very valueable feedback - we'll most likely make an update later today.

 

[Qulala]

regarding te seeding: i always felt that manual seeding by a few people (casters/few players/admin) gave the best result, maybe use that a bit for the seeding of the players who dont have a lot of tournament games.
The cuttoff by ladder rating/tournament etc, (so that there is no conflict about missing the cut) but once you have the top 64, a bit manual seeding for the right order?)

and imo the prize diistrubution could be a bit more balanced? i know its already top 16, but would love to see 250-400 for top 16, for example, the top 2 earn 52% of the prizepool. its a bit top heavy for me

 

[MembTV]

regarding te seeding: i always felt that manual seeding by a few people (casters/few players/admin) gave the best result, maybe use that a bit for the seeding of the players who dont have a lot of tournament games.
The cuttoff by ladder rating/tournament etc, (so that there is no conflict about missing the cut) but once you have the top 64, a bit manual seeding for the right order?)

and imo the prize diistrubution could be a bit more balanced? i know its already top 16, but would love to see 250-400 for top 16, for example, the top 2 earn 52% of the prizepool. its a bit top heavy for me

top 16 get 750 usd.