T90 Titans League - Season 2

The first S-Tier event of 2023 is coming - T90 Titans League is back!


The T90 Titans League is a recurring league which aims to provide a consistent high level stage for pro players to hone their skills, and give newcomers a chance to prove their ability and advance into the upper echelon of players.

Season 2 will begin on 2nd January with 5 weeks of round robins before getting into the playoff round. Players will be placed into ‘pots’ based on their previous placement within T90 Titans League. They will then be randomly drawn, with one player from each pot in each group.

The draw took place on Tuesday 27th December at ~21GMT here.

The groups will be:

Platinum League:

Group A	Group B	Group C	Group D
Vinchester	MbL	Hera	TheViper
Nicov	Liereyy	Jordan	Villese
DauT	Mr Yo	Capoch	Tatoh
ACCM	BacT	miguel	Barles
Valas	Dracken	Ganji	Sitaux
Running	Dark	Kingstone	Sebastian

Gold League:

Group A	Group B	Group C	Group D
slam	classicpro	dogao	Dragonstar
BadBoy	saymyname	SongSong	Vivi
FreakinAndy	Sobek	margougou	F1Re
Daniel	repard	Nili	Lyx/iBUYPOWER
Hearttt/Jibatong	Whocl/Gabi	D3rp/Biry	LaaaaaN/PhillipHJS
Bad Koala/Whitecourt	Mihai/El Matador	Overtaken/Hoang	Somero/Hope

Prize Money

The prize pool of $22,500 has been sponsored by Microsoft.

Platinum League: $17,300
1st place: $2,100
2nd place: $1,400
3rd & 4th place: $1,000
5th - 8th place: $500
9th - 12th place: $200
13th - 24th place: $150

Plus $40 per game won in the group stage (a maximum of $600 if you win all 15 games)

Gold League: $5,200
Group Winner: $180
Playoff Winner: $150
Playoff Loser: $115
4th in Group: $80
5th in Group: $60
6th in Group: $40

Plus $15 per game won in the group stage

Schedule

Platinum League

Group Stage: Jan 2nd - Feb 5th
Round 1: Jan 2nd - Jan 8th
Round 2: Jan 9th - Jan 15th
Round 3: Jan 16th - Jan 22nd
Round 4: Jan 23rd - Jan 29th
Round 5: Jan 30th - Feb 5th

Playoffs: Feb 6th - Feb 12th
Ro12: Feb 9th
Quarterfinals: Feb 10th
Semifinals: Feb 11th
Final: Feb 12th

Gold League

Group Stage: Jan 2nd - Feb 5th
Round 1: Jan 2nd - Jan 8th
Round 2: Jan 9th - Jan 15th
Round 3: Jan 16th - Jan 22nd
Round 4: Jan 23rd - Jan 29th
Round 5: Jan 30th - Feb 5th

Playoffs: Feb 6th - Feb 12th
Deciders: Feb 7th & Feb 8th


Players will be given a large degree of flexibility over scheduling. If they wish to stream their POV, they will be required to play during predetermined slots. These slots will be at 16GMT, 18GMT and 20GMT on Mondays, Thursdays and Saturdays.
If players are unable to play in an available slot, they may play private games, with no pov streaming allowed and the recorded games will be broadcast at another time.

There will be open casting during these timeslots (and of published recs at anytime).

Maps

T90 Titans League Season 2 will feature:

Acropolis
Arabia
Arena
Cross by TheMadCADer
Fortified Clearing by Chrazini
Fortress (Regicide)
Ghost Lake
Kilimanjaro
Nomad
Scandinavia
Shoals by Chrazini

Start practicing today by downloading the map pack here or by searching for “T90 Titans League Season 2 - Map Pack” in the in-game mod workshop.

The map pack is edited and maintained by T-West.

Handbook available here.

 

Can you add this site under TTL's Additional Contents section?

TTL Stataphracts

This works so smoothly, noice

 

Another great season already, full of some hugely memorable sets. Really been enjoying the content and every single person in Platinum has shown they ‘deserve’ to be there irrespective of relegation outcomes.

Surprised that the small number of individuals who behaved dishonourably at the denouement of Gold season one avoided censure, but equally it’s nice to see the spirit of forgiveness alive and well.

 

Spoilers :
.
.
.
.
.
.
Vinchester going to gold League ! Big surprise for me as he seems a top 4 or top 5 player ... Hope he is not to dissapointed and can come back in platinium next Time !

 

Spoilers :
.
.
.
.
.
.
Vinchester going to gold League ! Big surprise for me as he seems a top 4 or top 5 player ... Hope he is not to dissapointed and can come back in platinium next Time !

And Nicov and Capoch as well. I think that’s crazy but also really cool to see how close the top players are with respect to their skill level. Also super hyped for Ganji and Valas both securing a top 12 spot. And from what it seems like Heart and LaN will be in the next Platinum League - also hyped for that!

 

Jajajajajjaajajajajaj 2nd division players

 

What an outstanding performance by ACCM recently, already 3rd in tournament elo atm which says a lot.

We might have a new S-tier tournament winner on the horizon

 

I hope SongSong destroys him.

Congrats on your dream becoming real in the sweetest way possible

 

Good stuff add michi to it

 

The lizard slithers by! One fortress game I thought he should have won from still being in it too! Running secures next season appearance!

also, lulz at the people complaining about closed maps when most of the arabia matches have a larger-than-arena sized pali-building wall by feudal age.

HONK HONK

 

F1re and saymyname relegated from Gold is yikes.

Very cool to see Sobek and Andy advancing. I really like this format.

 

First off: I have been loving this tournament. I love seeing the different combinations of players and it has been really exciting.

Ones of the things that doesn't sit well with me is the case of LaaaaaN in the gold league. Despite winning all his games in the group stage, he doesn't automatically qualify.

Now, in the scheme of things, I quite like the rules on how players are ranked in the group (games won-sets one – head to head-etc). However, I would like to see a change similar to what happens in the Six Nations Rugby tournament whereby if a team (player) wins all their matches, they get a bonus 3 points. Just feels more right to me, that if a player gets a clean sweep, there is some additionally bonus.

What do people think?

 

First off: I have been loving this tournament. I love seeing the different combinations of players and it has been really exciting.

Ones of the things that doesn't sit well with me is the case of LaaaaaN in the gold league. Despite winning all his games in the group stage, he doesn't automatically qualify.

Now, in the scheme of things, I quite like the rules on how players are ranked in the group (games won-sets one – head to head-etc). However, I would like to see a change similar to what happens in the Six Nations Rugby tournament whereby if a team (player) wins all their matches, they get a bonus 3 points. Just feels more right to me, that if a player gets a clean sweep, there is some additionally bonus.

What do people think?

A fair point & observation. This definitely wasn’t a situation I thought we’d realistically encounter and so no rules or exceptions were made. I can’t promise anything specifically right now but I can say it’ll be something we think over for future seasons.

 

also, lulz at the people complaining about closed maps when most of the arabia matches have a larger-than-arena sized pali-building wall by feudal age.

HONK HONK

Your baiting attempt is low even for your standards....

 

First off: I have been loving this tournament. I love seeing the different combinations of players and it has been really exciting.

Ones of the things that doesn't sit well with me is the case of LaaaaaN in the gold league. Despite winning all his games in the group stage, he doesn't automatically qualify.

Now, in the scheme of things, I quite like the rules on how players are ranked in the group (games won-sets one – head to head-etc). However, I would like to see a change similar to what happens in the Six Nations Rugby tournament whereby if a team (player) wins all their matches, they get a bonus 3 points. Just feels more right to me, that if a player gets a clean sweep, there is some additionally bonus.

What do people think?

Mathematically this guarantees that whoever wins all 5 matches is automatically first. Not sure it would be fair - someone goes 4x 3:0 + 1:2, other wins 5x 2:1 and ends 1st.

 

Mathematically this guarantees that whoever wins all 5 matches is automatically first. Not sure it would be fair - someone goes 4x 3:0 + 1:2, other wins 5x 2:1 and ends 1st.

wasn't this always going to be an issue if we count map wins as the main ranking criteria? I think if we are going by map wins, the notion of "winning sets" should not be important, rather just focus on winning any and every map

 

wasn't this always going to be an issue if we count map wins as the main ranking criteria? I think if we are going by map wins, the notion of "winning sets" should not be important, rather just focus on winning any and every map

I think the format is actually fine the way it is now. Winning 2:1 over someone still gives you big advantage compared to that person. Extra game won + first 2 tiebreakers is pretty huge given that most players end between 6-9 points. I know Feanor mentions other situation, but Vivi won more games, he got rewarded for getting plenty of 3:0s. If you'd then give LaN points for winning all sets, then it's making it irrelevant whether they played 3:0 or 2:1 against other players in their group. So far TTL is really well fitting the theme that every single game has massive value (look at Platinum A), that would go against it.

 

Mathematically this guarantees that whoever wins all 5 matches is automatically first. Not sure it would be fair - someone goes 4x 3:0 + 1:2, other wins 5x 2:1 and ends 1st.

(The 3 bonus points from the 6 Nations is chosen that way to ensure winning all 5 matches ensure auto first placement, which I agree with. And here we have 6 players.)

Personally, I am more inclined the other way. Going 4x 3:0 + 1:2 gives more prize money for winning games, which is well deserved. But it seems wrong, when trying to duplicate an "e-sport" league structure, that you do not win (the pool) if you win all your sets (compare this to sports where it is a binary W/L with no bonus points allocated). Beating every other player in the group > winning more games, since to do so, you would need to beat the 4x 3:0 person.

I think the format is actually fine the way it is now. Winning 2:1 over someone still gives you big advantage compared to that person. Extra game won + first 2 tiebreakers is pretty huge given that most players end between 6-9 points. I know Feanor mentions other situation, but Vivi won more games, he got rewarded for getting plenty of 3:0s. If you'd then give LaN points for winning all sets, then it's making it irrelevant whether they played 3:0 or 2:1 against other players in their group. So far TTL is really well fitting the theme that every single game has massive value (look at Platinum A), that would go against it.

I mean, I agree with the general format for the rest of the placements (ordering criteria). I am only referring to the singularity of winning ALL games in a group.

 

I much prefer the importance of map wins over set wins. If you prioritize set wins, then there is an incentive for players to draft / play their civs in a way that optimizes towards winning sets (reducing the importance of the 3rd game).
In the current format, every single game matters, and players have to balance drafts & civs for all of the maps in the draft.

 

I prefer set wins in general. But I prefer map wins every once in a while for the hell of it and to change it up.

Basically I'm just happy.

 

In this format I prefer game wins, but if a player wins all his sets in his group, extra points for this achievement could be awarded.

 

In this format I prefer game wins, but if a player wins all his sets in his group, extra points for this achievement could be awarded.

That breaks the point system though. We are considering game/map wins as the primary ranking criteria. Every map win is a point, so naturally the one who wins most games out of the 15 games (5 Play All 3s) will be ranked first.

It's not mathematically possible to now add points to this from "set" wins and come to a fair conclusion. What will happen is you will have players who won more games/maps in total, but not as many sets as someone else, and the other player will add additional points due to his set win and go above someone with lesser total maps won out of the 15.

Currently, set wins are only used as tie breakers for head-to-heads, like if someone has the same total map wins as another but won the set between them, they are ranked above, which makes sense.

 

If one person has 10-5 record but wins all sets and second person has a 12-3 record by losing a single set, can we definitely say the first player is better than second? Should the first player be given 3 (or any number) extra points so that we can reward him for winning all sets? Is it better to be consistently above average or be amazing with some rare flaws?

If the answer is not clear, we should stick to what we have now for two reasons:
1) Awarding extra points for set wins will devalue each game and 3rd games may get less competitive/interesting.
2) Almost every other tournament values set wins (since they are "best of n"), so this is a different setting which keeps things interesting.

I could argue that set wins should not be considered at all but the only reason I think its still good to keep it is because civs and maps are drafted for a set. So, you are somewhat constrained by decisions made for that set. So you must be rewarded for better strategic decisions within that set and not just overall gameplay within each game.

 

No disrespect to him, but I think the fact that LaN lost his playoff set 3-1 serves as a pretty strong vindication of the idea that someone who wins all their sets shouldn't necessarily be made the winner of their group.

 

So for example, if one person has 10-5 record but won all sets. Second person has a 12-3 record losing a single set. Can we definitely say the first player is better than second? Should the first player be given 3 (or any number) extra points so that we can reward him for winning all sets? Is it better to be consistently above average or be amazing with some rare flaws?
If the answer is not clear, we should stick to what we have now.
For two reasons,
1) Awarding extra points for set wins, will devalue each game and 3rd games may get less competitive/interesting.
2) Almost every other tournament values set wins (since they are "best of n"), so this is a different setting that keeps it interesting.

I could argue that set wins should not be considered at all but the only reason I think its still good to keep it is because civs and maps are drafted for a set. So, you are somewhat constrained by decisions made for that set. So you must be rewarded for better strategic decisions within that set and not just overall gameplay within each game.

"Can we definitely say the first player is better than second?" From a purely sporting criteria, I would say yes. Being consistent is the hardest thing I would say in sport. That is why it is so difficult to win a world cup (rugby/football/etc). You see some teams hammering others, and then they lose and are out. Being able to beat every other team I would argue is more impressive.

Thus, I would say absolutely to reward someone for winning all sets, as to do so, he needs to beat the other high achiever… while also beating everyone else.

Remember that this is not awarding points for set wins generically, but only kicks in at the 5-0 stage, so it's no something that you can be lazy about. As I said, I quite like the fact that in general its map wins > set wins.

 

"Can we definitely say the first player is better than second?" From a purely sporting criteria, I would say yes. Being consistent is the hardest thing I would say in sport. That is why it is so difficult to win a world cup (rugby/football/etc). You see some teams hammering others, and then they lose and are out. Being able to beat every other team I would argue is more impressive.

Thus, I would say absolutely to reward someone for winning all sets, as to do so, he needs to beat the other high achiever… while also beating everyone else.

Remember that this is not awarding points for set wins generically, but only kicks in at the 5-0 stage, so it's no something that you can be lazy about. As I said, I quite like the fact that in general its map wins > set wins.

I totally understand your point(s).

However, what I am advocating for (and what I like about the current system) is that each game is a different "match". So, if someone wins 3-0, they actually won 3 matches and not 1 set. So if we forget about the concept of a set, then 12-3 always beats 10-5 regardless of how many "sets" they won. Heck, the number of games played between players could be "even" in the current format and things wouldn't change much. However, as I mentioned above, since civs and maps are chosen for a set, giving a certain bonus for head to head set win is fine. And thats where the sets won tie-breaker can be used (and it has already been used).

And what you said about other sports is true in an event like world cups. But this is a league format. And the consistency here is not between sets but between each game. You win more games means you consistently win "games".