Wandering Warriors Cup - Announcement

Announcement | Participation | Rules & Settings | Discussion | Maps | Streaming Policy​

Announcement​

Age of Empires II is still alive, well and good - and with Christmas upon us, what better gift could we ask for than another Age of Empires II event. We are particularly excited to start the new year with a bang of a tournament - the Wandering Warriors Cup hosted by T90Official and Dave.
The Wandering Warriors Cup is a 1v1 tournament that will span across five weeks and will feature a fantastic arsenal of unique and exciting maps - all themed around nomad and transport starts.

Due to the nature of the tournament settings, we can already guarantee that the games will be absolutely incredible, chaotic and unpredictable. No game will be the same as players will settle their town centres differently with each generation and transport units in all directions.
The tournament will feature one massive single-elimination stage, holding up to 128 players. This means that every game, every minute and second, will matter for the players as one mistake can be the difference between advancing or elimination.

The Wandering Warriors Cup will feature a grand prize pool of $25,000.00 sponsored by Microsoft.
The tournament can be watched on two different platforms on the two official channels:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/t90official/
Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/dave_aoe

Timeline​

20th of December, 23.00 GMT, Trailer Released
23rd of December, 20.00 GMT, Full Announcement & Registration Open

2nd of January, 18.00 GMT, Registration Closed
2nd of January, 19.00 GMT, Seeding Locked

Round of 128, Best of Three​

• Played between the 3rd of January to the 7th of January
• Streamed the 8th of January to the 9th of January - starting 15.00 GMT

Round of 64, Best of Five​

• Played between the 10th of January to the 14th of January
• Streamed the 15th of January to the 16th of January - starting 15.00 GMT

Round of 32, Best of Five​

• Played between the 17th of January to the 21st of January
• Streamed the 22nd of January to the 23rd of January - starting 15.00 GMT

Round of 16, Best of Five​

• Played between the 24th of January to the 28th of January
• Streamed the 29th of January to the 30th of January - starting 15.00 GMT

Round of 8, Quarterfinals, Best of Five​

• Played between the 31st of January to the 4th of February
• Streamed the 5th of February - starting 15.00 GMT

Round of 4, Semifinals, Best of Five​

• Played the 5th of February
• Streamed the 6th of February - starting 15.00 GMT

Round of 2, Grand Final, Best of Seven​

• Live the 6th of February

Prize Pool​

The total prize pool of the tournament is $25,000.00 and is distributed to the winners in the following order.

1st place: $6,250.00
2nd place: $3,750.00
3rd and 4th place: $1,875.00
5th to 8th place: $812.50
9th to 16th place: $500.00
17th to 32nd place: $250.00

We believe that it is important that the prize pool is distributed in a way that allows numerous players a shot at winning a reasonable portion of the prize pool - benefitting many players across the scene.

Maps​

The official list of maps is shown below. The map pack can be acquired by subscribing to the map mod using this link or by searching for “Wandering Warriors” in the in-game mod workshop.

• Boundary Brawl
• Compass
• Golden Hill
• Graupel
• Houseboat
• Inundation
• Mired
• Nomad

The map pack are created and maintained by Chrazini.

---

Registration is open - you register for the tournament by going to the Toornament event page and submitting your registration.

Streaming is entirely open for everyone - requirements are listed in the rules and settings document.

All games, except for the final weekend, will be played in the week leading up to the weekend, meaning that most games shown will be recorded games.

Join the official Discord for regular updates, as well as game information for casters and scheduling channels for players.

 

Given how relatively inactive is the ladder compared to other tournaments I think seeding by tournament elo makes sense for the top 16

 

Have you found a way around the treaty period at the beginning? i find that the square around your TC is giving away way too much info.

 

Ladder seeding is probably the best option outside the top players. For top players ladder seeding doesn't reflect the real skills, so the seeding doesn't punish or reward good placement in the ladder that well. And when the tournament is single-elimination bracket, it is somewhat problematic. In this tournament same kind Swiss group stage what was in KOTD4 could have been useful.

I'd agree - in case we would have tournament based around Arabia or classic maps. However, that's not reflecting performance/skill on WWC map pool. What would be the best seeding method for this tournament? Mix of rating, previous tournament performance with the addition of points for performance on unusual settings/maps and the final value affected by Nomad skill/practice. AKA, none of the methods used for WWC would be optimal and rating is the most simple and most objective.

It sux for everyone in the bottom quadrant of the bracket with Viper, Hera, Yo. Especially Slam's bracket is juicy - assuming higher seeds goes through - repard Ro64, Yo Ro32, Hera Ro16, Viper Ro8. Basically Vinch's bracket from KotD, except that it's starting in Ro32..
However, I think this tournament has the highest potential of upsets an S-tier ever had, so I actually don't think seeding will be as important.

 

I think its a less of an issue because the maps are different. Not as different as DM but somewhat comparable to Arena. Sure the top 16 in RM are also quite good at arena but the order is shuffled a bit. That's why as long as you get the top 8-10 somewhat correct, it shouldn't matter.

 

I'm hyped for the event and as a nomad fan, I'm really looking forward to the games. But it seems to me a lot of these problems would have been at least a little bit solved would there have been a group stage.

 

I'm just happy to see tournament that doesn't base their seeding on results of previous INVITATIONAL tournaments that also have been seeded by results of previous INVITATIONAL tournaments that also have been...

It's finally time to break the loop

 

I guess it would have been pretty though to seed evryone properly, like how do you wanna seed players who basically said they stop playing/streaming aoe2 and commit on AoE4 like Hera, Vivi, Kasva and so on?

And even with the ladder being far away from accurate, still sounds better then completely random seedings imo.
This way no one can blame anyone for rigging the brackets or the likes of that.

 

And even with the ladder being far away from accurate, still sounds better then completely random seedings imo.

Nobody suggested random brackets, and just because elo is not the worst system doesn't mean it's a good system.

This way no one can blame anyone for rigging the brackets or the likes of that.

There's plenty of other ways to seed players which are better. I suggested aoe-elo, the seeding document robo made or a system similar to the system in KotD4, which are also objective.

It baffles me to see people defend a system where the top 16 looks like this and then criticize all the other methods because they aren't accurate enough. I agree that the methods aren't perfect, but they're miles ahead of this mess.

Spoiler: Top 16 seeds I think

Seed 1: Villese
Seed 2: Sitaux
Seed 3: TheViper
Seed 4: ACCM
Seed 5: Capoch
Seed 6: Hera
Seed 7: Valas
Seed 8: JorDan
Seed 9: Liereyy
Seed 10: TaToH
Seed 11: Mr_Yo
Seed 12: BacT
Seed 13: Vinchester
Seed 14: Barles
Seed 15: BadBoy
Seed 16: miguel

 

Tournament Elo even includes Empire wars. What is that supposed to say about a Nomad tournament?

 

It baffles me to see people defend a system where the top 16 looks like this

Why? Is it because Viper/Liereyy/Hera/Yo/Jordan are potentially against one another before semis?

One, we need to keep in mind that this is not an Arabia tournament.

Second, as Rubenstock said, it's good to have at least some tournaments where previous tournament performance doesn't affect your current seeding to break the loop.

It makes sense if KoTD4 uses the performance of KoTD 1-3 as a seeding parameter and RBW5 uses RBW1-4 performance - but this is a new tournament. So why should seedings consider those tournaments at all.

 

Why? Is it because Viper/Liereyy/Hera/Yo/Jordan are potentially against one another before semis?

It's because it's not reflecting the actual skill of the players. If you had to make a seeding for this tournament, would it look like this? Because if not, why shouldn't we change it to something that more accurately reflects reality? I'd choose to use past tournament results, but you could also use another method like letting the players seed themselves or having an independent jury seed them.

One, we need to keep in mind that this is not an Arabia tournament.

I totally agree, but how do we do that? Elo doesn't really take this into account, so with that logic you agree with me that we should change the way we seed the players?

Second, as Rubenstock said, it's good to have at least some tournaments where previous tournament performance doesn't affect your current seeding to break the loop.

I understand the sentiment, especially from a player perspective, but disagree. If you're good enough, you'll slowly improve your seed and make it further and further into tournaments. I think that's a way more healthy way to get better than to just get lucky with seeding once. Also given that there's barely any invitational only tournaments and generally at least half of the spots are open to everyone, I don't think it's necessary.

It makes sense if KoTD4 uses the performance of KoTD 1-3 as a seeding parameter and RBW5 uses RBW1-4 performance - but this is a new tournament. So why should seedings consider those tournaments at all.

First off, this isn't really true, as KotD uses results from all tournaments from the previous year and RBW only used the results from the previous tournament (with the exception of RBW5). And I think looking at the results from a variety of tournaments would actually be a pretty good indicator as they show the general skill of a player as well as their adaptability for different settings.

 

Tournament Elo even includes Empire wars. What is that supposed to say about a Nomad tournament?

And the ladder ranking includes 80-90% of Arabia and close to zero Nomad, what is that supposed to say about a Nomad tournament?

 

Nobody suggested random brackets, and just because elo is not the worst system doesn't mean it's a good system.

I know that nobody suggested random brackets, but it is what we have at HC, a tournament from the same Host.
And this seeding isn't far off from random brackets, but it's "fair" in that regard that you cannot blame anyone for it because it's just the ladder, no one of the Hosts could have rigged it.

It baffles me to see people defend a system where the top 16 looks like this and then criticize all the other methods because they aren't accurate enough. I agree that the methods aren't perfect, but they're miles ahead of this mess.

Imo it's quite simple, there are no previous Tournaments which indicate a proper seeding, letting a group of "experts" do the seeding invites unnecessary drama and is an incredible though thing to do right now with Pro-Players not knowing which game to play.

 

I know that nobody suggested random brackets, but it is what we have at HC, a tournament from the same Host.
And this seeding isn't far off from random brackets, but it's "fair" in that regard that you cannot blame anyone for it because it's just the ladder, no one of the Hosts could have rigged it.

And the same is true if you use aoe-elo.com or robo's seeding document as they're not affiliated with T90 or Dave at all. I also disagree with using random brackets in HC, but at least there is a good reason for why it's randomized, while there isn't a good reason here.

Imo it's quite simple, there are no previous Tournaments which indicate a proper seeding, letting a group of "experts" do the seeding invites unnecessary drama and is an incredible though thing to do right now with Pro-Players not knowing which game to play.

I agree that there's no seeding that's perfect, but do you really think the seeding from robo's document for example gives a worse indication than the ladder ratings?

 

I agree that there's no seeding that's perfect, but do you really think the seeding from robo's document for example gives a worse indication than the ladder ratings?

No but the problem with that is that it isn't accurate enough.
Imo a seeding which implies that it is accurate but isn't is worse, then a seeding which isn't accurate and doesn't imply it in the first place.
But that's the thing, there is no way in this situation to make an accurate seeding., so could aswell be completely random.

Of course I wouldn't say anything against it if they would have taken robo's seeding instead (for f.e the top 20) but I also don't see a big issue in that regard.
Maybe I just prefer random seeding because it gives different matchups I don't know.
Would feeld pretty bored if in football we always get the same matchups because of seeding, instead of making it mostly random.

 

And the ladder ranking includes 80-90% of Arabia and close to zero Nomad, what is that supposed to say about a Nomad tournament?

Quite a lot more than Empire wars 11

 

Sure

 

Imo a seeding which implies that it is accurate but isn't is worse, then a seeding which isn't accurate and doesn't imply it in the first place.

I don't think aoe-elo.com or robo's seeding document are trying to imply that they're totally accurate and are open to suggestions on how to improve them. But just because a seeding method isn't perfect doesn't mean we shouldn't use them, especially when the alternative is even less accurate.

 

I don't think aoe-elo.com or robo's seeding document are trying to imply that they're totally accurate and are open to suggestions on how to improve them. But just because a seeding method isn't perfect doesn't mean we shouldn't use them, especially when the alternative is even less accurate.

I wonder if it would be viable to use some information from the ladder/matchmaking.
I assume that we agree, that the actual leaderboard ranking is kinda nonsensical.

BUT: Maybe it would be possible to derive (maybe from month to month or map pool to map pool) different win rates and elo change by map category. So there would be an actual secondary rating type introduced that is compartmentalised by open maps, closed maps, water maps, mixed-type maps and nomad-like maps from the matches people played on the matchmaking that is handled like aoe-elo?

It would certainly be biased as well, as people could just ban parts of these maps in the map pool and don't have a rating assigned, but that would be more an individual problem. Which means that by not having a rating assigned people would be prone to be rather randomly seeded(?). Which might introduce a disadvantage for players that don't play certain maps but apply to play in tournaments that involve playing on these kind of maps.

 

I can see the brackets here, but where are the seedings?

 

Oh nice, a discussion about seeding. Always intresting

 

I can see the brackets here, but where are the seedings?

I've assumed them from how the players were placed in the bracket, which generally looks the same. Then I checked some of the players current and highest elo, which seemed to line up with this. It's not official by any means though, so it could be wrong.

 

I can see the brackets here, but where are the seedings?

I've assumed them from how the players were placed in the bracket, which generally looks the same. Then I checked some of the players current and highest elo, which seemed to line up with this. It's not official by any means though, so it could be wrong.

Seedings are here. (file had been shared by Chrazini in the tournament discord)

 

Seedings are here. (file had been shared by Chrazini in the tournament discord)

Thank you! Exactly what I was looking for

 

Why is this tournament not on the AOEZone calender?