• Crusader Kings III Available Now!

    The realm rejoices as Paradox Interactive announces the launch of Crusader Kings III, the latest entry in the publisher’s grand strategy role-playing game franchise. Advisors may now jockey for positions of influence and adversaries should save their schemes for another day, because on this day Crusader Kings III can be purchased on Steam, the Paradox Store, and other major online retailers.


    Real Strategy Requires Cunning

Hiliadan

Major
Jun 17, 2018
581
4
A poll was run in April-May 2018 to determine what type of tournament people wanted to play: https://www.the-battlefield.com/aow3/index.php?page=bf_poll&pollnumber=32 A 2vs2 format got the most votes so a team tournaemnt was organized: https://www.the-battlefield.com/aow3/index.php?page=tourneymain&tourneyid=14

A Duel Tournament got the 2nd most votes so it's now time to start organizing this Duel Tournament!

In the continuation of this thread on the old forum http://aow.triumph.net/forums/topic/preparation-of-next-pbem-tournament, I'd like to open discussions about the settings of that tournament.
Personally, I'd keep all the settings and rules from the 2vs2 Tournament except:
- map size = Tournament Square
- possibly Fast Game Speed (to be tested) to boost production classes vs mind-control strategies
- add rules about no game restart even if bad conditions


What is everyone's opinion?
 

bf_markymark

Corporal
6 Badges
Nov 5, 2018
39
0
www.g4l.eu
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Deluxe edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Premium edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Season pass
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
Have created a game with "FAST". But using small map for 2on2, and no one like to play with small Map!

Posted another game with alternative Settings, but it shall be settings for non-Veteran and new players. Because the games are very frustrating played by elite.

Think this is one Point why only top Players are active on Battlefield (except admins and friends). The Frustration factor is great when you play against top players. (Cat and Mouse Games, Destroying Cities, rewards with sites - spamming elemtals and t4 Monsters, extremly mind Control , economical overpowering). But Nothing to do with Tournament settings Just another view. You see when someone post something like Middle Earth (and please no Veteran), Players will join. but not for normal ladder games.
 

El_Lobo1986

Corporal
2 Badges
Oct 4, 2018
30
0
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Majesty 2 Collection
I am fine with the settings Hiliadan proposed. Havn't got any experiences with fast game speed but we can handle it imo.
 

phirpo

Recruit
6 Badges
Nov 24, 2018
4
0
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
i dont have any experience wiht fast speed either. hence im a bit averse to it... (But the problem still subsists, the conversion classes are too strong. mc-abilites should be all reduced in strength by 1 or 2.)

i would like to propose to play with the setting: "random heros match race". Why? Yes, there is a good reason to play without it. But for races which have a terrain mp bonus (tigran, frostling, dwarves, goblins, elves, haflings, so all but humans and draconians), it is really a source of irritation and disruption, especially in the beginning, if one hero makes the whole stack slower. Not only this, but some heros will have a terrain penalty on the wrong terrain. Which leads to fumbled attacks and is especially bad for hafling heros. this is by now enough reason for me to prefer to play with this setting on. Some heros are stronger than others and we gotta tackle that too. But I d like to play with "random heros match race" setting on in the tournament. phirpo
 

Hiliadan

Major
Jun 17, 2018
581
4
Fast speed does not make consensus. Some players claim it helps Rogue and Theo because they get faster access to Bards and Evangelists (obviously they do, that's the whole point of making research faster), but without any real analysis of the situation. My limited experience so far (2 games) is that production classes benefit as much as Rogue and Theo and a rapid calculation shows that Bards are acquired only 2-3 turns earlier than with Normal speed, while Evangelists are maybe aquired 4-5 turns earlier, which should not make a big difference (for Rogue at least).

Anyway, I'm thinking about another change to the settings (probably not for a tournament as I don't plan to organize any, but for "standard games"): removing Treasures (gold and mana stashes). That should hurt more Rogue and Theo who can easily pick them with Crows and Cherubs. It should also make it harder to sustain mind-controlled units as less gold will be available. And it should further slow down the pace of the game, advantaging production strategies.
Thoughts?
 

bf_markymark

Corporal
6 Badges
Nov 5, 2018
39
0
www.g4l.eu
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Deluxe edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Premium edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Season pass
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
Maybe the both classed shall be banned except for finals. If both can use this class it is not a disadvantage for the match, when banned for all, it is fair.
It shall be known which class are stronger and weaker. But i fear the same discussion with other classes....after such banning.

Another one I tried out in alternative settings. You can only use converted units against indies, not against humans.
That was not a compulsion to dissolve units, but you could not use them against your Opponent (to rush your Opponent). A cool idea can be: When converted Units can be buy with Gold after battle.....maybe in the next inn

Further in this settings
Destroying and creating cities was also banned, so it was no longer possible to support huge armies due to a good economy.
Furthermore, a component Visible treasury was to adjust to few or none.

But make the rules a bit complex
 

El_Lobo1986

Corporal
2 Badges
Oct 4, 2018
30
0
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Majesty 2 Collection
Hm, strange. I thought I aswered to this topic already but it seems like I forgot to click on the button to send it. Banning classes is imo absolutely no solution. Rogue is strong but far away from OP. If you ban theo and rogue there will be other classes filling this postion. AD and Necro are coming to my mind and banning classes would change the whole game.

Removing treasures is a good idea. It hurts all classes/races but obviously it hurts the classes with very movable scouts with good sight more. AD and rogue have the best scouts in the game so it would definetly hurt them more than other classes. Seems like a plan for me! :)
 

bf_markymark

Corporal
6 Badges
Nov 5, 2018
39
0
www.g4l.eu
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Deluxe edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Premium edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Season pass
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
i think there is much possibilites. But fair games are not welcome. Use Mirror map and Mirror Leaders...but i think no one will like it.

I'm a fan of complete random games, get place in world and make the best. not pre-select race or class, not pre-select map, Maybe in scaling from small to large with or w/o ug.
But Maybe not complete, going too Long.

An idea can be, the admin select the leader not the Player and use randoms.
 

Hiliadan

Major
Jun 17, 2018
581
4
Regarding Fast Speed, I changed my mind: the issue is not really with "normal" research, I still think it does not boost Rogue or Theocrat through Bards or Evangelists that much.
But -25% RP cost means all the sites giving RP as a reward are much more useful and that's an issue.

So I'd rather go with either +33% RP per building (Lab, Observatory...) or remove the RP change altogether and just have a Fast Population settings which keeps only the population change.

A "championship" is being considered. Each group has 4 players who play each other exactly once during a season (so about 6-9 months per season probably). Then the #1 is promoted to the league above and the #3 and #4 are relegated to the league below (only the #2 stays within his current league). With 2 or 3 league levels (so 12 to 28 players).
There would be no time limit on matches but if a match last longer than 2 months, players should signal it (both are penalised with less points if the match does not end) and judges would see what to do. It would be possible to play all 3 matches in parallel if players want.

The fact that only 3 matches mean it's different for the class/race pick restrictions. I guess at least you should not be able to pick the same class or race during a season. But that's less restrictive than during a tournament. So maybe only 3 classes and 3 races randomly chosen should be allowed each season. To be discussed.
 

bf_markymark

Corporal
6 Badges
Nov 5, 2018
39
0
www.g4l.eu
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Deluxe edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Premium edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Season pass
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
Sounds good, count me in. Think we need at least 12 players for playing such a format. 28 will be wonderful. When we make automation, maybe we can use it for next titles (aow pf for example)
 

keika

Recruit
Jan 11, 2021
2
0
The fact that only 3 matches mean it's different for the class/race pick restrictions. I guess at least you should not be able to pick the same class or race during a season. But that's less restrictive than during a tournament. So maybe only 3 classes and 3 races randomly chosen should be allowed each season. To be discussed.
Maybe just vetoing classes/races every game by players one by one and pick any from the rest?
It is simple and do not required to track choices during the season.
 

Hiliadan

Major
Jun 17, 2018
581
4
Maybe just vetoing classes/races every game by players one by one and pick any from the rest?

I'm unsure what you mean? Do you mean the same system as in current tournament? So if in season 1 you played 3 classes and in season 2, you played 3 more. In season 3 you need to start with the last one (there are 7 classes) you haven't played yet?
 

keika

Recruit
Jan 11, 2021
2
0
I'm unsure what you mean? Do you mean the same system as in current tournament? So if in season 1 you played 3 classes and in season 2, you played 3 more. In season 3 you need to start with the last one (there are 7 classes) you haven't played yet?
Before each game players veto/ban classes from the entire pool.

Player1 bans ArchDruid.
Player2 bans Theocrat.
Player1 bans Dreadnought.
Player2 bans Warlord.

Sorcerer, Necromancer, Rogue to pick.

Player1 picks Necormancer.
Player2 picks Rogue.

Any variations can be applied such as allowing mirrors (so second player picks from 3 classes as well), ban some classes randomly before voting.
The same for races.
 

Rodmar18

Lt. General
8 Badges
Sep 19, 2018
1.353
140
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
So you guys are looking for a middle way between total random and total freedom in choosing your class/race combination (and specialization?).

There's a balance mod out but you still need a way to play with your most preferred or to avoid playing against your most feared combination?
And you propose to add another card-like layer of strategy before actual game begins?
:D

Why not the following, then? (a weighted random draw)
(I had a couple hours to spend, anyways)

1. Principles:

- Players have a set number of 'wish' points to be allocated to chosen race(s) and/or class(es) in order to affect randomness in combinations, as compared to a pure random determination. They are each free to spend or not any number of these points.
- If a player doesn't use any point, the combination is purely random.
- If a player use points for preferred race(s) and/or class(es), the odds these races and/or classes are obtained are higher, except if another player chooses the same preferred race(s) and/or class(es).
- This way, a player having rather despised/overlooked preferred combinations would have a greater chance to obtain them than when pure random is used.
- This way, a player having rather popular preferred combinations would have less chance to obtain them, but no less than when pure random is used.
- Allocating points has two effects: changing the odds between the two pools of preferred races/classes and non-preferred races/classes (for each player), and changing (weighting) the odds between races/classes in the preferred pool (if not, they would be equiprobable). The later also depends on the other players' choices, see point 2 thereafter.
- The idea is to affect a random draw for each player, while keeping it non arcane, so that everybody can easily know the odds for each class and race.


(any single figure below can be adapted to what suits the community most)

  • Each player gets 4 points to favor preferred races and 3 points to favor classes.
  • No more than 2 points can be put in any given race or class. Any one gets either 0, 1, or 2 points by each player.
  • This means that each player can favor up to 4 races out of 9, and up to 3 classes out of 7, so a little less than 50% for both.
  • Possible combinations of point allocation: from 0/0/0/0 to 1/1/1/1 to 2/2/0/0 preferred races, and from 0/0/0 to 1/1/1 to 2/1/0 preferred classes (all 0 means that pure random is used for that player).
  • Actual weighting is yet to be refined, but as for classes, let's only consider those three allocations: 0/0/0, 1/0/0, and 2/0/0
    0/0/0 means that each class gets a 1/7 chance to be drawn (~14%) by this player.
    1/0/0 means that the preferred class gets a 2/7 chance to be drawn (~28%), while the remaining classes share the complementary odds (5/7 or 72%, so 5/7*1/6 or 12% each).
    2/0/0 means that the preferred class gets a 3/7 chance to be drawn (~43%), while the remaining classes share a 4/7 or 57% odds (so 4/7*1/6 or 9.5% each).
  • Case of multiple choice by one player:
    If a player elects to favor several classes or races (e.g. putting in 1/1/0 points in classes), the summed up number of points allocated amounts to between 2 and the max number (3 for classes), and this means (for classes) that the preferred pool either gets 2/7, 3/7 or 4/7 (~57%) chances to be drawn. Then a second draw is ran. If preferred pool was drawn, then classes in this pool are weighted according to allocated points (1/1/0 means 50%/50%, 2/1/0 means 66%/33%, and 1/1/1 means 33%/33%/33%). If it was not, equal odds are used to draw the class in the non-preferred pool (with a 20%, a 20%, or a 25% chance for each class in that pool, respectively). This leads to individual chances, in the 2/1/0 choice, of: 4/7*2/3 (~38%), 4/7*1/3 (~19%), and 3/7*1/5 (~8.6%) for each last 5 classes. (total of 38+19+5*9=~100)
    Another solution is to keep individual weights as they are defined in previous point, so that a 2/1/0 choice leads to 2/7 and 3/7 chances for two preferred classes (a total of 59% chance to draw one of those two classes, instead of 57% above), and then the other 5 classes each get a 2/7 chance divided by 5 (~5.4%). (total of 43+28+5*6=~100)
  • Case of popular class(es)/race(s):
    In case several players allocate points in the same class(es)/race(s), then instead of letting do and drawing combinations independently for each player, as in previous point, a secondary weighting procedure is used to discourage the trend for a few, "OP" combinations, and bolster the variety, should this be wanted as said in the principles. So their choice is degraded and the situation gets closer to pure random. Starting with the first proposal in previous pointThe idea is that the bonus for choosing a preferred class/race is degraded by the bid of a player proportional to the total number of allocated points in this class/race. The chance of drawing a peculiar class/race is now: (1 + (points allocated by player)^2/(total number of allocated points by players))/(number of available class/race), because in this proposal, the allocated points (1 or 2) equal the bonus (1/7 or 2/7 for classes).
    For example, if two players put 1 point in the same class, instead of each having a 2/7 chance (~28%) to draw this class, they now both get a 1.5/7 chance (1+1*1/2 out of 7, or ~21%). The same degradation would happen if both put 2 points in the same class (because 2/4 =1/2), but this would apply to a greater added chance of 2/7 instead of 1/7, for a resulting chance of (1+2*2/4 out of 7, or ~28%).
    Another example: Four players allocate points in the same class (2, 2, 1, and 1 points, respectively). Players who invested one point and should have had a 2/7 chance (~28%) now gets a (1+1*1/6 = 1.17)/7 chance (~17%), while both players who should have had a 3/7 chance (~43%) now get a (1+2*2/6 = 1.67)/7 chance (~24%). Still better than the default 1/7 chance, but clearly not as high as expected, because this class is too much popular and that's against the variety in the competition (should this rule need to be enforced).
    Full cases for three players choosing the same class (percents are chance to draw that class):
    0 0 0 -> 14% 14% 14%
    1 0 0 -> 29% 14% 14%
    1 1 0 -> 21% 21% 14%
    1 1 1 -> 19% 19% 19%
    2 0 0 -> 43% 14% 14%
    2 1 0 -> 33% 24% 14%
    2 1 1 -> 29% 21% 21%
    2 2 0 -> 29% 29% 14%
    2 2 1 -> 26% 26% 20%
    2 2 2 -> 24% 24% 24%
    In this example, investing 1 point on a class warrants a chance of 19%-29% instead of default 14%, and investing 2 points warrants a chance of 24%-43%.
    Another formula (remove the square factor) would lead to a greater degradation.
    Another approach could add the number of players into the formula, so that two players choosing the same class among 4 players have better chances than when they are in a 1v1 game (for the same invested points).
  • I didn't check what happens and how to articulate both algorithms when players select several same classes, but the general ideas should stand.