There is one major point I almost never see discussed: namely, given the claim by a lot of people is that aoe4 is taking too big a "slice of the pie" from MS's shared tournament prizepool, and that aoe2 (as the clearly more polished game) would be more deserving of that money - but have people...
Really, I think the missing feature here are ranked lobbies (for any game modes - or any but, say, RM). Match making is a nice way to conveniently and quickly get a relatively competitive match - but it relies on there being a large pool of players playing that particular game mode. For anything...
I think it's now somewhat balanced. Really, the $75 for the bottom of gold league "showing up" is to compensate for the fact that they can't compete in the silver league, which they would have very good chances of winning (or at least placing very highly). If anything, it's a bit of a raw deal...
Do I read correctly that with the biggest tier difference, the lower tier picks all civs? In which case, is there any point in them having a ban - since they will only block their own choices with that?
I think the guidebook is written a little confusingly, but the top-32 get $125, and the top-16 get $750. [It calls these 8th finalists, and 16th-finalists - but the subscript makes clear these are those who lose the RO16 and RO32 respectively].
From the starting assumption that both Capoch and MBL are very strong players, but MBL has the edge (at least on random map) , my analysis of the fifth game is that Capoch was prepared for EW mode (having played the last two weekends) and MBL was not, since he was directly invited. Plus MBL...
I was going to argue that there's some unnecessary drama trying to be stirred up here, by taking these comments out of context - but honestly, even in context they're perfectly fine, and fairly par for the course for Nili's dry casting style. There's no need to view them as a conspiracy against...
As many have said, this won't affect pro matches in the slightest.
However, I think it is a mistake - even for new players - not because they learn bad habits, but rather, because it automates a core part of the game. I know AoE2 is not quite 4X, but there's a reason 'exploration' is consider...
It's fair in that the loser is not likely to offer two civs with wildly different strengths, unless he is incapable of the kind of strategic reasoning that one typically requires to succeed in a strategy game. Think of it more like a home-map/home-civ advantage for the loser; the loser could...
This. I'm a fan of Nili, and I have every confidence in his character that his decisions are (and have historically been) made with complete fairness in mind. But avoiding conflict of interest is not just about doing the fair thing in the decisions that one makes, but rather avoiding situations...
Ultimately, yes, popularity does play a role when the funding for tournaments comes from a corporation's advertising budget. Of course, that shouldn't be the only consideration (even with the objective of maximum exposure in mind), as for the long term health of the community people won't bother...
I don't think people can reasonably be expected to be invited to the largest events out of the blue, when they're unwilling to put in the time and effort into the smaller events, where they can prove both their skill, and popularity with audiences.
If this happens, it would prove that the people complaining about too many tournaments being historically invitational are not in fact willing to put their money where their mouth is.
I think a common fallacy within this community (especially since “big” tournaments have only really restarted in the last few years) is to view that every tournament is to determine the best player of all time. Or even to determine the best current player. But that’s not the case: each...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.