Ship Selection Phase Idea (Hephaestus Challenge Season 2)

[Squidslinger Gilder]

Overly complicated and will be a nightmare to maintain.

If one thing goes wrong, you risk pissing off a lot of people. Best to keep it simple and plan for overcoming problems.

[Thomas]

Will it be fair without the ban system? Well, we've never really used a banning system before, so it should be fine. The banning would make things a little more interesting, because you're able to lock teams out of ships they're well practiced on. This is more interesting for the opposing team, but can be frustrating for the team who can't use the ship they enjoy.

I'm not a big fan of the ship selection either because it just complicates things. I think there was some testing done with a pick system for the SCS, you can always check out what Skrim gathered from that feedback. It didn't go all that well.


That being said, it 'might' make things more or less fair than the current system of just having free picks within a time limit.

[Skrimskraw]

If you want hc 2 to be better than hc1 then dont use more confusing or limiting rules.  Keep it simple and within game mechanics.

[Kamoba]

If you want hc 2 to be better than hc1 then dont use more confusing or limiting rules.  Keep it simple and within game mechanics.

I agree with Skrim.
Although Ayetach has proven how restrictions upon pilots can be very fun, it can also be too restricting.

Keep it simple, try to encourage as many teams as you can fit into the time frame to sign up, and you'll see different and unusual builds through the new and old faces.

[c-ponter]

Jub Jub that is the one I meant, I thought it was in the R&D not just SCS for a while. That was when I was only just starting to play competitive though so I did at first think that system was used for all major events XD

[nanoduckling]

I think I understand why this idea is being put forward: The metamidion

Maybe it is just me but I noticed that the breakdown of responses here is basically between those who sparingly use the more meta builds (especially the metamidion), and those who use them often and are very well practised at them (I'm counting the Duck junker as meta here). Some teams have as a strength their experience and skill with traditional or specific load outs, others do not. That said the responses on the 'not liking the meta' side are also pretty mixed, but everyone who uses the meta lots looks to me to be on one side of this discussion.

You cant avoid the fact that a system designed specifically to reduce the use of the meta specifically weakens some teams that are well practised in it. This system would have been brutal for the Ducks for instance back when 'junker is OP' was a thing.

My initial reaction is to love the rule change because I hate flying the metamidion, and I hate flying against it. Unfortunately reflection tells me this is a bad idea. For one thing it solves a problem that will be reduced in the next patch (that the pyra is still a bit too strong). For another it upsets the balance of teams away from the status quo, and not by patching the game to correct the slight imbalance, but by trying to 'patch' the meta-game. For a specific 'break the meta' tournament that would be great, for Hephaestus I think this will reduce the motivation of some teams to play as it stacks the deck against them unfairly.

That said I'm not opposed to a pick system in the abstract, because there are things wrong with the current competitive ship picking mini-game. There are teams who will keep picking hard counters every time the opposition changes until everyone ends up with one metamidion and some other ship and that is boring. I just don't think a system where we block ships is a good solution.

[Skrimskraw]

the metamidion is already hard countered by teams who put effort into doing it.

is it really the organizers job to help teams worka gainst certain ships and builds, isnt it the teams themselves that should be practicing and learning how to counter things?

No the biggest problem is the carronade fish who counters 80% of everything in the game, only being unable to counter the pyramidion.
The teams will pick what works when its high competitive. Muse are the ones who need to rebalance the game in order to change this, but try reading the dev app forums, there is a storm everytime something gets proposed Same here with competitive rules.

as nanoduckling says, what the hell would the ducks have done if junker would be banned, the ship wasnt overpowered in any sense, they just knew how to fly it properly, and it should be the teams that work towards beating that and not a system of bans where there are 7 choices.

[Ruairi]

The main issue with ship choice in the lobby stage is the prospect of being "hard countered" by the opposition. Hence I will suggest as others have in the past, the possibility of a "blind pick/set up" where ships are sent by the Teams Representatives to the nominated "officials" running the event.

Now the problem with the blind picking system which has been stated in the past is that: "Well if nobody knows what the enemy is taking, then most people will feel confined to the meta."

I believe that this could be addressed if Teams knew in advance what maps they would be fighting on. This way they will base their strategy on how they believe they can best play that map. As a result we are no longer playing the lobby "hard counter" game but instead the maps that are selected for the event to occur on.

The only question if this is to be implemented is "how much time do teams need to formulate a strategy for the map/s they'll be playing on?"

[Mysterious Medic]

Uhh, if anyone's been paying attention to SCS or basically any other recent tournament it's pretty clear that there are so many ways to counter a metamidion. Many times it's the case that the team that doesn't bring the pyra wins nowadays. However, that's when it's a very well practiced team like Rydr or Spqr. I can see how newer teams might have a problem against metamidions but really I think the best way to progress as a team is knowing how to deal with different tactics, and that doesn't even mean you have to "lobby counter" but rather refine your play style to counter the other teams'.

In regards to pick order and banning, it makes me very nervous. Essentially, it would just further divide the skill gap in competitive as I see it. The only teams that would be so versatile as to not be affected by the ban are the top teams who have been playing the game forever. Newer teams will be forced to do things they're not comfortable with, and in the end it will just increase the chances of their failure. It seems to me that whoever made this ban thought that top teams only used metamidion or something, and this would put the top teams on par with the lower ones. However, that is simply not the case. Being on the Rydr team I can tell you we have practiced Mobula, Pyra, Junker, Galleon, Goldfish, and Lue even flew a squid at one point. SPQR have the same amount of versatility. Compare that with newer teams like Mad Hatters or WoD and it's clear that they have less room for things they are comfortable with. The thing is, as a new team starting out it makes perfectly legitimate sense to specialize because there is no way you'll be able to just get as much experience with every ship as the top teams. But if you specialize, you stand much more of a chance by having the same amount of experience with one ship.

As to the pick order? Meh. From what I can tell things just get more counter-y and I'm not a fan of the lobby counter game. You can implement it but I think it will just make people more wary of counters.

[Puppy Fur]

Seems like an interesting idea. Having teams pick ships beforehand with notification of what map they will be on.

[Skrimskraw]

Seems like an interesting idea. Having teams pick ships beforehand with notification of what map they will be on.

its the best solution that havent been tried proper yet.
If you want to test it you can most likely get velvet to run this next SCS if it serves as purpose for making a better league.

[Kamoba]

I just want to reiterate another reason why it should be kept KISS (Keep It Stupidly Simple.)
Two days ago in a match with mostly random players, the team I was in won, 5-2, at the end of the match the pilot of the enemy spire (in canyon ambush) complained that "We'd have won that had Kamoba not taken a F****ing metamidion." I was flying a gatling Artemis...

Imposing rules means opening rules up to interpretation, some people call any pyra with armour damage and hull damage a meta, though most others see Gat Mortar as the meta...

My point being, as people start saying this rule is against "the metamidion" they mean different things, so if the rules proposal is changed to account for the players who want pyra and the players who don't want meta, the meta is anything which works effectively together, and thus more complaints that the rules don't account for X.

However if you keep it simple: Competitive teams -have- been practicing counter builds to gat mortar pyra's, using these builds in live competitive matches, then you will soon notice the "meta problem" will be less apparent than it "has been"


Having people pick ships before hand? It removes the "lobby.counter game." But adds psychological play for the pilots in their choices.. "Okay I'm against Bob on Dunes, he will likely pick a mobula, so I cant take my lumber spire.. But I can take my lumberfish..." It is not a bad idea and not too complex to referee and implement.

[Ayetach]

Puppy Fur,

Is the purpose of this idea to simply diversify the ship selections from what the last HC had? If so does this contribute to the core function of this competition? Or is the aim focused on something specific? Is it based on performance of players? Is it based on teamwork focus? or tanacity of handling circumstances that would be out of the control of the players?

I could go off the extreme end and say a randomizer would select ships for each crew if player performance wasn`t the focus, but if we`re looking to have a competition where a compilation of player contributed and team contributed performance is involved then its a matter picking what each team wants to perform best with and that would require providing them the freedom to choose what works for them.

Knowing the purpose of this competition on the core level will ultimately dictate how to best address these various ideas, and I would venture to guess that this will be a competition of player and team performance that requires the best utilization of all the options available.

[Puppy Fur]

I just want to reiterate another reason why it should be kept KISS (Keep It Stupidly Simple.)
Two days ago in a match with mostly random players, the team I was in won, 5-2, at the end of the match the pilot of the enemy spire (in canyon ambush) complained that "We'd have won that had Kamoba not taken a F****ing metamidion." I was flying a gatling Artemis...

Imposing rules means opening rules up to interpretation, some people call any pyra with armour damage and hull damage a meta, though most others see Gat Mortar as the meta...

My point being, as people start saying this rule is against "the metamidion" they mean different things, so if the rules proposal is changed to account for the players who want pyra and the players who don't want meta, the meta is anything which works effectively together, and thus more complaints that the rules don't account for X.

However if you keep it simple: Competitive teams -have- been practicing counter builds to gat mortar pyra's, using these builds in live competitive matches, then you will soon notice the "meta problem" will be less apparent than it "has been"


Having people pick ships before hand? It removes the "lobby.counter game." But adds psychological play for the pilots in their choices.. "Okay I'm against Bob on Dunes, he will likely pick a mobula, so I cant take my lumber spire.. But I can take my lumberfish..." It is not a bad idea and not too complex to referee and implement.

If people seem to think the idea is ok I'm up for it. My main concern is not having the "lobby counter game".

Would this idea lock weapons on send in as well? Or would weapons be changed during the lobby portion? (I'm leaning toward weapons being like the ships).

Puppy Fur,

Is the purpose of this idea to simply diversify the ship selections from what the last HC had? If so does this contribute to the core function of this competition? Or is the aim focused on something specific? Is it based on performance of players? Is it based on teamwork focus? or tanacity of handling circumstances that would be out of the control of the players?

I could go off the extreme end and say a randomizer would select ships for each crew if player performance wasn`t the focus, but if we`re looking to have a competition where a compilation of player contributed and team contributed performance is involved then its a matter picking what each team wants to perform best with and that would require providing them the freedom to choose what works for them.

Knowing the purpose of this competition on the core level will ultimately dictate how to best address these various ideas, and I would venture to guess that this will be a competition of player and team performance that requires the best utilization of all the options available.

I'm mostly trying to find a way around the "lobby counter game". I feel that it isn't organized or fun to play in.

[Kamoba]

Locking in weapons may be a bit too much (imo, sometimes weapon tweaks are just too vital to lock in based on assumptions, but locking the ship still lets teams pick ships based on tactics...

However I do want to point out one situation that happened in the SCS I took part in... TT (my team) against Centurions in the final, two rounds at a Tie, only way we'd have won would have been a 5-0 victory, but the centurions having the ability to choose their ships meant they were able to take a galleon, and it was that tactical ship choice that denied our team the 5th kill and fave Centurions a well deserved win, locking ships before hand still has its draw backs