Mirror Match

while if you base a tournament on mirror matches except it will be a failure in esports measuring terms because significant portion of the fans wont watch it , it will require 1 match for the wehrmacht and one for the soviets and unless its played on a chessboard to ensure no map side favoring it will require 4 games istead of 3 , this is not shooting yourself in the foot its shooting yourself in the head with a bazooka or a panzerschreck to ensure you wont miss the hit . And even if you need 2 matches then you will need a third in case of a tie . And about the unfair conditions you discribe , i have watched a ton of tournaments , the fact that we have 4-6 players dominating them on a very consistent basis each year (sometimes they change because some of them stop ) proves that the ones who are the best end up in the top spots .

Your post makes no sense. Why would i need 2 or even 4 matches? If mirrors are available, each side can pick the faction they want without being forced to play a specific faction as it is the case without mirrors. Thus, we only need 1 match. Just like it is done for any other game with mirror maatches available.

The rest of your post is invalid as well, because like CombatMuffin pointed out, you're assuming people don't like to watch mirror matches. This is a subjective oppinion.

You entire post comes down to one simple point though: That a significant portion of the fans won't watch it.

What if... and I mean this as a big what if (brace yourselves!): They deliver Mirror Matches and they actually DONT suck? What if they aren't THAT badly balanced, and most people actually end up liking them?

But that is impossible in the eyes of nay-believers. Its not a huge possibility, but it is plausible at the very least. You simply cannot assume people are going to hate it, just because of what they say right now, based on an incomplete version. Hell, most of them haven't even played it!

The people who dont like mirromatches obviously like authenticity and that is unlikely to change meaning that if i find it lame to fight germans with germans now i wont change my minfd when i actually do it , another point is that esports include a few people playing and alot of people watching which means that the interactive factor is taken away and you r left with just watching which means by default that the gameplay experience which might indeed be good comes to a second spot as it has been stated before people like coh because it is a company of heroes and you get to be its commander which means that immersion which comes not only from gameplay but with the ability of the game to suck you in to it ,and that might get hampered in a mirror match which will in turn hurt the esports aspect in a mirror tourney. Finally you missed the point where i explain why i think it wont be good for tournametns on a practical level . All that said i am not opposed to mirror matches at all in fact i will play them as tutorial to learn my army and if i like them regularly , what i dont want is the game to be balanced around them (because it will bring down the assymetrical warfare which is the reason i liked coh initially) and to be unable to switch them off in automatch .

Your post makes no sense. Why would i need 2 or even 4 matches? If mirrors are available, each side can pick the faction they want without being forced to play a specific faction as it is the case without mirrors. Thus, we only need 1 match. Just like it is done for any other game with mirror maatches available.

BO1 is bad. Never seen any tournament with bo1 format. Starcraft is usually bo5, bo7.

Your post makes no sense. Why would i need 2 or even 4 matches? If mirrors are available, each side can pick the faction they want without being forced to play a specific faction as it is the case without mirrors. Thus, we only need 1 match. Just like it is done for any other game with mirror maatches available.

The rest of your post is invalid as well, because like CombatMuffin pointed out, you're assuming people don't like to watch mirror matches. This is a subjective oppinion.

A tournamant must have a symmetry of some sorts in map and factions terms . Tournaments should determine the best overall player and that means ability to play all the given factions not just one which means that if you get to play wehr vs wehr on langre you should then play as am vs am on langre otherwise the result might not depict the truth and that is your argument is it not , exploit the competitive potential to the full you said , well if we get the wrong results we dont , that is why you need 2 matches , and if the map is not symmetrical like angoville then you need to reverse positions and do the other mirror match as well . The last bit about the one match is completely wrong , in any case of comparative testing to determine something , you always get the maximum possible number of samples to reduce the effect of random or unknown parameters and a match of coh is no exception . On the second scale of your reply i have already answered to Combatmuffin as objectively as it is possible when taste comes in the way . Also you have not answered my last question how is it that we have the same names in coh tournaments at the top if the system used is unfair or not balanced , check out every commentators or experts opinion they will tell you that the winners deserved to be winners .

BO1 is bad. Never seen any tournament with bo1 format. Starcraft is usually bo5, bo7.

Certainly not for the semi-finals or finals. But the possibility to run the early rounds in a BO1 format is a huge bonus for big events, cause they don't have to extend over several days this way.

Also you have not answered my last question how is it that we have the same names in coh tournaments at the top if the system used is unfair or not balanced , check out every commentators or experts opinion they will tell you that the winners deserved to be winners .

It works out OK, right now. But it is a lengthy process of BO3 in the early rounds. And most of all, the artificial parameter "VP lead" which determines the advantage in game 3. So, ultimately it has a chance that the first 2 games are just dummy games with "VP rush style" to determine the faction choice of the deciding 3rd game. We've seen this VP rush tactics in numerous tournaments in the past. Obviously, the best players are also the ones who VP rush in the best way, but the outcome was/is boring to watch in many cases.
I've been a tournament referee on GR.org for 2 years a while back myself and can tell you that these factors were topics for discussion even back then.

Certainly not for the semi-finals or finals. But the possibility to run the early rounds in a BO1 format is a huge bonus for big events, cause they don't have to extend over several days this way.

No it is not a huge bonus , if only it cuts down the time played to half and the fun times as well and it places a disproportional weight of determining on one match which means that if one sneezes at a bad time or something really randonm happens like a super acurrate howie shot he is fucked without a chance to make up for it , it also means we will have super conservative gameplay because there is only one chance .

It works out OK, right now. But it is a lengthy process of BO3 in the early rounds. And most of all, the artificial parameter "VP lead" which determines the advantage in game 3. So, ultimately it has a chance that the first 2 games are just dummy games with "VP rush style" to determine the faction choice of the deciding 3rd game. We've seen this VP rush tactics in numerous tournaments in the past. Obviously, the best players are also the ones who VP rush in the best way, but the outcome was/is boring to watch in many cases.
I've been a tournament referee on GR.org for 2 years a while back myself and can tell you that these factors were topics for discussion even back then.

Disagree , vp 's are very important but they come second to victory , which means that vp control is just one more parameter the competition tests for . I have said previously that i think long tournaments are good tournments just because of the wtf momments happening in larger quantity .

No it is not a huge bonus , if only it cuts down the time played to half and the fun times as well and it places a disproportional weight of determining on one match which means that if one sneezes at a bad time or something really randonm happens like a super acurrate howie shot he is fucked without a chance to make up for it , it also means we will have super conservative gameplay because there is only one chance .

It's a bonus for organizing events, which currently is a pain in the butt in vCoH.
If you've ever tried to help organize one of the tournaments in that game, or even play in one of them, you know what I'm talking about.

Nobody is ever going to say that bo1 is a better format for competitive play than bo3 or bo5; it isn't. But for earlier rounds in tournaments, you can usually do with one round and save everyone volunteering for a lot of work, especially if you've done a good job seeding the players.

So the rest of the game has to suffer because you can't be arsed to organize a tournament properly ?

Slightly more seriously. No, i just don't see it. And if you can somehow do a BO1 with mirror matches, then you can also do one without. You're not exactly proving anything if you're just going to throw in a mirror match, then you might as well flip a coin and have it done with that way. I really don't see how mirror matches will make that somehow magically better.

So the rest of the game has to suffer because you can't be arsed to organize a tournament properly ?

Who's saying the game has to suffer?
(yes, I get that it's a joke, but why are people so hell-bent on saying that the game will be objectively worse if mirrors are present, considering most of the people complaining haven't tried them?)

Slightly more seriously. No, i just don't see it. And if you can somehow do a BO1 with mirror matches, then you can also do one without. You're not exactly proving anything if you're just going to throw in a mirror match, then you might as well flip a coin and have it done with that way. I really don't see how mirror matches will make that somehow magically better.

I did do a bo1 in CoH once, during the tournament that was arranged during the 2.602-beta. My original opponent hadn't shown up, so I got matched with another guy(I think it was TrouserDemon), and there wasn't time for a bo3. I flipped a coin with my opponent and got axis. Now, at this point in the beta, the vCoH matchup was heavily US favored. I won, but that's mainly because I quite simply played a lot better than him. Had it been a stronger opponent, I could have been knocked out of the tournament because of a dice roll.

Even if the game is balanced, there will still be problems with this. What if you end up playing on a map where a certain player is really good with one faction and completely crap with the other one? You may be a better player than him overall and would easily have beaten him in a bo3 because you could pick factions in the final game, but because he'd narrowly beat you in one match-up you'd lose. If mirrors were present, at the very least the coin flip wouldn't be the deciding factor in a bo1, because you could freely pick any faction you wanted.

Even if the game is balanced, there will still be problems with this. What if you end up playing on a map where a certain player is really good with one faction and completely crap with the other one?

That's the point, it forces people to learn both.

In earlier rounds of a tournament you can coin toss the faction for a BO1 because honestly at this early stage it shouldn't matter which faction the better player has, he should win fairly easily. In the later rounds where games are closer, that's when you go to BO3 or 5 and use something like the VP rule to determine final rounds. I genuinely don't understand the hate over this rule, as it's yet another thing for players to think about and figure out how to incorporate into their game. This assumes that factions are fairly well-balanced, but with just the one matchup for now that shouldn't be too hard, and anyone claiming otherwise better not be advocating mirrors anyway.

Something to consider is that when players have to be good with both factions, the overall skill level will have to drop. There is something to be gained from playing the other factions enough to have a familiarity with them, but beyond that focusing on one faction will always make you better faster.

Personally I think part of why the skill level is as low as it is for the top vCoH players is partly due to this.

That's the point, it forces people to learn both.

In earlier rounds of a tournament you can coin toss the faction for a BO1 because honestly at this early stage it shouldn't matter which faction the better player has, he should win fairly easily. In the later rounds where games are closer, that's when you go to BO3 or 5 and use something like the VP rule to determine final rounds. I genuinely don't understand the hate over this rule, as it's yet another thing for players to think about and figure out how to incorporate into their game. This assumes that factions are fairly well-balanced, but with just the one matchup for now that shouldn't be too hard, and anyone claiming otherwise better not be advocating mirrors anyway.

No, that's completely besides the point. You will naturally be better or worse at one matchup than another, and if you're not capable of making the decision of what faction to play at least once, you may very well end up in the scenario mentioned earlier. I remember tournament games where the first game was a narrow 45 minute game with someone's best faction, followed by two 10 minute stomps when he's playing the other faction. A bo1 in this scenario would mean the better player would be knocked out.

Good seeding and keeping it in the early parts of the tournament will solve most of the problem, that's true though. Still, I'm definitely opposed to bo1 when your faction is decided by a coinflip.

Also, what Daniel said.

(PS: btw Texas, are you HoD?)

@Naeras:

Regarding Bo1: Yes with mirror matches you could, but so could he and you'd still be in the exact same dreadful situation you just mentioned. Either way, mirror matches won't solve anything.

And what you're afterwards stating just pretty much points out that a Bo1 is then silly because no matter what, someone good could get knocked out by a worse off player. Which returns us to the Bo3 and in which case. again, mirror matches won't do diddly and again, we can just focus on having a proper matchup where players can then display mastery of two armies rather than just a mimicry of that by specializing in one.

@DanielID: I'd be very curious to know what you define as skill and how you then proceed to argue that most of the top level players who master several armies are without skill.

This is some great reading material if you have not decided what you think about mirrors but I think that all the points that could have been made have been made. Time to close this thread.

So the rest of the game has to suffer because you can't be arsed to organize a tournament properly ?

Slightly more seriously. No, i just don't see it. And if you can somehow do a BO1 with mirror matches, then you can also do one without. You're not exactly proving anything if you're just going to throw in a mirror match, then you might as well flip a coin and have it done with that way. I really don't see how mirror matches will make that somehow magically better.

That's a great initiative Dane! The whole community will be thankful for your offer to organize and supervise the next 128 player BO3 tourney. Didn't expect that from you, but hey, there are always days with nice surprises

The key aspective of optional mirror BO1 is, no player is forced to play a certain faction but both have the choice to play the faction they want. 1st player chooses faction first, 2nd player chooses starting positions, all good. Flipping a coin is eventually putting you in a disadvantage, i don't know what i need to proof here.

I think CoH2 should feature only one map and one faction in multiplayer, so it will be very easy for people to run tournaments .

@Naeras:
Regarding Bo1: Yes with mirror matches you could, but so could he and you'd still be in the exact same dreadful situation you just mentioned. Either way, mirror matches won't solve anything.

He could what?
I'm assuming you're talking about picking the faction I'm bad against now. And yes, he could. However, in this scenario he picked that faction, not the coin. Key difference.

And what you're afterwards stating just pretty much points out that a Bo1 is then silly because no matter what, someone good could get knocked out by a worse off player. Which returns us to the Bo3 and in which case. again, mirror matches won't do diddly and again, we can just focus on having a proper matchup where players can then display mastery of two armies rather than just a mimicry of that by specializing in one.

@DanielID: I'd be very curious to know what you define as skill and how you then proceed to argue that most of the top level players who master several armies are without skill.

This returns us to the point that a lot of skills you learn in one faction, especially mechanical ones, don't translate directly to another faction. Being forced to invest several hundred hours in a secondary faction means the overall level of play you see in each individual faction is lower, as opposed to having the option of playing the other faction well enough to learn its ins and outs on a high level(which you honestly should do to some degree).

As for why CoH has a lower skill level amongst its best players than what is comparable to, say, SC2, is more than anything because CoH doesn't have a professional scene, something that theoretically could change with CoH2. However, being forced to learn two factions is a drawback in terms of how far each individual faction can be evolved.

because CoH doesn't have a professional scene, something that theoretically could change with CoH2.

Do you really think that ??? oO
If yes, prepare yourself to be disappointed by COH2.