You touched on it, but I believe the biggest issue with the ladder qualifier is how different the format is from the main tournament. For example, Mr. Yo is twice as good a "tournament" player as MBL is because of how he utilizes strategy. This is not meant to be a knock on MBL, who is a fantastic tournament player in his own right. However, the ladder qualifier selected people entirely on mechanical skills instead of the skills that made people like Mr. Yo win Red Bull in the past. This might be acceptable to fans if the main event had at least 16 players, but selecting 4 out of a measly 8 spots based on mechanical skills just leaves a sour taste in the mouth of fans who want the biggest spectacle in AOE to have a qualifier that selects the people based on the skills that make them likely to do better in the main event. It was a worthwhile experiment and we can't complain about what Red Bull does with its money, but I assume that ideas like this go through some vetting. I really doubt that Red Bull was somehow fixated on a ladder qualifier. Someone screwed up and gave bad advice. I am not saying Red Bull has to do things exactly the way we want it. However, despite being a promotional vehicle, Red Bull does also present itself as an S-tier competition in not just prize pool but also in settings. Having said all that, a friend of mine proposed a theory that, if true, redeems the organizers a bit. What if the organizers were hoping to mainstream the Empire Wars format via the ladder qualifier? That is, if all of the 1v1 community, not just the top players, threw itself into the spirit of Red Bull and played Empire Wars during that period to "be a part of it", it would have truly changed the AOE2 landscape. In that case, even if the organizers whiffed, they were at least swinging for the fences and thinking big.
"Go ahead and sign up if you want your ass beat by a pro" - dude, I would love to play a pro, I tell every pro I meet to 1v1 me if they want, the only reason I'm not forcing it is I value their time. That goes for you, too, Tristan, I'll 1v1 you any day of the week, I'm just a Mid Elo Madman, but I can at least ask some questions of you!
I agree with you. Although I think it was interesting idea for Ladder Qualifier. It just needs some changes and improvements. I just wish more players could qualify.
What if in the ladder system is added a feature that Degenerates ELO Rating if you are not playing for X amount of hours? you lose 1 ELO for every X hours when you don't play...a condition can be added to check if the player has played in the last 24h and the this Degenerative feature activates only after 24-36 hours of inactivity. This will "force" the players to play in order not to lose the ELO... of course, it can happen that some players are not available for a longer period because of personal stuff, but it should be taken into consideration that a ladder qualification is announced with pretty much time ahead. It can be an idea.... just saying :)
Liquipedia does detail that those finishing 3-8th in the Last-Chance Qualifier get a prize (3-4 $3k and 5-8 $1.5k). So 14 players in total will win prize money if this is correct.
@T90 - With other tournaments, viewers often get a chance to donate to the prize pool. Do you think it is worth setting up a way for the community to donate to enhance the prize pool of the last chance qualifier? I feel like that would be impactful and increase engagement and i agree more prize pool would be good for the qualifier. This would be a good way to send that message? p.s. i dont think the main tournament reallllly needs our dono's this time round :P ty Redbull
Some tweaks that could be made: 1. Give something to 4-16 ranked players. 2. Even if top 4 qualifies, make it so the prize is decreasing until 16th gets say 100€ so they even compete even when they reach top 16, granting action till the last moment. That way maybe say Sebastian or Hera would have played to get top position (Liereyy was absent), along with 20 more other players that didn't play last hours. 3. Make it a 5 day ladder. That way they don't spend so much time just not to qualify. 4. Ban the "Mirror" option. If they choose same civ, so be it, but mirrors were boring AF.
I like usage of ladder, but this cutthrout isnt the way imo. Sonething like top128 qualifies for main qualifier with your being your seed might be good compromise
Where I have trouble feeling like it was unfair for those who finished just a bit below MbL is the fact that MbL ultimately played far more games than they did. Many players didn't grind as hard until the last few days, but MbL began his climb early and stayed there. So what if he barely played in the last few days? He had to put in the work to get to the top of the boards. Congrats to him.
Ehh IDK I prefer this over a tournament setup where a Player is just Automatically out of the competition whenever they vs Hera. We get it Hera is gonna win 90% of the time and in a 4-0 /4-1 and this has made Major Tournament so boring and stale. Hidden Cup an example
You're right about the big picture and the scene, if tournaments stay about the same 20 guys this game is gonna stagnate again. There has to be incentive for the mid range players to keep the scene alive. That's why things like Titans League are so good for the community. There has to be stakes for the rest of the players outside the Select Few.
the format could have been made more interesting if they implemented a samll draft for civilizations - like they have in league of legends before every game a championdraft - we would still see a lot of same civ but maybe a little more variance also they could have implemented some sort of rule of feature that you have to play X amount of games per day - seems bit harsh but would have prevented the camping --> especially if you dont take top rating and rather take current rating just some ideas obviously easy to say after the hole thing has concluded - also not sure if any of them would be realistic to actually implement them
I feel ladder would work with more qualifying. If let's say 21 would qualify you get less top heavy points and more people are threatened by just a few points and thus more likely to play. Make No1 directly to the main event and 20 to close qualifier
This 2024 RBW event will be a sad let down for all of us fans. Not enough Players and too brief. Red Bull is NOT short of cash, so it's a very interesting decision by their accountants... The 'ladder qualification' process was totally FLAWED and open to manipulation (corruption?). BAD. NEVER AGAIN please. M 🦘🏏😎
I would say that this tournament feels a bit off so far because we're used to the systems and structures in aoe2 being broadly positive for the community. Without trying to sound too cynical, it's hard to see redbull particularly caring about the growth of the game or some sort of positive "vibe", ultimately (and in fairness to them, they're not a charity) they want to make money and see this as a means to do so. The issue then is that they use the structures in place within the community to achieve a profit, while simultaneously investing into the community as little as possible. More so than any of the other redbull tournaments that came before, this one has the feel of cost cutting and nostalgia baiting. This isn't meant as a cry to boycott the event or even to demand better from them, just a recognition that they have a reason for hosting this tournament and it's naive for us to believe they love the game and want to see it flourish. I enjoy redbull wololo occasionally as something to mix things up, but won't be clamouring for them to hang around too much.
At the end of the of the day its Red Bulls money and we have to be grateful that they are deciding to spend it on another tournament for aoe2. They need to justify it aswell. Yes it would be nice to give others some money, but you can't really do that on the people that didn't qualify on the ladder and also give them money in the qualifiers. I also wish it was more than 8 players. But lets just be grateful that there is another awesome land tournament.
I think the format is okay, but the details are wrong. Obviously the numbers 5 trough ~20 needed a money reward, also mirror matches should be disabled somehow and maps should not be banned. That way it’s more random and hopefully more fun to play and watch. I do hope this format will return in the future, but not as the main way to qualify. Just once or twice per year, it did light up some activity (and drama) within the community and that is a good thing in the long run.
If you go real big brain, when you hit your best you go on a new alt account and siphon points from the bottom into your alt. Your alt isn't going to make it in anyway and your capability is likely higher than your lower ranking players. Your alt gets more points, the top below you get less opponents, and get fed less points, plus you get a chance at taking away points from your lower competitors.
The qulifying elo needs Inflation. Example: 1 point added per player per pame. So If Yo and Vinch Play 50 games with 50% wins bith rise 50 Points. They creep up on MBL, who now has to win a game to push them back
Really Really bad for the scene if it's like this again seems like an overstatement. If they did it exactly the same I think we would see less people try at the ladder which would makes it go less well but not going to kill the scene. There are improvements to be made 100% and I think if they use the ladder again they will make improvements/changes
For a game that is so unbalanced , mirror match ups bring a sense of fairness to qualifiers. Skill vs skill and no random arse luck or gotcha situations.
either the ladder system is competitive/grindy to select ONLY the best players for the tournament or regular qualifiers are open enough to allow underdogs to sneak through with some luck or bad/good days. You are arguing on both sides.
they simply just need to ban mirror for this tournament ladder and that's it, the decision to use ingame ladder instead of qualifier is creative, but it is clearly not well-thought/thoroughly considered.
One positive in my opinion was that one or two bad days didn't ruin you. If you had a bad day for whatever reason, you were sick etc. you could just stop and come back next day. In normal qualifier, you were most likely out in that case.
Something not really discussed was such that the "Top 4" qualification had hard time/date cut off. Meaning anyone in that time zone was able to really grind 'til the deadline, and anyone outside of that time were at a severe disadvantage. Go to bed as #1 and waking up as #6 is a kick in the teeth. There was so much blatant dodging going on as well, and I feel bad for Yo and Vinchester because they were mid-game when the deadline hit (fairly certain the winner would've taken the spot off MBL).
There's a big division on how much people got rewarded for their efforts, depending on the timing they put that effort in. ELO systems are great for long periods, but a brand new one takes too long to shake out the skill standings. Everybody starts at the same ELO and the best time to get a run going is right at the start, when you can take a good amount away from lower skilled players. The early starters pull ahead AND kick out the ladder behind them by removing ELO from the easiest players to take it from, so any late starters have a much much harder time getting their initial points up. Add in strategy of sitting on said points, and equal skill players won't catch up anytime in the short term. If you didn't jump into a ladder early and the top end are playing the system, it's going to take thousands of games for the ELO system to level out.
I think the format is great but 4 spots is not enough. If it was a normal 16-person tournament it would be soo fun. I imagine top 8 from ladder getting in and 9-24 having a decider game. Also, ban system is needed to avoid mirrors
I think something that is getting overlooked is the attention that the ladder qualification has brought to both Red Bull and the Tournament over the last few months. It's basically free advertising to casuals in game, if that brings more viewership and increases the likelihood of future sponsorship and events then I'm all for it. I think as well as prize money for those that just miss out, increasing the number of spots available would make the huge grind feel more worth it. 8 players at the main event feels underwhelming considering the massive grind from so many players. I'd consider an ELO decay of current ELO, maybe just in the last 2 weeks or so, doesn't impact highest rating, but makes it harder to recover from camping if you do lose your spot. And lastly I'd make it shorter and slot it in a period where it doesnt clash with multiple other tournaments
I think the simplest three fixes would be: 1. Give a bit of money to the ones who missed 2. Randomly ban x civilizations each game (same bans for both players, "better" civs have a higher ban rate) 3. Lessen the elo difference (I still think it should be something, but maybe the range be 10 min to 15 max so it's not a 2:1)
