The fall of 1v2 Eu v Asia cws

In November of the previous year, we debated whether 1v2 CWs were fair or not, being 1v2 Eu v Asia the basis to debate whether 1 Eu can beat 2 Asian players. I guess this debate is finally settled:



Y'all can keep trying it out but perhaps something extra needs to be added to balance them out. Asia could skip a turn, or they could be pushed even further from the middle east.

Or we could ban 1v2 CWs altogether. What do Clan Leaders think?

What

I can't believe that u BOTH managed to beat him, meaning that clovis didn't die

However, this is clearly a niche, not many are willing to risk clan elo facing two enemies

Ban till map is reworked/redone to make all continents and areas intresting.

As EC clan leader id say ban

T_T I wanted my elo back.

i believe that the 1v2 cws lose the whole point of a "coalition" where multiple members are together, if its 1 guy then put the elo in his own fucking elo pool meanwhile its not even balanced

Written by Alex, 14.06.2020 at 14:06

Jugers is keeping me hostage

send coordinates of jugers basement, also did he force u to rename to lilouch too?

Imagine taking a full year to realise this....

Imagine wall spamming in a 1v2 in order to avoid losing such a fight.

The 1v2 is in favour for Asia however it can be beaten through skill.
However, since people started tryharding it with wallspamming and/or abusing Europe's early weakness by rushing/tb spamming it with Blitz this type of cw has gone to shit.

I take my current 70% winrate of this season and leave it at that.
Banning Kuwait would be an option, but I can see how no one would try this anymore after that.

I think instead of picking kuwait, the middle east person is forced to pick even closer to europe this way europe could potentially get the kill 5-10 turns sooner.

Written by PleaseMe, 14.06.2020 at 15:13

I think instead of picking kuwait, the middle east person is forced to pick even closer to europe this way europe could potentially get the kill 5-10 turns sooner.

I did a fight today with Blitz Serbia. Kuwait can easily be beaten within a few turns with Blitz however I don't think it would help if only Blitz Serbia is being played in this setting.
Blitzkrieg is just horrible for the balance of this setting. It turns the game into a luck dependent one where the players with the more successful tbs wins.

1v2 cws are more fair then many cws i saw in the past... Like 3 10+ rank players, play vs 3 under 10 ranks.

In 1v2 is still possible to win as Europe, its hard and Asia need to make many mistakes, but ppls only cry after they lose....

1v2 cws are fine.

Written by Chess, 14.06.2020 at 15:19

Written by PleaseMe, 14.06.2020 at 15:13

I think instead of picking kuwait, the middle east person is forced to pick even closer to europe this way europe could potentially get the kill 5-10 turns sooner.

I did a fight today with Blitz Serbia. Kuwait can easily be beaten within a few turns with Blitz however I don't think it would help if only Blitz Serbia is being played in this setting.
Blitzkrieg is just horrible for the balance of this setting. It turns the game into a luck dependent one where the players with the more successful tbs wins.

is it possible to have a preset map? where serbia starts with 5k. and kuwait and NK both start with only 3k?

If I understand it correctly this map was destined principally for fun. If someone chooses to be petty and violate the purpose simply don't play with him.

I don׳t think balance is a factor because it's not outrageously unbalanced. However additional refined version to make the map more popular would help to make it more popular.

Since Froyer gave no useful opinion, here's mine: I like the 1v2 dynamic. Scenarios for 3v2s would also be interesting to watch and play imo. I hope you guys figure this out so that there's a way to keep this in the competitive scene in some way.

Increase income just like (competitive eu vs asia) map has, pick for the support asia should be pushed to Afghanistan,Tajikistan,Pakistan and same as for eu pick should be moved farther to balance so that eu can not jump in middel east in t3.

Yes the support player must be absolutely further, Pakistan or Afghanistan as close as possible, it all depends on the starting fund.
Without this, it is very complicated for a victory for the player in Europe.
After the idea of PleaseMe, can be good, to put a different starting fund, for the solo player 5K and 3K for the players of Asia.
Possible by creating the game in scenario, but the country selections will be predefined.
Or why not put 2 countries of departure for the player in Europe?
Or the idea of giving Europe a head start of 1turn.
Finally the 3 possibilities are good, even accept several if the players agree on this before the start of the game. This could allow more exciting games.

But yes as much to leave this option in CW, of 1v2.
Because players wanting to CW can be blocked by lack of teammate and this alternative is really good.

To touch a little more on what Taz said, how about you make a scenario but add all the most popular picks as starting countries because that way you can pick and choose from a few "balanced" options and if one country seems too op you can rebalance it by changing funds or even cycling it out for another. To add to that as well; if you were after a map maker to create and edit a version with a little more physical changes then don't hesitate to message me as I'd have no problem helping you out in that field(I even have some ideas that might help)

It would be necessary to agree on who would do this scenario, to avoid that several players do the same thing, to avoid unnecessary copies and which would harm the main map.