Does anyone else think this format would be better if the players had two or even three hours? EU4 campaigns take dozens and dozens of hours. Sometimes I wonder how much of a reflection of the players’ skill this actually is, just having an hour. I feel like giving more time would allow for more variety in strategy, and therefore more opportunity for novel and interesting plays.
Six hour livestreams are very common. Lots of gaming tournaments run the entire day, so six hours is not outside the norm for livestreamed events. If total runtime is a concern, then they could find a format with fewer players, or one where multiple groups are playing at once, or an event with teams, etc. There’s lots of possibilities, and I think they should experiment beyond just one hour.
They are aöready 1470 in 1hour, if you add +1 hour, you add +30 ingame years. So we are 1500/1530/1560, than this nations are all snowballing even harder.
3 three hour duels just isn't feasible to be honest. The last livestream was around 4 hours, triple that, trim some fat and you still have 10+ hours of a streamed tournament with live commentary and constant switching of POVs. We also intentionally give 30 minutes heads-up about the challenges as we don't want them to be a complete shock, but we also don't want extensive, year-on-year theory crafting. In addition to that, longer challenges just aren't as entertaining in my opinion - there's a compromise between competition and entertainment at play. We're not testing skill to the highest degree of accuracy, we're trying to put on a show that entertains as many people as possible. If we think about people who play EU4 more casually, for example, or someone who has never played, this format works much better. Thanks for then feedback though!
Really hard to understand what is being played for and what is the format. Would be nice if there would be some graphic in the introduction to tell the viewer whats going on (smth like football or hockey cup tournament graphics).
Quarbit was just trying to do too much at once in his france war. you go north or south. then the other. if you split up England crushes your stacks. if you stick together they don't even bother landing you. meanwhile the ottoman play was super strong. the ottoman play was excelent. this was really good play and good strategy by two excellent players.
wouldnt it be better to play ottomans and move you main trade note to venice in an idea situation you have maxe cotnroll over all notes leading into venice but you dont care about venice itself. that way you dont fight the italien merchants and instead ally them.
I see two problems with that strategy. 1- Gaining full control over venice trade node in 1 hour ( coalitions and truce timers vs Venice) will be a problem 2- You will lose a lot of anatoilan trade value in the ragusa trade node as you try to pull it to Venice. Hungary and bunch of others will pull it towards budapest.
![The Wall Song ร้องข้ามกำแพง | EP.213 | กรีน อัษฎาพร | 3 ต.ค. 67 [1/5]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3KrlLbCsadI/mqdefault.jpg)
Well of course ottomans are an un-orthodox pick. They are sunni after all.
*_Ba dum tiss_*
14:24 Laith jumpscare
Does anyone else think this format would be better if the players had two or even three hours? EU4 campaigns take dozens and dozens of hours. Sometimes I wonder how much of a reflection of the players’ skill this actually is, just having an hour. I feel like giving more time would allow for more variety in strategy, and therefore more opportunity for novel and interesting plays.
Six hour livestreams are very common. Lots of gaming tournaments run the entire day, so six hours is not outside the norm for livestreamed events. If total runtime is a concern, then they could find a format with fewer players, or one where multiple groups are playing at once, or an event with teams, etc. There’s lots of possibilities, and I think they should experiment beyond just one hour.
They are aöready 1470 in 1hour, if you add +1 hour, you add +30 ingame years. So we are 1500/1530/1560, than this nations are all snowballing even harder.
I prefer these abbreviations anyway, would be even better in 15-20 min probably. The 1 hour playtime timer seems perfect for stategy-building
They probably don’t have enough time for it if the event sponsored they could experiment about the idea of longer challenges.
3 three hour duels just isn't feasible to be honest. The last livestream was around 4 hours, triple that, trim some fat and you still have 10+ hours of a streamed tournament with live commentary and constant switching of POVs. We also intentionally give 30 minutes heads-up about the challenges as we don't want them to be a complete shock, but we also don't want extensive, year-on-year theory crafting.
In addition to that, longer challenges just aren't as entertaining in my opinion - there's a compromise between competition and entertainment at play. We're not testing skill to the highest degree of accuracy, we're trying to put on a show that entertains as many people as possible. If we think about people who play EU4 more casually, for example, or someone who has never played, this format works much better.
Thanks for then feedback though!
Would really enjoy something like this for CK3, Imperator, and Vic3
Really hard to understand what is being played for and what is the format. Would be nice if there would be some graphic in the introduction to tell the viewer whats going on (smth like football or hockey cup tournament graphics).
Quarbit was just trying to do too much at once in his france war. you go north or south. then the other. if you split up England crushes your stacks. if you stick together they don't even bother landing you. meanwhile the ottoman play was super strong.
the ottoman play was excelent. this was really good play and good strategy by two excellent players.
Best trade nations are the ones who can do WCs super fast, so probably the Oirat or Ottomans. One can raze, the other doesn't need to core.
if it was in x ammount of in game years i think you would be right, but becouse its 1 hour irl oirat is not a great pick imo
02:30 fallen comrade"S"
while That just one sliding picture
bankruptcy got him the loss
Litcherly my two favorite eu4 nerds
wouldnt it be better to play ottomans and move you main trade note to venice in an idea situation you have maxe cotnroll over all notes leading into venice but you dont care about venice itself. that way you dont fight the italien merchants and instead ally them.
I see two problems with that strategy.
1- Gaining full control over venice trade node in 1 hour ( coalitions and truce timers vs Venice) will be a problem
2- You will lose a lot of anatoilan trade value in the ragusa trade node as you try to pull it to Venice. Hungary and bunch of others will pull it towards budapest.
Can someone please explain that beef between Habibi and Quarbit to me? Can't find anything but I'm interested
My first thought was going for Ottomans since they have a lot of mana to dev diplo and have easy access many nodes to steer trade to them
“69% war score against the Mamaluks. Very nice”. 😂😂😂
I kind of wish rhat it was just one challenge for each pair but make it a little longer
Great game
Less than a hair thats like 5% difference...
Quarbit took Negroponte, Crete, and Naxos in the war with Venice.
Again. Ottoman player has the time going for sooo much faster in similarly set speeds. This has to be fixed.
why no ming?
Absolute Ganker