Roo's Army League / Tournament Idea

[supratank]

Jedi - I have talked to Delta personally, including his subsequent post in our thread, involving the ongoing challenges we would engage in with Fi. We will proceed with a challenge system for UF which was where this started. I am more than willing to then, adapt to the ideas presented here, or in the forum you discussed in your post. It will be in the council of many ideas from different armies that this has a chance of working. The challenge system between UF and Fi will continue as we both desire it to be an ongoing thing and have discussed in on voice thoroughly. Their participation in this forum discussion does not commit them to anything, however I believe that they would be more than willing to at least listen and be a part of a discussion based on their willingness to participate with UF, and Delta's openness to the idea with me. I think you can safely add them to your list... and I will email Delta for him to post here.

Also, Treavis is represeting OB Outbreak

[Rooster]

I can host these fetes
Set a schedule that doesnt conflict with a league nites
Say Monday or a Thursday or both

[jedirieb]

^ Monday nights are RBL. Thursdays are probably a safe bet, since we've only seen CTFL twice in four years.

^^ Alright, thanks for clearing that up.

[Spirit ^VT^]

So I guess the next thing on the planning agenda is to confirm with all the armies that they want to go through with this. Thursday nights seem good. How is that for other armies?

What I was thinking is to include the "handicap" mode for more developed armies against newer / less developed ones (ie. 4 on 3)


Also, I was thinking that we could have "home" and "away" matches based on which army hosts the game. For example, for one series of games between VT and OB, VT hosts as the "home" team and then on the next series of games, OB would host. That way, there would be a balance of lag issues / fairness

Perhaps each army cxould pick a "home" map?


Also, what if we were to incorporate the spooky and frantic maps? Should we use them for wars? That way the league / tournament chart could look like this:

Example:


Army Name - Wins - Losses - Pointss For - Points Against - Lush Rec - Fran Rec - Spky Rec

VT - 10 - 7 - 324 - 200 - 4/1 - 3/3 - 3/3



What do we think about that?

[SoapScrum]

So I guess the next thing on the planning agenda is to confirm with all the armies that they want to go through with this. Thursday nights seem good. How is that for other armies?

What I was thinking is to include the "handicap" mode for more developed armies against newer / less developed ones (ie. 4 on 3)


Also, I was thinking that we could have "home" and "away" matches based on which army hosts the game. For example, for one series of games between VT and OB, VT hosts as the "home" team and then on the next series of games, OB would host. That way, there would be a balance of lag issues / fairness

Perhaps each army cxould pick a "home" map?


Also, what if we were to incorporate the spooky and frantic maps? Should we use them for wars? That way the league / tournament chart could look like this:

Example:


Army Name - Wins - Losses - Pointss For - Points Against - Lush Rec - Fran Rec - Spky Rec

VT - 10 - 7 - 324 - 200 - 4/1 - 3/3 - 3/3



What do we think about that?

I, personally, prefer lush. Though I shoot great, I just don't like the feel of others besides lush.

[niKo]

Well I guess I'm up for trying this again, but Phoenix did the exact same thing with "United Armies," and it died.

If this goes through, I'd really like to see all the stock maps. As long as they're made equal (i.e. - moving the Medulla ammo gate to the center). I love playing on the different styles of terrain. They require different strategies.

I think we should play some games on DB10 or Trinity... used to rotate in Leopard Lair.

: ) ,
=niKo.

[Cannon-Dale J]

Some good ideas, not that keen on the A & B league though, half the fun is playing teams who are better than you & is the only way to improve.

Obviously OB is a new army, so ideally we need a bit of time before we war with the top armies, kind of build upto it. My idea on this was a seeding system, which combined with a league rather like Englands football league.

Idea would be that each army wars each other army twice in a year, with a home & away fixture, which I suppose could be servers & maps.

Each war would be two rounds (maps) Green & Blue, which could be won drawn or lost, with points for each. Points from each half being totaled to determine the overall winner. You could then carry a score difference for any league ties.

This would result in say 10 - 12 wars per year with everyone playing each other.

The seeding would mean that top & bottom seeds play each other first, so that we build up to UF/ SA for instance.

Scrimmages for practice could be fit around this schedule, which would be great.

As Supra says an active league would allow for team rotation, so presumably UF would not field their A team against OB & it would bring in an interesting new tactic in fielding the right team to beat ones opponent.

@ Soapscrum - If you wish to be disparaging about any OB members please could you do it privately, certainly not in this type of thread. This type of comment is not exactly in the correct spirit of the generation of a new format between armies.

[SoapScrum]

So I guess the next thing on the planning agenda is to confirm with all the armies that they want to go through with this. Thursday nights seem good. How is that for other armies?

What I was thinking is to include the "handicap" mode for more developed armies against newer / less developed ones (ie. 4 on 3)


Also, I was thinking that we could have "home" and "away" matches based on which army hosts the game. For example, for one series of games between VT and OB, VT hosts as the "home" team and then on the next series of games, OB would host. That way, there would be a balance of lag issues / fairness

Perhaps each army cxould pick a "home" map?


Also, what if we were to incorporate the spooky and frantic maps? Should we use them for wars? That way the league / tournament chart could look like this:

Example:


Army Name - Wins - Losses - Pointss For - Points Against - Lush Rec - Fran Rec - Spky Rec

VT - 10 - 7 - 324 - 200 - 4/1 - 3/3 - 3/3



What do we think about that?

Anyhow, a 4-3 match is VERY hard, no matter even if it IS a UF vs VT grade players, though I think some of the LESS evoled, like OB and EA would like the handicap

[Spirit ^VT^]

Well, its only an idea on the table. If we really want this thing to happen - we are going to have to find some compromise.

What if the older armies (say 1 yr + ) used a rotation for the battles?

[jedirieb]

A rotation leaves the possibility that someone would miss the match (say, vacation for a week). I agree that a top army should not use their best members against a smaller army. However, I think that should be up to the individual army on who to use for each battle. Say SA is versing OB. For TS, we might throw in three "lesser guys" and Breaka. This would let it be "easier" for the other army, but still give them experience versing some of the best (not to mention they could use strategy: "Don't let Breaka have the scrum.")

@Cannon-Dale: That idea could work, with a few minor changes. One, from leagues such as PSL, it has been found that it is more fair to have a neutral hoster than one from either side (if you host and play on same machine, everyone else suffers lag). Also, I think it would be better to have three games to get rid of the tie option (or more than three if necessary). Then the teams can just tally up wins and losses.