Roo's Army League / Tournament Idea

Spirit ^VT^ · Post by **Spirit ^VT^** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 11:16 am

Well, I like Mouse's idea. OB is strong - and EA is still alive and kicking. Let's face it, if we decide to do anything its not going to be bang perfect for anyone. In fact, doing this might encourage other armies to try and become stronger.

In really lopsided games, it could be decided to do a 4 on 3 or somethin.

I dunno - I for one hate long periods of downtime...as I think most of us do...

abtreavis · Post by **abtreavis** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 11:51 am

This sounds fun !

I am rdy and willing whenever it is/ however its done!

Post by **supratank** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 3:51 pm

I think the leagues A & B are interesting, but the drawback is the B league teams never have a way out of it, or they never have a way of moving to the A League in this model UNLESS you play A league teams on a regular basis.

FI and UF are moving forward with a regular challenge schedule. It is an experiment of sorts. I dont see us (UF) doing the war model again... or if not totally leaving it behind, using it sparingly only simply because it limits players participation, really doesn't prove much of anything because you are playing 1-3 games of each gametype, when the longevity or wins or losses would show a teams performance better, and
is harder to set up. (IMHO)

Most of our players play during the week. Our wars/challenges need to happen M-Th after 9:00 PM - and sometimes Sunday evening. What FI and us are doing is setting up a regular challenge day/night that UF and Fi will play and then we will keep records of wins and losses. Over time, it will be both challenging and fun to establish the better record and have fun with the Fi guys. Our teams will be allowed for some spontaneous play, and the teams will be mixed for broader parity of our best players and those that are developing.

I will let you know how it goes and report back here when we see problems. I think this is a great discussion that will begin all of the armies having more frequent contests and more fun! I think putting everyone's ideas on the table is a great way to come up with something that will work well for those that want to participate.

SoapScrum · Post by **SoapScrum** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 6:07 pm

supratank wrote:I think the leagues A & B are interesting, but the drawback is the B league teams never have a way out of it, or they never have a way of moving to the A League in this model UNLESS you play A league teams on a regular basis.

FI and UF are moving forward with a regular challenge schedule. It is an experiment of sorts. I dont see us (UF) doing the war model again... or if not totally leaving it behind, using it sparingly only simply because it limits players participation, really doesn't prove much of anything because you are playing 1-3 games of each gametype, when the longevity or wins or losses would show a teams performance better, and
is harder to set up. (IMHO)

Most of our players play during the week. Our wars/challenges need to happen M-Th after 9:00 PM - and sometimes Sunday evening. What FI and us are doing is setting up a regular challenge day/night that UF and Fi will play and then we will keep records of wins and losses. Over time, it will be both challenging and fun to establish the better record and have fun with the Fi guys. Our teams will be allowed for some spontaneous play, and the teams will be mixed for broader parity of our best players and those that are developing.

I will let you know how it goes and report back here when we see problems. I think this is a great discussion that will begin all of the armies having more frequent contests and more fun! I think putting everyone's ideas on the table is a great way to come up with something that will work well for those that want to participate.

Read the thread closer.

Someone mentioned if they won the B they'd move on to A.

Or, in my opinion- we can see what armies are becoming worthy for the A leauge, then invite them

Post by **supratank** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 7:00 pm

I think the rankings are from preconceived things and are somewhat subjective. It would be nice to start over and allow the challenge records to speak for themselves.

Besides, it would be nice if we could play everyone on a fairly regular basis. I liked the idea of a player offset for developing teams against teams that are better developed. (i.e. a 5 on 4 against UF in a match against a developing army). This is an idea that could be explored further.

SmEaGoL · Post by **SmEaGoL** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 7:17 pm

Personally, I think OB could whip VTs butt. I would like to see them put their money to their mouth with this because they have a former UFer and SAer. Put them together and they are UNSTOPPABLE. lol I do not know if EA is fit for a war with anyone besides AD and KGB. Still, they are not equal to us.

I had a proposal for a war strategy between EA and UF or EA and SA. It was to give the more powerful army 3 people while the weaker army had 4. This does not prove too well with TBM but since EA is better at scrum and if we had four people to your three, that could fair it up a bit. It seems like a League A team needs 2.5 tankers to a League B teams 4. I do not know how that could be arranged (perhaps in League A army have - Leader, moderate tanker, & weakest player as a team and whatever the League B team wants to do with their 4 people.) Just a suggestion. Good planning though.

Respectfully Submitted,
-SmEaGoL!

Post by **supratank** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 7:23 pm

^ some good points.

Delta and I talked about parity between teams, where say UF had a number of players playing that were at different places on the development scale. In other words, we wouldn't only field a team of amazing players against a team that was mostly developing. I would like to see UF mix its players against teams that are still young and developing. If we are playing bi-weekly, any win or loss could be a challenge to the other winner/loser and provide motivation adjustment and improvement for the "next time" that they will both play.

jedirieb · Post by **jedirieb** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 7:25 pm

I believe what is needed first and foremost is not ideas posted in this thread. Instead, we need to gather a list of all armies that are willing to participate. Then, we need to find a time where a representative of each participating army can get together and hash out a basic format. After that, we get said idea approved/disapproved by each army, and meet again to further discuss. Repeat as needed until most of the kinks are worked out.

First thing's first. Who is participating? By just a browse of the posts, I see:
-UF
-SA
-FI
-VT
-OB
-EA
-KGB

Note that no other army leaders have posted their intentions one way or the other. Even though Supra has talked about FI accepting, it would be better if they posted. Also, I'm not sure what army treavis is representing.

SoapScrum · Post by **SoapScrum** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 7:26 pm

An army with capt cheez saying they can beat VT. Rofl.

SmEaGoL · Post by **SmEaGoL** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 7:28 pm

^^^Good idea. I think you could encourage the, as you call them, "developing" armies by showing that UF does not always win. lol Mixing up is a good idea especially for the greater armies. EA is lucky if we can get 4 of our 6 active members to come. Although most of us are pretty equally matched except for a few odds and ends. This would also help "train" the developing tankers in the greater armies by giving them hands on or side by side instructions and tips from the best in the business. This is coming along well. Good luck to all.

^^I could be a representative...You just want to meet in PTT2 live chat or MSN. I think that would be best. A meeting in the next week? That would be good.
EA would love to participate...

Goin' Down!

Respectfully Submitted,
-SmEaGoL!

Roo's Army League / Tournament Idea

Should we do this?

Who is online