New PS3 tournament/ladder/league (discussion)

[kozzm0]

Now that the "Battle for Europe" has derailed, there should be something else to replace the worthless leaderboards. I've been told there is even potential for corporate sponsorship which will provide prizes.

Whatever form it takes, I think it should be something that is relatively simple, makes the game as sim-like as possible, and rewards participation as opposed to inactivity.

I've got a few ideas and have heard some from others. This is what I'm thinking might work:

) a ladder system between 3 or 4 player teams in 3 modes: air combat, strike, capture; 2 points for a win, 1 for a tie, -1 for a loss; teams can challenge any other team at any time, as long as they don't keep playing the same opponent over and over again

or

) a league system where each team has 2 months to play 2 matches in each mode vs every other team, in a kind of "season," with requirements for playing a certain number of matches every week or 2 weeks.

) an individual league where each player does 2 matches against each other player over 2 months

or

) an individual league as part of a 3/4 player team league, with 2 players from each team doing 1-on-1 matches for a total of 4 matches, like in Davis Cup tennis.

And taking most settings, like weather, respawn time, location, planes allowed, cockpit-view/virtual view (if patch enables), and making them the host's prerogative, and each side hosts once.

plz post your ideas

[STINGERSIX78]

ladder system.
max 3 player teams. (i prefer 2)
k/d based

[P-51]

...
) a ladder system between 3 or 4 player teams in 3 modes: air combat, strike, capture; 2 points for a win, 1 for a tie, -1 for a loss; teams can challenge any other team at any time, as long as they don't keep playing the same opponent over and over again
...

) an individual league where each player does 2 matches against each other player over 2 months
...

I like these two ideas. Would it not be possible to have a singles and a team based running at the same time? Im happy to help organise if thats the case!

[Spitfire23]

yeah some nice simple ideas there, if i had to choose id go for option 2

[Zatoichi_Sanjuro]

I wouldn't be interested in 1v1 matches at all.

The 3/4 player teams would be good, matches could be based on historical fights like we did with BoB and Y29 only both sides get a round to play as the Axis and vice versa.

Also, (BF:BC2 inspired) multiple 3/4 player teams could take part in a dogfight where each team flies a specific plane, making plane identification crucial. That's probably too hard to monitor though.

Scheduled matches are crucial as we all know by now. ;)

[kozzm0]

I wouldn't be interested in 1v1 matches at all.

a lot of players aren't... that's why I think it might work to make it a sub-competition of a team tournament



Scheduled matches are crucial as we all know by now. ;)

If team USSR had formed its own team UK faction, all the week 2 BfE matches would have finished in 3 days.

It takes forever to officially set up a match, and then still it often doesn't happen. AoA tournament finished nearly a month late just with set 1-on-1 matches

That's why most video games have to resort to a ladder, leaving it up to the teams to find opponents, the ones that do move up the ladder, the ones that don't stay at the bottom. There would just have to be a way to make sure the same teams don't play each other too many times

======
once rules are set, it would be great if a non-partisan were to manage it, like maybe one of the site mods.

[Oh DeaR iTz GaZ]

only have dates which were real ww2 dogfights then research it ie weather time of day place

[Rhah]

It would be cool to have historical battles, but it would be a nightmare to organise. I think we should keep it as simple as possible.
Like Kozz says, teams of 4, with a leaderboard style, and its down to each team to organise matches. Minimum of 2 vs 2, max of 4 vs 4.
We should also stick to the basic rules of the BfE... No Stormo's, no bombers, no rockets etc,

[Mage_016]

As I said in the other thread for the single player tournament maybe it would be like this: if you are new or didn't take a part at the ace of the aces tournament you can challenge one of places 9.-16. of AoA and if you win or already are in 9.-16. you are able to challenge one of places 2.-8. And winner is able to challenge whoever is number one at the time. If not responding to challenge in 3 days or so it will count as loss.
What do you think about this. Is it even possible?

[kozzm0]

Bump...

As I said in the other thread for the single player tournament maybe it would be like this: if you are new or didn't take a part at the ace of the aces tournament you can challenge one of places 9.-16. of AoA and if you win or already are in 9.-16. you are able to challenge one of places 2.-8. And winner is able to challenge whoever is number one at the time. If not responding to challenge in 3 days or so it will count as loss.
What do you think about this. Is it even possible?

So, a chance for me to avenge my elimination round loss to you, eh? :)

That is a good idea, unfortunately a lot of the AoA players have disappeared, but it would be an active ladder.

Since I had to bump this thread, how about if we designate a few experienced players to pick teams of 3 or 4, just to keep people active, with a simple rule for keeping them balanced: no team can have two players ranked in the top 12 in any one mode, or 3 in the top 24.


I agree with Rhah that the basic BfE match protocol worked... screenshots before and after, no kamikaze, no runway-sitting, no bombers in air battle or airfields. Maybe other settings like weather, year, map, respawn time, should be up to the host. Also bombing runways allowed or not.

After seeing p47 in action in strike, I think there should also be no p47's or arado 234's. If each side hosts once in a match, b17 is fair because it can be intercepted, but p47's and arado's can't.

[STINGERSIX78]

pls, lets make it easy as possible.
simple ladder system, 2vs2 min. ....
remember:
sometimes, the whole uk team couldnt bring 3 players into operation.

[Mage_016]

Bump...



So, a chance for me to avenge my elimination round loss to you, eh? :)

That is a good idea, unfortunately a lot of the AoA players have disappeared, but it would be an active ladder.

Since I had to bump this thread, how about if we designate a few experienced players to pick teams of 3 or 4, just to keep people active, with a simple rule for keeping them balanced: no team can have two players ranked in the top 12 in any one mode, or 3 in the top 24.

I think getting 24 active players for 8 teams is quite hard. And can we do anything with 8 teams or less?

Balancing teams is important, but most of the active players are already in top 24. Do we need list of active players now?

Should there be 2 or 3 matches per week. For win 3 point's, tie plus 1point, lose 0 and if misses a match it's -1 point for those who didn't show up and +1 for those who waited for nothing.

[Spitfire23]

Should there be 2 or 3 matches per week. For win 3 point's, tie plus 1point, lose 0 and if misses a match it's -1 point for those who didn't show up and +1 for those who waited for nothing.

That seems like a fair way of doing things, this way players might feel compelled to play the matches in fear of letting thier team down

[Mage_016]

That seems like a fair way of doing things, this way players might feel compelled to play the matches in fear of letting thier team down

Yeah, I think there should be more activity by this way.

By the way, nice sig...

[Spitfire23]

Yeah, I think there should be more activity by this way.

By the way, nice sig...

Yeah we can only hope 'Fingers Crossed' I for one will put as much time as possible into it this time around

Cheers, not long finished it. Got photoshop the other day so i'm still getting to grips with it all. Not bad for a first effort though i guess ;)

[lost cause]

I would go with teams format, ladder or season, and I know 8-10 other pilots who would too. I play all the time and don't want to miss this one. Lots of players don't visit this website so we have to get it out word of mouth. If we are seriously going to do something, please sticky it so I can find it readily. I will monitor this and stay tuned. Oh yeah, we might want to get it done before GT5 comes out.

[kozzm0]

I think getting 24 active players for 8 teams is quite hard. And can we do anything with 8 teams or less?

Balancing teams is important, but most of the active players are already in top 24. Do we need list of active players now?

Should there be 2 or 3 matches per week. For win 3 point's, tie plus 1point, lose 0 and if misses a match it's -1 point for those who didn't show up and +1 for those who waited for nothing.

We don't have to start with 8, that's what's good about ladders. All we have to do is form teams and start playing matches. Even 4 would be enough. Once it starts, I think there'll be a big "snowball effect."

It's true it might be hard to avoid 3 in the top 24 on the leaderboards, at first, especially if you speak French as I think the three most active French-speaking players are all top 24 in team battle and/or dogfight. Using at most one top-12 in any one mode per team would be easier to start. If it's not, we could change it to top 8.

The reason I think top 12 would work is probably no more than half of them are gonna join up, at least at first. A ladder can end up with dozens of teams once people notice it.

I agree with a 3-1-0 scoring system, except maybe a no-show should be worth 1/2 point. When I ran a Warhawk clan on the Gamebattles ladder, it gave out too many points for forfeits, and it kind of ruined it.

How about if a few of us volunteer to round up teams, then once there are at least 4 teams, we'll hash out the exact rules as founding team reps.

----------------------------------

also mage I thought some more about your idea of using AoA as the start of an individual ladder, I think it would be a good way of avoiding schedule problems since you can challenge any of 8 players. I think maybe the top 8 could be ranked first by successful defenses, and then for tie-breakers, use first overall ladder record, then original AoA rank. To keep the bottom 8 from avoiding challenging the #1 spot, they could challenge the top 8 as a group, and the first one to accept is the one they fight. If nobody defends the challenge, the challenger takes over #8. And any top 8 who fail to defend at least once every two weeks fall back to the 9-16 group.

So if you're ranked 9-16, you issue the challenge by sending PSN to each of the top 8, and you might get lucky, or you might get Mirgervin. Same if you're unranked and challenge 9-16.

Also the 1-8 and 9-16 could challenge each other to determine their overall records and order.

[Mage_016]

----------------------------------

also mage I thought some more about your idea of using AoA as the start of an individual ladder, I think it would be a good way of avoiding schedule problems since you can challenge any of 8 players. I think maybe the top 8 could be ranked first by successful defenses, and then for tie-breakers, use first overall ladder record, then original AoA rank. To keep the bottom 8 from avoiding challenging the #1 spot, they could challenge the top 8 as a group, and the first one to accept is the one they fight. If nobody defends the challenge, the challenger takes over #8. And any top 8 who fail to defend at least once every two weeks fall back to the 9-16 group.

So if you're ranked 9-16, you issue the challenge by sending PSN to each of the top 8, and you might get lucky, or you might get Mirgervin. Same if you're unranked and challenge 9-16.

Also the 1-8 and 9-16 could challenge each other to determine their overall records and order.

That sounds really good. Inactive players will drop down in a month. I'd still like that you can't challenge #1 if you haven't won a challenge/defence for top-8 yet.
I think maybe the top 8 could be ranked first by successful defenses, and then for tie-breakers, use first overall ladder record, then original AoA rank.This is what I didn't understand. Is this just what I said above or...? I'm sorry about my english skills..

[STINGERSIX78]

hmmm... i think, it too complicate. :(

[lost cause]

I agree with Stinger. Don't get too complicated. Make up teams and get after it. I wasn't there, but complications killed Battle for Europe. Right? The biggest problem would be Mirgirvan, tagandbagem, and Dinho28 on the same team, or something of that nature. Players in the top 8 or 10 or something similiar cannot be on the same team. They would totally rule.

On another note, I have noticed through experience that the best dogfighters are not necessarilly the best at strike and cta. I have also noted that everyone is capable of having bad games and bad days. I played the three shittiest games ever Sunday afternoon. And I mean shitty!!!!!! I was embaraced! Then turned in a best score in game for team battle with a group of top 20 players, including tagemandbagem. So anything is possible. But we need to get a move on!!!! It's Feb 1st already.

[Mage_016]

Kozz, can you make raw version of rules for the team battle? Based on what we have so far. So we can see what we have.

I hope you guys understand that we have (at least i have) talked about two separate tournaments here. Team and single?

[kozzm0]

Ok... something like this:

team ladder prototype rules:

1) teams

* all teams have 3 or 4 players
?) no team, when formed, can have 2 or more players ranked in the top 8 in any one mode on the leaderboards
?) every team must have one member active on the boards who is responsible for making sure their team knows all the rules

2) matches

?) teams will organize their own matches, taking before/after screenshots, and send them to the tournament moderator via PSN; or, matches will be against set opponents.
?) teams can't play each other twice in a row.

3) scoring

?) 3 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, 0 points for a loss, ? points for a win by forfeit, -? points for a forfeit

----settings and rules----

4.1) mandatory settings/rules

?) each match is two 20-minute rounds, each team hosts one round
?) all air combat is between fighters in strike mode (so dying is a kill for the enemy, confirmed or not)
?) no kamikaze/runway-sitting in strike or airfields
?) no bombers (triangle on the map) in airfields or air combat
*) capture airfields is limited ammo.
???) limited ammo in all modes

4.2) host-optional settings/rules

?) weather, time of day, map, ?
?) plane restrictions (like no UK/USSR planes, b17, p47, etc.)
?) disallow bombs or rockets in airfield capture
?) disallow rockets in air battle
???) allow unlimited ammo in fighter combat

4.3) mutual-optional settings/rules (both teams must agree for any of these to take effect, otherwise they're not allowed, or not rules)

?) cockpit-only
?) no map
?) allow jets, rocket-planes, biplanes, I-16
?) allow medium bombers in airfield capture (IL-2, bf110)

5) new teams

?) any team can join at any time, as long as it doesn't have 2 players in the top 8 in any one leaderboard mode, when they first join.

6) sponsor/prizes

?) ask Macademic, I have no idea what the publisher told him, and he hasn't been around for a while.


===========

that's it.

everything there seems to be a general consensus about is marked with a "*" and everything else with a "?", the "?"s change to "*"'s when they're decided.

Post any other suggestions and I'll add another "?" line with the idea.

That's one page - to help it remain just one page, just the team ladder for this post, not the individual ladder.

[STINGERSIX78]

unlimited ammo ?? ^^

[kozzm0]

no, I forgot limited ammo... unless everyone wants unlimited ammo. Should it be mandatory or optional?

[Mage_016]

no, I forgot limited ammo... unless everyone wants unlimited ammo. Should it be mandatory or optional?

Optional. And maybe in cta it should be always limited ammo.

For scoring, how about 3-1-0 and for team who showed up 0.5 and for other team -0.5 cause there should be some penalty for not showing up.

[kozzm0]

Optional. And maybe in cta it should be always limited ammo.

For scoring, how about 3-1-0 and for team who showed up 0.5 and for other team -0.5 cause there should be some penalty for not showing up.

I agree with the scoring, and with limited ammo in CTA. Someone set up an unlimited airfield match today, it was ridiculous.

Should ammo in other modes be a host option then?

btw there were 8 players or more online between 3am and noon gmt today. There's plenty to start forming teams with.

[Spitfire23]

I'm comfortable with that layout, however i believe Limited Fuel/Ammo should be on at all times

[MACADEMIC]

Hello all,

I've been away skiing for a bit, no internet there which explains my absence from the game and the forum.

About sponsoring, yes the publisher has indicated his okay for that but they need to await their marketing budget to be approved before they can officially commit to sponsoring a new tournament.

Will keep you posted as to when and what they're going to sponsor.

Best,

MACADEMIC

[SEE]

All the best to you PS3 guys, I tried to get the same thing going on Xbox and got just one reply. Team tournaments sound like a great idea as a lot of peeps are not keen on 1V1........maybe I should get a PS3! :grin:

[kozzm0]

I'm comfortable with that layout, however i believe Limited Fuel/Ammo should be on at all times

I agree, I just want to make sure enough combat styles are included. Realistically, in a 2v2 team battle, if one team is killed off, then during the time it takes them to respawn, you could figure the other team is able to return to base, refuel and reload for another sortie. I'll try to find a way to put it to a vote among everyone who's posted here.

There's a big kind of night crowd playing right now, huge games but almost all dogfights with unlimited ammo, the usual 2-dimensional thing. Some of them may have trouble adjusting. That's pretty much all anyone does anymore, except the occasional destroy-the-airfield mode and crash-into-the-bunker mode.

Macademic does the publisher want to have all the funding and etc in order before the competition starts? Or should we go ahead cause things look ready to roll soon. Lost Cause is motivating people for a battle-of-the-planes deathmatch kind of mini-tournament, and telling people to post on this forum. So there will be a lot of people around, it's a good time to start forming teams, sometime during the next week.

[MACADEMIC]

Macademic does the publisher want to have all the funding and etc in order before the competition starts? Or should we go ahead cause things look ready to roll soon. Lost Cause is motivating people for a battle-of-the-planes deathmatch kind of mini-tournament, and telling people to post on this forum. So there will be a lot of people around, it's a good time to start forming teams, sometime during the next week.

Hi Kozz, they didn't say but I'd think they'd want to know what they're sponsoring before it starts. My guess is that they'll want to sponsor some tournament similiar to Ace of Aces, for individuals. Easier to market that.

Anyhow, I don't see why your competition shouldn't start, even without prices.

[kozzm0]

I hope the near-death of these forums doesn't make people stop posting though. That was nearly the end of everything.

I agree it would be easier to have prizes for a 1 on 1 thing. What do you think of the top-8/second-8/unranked ladder scheme? Where you'd make a challenge to the next highest group instead of to individuals, and play the first one to defend, and they get points if they win, if they lose, you take 8th spot in their group.

I'll wait one or two more days for comments on team rules and then post a draft proposal for a ruleset, maybe as a poll.

Then we can form teams and kill each other.

[winny]

I'll wait one or two more days for comments on team rules and then post a draft proposal for a ruleset, maybe as a poll.

Then we can form teams and kill each other.

That may be possibly the best summing up of the human race I've ever read. Genius.

[kozzm0]

working on revised rules now, based on all the comments here, will post them in a day or two. Hopefully team formation can more or less coincide with the "battle of the planes" thing lost cause is organizing (friday and saturday, I think)