New PS3 tournament/ladder/league (discussion)

[kozzm0]

Originally Posted by Mage_016

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]

Originally Posted by kozzm0

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

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.

Originally Posted by kozzm0

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.

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 ?? ^^