New PS3 tournament/ladder/league (discussion)

[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...

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by kozzm0

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]

Originally Posted by Mage_016

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]

Originally Posted by Spitfire23

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...

[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..