A New Fortress League

[Concord]

The division idea you posted makes sense now, I never really understood you meant it in that sort of way. It does seem like a pretty good idea, but I doubt the matches on weekdays will work outside of all european or all american teams against each other.

just to clarify (it might have been clear, but I can't tell) as laid out, the Open division would play it's matches on Sunday/Saturday somewhere in 18-20 gmt.

[syllabear]

Spin, I didn't mean every clan/team in the US division would be worse than every clan in the EU division. For example, oracle are probably better than DS and pru for sure, but on average, the USA clans/teams are worse. ON AVERAGE

[Concord]

perhaps a 4v4 league with two matches each saturday. For those players who can make that type of commitment. It could be captains draft, and perhaps captains would have the ability to trade players. Eh?

[Word]

i would make it 7v7 like last time (or at least 6v6 like the ladle), because with 4v4 we wouldn't accomplish the big goal - more teamwork. we have had enough 4v4 wars, we don't need a league for that.

[Olive]

concord, are u aiming at implementing the ideas from here into a popular league?

gl, u got my support.

There is, in my eyes, only 1 major problem to tackle, which we can't. Namely the loss of interest over time, which leads to other problems. Solve that, solve all.

[pike]

7v7 is too much, it ended in 7v5 or 7v4 matches last time. In 4v4 teams tend to play too defensive, so I think 5v5 may be a good idea - there would be still plenty of teamwork included and (hopefully) less no-point-holes.

I'm not sure how often the matches should be played - there are players who can show up 7 days a week, but last time 3 games/month was too much for some teams.

[Concord]

There is, in my eyes, only 1 major problem to tackle, which we can't. Namely the loss of interest over time, which leads to other problems. Solve that, solve all.

yeah

[Concord]

perhaps instead of the opening round of the Ladle, we could do group stage round robins the weekend prior. 4 groups, 2 teams from each group advance.

This gives every team at least 3 matches each Ladle and while it almost doubles the length each Sunday is a bit shorter.

thoughts on that?

[Titanoboa]

I would prefer them being two separate events (league and a ladle). It's part of the ladle that you have to win all your (sets of) matches to win the tournament.

But I won't argue that any further: I'll settle with what the majority feel is best.

[Concord]

I'm just very skeptical in general as to whether a league can be successful on a big scale. With fewer teams, you can play each other more than once and have a more meaningful league. Or you need playoffs, but the regular season cannot be much longer than 2 months, I would estimate.

[radian]

i think the international challenge showed that in principle a big league comp can work well
but problems tend to arise with teams / clans made up of (euro and non euro) players < --(eg)
like tu - when the organizing authority says,we are putting you in this camp or another
that will immediately be a talking point for fairness..you see the prob here
international challenge avoided a great deal of this in the sense that the players were from the same country - and so the prob moved onto the fairness of what server locations the matches were played on - but the root of this seemingly endless prob needs to be carefully and fairly integrated into the structure of the league system that is introduced.
which inevitably leads to the question - would the international system work for a big league
i think it ,with refinement ,would work very well

international challenge mutated into a full league, rather than a knockout
the more i look at it - the more it seems to be a natural progression, negating and simplifying itself

[Word]

I like how your signature seems to correspond with Concord's

I disagree with the rest - We were lucky that there weren't a lot of conflicts. the matches i've seen (except for EB vs nl, or n) weren't really entertaining, you could already tell after the first two or three rounds which team would win. Some teams (Germany/France) were just unorganized. They weren't fun to watch. so yeah...you'd get rid of one problem but perhaps opening the door for two bigger ones: less systematic games and more trash talk.

it surely didn't happen yet, but more of these matches could split the community in a very negative way so that players from the same country start splinter groups and are unwilling to compete with others and never experience what, let's say, a match between CT and SP looks like. of course i'm describing a dystopia here, nothing of this has to come true - i don't want anyone to cut himself off

[radian]

i think we should do all we can to get those who have not seen the excitement of ladle competitions/fort comps/sumo etc ,to participate in a new proposed league,and the international challenge seemed to achieve that to some extent.

im,e just throwing idea,s in the air here,in the hope that the established players / organisers see the real benefits for arma in reaching out to those other players,in the way that the international challenge did.

the english soccer league has four divisions
premier . 1.2.3

so that those teams made up of very talented players in the premier do not go up against say a team in devision 3.at the end of the season the 3 top and 3 bottom teams move up or down from their division..so maybe a two division system would work well for a new league.
if the new league needs more players ,how about asking those country.s that participated in the international ,to set up teams for the new league

[Word]

*bump*

we should discuss these things:

• players per team (do we need a 4v4 league? I'd prefer 7v7 but i know some teams don't have enough actives for that, so i'll stick to 6v6 because it still has something like a "midfield". this position drops out in 5v5s.)
• time limit or score limit?*
• how long should a season last? (2-5 months)**
• how do we involve spectators in an appropriate way?
• do we want the divisional system Concord proposed?***

We also need servers and admins.

*I still favour Psyko's system (quoted in my initial post) - 30 minutes. A score limit doesn't make sense imo.

**An active team should be able 9 matches in 3 months, we have enough room to plan our matches; we can always postpone them. It should be possible to play 2 matches on one weekend. This is more than enough time.

***All the teamwork some players are capable of goes up in smoke as soon as they are not in their real team. Perhaps a divisional league can help to strengthen the teamwork of these new teams. But most of the matches won't be comparable to the Ladle when both teams don't have players that use to be an essential part of their teamwork. And, perhaps some misunderstand this, i don't want anyone to spoil a real team by indoctrinating them their own principles. This is every team's own business and makes the ladle more competitive.

[Concord]

your still misunderstanding what I wrote about divisions.