|
|
Post by psyCrowe on Nov 29, 2019 18:14:16 GMT
Heyoo 
The current RaW format includes groups of three players, with first position promoted, and 3rd demoted. How would participants feel if this format was to change? Or should the format remain the same?
This does not mean any changes will take place, but more a discussion on possible ideas to make the league better, or maybe it already is! The point is we need discussion. It's no use a few members speaking on behalf of all - that's not how we work. All voices are heard equally. If we all were to decide a new format, then these changes wouldn't happen for at least another few rounds, until things were smoothed out.
Structure:
We currently have 13 participants. It would be great to increase this number, so hopefully more players will sign up!
The format I propose, is 3 groups of 5 (ideally 6) players. This would take the form of Division A, Division B1 & Division B2.
Bottom two positions of Division A get relegated to Div B1 & B2, and the winners of these divisions move up in their place.
Runner up of B1 & B2 play against eachother, to determine who will participate in a 'playoff' match vs third bottom of division A. (If 5 players per group, this would be 3rd place; if 6 per group, 4th place).
The winner of this 'playoff' match will take the third position in Division A, while the loser to the relevant B division.
Format:
Obviously with the league being expanded, more time would be required for everything to take place. I have no predetermined time, but maybe over a few months... Maybe 6-8 weeks?
We could arrange matches to remain as bo3, or keep everyone on their toes and change to bo1.
Maps could be determined via current BWCL map, but of course this would then require linkage to BWCL, which at times will between seasons, so matches could take place on predetermined map, or possibly a vote on here for each weeks starting map.
Minimum requirement of 1 game per week. Signing up and not playing isn't fair on other people and dampens the experience, but this rule could be waived within reason. Furthermore, you could opt to play every match on the same day, thus 'completing' your season. This gives participants maximum flexibility.
So these are just my suggestions. Others may like them, others may be disgusted by them! The point is to communicate and help grow the team, with everyone having a say
So please, any feedback is appreciated, even if it is just the status quo ( keeping RaW as it currently operates ).
|
|
|
|
Post by unleash on Nov 29, 2019 18:22:37 GMT
I like the idea of expanding the number of Players per Group. Makes it more interesting imo.
Been in Class A and S, those are active and it's Pretty easy to schedule the games, so for those Players I see no Problems.
Not sure how easy it has been to organize the games in the other Groups. That would be my only concern with expanding the number of Players.
Not sure if People can organize all of the games within the given timeframe. And it would be a shame to have walkovers in this Format.
So tl:dr: I like the idea, People will have to be able to organize themselves and their games well enough, though.
|
|
dinh0
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by dinh0 on Nov 29, 2019 18:35:36 GMT
As the bad ass that i am, i am up to anything. After crvt 2-0ed me, i have never looked back and destroyed dreams and hopes along my way
|
|
|
|
Post by psyCrowe on Nov 29, 2019 18:53:56 GMT
Well the same rules would still apply regarding inactivity, players would be warned. With more players in each division, I don't think it necessarily makes organisation more difficult, you simply choose another player. An alternative is for the fixtures to be arranged by admins, before the season begins. This could tie in with a MoTW (map of the week / starting map) feature. But players could also choose to play matches in advance. A fixture list would mean there is a framework to adhere to. The only issue then would be if someone wasn't able to play in a particular week, but these are issues that can be worked around with communication. I like the idea of having a 'Champion of champions' tournament, where all previous winners of Div A battle it out for the ultimate bragging rights, and maybe even some kind of prize! But don't know if that may just be a little too much in-clan gaming  |
|
|
|
Post by InDi.ReV on Nov 29, 2019 19:18:28 GMT
I am fine with expanding number of people per division.
I am against expanding the time to play. If you give people too much time to play, then nothing will get played, me the first. I like the 2 week format I think its acccurate. But I wouldnt be against at least hsving 1+ person per group
|
|
|
|
Post by psyCrowe on Nov 29, 2019 20:49:07 GMT
Valid point, Indi. That is why I suggested a minimum of one game per week, but that could be changed to two games per week. All hypothetical really, as much more feedback is required before even considering any changes! I like the idea of 4 players per group. We could have the same format ( S, A, B, C classes ) or Division A, with B1, B2, B3 ... With 3x winners promoted to A, or some kind of round robin between the 3 winners to determine 2 places in A. Nice suggestion |
|
|
|
Post by unleash on Nov 29, 2019 22:16:42 GMT
It should stay at bo3 imo. Dont want this turning into a cheesefest. the timeframe of 2 weeks should also be kept. We could have 1-2 trialrounds to see if it works out, if not, we can revert the System.
|
|
|
|
Post by slowzerg on Nov 29, 2019 22:37:27 GMT
I like the idea to increase number of players per group, but proposed system of promotion feels way too complicated for me. I like as it is now: first goes up, last goes down.
|
|
|
|
Post by dudakb on Nov 30, 2019 7:57:32 GMT
For me, keep the same format with bo3 and 2 week to make the games, but 4 per group instead 3.
|
|
|
|
Post by szinkler on Dec 1, 2019 10:53:03 GMT
I agree with the latest comments, I like more players in a group (like 4-5 instead of 3), but 2 week time limit should stay (it is really , uhm i don't know the right word, but really nice like that, things are moving in a fast pace). Also B1 & B2 makes it too complicated.
|
|
