Multi-team rule discussion

[Delic]

Uhm, 2 teams per squad? And why implement such a silly thing into a RRL?

 

How about limiting the roster size instead? 'cause this is just silly.

[SeVeR]

2 teams per squad is silly like Delic says. Won't those two teams just gang up on the other teams? Limit roster size to 4.

 

Unless is starts in September I won't be able to play

[Incomplete]

Problem with that is finding enough teams who can find 4 players. Most people might be able to scrape 4 people. But then it will be a challenge getting all of them to be online at the right time. It is just a way of getting more people involved. I know the 2 teams might team up but I see no other alternative. However if you can convince me otherwise then I will change it.

[kentbrockman]

we discussed this in staff forum. we realized the teaming up part... but a host should beable to judge if this is happening. I can make a squad called -=kent=- then another squad called -=tnek=- and team up anyways, and it will be legal right? no - the host will notice and penalize.

 

we havnt had much pop in a long time, so this is to make it simple and fun. Dont stress to much about competitiveness - though as long as the players wish to be fair, it will be competitive.

 

If four guys in the squad show up on the day, then you can throw in two teams. i actually proposed to make it limitless on amount of teams per squad, but im ok with just two. when i heard that there should be 4 players on a squad and after ones out the next guy comes in and keeps on fighting... well there would only be two teams playing in the league. doesnt sound all that fun to me. this way we should at least get 5 teams of 2 playing at once.

 

 

 

now what about dates?

[Samapico]

I personally would keep it 1 team per squad, just like a normal rumble, and you'll create -=tnek=- if you want

 

And by experience, if a squad only has 4 players, chances are slim that more than 2 will show up. And there's always a couple of non-league matches before/after the game, so even if it happens, they'll just miss 1 game.

 

The 4 players per squad is a bare minimum requirement, and it certainly won't be applied strictly anyway. It's just to avoid having 20 squads registered, with 3/4 of them with only 2 players registered.

I think kent is talking about last season's rules where a team could put in up to 2 substitutes, basically increasing the number of allowed deaths from 19 to 39... Not really substitutes, but emm.. additional players. which was weird. Substitutes this time will simply take the substituted person's deaths with him.

[kentbrockman]

naw, cant do the -=tnek=- squad.. because as silly as it is, then being able to hop around would be called multisquadding. the idea is to allow multisquadding a bit, so that even if you played on the losing team the last run, if you are the one that shows up for the next game you still get to play...

 

keep the rules as is. we discussed this enough in staff forum, and if we dont stick with it then were in no way organized enough to bother doing stuff like this. dont complicate it any further. changing the rules now would only negatively impact the league.

[NBVegita]

I have to agree with Sever, Delic and Sama.

 

First the point of not allowing one squad to field multiple teams is so that you actually have more "individual" squads in the league. For example say Luster signs up with Seraphim, but Sed isn't in Lusters starting lineup for RRL. Sed can create and actually compete against his squad for the league.

 

Also it stinks if you're "team 2" of a squad and you almost win, but team 1 does win, because then you basically played your ass off for nothing. To go along with this, the more talent you have stacked on a squad or two, the less fun RRL becomes. For example say you had Aera, Seraphim and Epion all fielding two teams. Officially they will only be able to take 1, 2 and 3rd places, but because of their talent, with two teams, there would be such a gap between 3 and 4 it wouldn't be funny. At least if you limit roster size to 4, they may create other squads/join other squads for the league to balance it out.

 

It should be set at a max of 4-5 people per squad, no multi-squadding and then you don't have the headache of having one squad put up two teams. Because I know just as well as you that even if it isn't true, any squad that does well with two teams in it will be immediately accused of cheating, even though you could do it with two squads also. But on the inverse if you know you're team 2 and you have no chance of beating team 1, none of your stats count anyway, so why be concerned, heck you could even make yourself fodder for the rest of your team to pad stats.

 

Also inco you don't need your 4 players to be present to participate in the league, you just need 4 players signed up. This at least creates the illusions that you can at any given match possibly have 4 separate players eligible instead of just hoping your only 2 guys show up.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[kentbrockman]

the only reason for this 2 team per squad thing is so that squads throwing in 4 or 5 guys do not hurt the chance of having 2 teams instead of 1 playing during a rumble game. make your squad with 5 guys so that your sure you have 2 players present on the day of the event, well 4 of them might show up and only 2 get to play... does 3 teams total fightning in rumble sound fun?

 

anyways, if you guys really believe that we'll get enough players going using older style rules then go for it, make it one team per squad.

 

This has started off a little too messy. I recommend closing/moving this thread and starting a new thread for better hopes of getting folks. Keeping this thread will only cause confusion and disinterest people from signing up.

[Samapico]

I certainly hope more than 3 squads will sign up

[Delic]

Max roster = 4

Allow subs = yes (only once per player)

 

That way everyone get to play.

Perhaps Sama can make a bot command so captains easily can order the subbing.

But the multiple teams per squad thing has so many flaws it's not even worth considering.

 

Edit: Personally I wouldn't even have made a RRL. I'd start off with a 2v2 League.

Much simpler, much faster to host, and not as requiring from squads / teams.

But if I did decide to run a RRL, I wouldn't make it squad-based :x

 

Another detail is the name... I wouldn't include this one on the regular Rumble League series,

I'd indicate it more as a special event / league, since that's pretty much what it is.

 

hi5 anyways.

Edited July 9, 2009 by Delic

[Samapico]

2v2 league requires more matches though, since only 2 squad meet each time; while RRL = 1 match a week

[kentbrockman]

i have an idea

 

make it an individual event.. that way someone never shows up without enough players..

 

RRL8 rules:

(or whatever the f you wanna call it... i dont think the queen recognized any of them, so none of them can be called royal anyways )

 

whoever shows up gets to play - games start at x:15pm sharp. At x:15pm whoever you found as a partner is your partner for the game. If you can coordinate this well with your 'buddy' or a 'good player' then all should be fine.

 

If theres an odd number of people, well the guy who cant find someone who wants to play with him is out. too bad, so sad. or we can just let him play solo.... doesnt make much of a difference here does it? long as he doesnt hide..

 

Unfortunatly, getting stuck with a bad player will bring your score down - but that should only happen if your 'buddy' (squadmate) didnt show up - then you'd be disqualified anyways.

 

Figure out some score system for the individuals... like 2 points for every kill minus 1 point for every death... whatever..

 

Next week they may get stuck with a different partner (again, if there 'buddy' doesnt show up) - but they still get to play.

 

Only dilemma here is that if you cannot make a game, your 'buddies' (squadmates) cant save ya. you get no points for your no show.

 

in the end, we can average out the players scores by squad and call that squad the winner.

 

zones just not active enough to be organizing squads... unless we think that organizing squads for this will make the zone active again

 

 

any thoughts to add or adjust to that idea?

[Delic]

2v2 league requires more matches though, since only 2 squad meet each time; while RRL = 1 match a week

 

Yeah but 2v2 matches are much shorter. You could probably fit in 3 2v2 matches during the same

time that it takes to host 1 RRL match... maybe more depending on the RRL rules / death limit.

[NBVegita]

If I recall they tried a 2v2 league after the "downfall" of population and it only lasted a few weeks. Rumble is better because not only does everyone get to play at once, but being you're actually 2v2v2v2v2v2...instead of 2v2 it can help even the gap between mediocre and good teams.

 

I would say stick with RRL, just not 2 teams per squad.

 

Also what times are you planning to host these? Because depending when you're looking to do it I might put together a team for it.

[Samapico]

RRL matches will probably be hosted on Sundays around 3pm EST; this way we can cover american and european time zones.

[SeVeR]

You have to consider the times that other zones play their league matches now.

[Samapico]

Good point

[Delic]

If I recall they tried a 2v2 league after the "downfall" of population and it only lasted a few weeks.

 

I don't recall a 2v2 League ever being attempted. And my SubSpace-memory is remarkable!

But if it was, then the coordinators must have been utterly incompetent since only an

Elim league is easier to host than a 2v2 league, specially if you apply a flexible schedule.

 

Rumble is better because not only does everyone get to play at once, but being you're actually 2v2v2v2v2v2...instead of 2v2 it can help even the gap between mediocre and good teams.

 

I'd say that's very relative really. A weaker team may also get its ass vulched and flanked

in RRL all the time, and since you always play all teams then the result of each game

is bound to be relatively similar; whereas in 2v2 you have the chance to shine when you

face an easier team.

 

Another important thing that should be considered is that a league should at the same

time be used as a means of promotion. As such, the 2v2 gameplay is a lot more

user-friendly. It's a much more simpler event, and a hell of a lot easier to get

going if someone wants to play it during non-league days with a few buds.

A game of Rumble requires at least 4 teams to get that Rumble feeling.

The more teams participating in a Rumble, the higher quality the gameplay will have, and

the more fun it will be, while the 2v2 gameplay doesn't really depend on that.

 

But I'm looking at things from a high perspective. I did think that this RRL was going

to be presented as a kind of special event. It's not a big deal, but I'm still slightly

disappointed because a RRL which is bound to fail to meet the league standard of previous

RRL's shouldn't be considered part of those series of seasons in my opinion! =D

Not a big deal as I said, just a detail from an overly protective ... person :/

[NBVegita]

The 2v2 league was attempted with Snoo and Luco I believe.

 

As for 2v2, a weaker team has utterly no chance at beating a better team to 15 kills. If a weaker team plays smart in rumble, basically going after just the teams at the same level of themselves they might even have a chance to win if they only need to get 4 kills where as the better teams needs 8.

 

Also as stated before, the problem with 2v2 is that people get bored. If you have 3 teams who all want to play, they can play a rumble. It might not be a "magnificent" rumble, but at least all 6 players play. Instead you've got to sit and wait for the 2v2 to end and assuming you have any combination of decent teams it can last quite a bit of time.

 

I also think why they want to try RRL is that it is the token even of the 17th. 2v2 is more of an afterthought event. I also feel that if you can get any decent turnout for the RRL, the entertainment of a good rumble match beats the entertainment of a 2v2 match any day.

[Delic]

People can get bored when they have to wait for a Rumble to be over after they're out too...

That's why I tried to host SBL rather than Rumble when we didn't have many players on and

some of them were newbies.... But that's pretty irrelevant because as I said, it's relative.

So is the entertainment you speak of. As long as it's the 17th Jav, it's all good for me.

Of course, nothing will beat the good ol' Rumble or JWL, but we won't reach the enjoyable

standard of competition that we once had, and as far as I know, it's not even the plan.

If it was, then hosting a RRL all of a sudden was a bad idea for the reasons mentioned.

A 2v2 league with a flexible schedule would've been the best idea in that case, imo, and

that's impossible with a RRL.

 

I remember Emb and Cord hosting that series of DT's once... and they managed to screw

something as simple as that up as well by mixing it with multiships in the middle of it..

But nop... don't remember a 2v2 League... was pretty sure it hadn't been tried before.

I might be wrong... but if I am then my comment in my previous post regarding that still stands =)

 

And btw... the queue thing works in every other zone I know of... People wait until it's

their turn and then play... I don't see why it wouldn't work here (again). Hell, at

the height of its popularity, 2v2 was played more than Rumble was.

[Bran]

lets do it rrl1 style.. we only had like 6-8 squads... but it was alot of fun, maybe mix it up and throw a new rrl map in there? No multiple teams per squads there is not a single squad in 17th, so why not use RRL to bring some good squads back to 17th like Seraphim, fenrir, Covert-ops, fight club core squads that were created for the purpose of rrl that carried 17th parallel.. Aswell I'd like to see rrl go back to 20 deaths elimination Edited September 24, 2009 by Bran