Current and Future leagues

[jim the chin]

I like Pater's idea. Delic and me suggested something similar a couple of years ago.

Temb, nothing wrong with asking squads to show up with 4 players, it's what we're doing with 4v4 league. I'm not sure I follow your other criticism. Play 1/4 times? eh? In BABL people would be forced to sit on the bench all the time if the other squad didn't have as good a show up. Solution is you put them in for the second half, like it's always been.

[jim the chin]

We need to be asking if there is any work that needs to be done?

We can use the prac-bots in the prac-arenas right? Only problem is the scoring in the prac-arenas still needs fixing.

[Pater Punishment]

I don't see a roster problem. We have had rosters of 35 for 12v12 games, which is about the same as I'm suggesting. And if 4 show, then 2, 3 or all of them get to play, depending on the sector ofc.

Perhaps the roster limit could be lowered to 10, which probably wouldn't hurt much if the eligibility time was short and playoffs lasted only 5 weekends after lock, like I suggested.

About scoring: we could just go with what the scoring is atm. It's very heavily biased towards killing though, since reward system is from 12v12 and it went unadjusted. Last dsbl with 6 players had about 1 kill = 1 flag ratio, if I remember right. I wouldn't suggest adding kill focus any more that.

On the other hand, in west the kills would (and should) matter more than before. Or we could fuck around and make west a 3v3 game! 2v2 when others spec could be boring. So I'd like to try west with 3v3, or 4v4, or even 5v5. Perhaps also south with 4 to add some spark. East should still stay 3v3 as a classic. Actually, we could let squads decide how many they want to play with as in BAB, with default of 4 in north, 3 in east and south, and 2 in west. Captains would be asked, and variable player count would be used if agreed on by both caps. I would probably also allow a 3v3 in north without the agreement of the other cap, if a squad doesn't have more than 3.

Anyway, I suggest staff announces a league now and figures out the point system and other details later, latest 1wk before it starts..

[kemi]

The last DSBL is the minimum amount of what a kill should matter comapred to a single flag in my opinion

[jim the chin]

Maybe kills should be worth a lot (like now), since newbs understand killing more than flagging tactics. Then again, would we get any newbs playing? lol

[Tembest]

I'll break the kills for you since there seems to be some misunderstandings.

The current kill formula wasn't used in the last 12 vs 12. A formula was created for 6 vs 6 league, which is:
1 flag ding = 10 points per player, meaning 60 for team. 1 kill = fixed 150 points

In this league the kill/flag ratio was for the first time good, and suiciding for flags every ding wasn't necessarily advisable anymore.
One kill was worth 2.5 bell flags. I'm ready to lower it to 1 kill = 2 bell flags but that is an absolute minimum. Anyhow the aimed
value of a kill should be between 2 and 3 flags.

But I still disagree heavily with Pater and Sever. I cannot see the point of always requiring a minimum show up of 4 while they won't
get to play more than 1/4 of the sectors. In Babl it was different because everyone got to play IF both teams had more. Point being,
they had a reason to show because the other team might have a good show up as well. Now in this league, you would encourage
useless show ups. All teams would have to show up with four players, while they could not play them all the time. This means that
ALL squads will have players sitting in spec. So, we have 4 north, 3 east, 3 south, 2 west. The average number of players required is
3. Yet, you want all teams to show up with at least four players. This means you have EXTRA players and if the league was
something where all matches would be 3 vs 3 for example, you would have more squads with the same total player number of the
league.

It's hard to explain and naturally it wouldn't be a problem if DSB was in good shape and not basically dead.
But now we need the people to actually play and create as many squads as possible instead of sitting in spec.

I hope I broke it to you clearly enough.

Edit: It's a whole another story if you make a game where we have 4 sectors and all of them are played 3 vs 3. The only problem is
north I guess. It's a little annoying to play 3 vs 3, but with some editing, sure.

[jim the chin]

Damn you really explained that poorly. What I think you mean is if we ask 4 people to show up, 1 of those 4 people will only be able to play north but will be excluded from east, south and 3v3west. The other 3 players can play every sector if they want. However:

1. The sectors will be played over two days. Only one day will require 4 players, so this halves your problem.
2. Each sector is played in two halves. Why not sub in the additional players for the second half? This is what every squad has done in every league for 10 years. In fact, since 2 sectors will be played, different people will be used for different sectors based on their particular strengths. Everyone will get to play at least one whole sector match.

It would certainly help if north could be played 3v3. The most fun part of north is RN, and we could make LN quite fun to be played 1v1 if the bottom-left flagpole was removed.

[Tembest]

Damn you really explained that poorly. What I think you mean is if we ask 4 people to show up, 1 of those 4 people will only be able to play north but will be excluded from east, south and 3v3west. The other 3 players can play every sector if they want. However:

1. The sectors will be played over two days. Only one day will require 4 players, so this halves your problem.
2. Each sector is played in two halves. Why not sub in the additional players for the second half? This is what every squad has done in every league for 10 years. In fact, since 2 sectors will be played, different people will be used for different sectors based on their particular strengths. Everyone will get to play at least one whole sector match.

It would certainly help if north could be played 3v3. The most fun part of north is RN, and we could make LN quite fun to be played 1v1 if the bottom-left flagpole was removed.

1. Makes no difference. You still have extra active players in your roster.
2. You said it, additional players. We don't want additional players.

The ideal situation we should aim for is that all squads show up exactly with the number of players required to play and they all could play 100% of the match.
Naturally it is not possible but not even trying to achieve that is ridiculous. We waste players. Players who could start their own squad instead and play.

Playing 4-3-3-2 sector league will in the end bring at minimum one squad less to league compared to 3-3-3-3. 4-3-3-2 requires just as many players as 4-4-4-4....
I hope you would finally get it.

Edit: If it wasn't for the good old sectors we miss, no one would even suggest anything where you play one quarter with 4 players, two with 3, one with 2. Think about
it. If we didn't have our beloved deathstar ready, and anyone suggested the above, you would ask: "What's the point in that?" Because it's ridiculous.

[jim the chin]

Additional players are inevitable! We've had additional players in every league in history. What you do is sub them in for the second half. In Pater's format you can play them for a whole 20 minute sector game if you want. I've also already said that 3v3 would be better..... (read it?). Sorry if the start of my previous post made you confrontational, that's a shame, but you did explain it poorly in my eyes.

[Tembest]

Additional players are inevitable! We've had additional players in every league in history. What you do is sub them in for the second half. In Pater's format you can play them for a whole 20 minute sector game if you want. I've also already said that 3v3 would be better..... (read it?). Sorry if the start of my previous post made you confrontational, that's a shame, but you did explain it poorly in my eyes.

It's cool. It didn't make me feel anything. I just tried to explain it again. I'm still not sure you quite get it though.

Of course additional players are inevitable but as I said before, we shouldn't aim for having additional players. That's retarded.
It's very different from any league before, in every league before you had a set number let's say 12 players, so it is possible your
squad shows up with exactly 12 players. That's great! They will all get to play! But if you play 20 minutes with 12, 40 minutes with
10 and 20 minutes with 9, you still need those 12 players but 3/4 of the match you will have useless players who showed up.

1. It does not encourage worse players to show up because they could be benched for 3/4 match if it's a tight match.
2. It allows less squads to form.

Just think if you didn't know the deathstar. What would you say if someone suggested something similar in TW? Would you say it
makes absolutely any sense? I don't think so. Seriously, this is the last post I will spend my time on explaining this. If you
guys want to do it, go for it, but I personally cannot see any point in that besides that we get to play in the good old
deathstar. I can go "I told you so." when you realise there are too few squads and average players not wanting to show up
anymore; eventually leading to forfeit losses in the end season, even play-offs.