City of Heroes: Live Forum Archive

Interest in a Freedom mini-ladder?

Bionic_Flea

By Bionic_Flea,
Posted on: 2010-04-15 07:01 in Everything about PvP

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by vindizzLe View Post
I don't like the 5v5 idea at all. The default should be higher with the option to go lower per two teams agreement.
qft

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by vindizzLe View Post
I don't like the 5v5 idea at all. The default should be higher with the option to go lower per two teams agreement.
QFT

5v5=bad

 

Posted

I'm down... Don't wanna be captain or anything with responsibility.

"Love me some VORI.
Those guys are Hawt."
-Dinah_Might

 

Posted

Why not have 15-20 rosters to play 8v8?

Infinity and Victory mostly
dUmb, etc.
lolz PvP anymore, Market PvP for fun and profit

 

Posted

It sounds interesting, but I agree that 5v5s are relatively pointless. I'm also a fan of the blind line-up submission, as it stands. Even then, it's sometimes consuming time; at least it's not a total nightmare.

 

Posted

5v5 is very two dimensional.

 

Posted

6v6 minimum I'd say, and yes blind line ups > bait and switch.

 

Posted

I would be interested. Would prefare 6v6 - 8v8

Shenanigans

LotD - JaL - POWT/SMD - SoCo - AJs

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by vindizzLe View Post
I don't like the 5v5 idea at all. The default should be higher with the option to go lower per two teams agreement.
this is my also position.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daknah View Post
blind line ups > bait and switch.
yeah cause blind line-ups worked so much better than bait and switch in the original ladder...


...except they didn't.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by black_barrier View Post
yeah cause blind line-ups worked so much better than bait and switch in the original ladder...


...except they didn't.
Sync watches now!

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by CriticalKat View Post
By doing that you factor in the doosh bag feasibility. So team A only has 5 people and team B has 8 people and refuses to do 5v5 and forces them to either forfeit or play short.

Currently D8 teams have 12 on a roster. This ladder will only allow 10 on a roster. Currently on many d8 fights you see teams having to play D6's whether they want to or not because not enough showed up. With this ladder each team is allowed 2 less people so the probability of not having 8 show up is even greater.
With a league, there would be no D8 or D6.

I'm sorry, but the entire concept of "Division 8" and "Division 6" is absolutely retarded to begin with. It's simple, you're either good enough to start for a team, or you're not. If you're not, you practice and prove that you ARE capable of starting for a team, and then you play. That's how it was before, that's how I feel it personally should be.

"Dooshbag feasibility" as you put it goes both ways. Teams that are given a "default" format of 5v5 could easily limit a team that has 8 skilled players from facing off against them in an 8v8 format if both teams have the players to accommodate.

A decent compromise to this is playing with an 8v8 format, with a 6v6 as the minimum. If a team is short, the opposing team can either play 6v6 to match their opponent, or play 6v7 at the very worst.

That seems fair to me.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillygirl View Post
It only works if you default the lower and option the higher team number.
Stop taking terrible pictures and putting them up on CoHfaces, and start thinking outside of the box.

Thanks.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by vindizzLe View Post
With a league, there would be no D8 or D6.

I'm sorry, but the entire concept of "Division 8" and "Division 6" is absolutely retarded to begin with. It's simple, you're either good enough to start for a team, or you're not. If you're not, you practice and prove that you ARE capable of starting for a team, and then you play. That's how it was before, that's how I feel it personally should be.

"Dooshbag feasibility" as you put it goes both ways. Teams that are given a "default" format of 5v5 could easily limit a team that has 8 skilled players from facing off against them in an 8v8 format if both teams have the players to accommodate.

A decent compromise to this is playing with an 8v8 format, with a 6v6 as the minimum. If a team is short, the opposing team can either play 6v6 to match their opponent, or play 6v7 at the very worst. Doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

That seems fair to me.
The probability of a team having enough to play 8v8 and refusing to do so would benefit them how? It wouldn't. There is no dooshbag card to be played there really. However a team having 8 and the other team only having 5 can and will definitely be a doosh and refuse to scale down to 5v5.

I understand the preference of 8v8's. If the option is there I think every team will play 8v8's. There is no reason for them not to if they have enough people show up. However to build a ladder with requirements of 8v8 and giving a team the ability to force another team who doesn't have enough people to fight shorthanded or forfeit is a recipe for drama and unhappiness. With only a 10 man roster I think it is quite possible for teams to not have 8 quite often. I don't think we have enough of a pvp community yet to run a ladder or league with 15-20 person rosters. Everyone will be on 3-5 teams and the majority of the D6 guys we just introduced to pvp will be left out in the cold. So essentially the whole reasoning behind the league would be lost. 3-5 teams only fighting each other over and over and only the elite make it on a teams because there are not enough teams to hold everyone.

 

Posted

Make it 8vs8.

Bigger teams = more chance of established cliques letting newfound D6ers join their team.

 

Posted

The issues isnt with lack of a pvp community at this point, its a lack of people willing to lead a team. Most people would rather ride the bench on a winning team then lead one themselves.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by CriticalKat View Post
Currently D8 teams have 12 on a roster. This ladder will only allow 10 on a roster.
that's cute, but im not taking part in anything with retarded rules such as that one.

 

Posted

Tears Per Second (TPS) is interested in this ladder, when we'll be ready is another question, we're currently trying to level up some 50's but we are interested so count us in.

-unicornmagic

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by vindizzLe View Post
Stop taking terrible pictures and putting them up on CoHfaces, and start thinking outside of the box.

Thanks.

Awww now you've just gone and hurt my feelings.....well maybe if i cared about what you thought


Anyway didn't think about this:

Quote:
"Dooshbag feasibility" as you put it goes both ways. Teams that are given a "default" format of 5v5 could easily limit a team that has 8 skilled players from facing off against them in an 8v8 format if both teams have the players to accommodate
Your right i was not thinking outside the box....carry on


"Play Nice and BEHAVE! I don't want to hear about any more of your shenanigans brought up in our meetings at Paragon"-Ghost Falcon @Tritonfree @Philly's 2nd Convenient CIGAL BoBC/INOANN Arts&Crafts Sporks
Average Joes FAP THE MENTOR PROJECT Justice Events

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by CriticalKat View Post
The probability of a team having enough to play 8v8 and refusing to do so would benefit them how? It wouldn't. There is no dooshbag card to be played there really. However a team having 8 and the other team only having 5 can and will definitely be a doosh and refuse to scale down to 5v5.
I just justified my point in the last post. Is reading that much of a difficulty for you?

If Team A for example has 8 players available, but knows for certain that they win more often under a 5v5 format by running a very strict team set-up, they're going to limit Team B who also has 8 players available from playing in the 8v8 format because it benefits them and gives them a higher chance of securing themselves a win. I can most certainly see that happening. Where's the evidence? Look at the teams who legitimately rocked teams filled with taunters with the intention of forcing a tie.

People will avoid an 8v8 because it requires more of their teammates being practiced and on point. A 5v5 can leave more room for error.

If you are making a smaller number the minimum, players and teams trying to appeal to the safe side will enforce that, and teams that actively want to play at an 8v8 level are going to be left out in the cold. My solution provides a compromise in that it sets 8v8 as the default, but at least allows for a 6v7 or 6v6 if both teams agree.

Hell, you can even give forfeit wins absolutely no merit in ladder rankings, forcing both teams to reschedule a match and play it at another time.

Again, I love how I'm the only one trying to reach a compromise here, but you're the PvPEC rep.

 

Posted

vindizzLe PvPEC Representative captain.