Lots of good ideas. I like the 6 members of differing strengths idea. A Clan leader can choose which 6 from his squad of (up to) 20 for any match, although the bands should more like
2x >1600,
2x 1300-1600
2x <1300
to make it easier to fill the games. A clan should have at least 6 members to be elligble to enter the league. If, however, the clan cannot fill the team for any particular match, they should only forfeit the score for the games in which they are short of players. Also if 2 clans are drawn against each other but have players who belong to both clans, those players are ineligible to take part in the match.
Teams should earn 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw. I don't like the idea of aggregate scoring (ie losing but still getting points). The idea is to WIN the match, not grab as many points as possible. If your clan loses the match, no points.
I don't like the idea of divisions. And prefer an all-comers league. But I think it is IMPOSSIBLE that every team play every other team. Rather use a swiss system, where teams on the same number of points after each round are then randomly drawn to play each other in the next round. If there are 10-12 rounds in a season, the standings will be very well differentiated, and a bad start can be overcome. Late comers can also be accomodated at 1 point per missed round.
If you use a timebank with no timeout, the duration of matches are fixed, which is great for ensuring that a "season" lasts exactly a year.
The problem of timezones is something that clan leaders should discuss with their memebrs and figure out before each match, all part of the game. But having a fixed duration for rounds is essential.
My 2 cents.
Originally posted by PaulieThere are 35 clans with 12 or more members at the moment.
Clan leagues, is a great idea. But if we treat it like the seiges to start with, ie keep it simple, then more clans might join. My thoughts are:
1 - A minimum of 12 members before a clan can join a league.
2 - Clan league matches should ...[text shortened]... Can`t think of anything else at the moment, but i probably will 😉
How would you handle clans that have one or more of the same members in them?
Don't worry if this thread drifts down the page over the next week or two, I will be referring to it again when design time comes. And I will post a preview of any design before I write the code.
I just wanted to say this because I am away next week and I will probably be thinking about this then - so I might go a bit quiet, but your contributions will not be wasted or go unread.
-Russ
Originally posted by rwingettUnlike normal clan games members in the league WILL have to commit to one and only one clan for league games.
There are 35 clans with 12 or more members at the moment.
How would you handle clans that have one or more of the same members in them?
There really can be no other solution. But this should not affect clans matches how they run currently.
Originally posted by trekkieThat will be really neat to see who goes to what clan if they are members of more than one. From what I understand FreeThinkers don't have many multi clan players.
Unlike normal clan games members in the league WILL have to commit to one and only one clan for league games.
There really can be no other solution. But this should not affect clans matches how they run currently.
After looking at my list me and only about 3 other players are members of another clan. I've got a good 13 solid members, I will pick my clan over any other and I bet some of the other 3 might do the same.
Your post is a key to leagues, along with uniform game play in any form talked about so far.
P-
I havent had time to read through all the posts so if any of this has been said im sorry.
I think most people would agree that there should be divisions and that the first time around clans should be put into the divisions based on their average rating. I think the question then is how do you stop people feilding there top 6 players game after game ? Well what I would suggest is that players can only play a certain amount of games in each season, say if there were 10 games in the season then each player could only play in 5. Maybe a system where a player would play a league game then miss one, or maybe where they could play 5 one after another then be left out of the other 5, this would force clan leaders to play more balanced teams and the average rating would start to mean something instead of just the best players in each clan. I know this would mean that only larger clans would be able to get involved, but i think clans are all about team play and the ones with only 3-4 members are often just getting started. At the end of each season the top 2 or 3 clans move up a division and the bottom 2 or 3 move down.
Originally posted by whitedeerwithnohornsI think most people would disagree. With multiple divisions, a newly formed clan would have to wait years before it could compete at the top level. This is just too rigid and exclusive. Rather have a single league using a Swiss scoring system. This will guarantee that the top teams compete against each other and will really add to the interest and excitement of clans doing battle!
I think most people would agree that there should be divisions and that the first time around clans should be put into the divisions based on their average rating.
Originally posted by trekkiethat is not absolutely necessary. Maybe there could be an option that players who are in both clans, just can't be in the challenge between those clans. I am not telling that this is the best way to do, but I think it will be a way. I think there will be a lot of players who will find it very difficult to choose, so maybe they don't have to
Unlike normal clan games members in the league WILL have to commit to one and only one clan for league games.
There really can be no other solution. But this should not affect clans matches how they run currently.
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
In principle the Fun Clan will willing support any new features that add to RHP, many of our members have been here a long time, and we all love the way in which the site has grown.
More I think about it, the more I think all of this is moving to a new feature on RHP rather than a change in an existing one. Why not just have a team tournamnet section, say 4 members one in each of 4 ratings bands, you can then play tournaments as teams. At the end of the tournament these teams can break up, bring in new members, or stay together. These teams can from within clans or just from general players. This would allow the current ethic of the clans to continue.
Andrew
Originally posted by latex bishopWhat ever happens, I hope the thing is set up so a team only winning 45% of their matches won't be in first place.....
In principle the Fun Clan will willing support any new features that add to RHP, many of our members have been here a long time, and we all love the way in which the site has grown.
More I think about it, the more I think all of this is moving to a new feature on RHP rather than a change in an existing one. Why not just have a team tournamnet section ...[text shortened]... ust from general players. This would allow the current ethic of the clans to continue.
Andrew
Ooops, was that a goad? 😉
P-
Originally posted by tejoI am sorry but I do not see how that can work. If the two clans are in the same division it is natural that the two clans will play each other. Like I said in my original post the two clans should remain unaffected for the purposes of normal clan games BUT one of them must lose a player for the league.
that is not absolutely necessary. Maybe there could be an option that players who are in both clans, just can't be in the challenge between those clans. I am not telling that this is the best way to do, but I think it will be a way. I think there will be a lot of players who will find it very difficult to choose, so maybe they don't have to
Originally posted by latex bishopI agree with Andrew. Rather than try to create an ad hoc league using the existing clan system as a basis, why not start with a leage of "teams" or "clubs". This would solve the problem of having to choose between forcing multi-clan members to pick one clan and creating complicated scheduling schemes to avoid someone playing on both sides of a league match.
In principle the Fun Clan will willing support any new features that add to RHP, many of our members have been here a long time, and we all love the way in which the site has grown.
More I think about it, the more I think all of thi ...[text shortened]... would allow the current ethic of the clans to continue.
Andrew
Of course, there would be nothing to stop those in a clan forming a team (or teams) from their membership, but any single player would only be allowed to be on a single team at any given time.
With respect to divisions, it may be my North American bias but I am in favour of having them. Not the heirarchical type of divisions wherein the winners of a division move up and the losers move down, but rather have a bunch of equal divisions. For those not familiar with this type of scheme, look at the structure of the NFL, the NBA or the NHL.
Teams from different divisions will play each other during a season, but a team plays those in its own division more often. This creates more interest by generating divisional rivalries. At the end of a season, the winner of each division gets into the playoffs, along with a predetermined number of "wild card" (for the lack of a better term) teams that did not win their divisions, but had the best records outside of the division winners, so that the total number of playoff teams is 2^n. This allows for single elimination playoffs, with one team ending up as league champion for the season.
David Tebb, I like your idea about lagues bassed on size (big league, medium etc..) However, if they are broken up again into three sepperate time controlled groups, don't u think that will put a lot of pressure on your members to play under enforced time controls. Accepting a quick match as a challenge now is ok, your sure of yur commitments. How can players commit themselves to a short match that takes place a few months in the future?
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
Originally posted by marinakatombOk James, I'll try to answer your question.
[b]David Tebb, I like your idea about lagues bassed on size (big league, medium etc..) However, if they are broken up again into three sepperate time controlled groups, don't u think that will put a lot of pressure on your members to play under enforced time controls. Accepting a quick match as a challenge now is ok, your sure of yur commitments. How can players commit themselves to a short match that takes place a few months in the future? [/b]
My idea is that clans would choose themselves which time controlled group to enter. For instance, my clan 'Bad Bishops' currently prefer 3 day time-outs with timebanks, so we would enter a team to play in a 3 day TO group. Whereas a clan made up of very fast MAP players, would no doubt choose to enter a 1 day TO group.
The problem as you pointed out, is that people's circumstances change over time and it's difficult to maintain the same level of commitment. This can be solved if there's flexibility built into the system, so that clans are allowed to vary the players nominated for their teams. So large clans could constantly swap players around and only use the people who actually want games. Of course it would be harder for small clans. They might need to occasionally postpone matches, switch groups, or in a worst case scenario, pull out of the league altogether. But small clans can always try to recruit new members to solve such difficulties.
Dave