League Format Discussions

Starting shortly, we will be opening a Seasonal League format for BF1942. We will be altering the match format for league play to target shorter match times and a more compact structure. The leage will open for signups by Sunday.

This thread is for us to start to hash out some options for a short form match setup. It much be fair and balanced and we are targeting roughly 1 hour of play (give or take a little).

Lets get this rolling.

]CkB[Polaris
Teamwarfare Director of Operations

I think that the main objectives for the new rules should be:

1) Game time as close to 1 hour as possible including map changes, etc.

2) Fun.

I suggest that we look at the potential for having 1 map per match. Adjust the number of tickets as necessary. This will be easier for teams to prepare for and make it easier to admin the match (which is currently a living nightmare).

I agree with 1 map for a match. How do we do ties?

]CkB[Polaris
Teamwarfare Director of Operations

Originally posted by: Polaris

I agree with 1 map for a match. How do we do ties?

That is always the hard one and I'm open to some suggestions on this one as well.

Possible options for format:
1) Play both sides of the map. If rounds scores are 1-1, a tie break map which has been chosen by the defender is played (attacker gets choise of side). The tiebreak is 1 round only with tickets / timer set to limit it to less than 20 minutes.

2) Use ticket totals for to determine winner. Example: rounds go 1-1 tickest are team a 90, team b 89... team a is winner.

I don't like the second option because to very equal teams could easily have a very close match and use different but equally effective strats. Just think, a 2 point difference is when you couldn't get your parachute to open.

First option is better IMO, but requires more admin work. However, I think that ties will happen rarely on maps other than some of the assult ones unless the teams are very equal then a tiebreaker is deserved.
Post edited by TommyToughGuy at 11/7/2002 3:00:40 PM

I agree that in this instance i would like to steer clear of ticket counting and focus on rounds.

The question is, of the 14 maps in the rotation, which ones are likely to be a consistant landslide and which will prove balanced over time?

]CkB[Polaris
Teamwarfare Director of Operations

Originally posted by: Polaris

I agree that in this instance i would like to steer clear of ticket counting and focus on rounds.

The question is, of the 14 maps in the rotation, which ones are likely to be a consistant landslide and which will prove balanced over time?

With two GOOD teams that know what they are doing the most unbalanced maps will be the following:

Battle of the Bulge: Favors Axis by far
Omaha Beach: Favors Axis (but not as bad as people think, ship can take out the arty guns and the ship can't be destroyed)
Berlin: Have yet to play this in match or scrim, but some say it favors axis
Guadalcanal: Slightly favors axis


Some of the other maps might be slighlty unbalanced. But the biggest thing to consider here is that since we are playing both sides, it shouldn't matter much. If 1 team picks the tie break map, and the other picks the side you should have fair maps being played.

I look forward to more input from others as well.

I'm not sure it should matter. Give the defender (home team) the advantage in my opinion. Pretty much all of the maps have an advantaged side that I can see. If you want a match to last only 1 hour, I see only a single way to accomplish this. Play one map, each side once, with the defender choosing their starting side. I believe this is what Tommy just stated. As for the tiebreaker, either play the same map just changing sides again (defender would choose starting side) or in the match setup, have the attacker choose the tiebreaker map and let the defender choose the side. In this scenario we will probably have most tiebreakers on Battleaxe as that seems to be the most even map that I can think of, although there are a few others that could also work.

Post edited by [Geno]Jarlaxle at 11/7/2002 4:09:27 PM

TWL Global Operations Administrator

In addition, server settings could be identical to the ladder settings. A 20 minute time on each map would be good I think. That should keep the match time to an hour once you include getting all teams ready and whatever else you have to do.

TWL Global Operations Administrator

I would say go with a map schedule for 8 weeks, play 4 rounds/map at 200% tickets.

Take 2 maps out of each "theater" for regular season play, saving 3 of the good maps for playoffs..

example:

week1: battleaxe
week2: gazala
week3: bocage
week4: omaha/BOTB*
week5: stalingrad
week6: kharkov
week7: midway/guadalcanal
week8: iwojima

playoffs, tobruk, market garden and wake

* is that to keep 2 maps/theater, and not do repeats of maps for playoffs, you will end up using at least 1 "less then balanced" map from the european theater.

the playoffs maps are all maps that are winnable as either side, and are the more popular ones, so everyone knows everything about them. I know that's copying the playoff list from another league, but the reasoning i got for that list (same ones i gave you) is sound for any league.

You can use whichever of the remaining maps for preseason, giving a chance to give a "field test" to the more basic aspects of the league, without causing someone to take a loss on their record due to a poor map or rule.

We did 2 rounds on kharkov at 200% tickets in about 35 minutes, allowing for the pain-in-the-ass admin details the entire match took 45 minutes from when everyone got in the server, until completed. The more rounds you play on a map, the shorter the time they take to complete each round. Typically, with mostly balanced maps like the ones i suggested, there wont be a need for overtime as one side will end up winning a majority of the rounds.

In the case of a tie, either use a set tiebreaker map, or allow remaining tickets to determine side choice on the current map. (highest remaining gets choice with either choice) That way nobody can bitch that they got shafted on the tiebreaker, since regulation play determined which side got choice on tiebreaker and the number of rounds won was split to force the tiebreaker in the first place.

I think your idea would go well over 1 hour Capt.

TWL Global Operations Administrator

For a tiebreaker, Can we consider a possible rotation of head to head balanced maps. Their is at least 1 per theater I believe.

A head to head winner take all round is the only way to keep match times under control.

Any assault map would just be a nightmare for a tiebreaker.

Battleaxe, Midway are examples of these maps. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe anyone starts with an advantage on these maps.


=MH=ICRED
Theega.com

ICRED, this is why we let the attacker choose the map, while the defender chooses the side. Obviously the attacker would never pick a map that has a clear advantage for one side because the defender would no doubt choose that side.

TWL Global Operations Administrator

Originally posted by: [Geno]Jarlaxle

ICRED, this is why we let the attacker choose the map, while the defender chooses the side. Obviously the attacker would never pick a map that has a clear advantage for one side because the defender would no doubt choose that side.

It is like we used to do when my brother and I had to share a peice of food:

1 cuts, the other picks... makes it fair.

I completely understand why.

My point is if you put the teams on as even a map as possible, the better team should prevail.

I dont see that we need to make this complex to determine a match winner. Play someone straight up and see what happens.


=MH=ICRED
Theega.com

I greatly dislike timelimits in match play to be honest. A map like guadalcanal for example, is an axis-tilted map, without a time-limit, I can afford to lose 4-5 minutes and 20-30 tickets getting my forces together to make a coordinated attack that grabs the flags and keeps my ticket losses in the operation minimal. With a time limit, thats not as attractive of a plan.

I wouldnt mind doing just 2 rounds, 200% tickets or doing 100% tickets and 4 rounds. Running on 1 map removes the time-issue the pain-in-the-ass admin gives, and in that KI match, we spent more time killing tickets to go live then actually playing. Also, in a league format, there would be no map selection, and no real attackers and defenders, that is just a matter of scheduling who is "home" and "away" or "attacking" and "defending".

Use the "ticket counting feature" to determine who gets side choice in a tiebreaker round played on the same map as the regulation occured on, or on a set tiebreaker map. The problem is using a set tiebreaker map elimantes that one from the schedule.
Post edited by CAPTMORGAN at 11/7/2002 4:24:28 PM

I don't think you quite understand. Why would a team pick a map where they would be at a disadvantage on any side? I fail to see why you think this wouldn't be straight up. Who wants to play every tie breaker on the same map? Not me. I'd rather choose the map as attacker and let the defender choose the side. If you want to choose the most balanced map everytime you can do so. It really is not complicated at all for this to be done when accepting a match. It's done now in Global Ops with no difficulty.

TWL Global Operations Administrator

Thats a good point. if we go one round each way and the attacker picks the map (or the "visitor" in league play) and the defender ("home" in leagues) picks the side, the map selection will always be a neutral map, barring instances of major psycosis.

]CkB[Polaris
Teamwarfare Director of Operations

I am not saying limit it to A SINGLE MAP. What I suggest is for the league\twl to determine the balanced maps like a midway, battleaxe, etc. and to have them auto selected for the tiebreaker map. Sides can still be selected, but I dont see what the big deal is about side selection on a truly even map.

Why should the defender get any advantage over an attacker in a tiebreaker from a mis-selected map or side? Why should the ladder care about anything other than promoting the better team?

Sorry, but I believe if the playing field is level, the team that walks off with the win is better and deserves its new rung.


=MH=ICRED
Theega.com

Well it seems to me that it can go either way. If the maps are balanced then it wont matter. In that instance we could go 1 round each way for the main map and a pre-selected TB from the balanced map pool. That map pool selection would be rotated each week.

So.... lets list off the "prefect balance" maps.

]CkB[Polaris
Teamwarfare Director of Operations

Originally posted by: Polaris

Thats a good point. if we go one round each way and the attacker picks the map (or the "visitor" in league play) and the defender ("home" in leagues) picks the side, the map selection will always be a neutral map, barring instances of major psycosis.

Exactly.... It keeps it interesting and give the higher ranking team the benefit of map selection.

jar: in a leauge format, there is no match acceptance, it works off a schedule. Say 24 teams enroll, you can lay out a schedule so you know who you are playing from week 1 to week 8. think of it like a football season, only 8 games in the regular season instead of 16.

It would work off a round-robin format, top 8 teams record-wise make the playoffs. You could break 24 teams into 4 divisions of 6, playing each team in your division once, and 3 teams in other divisons to fill out your 8 weeks. Top 2 teams in each division record-wise make the playoffs. (obviously that basic format could be altered to fit any number of teams enrolling and using head-to-head record and/or total rounds won as a tiebreaker)

Originally posted by: Polaris

Thats a good point. if we go one round each way and the attacker picks the map (or the "visitor" in league play) and the defender ("home" in leagues) picks the side, the map selection will always be a neutral map, barring instances of major psycosis.

no need to play as both sides of a map if you use any of the 3 suggestions.
1) use a set balanced map
2) away picks map, home picks side
3) use remaining tickets to give side choice for an ot round on the map used in regulation that week.

Any way, both teams have a say as to either the map played 1)using a set "balanced map" to use as tiebreaker means its automatically balanced, so more then 1 round is a waste on it.
2) one team picks map, other picks side, if im stupid enough to pick omaha, and you choose axis, who should i bitch to about getting stuck on the shit side of the map? the idiot who chose that map I figure. Same if you pick omaha, and i pick allies.
3)using remaining tickets means you had a chance to earn side choice, and lost it, tough cookies..

There are only 4 truly balanced maps.

Battle of Midway
Kharkov
Kursk
Operation Battleaxe

icred, I'm really restrainingg myself here, but you obviously havent practiced those maps much..

kharkov, allies are closer to the middle area/hilltop, thus allies advantage

kursk, axis is slightly closer to the 2 points, thus axis advantage.

Midway, axis forward destroyer is closer to the island, thus axis advantage.

Gazala and battleaxe are the only 2 truly "balanced" maps.
Defining balanced in this case as same distance from spawns to all the neutral points...
Post edited by CAPTMORGAN at 11/7/2002 5:00:09 PM

Obviously we look at balance differently. I am looking for maps that both sides are in near identical positions and have very similar equipment.

Feel Free not to restrain yourself, I am a big boy I can handle it.


=MH=ICRED
Theega.com

Originally posted by: CAPTMORGAN

Gazala and battleaxe are the only 2 truly "balanced" maps.
Defining balanced in this case as same distance from spawns to all the neutral points...

Gazala....your kidding right?

how am i kidding? balanced in this game means equipment and time from spawn to flags to be captured being equal.
gazala, 21 seconds from either spawn to the north flag in a jeep, 11 seconds from either of the southern spawn to the repair bay flag in a jeep. Equal equipment allocated to both sides. if thats not balanced, I dont know what is.

Am I saying the other maps are imbalanced? no, just not perfectly balanced. If 6 seconds difference makes a map unwinnable for a team, I'd say that team sucks.

Please keep this civil. I will be back in the morning.

]CkB[Polaris
Teamwarfare Director of Operations

Im being as civil as i can be...

Balanced in my book means that the odds of winning is as close to 50/50 as possible. Some maps that are not balanced in design have skewed ticket counts that might allow them to be considered as balanced because they are fair to both teams.

]CkB[Polaris
Teamwarfare Director of Operations

Well, in reality, the 4 maps he listed were close enough to balanced to not make a difference. I just wanted to be anal about "perfectly balanced". Some of the assault maps are close enough IMO to be considered balanced also.

Wake
Tobruk
Iwo Jima

Bottom line, any league-type format is going to have its growing pains the first season.

I agree.

So we have one map, played each way. what is our verdict on the tie-breaker? do we force a map/side selection on a neutral map, or do we play the same map, or do we play a "balanced" map?

]CkB[Polaris
Teamwarfare Director of Operations

I would say any of those solutions would be acceptable. Maybe run a 3 week preseason and test out all 3, and go from there with whatever the feedback endorses?

Originally posted by: TommyToughGuy
Possible options for format:
1) Play both sides of the map. If rounds scores are 1-1, a tie break map which has been chosen by the defender is played (attacker gets choise of side). The tiebreak is 1 round only with tickets / timer set to limit it to less than 20 minutes.

i like the way the format is right now but, seeing the apparent change coming...i'd say go with this version...it makes the tiebreak as even as you can get it...no team will want to give the other team an advantage so, it will end up in the most reasonable decision...
Post edited by ·Arcane· at 11/8/2002 9:09:27 PM

I think sticking with the same map for reg play and TB would be best...."if it is possible". It would eliminate the need to prep for a "possible" TB map which would be different.


btw what team sizes for league ? 12vs12 10vs10 8vs8 ?
Post edited by ZedsDead at 11/9/2002 5:14:09 PM

HMm..
Discussed this w/ my brother.

1 map thing can work. If for some Un-God reason.. both teams have the same ticket counts at the end of the 2 rounds. The win goes to the home team.
Now I know alot of people may scream bloody murder on this. But think.. it is a slim chance of ending w/ the same ticket counts.
OR......
Considering this is a league. Make a slot for ties. Ties award each team a point. Wins= 3 points.

Well.. that's just my suggestion on tie-breaker and such. But I think you should either give the tie to the home team (defending team), or just give out 1 point to each team.

**p.s.
Sorry if this has been mentioned already. I'm lazy today.. and don't feel like reading much.



T2: *Retired

BF 1942: Doolittle Raiders-=DLR=Evil Napkin *Co-Founder & Captain
RvS: Doolittle Recon- =DLR=Evil Napkin *Just a Captain
Planetside: ..forming a force to make organized and coordinated assaults. :]

Fwend! :]

you know in the short format...tie points might be the answer. ?

Considering the map discussion we had earlier, Ties\Point System might be a easy viable option.
Post edited by ICRED at 11/10/2002 12:30:26 AM

Eeck, whats wrong with any of those 3 options forwarded?

The most annoying thing about hockey other then the rangers is the whole concept of a tie.

I would think you would have nothing to complain about other then the commmon, "whaa i lost" type of thing with any of those 3 choices for a tiebreaker.

thats why I prefer the ticket counting for side choice in tiebreaker, that way you EARN the right to choose the side of your choice for the tiebreak round. It's very fair if both teams have an equal chance to EARN that right in my opinion.

For a league:

Win = 3
Tie = 2
Loss = 1
Forfeit Loss = 0

That's how I organised my league back in the day...

What I don't get is why we are talking about a league for BF1942? The ladders are still young, do we really need to split up the community?