Jump to content


Clantastrophy Summer 2016 LEAGUE Planning & Discussion

tournaments League

  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

Poll: Type of battle - Pick 2 ! (34 members have cast votes)

What type of battle mode should we plan for the Summer 2016 event

  1. No restriction on anything whatsoever (11 votes [25.58%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.58%

  2. Same as the Spring League, High Flyers rules again (4 votes [9.30%])

    Percentage of vote: 9.30%

  3. Altitude restricted - geared toward GA and Low altitude fighting (9 votes [20.93%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.93%

  4. All GA (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  5. 75%GA with 25% anything (2 votes [4.65%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.65%

  6. Restrictions on number of planes but anything goes. (14 votes [32.56%])

    Percentage of vote: 32.56%

  7. other - Please define your idea and I can add it to the vote table (3 votes [6.98%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.98%

Same clan rules? open to all members? 2 votes

  1. Allow clan members only just like original event (10 votes [27.78%])

    Percentage of vote: 27.78%

  2. Remove clan restrictions (6 votes [16.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 16.67%

  3. allow a certain number of legionnaires (rogue not in a clan) (5 votes [13.89%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.89%

  4. Clan only as usual but allow teams of mixed to join also (5 votes [13.89%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.89%

  5. Allow sub clan team roster. IE More than one team per clan. (9 votes [25.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.00%

  6. other- post the alternatives (1 vote [2.78%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.78%

Vote Guests cannot vote Hide poll

PostTraumatic #1 Posted 15 April 2016 - 09:02 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 20059 battles
  • 882
  • [VULCN] VULCN
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Ok so I would like to start planning the next Clantastrophy League for the summertime.  We have learned by the first-run of the Spring league and I am hoping to further shape these events into a simple process that changes and grows.  I am most interested in bringing a fun event for all participants.  

 

The first thing is that I like to have a focus that is at the heart of the event that gets planned.  The previous event was purely based on plane vs plane aerial engagement.  It has taken a little tweaking to focus that but we are working one it and trying to discuss all issues well ahead of time.  I have ideas for rule-set for each type of battle listed.  (we will get into that when I post the initial rule-set rough draft for further input)

 

When we as a community decide on the next theme for the next league will be I will put out a rule-set for that event for us to read-over and tweak before implementation just like I did with the original League event.  I started the planning for that at about 6 weeks from the start date.  This will be the same so I am hoping to start the summer league in about 6 weeks.

 

I am making this statement now so that the community gets involved in the shaping of this event early so more clans will get involved.  

 

I will be allowing up to and not exceeding two (2) clans to combine that are smaller.  This is on a case by case basis.  Be advised, We will be vetting activity level and will have a pre-team gathering for each clan to attend in mass to show that they have the minimum numbers to meet this event

 

So get planning on making your teams and help me shape the plan for the summer League.  Feel free to give constructive discussion on things from this season that could be changed for the next season.  


Edited by PostTraumatic, 15 April 2016 - 10:07 PM.


GiN_nTonic #2 Posted 15 April 2016 - 09:41 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 19664 battles
  • 3,821
  • [-WS-] -WS-
  • Member since:
    10-13-2013

My only real comment is would love to see more specific scheduling.  I realize it was designed to allow clans to self-schedule, but if the schedule was more certain I think we'd have better turn-out on those scheduled nights.

 

Just a thought.


(added:  I didn't see an option but would love to see more clan teams to join, not just 1 team per clan)


Edited by JlNN, 15 April 2016 - 09:44 PM.


PostTraumatic #3 Posted 15 April 2016 - 10:09 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 20059 battles
  • 882
  • [VULCN] VULCN
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

There was an error in question #2 so please re vote if you did so already.  I added the suggestion from JlNN also

 

Consider that we would like to keep this under 12 teams so there would be a limit as to how many teams a clan could fracture into if we did that and fully separate team lists would have to be registered.  We will have to explore that possibility


Edited by PostTraumatic, 15 April 2016 - 10:12 PM.


pigeon_kicker #4 Posted 15 April 2016 - 10:55 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Open Beta Tester
  • 20011 battles
  • 1,421
  • [SF] SF
  • Member since:
    08-04-2013

Reserved


If you want to make god laugh, tell him about your plans for survival..

Lead developer for the NACCW web site. Author of the Pigeon Pak Mod Installer

www.team-sf.com

 

 


CrayoIaCrayon #5 Posted 15 April 2016 - 11:07 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 15815 battles
  • 1,025
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    07-16-2014

I personally like the current format.  I would like to see some way we could make GA matter to the battles.  Many people do like flying them and it's a shame they can't be put to real use unless some special way for them to be a real factor is come up with.  Perhaps use same numbers as heavies and make them have to be brought and then come up with a way they could have some kind of influence to the outcome of the battle.  

 

Why in the world would you want to split clan teams when a 15v15 has been impossible to get thus far.  That makes no sense whatsoever


Undefeated 1st place, Clantastrophy tournament

Air Raid 6  3rd place,  Air Raid 7  2nd place, Air Raid 8 1st place


99red #6 Posted 15 April 2016 - 11:35 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 23621 battles
  • 518
  • [-ES-] -ES-
  • Member since:
    11-16-2013

Seeing how not everyone 'flys high', and most battles turn into fights between 3000 feet and 6000 feet anyway, I do not see much interest by my clan in high altitude fights only...it bores most of us anyway, turn fighting is the knife fight in WOWP, and has quite a few more factors than boost/climb, hold alt/rebuild boost, dive, shoot, repeat.

Having a flight group of a full squadron of the same planes could be interesting, but not a favorite to do  over and over again.

However, I have used in our training flight groups made up for mission specific battles : Ga escort/support, Heavy fighter Interception, Defend Air space, and GA assault.

Have, or allow, teams to put together an assault force, and a defense force...team number restrictions for certain for 'player balance', but allow each team to assemble a flight group on their own that would 'best' field the 'mission objective' or directive as a group force.

I E : HF Interception

Assault Force comprised of HF and LF/ multi roll as they see best comparable

Defense Force comprised of no more than 25% HF, the rest LF/multi roll as they see fit to support the defending HF's

When teams are made op of actual 'squadron forces', they tend to be of the same planes and nations, or a combination of planes from allied nations....so there is that option of play style as well, and should be looked into for certain mission style playing.

For League Battles, restricting or suggesting only high alt planes can place those high flyers into a bad situation when the opposing force (team) chooses mid and low alt turn and burners and suck the high flyers down into AA, below optimum alt for their high flying boom and zoomers and zap them out of the sky by robing them of their speed/boost while constantly turning out of diving passes and returning tracing fire.

A well Balanced force should include several types and styles of combat planes, including GA's when available.

Just my 2 cents about it.


99red......XO of the Eagle Squadron (-ES-)

 


CrayoIaCrayon #7 Posted 15 April 2016 - 11:38 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 15815 battles
  • 1,025
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    07-16-2014
True but high flying tournaments turn into turn fighting after initial engagement.  The only difference in high fliers and low fliers is the altitude at which you first engage

Undefeated 1st place, Clantastrophy tournament

Air Raid 6  3rd place,  Air Raid 7  2nd place, Air Raid 8 1st place


SovietTerror29 #8 Posted 16 April 2016 - 12:58 AM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 54 battles
  • 15
  • Member since:
    07-26-2014

View PostJetway, on 15 April 2016 - 11:38 PM, said:

True but high flying tournaments turn into turn fighting after initial engagement.  The only difference in high fliers and low fliers is the altitude at which you first engage

 

not entirely true. heavy fighters shouldn't be turnfighting. *knock knock*

PostTraumatic #9 Posted 16 April 2016 - 06:15 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 20059 battles
  • 882
  • [VULCN] VULCN
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

ok so far on the votes the remove all restrictions is high on the list.  I am not sure if we should do that... It would be quite difficult to write a competition that will be fair.  We would see teams with all line-ups of the same planes stacked.  You think it is hard to beat the best teams with restrictions, it will only be harder to the extreme.  So I am not sure that is a good idea overall.  Need to discuss this point.

 

The some plane restrictions option with anything goes is high on the votes also.  This is a very realistic option.

 

I am personally liking the altitude restriction and it also showed interest in the votes.

 

I gave 2 votes as I am considering having 2 foci in the next League.  (2 different types of battles)  Essentially 2 tiers to battle in 2 different types of battles in each chosen tier.  total of 4 battles. per week.

 

All options are still on the table and ideas are good.  



ViolentAngel #10 Posted 17 April 2016 - 02:36 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 16644 battles
  • 1,809
  • Member since:
    12-03-2013

Battle mode idea: Team composition is (roughly) 50% LF/MRF, 25% HF, 25% GA; no other restrictions

Team Size - LF/MRF, HF, GA

8 - 4, 2, 2

9 - 5, 2, 2

10 - 5, 3, 2

11 - 5, 3, 3

12 - 6, 3, 3

13 - 6, 4, 3

14 - 6, 4, 4

15 - 7, 4, 4

 

 


"Fiery the Angels rose, & as they rose deep thunder roll’d"

-- William Blake


EspressoForHammy #11 Posted 19 April 2016 - 06:08 PM

    Captain

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 5307 battles
  • 4,458
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostPostTraumatic, on 16 April 2016 - 01:15 PM, said:

You think it is hard to beat the best teams with restrictions, it will only be harder to the extreme.  So I am not sure that is a good idea overall.  Need to discuss this point.

 

Probably should not to remove the plane types restriction. There are a LOT of players who focus thousands of battles into the top "heavy fighter of the week". The top clans are LITTERED with scrubs who do this. I feel it's best not to reveal my vote at this time though.

 

View PostPostTraumatic, on 16 April 2016 - 01:15 PM, said:

I gave 2 votes as I am considering having 2 foci in the next League.  (2 different types of battles)

 

I'm glad you gave the plebeians a definition of foci. They certainly needed it.


"More fun than a three-legged mouse covered in hash oil."  "This is like taking my p38 through a cloud of loose stools... watta mess."

- A55 BOTlistic Commie (Both quotes!)

 


TXturtle #12 Posted 29 April 2016 - 03:32 PM

    Airman Basic

  • Member
  • 24462 battles
  • 8
  • [RRAT] RRAT
  • Member since:
    01-20-2014

I'd like to see in the rules that every player must hit at least 1 pt for a GT; regardless of aircraft type. As well as a more directed team structure like 1GA 1HVY + Multirole and Fighters. 


Edited by TXturtle, 29 April 2016 - 03:35 PM.


BobozeeBear #13 Posted 29 April 2016 - 05:00 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 25036 battles
  • 448
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-03-2013

To bring other planes into the mix I have a couple ideas to float and let you discuss if it would be viable.

 

1. Run an minimum eight person team comprised of two planes from each class;  2 HF, 2LF, 2MR, and 2GA. As the number of participants increase you would increase planes from each class as so not to stack the deck.

 

2. Run a altitude ceiling for plane choices so you could not bring all high altitude planes into the mix. Eg. tier 5 1300 meters, tier 6 1400 meters, tier 7 1500 meters, tier 8 1600 meters or something along those lines. The specific ceiling per tier would have to be worked out depending on what type planes are in the tier but the spirit of a low alt. tourney is the goal.

3. Have a 30 second restart rule for long load players, this would be helpful as we have experienced issues this in the current tournament.

These ideas are seperate at the moment but could possibly be combined...or not...What do you guys think?


Edited by BobozeeBear, 29 April 2016 - 05:06 PM.

Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)


PostTraumatic #14 Posted 29 April 2016 - 05:53 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 20059 battles
  • 882
  • [VULCN] VULCN
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostBobozeeBear, on 29 April 2016 - 12:00 PM, said:

To bring other planes into the mix I have a couple ideas to float and let you discuss if it would be viable.

 

1. Run an minimum eight person team comprised of two planes from each class;  2 HF, 2LF, 2MR, and 2GA. As the number of participants increase you would increase planes from each class as so not to stack the deck.

 

2. Run a altitude ceiling for plane choices so you could not bring all high altitude planes into the mix. Eg. tier 5 1300 meters, tier 6 1400 meters, tier 7 1500 meters, tier 8 1600 meters or something along those lines. The specific ceiling per tier would have to be worked out depending on what type planes are in the tier but the spirit of a low alt. tourney is the goal.

3. Have a 30 second restart rule for long load players, this would be helpful as we have experienced issues this in the current tournament.

These ideas are seperate at the moment but could possibly be combined...or not...What do you guys think?

 

All ideas are on the table.  I was thinking a hybrid of your idea also.

 

I am liking the idea of assigning a set number of each type of plane set for battle.  This is what the Queue does for us in essence.  I was thinking for this type of set-up we could do no restrictions.  (battles 1, 3, 5 below)

 

Then we could do the altitude restricted round with up to 50% GA and altitude restricted planes (low-to-mid altitude planes.)  (battles 2, 4, 6 below)

 

So the rounds could look like this:

 

tier 6

battle 1 - set number of types per team (balanced) with no altitude restriction or plane restrictions

battle 2 - all planes rated for 1500m or lower with no more than 50% GA (based on maximum module altitude)

tier 7

battle 3 - set number of types per team (balanced) with no altitude restriction or plane restrictions

battle 4 - all planes rated for 1700m or lower with no more than 50% GA (based on maximum module altitude)

tier 8

battle 5 - set number of types per team (balanced) with no altitude restriction or plane restrictions

battle 6 - all planes rated for 1900m or lower with no more than 50% GA (based on maximum module altitude)

 

Do we want tie-breakers for each individual night like it is now?  Or should it only be at the very end of the event?

 

Altitude restriction not set in stone but its a starting point for more discussion

 

Is 6 battles in a night too many?


Edited by PostTraumatic, 29 April 2016 - 05:56 PM.


MARS_REVENANT #15 Posted 29 April 2016 - 06:06 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 34272 battles
  • 7,286
  • [SICK] SICK
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Changing plane restrictions between battles makes things overly complicated.  It will be like herding cats, especially when you will have larger clans with a variety of people showing up on different nights.  I could see this causing confusion and frustration,  and end up spending more time setting up than actually battling.

 

If you want variety, why not change plane restrictions weekly.


I never lose; either I win or I learn.

 


PostTraumatic #16 Posted 29 April 2016 - 06:15 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 20059 battles
  • 882
  • [VULCN] VULCN
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

I doubt it would be that confusing for competent clans.  I also doubt players would have any more trouble than they currently have meeting the current restrictions.  This actually seems simpler than the current restrictions even. Since they have been able to handle the current restrictions I feel they could handle this.

 

Changing the plane restrictions weekly would defeat the purpose of battling every team with consistent rules every week.  Changing the line-up for the battles every week would be inequitable.  it needs to be the same each week.

 

I will also point out there is a ban list from these events for players that have proven to be difficult or spammed the league threads.  Currently 2 players have made the list.  I will not list the players as that is against forum rules.  They know who they are.  running a player on the ban list will forfeit the match.


Edited by PostTraumatic, 29 April 2016 - 06:27 PM.


MARS_REVENANT #17 Posted 29 April 2016 - 06:31 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 34272 battles
  • 7,286
  • [SICK] SICK
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

:great:


Edited by MARS_REVENANT, 21 October 2016 - 04:09 AM.

I never lose; either I win or I learn.

 


PostTraumatic #18 Posted 29 April 2016 - 06:40 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 20059 battles
  • 882
  • [VULCN] VULCN
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostTHEMARCO1979, on 29 April 2016 - 01:31 PM, said:

Are you suggesting I will be banned from your event for pointing out complicated rules could be streamlined?

 

Have you posted this ban list of yours?

 

no

 

and 

 

no (not in public as that is naming and shaming)  The parties know who they are and the clan leaders of the parties know who they are and have agreed.)



MARS_REVENANT #19 Posted 09 May 2016 - 05:40 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 34272 battles
  • 7,286
  • [SICK] SICK
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Posttahee59, on 09 May 2016 - 11:50 AM, said:

Is wargaming putting it on .....No thank you

 


I never lose; either I win or I learn.

 


tahee59 #20 Posted 09 May 2016 - 06:57 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 8032 battles
  • 1,751
  • [VULCN] VULCN
  • Member since:
    07-31-2012
That's right troooooooooooooooooooooooool I wont play anymore turnies till wargaming gets off its backside





Also tagged with tournaments, League

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users