|
|
Post by TopCat on Feb 27, 2008 15:29:07 GMT -5
I disagree. I believe you're more likely to see greater variety since books can be riskier. You can play a more versatile, combo-focused and less safe book since you have your partner to cover for you. Most standard books actually complement each other well and can be almost directly ported to alliance. That, and you'll see 3 other books in a match instead of 2. With a second person to cover for you it's also less likely to be the case that match randomness decimates your strategy (these will only be to "best of one" match).
As for number of matches per week, I'm still working it out. Most likely I'll use a point-based ladder since a last-man-standing ladder won't work online. Most likely I'll have a two or three match weekly limit, 3-rung challenges, and point bonuses for risky challenges. I'll draft a set of rules either today or tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kuroi Kenshi on Feb 27, 2008 20:20:29 GMT -5
I second any motion of a 2v2 Alliance ladder (point system). While FFA is very good tourney style (I don't really feel 1v1 makes a good tourney environment too often in Culdcept), I think the Alliance games will offer much more diverse game-play. You can throw together more obscure decks and rely more on your opponent to help beef up the play style instead of having to have a deck focused completely on yourself and/or other people. Besides, I'm sure this is just the first of many that will be run, so we can always have a 3 Cepter FFA ladder next.
|
|
|
|
Post by thelostone on Feb 28, 2008 10:51:16 GMT -5
Didn't realize these were blind matches. Sorry, but I'm still pretty new with online play. I'd still be interested.  |
|
Deunnero
Baron
Culdcept Saga killed my 360 RROD #2: 2008-03-14
Posts: 66
|
Post by Deunnero on Feb 28, 2008 10:59:34 GMT -5
Didn't realize these were blind matches. Sorry, but I'm still pretty new with online play. I'd still be interested. Well if you can get online tonight, "thesideburn" and I will be having a game. |
|
|
|
Post by Kuroi Kenshi on Feb 28, 2008 11:14:10 GMT -5
Didn't realize these were blind matches. Sorry, but I'm still pretty new with online play. I'd still be interested. Actually, this is not going to be sealed book. It is going to be actual books. The sealed book tourney that is currently suspended was in another thread. |
|
Deunnero
Baron
Culdcept Saga killed my 360 RROD #2: 2008-03-14
Posts: 66
|
Post by Deunnero on Feb 28, 2008 14:03:56 GMT -5
Didn't realize these were blind matches. Sorry, but I'm still pretty new with online play. I'd still be interested. Actually, this is not going to be sealed book. It is going to be actual books. The sealed book tourney that is currently suspended was in another thread.  O M G Dead is I |
|
|
|
Post by TopCat on Feb 28, 2008 14:58:30 GMT -5
Alright, so I pretty much have the math down so I'll be throwing up rules and formulae soon. I'll most likely start us off with a two - three week dry run to get an idea of score spreads and make suitable adjustments. This because I'm too lazy to test my adjustments myself.
It would also help if I knew how to program so people could input results and have the calculations to player rating done automatically.
I also wouldn't plan on doing a scored ladder with blind rules. It introduces another layer of randomness and evaluates true skill less than normal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ben-Ra on Feb 28, 2008 16:05:29 GMT -5
I'm definitely in favor of standard alliance.
EDIT: Also, are there going to be standardized maps, settings, etc? Not to assume the worst of people but I have no interest in 10-round matches on Santana, or custom card restrictions.
I think it would be good if we decided specific maps beforehand, and definitely rules settings. The maps could be rotated every time the ladder restarts. Personally, I think something with multiple areas and temples would be a good idea, simply because it allows the most freedom in book design, while not overpowering any particular tactic either.
|
|
|
|
Post by TopCat on Feb 29, 2008 0:23:31 GMT -5
I'm going to standardize the rules and decide on maps and their rotation schedule beforehand.
|
|
|
|
Post by TopCat on Mar 1, 2008 2:41:07 GMT -5
The first post has been updated with rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by Moptop on Mar 1, 2008 8:39:07 GMT -5
4) Teams must have a minimum of two ladder matches per week and can have a maximum of five ladder matches per week. If a team plays less than two matches during a week they will be warned or penalized with losses as the differnece between the two game minimum and the number of games played. A second week without meeting the minimum and the team is disqualified. This is to help protect against rating protection by inactivity. Sadly, due to my new work schedule, I can't guarantee that I'll be available for 2 matches each week, so I'm out. Sorry, guys. |
|
|
|
Post by thesideburns on Mar 1, 2008 9:54:23 GMT -5
Yeah, I feel like a minimum of one match per week would be more feasible for me (and maybe others?). I mean I'm obsessed with culdcept and play whenever I can, but getting 4 different people together is a lot harder to organize, especially if we wind up having only a few teams or so in the ladder. The smaller the pool of players gets, the more likely it is to have the "can't play the same team twice in one week" rule get in the way of the 2-match minimum rule.
Since this is a casual ladder, I don't think we really need to worry about people "preserving" their rank via inactivity. Even if we only applied a 2-match minimum to the teams currently in first or second place, I'd bet those players would be penalized for not being able to find a match. So that's my request/suggestion: reduce the minimum to 1 match/week.
Anyway, just my 2 cents.
Question: Can we have a partner who's not on the forums? Cuz I know a dude who's fun to play with, and always up for a game, but he's not on the forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by TopCat on Mar 1, 2008 12:18:22 GMT -5
That rule and the other preventative rules are there for if/when the ladder were to attract a larger number of people. It's not very important now so I'll change it.
It doesn't matter who anyone's partner is so long as they have a Live account.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kuroi Kenshi on Mar 2, 2008 2:35:55 GMT -5
Though I imagine it was already implied, I will post here anyway. I will be participating in this Ladder. Also, everyone should invite all of their friends and/or create them teams as soon as possible and post them in here. The more of you we get, the more fruitful it could prove.
Moptop: I don't believe there is any need to instantly say "I quit" unless you really don't want to play. TC didn't say anything about all those rules being concrete. Everything is open to criticism and alterations and having 1 match a week is not impossible; and it would also be easy to lower the require limit to 1 a week, or even less if there are enough people.
No one has a team yet, or perhaps everyone is still preparing? Or maybe there are only 3 other people wanting to play?
|
|
|
|
Post by Moptop on Mar 2, 2008 10:06:59 GMT -5
Moptop: I don't believe there is any need to instantly say "I quit" unless you really don't want to play. TC didn't say anything about all those rules being concrete. Everything is open to criticism and alterations and having 1 match a week is not impossible; and it would also be easy to lower the require limit to 1 a week, or even less if there are enough people. Hell, I'm not even sure I could guarantee 1 match per week at this point, so it's best that I do quit, I think. If this was a singles ladder, perhaps I'd reconsider, but I'd hate to drag another participant down because I was unable to play for a few weeks. I was told that our workload will lighten come the end of April, so I'll see what's happening then. |
|
