Tickenest

League Formats

Recommended Posts

Once again, I am toying with the idea of starting up my own NHL '94 competition. Now, this wouldn't take place until next summer at the earliest, but I figure it's never too early to start doing some research on what kinds of formats appeal to people.

(What follows is a discussion of my old league. If you don't want to read it, scroll down to SCROLL DOWN TO HERE.)

Some of you will remember last year's NHL '94 Cup Chase. For those of you that don't, the format was a radical departure from the typical season format that most other NHL '94 competitions have used. My model was the way that many QuakeWorld Team Fortress leagues were run. Specifically, I had the Iron Glove League format in mind, especially the part about Clan Cash. Essentially, the format was a never-ending competition that could be joined or left by clans at any time, similar to how boxing is structured.

Here's how it worked: players would be assigned to play a single opponent each week in a 3-game series. Players would try to win at least two of their games with a bonus for sweeping all three (and, conversely, an additional penalty for losing all three). The league was based upon players' "streaks". Winning two games in a week gave that player a "+1" and winning all three gave a "+2" (and a "-1" or "-2" for the loser). Streaks would accumulate over time, so winning three games two weeks in a row gave a player a +4 streak (or doing the opposite gave him a -4 streak). A + streak would get turned around by a losing week or a - streak by a winning week, so a +4 player who lost two of three the following week would then have a -1 streak. Got all that? Good.

Each week's schedule was based upon the current streaks, so the two highest-streaking players would play each other, then the next two, and so on down the list. The point was that good/hot players would play mostly other good/hot players while bad/cold players would play mostly other bad/cold players, keeping the best players from beating up on the worst players too often.

At the top of the league, you had two special matchups. First was the Title Contender (TC) match. The two players with the best streaks were placed into the TC match, and the winner of that one would become the following week's Title Contender. The other special matchup was the Title match. In that match, the current title holder would take on the winner of the previous week's TC match, and the winner would become the new title holder.

Players also accumulated Golden Pucks (GP) over time that they could spend on privilieges like permission to use All-Star teams, force a challenge with a particular player, buy a shot at the TC match, change match settings, or even buy goals to put to use in the next match. GPs didn't become popular.

I wanted the competition to be friendly to new players (i.e. they don't just get pounded every game), and I think the streak scheduling format accomplished that. The biggest problem with the league, though, was that it didn't work if people didn't play their games every week. For some guys, that's not a problem, but for others, it obviously was (whether through lack of time or lack of interest). I said that the format came from another league, but that was competition between clans, and it's much easier when a clan with a large roster has to get some of its guys together at the same time every week.

SCROLL DOWN TO HERE

So why am I mentioning all of this? Well, ok, I'm reliving the glory days a little. But as I said, I'm thinking of starting a new competition a little down the road, and I'd like some feedback on what might be an interesting format. After all, I think we've got a good number of typical, seasonal format leagues, so I'd want to contribute something unique if I could.

Here are a few formats I've come up with:

Survivor League

Play X number of games per week (or two weeks, or whatever), assign matchups randomly, eliminate the person who's in last place at the end of the session. Repeat until only one person remains.

World Cup/Champions League-Style League

Similar to the World Cup with pool play followed by a knockout tournament.

Knockout Tournament

Not really that unique (after all, I'm in one right now), but maybe with an unusual twist. These are typically structured in NHL playoff style with best-of-7 series, so maybe make it a straight knockout tournament or make each round a 2-game, home-and-home, aggregate scoreline match.

"Clan" League

The players themselves form clans (say, 3 or 4 to a clan) and take on other clans (probably in a seasonal format). For a "match", each member plays one game against a member of the opposing clan, most wins by a clan wins that match. Other possibilities include having to play fewer games in a match than there are members of the clan, forcing clans to decide who sits (this also gives flexibility for when a guy may be unavailable for a while), and having rules forcing every member to play at least X games in a season (so that the weakest player in the clan can't be benched all the time.)

Crazy ROM League

This already happens with the 2v2 league, but there are other possibilities, such as a "juiced" ROM (didn't someone just make that?) with everyone at maximum attributes or other weirdness.

Progressive Playoffs

Not really a league by itself, but a playoff format for a seasonal league where everyone makes the playoffs (to keep the worst players interested in the league.) To preserve the importance of the regular season, the playoffs would be tiered, essentially giving the better players deeper and deeper byes and forcing the worst players to play more and more rounds of the playoffs to win the title.

North America + Finland SUPER HAPPY FUN OMG FAMILY WISH EX ALPHA 3 GOLD ARMAGEDDON

In my dreams....

So I'm soliciting people's thoughts on what they'd like to see from a "new" competition (note that I'm avoiding calling it a "league" since it wouldn't necessarily follow a league format.) Comments welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which system would this be for? Gens or SNES?

Either way, I'd be interested.

Make sure your streak counter can go into the three-figures, since I'm so bad you'll need it :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Tick, loved all the ideas in here. I think your idea of having guys play other in a three game set is a great idea. Like a ladder kind of format I gather?

I play exhibitions but would rather play games that have a little more meaning which is one of the reasons why I started my own legaue in the first place. If i understand it correctly, this system here seems to cater to all people. Every player is assigned an opponent for the week in a 3 game set. players that sweep advance quicker in the 'ladder'....players that lose or dont play..get bumped down the ladder....and after a couple months you will have your nhl94 cup leader!

Now is this for GENS only?...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tick, awesome ideas... keep those creative juices flowing. My top 2 choices would be the Clan format (b/c I like the idea that if someone isn't available, another member can play for them) and your original format (it just sounds like a lot of fun with the appropriate levels of competition playing each other).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like the original format because I think it does a lot of things well.

-The streak format works really well for sorting players by their ability level and pitting them against players of similar ability more often than not, and it also accounts for changes in a player's ability, so if he gets better he plays harder opponents and if he gets worse he plays easier opponents. You rise with success and fall with failure.

-New players might have a rough go of it the first week but if they start sinking they'll get easier matches.

-Unless the league gets huge you're never more than a few weeks away from a title shot if you can just get hot, which I think is really important because a guy won't quit because he's "out of it".

-On a related note, the league doesn't have much "memory". The most important thing is Streak (I think I'll start capitalizing it.) Still, overall record does have *some* meaning. First, when you're not the Champ or the TC, your ranking is determined by your winning percentage. Of course, since Streak means everything, your ranking doesn't mean much, but I suppose it does count for prestige. This is not to say that overall record is meaningless. The trick is that when Streak is tied, winning percentage is the first tiebreaker for determining matchups. Remember that after each week's matches, everyone but the Champ and the TC get scheduled for the following week by Streak, and the top 2 on that list are in the TC match, so having a high winning percentage might mean the difference for getting into the TC match. Alternatively, you base it solely on wins (not winning percentage). This gives a boost to veteran players (because they've been around longer to accumulate wins) and to good players (because they get wins), but again, not a huge advantage.

-It's a robust format for adding or dropping players, since there's really no limit to how large it can get (you do want at least 12 people to make the competition interesting, though, because with 4 people tied up in Title/TC matches each week, you need to make the fight to get into the TC match interesting.) Sadly, when there's an odd number of people in the league, someone has to have a bye, but when I was running the league, I decided that I would take the bye (because I was more concerned about the success of the league than my own success OMG HALIFAX ARE YOU READING THIS THIS IS WHAT I MEANT ABOUT NOT TAKING CHICAGO K THX!)

-It can also be divided into multiple divisions with promotion/relegation between them. This was my original plan if the league had survived long enough. Let's say you have Division I and Division II. You have a "reverse" Champion (we'll call him the Loser) at the bottom of Division I and a "reverse" TC match (call it the LC) to determine who'll be the next week's Loser. At the top of Division II, you have a TC match as usual (we'll call it the Candidate Contender, or CC match), and the winner (call him the Candidate) advances to the next week's Playoff against the Division I Loser. Each week, the Division I Loser plays the Division II Candidate. The winner plays in Division I the next week, the loser in Division II. Or, alternatively, you just have an LC at the bottom of Division I and a CC at the top of Division II, and the LC loser and CC winner swap divisions each week. That might actually be a better mechanism because it guarantees a swap each week, which helps keep the competition fresh. This can also go many levels deep if it ever gets that large.

-The commissioner can sometimes step in and be an opponent for guys who try to play their weekly matches but can't get them in because the actual opponent isn't around/interested.

There are problems with the format, however:

-It's extremely dependent upon players being committed and playing their games. Now, it's built into the system that a guy can ask for a week or two off.........but it has to be in advance (since it alters how the schedule gets made up.) Sometimes, if it's late in the week, you can pair off guys whose opponents have gone AWOL, but that doesn't always work out right. Also, the TC and Title matches are REALLY dependent upon getting them in as scheduled, because there's no really good way to handle it if they're not played. As the commissioner, I can only do so much to alleviate the problem of guys not playing their games, which can be frustrating.

-The Golden Pucks feature went unutilized. I don't know if that's because guys were unaware of it, didn't care about it, or didn't care for it. I think it can still work (see below).

I've been brainstorming a few more ideas.

-It works out nicely that "Golden Pucks" and "Gold Pieces" share the same initials. I wonder if there's some effective way of adding more RPG elements to the league (something like XP to go with GP.) Again, the trick is to make the elements meaningful but not overpowering. Typically, gaining XP levels in RPGs gives more health, more skills, more spells, new abilities, qualifications to do certain tasks, etc. The question is what kinds of advantages can be given to players in the league along those lines that are both meaningful and not completely unfair to new players?

-Conversely, what additional advantages might be given to poor players to help them compete? This is less controversial than giving veteran/good players a boost because they're more likely to stick around, but it still needs to be done right.

-The Clan format might work out well for a competition like this if enough guys actually buy into the clan format and it reduces the number of unplayed matches.

Again, there's some unusual stuff described in this thread, but the point of this league would be for it to be something different, something that adds to the playing experience and that can't be found elsewhere. If there were enough interest I'd be willing to bring back the Cup Chase with whatever adjustments proved useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I can tweak that format a little bit. You have three tiers of player, and in every month, each player has to play against the other players in that grouping.

Tier A - The elite of the elite play in this group. Last place takes on Tier B's 1st placed player in a relegation series (best of 7). Players are expected to have no trouble beating players from the lowest division, and should be able to beat the middle group. Penalty points can be had for losing to either group, moreso for losing to Tier C, thus encouraging Tier A players not to pack it in if they play against the lower groups.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tier B - Middle-group of players. Not quite elite yet, but no pushovers here either. Last place takes on Tier C's 1st placed player in a relegation series (best of 7). Players are expected not to lose too often to Tier C. No penalties for losing to that group once or twice. If a player in this group loses to players from the bottom level 3 or more times, then penalty points will be accrued. No penalty for losing against Tier A players.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tier C - Rookies, low-rung veterans, and overall bad players play here. The top spot in the group is what everyone's shooting for, and a chance to potentially be in the 2nd division next month. No penalties for losing to Tier A or Tier B opposition. Bonus points for defeating them, especially if a Tier C player knocks off a Tier A player. There is no relegation, so there is little to no pressure on the rookies to do good to stay in the group. There is also no limit as to how many rookies can join up in this grouping.

That's just how I see it...that way, the rookies and poor players won't get embarassed unless they WANT to get embarassed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been brainstorming a few more ideas.

-It works out nicely that "Golden Pucks" and "Gold Pieces" share the same initials. I wonder if there's some effective way of adding more RPG elements to the league (something like XP to go with GP.) Again, the trick is to make the elements meaningful but not overpowering. Typically, gaining XP levels in RPGs gives more health, more skills, more spells, new abilities, qualifications to do certain tasks, etc. The question is what kinds of advantages can be given to players in the league along those lines that are both meaningful and not completely unfair to new players?

Some awards could be (and these are only ideas, I have no idea how to incorporate this into the game itself):

-Penalty Shot Award to be used at any point

-Selecting a player from the opposing team that cannot play

-The opposing team must use their backup goalie

-Opposing team must play shorthanded for an extended period of time

-Attribute increases/decreases

-Tony Twist penalty -- Your forwards get replaced with 3 Tony Twists for the entire game

Yeah, they're pretty silly but just ideas. This sounds like it would be a logistics nightmare but I like this new format brainstorm thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 Tony Twists?!? So much for winning this week :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I can tweak that format a little bit. You have three tiers of player, and in every month, each player has to play against the other players in that grouping.

Tier A - The elite of the elite play in this group. Last place takes on Tier B's 1st placed player in a relegation series (best of 7). Players are expected to have no trouble beating players from the lowest division, and should be able to beat the middle group. Penalty points can be had for losing to either group, moreso for losing to Tier C, thus encouraging Tier A players not to pack it in if they play against the lower groups.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tier B - Middle-group of players. Not quite elite yet, but no pushovers here either. Last place takes on Tier C's 1st placed player in a relegation series (best of 7). Players are expected not to lose too often to Tier C. No penalties for losing to that group once or twice. If a player in this group loses to players from the bottom level 3 or more times, then penalty points will be accrued. No penalty for losing against Tier A players.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tier C - Rookies, low-rung veterans, and overall bad players play here. The top spot in the group is what everyone's shooting for, and a chance to potentially be in the 2nd division next month. No penalties for losing to Tier A or Tier B opposition. Bonus points for defeating them, especially if a Tier C player knocks off a Tier A player. There is no relegation, so there is little to no pressure on the rookies to do good to stay in the group. There is also no limit as to how many rookies can join up in this grouping.

That's just how I see it...that way, the rookies and poor players won't get embarassed unless they WANT to get embarassed.

I'm not sure what you're describing. I mean, you say "every month, each player has to play against the other players in that grouping" but you talk about guys losing to players outside of their tier. So does tier not equal group? And who sets the schedule, the players or the commissioner?

Some awards could be (and these are only ideas, I have no idea how to incorporate this into the game itself):

-Penalty Shot Award to be used at any point

-Selecting a player from the opposing team that cannot play

-The opposing team must use their backup goalie

-Opposing team must play shorthanded for an extended period of time

-Attribute increases/decreases

-Tony Twist penalty -- Your forwards get replaced with 3 Tony Twists for the entire game

-So I guess you'd set up a penalty shootout before the game and count the goal for the upcoming game if it goes in. Workable.

-Hmm...the Cup Chase let a guy choose whichever team he wanted. I guess this could still be done, though you might get a situation where the guy who's choosing which of his opponent's players can't play has to go through the roster ahead of time, or worse, ask his opponent to show guys' ratings. Not out of the question.

-Forced backup goaltender could work well.

-Not sure how you'd enforce shorthandedness.

-Attribute adjustments are a no-brainer, except that would require a special ROM for the occasion, and I'd prefer a format without requiring players to download new ROMs frequently.

-That's just cruel.

Another goal of the Chase was that it was simple to participate in. Every weekly match was 3 games, but all 3 were at the same arena so that you never had to reconnect or anything like that. You could pick any team you wanted except All-Star teams and both guys could use the same team. I think the goal of simplicity is a good one to keep in mind.

Keep the ideas coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You could pick any team you wanted except All-Star teams and both guys could use the same team.

I'm highly partial to the one-guy-picks-the-matchup-the-other-guy-picks-which-team-he-wants method. That's pretty much how we played John Madden and Bill Walsh all through college and it works frigging great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm highly partial to the one-guy-picks-the-matchup-the-other-guy-picks-which-team-he-wants method. That's pretty much how we played John Madden and Bill Walsh all through college and it works frigging great.

Well, you're right in that that's a common way of picking teams for a game, but it does go against my hopes of letting guys be whatever team they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, you're right in that that's a common way of picking teams for a game, but it does go against my hopes of letting guys be whatever team they want.

I hear you.

What we found was that it cut down on the Chicago-Detroit, Chicago-Montreal and Chicago-Chicago matchups.

What some guys bring to the table is an ability to compete with crappy teams, so Ottawa-San Jose might be a matchup they sets when he gets to pick the teams. Etc.

But there's also something about allowing each owner to play to his own strength each time out. I have always had my greatest successes in the Classic League with Chicago, so that is probably what I'd pick each time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mentioned several ideas to Halifax:

1) 100% player roms (so that nobody is uneven going into battle). This will be trialled, I believe, in the winter nostalgia.

2) And this is the critical one, something that I call "open league."

OPEN LEAGUE

I don't care WHO plays. I think ultimately the cap would be at 26 teams, so that nobody is duplicating teams on an even-team rom, but there is no need to limit the number of coaches.

You should play four games (two home/two away) against every other team in the open league phase. With 26 teams, this is 100 games.

Here's the kicker, I don't care if you don't play all of your games, I don't even care if you play half of your games. But, ultimately, the coach that plays more has more opportunity to advance to the playoffs.

ONE deadline is set. There is NO waiting list. At the deadline, players with the most points advance. First tiebreaker is MOST games played (not least), and then most wins.

This means that a player that goes 10-90 will be ranked higher than a player that went 10-2. This, in itself, emphasizes playing games, and awards active players without dealing with kicking people out.

The inequities of the system generally need not apply - the goal is to get people active, and in past trials the active players benefit, even if they are not that good. Furthermore, the playoffs are there, and I can't imagine the best coach in the league NOT being in the top 8/12/16.

This gives more responsibility to players, and less to Halifax and Evan and others. Plus, if there are a LOT of league games on the schedule, there is almost always an opportunity to play, but not necessarily a need to if you are suddenly very busy IRL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I mentioned several ideas to Halifax:

1) 100% player roms (so that nobody is uneven going into battle). This will be trialled, I believe, in the winter nostalgia.

2) And this is the critical one, something that I call "open league."

OPEN LEAGUE

I don't care WHO plays. I think ultimately the cap would be at 26 teams, so that nobody is duplicating teams on an even-team rom, but there is no need to limit the number of coaches.

You should play four games (two home/two away) against every other team in the open league phase. With 26 teams, this is 100 games.

Here's the kicker, I don't care if you don't play all of your games, I don't even care if you play half of your games. But, ultimately, the coach that plays more has more opportunity to advance to the playoffs.

ONE deadline is set. There is NO waiting list. At the deadline, players with the most points advance. First tiebreaker is MOST games played (not least), and then most wins.

This means that a player that goes 10-90 will be ranked higher than a player that went 10-2. This, in itself, emphasizes playing games, and awards active players without dealing with kicking people out.

The inequities of the system generally need not apply - the goal is to get people active, and in past trials the active players benefit, even if they are not that good. Furthermore, the playoffs are there, and I can't imagine the best coach in the league NOT being in the top 8/12/16.

This gives more responsibility to players, and less to Halifax and Evan and others. Plus, if there are a LOT of league games on the schedule, there is almost always an opportunity to play, but not necessarily a need to if you are suddenly very busy IRL.

The problem is that there's too much incentive for guys at the end to say that they played their games even if they don't (by that I mean that both players say they played it, since the important thing is that they played, not who won or lost.) Sure, we'd hope that that kind of thing wouldn't go on but we just can't be sure since we don't see the games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is that there's too much incentive for guys at the end to say that they played their games even if they don't (by that I mean that both players say they played it, since the important thing is that they played, not who won or lost.) Sure, we'd hope that that kind of thing wouldn't go on but we just can't be sure since we don't see the games.

1) Coaches can do this now. Because of this, I disagree with you: People playing is NOT the most important thing, because garnering proof is too difficult. If they want to collude this way, sure. Whatever. When playoffs come around, if they skirted the system, they will suffer when facing opponents who won't go for that s**t.

2) People can't say "Oh, but I played that guy" at the end. It's the coach's job to report, confirm, and get on the ass of the other guy to make sure the result counts. BEFORE the deadline. There is no bartering, no bickering, at 12:01 AM on day one of the playoffs, you know who you play and that is FINAL.

3) I have a pyramidal scoring system that encourages winning in an X-game set - by a severe margin. I've proposed it for chess to avoid quick draws, which essentially is your issue, so I'll propose it here...BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY :)

For every x "hockey points (Hp)" you get, you receive x^triangle "league points (Lp)," but only against the same opponent. Assume a four-game set at one sitting (and this will look RPG-ish but it's not supposed to):

0 Hp = 0 Lp

1 Hp = 1 Lp

2 Hp = 3 Lp

3 Hp = 6 Lp

4 Hp = 10 Lp

5 Hp = 15 Lp

6 Hp = 21 Lp

7 Hp = 28 Lp

8 Hp = 36 Lp

This means that if you go 2-2, you both get 10 points. Pretty pathetic when you see that a 4-0 record would get you - not twice as much - but over three and a half times as much. This solves collusion - in a BIG way - but ends up supporting players who totally outclass their peers. A little strange, but you won't likely see anyone sitting on their laurels in overtime, that's for sure.

P.S. If you want to have every game be decided, I suggest a 3-2-1-0 system for shootouts (expanding this severely), or just going one point/win with endless overtime. It has to have a zero sum basis, because the system itself is NOT zero sum, and that is on purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) Coaches can do this now. Because of this, I disagree with you: People playing is NOT the most important thing, because garnering proof is too difficult. If they want to collude this way, sure. Whatever. When playoffs come around, if they skirted the system, they will suffer when facing opponents who won't go for that s**t.

2) People can't say "Oh, but I played that guy" at the end. It's the coach's job to report, confirm, and get on the ass of the other guy to make sure the result counts. BEFORE the deadline. There is no bartering, no bickering, at 12:01 AM on day one of the playoffs, you know who you play and that is FINAL.

3) I have a pyramidal scoring system that encourages winning in an X-game set - by a severe margin. I've proposed it for chess to avoid quick draws, which essentially is your issue, so I'll propose it here...BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY :)

For every x "hockey points (Hp)" you get, you receive x^triangle "league points (Lp)," but only against the same opponent. Assume a four-game set at one sitting (and this will look RPG-ish but it's not supposed to):

0 Hp = 0 Lp

1 Hp = 1 Lp

2 Hp = 3 Lp

3 Hp = 6 Lp

4 Hp = 10 Lp

5 Hp = 15 Lp

6 Hp = 21 Lp

7 Hp = 28 Lp

8 Hp = 36 Lp

This means that if you go 2-2, you both get 10 points. Pretty pathetic when you see that a 4-0 record would get you - not twice as much - but over three and a half times as much. This solves collusion - in a BIG way - but ends up supporting players who totally outclass their peers. A little strange, but you won't likely see anyone sitting on their laurels in overtime, that's for sure.

P.S. If you want to have every game be decided, I suggest a 3-2-1-0 system for shootouts (expanding this severely), or just going one point/win with endless overtime. It has to have a zero sum basis, because the system itself is NOT zero sum, and that is on purpose.

It's true that guys can just say that they played their games now without actually doing it, but there's less incentive because one guy has to say that he lost (unless they say that they tied, which would look kinda suspicious if it were reported a lot.) Under your system, both players get a huge benefit from just saying that they played, much more than if there weren't a benefit just for playing.

The pyramidal scoring system seems a little excessive. Maybe if it were toned down a bit, but I don't think guys who totally outclass their peers need that much help, anyway.

On Another Topic...

I think a fun feature for any league would be to track player accomplishments. Some could be mostly merit-based (achieving a certain winning percentage, certain winning streak, making the playoffs, # of shutouts, beat every other player, etc.) and some not so based upon ability (completed a full season's games, played # of games in the league, etc.) It gives guys something to shoot for beyond just winning the whole thing, which is everyone's goal but isn't feasible for most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's true that guys can just say that they played their games now without actually doing it, but there's less incentive because one guy has to say that he lost (unless they say that they tied, which would look kinda suspicious if it were reported a lot.) Under your system, both players get a huge benefit from just saying that they played, much more than if there weren't a benefit just for playing.

The pyramidal scoring system seems a little excessive. Maybe if it were toned down a bit, but I don't think guys who totally outclass their peers need that much help, anyway.

I figured you would say that it was "excessive" or something to that effect, and my response: It couldn't be any other way if you did it like this. There has to be a significant advantage to dominant play in order to score that many points, and to demerit "halfsies" play. Mathematically, this has to be the way it is. However, if you wanted to decide every game playoffs-style, it'd be 10-6-3-1-0, more moderate for sure.

Like I said, I don't think it's a problem (especially not in my format, all I'm saying is to make "most games played" the first tiebreaker, instead of "least games played," to encourage play).

On your other note, I think that's a good idea, giving merit-based awards. Hell, you gave me MVP in the Summer League just for playing - how can I say no to that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To revive a thread from three months ago...

I've been thinking about the Cup Chase a little more lately. I still want to bring it back this summer (or possibly late spring), and I'm still thinking about the format. I like the "clan" format, with each clan having four players and three play for the clan in a given week. The problem, though, with marrying the clan format with the original Cup chase format is that I said earlier in this thread that you need at least 12 players in order for the competition to be interesting, because 4 players are tied up each week in the Title and TC matches, and anything less than 8 players vying for a spot in the TC match makes it too easy to qualify. Replace "players" with "clans", though, and you're talking about 48 players in the league, minimum, which is, indeed, an absolute shitload.

I'm still in love with the original format, though, but I can't come up with a really good way of making it work by overcoming the problem of guys needing to play their games within a week's time. The only possible solution I've come up with is expanding the length of time for each round from one week to two weeks, but then you cut the speed of the league in half. Or am I wrong, and two weeks per round isn't too slow?

On the other hand, if we stick with the clan format, I'm not sure what other sort of league format would work well. I'll keep working on the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Felt there was a good enough thread for this...

You're seeing my ideas (tested and true) in the current capitalism league. Yes, I am in the lead. No, it is not good. Yes, it means that everyone has to play games.

I was talking to halifax last night and mentioned to him an idea that I tried out for a different league over a year ago, but I've adapted it for NHL94:

In the league phase, everyone plays a first-to-4-wins series against everyone else. Change home-away after every odd-numbered game, no overtime, ties are completely replayed (but count in your tiebreaker).

For every series victory, you get 1 win. For every series defeat, you get 1 loss.

Series wins are the main ranking criteria, series losses are secondary, and then "percentage" (2w+t)/(2w+2t+2l).

Basically, instead of playing small games, you play a full marathon session - since playoffs are done in series, the regular season could (or should) exemplify this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got a couple of gameplay concepts I want to float to you guys:

1) First to "X" goals

The timers are set to a length that is stupidly long (like 99:59).

The game ends when one player has scored some decided number of goals (like 5, 7, or 10). This could also work in a win-by-two scenario (like tennis or volleyball)...this would ensure that there's no "flukey" goals deciding games - you have to (sorta) convincingly win.

Play an even number of games - the idea is that the home team is always going up.

2) By-period scoring

10-minute periods, however a single game has many many different results:

Each period is worth 2 points (a period tied is 1 point each).

Winning the game is worth 2 points (a tied game is 1 point each).

2 points just for playing - maximum score of 10 in a "game."

What this does is effectively gives me four different results to work with - a three-game series and a cumulative-goals score.

Basically, you treat each period as an independent game.

3) Mandatory overtime

Long periods (7.5-10 minutes)

The third period is considered "mandatory overtime."

The first player to BOTH score a goal AND lead the game wins.

Gives players a legitimate opportunity to come back into a game...depending on the way you look at it.

1 and 3 are ways to declare CLEAR winners - 2 is not.

It just depends on how you want to do things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Tick...I've been thinking about Cup Chase lately - or rather something that I did that was similar.

Just wanted to revive the thread :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the 'clan' concept. I think team NHL94 would be awesome.

What about a variation of that? Something like a 'survivor' clan format. If your clan loses a head to head aggregate series to anotehr clan u have to vote out one of ur own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i like clan. which clan will dominate NHL94.com?

Then top clans from SNES and GENS can face off in the ultimate battle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big issue, I think, is trying to navigate the myriad of leagues while also doing a "Challenge Cup" system like Cup Chase was. However, I really like the idea of having streaks determine your next matchup, as well as a "title contender" series. My biggest issue with leagues right now is that there's no temperament for players like myself and hokkee and wags to NOT play all their games quickly - regardless of the result. So I would love to modify what I've been doing with Cap League into something like this.

More on it later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got it. And it's great.

SCHEDULE:

Two match-ups are scheduled each week.

Each match-up is either a 3-game, 4-game, or best-of-5 series (we can choose later).

You can also play a two-game set vs. anyone of your choosing (I called this a riskmatch or a halfmatch, we can call it something else).

RANKINGS and DECAY:

Not sure exactly what point system might be used, but there should be some harsh decay in how your current ranking is formed:

100% value for games 1 week old.

66% value for games 2 weeks old.

33% value for games 3 week old.

Games 4 weeks old or more are archived and mostly forgotten.

You can also formally take a week off and the decay doesn't affect you for a week.

LADDER FORMAT:

Title Defense - The Champion and two Challengers are sequestered into a 3-player pool (the halfmatch can be waived, and these players can play an extra game in their series). The winner of the pool is the Champion for the next week, and the losers get knocked out of the title circuit. Title defense players are considered on a "week off" in terms of their rankings - it's a whole separate thing from the points and stuff.

Contender Group - The top 5-7 players that are not in the Title Defense and were not in the Title Defense the previous week are in this group. The top 2 that come out of this group (including 2 and 3 week old results) will go to the Title Defense the next week, so if you were really on a roll but stumbled a little bit, you might still fight for the title the next week. You are NOT NECESSARILY kicked out of this group if you didn't advance this week...because sometimes your opponent is unavailable.

Everyone Else - Scheduled based off of their current ranking.

You can't be scheduled against anybody more than one match-up every three weeks, or play a "halfmatch" against the same player more than once every three weeks.

Umm...questions?

EDIT: Two weeks of no games played mean you are placed on the inactive list, and are not scheduled games anymore. You can jump back into the fray at any point in time by playing a two-game optional set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 17 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online