Format of CCV

[Viajero]

I wouldn't call the OCC "oppressive" so much as "strict".

We do require a degree of commitment to playing on schedule and uploading replays, but I think that, generally, people enjoy their time with us. As for it being so big, there's no need to worry about it having 250-odd participants, you can limit interactions to the handful in your own division.

Agree with Doomy. OCC is way bigger than CC and it has to be much stricter, otherwise it would become unmanageable. At any rate I personally do not feel that oppressed, it is just good common sense. OCC is also great in the sense that it lets you develop your team over time and you get to keep it over all seasons you want. You also have the choice to start from scratch if your team gets boring or destroyed. It does not need this 2 phase method used in CC because you get to keep your team next season.

CC is being good fun the way it is, but I would love to have an option to keep my team next season. The key is looking at how many players we typically have so to be able to forumlate a good system around it. At the moment we are around 24 or so.

With that we could maybe consider a 2 Division tourney with promotions and relegations (say top 4 and bottom 4). Each division could have 2 groups of 6. We could play either a 1 round, 5 matches or a 2 round 10 matches group phase (I personally would prefer a 1 round 5 games group phase so the leagues are short and sweet and demotivated teams can start over quickly), and each division would have playoffs (semifinal and final). This way the top 4 of the 2nd division would have play offs and would neatly be promoted the following season. The fact those teams in Division 2 play a couple more matches than the rest of the Division would help them in the upcoming season to face the feared division 1 teams and so forth.

This way people could get to keep and develop their teams over seasons, and if you want to scratch your team and start over then you would start in Division 2. The groups in Division 2 could be formed randomly or based on TV so new teams are not just thrown with the lions.

We are using this system in a league I admin with a bunch of other fellow Spaniards and it is working just fine so far.

Gamewise and depending on the number of players we would have maybe to create two different leagues for each Division but other than that it should work. We could decide the composition for each division based on the results of this CC edition.

The only problem of Cyanide League creator tool is that it forces you to an even number of players, and if you also want play offs then you are also forced to a number of players that somehow produces a multiple of 4 for those play offs and the groups need to be adjusted accordingly. Bottom line is that it is possible for a couple of players to be left out of a given league (say 27 players sign up...) although taht would also be the case even in the current format.

Just an idea.

 

[Vusfnuv]

The only problem of Cyanide League creator tool is that it forces you to an even number of players, and if you also want play offs then you are also forced to a number of players that somehow produces a multiple of 4 for those play offs and the groups need to be adjusted accordingly. Bottom line is that it is possible for a couple of players to be left out of a given league (say 27 players sign up...) although taht would also be the case even in the current format.

Why? There's are several easy workarounds that allows you to have ANY number of teams.
Say if you have 27 teams you could do one of the following:
PLAN A.
4 groups of 7 players each, 2 players from each group get into playoff.
One of the groups (chosen randomly) gets a fake team. This is a team created by admins. The games are not played vs this team. Admins just assight a scoreless draw (or any other result which is agrred beforehand) to any team that should play vs it.

PLAN B.
3 groups of 9 players each, 2 players from each group get into playoff.
This leaves us with 6 players in the playoffs when we want 8 (3 playoff rounds). Between the 3 players who finished 3rd, choose 2 who get into playoff. This can be based on one or several of: scrore, TD difference, random choice or anything else.

PLAN C.
3 groups of 9 players each, 2 players from each group get into playoff.
This leaves us with 6 players in the playoffs when we want 4 (2 playoff rounds). Between the 3 players who finished 2rd, choose only 1 who gets into playoff. This can be based on one or several of: scrore, TD difference, random choice or anything else.

There are other options as well, there is always a way to do it with any number of teams. This just need to be decided before starting the league, but after counting the number of players.

 

[Viajero]

Yes, there are some options... but in some cases they are quite cumbersome and ackward. As I said those issues would affect almost any format you want to propose and it is in no way exclusive to my proposal above.

In any event, let me point out a few comments on your suggestions below:

Say if you have 27 teams you could do one of the following:
PLAN A.
4 groups of 7 players each, 2 players from each group get into playoff.
One of the groups (chosen randomly) gets a fake team. This is a team created by admins. The games are not played vs this team. Admins just assight a scoreless draw (or any other result which is agrred beforehand) to any team that should play vs it.

....

First off, you cant have groups of 7. You need an even number of players in each group anyways. It is just a tool limitation.

Further no one can create fake teams (i.e. without a real player behind), not even Admins. A team needs always a Cyanide registered player to submit it AND what´s worst you can not have two teams of the same player in the same league. Which brings you to the conclusion that you need several players that will not participate in the league to submit actual teams that they will not play with... Possible? Yes, ackward? Very. As per your proposal in A above you would need actually 5 such volunteer fake players! (so to be able to create 4 groups of 8 and that would make one group have 2 fake teams in it which could be seen as unfair by the rest of the groups)

As for Plans B and C the main comment is the same.

The feature for admins to be able to use fake teams that do not need an actual registered player has been asked several times to Cyanide and Cyanide has done nothing yet about it.

More importantly the feature to be able to have an odd number of players in a group (i.e 7) has also been requested many many times at the Cyanide forums with nothing done about it yet.

Please realize the Cyanide League creator tool has still many limitations to it and most of the good common sense ideas you may have are simply not possible.

 

[Narly Bird]

Regarding having a league where you can roll over your teams to the next season, rather than a one-off cup format, we had discussions about it before starting CCII and CCIII. At the time, we thought it was best to just have 1-off cups, as it lets players try out new teams and everyone starts on an equal basis at the beginning of each season. We also felt that it was more in the spirit of bbtactics to be trying out new teams each season. And finally, we thought that if you wanted such a league format, you could just join OCC.

Having said that, for CCV I am quite open to having such a continuous league format. I would also agree that keeping the season short is the key. Otherwise we will have coaches dropping out if their team gets too nuffled in a longer season.

But the thing to remember also, is that such a continuous league format would likely require a lot more work from the admins. You would have to see if the admins were willing to commit the time and effort to keep such a league going. You would also probably need stricter rules than we currently have, regarding submitting matches, rollover dates, etc.

So at the end of the day, I think its really the admins call as to what they are willing to commit to.

 

[Vusfnuv]

I'd prefer new teams every season. With a constant inflow and outflow of playres I think it's the best option. And it's easier to admin such a league too.

 

[Viajero]

I'd prefer new teams every season. With a constant inflow and outflow of playres I think it's the best option. And it's easier to admin such a league too.

A two Divisions continuous league is perfectly compatible with having new teams if you want. You ll just start in division 2. And those who prefer to keep their teams can also do it if they want. Specially if the leagues are kept short you have control over how long you want to use your team. I think it is a good balance.

The admin work in essence is not much more really than what Netsmurf and Etheric are doing now. The main added bit is to organize properly the groups at every season start.

In my league the part that took some thought was to ensure that everyone that wanted to roll a new team was grouped more or less together in one of the groups in Division 2, so to minimize (not to eliminate completely as not possible) differences in TV there. Division 1 groups was for the most part organized randomly with top 1 and top 2 positions in the previous season being seeds for each group in Division 1. I am actually doing all on my own with no aadmin assistants, so it can not be that bad But I agree with Narly, it will require some added committment from admins... and a minimum number of players, as I said around 24 or more (in multiples of 8).

 

[Rusty]

Probably time to stick my oar in again. I'll start by addressing two of Narly's posts (one from the CCIV Results Day 10 thread).

Having said that, for CCV I am quite open to having such a continuous league format. I would also agree that keeping the season short is the key. Otherwise we will have coaches dropping out if their team gets too nuffled in a longer season.

But the thing to remember also, is that such a continuous league format would likely require a lot more work from the admins. You would have to see if the admins were willing to commit the time and effort to keep such a league going. You would also probably need stricter rules than we currently have, regarding submitting matches, rollover dates, etc.

I also like the flexibility of being able to push back the rollforwards. It gives the comp more of a close community feel than something like OCC where the rules are very strict and rigid. I benefited from it recently when i went for a holiday to Aus and the rollforward was pushed back so i could play my match.

I personally don't see a big reason why a continuous league format would require stricter rules unless it was much bigger than CCIV. In fact if we had a league format (I'll call it the Lunch League because it made me groan when I first thought of it) with 24 teams - the same number as in CCIV - split into Divisions 1, 2A and 2B, then if each division were a separate league in Cyanide you would have more flexibility as to when to roll over each week. For example, if two teams from Div 2A needed an extra day to play a game, then Div 1 and 2B could still roll over as normal on Monday night and Div 2A could be postponed until Tuesday. Obviously care would have to be taken to prevent one division becoming too far behind, but I think there is generally more wiggle room this way. Unless I'm missing something.

As for the general discussion of league vs cup format, while I would really like a BBT league I think it would be a shame to lose the cup altogether. Again, I see no reason we couldn't have two simultaneous competitions, the Crunch Cup and the "Lunch League" (with a better name) except for if it would spread our playerbase too thin. I suspect it would need quite a few forum members willing and able to play in both, otherwise one wouldn't have enough participants. I'm sure we could get enough volunteers to admin both, and Coach has said he'd consider adding extra forum sections if we needed them (which I think we would with two competitions). And on the plus side, the starts and ends of both competitions would no doubt become staggered, meaning that a new competition (whether league or cup) would start every month or so instead of every two or three - better for getting new players to join in if there's less of a wait.

 

[Avatar111x]

Obviously never played in CC before, so I’m not sure I’m qualified to say what I think is best. But I’ve never been scared to open mouth before, so here goes.

I’m in favour of a group competition followed by knock out. The group after a group reminded me too much of how UEFA have tinkered with the European trophies and look how well that went … 

I like option B with 2 top teams of each group going through and 2 best 3rd place teams. Then seeding the knockout part.

 

[Mico Selva]

I would like to take part in the next Crunch Cup, if there's a place for me. The format is not very important to me, as in the end, rules are the same for everyone. Although, if I we were to vote, I would opt not to have the first group stage where points gathered victories don't matter.

On the subject of carry-over teams, I really have no opinion. I play in another cup which allows carry-over teams from the previous seasons and there'a 50/50 mix of them with new teams. It works quite well and we see Morg'n'Thorg on the pitch a lot. But an all-new teams cup would also be good, I think.

As for the length - again, it really doesn't matter to me. If the cup is shorter, we'll finish it sooner and sooner start another one. That's all.

 

[Barninho]

For me it should be new teams, as I enjoy developing new teams, and it should definitely have playoffs, for the simple reason that makes it different from the other leagues I play.

I've got no problem having two group stages, although the amount of games we played is a lot, but I do think we should seed players based on their record and such if we have a second group stage and that alone should provide incentive to do well. I like the idea of giving teams a chance to bounce back in the second phase rather than having people eliminated. One of the strengths of this comp for me is that everyone is still involved right up to the end, although there's obviously an argument that by eliminating the worst teams we reduce the chance of people dropping out as they're having no fun with the worst team. I think I still prefer this way, but maybe with smaller groups.

 

[FTJUK]

I woudl be interested in joining the CCV. How would you go about applying for it? Is there a Forum thread somewhere?

 

[Barninho]

Basically a case of keeping your eyes peeled. There are just three weeks left of this comp and after that a thread normally goes up for sign-ups.

 

[Netsmurf]

When the poll is over at June 24th something is bound to happen

 

[Rav3n73]

Hi All,

Having played in 2 crunch cups, I'd like to see something a little different this time and go for more of a perpetual league (allow old teams). I know a lot of people like the current format because it allows everyone to try out different teams, but having short leagues kind of limits the number of effective teams. Some need a few games under their belt before they become viable, for example Chaos.

I'm not over keen on extended inducements as I like to keep things as close to the normal board game rules as possible.

But at the end of the day, I'll roll with what ever the majority vote for.

Looking forward to playing with a better team this time around instead of those Ogres, hopefully I might get a few more wins under my belt. hmmm I seriuosly thinking halflings this year.

Lee