Molon Labe
10-26-2008, 03:16 PM
Of course there's a lot more to DW than sub v. sub, so I'd like to get something going on the team side. I'm thinking a smaller number of competitions the better at this stage; better to lump as many together as possible. So instead of having a bunch of different things going on (2v2, 3v3, fleet battles, scenario matches, etc) I was thinking it would be better to put them all in one.
So I was thinking we register set teams for a general team ladder. There's no limit to the size of the team, but each player can only be on one team in any ladder (if we get multiple ladders up for different areas, then you can be on a different team in each).
As for what you play....anything. Well, anything with at least 2 players per side. The only caveat would be if you play an asymmetric match, you are required to play it twice, once on each side. You would NOT report until both matches are played. So after the 2nd match, report the first score, re-challenge the other team, and report the 2nd one.
Now, as for players/platforms per side... I don't see any need to make rules on this point. Bring as many players as you want. If it turns out being uneven in # of players, oh well. I think this is better addressed by deciding what you want to play and when your team is available to play it.
Challenging rules.... Do we want the challenged team to be able to decide the match played? I don't think so, it's too much power. My thought was that the original challenge, in addition to proposing a time, would propose the mission as well--or, at least, a category of missions. Then the challenged side an accept or make a counteroffer. If the proposal was for a category of missions, then I think giving the challenged team the power to decide a mission from within that category is fine. I would also continue to let the challenged team host the match, which means they get to decide what side they play.
Also in the Challenging rules category is scheduling, which presents a slight problem because you need a bunch of people to show up. So we need to decide at what point a match is accepted. Do we want a "team leader" to speak for the team on this issue? Or if a certain number of players accept, individually, is that good enough? My first thought is to use a leader but to encourage delegation. That way, if there is a negotiation going on between the teams, there is clearly a person who can accept the terms; but for smaller matches (like a 2v2) when it's clear there are enough people who can show up at a certain time, the match can go forward without having to wait for the leader to sign on.
I think instead of a first-time no-show default rule we'll have to let each team take a Murphy pass once per scheduled match. Meaning, if there's a no-show, they can cancel once without forfeiting the match. If they do it twice, the team that showed up gets the free win. Also, I don't know how enforceable this is going to be, but I think there should be a 2-week limit to play a match...meaning, if you have enough people (and 2 I think is going to be "enough" as far as the rules go) to accept a proposed time within 2 weeks of the challenge, you have to take it. It's not like people's schedules are going to be that much different week to week, so I think 2 weeks is a fair amount of time to make it happen. If you stall instead of accepting, it's a default.
I'll save scoring for another post.
Thoughts?
So I was thinking we register set teams for a general team ladder. There's no limit to the size of the team, but each player can only be on one team in any ladder (if we get multiple ladders up for different areas, then you can be on a different team in each).
As for what you play....anything. Well, anything with at least 2 players per side. The only caveat would be if you play an asymmetric match, you are required to play it twice, once on each side. You would NOT report until both matches are played. So after the 2nd match, report the first score, re-challenge the other team, and report the 2nd one.
Now, as for players/platforms per side... I don't see any need to make rules on this point. Bring as many players as you want. If it turns out being uneven in # of players, oh well. I think this is better addressed by deciding what you want to play and when your team is available to play it.
Challenging rules.... Do we want the challenged team to be able to decide the match played? I don't think so, it's too much power. My thought was that the original challenge, in addition to proposing a time, would propose the mission as well--or, at least, a category of missions. Then the challenged side an accept or make a counteroffer. If the proposal was for a category of missions, then I think giving the challenged team the power to decide a mission from within that category is fine. I would also continue to let the challenged team host the match, which means they get to decide what side they play.
Also in the Challenging rules category is scheduling, which presents a slight problem because you need a bunch of people to show up. So we need to decide at what point a match is accepted. Do we want a "team leader" to speak for the team on this issue? Or if a certain number of players accept, individually, is that good enough? My first thought is to use a leader but to encourage delegation. That way, if there is a negotiation going on between the teams, there is clearly a person who can accept the terms; but for smaller matches (like a 2v2) when it's clear there are enough people who can show up at a certain time, the match can go forward without having to wait for the leader to sign on.
I think instead of a first-time no-show default rule we'll have to let each team take a Murphy pass once per scheduled match. Meaning, if there's a no-show, they can cancel once without forfeiting the match. If they do it twice, the team that showed up gets the free win. Also, I don't know how enforceable this is going to be, but I think there should be a 2-week limit to play a match...meaning, if you have enough people (and 2 I think is going to be "enough" as far as the rules go) to accept a proposed time within 2 weeks of the challenge, you have to take it. It's not like people's schedules are going to be that much different week to week, so I think 2 weeks is a fair amount of time to make it happen. If you stall instead of accepting, it's a default.
I'll save scoring for another post.
Thoughts?