6 on 6 PvP League

[__________Injectionz]

Dunno if any one said this since i just skimmed through on reading but, each member shoudl be self buffed. And one problem with neutrals, They cant do the opening attack So that could be a major disadvantage.

[____________Megatron]

Yes, the buff thing has come across my mind, but not these boards I believe.

I almost think there should be no pre-fight buffs running, self or otherwise. Once the fight begins, you can buff each other all you want, but the question is whether or not buff time should be better spent attacking. And if you can manage some buffs, who do you buff, and what do you buff.

Also, I was not aware that neutrals cannot perform the opening attack (a witness to my PvP n00bness). What if someone on the Clan/Omni side had a very low QL Aggression Enhancer? They do like 1 damage and would that be enough to allow neutrals to begin attacks?

[______________Zzzzzz]

Would there be a time limit on a match? Possibly limit a match to say 20 minutes? And the team with the most players at the end of the time limit, wins that match?

BUMPer cars

[Callantha]

Originally posted by Gunandahalf
hehe sounds like a good idea

I'll r0xx0r j00r b0xXx0r Gun!

-level 80 OT MA wielding a katana

[Mekura]

Hrmm, I like it. Anything to hopefully lift the taboo nature of PvP with newer players is a great idea in my book.

If you need some help with the front end, graphics or layout wise, I'd be glad to help you there. As for previous work... well.. I made AOBay! And it was shut down shortly after, but hey, thought that counts.

Regardless, if you're looking for some help send a tell to one of my chars in game, or I'm usually on irc.funcom.com as Teiji.

[Mekura]

er that is, send a tell to one of the chars in my sig

[______________NERFED]

Mort or Broken shores are nice zones that have save terminal/outpost for clan and omni

[______________Tarage]

I would just leave Neutrals out of it. It creates too many problems to overcome, which could lead to the entire idea failing. The simpler you keep the idea, the more likely it will be successful.

It sucks to have to leave out an entire faction from the fun, but there is a reason they can't start combat. If they want to participate, then they should pick a side and join the conflict. Or have alts that are in Clan/Omni and PvP with those.

Then again, that is just my opinion. You might want to poll to see what everyone thinks.

I like the idea of three player teams better. It relies more on skill than it does on numbers. A six-man team of a Doc, Soldiers and MAs would rule. However a team of one Doc, MA, and Soldier could be beaten. You would also experience less lag with fewer people.

You would need to get FC involved in this. I know ARKs participate in player organized events (ark.anarchy-online.com). Just start with a petition and see how much help you can get. With the amount of griefing that could occur (like what we saw with Argulace’s tournament), it would be a good idea to get it as controlled as possible.

You’d also need to decide what to do with spectators. Spectators will more than likely want to come and watch. They will cause unwanted lag, and they could potentially auto-attack when someone in the fight gets off an AoE (nuke, root, whatever). This is what makes one of the arenas ideal, because it is a lot easier to sit and watch fights. You would also be able to control who is in the fight and who is not, especially if a GM/ARK was involved. They could simply warp out anyone not in the teams, and could arrange for a block of time when the arena was under your control for the event. I think the Ent arena would be easier to control just because of how you need to enter it. One downside of the Ent Arena, is that there is a bug that allows you to jump into the arena over the fence. Not that big of a deal, but if a GM could disable people from being able to use the transport to enter the arena (which I doubt they can), griefers could still exploit this bug. I think Tir is just too open with the number of ways you can enter it.

Just some thoughts.

[____________Megatron]

Thanks so much for your post! Very valuable input and it's helping to shape my image of what this will mold into (my current thoughts located at the bottom of this post)

I think that I will open up a poll about the neutrals issue. It would make more sense for the community, not myself, to decide that factor.

Time/Location and GMs/ARKs presents a challenging issue, here a couple of points I am considering:

1) I am much more inclined to let the two teams scheduled to fight in a weekly match decide the day and time for themselves. If you consider the alternative, a set time week-in and week-out, then a single venue like an arena would be booked for a long LONG time. Consider having 36 teams all trying to get their matches done in Ent Arena on a Friday night. That's 18 matches at perhaps 20 minutes a match.... 360 minutes/60 min per hour = 6 hours of fights. No big deal for participants, because they can just show up during their 20 minute interval. But for someone overseeing the matches, a 6 hour commitment every Friday night is a daunting prospect.


And if you tried to spread it out, there are some players who simply cannot make certain days due to work, family, life obligations. Free-form scheduling makes the best sense, to me anyways. On the other hand, having a set time may lend itself to more consistency and perhaps a better overall turnout? (IE don't join unless you can make Friday nights)


2) With free-form scheduling, the amount of spectators will be coincidental. A match time wouldn't be accessible by anyone but the two teams involved in that specific match. And the only spectators would be those who happened to be at the arena at the time, or if someone started yelling on a public channel. In either event, I imagine less spectators using free-form than with a set time every week.

3) GMs/ARKs. Haven't had much interaction with them. I will attempt to petition tonight when I get home. My thinking in the mean time is this however .... with a free-form schedule, I think you can forget about GMs/ARKs. I don't see them being flexible enough to bend to player scheduled matches. What is acceptable about this however, is that with free-form, there's a lower chance of player disturbance (although still a very good possibility). With a set time, I think they might actually oversee the matches. We might even call it 'Friday Night Fights' - isn't that an ESPN thing or something :0)


My current thought process is now leaning towards:
* 3-man teams (6-8 man roster)
* Set days ... Friday and Saturday Night schedules
* Neutral issue to be determined by community poll
* Pursue GM/ARK commitment to control chaos.

There could be incredible lag from the setup above though. I imagine a large spectator turnout...

[engelstein]

If this actually turned into an Arena League thing with GM involvement, it would be pretty cool if FC added an arena in Borealis, Stret West, Last Ditch, one of those neutral zones.

[____________Megatron]

If we can make the first season of this league a success, then hopefully more arenas would be added in future patches. Then arenas might be booked for less than 3 hours a night as opposed to 3-6 hours.

My calculations were based on 36 teams. Which could appromixately be 250 people. If this thing works out, then having multiple USABLE arenas would lend itself to creating more teams, and/or creating more level divisions.

Speaking of which... level divisions would be a ***** (to put it mildly). I have zero clue right now about how to deal with this.

If the league ends up being 12 weeks or any sort of substantial time, a player/team could level *significantly* in that span. Day 1 they sign up for a level 75-100 league, and before you know it, they're already level 125. What now?

This is one of the more confounding issues I have run into.

A few possible solutions:
1) No divisions. Levels 75-200 are lumped together. Of course, what motivation is there to even come when the week's match is a lvl 200 team vs a level 75 team. Those kinds of odds are insurmountable.

2) Level divisions. Levels 75-100, 101-125, 126-150, etc. Problem? The aforementioned leveling spree that we all take part in. Players would be ineligible for leagues as fast as they signed up for them.

3) *Sponsorship* and Level Divisions. This idea which has just now entered my brain. Look at this example:

League A: Levels 75-119
League B: Levels 120-149
League C: Levels 150-189
League D: Levels 190-200 (possibly combine leagues C & D)

Now consider if instead of being "team" centered, the league was "org" or "sponsor" centered. Meaning this: an organization like Storm could sponsor teams in each League which have levelable rosters.

Storm's League A might field Joe (110), John (100), Bob(95), Neil(85), Sam(75) and Dick(75)

Storm's League B might field Tom (145), Mike(140), Edgar(136), Rob(130), Ed(129) and Ted(129).

Scenario: Tom and Mike level above 150 and are therefore no longer eligible to compete in League B. This leaves their roster 2 men short. Also, Joe and John have leveled to 120 and are no longer eligible to compete in League A.

Solution: Tom and Mike get added to Storm's League C roster. Joe and John get added to Storm's League B roster mid-season. Storm must backfill, in mid-season, League A's roster with two eligible players.

What does this mean? Sponsored teams will still have records that reflect their organization, alliance, etc. But, players will have the ability to continue to both LEVEL and COMPETE. And if done right, I can track a player's overall record as he advances from League to League.

This might be the solution that defines what RKL is.

Comments?

[______________Zzzzzz]

League A: Levels 75-119
League B: Levels 120-149
League C: Levels 150-189
League D: Levels 190-200 (possibly combine leagues C & D)

That sounds about right.

As far as ppl leveling...The teams might want to enter substitutes also, in case another player levels out of the respective league.

As far as match scheduling...make it flexible.

[______________Tarage]

Yes, I think that flexible matches is a great idea. You may also not even need ARK/GM involvement if you can do that. They would just need to pick random coordinates in a random 25% zone that only they know (and the person refereeing). That would really reduce the amount of possible griefing.

It would be nice to take into account PvP Title when forming divisions, but I don't think it's something you can realistically do with the number of people who PvP. Considering also that people have farmed titles, makes it difficult to really group people in that regard.

I like the level division. At first you may need to make some sacrifices in that area, but once more people join in it should work better. I'm just thinking for your first run, you may not actually be able to get 108 people (3 players x 36 teams) from each division to sign up.

I think the one thing that will benefit you the most is GUI magic. Once you have rules laid out, and the entire system down on paper, put it all up clearly on a website. One where people can sign up on, see themselves in their group, where they will be placed/ranked, and who they will be fighting. Once people can actually see the idea take shape, more people are likely to jump on board.

Also, don't be afraid to adjust the system after the first run. There will most likely be stuff that people like/don’t like, and being able to adjust the system around what people want will really make it successful for the long run.

Since I don’t PvP enough, I can’t really comment on whether the level divisions are a good layout or not. I’ll let more experienced players comment on them.