Last Online
Recent Posts
posted in Champion Ladder PC read more
  • Why is it the case that the league would need to be restarted every 6 weeks? I see no problem with having a team play games in weeks 1, 5, 15 and qualifying for the week 18 playoff. In fact I think that's the benefit of something like this which restarting every 6 weeks wouldn't allow
  • The current ladder meta favours bash. Delfs particularly perform atrociously. But why would this be worse for them? Would they have worse match ups? If this is the assumption I am not convinced it's even true. Playing mid TV agility teams is basically a gamble as to whether you might spin into high TV bash (which, in my experience, happens regularly). If there was a higher population of high TV teams you could argue you'd be less likely to spin into them as there would be a higher likelihood of more than 1 being online at a time. But that's all conjecture and agility teams got very good records on the old COL ladder.
posted in Champion Ladder PC read more

Still have playoffs every 6 weeks but the ladder only restarts after 18/24 weeks. (teams cannot qualify for more than 1 playoff. I guess they would not be able to rejoin the ladder?)

I'm not sure why this is not possible (someone will tell me I'm sure) but here's some reasons it might be good:

  • People with less time will be able to play enough games to qualify for 2nd/3rd/4th playoff in the cycle or at least have time to build and enjoy playing with a higher TV team.
  • Less end of season/ start of season grind and graveyard (main reason not to play CCL is your team will die in a week) as teams for the 2nd playoff cycle will start to filter in towards the end of the first 6 weeks etc.
  • More closer TV match-ups with less start of season mismatches and less down time end of season.

We have done it 1 ladder 1 season for 20 seasons and I think this has the potential to fix many of the ladder's issues.

posted in Champion Ladder PC read more

@dode74 said in Champion Ladder Community Discussion

Clearly nobody wants to force anyone to play a race they don't want to play (through, e.g., quotas or limits), so incentives to play other races are used such as it being an intra-race ladder and an inter-race playoff, and resets each season (due to bash teams being perceived to take longer to develop). The point of the change was solely to prevent diluting the already-existing incentives to play other races by creating an increased incentive to play a "top" race which is more likely to regularlty take a top-8 slot. There's no intent to create absolute parity of race representation with in the ladder or anything like it, and I'm as sure as anyone else that this can't be done without hefty changes to the format (e.g. non-prog rez, which you mention) or a total rework of the rosters or the game itself (which is a whole different board game!).

There is nothing to suggest wildcards will influence people's choice in race. Even if it did this is likely to be a small percentage of games as it would only be an incentive to those who care about qualifying (which is very few).
Where the logic of this argument falls down is it assumes that more people will play different races if given this incentive or that people focusing on the playoffs (the only people likely to shift races) will play anything but the top races to try and win the cup.

If people want to play one of the low played races there is already incentive enough in terms of qualifying in that the records of T2/T3 races is abysmal and we see many low tv teams with poor records enter the playoffs as a result. If playoff berth was any factor in how much teams were played there would atleast be some competition for these playoff spots

posted in Champion Ladder PC read more

As many have already said I do not feel this will change the scenario of the current champion ladder. Players who want to play the same old bash teams will not suddenly change to the chosen wild card teams, even be aware of the change or even care about qualifying. So whilst its good to say that this is an incentive I feel like there is little evidence to suggest any people at all will change the races they play. What I do think however is that those who care about qualifying and winning the competition will focus in on a team like dwarves who have a strong match up vs UW, zons and the 2 elf teams from the wildcard races because suddenly they have a lot more favourable match ups in the cup.

If what people want to see is greater variation in the playoff then I believe this should be earned. One way of doing this would be to have the top 16 2nd place races play a game vs each other to decide the top 8 that make the cup. This might pit some of the strong teams against eachother or give a chance for a kislev/UW/vamps with a goood team and coach a chance to topple teams that naturally get a better record. Of course I understand if an idea involving more scheduled games is not on the table but I feel its important that teams earn their place in the playoffs and any chance to pack the playoffs full off better coaches and teams creates a greater spectacle for participants and viewers which would be damaged by diluting the pool with teams that aren't up to scratch.

Another idea (yes it will pit different races against eachother but is that a sin?) that I think will create more variety would be to group teams into say 8 groups of 3 or 6 groups of 4 to compete for that wild card spot

could be one group and the highest ranked 2nd place race of those 4 would take that wild card spot. This might be too complicated and pitting races against achother in any manner seems unpopular 😉