if you can't trust active people to be active, you just can't trust them.

question is why are they still playing in 20 if they don't have time to take their turns without getting booted?

I agree. 20 is supposed to be about good players battling it out. You should not be booted in a competitive league

I also think it would be nice to do random teammates or some other system. Personally, I'd like to see random teammates but for a single game. It would take more work from an admin standpoint (could be set up via CLOT in future), but would produce better results.

So if you have a division with Players 1-12, you might have games like this for 3v3:

1/2/3 vs 4/5/6, 7/8/9 vs 10/11/12
1/5/9 vs 2/7/12, 3/6/10 vs 4/8/11

Or whatever the matchup is there is probably an easy formula to use that would result in not getting repeat matchups. The point is that you would not get handcuffed by someone who gets booted (I agree that they should not be, but it does happen).

Do the same thing in 2v2 as well. The league should measure your ability to adapt to any teammate and not be dominated by some 2v2 combination that has a playing history.

I agree that no one should have the same teammate for multiple tournaments. Ideally, I would like to randomly assign players teammates, but I have heard many complaints about it in the past, so I chose not to do that. The issue of teammates potentially being booted is a key problem, along with getting an untalkative teammate. I am really interested to ask some more 20A players what they think on getting randomly assigned teammates and if it is a well-liked idea, we can use that this season; I'll just use random.org to randomize teams. If we do random teammates, I will be more picky about the players allowed in, and the rules will be more stingy on players getting booted in team games (they may be prevented from playing future seasons because of it). Getting booted in 1v1 is not so big of deal since it affects only you, but getting booted in team games hurts your teammates as well.

Team games require more skill than 1v1, as Gnuffone says.

I think the fairest way to choose a template is for them to be voted on. However, I also do not like a lot of the templates we end up with when allowing all 20A members to vote. This season, I am considering using less common templates that most players have never played or played rarely before on 1v1 and 2v2. However, I must make sure the templates still require a lot of skill, and won't be decided on luck. 3v3 will likely stay Europe as I have yet to see a 3v3 template that remotely touches it in terms of complexity and skill required to perform at a top level at it.

I like the idea of boot times Gnuffone proposed. Most serious warlight players are on everyday, and while a few people may not wish to play because of this, it will greatly speed up the games, and will make the games more interesting as people are more likely to be focused.

2v2 with alts is a new idea and while I am in favor, I think many players do not wish to use an alt for 2v2. This is something to discuss for sure though.

Keep giving opinions guys; 20 this season was not as good as past seasons I think, and I'd really like to make it strong again.

I really like my idea of random teammates for only a single game. The idea would be that you never play with OR against the same player twice, since you could not do ALL combinations of for/against unless you only had a very small division and you need to go to 12 people to be able to have 2v2 and 3v3 teams work out.

My suggestion is 12 player divisions (also helps with how long it takes). Rotating matchups like I mentioned. No player plays with/against the same player within the same format.

Here is a sheet for the 2v2 matchups (I did not have time to fill it all in, but anyone can edit it if they want to try making the matchups). Then assign each player a 'slot' with a random number generator. 1v1 would just be a RR as normal...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/186wWXClFv2jwCpdpeIU_Eio338j1eJwDY1ROEt3EvwQ/edit#gid=0

This would measure your ability to effect matchups.

I do like this idea to change matchups every time. I think many players would be in favor of it. But who can consistently make the games required for this, and won't get bored of it. I know personally I would start it with good intentions but would get tired of it after a few games. If this can be set up in CLOT, it is an excellent idea I think.

12 player divisions is a good idea; this is an excellent idea. You can play with each player once on 2v2, then against them twice on 2v2. This would be a total of 11 games, which sounds reasonable for 2v2 to me. We can also vary settings a bit possibly. In 3v3, you could play with each player twice, and against them three times. This would be a total of 11 games also. 1v1 would also be 11 games. 33 games total with this idea would be a lot but would also be against players closer to your skill, and so more players may be interested.

Edited 10/14/2015 16:04:59

I added a 4 game sample to the doc for the 2v2 match-ups underneath the original. After 12 games, everyone would play everyone once and have everyone as a partner once, I am currently working on the 3v3 match-ups which will take slightly longer.

Edit: If someone does start the CLOT, I can help them with the match-up algorithm

Edited 10/14/2015 16:02:18

Nice job Ree

@JSA - I am sure it can be done via CLOT if you have the matchups algorithm set. It would be a bit tedious to do manually as you say. I need to download MotD's CLOT and see if I can get that to work.

If it can be done in CLOT, then I really like this idea. I will talk to some of the 20A members from this and previous seasons, and see if more players would be interested in this style of competition.

I really like the idea of different teammates for each game!

When i joined the 20C, i had never played with any of the other players before - knowing new good people was nice.
Getting to team up with everyone would be just awesome!

@JSA Could always set up a 2v2 20A league to test it out. 2v2 is the easiest, quickest, and will allow people to see if it's something they want. As well, if you just do 2v2, you can manually create the games fairly quickly to test it.

Perhaps it should not be called 20 league anymore also?

I mean I know the original idea was 20 of the best players, but now we have different divisions, proving grounds, etc. And if we do this random team idea, you won't have 20 in a division (would make matchups impossible). I think you'd have to do 12.

Might want an updated name that reflects how the league has transformed.


I think Ree is correct, just make a 12 person 2v2 test tournament to try out the format. Invite good players willing to test it out.

BTW, if you have a smaller division (12 vs 20), people would be less worried about having random teammates than chosen ones, because the skill drop off from top to bottom should be much less.

let's call this [12]?

You would need 5 divisions to have as many as there are now then.

He already had that many. He had A/B/C and then 2+ proving grounds as well. But [20] is a poor name anyway, since there is a clan named that (which by the way does not have 20 people in it for years). I never liked number names anyway (like Big 10 conference, which has 14 teams now). If you choose a number name, you will have issues if the format/size changes. Best to allow for those changes.

As I said, more admin work, much better results IMO. Best to accomplish via CLOT.

If you guys are discussing possible format change, I'd like to throw in my old idea of replacing 20 RR tournaments with CHampions League. The format allowed multiple teammates and wouldn't take as long as a big RR tournament would take. Also the format can be modified on many different levels.

4 players for any RR top 2 advance and who ended 1st will get a 2nd place player.

16 players for divion. 16 for A 16 for B etc.

yeah it's great.

for playoff there was few 3v3 as well no?

Yes, I believe a name change is needed anyways; I was thinking that earlier :) I don't understand the point in a test tournament; we already know what it will be like. And we may have many more divisions in [12] (assuming we switch] than [20]. In [20], I tried to allow only solid players into even the lowest league of [20] (C). With [12], it can be more like the promotion/relegation league but with a couple spots open for potentially good newcomers. Perhaps the top 3 of A league the first season could vote on two newcomers for the second season or something.

I will make a game with a few [20A] players to discuss this with.

Keep the ideas coming :)

Swiss tournament?

@JSA Knowing what it'd be like and what it's actually like are 2 very different things, even a 2v2 with 8 people I think would be beneficial just to make sure before all the work is put in.

In regards to the name change, I agree that it's important to change but never had the urge to say anything. Also, I think naming it [12] is bad (not sure if that was just a placeholder or not). Ben's idea of Swiss league makes sense but it may lead people who don't know what Swiss tournaments are away from it?

Maybe Randomized League or The Ultimate Teammate (since we are finding who the best teammate in 2v2 and 3v3 is)? Just some thoughts.

Edited 10/15/2015 05:28:20