A new look at ladder competition
by Scott McGlasson · in General Discussion · 04/18/2002 (6:59 am) · 0 replies
Things are progressing well in the C3 labs. I know I've not been as forthcoming as I could be lately as to our status, but things are coming along very nicely indeed.
Think about clan matches and ladder competition. C3 plans to address this relationship in a completely new way and I'd like to get some input from the community.
First: The best Tribes 2 experience was normally obtained by two large, well organized teams battling it out with at least some level of tactics. This is the overriding impetus behind C3 in the first place. Our atypical game will pit between 16 v 16 up to 32 v 32.
Second: Without neglecting the pub, or pickup, game, C3 plans to be a clan-friendly as possible.
We all know how difficult and frustrating running large clans can be. Getting that many people in the same place at the same time can be daunting, leaving the clan leaders to do more admin than plan. Practices can likewise be unwieldy.
How do you make this work better?
C3 plans to run a ladder system based on Squads rather than "teams". Ideally, a squad will be a mini-clan of about 8 players. Further, squads will be encouraged to specialize. You'll have Infantry-offense, Infantry-defense, SP-Armor squads, ground vehicle squads, air vehicle squads, and command squads. This isn't to say a clan cannot have all of these within their membership, but it will allow a relatively small number of organized players to have a large impact. How?
Under the ladder system currently being fleshed out, rank will be based on Victory Points. A given match will be worth x amount of Victory Points and the winning side will split the points evenly between the number of squads participating. Thus, for a 1000 VP match, the winning team of five squads get 200 each. Rank is then based on the total number of VP.
Here's an example: The Deathgrips, a command squad (containing A commander, his driver, gunner, and combat-engineers), wants to organize a match against Team X. Team X agrees and they then decide, or are provided by the ladder, on maps. The Deathgrips decide on what strat they want to use and realize they will need two infantry (offensive) squads, a ground vehicle squad and either an infantry (defensive) or air vehicle squad. The Deathgrips then would either contact squads they had played with before, or go to the ladder website to see who's available. It then becomes a matter of lining up a team, setting up a meeting for the squad leaders, who would then go back to their squads with assignments...all before the match ever starts.
This system rewards both the small, active team as well as a huge, successful team. If you play in a 1000 VP match with only one "squad" of 16 to 32 guys, your team would then get the entire amount of VP.
Further, I'm looking to build in an alliance system as well as point sharing...or paying better squads a higher share of the VP total to get them to play in your match.
This concept is still in it's toddler stage, but we're quite excited about it. I'd like to get some input from other hardcore gamers and see if it appeals at all. I know it can sound complex just reading it or hearing it explained...so don't respond right away. Let it bubble away in your head for a while before you respond here.
Scott
Think about clan matches and ladder competition. C3 plans to address this relationship in a completely new way and I'd like to get some input from the community.
First: The best Tribes 2 experience was normally obtained by two large, well organized teams battling it out with at least some level of tactics. This is the overriding impetus behind C3 in the first place. Our atypical game will pit between 16 v 16 up to 32 v 32.
Second: Without neglecting the pub, or pickup, game, C3 plans to be a clan-friendly as possible.
We all know how difficult and frustrating running large clans can be. Getting that many people in the same place at the same time can be daunting, leaving the clan leaders to do more admin than plan. Practices can likewise be unwieldy.
How do you make this work better?
C3 plans to run a ladder system based on Squads rather than "teams". Ideally, a squad will be a mini-clan of about 8 players. Further, squads will be encouraged to specialize. You'll have Infantry-offense, Infantry-defense, SP-Armor squads, ground vehicle squads, air vehicle squads, and command squads. This isn't to say a clan cannot have all of these within their membership, but it will allow a relatively small number of organized players to have a large impact. How?
Under the ladder system currently being fleshed out, rank will be based on Victory Points. A given match will be worth x amount of Victory Points and the winning side will split the points evenly between the number of squads participating. Thus, for a 1000 VP match, the winning team of five squads get 200 each. Rank is then based on the total number of VP.
Here's an example: The Deathgrips, a command squad (containing A commander, his driver, gunner, and combat-engineers), wants to organize a match against Team X. Team X agrees and they then decide, or are provided by the ladder, on maps. The Deathgrips decide on what strat they want to use and realize they will need two infantry (offensive) squads, a ground vehicle squad and either an infantry (defensive) or air vehicle squad. The Deathgrips then would either contact squads they had played with before, or go to the ladder website to see who's available. It then becomes a matter of lining up a team, setting up a meeting for the squad leaders, who would then go back to their squads with assignments...all before the match ever starts.
This system rewards both the small, active team as well as a huge, successful team. If you play in a 1000 VP match with only one "squad" of 16 to 32 guys, your team would then get the entire amount of VP.
Further, I'm looking to build in an alliance system as well as point sharing...or paying better squads a higher share of the VP total to get them to play in your match.
This concept is still in it's toddler stage, but we're quite excited about it. I'd like to get some input from other hardcore gamers and see if it appeals at all. I know it can sound complex just reading it or hearing it explained...so don't respond right away. Let it bubble away in your head for a while before you respond here.
Scott
