Pro-Series Format Suggestion

@NugeTV @ImJeff @F5 Penguin @Tris10

I'm not sure who or if anyone is on the committee anymore but I tagged people I knew are good with numbers. I also didn't know if any of the numbers changed (Site's fee, etc) but think I found a good break down.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So this is not a detail on every rule and all structure, just a main foundation for rosters vs payouts and tier ideas. I think most of the structure worked well with what you had (season play, playoffs, etc.)

First, there should be a committee of at least 5 (IMO) or more but of an odd number to prevent tie voting. This is Nuge's to actually decide. The idea can be built off of or tweaked but I feel all of this will work best for getting more teams involved and help it grow.

So setting up the first season under the new format is obviously going to be a little different but once you get past that everything is by the system.

Tier 1 = $100 team buy in
Tier 2 = $80 team buy in

Roster Sizes can be 8-12 players with buy in divided up (whatever way you choose)
*Note: I've been around these things and clubs since '09 and most top teams function best between this roster size depending on the club.

Rosters are still locked once its submitted and replacement players buy in @ $10 (as before)

Now...to sweeten the interest. Below is a chart I made based on teams and # of players.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10QApGDVf9jyxHmECvIcg-TkjqVqu4Oyes3prFhVVSlU/pubhtml

• Number of games are dictated by how many teams join each tier. It is set at 2 per team but teams dont have to play each team twice, that never works. I think what ever way it was set before (as long as there is a max set it should be good.
  
  
• The more teams that join the more teams that get a pay out. The first page shows a big brake down but I took the $80 bracket (second tab) and broke out the “prime” place to be IMO. The $100 bracket can be done the same way. You basically need to get to 32 teams for the 5th place to get a pay out.

How its to be set up...

• Once the teams post their rosters in the thread the committee will pick all the teams they feel can compete in the top tier.
  
  
• At the time the committee is unsure or gets to questionable rosters, ALL team members on the selected top tier teams will vote. These teams will vote on all the teams currently on the list. This can continue until all teams are broke into the 2 tiers.
  
  
• Once the first season has started any new team must start in tier 2
  
  
• Any team finishing top 4 in tier 2 gets promoted to tier one automatically
  
  
• All tier 1 teams return to tier 1, a returning team is defined by a team which has 5 or more of the same players from the previous tournament.
  
  
• Tier 1 teams can vote a returning team out (vote by all players) if they do not feel they can compete at that level but can not vote out a Tier 2 team advancing until after one complete tournament at tier 1.

I think this would really give a bracket to more teams to have something to work for, get better and eventually grow both brackets by making teams mature in skill. I think I covered all my concepts here but if something is missing I'll answer questions on voids if there are some or explain what I mean if you don't quite understand something.

 

a lot of hard work and detail good job ozzy

 

I'm not familiar with this Product Series but I'm down to get on a team and throw down down cash gambling on video game hockey.

 

Just to clear one thing up...

The objective is to still get as many teams in the Tier 1 group, making the payout out bigger and expanding the competition. They don't have to nor should be equal amounts of teams. Tier 2 can be smaller and more to qualify teams for the upper tier eventually.

I suggest setting a minimum #of teams needed @ each level.

 

I took the time to read through this, but theres 1 thing that absolutely cannot fly (imo)

Voting/Choosing Tier #1 teams based on reputation. While I think we'd get a competitive league out of it there is always a better and less biased way to do things.

The rest of it will go into consideration, although if I'm being honest the scheduled system is still what I'm leaning towards after the initial Pro Series. I understand why some people arent on board but there just isnt an upside to pro series the way its currently formatted, it kills EASHL 6s, and it becomes even more unorganized as it grows with more teams. Not only that but its next to impossible to promote, you cant hype up a game when its essentially meaningless to everything because you can just play more games to make up for a loss.

I think people should look to EASHL ranked games for their leisure time games and Pro Series for their "important" games, if you can make time for LGHL to play with random people you should be able to make time for Pro Series to play with your friends/teammates that you choose.

If someone has a good argument against the bolded statement I'd love to discuss it.

 

Thanks for the read through.

The reason I put the voting in was that things like this and the likes of CanAm always had the top players deciding what they want. I think in this system its not over powering voting but enough to keep balance.

As for the schedule, I personally think that mandating that every team matches up 2 games against each other was the way to go. We did it that way in a tournament in '10 but setting game fix times & dates might be too much. You could put in a penalty point system for teams who don't complete all match ups? BUT, I also agree with your statement that if people can use set times for league, they can do set times for this.

All in all this was just a base concept of things that I felt would work best based off of the past 7 years and what seemed to work best/or preferred. I figured some tweaking and adjusting would be considered. It's not an easy task to put this all together so just trying to give you more ideas to work with.

 

Getting scheduled games on top of LG games having only 8 players is unrealistic, you'd be on every night of the week and no one wants that people want to play on there leisure. Most times u get stuck playing 3 night s a week of LG pending ur avail... on top of that u need to worry what days ur 8 players can play... on top of that you have to worry about the other teams avail, it just doesn't make sense to do that when what you had worked. Either way you will do what u want 9 out of 10 people said the schedule system wont benefit the tourney.

 

To make games somewhat more meaningful , IF you make it 2 tiers just make it so that theres 30-50 ( any # decided on ) games that need to be played. keep the matchup random , you play your tier only and have a set amount of games, you need to play each team at least a set # of games and the rest of them is up to them who they play. Winners of each tier play each other if you want to put some money on the line.

 

I don't understand why people are so against a set schedule of games. Y'all mother fuckers are okay with LG but not but not Pro Series? The old system is aids. While I understand 8 people may not be enough, the scheduled games are a must. I don't think the entire schedule should be laid out right away, week by week would help. Just a few things I thought I'd comment on. Noodz.

 

Girgs yes we are ok with LG , ur scheduled 3 games week, I don't know about you but I don't want to be on 5 nights a week and that's what will end up happening, ur scheduled 3 nights in lg... then ur teammates cant play pro series any of those days then ur stuck at 4 or 5 nights a week. not happening, why is it so hard to keep it the way it was.,

 

I understand what MVP is saying.

The difference with league is that you put you avail up and then get put into games the nights you are on. With a smaller roster in club, its more difficult to have set games and making sure there are 12 players from both teams that are on those nights. It's like any make up games, its very hard to get a line up of a limited amount of people on at the same time and days.

Its a technical complicated problem that can be avoided with an open schedule and just telling teams they have to make it happen at some time in the season.

@Jay l19l
The chart I made has a number of required games based on # of teams that sign up to play. Its a constant change but if its predetermined and in black and white from the start there is no random discussions every season unless its found to not be working.

 

You have to play 11 series, which can be done over the course of four weeks. Being available 3 out of 5 days should not be an issue, (with one of the weeks being 2 of 5 days). I haven't read much into it, not sure if Nuge planned on having games played on every day. But I think if it was over the course of a month, being available 3 out of 5 days should not be a problem.

The old system is flawed. The new system makes so much more sense.

 

Girgs ur not gettig it, combined with LG sir iit will tally to sometimes 5 days a week not always but it will, its so much easier to just post a game when u want to play or accept a game at ur leisure whats so flawed about this, We are already going to have scheduled games for LG why have more.

 

let teams choose how many players they want with a max of 10 @NugeTV

 

A max of 10 is too much.
You shouldn't need 10 players to ice 6.

 

whats the difference whether a team wants to have 8-10 players, either way the buy in should be the same and it will be more money to the individual players on the team if they choose to only play with 8 vs 10. Some teams have nerds who live on this game 24/7 and some have people who work for a living and can't commit every night to gaming, so having the extra relief would help. Cap it at 10 with a minimum of 6. Pretty simple. You either make more money individually with less players or you get what you get with 10.

 

You've always had the option to use less than 10, but every team always ends up with 10 because the last couple guys generally dont care about the prize money and dont pay in while someone else covers it. You also see guys like Bradley and Fio Tendy riding the bench on a top team (Season 4) when they are perfectly capable of winning as starters (Season 5). Realistically you'll have more subs in the format I posted as well they'll just be from lower division teams.

We can shrink the total number of teams or games down, but in the end there needs to be a balanced schedule in order to make an actual competitive league. Any sort of "figure it out yourselves just make sure it gets done" system fails in practice because our community isnt responsible enough to actually follow through, so that leaves us with scheduled games.

As I've said before, use EASHL for leisure time games if you want and set the time aside for Pro Series games when scheduled as you would with LGHL, CanAm, or whatever other hobbies you have. At most you'd be looking at 3 nights of PS games per week, if you have 8 people on your team on average each person would need to be around for 2 of them, plus you have your drafted subs if you cant field a full 6.

Still have yet to see a reasonable argument against the whole "killing EASHL 6s" thing I've brought up which is one of the driving factors behind the need of a change.

 

Let me preface this by saying I'm not insulting you.

You seem to have this complex with trying to save the game and the NHL franchise yourself. The fact you developed that complex is warranted. If I would have been a gamechanger and people would have blamed me for ruining the game (when in reality I had maybe a 1 percent influence on the finished product), I'd have been irritated, too. However, to expect people to be online from 8 or 9 PM-12 or 12:30 AM (this pertains to those who are management in LG and play PS) two or three times a week isn't prudent. Especially not in the name of playing EASHL 6s, for Christ sake. If EA wanted people to play and enjoy 6s, maybe they should have taken the last 3 or 4 weeks of development to further test the online elements of the game instead of implementing a prestige system that has no purpose except to placate a small number of people on the EA forums. Any company that releases a game with input lag, captain lag, and frame rate lag obviously doesn't give two shits about its online community. The LG community playing random EASHL 6s doesn't to anything to further the game mode or the game in general. The only thing that will make EASHL popular again would be adding a competitive element like a playoff as an incentive. You guys mentioned that at the gamechanger meetings, and EA didn't take it seriously. No matter what people on here say EA dropped the ball, not you.

Another interesting wrinkle to this is the potential effect set PS game times could have on LG. I don't know what your plans are concerning game times or games per week, but if teams are expected to play a few games each week at 11:30, 12:00 or 12:30, I could see people who want to play PS (especially players on the west coast) not signing up for LG (or at the very least not taking management) and instead using that time from 9-11 PM to do other things. As I said, this might be an overreaction on my part, as I can't make a definitive statement on a plan that hasn't been finalized. But, if there is even a chance set PS times could result in some top players foregoing playing in/being management in LG, you need to rethink the set game times aspect. Trying to save EA (who doesn't give a shit about its product) while potentially hurting LG (Tris bends over backwards to improve and update his site) would be a mistake.

 

@NugeTV
I think the main 2 arguments here are roster size & set/non-set games.

I haven't watched but you seem to know that 10 is the number teams wind up using and sounds like the best cap. I through 12 out there to give more flex to meet the schedule but as you said some just sit in the bench. 10 seems like the magic number.

As for games, as long as you mandate a minimum or make it a set number that has to be played to qualify for playoffs & you fix a max limit for times playing each team (can't play a team more than "x" amount) a fixed schedule shouldn't matter. These type of club set ups work best when the best of the best get to voice and decide as a group. Making executive decision of impact like this without the collective agreement of the majority do more harm than good. A set schedule in anything club/top player related things only works in short term things like the CanAm.

The main point of my post was more about the breakdown of a set pay-in and an expanded payout based on # of teams joining & the 2-Tiered system structure. The other things were to fill in some questionable gaps.

I still feel that voting in teams at the start to round out the best level of competition is the only way it can be done. After that the lower tier earns a trip up. If not those teams would sit in the lower tier dominate the bounty & both systems grow stale. The whole objective of this other than having a money competition is to create an environment where more teams get involved and the pool grows to a bigger and bigger payout, taking the EASHL club to a more serious competitive level. If you are content with the same 16-24 teams playing over and over just juggling rosters around and making new team names the well might run dry.

 

@NugeTV
I think the main 2 arguments here are roster size & set/non-set games.

I haven't watched but you seem to know that 10 is the number teams wind up using and sounds like the best cap. I through 12 out there to give more flex to meet the schedule but as you said some just sit in the bench. 10 seems like the magic number.

As for games, as long as you mandate a minimum or make it a set number that has to be played to qualify for playoffs & you fix a max limit for times playing each team (can't play a team more than "x" amount) a fixed schedule shouldn't matter. These type of club set ups work best when the best of the best get to voice and decide as a group. Making executive decision of impact like this without the collective agreement of the majority do more harm than good. A set schedule in anything club/top player related things only works in short term things like the CanAm.

The main point of my post was more about the breakdown of a set pay-in and an expanded payout based on # of teams joining & the 2-Tiered system structure. The other things were to fill in some questionable gaps.

I still feel that voting in teams at the start to round out the best level of competition is the only way it can be done. After that the lower tier earns a trip up. If not those teams would sit in the lower tier dominate the bounty & both systems grow stale. The whole objective of this other than having a money competition is to create an environment where more teams get involved and the pool grows to a bigger and bigger payout, taking the EASHL club to a more serious competitive level. If you are content with the same 16-24 teams playing over and over just juggling rosters around and making new team names the well might run dry.

 

The scheduled games technically wouldn't even be considered "scheduled games" if there isn't a set time you have to play them. If this is the direction that nuge is going its the right one. You have a schedule but not specific times that you have to play those games. Its pretty much the same thing. Maybe you just have a certain amount of games you have to finish by the end of the week. Not having these scheduled games takes the competitiveness out of pro series during the regular season as like nuge said, making each game meaningless. Maybe you play each team 2 or 3 times a season and just make sure you get those games done by certain time periods. You find out what teams are on the night that your team can field a lineup and want to play and setup that series with them that night as there will probably be teams on to do so.

If each game is actually scheduled for a specific time for example, 10/3 at 1130 then that might be something that would be a little to much but, I think would still be better than just playing whenever as that would just make the regular season pointless.