esports Poll - Tiered System Interest?

Discussion in 'E-Sports Hockey League - Xbox' started by Tris10, Sep 13, 2017.

?

would you be interested in a Gold/Silver/Bronze tier type system

  1. Yes

    220 vote(s)
    83.0%
  2. No (Please let us know why below)

    45 vote(s)
    17.0%
  1. Tris10

    Tris10 Site Founder

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    25,154
    Trophy Points:
    303
    Location:
    Toronto
    Ratings:
    +16,406 / 80 / -121
    Hey Everyone,

    The LG Staff are working on idea's to grow and expand the esports Hockey League (ESHL) and we want to gauge community interest

    Would you be interested in tiered buyins (ex Gold, Silver, Bronze)?
    The buyin levels would have separate values (Gold buyin would be higher then Silver ect).

    To fill teams based on the tiers, the idea is if we use LGHL data to rank where teams start (example a team is made up of AHL'ers, they'd be in the Silver group, CHL'ers would be in the bronze). As teams and players gain their own rankings over time, that would then set their tier. The exact forumla's of "What consists of an AHL team" would have to be calculated out at a later date.​

    The goal for the ESHL is to expand its participation past just top teams, but also tier the prizes to the level of competition. The higher the tier the greater the rewards, but also give meaning to each level and set a system that can grow over time.

    So would you be interested in a Gold/Silver/Bronze type system and if not, why not?
     
    • Like Like x 10
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. Scheckel29

    Scheckel29 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2009
    Messages:
    590
    Discord:
    Scheckel29#4117
    Trophy Points:
    3,423
    Location:
    Connecticut
    Ratings:
    +772 / 6 / -7
    How would the teams be split though? Say 30 teams sign up but teams ranked 8-15 are all very similar. Do 11-15 get placed in Silver and make 3 division of 10 or do you go 7 teams in gold and split up the divisions by drop offs by the rankings of teams? What if someone is brand new but is known by the community as a very good player? Does that person's ranking affect the team enough they get placed in silver? What if that team doesn't want to play silver and wants to play in Gold? Do teams have a choice to move up a tier but not down a tier?

    I think it is tough to do tiers and have a regulation/demotion type set up because there are so many teams that change names/turnover with players as well. Would love to see this work though...
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Useful Useful x 1
    Offline
    Scheckel29
  3. Moves_Like_Miley

    Moves_Like_Miley The real brink

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2016
    Messages:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    293
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +261 / 13 / -15
    When doing tiers there had to be a way to be promoted and demoted in tiers based on record and where teams place in the tournaments.
     
    • Like Like x 5
    • Winner Winner x 1
    Offline
    ibi2iinik
  4. Jack Bauer tuna

    Jack Bauer tuna Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    764
    Discord:
    JBT123#4279
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Canada
    Ratings:
    +1,076 / 51 / -131
    Could be like BPL top two silver teams get promoted to gold bottom two gold teams get demoted to silver.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
    Offline
    JBTonTV
  5. The_Blind_Ref

    The_Blind_Ref Well Known Shitter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2016
    Messages:
    57
    Discord:
    The_Blind_Ref#7055
    Trophy Points:
    278
    Location:
    Bridgewater, Nova Scotia
    Ratings:
    +73 / 2 / -8
    Tier system would be good. Maybe play a regular season then split the teams off into tiers for playoffs based off of the standings, something like that
     
    • Like Like x 2
    Offline
    The_blind_ref
  6. APsychicTaco

    APsychicTaco Scrub Goalie Supreme

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    922
    Trophy Points:
    843
    Location:
    Flint, Michigan
    Ratings:
    +3,095 / 179 / -227
    The "Tiered" setup was tried with the Open/Invite system. Granted it didn't get a second season to see the end result of people earning invite division spots, it still showed that there is a steep curve in regards to team talent once you reach ~8 teams.

    Several Questions that would need to be answered:

    - The bottom teams that are newly promoted would be paying money to get their butt handed to them more often than not, so why would they continue to spend money after their promotion to the top tier? Unless your top tier is extremely small, there is an issue.

    - People remember the open division basically buying in for a chance at a lone prize worth only the 3rd place prize in the invite division. Most of the money goes to the top tier. How would the payouts work so teams can actually have a reasonable shot at making more or coming out net even? People aren't going to sign up at lower levels if they feel like they're just going to blow money.

    - Rosters change drastically, even with the top teams. Say a bronze level team gets promoted and then acquires top end talent. What is the point of the promotion system then? If you leave them in the bottom division it will be a waste of time and money for the inferior team.
     
    • Like Like x 6
    Offline
    bigtaco24
  7. Merle

    Merle Your favourite player's favourite player Platinum

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2014
    Messages:
    797
    Trophy Points:
    373
    Location:
    Pee Gee
    Ratings:
    +2,239 / 36 / -70
    It's an interesting idea but I think it further incentivises people to create 2nd tags, stay in the lower leagues and try to work their ways into lower competition.

    My immediate reaction would be to divide the tiers by the % of your team playing previous tournaments. This doesnt completely eliminate my issues from your ways of splitting the tiers but I think this does make things more difficult to manipulate. The other reason I like this idea is it may make players that have more experience at the higher levels play with the guys playing at lower levels. Potentially growing those players more. (Something I was hoping fnp did but was ran completely incorrectly.)
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Useful Useful x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    No Streaming Account
  8. Schizostone

    Schizostone Local Scumbag

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2014
    Messages:
    466
    Trophy Points:
    313
    Location:
    Manitoba
    Ratings:
    +575 / 80 / -36
    Too much grey area between Gold and Silver. Who determines it? Whos to say guys dont adjust to styles better in the NHL VS AHL?


    IMO the issue is 2 things:

    1. Veteran successful AHL managers continue to manager AHL teams which in turn their friends want to return to the AHL as well.

    2. The league being forced to pick "the best of whats left" for NHL owners and literally nobody wanting to play for them


    The solution I've come to think makes the most sense is to put an "Auto Apply" stipulation in the manager applications. If your an AHL manager who has had continued success (guys like 4th, Legacy, Me, Faces, Brassard, etc) and WANT to be management again after multiple successful seasons (None of those guys listed have ever missed the loffs in AHL) you should automatically have to apply to be an NHL owner. If you are not chosen by the league and still wish to be management you can then apply for an AHL gm position.


    How does this solve the problem?



    Well, the hardest part of being an NHL owner is wanting to have guys that are well networked and experienced play for you. The majority of successful AHL managers have already built themselves a "core" of solid players who may not be as well known but are still very good (Wags and Bake are good examples) and if you can pull 1 or 2 "top line guys" all of a sudden your challenging for a playoff spot. You cant tell me the core of Rockford or Cleveland or Rochester with a few NHL dman, goalie and a few NHL fwds arent more competitive than say Dallas, or Anaheim or Detroit last season. Hell im sure you can add 2 or 3 more teams to that list as well.


    Im not "pushing" for this in anyway I like being able to pick and choose what league I wanna play in. But if the goal of the league is the make the NHL the highest competitive league 1 through 31 this is realistically the only option or else youll continually be forced to get owners with no experience, no network, and no hope at being competitive.


    TL;DR
    Good AHL gms should be forced to be NHL owners to give the league realistic options when picking owners

    Also sorry for everyone I named if you're not happy I named you but I tried to use realistic examples whether in the good sense or the bad sense. Its nothing personal.

    @LG McDonald
    @Tris10
    @Winston Payne
    @Soapy412
    @Z3R0CR45H
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Get Good Get Good x 1
    No Streaming Account
  9. Slampsonn

    Slampsonn The Kid

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2014
    Messages:
    119
    Discord:
    Slamps#0522
    Trophy Points:
    1,573
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    Ratings:
    +200 / 6 / -16
    This isn't LGHL lmao
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Bad Spelling Bad Spelling x 1
    Offline
    Knight91_
  10. SiIky Johnson

    SiIky Johnson Player Hater of the Year

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2013
    Messages:
    369
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +450 / 14 / -44
    game sucks.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
    • Creative Creative x 1
    Offline
    silk_stalker
  11. Schizostone

    Schizostone Local Scumbag

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2014
    Messages:
    466
    Trophy Points:
    313
    Location:
    Manitoba
    Ratings:
    +575 / 80 / -36
    LMAO, didnt notice just got the alert and assumed.
     
    • Get Good Get Good x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    No Streaming Account
  12. XX_A_DeBrin_12XX

    XX_A_DeBrin_12XX Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2015
    Messages:
    53
    Discord:
    XX_A_Debrin_12XX#8683
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Rockford, IL
    Ratings:
    +32 / 1 / -4
    Never played in ESHL can someone explain this to me.
     
    Offline
    Xx_A_Debrin_12XX
  13. APsychicTaco

    APsychicTaco Scrub Goalie Supreme

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    922
    Trophy Points:
    843
    Location:
    Flint, Michigan
    Ratings:
    +3,095 / 179 / -227
    If you are wanting to do a tier system, why not focus it on the tournaments themselves? Tier the tournaments by importance, and promote based on the results of the tiered tournaments.




    Club levels:​

    - Bronze: Teams with a Bronze (Open) card are allowed to enter into Open tournaments only. Roster changes are open at any point during the game year.

    - Silver: Teams acquire a Silver (Invitational) card from being a top finisher in an Open tournament. They can participate in Invitational tournaments and also earn invites to Majors based on performance. Roster changes are allowed at any point during the game year.

    - Gold: These teams are guaranteed invites to Major tournaments and Invitationals. They are limited to partaking in 1 invitational tournament between each major. Roster changes are permitted, but must maintain a certain percentage of players from their last Major (no roster overhauls). If more than X% of the team has changed from the prior Major, they forfeit their Gold status and are relegated to Silver.



    You want the Bronze tier to be smaller, allowing new teams to be introduced to the environment without much financial investment. Silver should be by far the largest tier, and invitationals your largest tournaments on entry size. Gold teams should only be the best, competing for the most.




    You would have four tournament types: "Opens, Invitationals, Majors"​


    - Open tournaments would be for new (Bronze) teams, either of CHL/AHL (or whatever determined) caliber. Open tournaments would occur monthly (12 total) The buyins would be low, the payouts would be spread among the top 1/4 of the total entrants (down to a point where teams would break even from their buying). Promotion lines would be in order, where the winner of the Open tournament becomes a Silver team by default. Teams who finish three consecutive Open tournaments in the top (X) positions obtain a promotion through merit. They cannot participate in any more Open tournaments until they get relegated back to Bronze status.

    - Invitationals are invite only. These invites are given to all Silver promoted teams, Major (Gold) teams, and Silver teams. There would be between 10 invitational tournaments over the course of a game year. These tournaments have a larger prize pool that is skewed slightly more towards the top finishers. To allow a competitive environment, Gold caliber teams are limited in the amount of invitational tournaments that they can participate in over the course of X (Period to be determined). This will allow more regular Silver teams to succeed and newly promoted Silver teams to stand a chance. The same promotion rules from Bronze to Silver also apply from Silver to Gold. Teams who finish at the bottom get "Demotion Strikes". After 2 Strikes you are relegated to Bronze status and Open tournament play. Gold teams who finish at the bottom also can get demotion strikes, with 2 strikes they lose their Gold card.


    - Majors are few but large in both prize pool and publicity. There should be a maximum of 3 Major tournaments are heavily skewed towards the top positions, all Gold teams are invited. Silver teams are invited based on their results over the course of recent invitational tournaments. Invites would be handed out until all positions in the Major are full. The two lowest gold team finishers will receive a demotion strike (2 strikes leads to demotion). If a Silver team wins a Major event they are immediately promoted to Gold.




    How to distribute the Entry money into Prize pools:
    - Open tournaments would have low entry fees. A small percentage is put into the "Major tournament fund", but most of the entry fees will be split between the prize pool and the league's cut. Payouts would be spread across half of the entrants. The point being that this is a tournament for promotion, not financial gain (this would stop second tagging potentially). To get an idea for a potential payout slope, here is an example: Team buy-in is $40 (This is $5 per person on an 8 man team). Total entrants we'll say is 16 ($640). Take a 20% cut for the league ($128) and 5% for the Major prize pool ($32), you could take those two cuts and make them however you want, but a 25% cut maximum from the Open prize pool. This leaves us with $480 dollars for the open prize pool. 1st- $100, 2nd $85, 3rd $65, 4th $55, 5th $55, 6th $40, 7th $40, 8th $40. This would allow the winners to make some money back, while also allowing HALF of the entrants to at least make their money back. This could scaled to a 32 person tournament if needed.


    - Invitationals would have moderate entry fees. A fair percentage would be placed into the "Major tournament fund" and the other portion remains as the Invitational prize pool. Total entrants could range from 32-64 teams depending on the size of the invitational. Example: Team buy-in is $120 ($15 dollars per person for 8 man team). Total entrants, 32 ($3,840). Take a 10% league cut ($384) and 20% Major Tournament Fund ($768). The remaining prize pool is $2,688. Since Invitationals can vary in size a percentage should be used for payouts. 1st- 25% ($672), 2nd 15% ($402.2), 3rd-6th 10% ($268.8), 7th-10th 5% ($134.4)


    - Major tournaments would have larger but moderate entry fees for the few teams that make it in. It is expected that the prize pool would be a large combination of the Major Tournament Fund, Major entry fees, and Sponsorship money (if there is a sponsor). Majors should be limited to a 16 team tournament. Team buy-in is $160 ($20 per person on 8 man team). Total entrants, 16 ($2560), plus the additional money brought in from the Tournament Fund (3*768=$2304), comes to a total of $4864. Take a 10% league cut ($486.4) leaves a $4377.6 prize pool (not including any potential additional sponsorship money). 1st- 45% ($1969.92), 2nd- 25% ($1094.4), 3rd 15% ($656.64), 4th 10% (437.76), 5th 5% (218.88).




    Other proposed rules:

    Any roster changes during the course of a year bring the club under a committee review, in which if they are deemed to be "Too Talented" you promote them to Silver status.


    @Tris10 @LG McDonald @SweeT 9 LoU 84
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Winner Winner x 2
    Offline
    bigtaco24
  14. I Am Wonger

    I Am Wonger 2 Time Champion

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2013
    Messages:
    749
    Trophy Points:
    1,213
    Location:
    New Jersey
    Ratings:
    +1,243 / 31 / -41
    you're either good enough or you're not .. to make any progress you might wanna do a set number of teams , hold a draft and see if good mgmt draft to help them and their team win real money
     
    In EASHL
    No Streaming Account
  15. Shmucked

    Shmucked Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2016
    Messages:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    68
    Location:
    Canada
    Ratings:
    +147 / 3 / -8
    I think bronze/silver/gold tier is going in the wrong direction for ESHL and i strongly disagree.


    -Managing this would be a nightmare and really turn people off of ESHL all together. Going in this direction would open up a market for the way ESHL is currently and another website might swoop in and take your audience.

    -You would remove the incentive to play in the gold tier for mid-range teams which currently takes up the majority of sign ups. This would cause a lot of shady activity as well as complaints and possible drop outs if teams aren't placed where they liked.

    -To even begin something like this you need multiple seasons of data to accurately place teams. The problem is only the highest level of clubs (smallest % of sign ups) sign up under the same name every ESHL/Pro Series and with teams disbanding and starting new every season the data is just not there.



    Honestly, any more then 2 tiers would not work as of right now because of the inconsistency in repeat club sign ups. Top tier for finalists of past seasons and runner ups of the regular season (invitational) for a greater prize while everybody else plays in the same tier (open). But even that would be hard to split the money for first place finishes and which clubs play where.


    Maybe have some sort of incentive to repeat each ESHL season with the same core group of players and under the same club name so you can get some accurate data for later down the line.

    New clubs entering ESHL might not be able to compete in the top tier until a certain amount of seasons under their belt therefore they have to sign up again to make it to the big leagues for the big prizes. This would mean once they do reach the top tier they would have some chemistry and not be a fresh start and disband when things don't work out.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2017
    • Like Like x 3
    Offline
    Shmucked
  16. Bradman87

    Bradman87 Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2016
    Messages:
    92
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Cincinnati
    Ratings:
    +58 / 95 / -40
    I'm good with it, that's the way minor hockey is set up so it keeps it in line with the hockey theme.
     
    • Bad Spelling Bad Spelling x 1
    No Streaming Account
  17. RhapsodicaI

    RhapsodicaI Two-Way

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Messages:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +78 / 4 / -15
    I still wouldn't waste my money once I see some of the teams that get formed. Once you see a certain team you already know whether or not to waste your time and money.

    As for the tier system I think 3 tiers is bad, but even with 2 tiers people will be wanting to get into silver to avoid some of the stronger teams so maybe they take some lower people to sit the bench and lower their ranks. When it comes to LG it's all about finding any loophole you can
     
    Offline
    Rhapsodical
  18. jonlol

    jonlol Pizza Bro

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2015
    Messages:
    377
    Trophy Points:
    2,513
    Location:
    QC
    Ratings:
    +979 / 31 / -91
    We discussed this for 20 pages in a giant PM. Pretty unnecessary poll, but the tiered system of invite/open was going to work. Calling it gold/silver/bronze is just renaming it.

    Invite and open are just names for 2 divisions. The tiered system allows for infinite divisions. In the invite/open name the other divisions are Invite/Main/Intermediate/Open

    You determine the number of tiers based on the number of teams and the number of known skill on those teams. You need 12 in invite, 12-16 in main, and 16+ in the lowest division to make it work. Otherwise if you have too little teams in the lowest division and teams drop out the whole thing collapses
     
    • Like Like x 2
    Offline
    eashlgoalie
  19. Hilly

    Hilly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2014
    Messages:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    258
    Ratings:
    +181 / 6 / -13
    I honestly think this is a good way to grow the overall reach of esports within our community.
    I know a number of people who had considered partaking in the eshl or other banana "pro series" leagues but backed out simply because they know they don't stand a chance of winning.
    Now I'm not for a second promoting participation ribbons or anything as snowflake-esque as that, but giving people who cannot quite compete with the elite teams but still seek somewhat of an added challenge a chance to play for actual rewards would be enticing for a number of people to play.
    Realistically to get more people on board with ESHL the divisional separation needs to happen. With the growing population of LG as a whole, ESHL needs to follow suit and expand, given the demand is there (which it appears to be).

    Hypothetically it could be done in a way of a trial as simple as having a buy-in FNP style tournament with an NHL/AHL/CHL or veteran/amateur/prospect levels of competition to have people playing against similar skilled opponents the same way we don't have brand new LG'ers playing in the same league as the seasoned veterans who've been around (and have been upper-level players) since the VHL days.

    Overall:
    Different divisions are good, the people who think they have a chance at winning it at the top level are more than welcome to do so, but should be susceptible to relegation if they aren't successful much like the BPL as @JBT mentioned before. Somewhat of an initial ranking stage needs to happen to place you in the proper division (much like RL, siege, etc.)

    There will always be pros and cons to new ideas within the community but I think it's well worth giving this a shot and worst case if it fails miserably then things will remain as they currently are so there won't be any issues.

    Food for thought!
     
    Playing Single Player in Operation Cobra
    Offline
    hillhouse13
  20. jonlol

    jonlol Pizza Bro

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2015
    Messages:
    377
    Trophy Points:
    2,513
    Location:
    QC
    Ratings:
    +979 / 31 / -91
    One more thing to add on to this, and yes I know I'm running ESHL.

    The prizing has to be adjusted. You can't only award the top 2 teams in each division or else teans will tank on purpose to win money. It's different with 2 divisions, but when you add 3 it becomes complicated. Why would you want to be 9th place in invite and lose money when you can tank to the lower division and win money by winning it?
     
    Offline
    eashlgoalie