Discussion in 'E-Sports Hockey League - Xbox' started by Tris10, Sep 13, 2017.
FNP legend here
What I think would be a good idea is you have your pool of teams just say 36. Have 6 division with 6 teams randomly assigned to a division playing each team twice like how World Cup Soccer selects its groups. Each top 2 Division winner advances to the next round with the 4 best 3rd place teams to advance. You get the idea. Have prize pool breakdowns for Division winners. Quarter final, semi final & Final winners.
I know having a lottery draft for clubs and seeing which divisions they get drawn into would add more excitement and draw more attention.
Too long can't read
To combat this as well as the team that doesn't want to win the silver tournament just to pay to get killed in gold, make it so that the top few teams(who should be promoted to gold) get their money back + a little bit and a ticket to a future Gold tournament. So if its a $40 entry fee maybe you get $60 and a ticket to a gold event worth $120(or what ever the values are). Then in the gold division you make it so you don't have to finish 1,2,3 to make money. Say maybe the top 40% of the teams get paid out so that it isn't just the top teams taking everyones money. Kind of like in golf, the top 70/140ish players in an event make the cut and get paid. Now the bottom portion of the players that get paid are only making around $10,000(which probably doesn't cover their costs, and the winner gets $1,000,000+ in a golf tournament. In golf you have to finish in the top 30 or so to make good money. Make it so there isn't a lot to gain financially from winning in the silver division. If you want to grind it out and finish 3rd every tournament maybe you can make $50 a tournament or what ever but the big prize in the silver division should be the promotion and the chance to win money in the Gold division where just finishing in the top 40% will make you some money.
here are 2 prize payouts for average PGA(gold) and a web.com(silver) tournaments. I think ESHL payouts should be structured Similar to these.
As far as initial placements in Gold/Silver/Bronze, there should be an initial tournament. $40 to enter open to everyone, double elimination(so if you draw a top team you can still prove yourself if you lose your first game). Results determine initial rankings and the $40 is held in your account to go towards an entry fee to a future tournament.
After that there should be a "CR" system, or a system like the world golf rankings, or fedex cup points.
The 3 divisions could look like this.
Gold 2000-5000(hard cap)
Bronze 0-500 (hard floor)
A bottom team or a bronze team would be a new team or one that lost 2 straight games in the ranking tournament. They start with 500 points. Winning a bronze event gets you 750 points, if its your first event you end up with 1250 points and are an average team(but you are seeded last for your first Silver tournament).
Say there are 10 teams in a bronze tournament points could be handed out as follows: This can be scaled for more or less teams. There should be a minimum of 3 teams.
Entry fees for Bronze tournaments could be $20. No prize money handed out and all your entry fees are held in your account to be used for future Silver/Gold tournaments. Money is forfeited to ESHL after 1 year of inactivity. It would act as a deterrent for teams to sign up and then not show up. It could be more than $20 if it needs to be more of a deterrent. it could be reduced to $10 if you have $150 in your account. Ideally no one is playing in Bronze for more than a couple tournaments. They either get promoted or they decide they suck too bad and quit. It would really just be a right of passage to the Silver division. If you've been demoted from Silver you should get 3 free entries into Bronze tournaments.
Once you've worked your way out of Bronze you should have between 1250-501. It should be structured so that if you are an average team your point total should stay around that point. You should be able to finish in the middle of the Silver division in perpetuity and not be demoted. Point distribution should look something like this. (scale this for amount of users, should be top heavy and bottom heavy)
If you win a Silver event you should be promoted to Gold no matter what. An average team that finishes 2nd will move up as well. After that you should need multiple finishes out of the to 2 to advance. As the field gets larger the amount of points for the 25%-40% spots should decrease. On the bottom end it should take more losing to drop to bronze than it takes winning to advance to Gold. You could say that you need to hit 0 to be reset back to a new team and placed back into bronze. or you could just have a hard line at 500 depending on how often you want a Silver team to be demoted.
Once you are in Gold it should be a bit harder to stay there. The bottom few teams should almost always get relegated unless they were top teams that just had a bad game or got victimized by EA. It should be capped at 5000 so that if a team is dominant for a few years it doesn't build up so many points that they could finish last for ever and not get demoted. I'd suggest something like this.
I'm not sure what the ideal # of gold teams will be, this obviously needs to be tweaked depending on field size. Ideally if you come in last you should be relegated. There should be 5-20% relegation each event depending on the size of the field. A problem I see here is that if you get promoted to gold and have 2050 points and then end up in last you are left with 50 points, which is not right. Either the size of the Silver division and points would have to be adjusted, or when you got demoted from Gold you would just go to 1750 points.
Teams that are inactive for events should be deducted points for not playing so you can't just get gold status and then just play majors/championships when ever they come up. Like golf you should have to play more regularly to keep your ranking up. Good teams could afford to play a bit less, and average teams would have to play a bit more. This probably is only necessary in the Gold division as we don't want teams falling out of the silver division due to inactivity.
i think all tournaments should be double elimination, so that even if you draw up against a powerhouse in your first game you still have a chance to fight through the loser side and finish respectably. Double elimination can also handle any field size. All teams that lose 2 straight can play in a relegation bracket to figure out their seeding for points. All other teams that get knocked out at the same stage are placed by the combined rank of the teams they beat, so if you knocked off the #1 seeded team and then lost 2 straight you would be placed at the top of all teams that lost out in 3 games, if 2 teams have the same value then the higher seed finishes higher unless they played each other then the winner of the game between the 2 would be first.
I just threw this together as I wrote it but I think it would be a solid foundation that could be tweaked to create a great system. I'd love to help develop it if @jonlol needs any help.
This is a great system in theory, but I see tanking as a very legit concern when there's money involved at lower tiers. Also, if a team wants to pay the Gold-level money even if they're not established, are we really going to tell them "No, your LG stats aren't good enough to take your money?". I get the idea, and honestly I'm a big fan of the theory of this. A system like this would hopefully lead to more established teams over-time, rather than the FA frenzy we see every year. Also, I see the need for a FIFA-like (real world, not video game) ranking system where you’re however last many finishes in tournaments (FIFA does 3 or 4 I think) generates your "points" which in-turn gives you your world ranking.
So, essentially you'd need a year's (NHL 18, with the assumption teams stay relatively stable for the whole year) worth of data to really start this ranking system, but in the end, it would make tanking to get to silver that much harder as you'd basically need to throw away 2-3 seasons to actually have your points rank drop significantly enough to get demoted to the lower tier. Also, I think establishing full-time pro series franchises (Think like the real-world NHL teams) would be a path that would be very awesome for this website, and the overall growth of ESHL.
Have established franchises with full-time owners, require consistent branding over years, and require full-time ownership of said franchises. If I make a club, I should have to keep the club name for all of 18 if I plan on it being an ESHL club. When 19 rolls around and I wish to change my franchise's name, it should be a well-documented process o the website to make sure everyone knows that it's still the same core club, and also a convenient way to edit that franchises name for stat tracking, world rank points, etc. will be needed too.
To keep from established teams splitting into two separate teams with high level cores, and trying to start in the silver division rather than gold to try and win money, make rules against prize-money eligibility. If 3+ members of your club played gold last season, you need to start in the silver division, and you are not promotion, or prize-money eligible for two seasons. Something along those lines that we have in place to deter shady stuff in normal LG, can easily be brought to ESHL to make for a more competitive, and expanded ESHL field.
I'd love to talk more about ideas and be involved in the creative process for making this competitive league more established and big, so hmu if you ever want to further discuss ideas.
I lik 99% of this, Taco. This is very good! I actually think it's the best strategy I've seen in this whole thread. The one thing I didn't like was gold teams being demoted due to poor finishes in Silver tournaments. Gold teasm should be allowed to use invitationals to try a few new guys out and whatnot, as Silver tournaments shouldn't be of that much importance to a Gold team. I mean, yeah you want them to be competitive, but losing gold tier status on a silver level tournament seems rather harsh. I'd like to see losing gold status based on poor finishes in major tournaments only. I see "gold status" teams being limited to only 8 at a time, so losing you auto-invite to majors shoould take a consistient amount of poor performances at Gold level tournaments.
As far as tournament strutuce goes, I think Majors should be sort of like the world cup/champions league. Pool play, with bracket play after. This way, a gold status team will lose their gold staus if they fail to reach bracket play in two out of three majors (or maybe even one depending on the turnover rate of gold status teams). I'm really digging this system, but again, it seems like we need stricter rules on established clubs/brands, and we need a year of data to accuratly place teams at the correct level. Nobody wants power-rankings/pre-season pools determining auto-bids to majors, so that will need to be figured out before any of these ideas go any further.
Maybe make 1 more tier below bronze but as a free entry, but put a cap on 20 teams max in that tier then you take the top teams from that and put them into bronze if they wish to pay the next season and weed out the bottom bronze. I like the tier ideas as long as all of the tiers are competitive.
I think if you take away any major monetary gain for silver teams it will reduce the incentive for a gold level teams or players to drop down. As I mentioned in my post above if you win your silver tournament you get a good payday but you are forced to reinvest it into a gold tournament entry. That way there is no point in dropping down to silver on purpose. If you want to make money in the ESHL you'll have to make it to the gold division, in silver the entry fees should be low enough that the prize money is not enough to profit more than the $5-$10 or so that each player invested into the tournament.
Some version of the world golf rankings would work good for this, although we probably want to use a shorter window of tournaments. Golf uses the last 2 years of tournaments with a minimum of 40 tournaments and a maximum of 52. We could also use the golf handicap system where it takes your best 10 finishes out of your last 20 (rounds). Each tournament could be given a rating based on the level of the ranking of the field just like each course has a rating and a slope. I made a website that tracks handicaps, so I would have a good understanding of the formulas that would need to be used to use a system like this for us.
Yeah I agree with that. I really do like your and Taco's ideas. I think think a tiered system is the best for the expansion of ESHL. Tiered divisions with a huge emphasis on trying to make gold/premier/plat/whatever you want to call it, and a huge emphasis on keeping a consistient player core. No more one season teams, or slapped-together teams competing for prize money. You want to win? Want to be known? Then it's a long process ahead, but one that would really make ESHL a much more professional-looking league.
Teams should use club for trying out new players. The silver teams will mostly consist of middle/low end NHLers. For a gold team to finish that low would be a necessary strike. I noticed that I didn't mention a Major tournament demotion strike, but that is also something that should be considered. Gold teams have to be occasionally demoted somehow.
And I don't think this is something they'd try to establish this year, I hope this is planning for NHL 19.
Well, I guess how low are we talking? Again, I think the invitational and Major tournaments should be a CPL/WC round-robin format, and maybe I'd get on-board with that. Like, a gold caliber team should be able to make it out of group play in a silver invitational tournament. If they fail to reach the knockout stage, I'd be for a "strike" against their gold status...but then, how long do these strikes last? If two strikes demote your status, does it have to be two tournaments in a row in general where they fail to advance as far as we deem acceptable? Is it two silver tournaments in a row? All of this is up for discussion obviously.
And yes, we need 18 to establish stats, trends, core teams, before this sort of system can be implemented. If we can lay the gorundwork now, so that teams know what we're playing for this year, then I think this could be a really successful step for the ESHL.
It's hard to place a number when we have no idea how big the divisions would be. Those variables would have to be decided after seeing the amount of teams involved in the overall process.
Honored to be mentioned with some beauties
Interesting way to almost invoke a sort of salary cap. Good idea baby bro.
P.s. - Mom's ice maker is all fucked again, give her a call.
Make teams establish starters and bench players before the tourneys.. regardless of who actually plays more, starters buy in more dough but win more dough than bench players.
Players on the fringe of starting for elite teams might consider playing elsewhere for starter spot. More competitive teams
have a player status. Say a guy leaves a team that was in gold division. He will have gold status and would be eligible to only play in gold divison. He would have to miss one season to lose gold status and be silver status.
the tier idea wouldn't be a good idea. most people in the community have no idea how to judge talent or who the better players are. Unless your way of putting tiers is by Club record in the standings for 6s.
Separate names with a comma.