searched online but couldnt find anyone who shared the same thoughts. The new format I'm proposing is similar to certain tennis leagues since they're both individual sports:
Each team has a full roster of 9 players per match as shown below:
Team 1 Group 1: Players A, B, C Group 2: Players D, E, F "Substitutes": Players X, Y, Z
Team 2 Group 1: Players G, H, I Group 2: Players J, K, L "Substitutes": Players U, V, W
* The "substitute" players would most likely be the best players since they are allowed to traverse any of the series being played.
Whichever team has the majority of wins is the winner:
Match-ups (18 total) Round 1, Round 2, Round 3: A vs G, A vs H, A vs I B vs H, B vs I B vs G C vs I, C vs G, C vs H
D vs J, D vs K, D vs L E vs K, E vs L, E vs J F vs L, F vs J, F vs K
The entire match is 3 rounds, 6 games played per round (so each player has a 3-game series). Some rules: -Map pool is 3 maps; each player of a match-up removes 1 map and the remaining map is played. "Home team" decides first? -The starting players (players A-K) cannot substitute into the other positions; they must play in their designated series or sit out (i.e. player A cannot move to player B's slot ever). -An individual's slot is permitted 1 substitution per loss only for the next round (i.e. player B slot throughout all 3 rounds could have had players B, X, and Y respectively). -cross-series substitutions cannot be made unless by a designated substitute (i.e. if player X (subbing A's slot) and player B lost in Round 2, X could shift to B's slot for round 3. - In event of a draw (9-9), The teams choose 1 ambassador each to play a final deciding match. -All games must be played out, since total score of match will be used in further altercations (i.e. round robin ties or if a team is disqualified and needs to be substituted, etc.)
Pros: -All or most players on each team get more face-time -More accurate result of which team is hollistically better -More diverse experience for players -Takes less time (? not sure if that's a pro or con)
Cons: -Multiple games played simultaneously (so you can't cast/view all of them at once) -Too restrictive in match-making?
So, thoughts? Is this not viable or if not, how can it be improved? I'd REALLY like to see team leagues start to be the dominant format for amateur leagues (rather than huge brackets of individual players).
don't like it, cause you cant watch all matches (atleast in live you can't). Why I like the current format is because there is a lot more pressure on the players' shoulders because their entire team, hell the entire world is watching them, so you really get the feeling they are fighting for their team. If their matches won't be shown live, they might not feel the same weight. The current format is also simple : everyone gets how it works, there is no need to overcomplicate things.
It's not that complicated IMO. Like I said, the only real issue I see is the spectator issue. Perhaps it can be scaled down and have 1 main stage and 2 smaller stages. I agree that there's the "pressure" factor in the current format, but I think the results are too erratic. Most players (if not all) will only be playing 1 game per match. You have 90% of the team sitting out entire matches and watching their fate instead of actually participating and contributing.
At the very least, I think this style is fit for amateur leagues.
I ragequit if my split fails.
Yourmomsbasement Canada. June 30 2012 22:47. Posts 36
To defend the current format that seems to be most common, all-kills are one the most exciting things to watch. By the forth game the casters are all saying he's too tired to win, the opponent sent out the star of the team, but his eyes look focused and calm... GG!
I don't want to lose that in favour of higher accuracy results. I hope to see teams get better at countering each other, a sniper player being used to take down one opponent, etc...