Totally agree as well. The Leagues should be out fun and friendship. It would be nice to have one tournament where the awards aren't on the lines of who won the most - which often, inevitably, go to the same people. The idea of players voting favourite joker, favourite stabber, etc is really positive and a really great idea.

I don't disagree, draug... just am avoiding that part to really instill the idea of building relationships than winning. It's diplomacy, you still want to do well, but I want a clear differentiation between what it is about vs what a lot of people think it is (which is a tournament).

I'd also like to state that it is ok if you don't like the idea of what a league is. It isn't a tourney, which means it isn't for everyone. I enjoy it MORE than tourneys, where I know some people STRIVE on the competition and really enjoy that more.

Again, I want to plus one you a thoousand times over. Dude, you are like my alter ego when my sugar and thyroid aren't totally fucked up. :-)

^^ And THIS is what the Leagues is all about.

Well, if there's a strong interest in keeping things the way they are, then I think we should strive to maintain as much continuity as possible.

I was, perhaps falsely, under the impression that interest had waned since players were looking for something different.

@Draug, Ora: do you guys remember the exact format and terms that you two had devised for the next league?

Primarily we were combinging Premier and A into Premier and making the two B's be the A league. The rest of the leagues were to be the general leagues and all leagues were to be 14 players each so there would be a mix, bot the same 7 players in each game. Promotions from last season were still going to happen, along wioth the demotions.

RE: "all leagues were to be 14 players each so there would be a mix, bot the same 7 players in each game."

What do you mean by that? Does that mean that the 14 players in a particular league was essentially like two parallel leagues in terms of how they are placed into games, but considered one group for the purposes of promotion and relegation?

RE: "The rest of the leagues were to be the general leagues"

Would there still be the same pyramid-like structure or would it just a linear stack of tiers?

No, random placement and mixture so two games ran, but set 2 would see the players from set 1 mixed up. So if 123456 and 7 were in Game 1A, 24681 & 5 might be in game 2A

On the second part, it was flat. So all the remaining 14 player leagues were competing to move up equally. Only A and Premiere stood out above the rest. We may have had a 28 player (2x14) B-tier. I don't recall that for certain, but no C, D, and E. They were all put together.

I'm bumping this for tentative interest and to drop the TC threads. He was right on schedule again...

if the definition fk gives for 'leagues' is what we want to go with - then great. But unfortunately I don't think that is the dominant perception of what the leagues are. Since I first arrived here and as long as I remember, the leagues, specially divided up into 'tiers' as they were - represented the height of 'talent' and 'expertise' in this game. It took you a while ( a few seasons) to work yourself up to the top of the pile - and then you had to 'earn' your way to stay there.

At least in my experience - specially in the A and Premiere Leagues - the perception was that it was in fact what fk sees as a 'tournament'.

But all that is irrelevant. Draug and ortho have this tournament... sorry - this "League" - if they want to run it. its up to them what to do. If fk's suggestion can be implemented and they would not count for GR that would be ideal and I would love to play... non-anon and everything.

What I gathered from yebellz was something else then. sounded like a 'tournament' (to use fortknox's syntax) ... if that is the case, then I support the idea of starting a brand new tournament. which is to be a measure of skill, is set up anon, and is set-up similar to the way the leagues are set-up.

In fact. I think I might even take on the project myself in a week or two and organize/design it myself.

Anyways... best of luck with the leagues, and please do let me know if and when it is set-up and I can then choose to join or not. much appreciated.

May I suggest that we gather interest and then decide one how to divide the divisions? I imagine the number of entrants will affect the decision.

Babak, yes, that is pretty much what I originally had in mind.

I didn't necessarily want to bring back the leagues exactly as they were but rather organize something that was more akin to a spiritual successor (or alternative).

It seems that a lot of people did like the leagues as they were (non-anon and more about socialization than pure competition). I think I would rather organize an alternative, maybe called the "WebDip Ladder(s)".

Babak, want to work together on fleshing out the details? I'll organize my ideas so far and make a post about it later tonight.

I've thrown this out there before and will throw it out again. It might be more important for a league such as fortknox describes it. Rather than having seasons, just do one round per month with everyone ranked into groupings of 14 based on how they've done in the past X number of games.

If you need to skip a month or more, then you're not included in that month's rankings and you'll be wherever you'll be when you come back, you'll likely have lost some ground.

The biggest difficulty will be dealing with people that dropout without informing the TD (LD). Perhaps a week before the players are ranked and games are created each person would have to confirm they will be there for that round.

Hrmm. I said "It might be more important..." which isn't the right word choice, sorry. I meant "It might be more appropriate...".

Ooh, how about a ladder system then?

There aren't any leagues but rather many rungs of 7 people. The round they play two games in the top of the board move up and the bottom of the board move down. Of course this would take some logistical planning but it would give everyone a nice variety of people to play against and preserve some sort of ranking system.

Actually; I think that sounded better in my head.

I think if you have a cat you call it a cat.
If you want to do the 'league-like format' and use the word 'ladder', how about the 'webdip ladder tournament'?

That way we can use 'league' and 'tournament' as specifically defined words so as not to cause confusion.

I still believe in a 'tiered' approach to my idea of the leagues. Have 3 or 4 'tiers' so you play people of the same play as you. It could be as simple as the first tier is made up of the top 21 players in GR, then the next tier, the next 21 players, etc... with the ability for anyone to be able to 'go down a tier' (in other words, if I'm a top player and want to get to know more newbies as they come in, I'll do so).

I'm sure we can use a simple naming convention on the game names to avoid it being a part of GRings.... either that or request a new flag to say 'ranking' or 'nonranking' game so anyone can use it?

I'd be happy to set it up, but realize I'll be extremely harsh in regards to CD's, NMR's, etc... I don't want to have to deal with that crap, so if someone does it, I'll just knock them out of the leagues for 2 or 3 cycles, period.

Then again, the games aren't ranked, so maybe people won't care so much? Nah... people will care ;)

yebellz - for sure. I'll PM you and maybe we can chat on the phone about it.

fk - I'm fine with your syntax of "leagues" vs. "tournaments". However I do not think the definitions you have in mind (and have explained so well here) are the definitions that are dominant on this site as of yet. I'd bet you that if you polled webdip users, they would view the leagues as just another tournament. after all, the "TD" is in charge... that's the "Tournament director".

But I'm all for your definitions if it provides clarification.

The key in all of this is... it would be GREAT to have non-ranked and ranked game options. but that wont come until we actually a have the rankings integrated into the site in a formal way... i'm hopeful that will happen within my lifetime =P haha.

yebellz, check your PM.

Babak, regarding non-ranked games, I was thinking in terms of allowing 0 games which the ghost ratings would also ignore. There would have to be a limit on how many such games one could be in at the time, I figure scaling with how many finished games a player has. What would you think of that? Or would you want a non-ghost-ranked game that has dip points at stake?

I'm probably in, however way you guys want to play it. :D

Alderian - that 0 point idea is a great. I like it. might even be easier to program than having yet another parameter for new games... and better yet, it wont require GR to be incorporated into the site for it to become functional... though I still hope GR becomes integrated.

I'm in for the leagues, no matter what...

Alderian, I'm sure it's been discussed before but what of the idea of being able to give TD some sort of limited mod power so they can create games and whatnot? It'd make life a lot easier for both the mods and the TDs.

Then, you could also limit 0 games to ones created by mods and TDs.

I have not had the pleasure of playing in a "league," and so I do not know the pros/cons as many of you do.
Could someone please explain to me the appeal of the leagues?

Can I play please ....... or have I already asked !!

ill in the leagues however you make it. Just make sure you make them!

@Yonni, I'm pretty sure that adding TD powers is on the list to be developed. But, the development cycle is a slow one due to Kestas' limited time, so I'm not sure when we'll see it.

@zultar, the most appealing thing to me is the improved chance of playing good games rather than joining random games that could have issues with CDs, multis, metas, and such. CDs can still be an issue, but more so at the entry level of the league.

The anon thing is clearly polarising. How about an "Anon" league and a "non-Anon" league? I'm Anon btw