Rated team games: New attempt

Written by Guest, 09.04.2013 at 07:28

Written by Thunderballs, 08.04.2013 at 02:50

As a relatively new player, I'm pretty surprised that there isn't a more organized system for tournaments or CWs. I'm not sure about this, but it looks like CW is totally voluntary between coalitions? CWs between top clans seem pretty rare. And racking up CW points is more about which coalition leaders can rustle up the more games versus weaker clans than their matches against one another; making CW standings less significant. How can Syndicate (last months winner) brag in chat when a significant part of their 1st place came from matches against teamBacon (respect, but not built for CW)?

I saw that players have attempted to establish tournaments in the past, but it really looks like this is a job for the administrators. One a month. A big one once a year would be a lot of fun. How it should be organized seems like a nightmare, lol. But I'm sure some experience has been built up over the years and a people have some good ideas on how to run one.

Maybe teams of 5 (as suggested for 3 v 3) and a set time?

Even though I'm agreeing with you this has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Maybe read the first post before you write something.

If you can't see the connection, just ask and I will help explain it for you.

I'm here to help.

Before team tournaments will, if ever, be officially organized by AtWar, clan tournaments will be. So if team tournaments won't exist until clan tournaments do, many will read this post and assume you are talking about clan tournaments.

If you need me to simplify this, respond or pm me.

Bump for supports/suggestions.

Support

Cow, Ranked Team Games and CWs are linked and if the system for CWs were better or more competitive, there would be no need for Ranked Team Games.

However, there is another thread for that discussion and this one should be only for Ranked Team Games.

Bumb Support

Bump for support

BUMP.... like fuck.

Support

Link to the original thread?

Support damn it.

Zapport!

Support

Written by Plato, 24.01.2014 at 05:49

I dunno why the rated team games idea is treated insignificantly and in such an inferior way,it would RLY help wat we are witnessing today game wise.

Is a nice idea but if serious about it there are a lot of questions to address, would for example it work like elo system? would whole team or only survivors get points? How would team selection work etc

I don't think set teams are good, they would essentially be like coalitions with strong teams dominating, instead rated 2v2/3v3/4v4 would be good but this has a lot of things to work out before being serious about asking for it to be implemented.

Lets take 2v2 for example, players could join a rated 2v2 game and the sides paired randomly say team combined elo is idk 2400 and another 2600 then the winning team rating goes up/down in the same way elo does? (not sure how that stuff works.) So each player would have 2 elo ratings one for 1v1 and one for 'team' matches. I personally would make whole teams elo go up or down even if dying, sometimes a sacrifice makes a team win and would be unfair to get a loss if your team win.

Written by b0nker2, 24.01.2014 at 06:30

Written by Plato, 24.01.2014 at 05:49

I dunno why the rated team games idea is treated insignificantly and in such an inferior way,it would RLY help wat we are witnessing today game wise.

Is a nice idea but if serious about it there are a lot of questions to address, would for example it work like elo system? would whole team or only survivors get points? How would team selection work etc

I don't think set teams are good, they would essentially be like coalitions with strong teams dominating, instead rated 2v2/3v3/4v4 would be good but this has a lot of things to work out before being serious about asking for it to be implemented.

Lets take 2v2 for example, players could join a rated 2v2 game and the sides paired randomly say team combined elo is idk 2400 and another 2600 then the winning team rating goes up/down in the same way elo does? (not sure how that stuff works.) So each player would have 2 elo ratings one for 1v1 and one for 'team' matches. I personally would make whole teams elo go up or down even if dying, sometimes a sacrifice makes a team win and would be unfair to get a loss if your team win.

Ya I think it would be rly similar to clans,but it would be another aspect of AW which would encourage high and low ranks to learn stuff and gets them more intact with the whole 3v3-2v2 games.I think though it should be better if rated team games would be conveyed to things like division,leagues,tournaments etc.... Aside from the "rating" of the teams if u wish.

I mean clan related tournaments are very rare and hard to keep up,but rated teams would be more flexible.As for the players,I think they don't need to be involved indivisually in rated team games much,like elo for example maybe just put the rating of his team in his profile or somthin like that.I mean i've bumped this thread several times and I(along with alot of people i think) would be rly happy to see it implemented bcz of the change and improvments it would make too AW.

Written by Madara, 13.09.2013 at 23:21

Support damn it.

Bump motherfuckers bumppp

Support

Some sort of randomly chosen players to fight in team games which were rated would be a fun complement for the game

I like this idea also, i was thinking something much the same as this, not identical and this is better, a while back but never cared enough to put it up