asch

Since many of the players enjoyed Sassy's idea of a CO Challenge, I wanted to get a discussion going to help establish a more formalized way of conducting the challenge. This way anyone can participate. I may also have to hit Apo up to see if tacticalconflict works and possibly use that.

So... one of the ideas I have been contemplating...

Issuing the Challenge

1. CO (A) issues challenge to CO (B) with three possible play dates.
2. CO (B) rejects / accepts challenge for one of those dates.
   • Dates need to be at least one week out.
   • If all of the dates are not work-able, the challenge is rejected.
3. CO (A) determines the mod to play.
4. Challenge sign-up posted at least three days prior to match.
5. List of participants provided to CO's 24 hours prior to match.
6. Players check in one hour prior to match and the CO's pick their teams.
7. Approximately 30 minutes prior to match the teams are put into their
8. CO (B) determines the map to play.
9. CO (B) determines the team (USMC; MEC; China) they wish to start with.

Format (option I)

• Two rounds.
• CO's play same side (USMC, MEC, China) both rounds.
• Players switch sides (play under other CO).
• In case of tie, a tie breaking round ensues...
  • CO (B) can either choose to pick the team (players) they wish to play with.... OR CO (B) can choose the side (USMC, MEC, China) they wish to play.
  • CO (A) then gets to choose the other (side or team).

I've got some other ideas for different formats... but I will post those tonight when I'm back from work.

__________________
| My Maps

Gaming Videos by Tactical Gamers

Fear the Frog! | Kill the Frog! | An Inconvenient Truth

"Support game play in a near-simulation environment. Where the focus of play would not be solely on doing what it takes to win, but doing so utilizing real-world combat strategy and tactics rather than leveraging exploits provided to players by the design of the game engine, regardless of the level of advantage, if any, it gives over the opposing team." -- Tactical Gamer Primer

Faultline

I would suggest changing the signup period from 24 hours to at least 2 or 3 days to give ample notice for players interested. Otherwise, I think it looks slick.

__________________

asch

That is what I meant... so I edited the original post to make it more clear.

__________________
| My Maps

Gaming Videos by Tactical Gamers

Fear the Frog! | Kill the Frog! | An Inconvenient Truth

"Support game play in a near-simulation environment. Where the focus of play would not be solely on doing what it takes to win, but doing so utilizing real-world combat strategy and tactics rather than leveraging exploits provided to players by the design of the game engine, regardless of the level of advantage, if any, it gives over the opposing team." -- Tactical Gamer Primer

ThePenguineer

I think you meant if "all the dates" are a conflict, then the challenge would be rejected, not "any of the dates".

Also, 'tis my humble opinion that if you guys go through the trouble of picking teams, then you should be able to play with them for both rounds. Afterall, you probably picked the people you did because you had an idea of what they could do for you or how they fit into a bigger plan. I liked the way it was played out this past Saturday, where the teams and CO just switched sides.

__________________

Sumluv59

What about 3 rounds (if needed) on 3 different (random) maps? And no ticket count?

Going into the second game on Saturday down by over 100 tickets was depressing. I feel ticket count shouldn't matter especially after the server issues a bunch of us were having that definitely contributed to the blowout loss in the first game.

I’m not trying to rain on the winner’s parade. They were definitely the better team. I just think whether you win by one ticket or by one hundred the count shouldn’t matter.

Just my two cents.

__________________

Burning spies is cool.

icky

That's a good point. Needing a 100-point victory had me laughing. We could just allow for ties or add a short tie-breaker map.

__________________
Peace through fear... since 1947!

perry

Maybe we should use assault maps for these battles and have everyone switch sides. That would allow both teams to play assault and defense and would force the CO's to come up with two completely different strategies. Then a more "even" map as a tiebreaker.. or a pit fight with knives.

I liked the idea of keeping the map secret until game time and combining it with picking the teams 30 minutes before game time should make things more random. I think the idea of these challenges is to make things as random as possible and give the CO's as little planning as possible. Make it as close as possible to a normal, everyday game but with some amount of organization.

Advanced signups should just be used if we think we'll have more than 62 people and need to bump people in to reserve slots. Sassy was unlucky in that a good deal of her selections didn't show up and Roach had a much better showing.

Actually, Roach just mentioned an interesting idea in the AAR thread. Let the two CO's agree on terms. If they want to play Oman without air, then they can play Oman without air. If they want 2 out of 3, then 2 out of 3. APCs in on one round of Songhua and APCs out on the next, then that's fine. If they want to let the admins pick, then the admins pick. If they want to pick teams in advance (and hope that everyone shows, and from this first battle, it should be obvious that this wouldn't be a wise choice), then pick teams in advance. Just another approach to consider.

__________________

ChIck3nL3gz

Like a CO vs CO sniper battle. Where only the CO's fight and try to kill one another to break the score. Of course they'd still have distractions like the rest of the teams battling each other but for the most part, asset calls and uses as well as supplies would be off-limits as well as soldiers just capping CO's. This way it would give the CO's a chance to duel one on one.

But Im just rambling and I'm sure my idea makes absolutely no sense.

At any rate, Asch I like the layout you wrote up.

__________________

[volun][drill]
I'm cannon fodder.
Irreg's Wiki
Rules and SOPs

NorCalRoach

Oops I didn't see this thread until now...here's a few comments that Perry referred to. My main suggestion is to keep the actual format flexible, it'll be more interesting IMO.

__________________
.

Santa

Maps shouldnt be chosen by either CO because then that guy would have a tremendous advantage because he could get a plan in his head and not feel rushed. The other CO would be rushed to think of a plan. Instead, an admin that is completely unaffiliated and is not playing should randomly choose what map.

COs should also decide on terms. They can decide that if the unaffiliated admin picks an air map, that no air will be played. Or no armor. Or whatever.

For a tiebreaker, we can either use the format that Asch suggested, or the unaffiliated admin picks a tiebreaker map ahead of time. The tiebreaker map should probably be one that is widely thought of as "fair" for both sides. Whichever CO was ahead in tickets between both rounds (whoever has the least tickets against) chooses which side they will be for the tiebreaker.

I think that since both COs will get 24 hours ahead of time to see the roster and get an idea of who they want to pick, it might be cool to let each team play under one CO. If each CO plays at all on our server, they should have a good idea of who to pick. It will also be MUCH more fair if the picking actually takes place before the match so that we dont have no shows.

James315

Another format could be that the players play same side (USMC, MEC, China) both rounds and the CO's switch sides (command other team).

This is in case a map is biased in favor of USMC/OpFor. It also forces the commander to come up with strategies for both sides of the map.

In my view, one's ability to CO is distinct from one's ability to pick a good team. If the CO's command the same people (as with last scrim), that puts a heavy emphasis on your ability to pick team members. It also puts a heavy emphasis on the skill of one team versus the other.

In this version (or asch's version), only your BF2 CO ability comes into play. Having the CO's pick the teams would only serve to help keep the teams even (for the most part).

But the other thing is, I'd love to be able to serve under both of the competing CO's just to see how their plans and command style differ. You've got this group of BF2 players, how does asch use them? How does NorCal? How is that different from how Sassy deploys them?

__________________

Rick_the_new_guy

i think it would keen if the CO picked teamates from a huge list. someone flips a coin and the person who wins goes first. The team mates are unware of the order they are picked. This prevents players from feeling unwanted if they are picked last in front of an audiance. From there the team player names are listed A to Z.

I missed out on the last C.O. challenge and im curious on how to make the team.

icky

What you said is pretty much how it is done.

__________________
Peace through fear... since 1947!

MasterEditorInChief

The format seems pretty sound. The only thing I can think of is whether or not it should be illegal to attack another CO's assets. It's tactical, but for a battle to see who's the better CO, keeping the assets intact is crucial. I don't know, maybe it's just me.

__________________

Santa

Nah, its an important part of the game. If one CO attacks the assets, its up to the opposing CO to decide whats more important. He can send a squad back to defend at the cost of leaving a flag open, or let the enemy have a squad out of play destroying assets while the rest of your team is up against fewer players.