The Sengoku Jidai League Discussion Thread

[Bobba-Job]

Really good job on this ladder fellas, an excellent system =)

[TinCow]

Really good job on this ladder fellas, an excellent system =)

Thanks! Now we just have to get more of those 0 game people active so that I don't have to purge them.

[UglyJun]

what are Chevrons ???

[TinCow]

what are Chevrons ???

They're the symbols that are used by the game to represent veteran status. One chevron is the equivalent of one 'rank' of veteran status, and the stats of the units improve with each chevron added. They are commonly used in many military organizations to demonstrate rank:

[Cu'Roi]

this isn't a criticism but shouldn't there be a default game type for ladder matches? if there is one already then sorry i'll try reading better next time.

if not though may be good to set something to default, and to also include the proposed game type in the challenges.

also, what stops people from just dodging someone by declining their challenges? like accepting all others but declining from specific players? at least maybe when someone declines someone it should be made very obvious to others IMO.

i accept all challenges and will play any game-type, but not all players play like me :).

i also agree that the chevron thing hardly matters, i'm not sure it is a bug btw, i don't really know i never use them, but in ETW and NTW the first chevron would give a morale increase the 2nd wouldn't, the third would.

[TinCow]

this isn't a criticism but shouldn't there be a default game type for ladder matches? if there is one already then sorry i'll try reading better next time.

Rules

I think what you are talking about is covered by rules 8 through 15 of the SJL rule set.

also, what stops people from just dodging someone by declining their challenges? like accepting all others but declining from specific players? at least maybe when someone declines someone it should be made very obvious to others IMO.

Players cannot decline a Direct Challenge. Not only is it impossible to do inside the utility, the rules specifically state that players do not have the option of refusing a Direct Challenge:

Direct Challenges - Players may challenge a specific person in the same tier. The other player cannot refuse to fight the battle, though negotiations on scheduling are permitted.

If a player uses scheduling issues to dodge a Direct Challenge (and it is clear it's an attempt to avoid the match instead of real time problems), the other player will receive a technical victory. This is also in the rules:

Inactivity - The lack of effort to arrange and complete Battles before any assigned deadline will result in a forfeit of the Match. The competition's Gamemaster(s) will evaluate effort according to the available evidence of attempts to arrange the battle, including posts anywhere on the Org, PMs, logs of Steam chat conversations, etc. A technical victory will be awarded to the team which made a greater effort, or both teams could be forfeit, if neither is considered to have done enough. An extension will only be awarded if both teams show good efforts to arrange the battle, and it is likely to be fought in the near future.

[Cu'Roi]

i see you are on top of things :)

excellent.

by the way very impressed how the ladder system takes steps to automate the actual scheduling process itself. I haven't been using that but it is very good, and will be worth a great deal if/when the .org begins to host team tournaments. although it could be modified to be better by making time ranges for every day of the week for each player, and possibly repeating (as week to week many players will have the same period free) as a starting point.

like basically i have a rough draft of a step by step method for rationalizing a scheduling process among any given number of participants. which is useful (and in some cases pretty essential) towards getting games scheduled among people in possibly different parts of the world in the most efficient and hassle free way possible.

among adults willing to put in the effort and with a little common sense and living generally in close time zones with one another in 1 v 1, a methodical approach to scheduling is hardly needed. but you start to remove some of those assumptions or increase the format to 2s and 3s games, and a streamlined process becomes more useful.

[JCDC]

Really good job on this ladder fellas, an excellent system =)

Not surprised you like it, you are bloomin winning!!! and the only one who defeated me 2-0..... :(

[Miotsu]

Indeed, the structure, the automated system.. it all makes for a ladder that progresses itself with little Admin involment.. .so no hand holding by anyone.. well done.!!!

I agree with the "hang out on steam"... rather than go through the scheduling etc... I have changed my online name to "Miotsu Jidai league" just for the purpose of letting everyone know I'm in the league and quickly identifiable. I also friended everyone in the league so they can also see me as a league player in their friends list.

So many positives about the league but if I had to pick one negative and this isn't a league issue.. it's a game issue..... it's having to play against the same faction. Once melee starts, good luck differenciating between your units and those of your opponent. If they would have had a "quick banner colour change" option.. it'd have helped a lot.!!! maybe not my game.. lol. but at least the appreciation of knowing who's on what side.

Thanks again TinCow for all that you do...

*bows*

[TinCow]

As per this post on TWC, how would people feel about changing the 'default' map every week, to keep things a bit more interesting? Something like:

Week 1: Rice Fields
Week 2: Alpine Hills
Week 3: Wood Settlement
Week 4: Flood Plains

[angelofwar12]

i think there is a bug in the ladder when 2 player submit score about the same time the system somehow bug out and 1 player need to submit the score again

[TinCow]

I'll look into it. In the meantime, if you think a score has been bugged like this, just tell any GM. We can all submit the scores manually, which will fix the problem.

[AzureTotalWar]

I like it. New map a week is cool.

Sense this is ladder, I think we should do best of 1 game. Best of 3 is to keep tournaments fair and balanced. I dont think it is necessary in a ladder where you can just play again. If someone has a problem with losing that one game, play another game and have both count.

I bet more games would be played in this format too ;)

[TinCow]

I like it. New map a week is cool.

Sense this is ladder, I think we should do best of 1 game. Best of 3 is to keep tournaments fair and balanced. I dont think it is necessary in a ladder where you can just play again. If someone has a problem with losing that one game, play another game and have both count.

I bet more games would be played in this format too ;)

That's a fair point. The easiest option on this might be making the number of matches to be played another one of the 'changeable' rules. 3 would be default, but 1 (or 37) would be fine by agreement.

[Cu'Roi]

i think he has a good idea, variety in maps is good for more than 1 reason.

[TinCow]

Alright, well I have yet to hear any disagreement with the rotating default maps idea. I'll set a tentative start date of this Friday for the default map change to start. That will give people more time to note the change and discuss it, plus it will also be two weeks from the start date, so it'll keep the rotation on a normal 1-week schedule, which it wouldn't be if I did it sooner.

Any more thoughts about also making the number of games another 'default' setting that can be changed with player agreement?

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

What is the award to this tournament again?