Welcome to the European Championship League (PS4)

[Kenu]

 

NHL Gamer welcomes you to the ECL!

Hey NHL Gamers,

It's great to have had so many of you join the site this early on and the amount of support you've shown is greatly appreciated!

Without further ado, it's time to announce our first official 6 vs 6 league for both Playstation 4 and Xbox One - the European Championship League - ECL!

 

League details:

• All games are played 6vs6 - no exceptions!
• A minimum of eight (8) players is required for a team to be eligible. We are willing to bump this up to if the community feels that helps reduce teams quitting/not being available to play (please vote on the poll).
• Games will be played through the invitational Drop-in Mode.
• Exact format of leagues will be determined by the amount of participating teams.
• Schedule will be set for specific days (based on feedback), but teams are allowed to negotiate and move games.
• The leagues are set to start on 16.11.2015.
• Full rules will be released later.

 

How to join?

• Register to the forums.
• Read this post entirely before registering.
• Follow the link to the ECL for your preferred platform:
  Register for the ECL Playstation 4 -tournament here
  Register for the ECL Xbox One -tournament here
• Create a thread with the subject "ECL Registration - Team Name" and use the following format in the post itself:
  • Team Name: Example Team Name
  • Team Abbreviation: ETN
  • Team Captains (up to 3): Example Captain1, Example Captain2, Example Captain 3
  • Team Roster (at least 8 players):
    • Example Player 1
    • Example Player 2
    • Ecample Player 3
    • etc.
  • Tell us about your team (optional): Here you can mention any accomplishments or specific reasons why your team should be selected to play in the league.

 

We aim to select all eligible teams for the league, but we will have to see how many teams are interested in the first place.  

Don't forget to vote on the poll!

 

On behalf of the NHLGamer.com development team - thank you for your interest! We look forward to seeing you on the ice!

 

Kenneth

 

Edited October 16, 2015 by Kenu

[Juizki]

I'm really torn between one day and two days per week schedules. I know there are lots of people out there who want to play way more, but at the same time there are lots of people, like me, who don't have that much spare time in their hands right now. Of course I can find at least two spare days during a week but, as we know, scheduling games (especially with some teams) isn't always as easy at it sounds like.

 

If I'm allowed, I'd like to recommend the kind of system (assuming there will be lots of teams) where there will be at least two divisions (or more, depending on how many teams participate) where the teams play only against the teams in their division, just to avoid the regular season going on for too long. Not sure how other people feel about this but I, personally, prefer shorter regular season. It would also be more likely to have more (or maybe all) teams to play and complete the whole regular season as the teams won't have to be in a situation where they realize they have bunch of games yet to be played but no chance at even qualifying for the playoffs.

 

And about selecting teams for the tournament: if there are way too many teams, then yes of course, there have to be teams that get cut, but rather pick all the teams (if possible) and make more divisions/groups etc. I'm just saying this because there are plenty of new teams due to players switching from Xbox to PlayStation and vice versa. 

Edited October 16, 2015 by Juizki

[Kenu]

Thanks for the great and insightful reply @Juizki! You are allowed to suggest whatever you want and we'll take all ideas into consideration. We love feedback and ideas!

 

Regarding the amount of teams, my impression (assumption based on the past) is that the majority of teams will want to play on 3 days of the week - but we will see what the poll says and how everyone feels. I don't think more than 4 is realistic for most people.

Regarding the team amounts etc. I agree with you. This is a fresh start and everyone should have the right to make a name for themselves. This is what we're aiming for. When we see the amount of interest we can attract, we will know how to set the league up. Again - keep the feedback and ideas coming.

Please share the link to our website with as many potential players as you can think of.

[tokFan]

I would like to see groups and if there is plenty of participating teams we could use divisions as well. The problem with divisions is how should the split up between the divisions work?

• Shorter tournaments
  • Group stage (2, 4 or 8 groups)
• More tournaments (2-4/season)
• Playoff with 16 teams, maybe 32 teams(two conferences) if more than 40 teams joins
  • Best of seven games

[Dexrion]

I would love to see some kind of divisions too. DIV 1= Grp stage + Playoff DIV2,3.4 and so on only grp stage with promotions.

[Kenu]

Hey @tokFan and @Dexrion - really appreciate the feedback!

These are questions we are thinking about as well and things we have to tackle if (and hopefully when) more and more teams start joining.

 

I have a question for you guys (and everyone else) regarding the division system: How would you make it work? As this is not professional sports, teams fold very easily and let's say a team ends up in a lower division and the team folds. Some of the players together with some of the best players in the world create a new team - do they automatically start in the lowest division, even if "everyone knows they will demolish everyone else"?

ideally, I think this is how it should work - new teams will have to earn their spots and it will help familiar team "organisations" stay together for a long time, at least in the higher divisions. What I'm worried about, is that lower division teams fold all the time and everyone just tries to join a division 1 team.

One option is of course to simply have small leagues. Let's say Division 1 would have 10-14 teams, and the lower divisions would likewise. Seasons would be shorter and we could play more seasons during the year. For this system to work, I think there should be a minimum of 4 seasons played per year. Otherwise there's the risk that the next NHL comes out and people think we should scrap the whole system.

I hope I'm making sense with my explanations. I would love to discuss this some more! I think this is the type of steps we can take to create a more exciting and "professional" style of gaming community.

[gzell60]

A division system will be hard to keep up with due to the reasons you already mentioned. It would probably make more sense to start off with drawing groups for the very first tournament.

What I would like to see then is some sort of experience system, so you get 20 EXP for a finished game, + 3 for a win, +2 for a shutout. Bonus points should not make a large difference as shown in the above example, so the main reward is handed out for activity. On top of that we could hand out experience points for the final position in the standings and each playoff round you progress. That way top teams could still stand out from the rest, while the main focus is on the community.

In future tournaments, we could use the experience points to create groups - e.g. the top 5 teams are in Pot 1 and cannot be matched against each other within the group stage. Each group could consist of 5 teams, one team out of Pot 1, one team out of Pot 2 and so on...

I think this would be a cool system to keep people coming back. Something that communities like Consolehockey are missing!

Edit: Those smaller groups would also be a good way to keep the regular season a little shorter, something that @Juizki mentioned above.

Edited October 19, 2015 by gzell60

[Nephenzy]

Divisions would help teams in the long run to not give up that easy on their team and start new ones also... if they automatically would start in the lowest as a new team. These are hard questions to discuss but in the end we all want great rivalry and good hockey games. Its´up to all of us to create something good together even if we fight as enemies on the ice. Every team cant win but every team play a big part in the product anyway.

[Heksaa]

Intresting things to talk about. I couldn't stay quiet when you start to speak about future of this great new site you ‌@Kenu and ‌@Lurkins have built for us. Why should I? I think that every single player of every team should come and give their opinions here during these next few days, when the big decisions will be made. It won't be easy to tell for some "well known" teams to start to play from lower divisions, but on the other hand it ain't right to raise them straight to the top, if divisions will be made. After all, this will be the very first tournament and every team will be starting from the same line. I have to admit that I like the idea to play against the same teams year after year, because like ‌@Nephenzy said earlier, teams wouldn't give up so easily if they would have to start from the lowest divisions. This way also teams that might not be able to beat the very best teams would still have something to play for - division championship.

It depends how many teams we are able to get on board, but like 14 + 14 could also be a fine working combination. This way you could play shorter tournaments as you have only 13 teams to play against (3games/week and regular season will be played in a month). Teams 1-8 from both would play the playoffs and from the higher 13. and 14. would face the lower division final teams = winners to the higher and losers to the lower division in the next tournament. This way new good teams that wants to join for the community won't have to play in the lower division that long and we would be able to get 2 (someday hopefully 3 or 4) intresting divisions.

How would we start this? There is no way to tell, which teams should be in the higher and which in the lower group, as 0 games are played. One big group in the begin would be fair for all. 50% to higher and other 50% to lower group (10+10 or 16+16, depends how many teams will be starting from the very first), top-8 teams go for the playoffs. There will always be someone crying if we would now make 2 groups, because other (the one you are not in) would be so much easier... that way there would be a chance that there is some weaker team in better group as you start from the lower one. What a shame. Problem would be fixed in 2months - after your team have made your way to division finals and  you have become a division champions. This way the first tournament would be a lot faster and we would be able to play 3-4 this year also (yes, my years starts from September, not January).

This is just one of mine thoughts. After all I and most of us, will support you whatever you will decide, as long as we get to play some hockey!

[Kenu]

Thanks everyone for your great thoughts and ideas!

The first league will not have a higher and lower division. We might end up having to go to groups of some kind, but the first league will (in my opinion) be a fair starting point for all teams and then we can (hypothetically) divide teams into higher and lower divisions.

[selänne8]

Intresting things to talk about. I couldn't stay quiet when you start to speak about future of this great new site you ‌@Kenu and ‌@Lurkins have built for us. Why should I? I think that every single player of every team should come and give their opinions here during these next few days, when the big decisions will be made. It won't be easy to tell for some "well known" teams to start to play from lower divisions, but on the other hand it ain't right to raise them straight to the top, if divisions will be made. After all, this will be the very first tournament and every team will be starting from the same line. I have to admit that I like the idea to play against the same teams year after year, because like ‌@Nephenzy said earlier, teams wouldn't give up so easily if they would have to start from the lowest divisions. This way also teams that might not be able to beat the very best teams would still have something to play for - division championship.

It depends how many teams we are able to get on board, but like 14 + 14 could also be a fine working combination. This way you could play shorter tournaments as you have only 13 teams to play against (3games/week and regular season will be played in a month). Teams 1-8 from both would play the playoffs and from the higher 13. and 14. would face the lower division final teams = winners to the higher and losers to the lower division in the next tournament. This way new good teams that wants to join for the community won't have to play in the lower division that long and we would be able to get 2 (someday hopefully 3 or 4) intresting divisions.

How would we start this? There is no way to tell, which teams should be in the higher and which in the lower group, as 0 games are played. One big group in the begin would be fair for all. 50% to higher and other 50% to lower group (10+10 or 16+16, depends how many teams will be starting from the very first), top-8 teams go for the playoffs. There will always be someone crying if we would now make 2 groups, because other (the one you are not in) would be so much easier... that way there would be a chance that there is some weaker team in better group as you start from the lower one. What a shame. Problem would be fixed in 2months - after your team have made your way to division finals and  you have become a division champions. This way the first tournament would be a lot faster and we would be able to play 3-4 this year also (yes, my years starts from September, not January).

This is just one of mine thoughts. After all I and most of us, will support you whatever you will decide, as long as we get to play some hockey!

That was great text! I like your perspective to higher and lower divisions. This sounds great and fair

[Billy44205]

Guys if you really worry that much about good players making new teams to win lower division championships (what kind of lame person would do that?!? omg) you can always assign values to individual players based on the results of their previous teams in previous tournaments, and then calculate the average value of teams based on their players. It does remove the incentive to keep clubs for the long term though, if you think that's a valuable thing. I dunno I'm just brainstorming. 

With that said I think time is running out for brainstorming. 

The point I want to make is that many people will play this tournament and it's impossible to consult everyone to build the structure of the tourney, unless you're ok playing it in 5 months. I think the most efficient way right now is for the team running the tournament to present their concept and if people agree with it they will participate. I mean, those guys have a good enough feel for what the community wants that they won't offer a bad product. It was obvious that there would not be divisions for the first tournament, and for the most part I think the guys in charge already knew what everyone has been saying.

Anyway, good luck with the tournament. At this point I don't even know if I'll be able to take part in it since I don't have a club but you know I support your cause.

[gzell60]

Guys if you really worry that much about good players making new teams to win lower division championships (what kind of lame person would do that?!? omg) you can always assign values to individual players based on the results of their previous teams in previous tournaments, and then calculate the average value of teams based on their players. It does remove the incentive to keep clubs for the long term though, if you think that's a valuable thing. I dunno I'm just brainstorming. 

With that said I think time is running out for brainstorming. 

The point I want to make is that many people will play this tournament and it's impossible to consult everyone to build the structure of the tourney, unless you're ok playing it in 5 months. I think the most efficient way right now is for the team running the tournament to present their concept and if people agree with it they will participate. I mean, those guys have a good enough feel for what the community wants that they won't offer a bad product. It was obvious that there would not be divisions for the first tournament, and for the most part I think the guys in charge already knew what everyone has been saying.

Anyway, good luck with the tournament. At this point I don't even know if I'll be able to take part in it since I don't have a club but you know I support your cause.

I don't think time is running out at all. We need some sort first tournament to collect data about teams and players, if we want to set up a division system or something similar afterwards for future tournaments.

Experience systems or anything else can still be implemented afterwards, we are not stuck with what we plan to do now. This means we have a couple more months to keep the discussion going forward.

For now, the most important thing is to show all of the registered teams that this community has the potential to create something great, and that it's leaders are dedicated enough to their project to offer an enjoyable experience for everyone. People need to come back!

[Kenu]

 

Very well said @gzell60. I agree we have all the time in the world. As long as our design is smart, we can manipulate data even after leagues have been finished.

That being said, I appreciate your thoughts @Billy44205. You are right that we have thought about most, if not all of the things that have been mentioned so far. The thing is though, that our opinions are not the absolute truth, so we want to hear what the community wants and how they respond to these ideas.

[Nephenzy]

A division system would also give something to play for in both ends of the standings. Qualifying rounds between divisions would be at least dramatic and exiting as a regular playoff. But I understand that it might not be fair to start up with splitting teams into divisions.

It would also give new teams and players long term goals. I think many teams and players might give up loosing every game with double digits. It would be better for the future and development of building up new teams and players.

Edited October 19, 2015 by Nephenzy

[Dexrion]

Well, for the first tournament, you can have a standard league perhaps, top 16 goes to the playoffs and have it a good marketing platform and make the league grow. And make the divisions after the first cup is finished? And as Nephenzy are saying; for the smaller teams and teams that are new to EASHL it might be good enough for them to gain a promotion from div 3 to div 2 then loosing by double digits? Think about whats best for the community in the long run, have a small click of good teams in the tournament, or gain a much bigger community by involving more by having a "carrot" for them to, winning it all might not be the priority of all the teams, some teams just play for the fun of it :).

I believe that close and even games are the most fun, not loosing or winning by 10 goals. With a division system, might take a couple of "Seasons" before it will be okay and even, but sooner or later it will. And you can have div 1 with less teams perhaps, making it harder to stay and win :).

 

Div 1: 8 teams (4 teams playes semifinal after playing 2 games against all of the teams, season mode) 2 teams gets demoted.

Div 2: 12 teams 2 teams promoted / 3 teams demoted.

div 3: 12+ teams. 3 teams promoted.

 

 

Edited October 20, 2015 by Dexrion

[Billy44205]

There is more to divisions than what you guys describe. You can do divisions with a promotion system, and the condition to make it work is long lasting clubs, which some people believe is a very important thing. Or, you can have divisions where teams are placed based on the previous achievements of their players as I described in a previous post of mine, which may more accurately place teams according to their level, but then there is no incentive to keeping clubs together and there is no way to include promotion/relegation playoffs or things like that which could be exciting. 

[MartindalexC]

As Billy has eluded to, drawing up divisions is good in theory but when carried out it's very difficult to actually maintain.

 

There is no real 'correct' way to structure it as there will always be positives and negatives, that said imo the biggest hurdle with divisions is creating an incentive to keep teams together and in the system. For instance if say you have a pre-tournament in order to try and categorise teams into divisions, those that are on the borders of each supposed division and get put in the lower categories will undoubtedly lose motivation to play. Now that isn't speaking about every single player as there will always be individual differences that make certain people unique, however it's a necessary generalisation if you want to think long term.

 

The same can be said if there isn't any divisions, for instance the more teams you have, the higher the likelihood that the skill range will broaden, leading to more and more lopsided games, which also result in a lack of motivation from the players involved (Again, a wild generalisation but for the most part it is true. If you put up a poll of which type of game players prefer "Close or a blow out", I would predict with quite a bit of confidence that 'most' would go with the close game option). 

 

I'm kind of rattling off into tangents but since I'm an undergrad in psychology, this kind of stuff (social psych) is interesting for me. Anyway, my main point is that going forward any decision made should be made with quite a bit of research (Eg: Who to assign as 'commissioner' (Billy hates 'TGMA' ) is a pretty big deal as he'll / she'll be the figure head of the league and as such should be very approachable amongst other things) and not on a whim, however a certain air of authority is needed otherwise people start pushing the boundaries / challenging said authority.

Edited October 20, 2015 by MartindalexC

[Billy44205]

Also STOP USING THE TERM TGMA, PLEASE! It makes no sense whatsoever to call the people running a tournament "The General Managers Association". I have always hated that acronym.

Please.

[MovaaN]

For promotions maybe offer teams eligible for promotion a veto possibility. For example you can veto your first promotion chance if you don't feel confident/comfortable to go to higher division. And every team has 1 veto per division so some people don't misuse it endlessly. Like you play in div3 and end up on 3rd place. You can veto your promosion and play another season in Div3. But after that you don't have veto for Div3.

And after relegation you get possibly lost veto back. Team plays div3, 3rd place --> veto --> new season in div3 3rd place -->promotion, next season on div2, second to last and relegation (if not enough vetoes used in div3) --> next season in Div3 + you have another veto to use in Div3

Any thoughts on this?

[MartindalexC]

For promotions maybe offer teams eligible for promotion a veto possibility. For example you can veto your first promotion chance if you don't feel confident/comfortable to go to higher division. And every team has 1 veto per division so some people don't misuse it endlessly. Like you play in div3 and end up on 3rd place. You can veto your promosion and play another season in Div3. But after that you don't have veto for Div3.

And after relegation you get possibly lost veto back. Team plays div3, 3rd place --> veto --> new season in div3 3rd place -->promotion, next season on div2, second to last and relegation (if not enough vetoes used in div3) --> next season in Div3 + you have another veto to use in Div3

Any thoughts on this?

Problem with your idea is that it completely undermines the whole idea of a promotion/relegation system, atleast in my opinion. Divisions are made to evenly distribute the skill level of many teams so that the skill range is maintained in each subsequent division. If each team has a 'veto' it means that the 3rd placed team could decide that rather than to challenge themselves in a higher division, they could sit back and dominate those in their division atm. However by veto'ing the promotion for their team the next team must be able to get promoted, this just opens the door for a large skill range to develop not only in the division above but in the current division. (Which is something people should be opposed against, a larger skill gap means more landslide games)

Additionally think about this hypothetical, if every team from the 3rd placed team all the way to the 20th placed team all used their veto in one season, based on the idea that they don't want to advance only to get dominated in the division above, what stops the 21st team from advancing because the teams who all finished higher in the season don't want to take the opportunity to move up? This hypothetical 21st overall team would get beyond smashed in the higher division, leading to lower parity in the division (Especially so if one team is the proverbial whipping boy)

If you play well enough to finish in a promotion spot in a division, you should get promoted regardless of whether you feel you are 'up to it' or not, purely from a parity point of view. 

Furthermore your reasoning for why one team wouldn't want to get promoted is another perfect example of why divisions are inherently flawed for online gaming like this. There is nothing stopping teams from disbanding if they get promoted and don't want to lose more than they win, then reforming a new team to default to the old division (This is where an individual player rating system would help immensely, kind of what Billy mentioned earlier however such a system would be extremely subjective and unreliable imo).

Finally, in regards to parity I think we will never reach a full blown equal league. With teams like Northern Stars, Sjukstugan, Synergy Hockey etc, they may be a bit of ambiguity about who at the end will win the league, but ultimately it will always involve the same few teams (Deviation will obviously occur but for the most part you could have a very good guess about who the final will be made up of). So trying to make a league, where only a select few can / will win, attractive to those who are just not skilled enough is a very tall order. 

[Kenu]

Wow, I'm blown away by the quality of the discussion we are having here! Well done guys!

@Billy44205: We will not call anyone TGMA at NHL Gamer and that was decided before your outburst.

 

I will have to return to discuss this more once I can find the time, but here's the real question regarding the divisional system we are discussing here

- What will happen if a Division 1 team (or whichever level really) wants to take a break and not play for one season? Can skip one season? Will be dropped one division? Have to start over from the lowest division?

[Billy44205]

If NOS takes a break and when they come back you have them play in lower divisions, your format is wrong imo. 

We are talking about detailed tournament specs right now but I would like to submit a general concept once more. I think divisions are cool but I would like there to be in parallel or for the last tournament or whenever, a big Cup open to everyone with many small groups and then a big-ass playoff tree. I think different formats will keep things fresher for everyone and I think  it's good for the lower teams to have a chance to meet the top teams in a competitive format somewhere. Kind of like league and cup format in football. 

I have also wondered about the possibibilities of doing a Finland-Sweden superseries or some kind of all-star game but I am not sure this community is mature enough to handle that, and also bu definition it is not for everyone so...

[Dexrion]

- What will happen if a Division 1 team (or whichever level really) wants to take a break and not play for one season? Can skip one season? Will be dropped one division? Have to start over from the lowest division?

They loose their spot, the best team in the div 2 will get the position, its their choice to take a break. For each break you take, you get demoted one division.

Edited October 20, 2015 by Dexrion

[MartindalexC]

- What will happen if a Division 1 team (or whichever level really) wants to take a break and not play for one season? Can skip one season? Will be dropped one division? Have to start over from the lowest division?

They loose their spot, the best team in the div 2 will get the position, its their choice to take a break. For each break you take, you get demoted one division.

(Insert Billy's example here)

But if NOS (Or anything team that is clearly good enough to be in Div 1, not just NOS) do decide to leave for a season, they should be put in division 2 to absolutely smash teams? Now don't mistake what I'm saying as though I'm defending teams 'taking breaks', far from it infact, however being so firm with the rules in this case will do more harm than good imo. 

Edited October 20, 2015 by MartindalexC