My Controversial Opinion: “The current league format is flawed”

KLONDIKE, CP Army Headquarters – Our community has seen multiple changes and innovations to the ‘league’ format since it was first introduced several years ago. Is the current system flawed, or are we asking for something that is unattainable? 

“The current league format is flawed.”

Superhero123, CPA Legend & Army HQ Administrator

A man known throughout the community for his private server developing, Superhero123 is one of the older and more experienced faces that has never shied from sharing his thoughts or debating a hot topic. To understand more about his view on the current league format, I asked him to expand on his statement with an explanation:

“This current league format generates lots of wars and fighting in the first 2 months, but then one alliance conquers everything or only remains due to all the other armies losing their wars. This results in the whole map becoming stagnant since alliance members don’t fight against each other. Personally, I consider wars and battles the essence of CPA and therefore find any concept that leads to such situations flawed. Instead, maps should reset and they should do so often. Or even better: set up a league system similar to the NBA and have seasonal leagues, with everyone fighting against each other to receive points. At the end of the season, the army with most points wins the league. This ensures you ALWAYS have fighting and that the best armies have to be CONSISTENTLY good – which in my eyes should be rewarded a lot.”

Superhero does address some good points here, as both the CP Army Network and CP Army HQ maps have experienced periods of inactivity. To encourage further discussion, I challenged him with the following: “The current system does have seasons, although not in the NBA style format, and the map does reset every two ‘series’ (half year) – is this not enough?”

“I think that right now, CPAHQ’s seasons are way too long in duration but are a good start – this ongoing doesn’t end until APRIL, and things are already stagnant. Having said that, part of the reason for this is because we don’t have every army under one map, which would help solve this issue. When an alliance conquers 60% (number is up for debate), the map should be reset. Or if a situation occurs in which there is not any major fighting for more than a few weeks, the map should then also be reset with no victor declared. The exact specifics of the correct way to do this should be discussed and planned in detail, but the aim should be to always have fights.”

With different league formats historically having often been criticised across the community, I was interested to know if he believed a “perfect” league system was achievable or realistic:

“I’m not saying it has to work perfectly – only to essentially require constant fights. By constant, I mean 1 major battle per week per army. But that is what I would find interesting, and I’m not leading an army right now. The army leaders should decide what they want.”

Superhero’s view on the league format is certainly interesting, and it is clear he doesn’t think the one currently in place encourages enough battles, war or fighting to occur. What do you think about his replacement league proposal? Would you like to see this, or something similar, implemented? 


More Information

Filed under: Column | Tagged: , ,

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

We'll never share your email with anyone else.