I stated my opinion not in response to anyone in particular but at the idea in general. You address someone specifically it's usually with a specific response, you might as well walk behind me and breathe heavily through your mouth if you're just gonna state you disagree, same kind of awkward "alright then..." Also there's no irony, it's just you being difficult.
I addressed you with a specific answer, namely that I disagree with your opinion. Since your post didn't have any other content whatsoever it's difficult to do anything else (you might as well run into a room full of people discussing something and yell: The Martians did it), except nothing at all, in hindsight that probably would have been better. Of course I could also have written a wall of text discussing arguments and possible counter-arguments why I think your opinion is false, hoping that one of those arguments is the one you had in mind when choosing to state your opinion to noone specific and nothing else, but noone wants to read that and I don't want to write it.
You know what I'm talking about, I think what you're asking for is more explanation - just ask in future. The idea initially brought up was increasing the minimum numbers of sets for each player - that's it being forced on players and captains. It should be avoided because when you limit a team's capability to pick who they want you're limiting their potential. Telling someone to fck off isn't really relevant, although always enjoyable.
No, I didn't know what you were talking about, I thought it was related to the 10 vs 10 thing and was therefore confused. I don't care about the potential of captains and don't know why anyone else should, except for the captains themselves -
captains shouldn't be cuddled to the disadvantage of players willing to play. Telling someone to **** off is relevant because if he listens and leaves, you don't have to let him play a single round. That kinda makes you an **** of course but at least the teams capability isn't hampered.
Indeed, which is why in a tournament every effort should be made to make non-play based variables the same, such as ensuring people play the same factions. The numbers of players per set changing depending on the whims of commanders is one such variable I'd rather see kept the same, feel free to disagree.
If you're a commander you have it in your hands to only play 8vs8 (or 7vs7, or 6vs6 - for the last two see the above). So there actually isn't any variable. If both captains agree to play with more people I'm pretty sure they do so because they think that would unfold the full capacity of their team - not allowing this option could seriously harm the respective captain's potential.
Since there are no arguments whatsoever in this discussion, I don't want to clutter this thread anymore but I'm more than willing to answer to your next (potential and optional) respond in this thread through PM. I thoroughly enjoy discussion of such theoretical nature.
