[ECS] Suggestions

Users who are viewing this thread

Folms said:
Duels don't settle for anything.
I'm not biased. I see duels as a waste of time, maybe because I suck at them :razz:
But nevertheless, they do not determine anything. Some people are absolutely awful at duelling but great in a team, and it just puts them on the spot.
Sure the art of duelling should be awarded in some way or another, but that's why we have 3 people wearing helardic mail on Ludus. In my opinion, duelling needs to be kept seperate from major TEAM tournaments. Of course if two teams agree to have it duelled, then, sure who cares? But under no circumstances a team should be forced to duel and then to be called cowards.

Once again I fail to see the problem. I mean getting called cowards is hardly the end of the world and I expect most people can live with a bit of silly smack talk. No team is forced to duel so I don't really know what you're getting at.
 
sotamursu123 said:
i just think dueling should be kept completely separate from a team tournament. not even for a tie breaker.
I totally agree with Sota, battles are battles, and duels are duels.
 
That's exactly what we're saying. Majority (if not all) teams will not duel, therefore I don't see a place for this rule in a first place. Having one rule is enough, there is no need to over complicate things with different rules dealing with the same issue.

In my opinion of course.
 
Folms said:
That's exactly what we're saying. Majority (if not all) teams will not duel, therefore I don't see a place for this rule in a first place. Having one rule is enough, there is no need to over complicate things with different rules dealing with the same issue.

In my opinion of course.

What? If the majority of teams don't want to then they won't. Still failing to see the problem. Unless everyone's turned in to chimpanzees I don't see how it's particularly complicated.
 
And that's an advantage in a way.
I observe matches, hence I have a theoretical opinion on the ruleset.
If you aren't taking any theory in consideration that I would strongly advice you to take a proper look at your decision making.
 
Folms said:
And that's an advantage in a way.
I observe matches, hence I have a theoretical opinion on the ruleset.
If you aren't taking any theory in consideration that I would strongly advice you to take a proper look at your decision making.

I don't see how that correlates.
Spectating in these matches is a pretty hard task due to camera restrictions as well.
don't take it srs
 
Folms said:
And that's an advantage in a way.
I observe matches, hence I have a theoretical opinion on the ruleset.
If you aren't taking any theory in consideration that I would strongly advice you to take a proper look at your decision making.
How does observing a match give you any advantage in an opinion on the ruleset instead of just reading it?
Perhaps reading it requires a bit of imagination to see how it pans out, but cmon Folms, it's not like people reacting is this thread don't play matches or don't observe matches.
 
Folms said:
That's exactly what we're saying. Majority (if not all) teams will not duel, therefore I don't see a place for this rule in a first place. Having one rule is enough, there is no need to over complicate things with different rules dealing with the same issue.

In my opinion of course.

Tbh its not that hard to understand: you want to play a duel for the tie-breaker, if yes you ask your opponent, if not, you just do the normal method. Where are the difficulties?
 
Duken said:
Folms said:
That's exactly what we're saying. Majority (if not all) teams will not duel, therefore I don't see a place for this rule in a first place. Having one rule is enough, there is no need to over complicate things with different rules dealing with the same issue.

In my opinion of course.

Tbh its not that hard to understand: you want to play a duel for the tie-breaker, if yes you ask your opponent, if not, you just do the normal method. Where are the difficults?

Because it may disrupt the true purpose of the tournament, or smth. What if instead of dueling it was a horse race from corner to corner of the map :?:
 
If teams play 16 rounds (generally an hour or so of gameplay, plus breaks) and the scores say they're even, then why no go for a duel? Football has penalty shootouts... it doesn't really have a lot to do with what goes on in normal time but there needs to be a way to pick a winner, in the end.
 
Dueling is an option that people can choose from. Teams can duel if they please so but dont have to. Since this option doesnt effect the rules/tie breakers in a negative way it would simply be irrational to take this option away unless you enjoy limiting yourself for no reason.
 
No difficulties. :smile: To bring this discussion to an end, dueling will remain an option for tie-breakers. No team is forced to duel, if a team doesn't want to duel please accept their decision without further comment. In case you have any further questions regarding this topic, throw me a PM.
 
it would be fun to Watch the 8 vs 8 players dueling : i mean each player vs player, the winner is team with more kills.
example team 1 with 5 kills beat team 2 with 3 kills
This way the more skilled team wins, and the overall result still depend on the average team skill, none on a pro duelist shoulders
also it would be a fast way to end a match
This would be like football penalties exciting beer and stuff  :cool: yay entertainments
 
Back
Top Bottom