BoomstickS3000
Baron
neither.Tallie said:This is the same as ENL or is it still ENL with another name
neither.Tallie said:This is the same as ENL or is it still ENL with another name
Not unless they really want to take that rat thing to another level.Andrej1 said:captain lust said:As for money in this tournament, I'm not sure right now. If there is any, it won't be more than a sweetener just to try it out and make things a little more interesting.
AE players can stop working
I've just posted it for scrutinising right now. I'll open signups tomorrow or something (I'll say at 12:00 BST, if you want to make sure that you sign up as early as possible). Signing up will involve full player registration though. No ID posting or copypasting. If you want to start sending players to the servers now, I'll accept anyone who goes on today as a registrant.Maynd said:We sign up in this thread or what?
Both of those options are the same... so I'm just going to say no. This is a separate competition.Tallie said:This is the same as ENL or is it still ENL with another name
I don't know if that's necessarily the case but I guess we may or may not find out.Cleric_Johnson said:Without money nobody will play those matches. You know that. Unless your using money then people wont fight them. Nobody wants to fight an extra load of matches for the express purpose of finishing second.
The crucial point is that if a team is knocked out in the first round by the team that goes on to win the tournament, it's potentially quite difficult to work out if they're any good at all. This system just gives a second chance to teams that might have gotten a bit of a raw deal with the draw.ModusTollens said:What's the difference between a match of the best teams in the 1st round opposed to one in the last round - especially since it's (kind of) a knock-out tournament and in your system the two (supposedly) best teams will also only play in the finale per chance.
I'm not sure why the negativity. If it seems like it wasn't worth it after it's tried and ends up being a load of hassle then it won't be used again. Personally I just think it's a neat solution to a problem.ModusTollens said:I still think that's a waste of time and effort for an uninteresting and more or less tiny improvement of objectivity (which is in some scenarios even totally insignificant).
It's not like this would be the first time prizes have been introduced to a competition. US duel tournaments, Nations Cup, WFaS duel tournaments. None of those went up in flames because of them. Again if prizes are tried out and it causes a load of issues then it can be called an experiment failed and we can move on but if they work out, I think it could be a good way of bringing things forward for the community.ModusTollens said:Or the opposite.
Because modus. But with this template you suggested a 1st and 2nd place are logical, the 3rd place can't really be decided with it in my opinion, nor would it be needed.captain lust said:I'm not sure why the negativity. If it seems like it wasn't worth it after it's tried and ends up being a load of hassle then it won't be used again. Personally I just think it's a neat solution to a problem.ModusTollens said:I still think that's a waste of time and effort for an uninteresting and more or less tiny improvement of objectivity (which is in some scenarios even totally insignificant).
It can be decided to a reasonable degree. At worst, 3rd place has won their half of the bracket, which is acceptable arguably.Arch3r said:Because modus. But with this template you suggested a 1st and 2nd place are logical, the 3rd place can't really be decided with it in my opinion, nor would it be needed.
A team loses 2-0 (with no rounds won, seldom having a kill) against the future winner, opposed to a 2-1 with a tie-breaker - and everything in between.captain lust said:The crucial point is that if a team is knocked out in the first round by the team that goes on to win the tournament, it's potentially quite difficult to work out if they're any good at all. This system just gives a second chance to teams that might have gotten a bit of a raw deal with the draw.ModusTollens said:What's the difference between a match of the best teams in the 1st round opposed to one in the last round - especially since it's (kind of) a knock-out tournament and in your system the two (supposedly) best teams will also only play in the finale per chance.
There's no negativity in my opinion, I just don't see the reason for this modus operandi since I don't see an early eliminated team as a problem (in a knock-out tournament). If you need it to organise seeded tournaments in the future it would at least have a purpose - but you didn't say so and I'd still think of it as a waste of time (for more or less the same reasons).captain lust said:I'm not sure why the negativity. If it seems like it wasn't worth it after it's tried and ends up being a load of hassle then it won't be used again. Personally I just think it's a neat solution to a problem.ModusTollens said:I still think that's a waste of time and effort for an uninteresting and more or less tiny improvement of objectivity (which is in some scenarios even totally insignificant).
As long as the baaing of how an involvement of prizes "brings things forward" is reiterated, I'll voice the opposite opinion (with the same lack of thoughtfulness).captain lust said:It's not like this would be the first time prizes have been introduced to a competition. US duel tournaments, Nations Cup, WFaS duel tournaments. None of those went up in flames because of them. Again if prizes are tried out and it causes a load of issues then it can be called an experiment failed and we can move on but if they work out, I think it could be a good way of bringing things forward for the community.ModusTollens said:Or the opposite.
Golradir said:I'm stuck between 2 things
Are these 'things' called 'women'?Golradir said:I'm stuck between 2 things