I think it's a great idea.Alyss said:I came with an idea and I would like to hear your opinion about it without trash talking if possible.
Captains of all team (or a player of the team) and Nexoner would judge players in 3 categories (Pros which is the highest category for players who made finals and semi finals and played in it (not just on the roster), Mentors for experienced players who made major tourneys but never reached semi-final but were in knockout stage or in top 4 of group B if there was a group B and beginners/novices)
Teams could have only 1 pro, 2-3 mentors and the number of novices they want.
Then during a match, the pro can only play with novices (4 novices and the pro during the match) to avoid 4 skilled players and one novice and 2 mentors can play with 3 novices so there are no team with 10 players on roster and only experienced players playing and benching novices.
I know we could work more on this system but its just an idea and I know it is a bit late for this to come in this tourney when all teams already played.
[Minor League] Questions & Suggestions
- Thread starter Nexoner
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
yes, lets get more old experienced players into "rookie"competitions. whats the point.Alyss said:I came with an idea and I would like to hear your opinion about it without trash talking if possible
Captains of all team (or a player of the team) and Nexoner would judge players in 3 categories (Pros which is the highest category for players who made finals and semi finals and played in it (not just on the roster), Mentors for experienced players who made major tourneys but never reached semi-final but were in knockout stage or in top 4 of group B if there was a group B and beginners/novices)
Teams could have only 1 pro, 2-3 mentors and the number of novices they want.
Then during a match, the pro can only play with novices (4 novices and the pro during the match) to avoid 4 skilled players and one novice and 2 mentors can play with 3 novices so there are no team with 10 players on roster and only experienced players playing and benching novices.
I know we could work more on this system but its just an idea and I know it is a bit late for this to come in this tourney when all teams already played.
Well if you read carefully you can see that with that system people who add only experienced players in their team wont be able to play because 4 or 3 must be rookiesApfel said:yes, lets get more old experienced players into "rookie"competitions. whats the point.Alyss said:I came with an idea and I would like to hear your opinion about it without trash talking if possible
Captains of all team (or a player of the team) and Nexoner would judge players in 3 categories (Pros which is the highest category for players who made finals and semi finals and played in it (not just on the roster), Mentors for experienced players who made major tourneys but never reached semi-final but were in knockout stage or in top 4 of group B if there was a group B and beginners/novices)
Teams could have only 1 pro, 2-3 mentors and the number of novices they want.
Then during a match, the pro can only play with novices (4 novices and the pro during the match) to avoid 4 skilled players and one novice and 2 mentors can play with 3 novices so there are no team with 10 players on roster and only experienced players playing and benching novices.
I know we could work more on this system but its just an idea and I know it is a bit late for this to come in this tourney when all teams already played.
That is quite hard to implement as well as it sounds pretty unnecessary.
It would require an immense amount of work to actually sort all players into these groups which I doubt anyone would want to do. Moreover in some cases you wouldn't even be able to do that because of some screenshots missing from tournies or lack of information at all.
Secondly, I don't really see the point of this. The idea of mentor in general is to help rookie players figure out their mistakes, point them in the right direction when it comes to competitive matches and games. There is no reason to add extra "not so pro" players imo.
The current system is actually quite fine from what I see.
It would require an immense amount of work to actually sort all players into these groups which I doubt anyone would want to do. Moreover in some cases you wouldn't even be able to do that because of some screenshots missing from tournies or lack of information at all.
Secondly, I don't really see the point of this. The idea of mentor in general is to help rookie players figure out their mistakes, point them in the right direction when it comes to competitive matches and games. There is no reason to add extra "not so pro" players imo.
The current system is actually quite fine from what I see.
Alyss' solution is a good one, has a few flaws but can be easy to implement before hand, splitting players into categories based on how much they played on how far they got to is a really simple task. I also like the idea of depending on how experienced you are, the less mediocre players can play in that round. Good job Alyss. This should be considered for future tournaments but definitely not now. Ignore Rey, anything that makes tournaments better but involves extra effort is considered a bad idea by his standard.
EDIT: Another system is that depending on how experienced the mentor is then it also determine how many sets that player can play. Having Scar on one team and Tallie on the other then scar could carry all sets since he's able to play them all. If the point of a mentor is to only just help the team out then they shouldn't play at all or they have to make compromises. No fun a good player carrying a **** team.
EDIT: Another system is that depending on how experienced the mentor is then it also determine how many sets that player can play. Having Scar on one team and Tallie on the other then scar could carry all sets since he's able to play them all. If the point of a mentor is to only just help the team out then they shouldn't play at all or they have to make compromises. No fun a good player carrying a **** team.
Fietta said:Alyss' solution is a good one, has a few flaws but can be easy to implement before hand, splitting players into categories based on how much they played on how far they got to is a really simple task. I also like the idea of depending on how experienced you are, the less mediocre players can play in that round. Good job Alyss. This should be considered for future tournaments but definitely not now. Ignore Rey, anything that makes tournaments better but involves extra effort is considered a bad idea by his standard.
Put aside the work you need to do it and talk about what that system brings into a tournament.
What advantages does that system bring exactly over the current one, and why is the one we have right need to be replaced in the first place?
Rey' said:Fietta said:Alyss' solution is a good one, has a few flaws but can be easy to implement before hand, splitting players into categories based on how much they played on how far they got to is a really simple task. I also like the idea of depending on how experienced you are, the less mediocre players can play in that round. Good job Alyss. This should be considered for future tournaments but definitely not now. Ignore Rey, anything that makes tournaments better but involves extra effort is considered a bad idea by his standard.
Put aside the work you need to do it and talk about what that system brings into a tournament.
What advantages does that system bring exactly over the current one, and why is the one we have right need to be replaced in the first place?
Scar on one team considered a mentor, Tallie on another considered a mentor. There's some players who are really good and have never made knockouts who play. So here's a scenario:
Scar as mentor with mediocre players.
Tallie as mentor with poor players.
That to me is enough reason to change the system. Scar could 1v5 their entire team, If said team were created. Read my EDIT on the above post too.
Fietta said:
Say new system implemented.
Scar - reached top 1 in multiple tournaments, considered a "Pro" player. Can 1v5 entire team, blah blah.
Lucifer - reached semis in wnl6, considered a "Pro" player.
Same with Ciiges and Me, or Scar and Fietta or many other different matchups even between so called "Pro" players.
What I am saying here is that even if you do this and create another level of players in the system, it still won't cancel the skill gap between pro players. It just how it is and how it will always be.
The only way to avoid this is to subjectively split players into tiers based on one's opinion, but that is not the way to run a tournament. Might as well use Bendetto points then.
Tournaments such as the NFL splits players into tiers, it's the best way to run a tournament like this for balance reasons. In this case highest tier mentors means they'll play like one set, medium tier mentors two sets etc. Clearly in this tournament there's a lot of mentors who shouldn't really be mentors because they're not that good but may still know the game meaning they can play 4 sets but for players like Ciiges, Scar, you and I have insane game knowledge and could quite easily 1vX players meaning we'd play one set since our training to the team would be far superior to that of a medium - low tier mentor. Keeping one mentor is a must but how much they play should change.
Why is there a need to balance teams? Some teams will be better than others; that's part of competition. If a team gets a player like Ciiges to carry them, then that's them winning at team building. Imagine handicapping AE, because they are better than the rest. Preposterous.
The idea of removing mentors as players/in general is something I can agree with, but don't punish teams for getting better players.
The idea of removing mentors as players/in general is something I can agree with, but don't punish teams for getting better players.
Watly said:
Some teams will indeed be better than others, but that's nothing to do with the team signing up, that's the mentor. 'Winning team building' is literally the poorest argument against balancing. Go home. AE are a TEAM, they consist of a lot of top players. The Mentors aren't in the team as such, they're mentoring them and since this is suppose to be noobs against noobs it makes no sense to call it a minor league with stupidly OP players without giving them (depending on their skill) a blockade, again, another poor argument against balancing. How would the Minor league be fun for new players knowing it's not actually them winning, it's the mentor winning?
Nexoner stop ignoring meCiiges said:
Anyone who thinks the mentoring system ain't **** please look at the Senate match ty
Fietta said:
I would really love to see a tournament hosted by Fietta, where there are no flaws, everyone is satisfied, no **** system is used and everything is fair. Maybe someday, maybe someday...
Rey' said:
My tournament would be ran perfectly and you know this...
