[SL] General Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback

Currently Viewing (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Best answers
0





You got any suggestion, you can say it here. You are, as usual, expected to be all nice and well while discussing. :smile:
 

dopey

Duke
M&BWBNW
Best answers
0
- (2) Captains must play every member present to a match for at least 1 set.
Why not (at least) two sets instead of just one? Pretty sure if a player gets played only one set each week they might get slightly pissed. After all there are only ~10 players in each team so it shouldn't be any problem to allow everyone to play more equally.
 
Best answers
0
Dopey said:
- (2) Captains must play every member present to a match for at least 1 set.
Why not (at least) two sets instead of just one? Pretty sure if a player gets played only one set each week they might get slightly pissed. After all there are only ~10 players in each team so it shouldn't be any problem to allow everyone to play more equally.
It is quite a generic rule to be honest. It is in order so every player is guaranteed to play at least, but it is up to Captain in the end to play what he/she wants. Right now, a team consists of players varying in different levels. So, it is understandable for a captain should he decide to play his best and bench lower seeded players. But, rule makes sure these players also get to the fun at least for a set.

As a matter of fact, I will have a word with other admins to see about your suggestion.
 

ModusTollens

Baron
M&BWBWF&S
Best answers
0
Dawnut said:
I just wanna thank you for all the work that gets put into this
First of all: this.
Efe Karacar said:
It is quite a generic rule to be honest. It is in order so every player is guaranteed to play at least, but it is up to Captain in the end to play what he/she wants. Right now, a team consists of players varying in different levels. So, it is understandable for a captain should he decide to play his best and bench lower seeded players. But, rule makes sure these players also get to the fun at least for a set.
You could also (in addition) raise the maximum of allowed players to 10 vs 10, then everyone would be able to play every round at least in theory - and the captains wouldn't need to have that much of a bad conscience.
 
Best answers
0
The current rules say minimum 6v6 or more if both agree, right? What if 8 turn up on both teams but one captain decides he wants his best to mainly play so disagree to a standard match? This is unfair. It should be a minimum of 6 but increases as/if both participating teams have more players available at the start of the match. If that makes sense. Also sorry if this is discussed elsewhere or I missed something similar.

And yes thank you for organising this, to all the admin team.
 

Roberta

Master Knight
Best answers
0
- (4) A commander can choose 1 single player for their team.
I never got to pick my player. One of my team members had to actually tell me I was the captain. Rip.
 

yourNotAlone

Sergeant Knight at Arms
Best answers
0
MyrmidonAchilles said:
The current rules say minimum 6v6 or more if both agree, right? What if 8 turn up on both teams but one captain decides he wants his best to mainly play so disagree to a standard match?
As you said:
MyrmidonAchilles said:
It should be a minimum of 6 but increases as/if both participating teams have more players available at the start of the match.
This is how it works. 6v6 minimum, if both teams have more players available it increases. Also the captain has to play every player at least one set.

Dawnut said:
I just wanna thank you for all the work that gets put into this for free
+1
 

ModusTollens

Baron
M&BWBWF&S
Best answers
0
The wording of match rule (1) could still be seen as a bit unnecessarily confusing. May I propose something along the line:

Matches are supposed to be played 8 vs 8.
If a team can't field enough players a minimum of 6 vs 6 is allowed.
[If both teams can field more players a maximum of 10 vs 10 is allowed, as long as the captains agree.]

Some clarification concerning the consequences of not being able to field 6 players could be nice too (although I suppose those should be obvious anyway).

Since more or less none of the bans/picks were done according to the rules, which is the 1st map supposed to be played - the one picked by Team 1 or 2?
 

OurGloriousLeader

Grandmaster Knight
Best answers
0
Tournaments should prioritise good play not babysitting bad players so they get enough rounds. Also, forcing 10vs10 will simply have issues when people have to leave, dc etc, having some sets 10v10, then 9v9, 10 again, etc.
 

ModusTollens

Baron
M&BWBWF&S
Best answers
0
OurGloriousLeader said:
Tournaments should prioritise good play not babysitting bad players so they get enough rounds.
I disagree. Opinionated one-liners are fun though. :shifty:
OurGloriousLeader said:
Also, forcing 10vs10 will simply have issues when people have to leave, dc etc, having some sets 10v10, then 9v9, 10 again, etc.
Those issues are the same no matter how many people are allowed to play, especially when considering the number of players per set in a format were the allowed minimum and standard number of players differentiate - personally I don't see the problem of playing sets with a different number of players (as long as both teams have an equal one ofc). The forced format is 8vs8 anyway, an optional 10vs10 wouldn't change anything in that regard.
 
Best answers
0
I think that rule is okay cause it's a good way for less skilled players to get experience playing with and versus better players. The goal in every tournament is to win it, yes, but I consider this one special as it also looks for fun. No clans are participating, just random teams filled up with random players  who don't play together reguarly. It's not like any clan's fame will be questioned nor it is a good opportunity to improve the team chemistry and performance since the team will no longer exist in a few weeks. There are many tournaments in which teams put their best players in and others get benched. This particular tournament's approach, which encourages  everyone's participation above competition is, in my opinion, a wise choice and it will bring a nice atmosphere without the tension and drama of the rest of the tournaments!
 

Silvernj

Master Knight
Best answers
0
OurGloriousLeader said:
Tournaments should prioritise good play not babysitting bad players so they get enough rounds. Also, forcing 10vs10 will simply have issues when people have to leave, dc etc, having some sets 10v10, then 9v9, 10 again, etc.
That's hillarious how you're trying to bench yourself
 

OurGloriousLeader

Grandmaster Knight
Best answers
0
ModusTollens said:
OurGloriousLeader said:
Tournaments should prioritise good play not babysitting bad players so they get enough rounds.
I disagree. Opinionated one-liners are fun though. :shifty:
More fun than stating "I disagree" with no reasons and a passive aggressive comment I'm sure. I find protecting the less-played pretty patronising too - it's fine that it's there I guess (most captains will play people one set anyway) but forcing more playtime should be avoided.

OurGloriousLeader said:
Also, forcing 10vs10 will simply have issues when people have to leave, dc etc, having some sets 10v10, then 9v9, 10 again, etc.
Those issues are the same no matter how many people are allowed to play, especially when considering the number of players per set in a format were the allowed minimum and standard number of players differentiate - personally I don't see the problem of playing sets with a different number of players (as long as both teams have an equal one ofc). The forced format is 8vs8 anyway, an optional 10vs10 wouldn't change anything in that regard.
The issues are not the same, 10v10 would involve the entire roster of a team and having different numbers of people per set is just messy, pretty likely that differing player numbers will change tactics and benefit some teams more than others. The minimum 6v6 is an acknowledgement that in some teams people will be less active or not have the breadth of players other teams have, trying to aim for 10v10 just to get everyone to play is wishful thinking ignoring the logistical problems.
 

ModusTollens

Baron
M&BWBWF&S
Best answers
0
OurGloriousLeader said:
ModusTollens said:
OurGloriousLeader said:
Tournaments should prioritise good play not babysitting bad players so they get enough rounds.
I disagree. Opinionated one-liners are fun though. :shifty:
More fun than stating "I disagree" with no reasons and a passive aggressive comment I'm sure.
You only stated your opinion too, that was the whole point. I thought the irony was blatant, my bad.
OurGloriousLeader said:
I find protecting the less-played pretty patronising too - it's fine that it's there I guess (most captains will play people one set anyway) but forcing more playtime should be avoided.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Why should forcing more playtime be avoided, who is being forced and how and why can't it be avoided anyway - just tell people you don't want to play (more than one set) to **** off.
OurGloriousLeader said:
The issues are not the same, 10v10 would involve the entire roster of a team and having different numbers of people per set is just messy, pretty likely that differing player numbers will change tactics and benefit some teams more than others. The minimum 6v6 is an acknowledgement that in some teams people will be less active or not have the breadth of players other teams have, trying to aim for 10v10 just to get everyone to play is wishful thinking ignoring the logistical problems.
Noones trying to aim for 10 vs 10, it's just an option which could be used if you and the other captain agree to do so, for the highly unlikely case that both teams have their full roster at disposal. There's no logistical problem involved because there just isn't any kind of problem to begin with, there's only a problem if you don't have 6 players.
I personally never experienced any problems with changing player numbers per set.
That changing anything may benefit one team more than another is almost a tautology, and could be said about everything including the map pool, the seeding system, allowing Italians being captain, etc.
 

OurGloriousLeader

Grandmaster Knight
Best answers
0
ModusTollens said:
You only stated your opinion too, that was the whole point. I thought the irony was blatant, my bad.
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.

OurGloriousLeader said:
I find protecting the less-played pretty patronising too - it's fine that it's there I guess (most captains will play people one set anyway) but forcing more playtime should be avoided.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Why should forcing more playtime be avoided, who is being forced and how and why can't it be avoided anyway - just tell people you don't want to play (more than one set) to **** off.
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.

I personally never experienced any problems with changing player numbers per set.
I have.

That changing anything may benefit one team more than another is almost a tautology, and could be said about everything including the map pool, the seeding system, allowing Italians being captain, etc.
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.
 

ModusTollens

Baron
M&BWBWF&S
Best answers
0
OurGloriousLeader said:
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.

OurGloriousLeader said:
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.

OurGloriousLeader said:
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.
 

Roberta

Master Knight
Best answers
0
Since the tournament is for fun I think every person should play equally on the teams. My players will all at least play three sets, unless they themselves ask to be sat for someone else. But each captain should be able to make their own choice.

I did have one question though. What stops a captain from only telling six of his players about a match so that it is easier for them to win a 6v6? It seems like some of the teams would have a much easier time with a 6v6 than they would an 8v8.
 
Best answers
0
Nothing. Just don't and play it like supposed 8v8 format. Besides, players have the right to complain about this in private. (E.g if captain is not calling certain players to a match)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.