[SL3] General Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback

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.​
 

KaneMaB

Grandmaster Knight
Best answers
0
KaneMaB said:
RN_Pendragon said:
There should be 1 or 2 trade rights for every team.
This. As long as it is balanced it can create better teams and make all captains adjust their teams a bit more to their liking/playstyle.
 

Roberta_Baratheon

Master Knight
Best answers
0
If there are any captains looking for a scrim this weekend let me know. I tried adding the ones I didn't have but no response yet  :ohdear:
 

~Milky

Sergeant
Best answers
0
So im going to have to drop due to inactivity, and Sota wants to play (Didnt get in SL). Any way we can swap? either way idc cuz i cant play
 
Best answers
0
~Milky said:
So im going to have to drop due to inactivity, and Sota wants to play (Didnt get in SL). Any way we can swap? either way idc cuz i cant play
Please write these kind of things in rosters thread. We will see what we have in the reserved first.
 

Fietta

buıʇʇǝs uoıʇɔǝɹıp ʞɔɐʇʇɐ
Subforum Moderator
M&BNWWF&SWBVC
Best answers
0
Looking at the group stage, why do teams play the same team twice and not other teams once?

Why not make it 3 weeks so we can play against every team instead of 4 weeks where we play only 2 teams and we play against them twice???
 

Scar

Prussian Immortal
Marquis
Best answers
0
In your rules you wrote:
(2) If two teams fail to play their match within the deadline, they can ask for extension or default win with legit reasons.
Can you elobrate on what you understand as "legit reasons" for future reference please?

Edit: Just for clarity, I'm happy to play as many matches as possible in this tournament, but I think some clarity on the rules would be nice in case of future disputes.
 

Watly

Grandmaster Knight
WB
Best answers
0
In general, the "legit reasons" can be defined as the opponent team putting in insufficient effort to make the match happen, putting an unreasonable strain on the other team.

Now, you can see your case properly falls under the rule: CarpeDiem didn't even bother to inform your team he wouldn't show up. As such, you would normally have gotten a default.

Due to the circumstances however, we decided that the ordeal cannot really be blamed on Carpe's teammates and thus decided to not give out a default. As such circumstances should no longer be relevant, with all teams having organized themselves, similar cases in the future should result in a default.
 

Imagination

I<3Dingleberries
Master Knight
WBM&BWF&SNW
Best answers
0
Watly said:
In general, the "legit reasons" can be defined as the opponent team putting in insufficient effort to make the match happen, putting an unreasonable strain on the other team.

Now, you can see your case properly falls under the rule: CarpeDiem didn't even bother to inform your team he wouldn't show up. As such, you would normally have gotten a default.

Due to the circumstances however, we decided that the ordeal cannot really be blamed on Carpe's teammates and thus decided to not give out a default. As such circumstances should no longer be relevant, with all teams having organized themselves, similar cases in the future should result in a default.
Huh? So what's the problem that prevents you from changing your mind and consequently giving us a default? Since you clearly see that everyone managed to organize their matches no matter the circumstances, and that this case is falling under a rule.
There is no adequate reason for this rule to be applied only to future similar cases and not to this one.
 

KaneMaB

Grandmaster Knight
Best answers
0
1) Get solid rules that rule out pretty much any misunderstanding or situation that might happen. As an example my own problems with the default in week (2?).
2) Get an admin team that listens to the players and doesn't act immaturely.
3) Get an admin team that doesn't quit halfway in the tourney.