|
|
Post by niggaplz on Jul 15, 2012 14:51:19 GMT 2
nigga plz
|
|
|
|
Post by flatline on Jul 15, 2012 18:49:07 GMT 2
Little confused with the situation here!
But get the idea r3 were refused dantski as a sub as he was perceived as being a good player.
That's kinda weak if it was still only gonna make the match a 5v6.
Please elaborate further.
|
|
|
|
Post by ratking on Jul 16, 2012 5:30:32 GMT 2
Yeah. They didn't allow much of any subs. When we had even numbers (added ram and fx) we won pretty easily. Pogue def ragequit after screwing the north flank. I wonder what would have happened if we had our 6. Guess we won't know now. Anyway, it was our teams fault not showing up en force. It always seems to happen to us after we hit BB. Match times get weird or back to back. Ts did well to show up and win games, congrats again and cya next time.
|
|
|
|
Post by flatline on Jul 16, 2012 7:13:45 GMT 2
Yeah. They didn't allow much of any subs. When we had even numbers (added ram and fx) we won pretty easily. Pogue def ragequit after screwing the north flank. I wonder what would have happened if we had our 6. Guess we won't know now. Anyway, it was our teams fault not showing up en force. It always seems to happen to us after we hit BB. Match times get weird or back to back. Ts did well to show up and win games, congrats again and cya next time. bleh. Picking and choosing subs you allow the other team to have (regardless of their sub ball rating) is pretty bleh. This sort of stuff directly lead to the whole TW-TCOX fiasco. Maybe next year keep the sub rule (which is good) but change the rules regarding subs a bit. *maybe stipulate something along the lines that subs MUST be allowed in a match if the team requesting subs has like less than 5 players? So say if your team shows up with 3 players then you are allowed to have subs (according to ball ratings rules) to bring your team up to at least 5 players. (5vs6 is better than 3 or 4 vs 6). Somethign along these lines anyway. I put the number at 5 players rather than 6 because the team that is showing undermanned probably deserves a minor penalty at least for showing up undermanned. So a forced 5vs6 is a minor penalty but not the gayness of a 3vs6 or 4vs6. Of course if the other team you play should at their discretion "allow" you to have more subs to make the match an even contest then that should be allowed if agreed on. But a 5 player minimum bolstered with subs would be better than the rules currently are. The sub "ball" rating and rules re: that u may have only 1x4 ball sub and unlimited 3 ball subs etc is quite fair and intelligently thought out. Dunno the sub system is good but its pretty worthless if the other team were to say "nope no subs" even though the match would be a 3vs6 or 4vs6. Opposing team only allowing the subs they personally approve of for whatever reason is a tad gay also. (Nope we wont let dantski sub for you but here have Father Xmas). Note there is no malice towards TW/TSS/Father Xmas here but the sub rules as they stand are not very practical. |
|
par73
Forum legend
Posts: 935
|
Post by par73 on Jul 16, 2012 7:34:16 GMT 2
Figure 1.
subs should be allowed participation by the team they want to play on not by the team they will be facing against. that is more or less rigging games by injuries or having a match thrown in ones favor. edit : multiple scenarios we've seen thus far where the substitute system does not DELIVAR. :
ex1) oh you can only play with this player or that player, but not this player, even though you are still within ball limit guidelines. oh ex2) oh you can only play with this player, no players you suggested, and players who aren't on the substitute list.
still, these collinear explorations are only the result of a defected, yet beta test system that should be upgraded for the next 2team tournament (if there is one). nothing is perfect,
Figure 2.
but the original goal of the substitute system
(correct me here if i'm wrong)
1) is to get more players playing games in tournaments
2) and to increase the quality of those games those players have decided to sign up for
this, while some situations in mwc allowed the full and proper use of the substitute system determined by criteria 1 and 2; not all of them did and a higher amount would have met the goals of the substitute system if there is some changing of the rules. see figure figure 1
|
|
par73
Forum legend
Posts: 935
|
Post by par73 on Jul 16, 2012 7:43:54 GMT 2
Result : Keep substitute list on lockdown (even though players could dummy by subs and probably get away with it)
Lessen restictive powers of substitutes in-match by the team who would be playing against the substitute (who did not require their services).
we might as well start calling substitutes mercenaries.
|
|
|
|
Post by asmo on Jul 16, 2012 8:11:22 GMT 2
not a fan of the sub system and it wasn't really as big of an issue in our match as it is being out to made...we allowed subs in every game other dantski(I would have allowed that if I could go back). r3 choose not to use subs in games that they were not used even though there was several other people wanting to sub for them...I would say allow bigger rosters after the teams are set (but put some restriction on team changing) if attendance is really an issue for some teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by lizardking on Jul 16, 2012 18:03:45 GMT 2
R3 had no chance with or without players. Ya'll denied using subs for whatever reason, probably so you could have a post excuse for that horrible rapeday (I'd rather have hadz, zak or aug than dantski any day, but keep using that excuse). You don't get 58 dmg with 3 trow and play generally piss poor and expect to win anything bro. You should go back to sucking dicks with that mouth since talking out of it isn't doing you a bit of good.
GGS, NO RE.
|
|
|
|
Post by dantski on Jul 16, 2012 18:37:29 GMT 2
better luck next year
|
|
