|
On March 03 2013 14:04 Sentenal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 09:08 L_Master wrote:On March 03 2013 09:03 Birdie wrote:
Yeah I think a lot of you don't understand how the C ranks match would work. It'd be like this:
D Rank vs D rank
D Rank vs D rank
D Rank vs D rank
D Rank vs D rank
D Rank vs D rank
D Rank vs D rank
C Rank vs C rank
If any of them don't show up and the match doesn't get postponed then the team that didn't have a player show is going to be down 1 set, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S A C RANK OR NOT.
So when you say "It's dependent on the C rank showing up" no it isn't, it's dependent on the entire team showing up, same as always.
It's not hard to find a C rank or two and would mean only 6 D ranks games which helps teams which have small rosters. I can't think of any negatives beyond "It's supposed to be a D Ranks Teamleague". This is my thought. No one seems to have a rational objection, other than "it's supposed to be D Ranks Teamleague/We have always done it this way in the past." Definitely sticking with the poll results though, even if I feel like most people aren't stopping to actually understand/consider what they are voting for. I'm more or less neutral on that particular issue, but I can point out some "difficulties" with it to say the least. One is we would have to recruit enough C Rank Players to stick into every team, and also try and "balance" this somehow. In my experience at least, there is a huge difference between C+ and C-. Another is this is sorta last minute, which compounds point 1. Another difficulty, having 6 matches for D-Ranks means that teams need to be even bigger than before in order to have enough people every week to fill a roster. Like, if we assume 7 or 8 is the minimum for 5 sets to be viable, then for 6 sets that would require 8 or 9 people on the team. Which is a problem for the smaller teams, although maybe at this point we might not have to worry about that...? Not sure what the situation is on that front. Additionally on this, for the D-Rank matches, we assume the team size needs to be larger than the Set-size, in order to have available replacements every week. If its just 1 C Rank player on each team, with no replacement, then that seems like it would open the door for a lot of walkovers.
Each team would only need 2 C ranks at most, I'd say, and only one if they're dedicated enough. It's already planned to be Best of 7 unless Lmaster is changing that, so your points about it being more sets is actually round the other way; we need one fewer D ranked player because it'd be 6 D ranks matches instead of 7.
"Another is this is sorta last minute, which compounds point 1." This is a good point, and I think considering we've had 3 months to get this thing planned it's probably too late for it.
|
On March 03 2013 14:08 Birdie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 14:04 Sentenal wrote:On March 03 2013 09:08 L_Master wrote:On March 03 2013 09:03 Birdie wrote:
Yeah I think a lot of you don't understand how the C ranks match would work. It'd be like this:
D Rank vs D rank
D Rank vs D rank
D Rank vs D rank
D Rank vs D rank
D Rank vs D rank
D Rank vs D rank
C Rank vs C rank
If any of them don't show up and the match doesn't get postponed then the team that didn't have a player show is going to be down 1 set, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S A C RANK OR NOT.
So when you say "It's dependent on the C rank showing up" no it isn't, it's dependent on the entire team showing up, same as always.
It's not hard to find a C rank or two and would mean only 6 D ranks games which helps teams which have small rosters. I can't think of any negatives beyond "It's supposed to be a D Ranks Teamleague". This is my thought. No one seems to have a rational objection, other than "it's supposed to be D Ranks Teamleague/We have always done it this way in the past." Definitely sticking with the poll results though, even if I feel like most people aren't stopping to actually understand/consider what they are voting for. I'm more or less neutral on that particular issue, but I can point out some "difficulties" with it to say the least. One is we would have to recruit enough C Rank Players to stick into every team, and also try and "balance" this somehow. In my experience at least, there is a huge difference between C+ and C-. Another is this is sorta last minute, which compounds point 1. Another difficulty, having 6 matches for D-Ranks means that teams need to be even bigger than before in order to have enough people every week to fill a roster. Like, if we assume 7 or 8 is the minimum for 5 sets to be viable, then for 6 sets that would require 8 or 9 people on the team. Which is a problem for the smaller teams, although maybe at this point we might not have to worry about that...? Not sure what the situation is on that front. Additionally on this, for the D-Rank matches, we assume the team size needs to be larger than the Set-size, in order to have available replacements every week. If its just 1 C Rank player on each team, with no replacement, then that seems like it would open the door for a lot of walkovers. Each team would only need 2 C ranks at most, I'd say, and only one if they're dedicated enough. It's already planned to be Best of 7 unless Lmaster is changing that, so your points about it being more sets is actually round the other way; we need one fewer D ranked player because it'd be 6 D ranks matches instead of 7. "Another is this is sorta last minute, which compounds point 1." This is a good point, and I think considering we've had 3 months to get this thing planned it's probably too late for it.
I assumed we were previously aiming at a Bo5 due to the issue of team size.
Anyway, if each team needs 2 C ranks, that means we need to gather up 16 C Ranked players in a short amount of time, and then try and balance them.
|
On March 03 2013 14:13 Sentenal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 14:08 Birdie wrote:On March 03 2013 14:04 Sentenal wrote:On March 03 2013 09:08 L_Master wrote:On March 03 2013 09:03 Birdie wrote:
Yeah I think a lot of you don't understand how the C ranks match would work. It'd be like this:
D Rank vs D rank
D Rank vs D rank
D Rank vs D rank
D Rank vs D rank
D Rank vs D rank
D Rank vs D rank
C Rank vs C rank
If any of them don't show up and the match doesn't get postponed then the team that didn't have a player show is going to be down 1 set, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S A C RANK OR NOT.
So when you say "It's dependent on the C rank showing up" no it isn't, it's dependent on the entire team showing up, same as always.
It's not hard to find a C rank or two and would mean only 6 D ranks games which helps teams which have small rosters. I can't think of any negatives beyond "It's supposed to be a D Ranks Teamleague". This is my thought. No one seems to have a rational objection, other than "it's supposed to be D Ranks Teamleague/We have always done it this way in the past." Definitely sticking with the poll results though, even if I feel like most people aren't stopping to actually understand/consider what they are voting for. I'm more or less neutral on that particular issue, but I can point out some "difficulties" with it to say the least. One is we would have to recruit enough C Rank Players to stick into every team, and also try and "balance" this somehow. In my experience at least, there is a huge difference between C+ and C-. Another is this is sorta last minute, which compounds point 1. Another difficulty, having 6 matches for D-Ranks means that teams need to be even bigger than before in order to have enough people every week to fill a roster. Like, if we assume 7 or 8 is the minimum for 5 sets to be viable, then for 6 sets that would require 8 or 9 people on the team. Which is a problem for the smaller teams, although maybe at this point we might not have to worry about that...? Not sure what the situation is on that front. Additionally on this, for the D-Rank matches, we assume the team size needs to be larger than the Set-size, in order to have available replacements every week. If its just 1 C Rank player on each team, with no replacement, then that seems like it would open the door for a lot of walkovers. Each team would only need 2 C ranks at most, I'd say, and only one if they're dedicated enough. It's already planned to be Best of 7 unless Lmaster is changing that, so your points about it being more sets is actually round the other way; we need one fewer D ranked player because it'd be 6 D ranks matches instead of 7. "Another is this is sorta last minute, which compounds point 1." This is a good point, and I think considering we've had 3 months to get this thing planned it's probably too late for it. I assumed we were previously aiming at a Bo5 due to the issue of team size. Anyway, if each team needs 2 C ranks, that means we need to gather up 16 C Ranked players in a short amount of time, and then try and balance them.
i thought that would just be all the people who are borderline c- right now
|
On March 03 2013 14:15 rauk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 14:13 Sentenal wrote:On March 03 2013 14:08 Birdie wrote:On March 03 2013 14:04 Sentenal wrote:On March 03 2013 09:08 L_Master wrote:On March 03 2013 09:03 Birdie wrote:
Yeah I think a lot of you don't understand how the C ranks match would work. It'd be like this:
D Rank vs D rank
D Rank vs D rank
D Rank vs D rank
D Rank vs D rank
D Rank vs D rank
D Rank vs D rank
C Rank vs C rank
If any of them don't show up and the match doesn't get postponed then the team that didn't have a player show is going to be down 1 set, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S A C RANK OR NOT.
So when you say "It's dependent on the C rank showing up" no it isn't, it's dependent on the entire team showing up, same as always.
It's not hard to find a C rank or two and would mean only 6 D ranks games which helps teams which have small rosters. I can't think of any negatives beyond "It's supposed to be a D Ranks Teamleague". This is my thought. No one seems to have a rational objection, other than "it's supposed to be D Ranks Teamleague/We have always done it this way in the past." Definitely sticking with the poll results though, even if I feel like most people aren't stopping to actually understand/consider what they are voting for. I'm more or less neutral on that particular issue, but I can point out some "difficulties" with it to say the least. One is we would have to recruit enough C Rank Players to stick into every team, and also try and "balance" this somehow. In my experience at least, there is a huge difference between C+ and C-. Another is this is sorta last minute, which compounds point 1. Another difficulty, having 6 matches for D-Ranks means that teams need to be even bigger than before in order to have enough people every week to fill a roster. Like, if we assume 7 or 8 is the minimum for 5 sets to be viable, then for 6 sets that would require 8 or 9 people on the team. Which is a problem for the smaller teams, although maybe at this point we might not have to worry about that...? Not sure what the situation is on that front. Additionally on this, for the D-Rank matches, we assume the team size needs to be larger than the Set-size, in order to have available replacements every week. If its just 1 C Rank player on each team, with no replacement, then that seems like it would open the door for a lot of walkovers. Each team would only need 2 C ranks at most, I'd say, and only one if they're dedicated enough. It's already planned to be Best of 7 unless Lmaster is changing that, so your points about it being more sets is actually round the other way; we need one fewer D ranked player because it'd be 6 D ranks matches instead of 7. "Another is this is sorta last minute, which compounds point 1." This is a good point, and I think considering we've had 3 months to get this thing planned it's probably too late for it. I assumed we were previously aiming at a Bo5 due to the issue of team size. Anyway, if each team needs 2 C ranks, that means we need to gather up 16 C Ranked players in a short amount of time, and then try and balance them. i thought that would just be all the people who are borderline c- right now
On March 02 2013 12:32 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 12:31 Sentenal wrote:On March 02 2013 12:29 L_Master wrote:On March 02 2013 12:23 arb wrote:On March 02 2013 12:16 Sentenal wrote:
So what would the format be? A Bo7 with 6 of the matches being D rank, and 1 being C rank match? Realistically, if theres a C ranks league already in the works im sure they can wait i dont see the argument here Integration. This isn't nearly as extreme for as with the yellow guys, but there is still a serious lack of that. On March 02 2013 12:16 Sentenal wrote:
So what would the format be? A Bo7 with 6 of the matches being D rank, and 1 being C rank match? Basically. 5 D matches, 1 C match; if tied then ace match. Or if we don't want ace then 6 D, 1 C So are we going to try and recruit more C rank people for each team, or make the upper level players in the league we already have get bumped up? Recruitment. Since just 1-2 are needed I don't think it would be a huge problem (see GOT for active C players) especially if I made a post mentioning it.
|
I feel like the original issue was whether borderline C- players would be let in...allowing C level in general opens up even more floodgates...
|
On March 03 2013 08:07 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 07:03 arb wrote:On March 03 2013 07:01 L_Master wrote:On March 03 2013 05:44 thezanursic wrote:On March 03 2013 03:18 fabiano wrote:On March 03 2013 02:27 chrisolo wrote:I think this poll needs to be on this site too: Poll: Allow 1 C Rank Match in DRTL?No (37) 70% Yes (14) 26% 2 C Rank Matches (1) 2% Yes, but D Rank Ace (1) 2% 53 total votes Your vote: Allow 1 C Rank Match in DRTL? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
(Vote): 2 C Rank Matches
(Vote): Yes, but D Rank Ace
I believe that having 1 C player per team is cool if all the teams can get their entire lineup to show up every round, but I'm afraid that by having C players the results of a team become way too dependent on whether the C dude shows up or not.On the other hand, by having a C player the team manager can actually devise sniping strategies, predicting where the opposing C player will be sent on, but EVERY team should have a C player, otherwise it would just imbalance the league. It is really complicated :/ THIS Bold isn't a concern, because if the C player failed to show up, he would be replaced with a D rank match and/or match would be rescheduled. That was the inflexibility I was talking about when referring to Eywa and running the E-A league. If a player of one rank didn't show up you became significantly more screwed. So you'd replace a C rank player with a D one? lol so you give them a free win just because your player doesnt show up. good plan. If theres a C ranks league in the works then im sure they can wait for it. Cause this is ridiculous. The C ranks match wouldn't happen. It would be replaced with a D ranks match. Not pairing a D ranks player up against a C rank player lol. My IQ is actually a little north of 40. It's already clear at this point from the voting which option we are going for. However, and this isn't to single you out, I wish people would have actually read and understood what why Cobalt and I made this suggestion in the first place. Even mentioning "waiting for the CRTL" tells me you didn't really read fully why I proposed the one C rank match idea. It has very little (albeit not zero) to do with tiding over C rank players until CRTL.
No i understand exactly what you mean, id ont see why youre even going to put one in if their gonna have their own league soon anyway. seems like alotta prep for no real reason.
|
|
|
Im pretty sure Abistar is more than D+(C?)
|
Canada4481 Posts
As a reminder because it's caused problems in the past, North America will be entering Daylight Savings Time on March 10, and so times for them will be +1 hour forward. Which may cause problems/accidental walkovers during Week 2 and on until everyone adjusts. Followed shortly by Europe entering Daylight Savings Time as well, I just don't know the date they enter it. I've been told late March.
I'm not sure about msj team entering, not because abitstar is pretty high, but also cause we're technically on 8 teams (even though DeSPA has 2 players). We could make it work if DeSPA either merged with Phoenix or joined free agent status instead. This isn't saying no to them, just saying it may cause problems in terms of having unequal teams. But if DeSPA merges, and msj is allowed in, then we should have 8 nicely populated teams for the season even pre-draft.
|
On March 02 2013 08:17 Jealous wrote:![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oJGBl5i.png) Sun KHAN's official roster (and name change):  , v  pebble444  sGs.BaBo // Jealous (temporary ) Mellial // thezanursic sGs.Gorg // George_the_man xkcd[win] // amazingxkcd NewJetCity ,  v KingGeedorah , v ImAtTheBeach
Updated ImAtTheBeach MUs.
EDIT: All 3 of our race-picking players have picked the unfavored MU xD
|
|
|
On March 02 2013 08:17 Jealous wrote:Sun KHAN's official roster (and name change): , v pebble444 sGs.BaBo // Jealous (temporary ) Mellial // thezanursic sGs.Gorg // George_the_man xkcd[win] // amazingxkcd NewJetCity , v KingGeedorah , v ImAtTheBeach
FFS I am terrible at this ><;
Thanks Marine.
|
I think Despa should merge with another team and make room for msj. Most of their players looks legit D/D+, and it would help us fill up all the teams in the league to 10-11 players.
Ideally Despa would merge with Phoenix, but as they're only 2 players it wouldn't be a huge deal if they went to one of the old teams that only have 9 players.
|
Glad to see this still going on. If anyone still needs another player I'm available!
Rank: D(D+ high)
iCCup ID: Jarngreipr (Old: sGs.Minsc_nBoo)
Race: Terran
|
On March 03 2013 21:25 abitStar wrote:Good day! please sign up our team: team meSiJa D ranks: ![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/mirror/smilies/zerg-big.gif) mSj[abitStar] captain ![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/mirror/smilies/protoss-big.gif) mSj[MinS] msj[Ervin] mSj[Holy] mSj[duxx] mSj[X_x] ![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/mirror/smilies/terran-big.gif) mSj[R2D2] msj[I7aLLITeT] msj[Fury] mSj[pururu] mSj[prokaznik] mSj[Eevy]
WhaaaaA?
Another team? Really cool, but you should have really registered sooner. I hope you guys are allowed to play.
|
if nina is playing in this how bout i sign up too? dat coward rans for her life after i gave 1 mercy win in a sc1 mod on sc2. any team can just pair me with dat coward when we do the c rank games i have touched sc1 since i started playing sc2. rank c icupaccount ifu.anklebreak race t offrace pvt. some ppl just b disgrace to game when scared for life to play some1 else in vid game.
|
On March 04 2013 05:14 anklebreak wrote:
if nina is playing in this how bout i sign up too? dat coward rans for her life after i gave 1 mercy win in a sc1 mod on sc2. any team can just pair me with dat coward when we do the c rank games i have touched sc1 since i started playing sc2. rank c icupaccount ifu.anklebreak race t offrace pvt. some ppl just b disgrace to game when scared for life to play some1 else in vid game.
Dafuq are you talking about....?
|
On March 04 2013 04:51 thezanursic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 21:25 abitStar wrote:Good day! please sign up our team: team meSiJa D ranks: mSj[abitStar] captain mSj[MinS] msj[Ervin] mSj[Holy] mSj[duxx] mSj[X_x] mSj[R2D2] msj[I7aLLITeT] msj[Fury] mSj[pururu] mSj[prokaznik] mSj[Eevy] WhaaaaA? Another team? Really cool, but you should have really registered sooner. I hope you guys are allowed to play.
cool ! 
|
I don't see any reason I wouldn't let mSj play. It may make 9 teams, but that's fine. There would just be a bye each week for one team.
This leaves AtomicArchon/Beefy with a choice. You can either keep the drafted DeSPA roster, or we can distribute those players to ensure all teams have 10+. Entirely your decision AA.
|
On March 04 2013 05:14 anklebreak wrote:
if nina is playing in this how bout i sign up too? dat coward rans for her life after i gave 1 mercy win in a sc1 mod on sc2. any team can just pair me with dat coward when we do the c rank games i have touched sc1 since i started playing sc2. rank c icupaccount ifu.anklebreak race t offrace pvt. some ppl just b disgrace to game when scared for life to play some1 else in vid game.
At what point did you stop speaking English properly?
But seriously, if you want to play, just message me on skype and we can play.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
,
v
