EPTOn November 23 2011 04:19 Craton wrote:
There already are threads for putting together teams.
There already are threads for putting together teams.
There really is only the TL Team B thread.
Plus this is a new system.
[Patch 1.0.0.129: Fizz] General Discussion - Page 88
| Forum Index > LoL General |
|
Brambled
United States750 Posts
There really is only the TL Team B thread. Plus this is a new system. | ||
|
Alzadar
Canada5009 Posts
On November 23 2011 04:06 Treadmill wrote: The more I see stuff like this the more I realize that Blizzard's policy of just allowing people to duplicate names makes so much sense. Yeah, that would work fine, I don't know how Riot didn't foresee all the big names being stolen. | ||
|
Mogwai
United States13274 Posts
On November 23 2011 04:18 Takkara wrote: He wasn't being sarcastic. He was actually thanking you for the confirmation... oh, I can read, derp  | ||
|
Brambled
United States750 Posts
I don't feel like the above thread is a good base for the new system. Not sure if OP is still around but thread itself is mostly dead. A rebuilt thread would be better and can be formatted better to fit new system. | ||
|
Craton
United States17281 Posts
On November 23 2011 04:22 Brambled wrote: There really is only the TL Team B thread. ...no. | ||
|
gtrsrs
United States9109 Posts
On November 23 2011 04:19 BlackPaladin wrote: Okay so I spend 250 RP and can make $30 in return, ($35 buys you 5k RP anyway, $20 buys you 2800, and Riot often gives out RP for fuck ups anyway) and if that still doesn't work I just play as 5 with friends and watch everyone on the forum bitch about you need to "pay to play a free game now with your friends in ranked." Personally I still don't have a problem with it since I have some extra RP that Riot apparently likes to give out (I just logged on and have randomly got 1k+ more for some reason lol wtf?), but I still think it's wrong to charge to make a team to play in what is supposed to be a free to play game. What I do think they should do is allow you to create multiple names like blizzard did where there can be 10 SG's. Then it doesn't matter instead of trying to get people to pay for shit and regulate it like the retarded gov't tries to do. ;o i mean we're not going to pay whatever person it is to have SG back lol we have the name copyrighted and what not so we will get it back just a barrier to entry would have prevented all the hassle we now have to go through | ||
|
Ryuu314
United States12679 Posts
| ||
|
Craton
United States17281 Posts
everyone else is probably SOL "copyrights" (a name is trademarked, not copywritten) are irrelevant | ||
|
Brambled
United States750 Posts
Okay you disagree with me with a simple "no"? Why don't you be useful and provide something concrete? I even posted the other Recruitment thread that is dead and wouldn't be ideal for this new system imo. Troll one word argument posts like yours shouldn't be on this forum or site. | ||
|
sylverfyre
United States8298 Posts
So I created a thread to suggest ways to inhibit the amount of squatting on team names that's already going on, but I'm just getting OT troll posts. Oh well. #1 LoL community. That said, I'll throw the ideas out here too - either a nominal IP cost for founding a team, or a requirement that 3 players agree to be on the team before the name is taken. Right now I'm pretty sure there are more ranked teams in existence than the number of online players who are eligible to be on a team. Edit: apparently people have already thrown out one of my ideas (IP cost) for discussion in this thread. That's what I get for posting before reading the last few pages. I do think it could be like champs (IP OR RP cost to found a team) and I don't really think it is bullshit, because it's just like buying champions is pretty much a prerequisite to playing. 1k IP or less, though, (450-500 sounds good to me.) Maybe a rising cost if you want to reserve more than 1 team name (450 -> 1350 -> 3150?) | ||
|
Alaric
France45622 Posts
No worries, since I got congratulated for admitting I was wrong by myself on the SC2 strat forum I'm not getting surprised easily.  | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
I just want a buff on her already :O | ||
|
Two_DoWn
United States13684 Posts
On November 23 2011 04:55 wei2coolman wrote: i wonder when they're gunna fix eve, I've been playing twitch a lot, just because he's much more viable compared to eve, but I just prefer eve's mechanics over twitches, it's much more fun. I just want a buff on her already :O She not gettin buffed till they fix the stealth system. Probably another 6 months at the very least. | ||
|
Juicyfruit
Canada5484 Posts
| ||
NeoIllusions
United States37500 Posts
On November 23 2011 05:08 Juicyfruit wrote: So someone clarify this for me; every player can make THREE teams per WEEK? Does this mean a team can just endlessly "smurf" by just creating a new one? (which i assume starts back at 1200). They could but what's the point of smurfing on ranked. You'd just roll 1200 newbies. | ||
|
Woony
Germany6657 Posts
Also TSMx rolling over scrubs on arranged ladder. Pretty funny. | ||
|
Ikonn
Netherlands1958 Posts
| ||
|
Juicyfruit
Canada5484 Posts
On November 23 2011 05:09 NeoIllusions wrote: They could but what's the point of smurfing on ranked. You'd just roll 1200 newbies. I agree it's pointless, but people are still going to do it, which is annoying. Not to mention, since you can just make a new team, the bottomline of ranked 5's is going to be 1200 since any team that goes below that can just get deleted and remade zzz.. | ||
|
NeoIllusions
United States37500 Posts
On November 23 2011 05:13 Ikonn wrote: yeah TSMX (TSM with Dyrus replacing TRM) is currently playing a team of like 1200, 24-0 up in kills and Chaox building Gunblade on Trist Yeah, I can't imagine having your team go 24-0 can be very fun. huehue bots. | ||
|
BlackPaladin
United States9316 Posts
On November 23 2011 05:09 NeoIllusions wrote: They could but what's the point of smurfing on ranked. You'd just roll 1200 newbies. It's like normals but more fun b/c the other team is probably actually tryharding. | ||
| ||
