|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 2:48 pm
|
|
|
|
Ok, I've realized that there could be a LOT of problems with the current substitute system.
Current major potential problems:
- Leaders calling in subs towards the end of the week, when the player being subbed for was inactive, and now the player who was active has to hustle to battle him towards the very end. This is very unfair to active players who actually followed along and was online daily.
- Abuse of subs. If a leader sees that one of his lesser skilled players is up against someone more skilfull, he may switch him out for a more skilled player to try to win that match. This is unfair to the player being switched out, his opponent, and both teams - it also bypasses the matchmaking system to a degree
Possible solutions:
A - Make it so each sub has to be called by the Tuesday of the week. ((Matchups are made saturday night, posted 11:59PM or close to it - battles are due by the very end of that upcoming friday)) This makes it so a captain needs to determine which of his players are active, and decide who is replacing who in a timely manner.
B - Change the Tuesday in option A to another day of the week ((post your opinion))
C - Make it so calling in a sub is equivocal to switching out a player. Captains can only do this on Saturday, or in advance for the upcoming week. This prevents abuse of subs, and encourages all members of a team to be active. Unlike switching out members however, captains do not need the consent of the members being switched. ((Switching in/out someone who was not originally on the team still does though))
Pros of A:
- Allows more flexibility - Gives some definition to when subs need to be in
Cons of A:
- Still allows for sub abuse
Pros/Cons of B ((see above except the earlier the date the less flexibility/less abuse))
Pros of C:
- Prevents abuse of subs - Keeps match ups the way they are made
Cons of C
- Less flexibility in case of emergency.
Opinions please
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 2:56 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 3:03 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 3:08 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 3:12 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 3:12 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 3:12 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 3:17 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 3:21 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:22 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 7:08 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 7:23 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 8:46 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 4:04 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 10, 2007 4:01 am
|
|
|
|
TheBasementDweller Mesa the Wanderer I like option b, make it Wednesday, for the reasons Artemis mentioned. The thing with sub abuse is that inorder for a captain to be able to "abuse" one of their substitutes, then that would mean 2 things need to be true of the teams in question. 1. The sub has to be stronger than the main member they are replacing. Since most captains would logically choose their stonger players as their main members it's unlikely for the sub to be that much better than a main member, however it is still possible. 2. The captain deciding who to sub, would need extensive knowledge on the opposing team. True if they notice one of their weaker members against one of the opponents stronger members they could simply sub out, but then you're assuming that the captain of one team knows which members of the opposing team are the strong members and which are the weak members. Response to point 1. It actually makes the most sense to have your sub in actuality be the 2nd best on your team that way you can match them up at your leisure for an easy win or even a defensive to make an easy win for them now be contested. Response to point 2. It's pretty easy to figure out your opponent team to an extent, but most switch it up though they still keep regulars which you can gather from a little bit of digging throught the guild and here say from the other members. Spies. ninja rofl Basically if a team was avid about winning they're subs would be the best on thier team and they'd switch in to make for easy wins, the smartest Captains would in actuallity have one of thier "members" say they are the captain so that the actual best which is generally the captain is in actuality a sub and can be switched in against a moderate opponent say number 3 on the other team and forfeit the matches versus the opposing team's number 1 and 2 and just worry about picking off the weakest links on the opposing team for the best 3 out of 5 round victory, but judging by the lack of interest in the tourny by the actually captains in terms of actual team "strategy" I seriously doubt any one of you captains would care to think about the issue in such a way that it would be borderline breaking the rules by in actuality just exploiting the rules and never once was it said the captain must be the best on the team though assumedly most of the teams followed the general chain of command trend. rofl I've seriously got to stop talking to myself. sweatdrop
both of your counterpoints are completely valid, i'll admit. however aren't the battles between the teams also randomly generated? with the exception of captain vs. captain. if you were to do that then your 2nd counterpoint becomes completely pointless.
Also i was under the assumption that the point of having a substitute was so that if someone unexpectedly couldn't battle, for whatever reason a sub could fill in. Whether it's because there parent's didn't pay the internet, their DS was accidently broken or whatever. By going with option C you force captains to decide on subs on that saturday, before the matchups even happen. if something were to happen to one of the members even one day after and they were unable to battle for reasons out of their control, that team is no forced a loss, when they have a substitute perfectly willing and able to battle.
also this poll is flawed. option's A and B are too similar, this almost ensures that C will win the poll. the votes between a and b will be split up even though it's pretty much the exact same idea, so neither one really has a chance to win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|