06-09-2015, 02:09 AM | #1 |
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: USA
Class/Position: Soldier & Medic Affiliations: ( ir :: ) iv| K^ † Posts Rated Helpful 80 Times
|
FF League - WEEK 2
Hi, welcome to week 2 of the FF league. You guys are great. I love you all. Unless you lost your game, then I don't love you; you loser-face. Anyway! I'd like to give a big shout out to a new team The Misfit.
Also, I'm starting to put teams into the inactive zone. So, if you miss two matches in a row you'll be tossed over there. You can always come back, but you gotta be active, and let me know you really want it. Check out the google doc: http://goo.gl/ri65eb for great information. This week's map is ff_resolve_b2. It's a GreenMushy masterpiece, an FF original, and it has silly elevators in the spawn. What's not to like? I hope you guys enjoy it, and everyone plays their match. FFL - WEEK 2 Platinum givashit (90) vs 2 Gud (80) Wizards High Council (60) vs inhouse (110) ^HeLL BYE Silver Clermont (110) vs Saints (100) Diverse (10) vs RAK (30) BFT (40) vs The Misfits (80) DET- (0) vs BIG (0) FFL - WEEK 2 Just as a quick note: if teams start playing their matches before they're supposed to and not getting my approval first, I will start handing out losses for both teams. Another even faster note: if teams start abusing their veto privilege when playing other teams...I'll start abusing your team. Please don't abuse the nice trinkets I give you. Just play games and have funs.
__________________
Last edited by homie in reboks'; 06-18-2015 at 04:20 AM. |
|
06-10-2015, 01:02 AM | #2 |
Join Date: Apr 2015
Gametype: Capture the Flag Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
I'd like a little clarification on the use of ringers for matches if someone would be so kind.
If team A (in Silver) needs to use ringers, but chooses to try and use platinum level players as said ringers, this is against the rules, correct? Also, if the same team is trying to use ringers that are better than the players that are on the current roster, team B has every right to veto said ringers, correct? Further, if the team seeking ringers to play (Team A) has given permission to another team (Team B) to pick what ringers they can choose to use, a ringer is agreed upon, and then Team A backs out of that agreement, what recourse is there to Team B after arriving at an agreed upon ringer? Just want some clarification, seems to be a lot of confusion. I understand playing the matches for the fun of it, but there are rules and guidelines to abide by, right? Teams shouldn't be punished for having a full roster of players available at the agreed upon date of the match while the other team scrambles to find ringers that are going to put them over the top. If teams are forced to accept the ringers other teams choose to play, what's to stop the league from being a scheduled pick-up with unified tags where this randomly selected group of players represents Team A and this group represents Team B? Last edited by Ruta; 06-10-2015 at 02:35 AM. |
|
06-10-2015, 02:49 AM | #3 | |||||
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: USA
Class/Position: Soldier & Medic Affiliations: ( ir :: ) iv| K^ † Posts Rated Helpful 80 Times
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So, to sum up, ringers are a privilege not a right. I will remove the option completely if it keeps causing so many problems, but I really don't want to do that. So shape up fam
__________________
|
|||||
|
06-10-2015, 04:53 AM | #4 | |
Join Date: May 2015
Gametype: Capture the Flag Affiliations: RAK Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
More importantly, you state that the it is in the rules that a team can be punished if it abuses the right to veto. That is inaccurate. Pursuant to Rule 4.5, it states that "if an opposing team is caught continually vetoing ringers to force forfeits or 3 v 4 matches, they will be credited with match losses." Therefore, the standard set out in this rule is that a match loss is only appropriate when the vetoing team is vetoing with intent to force a forfeit or a 3v4 match. Nowhere is "abuse" defined. Any deviation from the rule so clearly stated would be an arbitrary action not provided for. If the team that needs ringers has asked the opposing team to select a ringer for them and follows through with it, the standard set above has been met. By providing a fourth player, the team is not forcing a forfeit or a 3v4 match. Accordingly, the team that is vetoing ringers but suggesting multiple players as ringers they would accept has more than exceeded their responsibility and their conduct at no time would fall below the standard provided for in the rule. |
|
|
06-10-2015, 06:43 AM | #5 |
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: USA
Class/Position: Soldier & Medic Affiliations: ( ir :: ) iv| K^ † Posts Rated Helpful 80 Times
|
Listen, I'm not asking anyone to do anything too difficult here.
The veto system is in place to avoid teams replacing members with players clearly better so as to gain an advantage. The ringer system is in place to help teams gather enough people to play so that matches actually happen. There is no reason why a team should veto so many ringers that their opposing team would feel obliged to let the vetoing team just choose their ringer. This scenario should not be happening. This is one example of an "excessive" amount of vetoes. From what I've heard, the vetoes are being used to force a team into picking only very specific players who are not as good as those they are replacing, which sounds an awful like a team trying to get an unfair advantage. This is one example of "abuse". If you really want to argue with me about the rules, which I agree are not all inclusive because I thought most people would rather play matches than bicker over the legal minutiae of the rules, I'll just update them for week 3 to specifically address this problem. Feel free to continue this discussion with me via forum private message or via Steam private message. Do not consult the other admins about this. I will handle this issue personally, if you have more to say on the topic. Thanks
__________________
Last edited by homie in reboks'; 06-10-2015 at 06:49 AM. |
|
06-10-2015, 01:49 PM | #6 |
AkA,Jibba.di
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Boston area...
Class/Position: Demo, Scout, Gametype: CFT, TFC, FF, A&D, OvD Affiliations: Diverse .di Posts Rated Helpful 1 Times
|
Hey Guys, I would agree with both points, However IF you roster a team with only 4 players don't you risk not being able to field all four for that weeks match?? or you have a higher than normal average not to than a team with 6 players. I also think fairness in a league is important for that league to thrive and do well for it's longevity.
Hir has started something pretty great and I'm sure it's very time consuming, just dealing with all the questions and roster changes, never mind the actual daily league responsibilities. I applaud your commitment..Hir we have had this conversation briefly and you have a valid point in response BUT now that the teams have established themselves would it be beneficial to the league to have each team roster 6 players before placing them on the active list..and another issue that our team is finding is that we have different work schedules and for me to field my team is on Friday and Saturday, So would it help out this ringer issue if you let each team add a seventh and eighth player or let that be the subs..I bet you will find less issue with the ringer issue and this would give you more time to deal with other things...Hope this helps.. |
|
06-10-2015, 07:32 PM | #7 |
Join Date: Apr 2015
Gametype: Capture the Flag Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Unless of course the team offering ringers is choosing players better than is what's on their roster, correct?
|
|
06-10-2015, 10:50 PM | #8 | |
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: USA
Class/Position: Soldier & Medic Affiliations: ( ir :: ) iv| K^ † Posts Rated Helpful 80 Times
|
Quote:
I'm doing what I can to make things fair, competitive, and flexible enough where people can play their matches. But so far a lot of the headaches has come from the rules not being super detailed and restrictive. I was really hoping you guys could police yourselves. Anyway, if this happens again for week two, I'll overhaul the rules for week 3. Vetoing will likely be removed, and ringers will be much more restricted. Which isn't something I want to do because I'm sure it will keep more people from playing. Also, further discussion on the topic should be brought to me via private message either on the forums or steam.
__________________
|
|
|
06-12-2015, 03:22 PM | #9 |
NeoNL
Wiki Team
Beta Tester Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Boston, Mass
Class/Position: Soldier, Medic Gametype: AvD Affiliations: +M|M+ -RS Posts Rated Helpful 170 Times
|
__________________
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|