PDA

View Full Version : APL5 pre-league suggestions


sunshineduck
03-10-2011, 03:33 PM
I didn't want to clutter the registration thread, but there are a couple amendments to current rules I would like to bring up. Feel free to post feedback on my suggestions or add to the list if necessary.

1. Change the league player substitution rules. Basically, I suggest that we use the Skyleague idea and have 6 players from each team join the game and force one to sit out. In the case of a disconnect, the team can sub in their extra player and force the disconnector to sit out the rest of the match.

2. Also, allow week-by-week roster flexibility. This isn't the altitude of old anymore, where each team had strong players committed to showing up every week to rep their team. There are many strong players who would like to play in APL, but will be unable to due to time constraints not allowing them to play every single Sunday. I propose that we adopt some form of what Skyleague did this past season, and allow 2 or 3 edits to each team's roster be made each week. This will help ensure that there won't be forfeits and allows the maximum amount of games played per week. 12 is a large roster size to be sure, but many teams carry more than that amount of players and would like to be able to spot play some of their players that can only make a couple weeks out of the next two months.

3. Find a stable euro server or two who's host is willing to upload server configs that are identical to the current APL servers. I don't want to start that whole debate over whether or not US teams should be forced to play there again, but if a conclusion is ever reached that is suitable for parties on both sides, it will be handy to have those servers available.

That's about all I got for now.

Tosconi
03-10-2011, 04:01 PM
+1 on 1 and 3rd point.

2 - it's always been possible to make changes in roster between the matchdays (but not ont he matchdays).

and I think it really sucks and is just against all the tournament logic, that in the past - teams getting to the play-offs could get players out of the dropped-out teams, considerably changing the actual team strengths. - this practice has always favored stronger teams, while leaving those, who placed 6-8th behind and making them even weaker in the play-offs.

therefore - No subs, additions between the regular season and play-offs.

York
03-10-2011, 05:28 PM
Okay listen there is no way we are allowing subs every week. You get 3 subs per season and that is plenty. Welcome to APL guys, where the real men play. This isn't Sky League where we can all get along and have fun. This is a real mans game.

sunshineduck
03-10-2011, 05:35 PM
Okay listen there is no way we are allowing subs every week. You get 3 subs per season and that is plenty. Welcome to APL guys, where the real men play. This isn't Sky League where we can all get along and have fun. This is a real mans game.

the actual point of that suggestion was so that we wouldn't have to reschedule every match we play with IL. it's kind of hilarious that you're vehemently against an idea that would allow you to maximize your ability to get 5 members to show up on a weekly basis and not inconvenience half the teams you play against. this idea helps everyone involved.

also, i don't see how having teams not play because they can't field a team of 5 makes the game somehow more manly. please elaborate.

Smushface
03-10-2011, 05:48 PM
American ProLeague. Bah on Euro servers.

JWhatever
03-10-2011, 06:01 PM
Question about bomb lobbing:

High pinged players always get scolded if they lob the big bomb.
51 is mainly an euro clan, does this mean that "we are not allowed to lob" when playing on a US server?

Afaik a player with 150 ping needs to lead the bomb if a 50 ping guy lobs it and vica versa. US players need to lead Euro lobs and Euros on the other hand need to lead US lobs.

<OT: I understood that the netcode works so that you need to sum up both of the pings to count the time between action happening on clients and it being registered on the server. If I'm wrong, my statement is partially bull>

I understand that when you need to lead the bomb by a third of a second, then the lagger shouldn't lob. But where do you draw the line?

-J

mikesol
03-10-2011, 06:16 PM
Despite any claims of the contrary, the decision for these things are not set in stone. That is what discussions like these are for. Evilarsenal and I will be listening to player suggestions and discuss what we think should be done. None of these ideas are simply going to be rejected without thought :)

Smushface
03-10-2011, 06:33 PM
Euro lag is fine for lobbing cause any experienced player by now should know how to catch a 150 ping bomb. It's the 250+ ping / spiking bombs that should be banned.

York
03-10-2011, 06:50 PM
the actual point of that suggestion was so that we wouldn't have to reschedule every match we play with IL. it's kind of hilarious that you're vehemently against an idea that would allow you to maximize your ability to get 5 members to show up on a weekly basis and not inconvenience half the teams you play against. this idea helps everyone involved.

also, i don't see how having teams not play because they can't field a team of 5 makes the game somehow more manly. please elaborate.

Just because I will have a hard time fielding 5 doesn't mean that I want the rules changed. I like a challenge. I never once said that playing 4v4 is manly, like you inferred. I am so sick of you twisting everything that I say.

My point is this: Every team has 12 players, there is no reason that we should need to sub someone in every week. I am allowed to have 3 subs throughout the season and my team has 3 men sitting on the bench.

Don't fix it if it ain't broke. ProLeague has worked fine for the past 4 seasons just the way it is. I agree that times change and I am all for allowed a 6-person start tourny. But no team has ever really struggled with a substitution problem. Make your subs carefully and maybe you won't need to adjust your roster every week.

sunshineduck
03-10-2011, 07:30 PM
Just because I will have a hard time fielding 5 doesn't mean that I want the rules changed. I like a challenge. I never once said that playing 4v4 is manly, like you inferred. I am so sick of you twisting everything that I say.

My point is this: Every team has 12 players, there is no reason that we should need to sub someone in every week. I am allowed to have 3 subs throughout the season and my team has 3 men sitting on the bench.

Don't fix it if it ain't broke. ProLeague has worked fine for the past 4 seasons just the way it is. I agree that times change and I am all for allowed a 6-person start tourny. But no team has ever really struggled with a substitution problem. Make your subs carefully and maybe you won't need to adjust your roster every week.

i never said anything about playing 4v4, i am so sick of you twisting everything that i say. my reason for wanting to allow subs every week was to improve the chances that we are able to play all of our APL matches as scheduled by allowing teams to coordinate who is going to be able to show up and thus be able to, hopefully, have a team that's going to show up every week. your sole reason against it according to that post was that it was somehow contradictory to APL being "a real mans game". from what you had posted, it seemed like you were implying that wanting to play all of the APL matches on time 5v5 was somehow not manly.

please clarify what you mean by "I like a challenge". do you mean that fielding a team of 5 is a challenge for you and is somehow fun? if so, that's an extremely selfish way of thinking and if you fail the challenge, you screw more than yourself. if you don't mean that, please explain.

my point is this: under the current system, you are allowed a 12-person roster with 3 subs per season. if you have a team of larger than 12 under this system, then you are basically disallowing anyone that can't commit a large number of sundays from representing for your team. if we have a player that can only make 2-3 unconsecutive weeks out of the entire tourney, we are going to have to use two of our allotted substitutions to get him/her in and out of the league. it seems counter-intuitive to me because optimally we would be able to play him/her when he/she can show up and not play him/her when he/she can't. in [FRO]'s particular case, we have two or three members that are not yet sure how many sundays they can commit to us. it just seems like an unnecessary pain that we basically have to shut one or two of our close friends out from playing with us just based on the fact that they're leading extremely busy lifestyles.

just because it ain't broke doesn't mean it can't be improved upon. times are changing, and what worked in a tournament months ago with drastically different team looks won't necessarily work today. actually, i think i mainly would like a reason as to why the roster cap even exists. server size isn't really an issue, so if is it supposed to promote a dispersal of talent?

i've said my piece. i'm not an organizer of the tournament so i have no say in this, but expect an "i told you so" when teams can't field 5 and have players that are rearing to play but can't because they weren't on the official roster.

mikesol
03-10-2011, 08:14 PM
The original reason for a roster cap was to make sure there were enough teams for a tourney and that one team wouldn't just soak up all the players. I'm not sure how applicable this is currently but then again it doesn't look like we're going to be having too many teams as it is.

sunshineduck
03-10-2011, 08:26 PM
i don't think it's applicable at all, really. the players that won't make the roster of the teams they're on aren't there because of lack of talent, they won't make it because of activity issues. even if all the people that didn't make their team's APL roster wanted to make a team, what are the odds that that team ever fields a team of 5?

i don't know much about APL's previous to APL3, but to me it seems like the number of extremely active players is in a steady decline. i just want to avoid rescheduling several matches due to teams not being able to field a team.

Smushface
03-10-2011, 09:02 PM
I'm still waiting for g6 to sign up.

elxir
03-10-2011, 10:19 PM
I'm still waiting for g6 to sign up.

charscharschars

elxir
03-10-2011, 10:20 PM
is there any reason to not allow a mid-game sub?

it removes so much of the whining about 4v5 teams and sportsmanship, i see no reason not to have it. if you can't field six players, then don't use a sub. QQ case closed.

though given how important spawn times are for TBD, it might be good to only allow subs based on a DC instead of a "oh crap we need to change our plane comps"

[Y]
03-12-2011, 02:32 AM
I support the mid-game substitution one as well as the removal of the roster cap, which would make weekly roster changes moot.

Kuja900
03-12-2011, 05:25 AM
I think I speak for everybody when I say **** the euros

edit: lol at some people thinking I was serious

Nadespam
03-13-2011, 09:29 AM
+1 on 1 and 3rd point.

2 - it's always been possible to make changes in roster between the matchdays (but not ont he matchdays).

and I think it really sucks and is just against all the tournament logic, that in the past - teams getting to the play-offs could get players out of the dropped-out teams, considerably changing the actual team strengths. - this practice has always favored stronger teams, while leaving those, who placed 6-8th behind and making them even weaker in the play-offs.

therefore - No subs, additions between the regular season and play-offs.

What if, once someone is on the roster for one team, they can't join another for the rest of the tourney? A team having trouble getting five can still recruit subs from anyone who hasn't participated in the tourney so far.

trendy11one
03-13-2011, 09:53 AM
Actually i was thinking about this in same way as Nade. We may register like 15-20 members, those members wouldnt be allowed to change team(play for new clan in APL).
OR. First time clan register 12 players. If team make sub, players who out of old 12 still in list of clan players and not allowed to change team.
ssPlayers, who not registered still have chance to join clan and play, clan in same time can do as many subs as they want, but set only 12 players before each Sunday. Also team couldnt make any changes after playoff begins. I personally dont like situations, when players jump around clans, joining those ones, who get higher.

Flight 666
03-13-2011, 10:45 AM
Question about bomb lobbing:

High pinged players always get scolded if they lob the big bomb.
51 is mainly an euro clan, does this mean that "we are not allowed to lob" when playing on a US server?

Afaik a player with 150 ping needs to lead the bomb if a 50 ping guy lobs it and vica versa. US players need to lead Euro lobs and Euros on the other hand need to lead US lobs.

<OT: I understood that the netcode works so that you need to sum up both of the pings to count the time between action happening on clients and it being registered on the server. If I'm wrong, my statement is partially bull>

I understand that when you need to lead the bomb by a third of a second, then the lagger shouldn't lob. But where do you draw the line?

-J

go mad, press S and be happy, no big deal.

Flight 666
03-13-2011, 10:47 AM
btw, start with 6 players...its a good idea a all BUT is too "ball" APL is classic...

xillix'Love Sattan
03-13-2011, 12:30 PM
Where can i find the matches roster?

TAYLOOP
03-13-2011, 12:50 PM
I honestly disagree.

mikesol
03-13-2011, 08:18 PM
So here are my thoughts:

1) I think that 6 players starting is probably the way to go. The catch is that you can't sub someone out UNLESS they disconnect. You can't like put in a weaker player and if you start losing sub in for them. I think it's really lame to be able to switch planes like that and I don't see why that would be needed.

2) I'm unsure about whether it would be better to increase roster size to say 18 or 20 or if it would be better to allow new people each week. Regardless I feel there needs to be a clause added that says if you drop out of one team you can't play for another team in apl. This encourages people to be more careful in agreeing to play for a team as well as prevents team stacking if a team starts to lose.

3) If there's a stable euro server who is willing to grant us the rights to set up who is admin, maps, etc then I'm fine considering it. If not then tough luck for the euro's.

Thoughts?

York
03-13-2011, 09:01 PM
So here are my thoughts:

1) I think that 6 players starting is probably the way to go. The catch is that you can't sub someone out UNLESS they disconnect. You can't like put in a weaker player and if you start losing sub in for them. I think it's really lame to be able to switch planes like that and I don't see why that would be needed.

2) I'm unsure about whether it would be better to increase roster size to say 18 or 20 or if it would be better to allow new people each week. Regardless I feel there needs to be a clause added that says if you drop out of one team you can't play for another team in apl. This encourages people to be more careful in agreeing to play for a team as well as prevents team stacking if a team starts to lose.

3) If there's a stable euro server who is willing to grant us the rights to set up who is admin, maps, etc then I'm fine considering it. If not then tough luck for the euro's.

Thoughts?

I just absolutely hate the second rule. Please see : The reason there is a max roster in the first place.

mikesol
03-13-2011, 09:25 PM
I just absolutely hate the second rule. Please see : The reason there is a max roster in the first place.

The reason there is a max roster size in the first place is to prevent teams from taking every player and encouraging people to make new teams. However, the points by teams like FRO and other newer teams is that they have tons of players and have no interest in splitting them up.

Plus many teams have a hard enough time getting 5 players as it is that I hope this would address that problem. Last apl almost every other game the team we played didn't have 5 and a reschedule was necessary. If I see this not working and people abusing it by taking everyone and putting them on one team then I think this would have to be rethought.

sunshineduck
03-14-2011, 12:58 AM
So here are my thoughts:

1) I think that 6 players starting is probably the way to go. The catch is that you can't sub someone out UNLESS they disconnect. You can't like put in a weaker player and if you start losing sub in for them. I think it's really lame to be able to switch planes like that and I don't see why that would be needed.

2) I'm unsure about whether it would be better to increase roster size to say 18 or 20 or if it would be better to allow new people each week. Regardless I feel there needs to be a clause added that says if you drop out of one team you can't play for another team in apl. This encourages people to be more careful in agreeing to play for a team as well as prevents team stacking if a team starts to lose.

3) If there's a stable euro server who is willing to grant us the rights to set up who is admin, maps, etc then I'm fine considering it. If not then tough luck for the euro's.

Thoughts?

agreed on all counts. maybe make it so once a player dc's and is subbed out, they can no longer play for the rest of the match (including later maps)?

in response to your second post, it's less that we have tons of players tbh. selecting a roster of 12 based on activity was pretty easy. the problem is that this shafts beagle/ccn if they decide to come out of retirement as well as truepa!N, who is 50/50 every weekend. the way it's currently set up makes it so that they'll never be able to play, which isn't really fair for anyone.

in addition, IL is currently not putting FU on their APL roster, when in my opinion he's probably the best player on their team. why? because he can probably only make one or maybe two regular season weeks. i'd much rather play against IL with FU than without, if only for the sake of the most competitive match possible. this change would allow FU to play when he can show up, and not play when he can't, as well as remove the internal drama of choosing someone to swap out for FU if he suddenly can show up the entire season.

i just don't really see a negative to this. this season is one of the most balanced team-wise in recent history, and i think that a max roster size is rather unnecessary. i'm also all for the caveat that players can not play for more than one team per APL, sounds like a great idea to me.

<3s

Ribilla
03-14-2011, 01:04 AM
agreed on all counts. maybe make it so once a player dc's and is subbed out, they can no longer play for the rest of the match (including later maps)?

in response to your second post, it's less that we have tons of players tbh. selecting a roster of 12 based on activity was pretty easy. the problem is that this shafts beagle/ccn if they decide to come out of retirement as well as truepa!N, who is 50/50 every weekend. the way it's currently set up makes it so that they'll never be able to play, which isn't really fair for anyone.

in addition, IL is currently not putting FU on their APL roster, when in my opinion he's probably the best player on their team. why? because he can probably only make one or maybe two regular season weeks. i'd much rather play against IL with FU than without, if only for the sake of the most competitive match possible. this change would allow FU to play when he can show up, and not play when he can't, as well as remove the internal drama of choosing someone to swap out for FU if he suddenly can show up the entire season.

i just don't really see a negative to this. this season is one of the most balanced team-wise in recent history, and i think that a max roster size is rather unnecessary. i'm also all for the caveat that players can not play for more than one team per APL, sounds like a great idea to me.

<3s

This. Perhaps keep a max roster size, but with a higher cap.

elxir
03-14-2011, 01:04 AM
if a player never actually "plays" for a team i think they should b able to switch tho

York
03-14-2011, 02:05 AM
agreed on all counts. maybe make it so once a player dc's and is subbed out, they can no longer play for the rest of the match (including later maps)?

maybe just that game, not the whole match. maybe he has to sit the next game but not the WHOLE match.

in response to your second post, it's less that we have tons of players tbh. selecting a roster of 12 based on activity was pretty easy. the problem is that this shafts beagle/ccn if they decide to come out of retirement as well as truepa!N, who is 50/50 every weekend. the way it's currently set up makes it so that they'll never be able to play, which isn't really fair for anyone.

you do know that you can sub any one of those three guys in at any time right?

in addition, IL is currently not putting FU on their APL roster, when in my opinion he's probably the best player on their team. why? because he can probably only make one or maybe two regular season weeks. i'd much rather play against IL with FU than without, if only for the sake of the most competitive match possible. this change would allow FU to play when he can show up, and not play when he can't, as well as remove the internal drama of choosing someone to swap out for FU if he suddenly can show up the entire season.

FU is playing, I don't know what you are talking about. IL does not need to worry about subbing new people in each week. we enter a season with 15, 12 make the startin line and 3 are on the bench waiting to get subbed in. any team that needs MORE than 15 people is just wrong

i just don't really see a negative to this. this season is one of the most balanced team-wise in recent history, and i think that a max roster size is rather unnecessary. i'm also all for the caveat that players can not play for more than one team per APL, sounds like a great idea to me.

<3s

So after bolding my last point, I came up with something. I think a max roster size of 15 would be cool. We still need a max roster for obvious reasons but maybe what we can do is this: have the max roster at 15 and then just submit a week-to-week roster of 12. I would be okay with that.

mikesol
03-14-2011, 02:12 AM
The reason they're having problems york is that they want to be able to sub in and out every week. As it stands only 3 subs are allowed for the entire tourney. What they're saying is allow more than that so they can swap more of their people in and out depending on the week.

sunshineduck
03-14-2011, 02:14 AM
The reason they're having problems york is that they want to be able to sub in and out every week. As it stands only 3 subs are allowed for the entire tourney. What they're saying is allow more than that so they can swap more of their people in and out depending on the week.

that's correct. if beagle can only play one week, subbing him in then back out would use two of the allotted three subs, which definitely isn't worth it if we're going that route. you keep saying that a max roster size is needed for obvious reasons, but i haven't seen you state any reasons at all that are still applicable today.

Goose
03-14-2011, 02:22 AM
also, we would like to sub in QUEEN ZOE for a few matches if possible. She has been secretly training her loopy for the past 3 months under the guidance of lamster, and is arguably one of the top 5 loopies in the game.

Tosconi
03-14-2011, 02:34 AM
If you consider, how do actual teams look like:

Blood Brothers: 20 members (how many inactives - question mark)
FRO - 16 members
IL - 15 members
area 51 - 14 members
Bongs - 14 members
PR - 12 members
Lobstars - 12 members (uncertain)

and...
RD - 10 members
fLb - 8 active members
death sculls - 9 members

Right now, there're 130 players involved in tbd clans, participating in the coming APL, which is in principle the overall base of players interested in competitive tbd altitude. 50% of the teams have larger members number, than the actual max roster, while 33% of the teams don't even reach this size (making their permanent 5-man attendance questionable). Canceling max roster size or enlarging it to 15 players will simply cut out 2-3 teams in the future.

15-man roster will favor only 3 teams in the community, while harming 7 of them. Therefore - instead of being unsatisfied because of not being able to play, players should just move to the other teams. There's MUCH space for this.

sunshineduck
03-14-2011, 02:43 AM
how does increasing the roster size harm any teams at all? you can only play 5 of your members at the same time, it's not like the more people you have on your team the more likely you are to win.

our issue is that these players can only show up to a match or two in the entire league and, if possible, would like to play with their friends on the team they joined up to play with. these players would not necessarily help the new teams they would join under your proposed solution.

mikesol
03-14-2011, 02:44 AM
If you consider, how do actual teams look like:

Blood Brothers: 20 members (how many inactives - question mark)
FRO - 16 members
IL - 15 members
area 51 - 14 members
Bongs - 14 members
PR - 12 members
Lobstars - 12 members (uncertain)

and...
RD - 10 members
fLb - 8 active members
death sculls - 9 members

Right now, there're 130 players involved in tbd clans, participating in the coming APL, which is in principle the overall base of players interested in competitive tbd altitude. 50% of the teams have larger members number, than the actual max roster, while 33% of the teams don't even reach this size (making their permanent 5-man attendance questionable). Canceling max roster size or enlarging it to 15 players will simply cut out 2-3 teams in the future.

15-man roster will favor only 3 teams in the community, while harming 7 of them. Therefore - instead of being unsatisfied because of not being able to play, players should just move to the other teams. There's MUCH space for this.

How would it harm 7 of them? I keep hearing people say that it would cause harm but why is that? Why would it cut teams out?

The issue is that people want to play with their friends. These teams just want to be able to have their friends play with them when they can. For people like beagle or queen zoe who can only make one or two games throughout the season - it wouldn't really make sense for them to join another team.

sunshineduck
03-14-2011, 02:53 AM
get out of my head mikesol

Goose
03-14-2011, 02:55 AM
also let the record show that we aren't trying to sub in someone like maimer or esoteric... Just Beagle (reverse HC) and QUEEN ZOE (career loopy ratio of 0.2) We aren't trying to undermine the integrity of this great league, we just want to play with our friends and have a jolly good time.

York
03-14-2011, 12:35 PM
That's what I am saying yo. I don't think it's a bad idea to have unlimited subs for the league. But there is a max of 3 and a max roster of 15 so that each week you submit a 12 man roster.

sunshineduck
03-14-2011, 02:19 PM
why does it have to be so convoluted though? lol

FRO isn't the only team that would benefit from not having a max roster size at all, and BB's track record of showing up even with a massive roster isn't that great either. you have still provided 0 reasons as to why a max roster size is even necessary. as far as i know, pwned! had no roster cap and very few teams (the only one I am aware of was IL) had issues bringing 5 to both weeks. it's a small sample size, sure, but i can't think of any reason the elimination of the max roster size hurts anyone.

VeRiTaS
03-14-2011, 03:02 PM
why does it have to be so convoluted though? lol

FRO isn't the only team that would benefit from not having a max roster size at all, and BB's track record of showing up even with a massive roster isn't that great either. you have still provided 0 reasons as to why a max roster size is even necessary. as far as i know, pwned! had no roster cap and very few teams (the only one I am aware of was IL) had issues bringing 5 to both weeks. it's a small sample size, sure, but i can't think of any reason the elimination of the max roster size hurts anyone.

SINCE we have this bigger roster we have had 100% show ups ... For the PWNED we had 14 members online at the times of the games ...
Blood Brothers: 20 members (how many inactives - question mark)

And by the way BBs active roster is counting on 15 members

trendy11one
03-14-2011, 03:47 PM
I personally see 2 problems.
1.Migrations. Some players may join other teams midseason, or closer to play-offs, since their old team dont get place in play offs.
2.Roster cap force ppl to fill other clans. Since some teams already have 12 players, players, who still not find clan, may join to empty ones.

1st one can be solved only if we stick players with their teams - player can play only for team, which he already play once.

Pieface
03-14-2011, 05:03 PM
I'd support having no roster cap with the already stated provision that players signed up for a team when the league starts can't play for another team in that league.

Evan20000
03-14-2011, 05:33 PM
I just wanted to chime in that this isn't the old altitude where APL is struggling to get enough teams so a roster cap has to be imposed. There are more than enough players to go around and from the looks of it, we already have plenty of teams for a funtional league.

Also, get out of my head Mike.

Tosconi
03-14-2011, 06:07 PM
I just wanted to chime in that this isn't the old altitude where APL is struggling to get enough teams so a roster cap has to be imposed

I'm just wondering, where do you get all this info?

hard facts:
TeamLiquid - 7 teams
Summerleague - 14 teams (2 dropped out)
ProLeague 2 - 17 teams (5 dropped out)
ProLeague 3 - 16 teams (5 dropped out)
ProLeague 4 - 12 teams

right now we have just 10! teams (while at least 1, being questionable to finnish the tournament). Sure, the teams got relatively equally strong, making the coming APL maybe the most interesting since it's start in 2009. On the other hand, we do have the Least! number of teams registered at the beginning of the season.

what makes you think, that teams won't drop out or that people won't change teams. I mean - it's great, that FRO is so integrative, but this is not the case for the most of the clans.

Although right it doesn't seem this way, but from empirics it follows, that when APL passes the middle - players from the teams placed 6-10 tend to get into the top teams, making the balance even worse.

Evan20000
03-14-2011, 06:11 PM
I was looking at the number of active players on ladder that could potentially form teams. The lack of initiative is the only thing holding those teams back from being formed.

Tosconi
03-14-2011, 06:30 PM
I was looking at the number of active players on ladder that could potentially form teams. The lack of initiative is the only thing holding those teams back from being formed.

true, but consider this. Between 185 and 950 places in ladder, 90% of those players only participated in 1-10 games. Remember inactive players, which have more games, but don't play anymore.

and here you go - the actual player base is around 200 people, regularly fighting in tbd ladder. Although it is still 70 more, than the current apl-team members (130 ppl being involved), it is still a relatively small player base.

ps: it is actually a pity we couldn't convince any ball clan (or at least ball involved-only players to participate in APL :(

Evan20000
03-14-2011, 07:00 PM
Lets assume we somehow convince those 70 players to form 4-5 teams. We have an about equal team presence to the other leagues. We could get more if we could convince some of the "ball only" players to try this fabulous gametype.

The problem with directly porting a ball team to TBD though is that a decent amount of ball players have already joined TBD teams and vice versa. Conflicting loyalties and unneeded drama would ensue. T_T

trendy11one
03-14-2011, 07:18 PM
Arr, AIR, WoF. Seems like those teams doesnt have any tbd players.(with exception of J, who member of 51)

Inofaith
03-27-2011, 03:10 AM
<3 for point 3.