[x5_Potter]

I like the rule about at least 1 different player a week, but not the one about players can't play 3 weeks in a row. If one of my players keeps winning, I'm gonna keep playing him. There's already the no same ace 2 weeks in a row, and at least one different player a week rule. Anymore player restrictions will start suffocating teams and diminish the quality. The players can't play 3 weeks in a row is potentially punishing players who have practiced and played well enough to win.

Quick Comments

	asdfSchnitzel:
	rezyn8:
	Zealo:

[ROOTPetraeus]

Originally Posted by VB_Potthead

I like the rule about at least 1 different player a week, but not the one about players can't play 3 weeks in a row. If one of my players keeps winning, I'm gonna keep playing him. There's already the no same ace 2 weeks in a row, and at least one different player a week rule. Anymore player restrictions will start suffocating teams and diminish the quality. The players can't play 3 weeks in a row is potentially punishing players who have practiced and played well enough to win.

can't give rep, but agree

[breadfan]

remember this is a BSGP league. It's not about quality. I like the idea about rotating people in. I like the admin choice to force this, and I think that if you care about results, you should aim to be in a higher div next season!

[x5_Potter]

It's not about results for me, it's about giving the players who practice a go. The rule for my team is more practice, more play. I want the people who practice most to be rewarded with being able to play each week, because they've earned it. If a silver on my team practices more than my best player, I will play the silver player because he has put the effort in. The new rule could effectively punish players who put in the effort to get to play each week, only to be told they can't cos they've already played a couple weeks in a row.

Quick Comments

Bugalugs McScruffin:

This is what we should be encouraging. Players that are participating and trying to get better. :)

[FSBenAD]

Agree with what you said Potthead. I also feel like maybe it would be better to have a simpler system in this case.

Maybe instead of 1 per week and no 3 weeks in a row, you can just do one or the other?
IE - maybe 2 changes per week?

Whatever you guys decide is fine, just throwing ideas around

[syfChadMann]

We are just trying to rotate the rosters around... the rule on no 1 Ace two weeks in a row, doesn't mean someone that played as Ace can't play in the 1-4 spots for their team. All you really need to do, is swap over 1-2 people per week. We are trying to stop All star line ups and give everyone a go, people that aren't practising might get a boost of confidence in their play if they are sent out and either win, and surprise themselves, or get owned and have the desire to practice hard so it doesn't happen again!!

3 weeks in a row its quite good, what it means is your best player, that practices and plays the most, only needs 2 rest weeks for the whole season!.. that is quite a lot of game time for your hardest practising players! However, if it become and issue, we might revisit the rule. However, effectively, Maynarde and I have 3 weeks to work it out.

[FSBenAD]

Isn't it 3 weeks off?
2 games on, 1 off, 2 on, 1 off, 2 on, 1 off, 1 game on (10 matches)

Or I am understanding it wrong and its actually 3 weeks, then they have to have a week off..
Because that makes it
3 on, 1 off, 3 on, 1 off, 2 games on (10 matches)

EDIT: Just clarifying here so I can try and plan out who plays when, with holidays and stuff
Im fine with the rule itself.

[FSBenAD]

ChadMann / Maynarde - Just a promotion roster update, Zomgrofl on our team made it to today.

[rezyn8]

Players cannot play 3 weeks in a row? What?

From my point of view, I will be rotating players, but a team will need to have 9 regular players to fulfil this requirement.

Edit: If you impose the rule of 1 new player each week that will encourage roster rotation without imposing a restriction on the players.

BSG players are notorious for disappearing. Why are there so many restrictions for this tier where subs and wildcards will have to be constantly used for small teams and for those players who have real life commitments that come up and there is no other recourse but to use the same five players or break the 3 week rule?

FaDe had a large roster in the BSGCL, but it was generally a core of 5 players that made it to most games. And as experience from BSGCL showed, a lot of BSG players just up and disappeared for no reason and weren't contactable... ever.

Maybe I am mis-interpreting this 3 week thing but it is going to cause a few headaches and walkovers which is not what we want.

[syfChadMann]

Originally Posted by rezyn8

Players cannot play 3 weeks in a row? What?

From my point of view, I will be rotating players, but a team will need to have 9 regular players to fulfil this requirement.

Edit: If you impose the rule of 1 new player each week that will encourage roster rotation without imposing a restriction on the players.

BSG players are notorious for disappearing. Why are there so many restrictions for this tier where subs and wildcards will have to be constantly used for small teams and for those players who have real life commitments that come up and there is no other recourse but to use the same five players or break the 3 week rule?

FaDe had a large roster in the BSGCL, but it was generally a core of 5 players that made it to most games. And as experience from BSGCL showed, a lot of BSG players just up and disappeared for no reason and weren't contactable... ever.

Maybe I am mis-interpreting this 3 week thing but it is going to cause a few headaches and walkovers which is not what we want.

Rotate your roster, keep your team active and you won't have to worry about it. IF someone becomes inactive, sub someone else into your roster that will be active. I would rather permit a team that has lots of inactive players more subs to bring active players in rather than have the same 5 people play for that team each week.

[rezyn8]

I think you missed the point of my post:

- 9 active players required to fulfil the 3 week rule
- 3 week rule is bad, please remove it
- I will be rotating my roster, but I agree with Potthead

[ToRSpartaz]

Originally Posted by rezyn8

Players cannot play 3 weeks in a row? What? .

I like this notion, gives players more competitive experience and develops the team more. Good call by the admins, I like this initiative.

[|Erasmus|]

Originally Posted by TAChadMann

Rotate your roster, keep your team active and you won't have to worry about it. IF someone becomes inactive, sub someone else into your roster that will be active. I would rather permit a team that has lots of inactive players more subs to bring active players in rather than have the same 5 people play for that team each week.

I do really hate the attitude that clans should just "find more players" mid season and stuff if people are becoming inactive.

I support rotating the roster, but enforcing 9 active players to be able to meet these new arbitrary requirements when the signup thread specifically said that 8 players are needed to form the team is just a little ridiculous, imo.

Quick Comments

	rezyn8:
	Zealo:
	krycek:

[Maynarde]

I'm fine for dragging the 3 week rotation rule. I can see how it would cause issues for some teams, and not particularly attached to it. You must still rotate a player a week, and I strongly encourage full roster rotations. The idea of this Tier is to improve and get into higher tiers, if you're not getting a go you don't feel the need to practice.

Quick Comments

rezyn8:

[breadfan]

You only need 8 active players for it to work, but I can see the point.

I would hope that there is some room for discretion... Like if it turns out that a team only has 5 possible players online, they shouldn't be penalised - the point is it's a bit more casual than the higher leagues after all. But it should come down to the manager talking to the admins and saying "hey, we don't have any choice" - admin's have everyone's character code and can check if necessary that others on the roster really aren't online.

So to clarify, I still support the forced rotation and think that admins should be able to make exceptions for the smooth flow of the league - I'd rather be on a team that loses 0-5 than be on a team than one that wins with 3 walkovers.

[Zealo]

Originally Posted by TAChadMann

and players cannot play 3 weeks in a row

this is not in maynarde's rule post...

i don't like it, makes rostering players very complicated. the 'change one player per week' rule also makes things complicated but isn't going to potentially lead to a situation that 4 out of 7 active players are ineligible to play on a certain week.

if you are going to enforce a 'not the same ace 2 weeks in a row' then please remove the 'players must be registered in order of league' rule (that also isn't in maynarde's post). a team with only 1 player in plat (or 1 player in gold if no plats) would be forced to sit out their best (ranked) player every second week with these rules combined...

the new rule 3 also makes little sense, if it wasn't there and a team wanted to abuse the wildcard system somehow then they would have just named the better player in the first place i feel?

[syfChadMann]

Originally Posted by Zealo

if you are going to enforce a 'not the same ace 2 weeks in a row' then please remove the 'players must be registered in order of league' rule (that also isn't in maynarde's post). a team with only 1 player in plat (or 1 player in gold if no plats) would be forced to sit out their best (ranked) player every second week with these rules combined...

the new rule 3 also makes little sense, if it wasn't there and a team wanted to abuse the wildcard system somehow then they would have just named the better player in the first place i feel?

The rules are being revised due to the response from everyone here.. However, we will not be removing the league order ruling.

To aid in the new revised rules, please provide constructive feedback and suggestions as to how we can permit small teams to perform unhindered, while forcing changes in the roster.

At this stage, I think, either: 2 changes enforced per week.. that is all play the same Ace every week if you want. OR 1 change per week, not the same ace per week. this means, you need 6 players two of which have the ability to ace for your team.

If anyone has a constructive idea on how we can promote team rotation, then please post.

[Maynarde]

Originally Posted by Zealo

this is not in maynarde's rule post...

i don't like it, makes rostering players very complicated. the 'change one player per week' rule also makes things complicated but isn't going to potentially lead to a situation that 4 out of 7 active players are ineligible to play on a certain week.

No it's not in my rule post and it's not a rule, it's something we discussed to put in my rule post but as you'll see halfway up this page I said that we're fine with dragging the 3 week rule.

Originally Posted by Zealo

if you are going to enforce a 'not the same ace 2 weeks in a row' then please remove the 'players must be registered in order of league' rule (that also isn't in maynarde's post). a team with only 1 player in plat (or 1 player in gold if no plats) would be forced to sit out their best (ranked) player every second week with these rules combined...

No it's not in my post because again it's not a rule, we're not putting players out in order of league. This is something ChadMann and I discussed but figured player rotation would be good enough, and most people would be using their highest level player for the ace match regardless. I like the "not the same aces 2 weeks in a row" thing I can see it working.

Originally Posted by Zealo

the new rule 3 also makes little sense, if it wasn't there and a team wanted to abuse the wildcard system somehow then they would have just named the better player in the first place i feel?

What? I'm sorry man forgive me but I read this paragraph through a couple times and I don't understand it so you'll have to help me with this one. Sorry I think I'm over tired or something.

The reasoning behind the 3 week rule was so that teams don't have THIS situation;

Week 1	Week 2
Player A	Player A
Player B	Player B
Player C	Player C
Player D->F	Player F->D
Player E	Player E

Without that rule, it's technically OK for teams to rotate the same player out a week, and replacing him with another player then putting that player back again over and over and over. We are going to drag the 3 week rule, but PLEASE don't do this. We want to see a good healthy rotation in every team, give everyone a week off at least once, give everyone in your team a go I'm sure you want them ALL to improve not just a handful. Even small teams should be able to do this (Example: Don't sub D for F every week, sub A for D instead and B next week or something).

[rezyn8]

Thank you, MaynMann! Keep up the good work and thanks for listening to us!

Quick Comments

breadfan:

MaynMann!

[Zealo]

Originally Posted by Maynarde

No it's not in my post because again it's not a rule, we're not putting players out in order of league.

ok, gives players a lot more flexibility picking a starting map

What? I'm sorry man forgive me but I read this paragraph through a couple times and I don't understand it so you'll have to help me with this one. Sorry I think I'm over tired or something.

sorry i can see how that's not clear.
it was referring to the post you made, where rule number 3 was something like "no shows can only be replaced by people in the same league or lower"

The reasoning behind the 3 week rule was so that teams don't have THIS situation...

i understand that and it's a good sentiment. personally i think it would be easier to let teams decide on their own rotation policies that give everyone who signed up a go, but i didn't participate in either of the BSG seasons so i'll trust your judgement and whatever decision you guys come up with


thanks again for obviously putting a huge ammount of effort and thought into this to make it fun for everybody