|
Originally Posted by Borderline Boss
There seems to be a mix up because girl I'm amazing.
|
HP made a good point about "barcode" teams as well. We should be sure to include something like that.
As for running multiple major PvP venues at the same time: True, the TPvPL, IPvPL, FPvPL (the old pentad one) and a few others were run at the same time as the test ladder. However, the test ladder was already established and in no real danger of being completely overtaken by other events. We should wait until we have a stable ladder before we do anything else major.
|
Originally Posted by Silit
HP made a good point about "barcode" teams as well. We should be sure to include something like that.
As for running multiple major PvP venues at the same time: True, the TPvPL, IPvPL, FPvPL (the old pentad one) and a few others were run at the same time as the test ladder. However, the test ladder was already established and in no real danger of being completely overtaken by other events. We should wait until we have a stable ladder before we do anything else major. |
|
Originally Posted by Silit
HP made a good point about "barcode" teams as well. We should be sure to include something like that.
As for running multiple major PvP venues at the same time: True, the TPvPL, IPvPL, FPvPL (the old pentad one) and a few others were run at the same time as the test ladder. However, the test ladder was already established and in no real danger of being completely overtaken by other events. We should wait until we have a stable ladder before we do anything else major. |
You should agree. Making Ladders/Leagues competing with eachother's going to be an issue. If it's your job to help PvP grow, why put more stress on what's actually looking like it could get a great start?
Other events would create interest, and pointing them towards the Ladder would be great. Just can't use an obligation to further PvP as an excuse to put strain on it's best looking option. Irony.
Ladder start yet? :P
o.0
So the fact that test people want a test ladder should be an excuse for withholding any other type of organized pvp in the entire game while it forms up to keep from possibly conflicting with a test ladder forming up?
I normally agree with everything you say just about but sorry Vex that sounds beyond off the wall.
Either way we have a monthly feature coming out across all the servers as soon as Peril writes up the format. Other than that I know it would be atleast a few weeks before anything else significant comes out. Hopefully people will actually get this off the ground fairly quick and then it would be up and going and future events wouldn't be an issue.
|
Originally Posted by Vexington
You should agree. Making Ladders/Leagues competing with eachother's going to be an issue. If it's your job to help PvP grow, why put more stress on what's actually looking like it could get a great start?
Other events would create interest, and pointing them towards the Ladder would be great. Just can't use an obligation to further PvP as an excuse to put strain on it's best looking option. Irony. |
It's really not.. Test people vs everyone else. It's PvPrs.
|
Originally Posted by Borderline Boss
criticalkat what ladder team are you on?
|
Thank you Silit for the kind words and recognition of my absolutely legitimate contribution to this conversation.
If anyone is short on people, let me know, I'm probably more than willing to join depending on the person.
If the ladder starts now will people be able to join say a couple of weeks later?
I had no idea pvp was this serious
|
Originally Posted by CriticalKat
CHS
CriticalKat-HotHeels-Silit Being your other teammate left the game makes it destiny to me. |
|
Originally Posted by h0j
I had no idea pvp was this serious
|
As shown by your use of periods.
...
.....!
|
Originally Posted by CriticalKat
The whole bench warmers get cycled in to best 2 out of 3 rounds is bull and you know it. Every single test team I was on rarely even let the benchwarmers play practice matches against other teams more less do an official match against other teams.
|
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but we should probably put a rule in that can stop a team from going for one kill with two stalkers on the team, and having the rest of the team DC out in order to gain a cheap win. At the least, make a notation that such a tactic can/will result in a nullification of the match results and a replay of the match until it is done so legitimately.
And on the note of how line-ups should be submitted. I don't really care. Counter-picking is really boring and is nowhere near as strategic or exciting as barrier makes it out to seem.
Edit: Add a rule that allows for the OPTION of a 20 minute official if both teams agree to it. While I'm sure plenty will say now that such a rule is unnecessary, it'd be nice to at least have. I know I personally asked practically every team that we challenged/fought on the ladder to do a 20 minute match before agreeing to 10. Plus it'd be nice to see a 20 minute official again, but that's me.
|
Originally Posted by vindizzLe
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but we should probably put a rule in that can stop a team from going for one kill with two stalkers on the team, and having the rest of the team DC out in order to gain a cheap win. At the least, make a notation that such a tactic can/will result in a nullification of the match results and a replay of the match until it is done so legitimately.
And on the note of how line-ups should be submitted. I don't really care. Counter-picking is really boring and is nowhere near as strategic or exciting as barrier makes it out to seem. Edit: Add a rule that allows for the OPTION of a 20 minute official if both teams agree to it. While I'm sure plenty will say now that such a rule is unnecessary, it'd be nice to at least have. I know I personally asked practically every team that we challenged/fought on the ladder to do a 20 minute match before agreeing to 10. Plus it'd be nice to see a 20 minute official again, but that's me. |
|
Originally Posted by vindizzLe
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but we should probably put a rule in that can stop a team from going for one kill with two stalkers on the team, and having the rest of the team DC out in order to gain a cheap win. At the least, make a notation that such a tactic can/will result in a nullification of the match results and a replay of the match until it is done so legitimately.
And on the note of how line-ups should be submitted. I don't really care. Counter-picking is really boring and is nowhere near as strategic or exciting as barrier makes it out to seem. Edit: Add a rule that allows for the OPTION of a 20 minute official if both teams agree to it. While I'm sure plenty will say now that such a rule is unnecessary, it'd be nice to at least have. I know I personally asked practically every team that we challenged/fought on the ladder to do a 20 minute match before agreeing to 10. Plus it'd be nice to see a 20 minute official again, but that's me. |
|
Originally Posted by vindizzLe
Every single test team you played on was garbage.
Velocity was the first test team I ever joined, I started in the first officials I was eligible for (the ladder's inception) immediately. Plenty of players that joined when I did were also given the opportunity to play. They may not have started, but they played. There were plenty of teams on test that rotated in other players on their roster during officials. Hell, I got stuck therming with Johnny Wildfire while we were both in VORI. And Kaiserin was online and ready to play. Don't tell me what's bull and what isn't, you've never played for anyone worth mentioning. Case closed. |
|
Originally Posted by Silit
I think it's important to have a rule that prevents the above-mentioned tactic of having your entire team minus the stalkers quit a match after getting one kill. I thought about it earlier but nothing comprehensive came to mind. Any ideas?
|
|
Originally Posted by Borderline Boss
There is a weight limit for being eligible to join CHS, its whatever silit is and I'm pretty sure you exceed that.
|
