Ladle 18

K-Yo · Post by **K-Yo** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:26 pm

DDMJ wrote:Can you guys please enter an actual list of who's going to be playing for you guys.

Of course we can, as soon as we have it

(I think by the end of the week...)

But this Idea of listing players is really bad imo...
Indeed, what prevents a team to smurf?
we need 8 players? ok, no prob, here they are: cter_n1, cter_n2, cter_n3, cter_n4, cter_n5, cter_n6, cter_n7, cter_n8 adn as backup: cter_n9 and cter_n10

you can trust me, there won't be anyone else playing in our team!!

... see my point?

Post by **epsy** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:22 pm

Are substitutes allowed?

freako · Post by **freako** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:50 pm

epsy wrote:Are substitutes allowed?

I would vote yes on that

But I also think we should have a member cap for every team.

Like 10 or 12?

Post by **epsy** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:44 pm

duh..

DDMJ · Post by **DDMJ** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 4:02 am

I say you only put players down that you think are actually going to show up, not your whole roster.

12 sounds like a good limit. Then, if only 2/3 of the team shows up, thats still 8 players, which fills a full team.

K-Yo · Post by **K-Yo** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:41 pm

any reaction to my post? ^o)

2020 · Post by **2020** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 8:50 pm

eventually
we will only list team names which will link to wikipages or webpages

seems to me
we only need first string players
and extras can be added on wikipages and team webpages

hence
getting your name on the team creates a little kudos
a little internal competition wrt pride...

~*PsYkO*~ · Post by **~*PsYkO*~** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:29 pm

DDMJ wrote:Also, to CT, X, DS, and all the teams that usually just link to their memberlist on their forums, can you guys please enter an actual list of who's going to be playing for you guys. Since we're trying to enforce this "locking" of teams thing, it's unfair if you guys have a remote link to manage your players-list seeing as you could easily change it even after the deadline. It's not that time consuming, SP did it.

EDIT: Damn, I thought I added this to my other post. Sorry for the double-post.

Durka <3s SP

Hoax · Post by **Hoax** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:40 pm

DDMJ wrote:Also, to CT, X, DS, and all the teams that usually just link to their memberlist on their forums, can you guys please enter an actual list of who's going to be playing for you guys. Since we're trying to enforce this "locking" of teams thing, it's unfair if you guys have a remote link to manage your players-list seeing as you could easily change it even after the deadline. It's not that time consuming, SP did it.

EDIT: Damn, I thought I added this to my other post. Sorry for the double-post.

I have actually gone to edit the board once I definitely know who's playing for us but I'm usually too late & it's been locked

Also does anyone know if the 'old' challenge boards are still up? I forgot what the links were, you could just play around with the address a bit. It was nice to be able to look back & see the old challenge boards for individual ladles and see who played. I think they were lost though when rain reorganised it all into one.

owned · Post by **owned** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:45 am

well it's always been here:

http://wiki.armagetronad.net/index.php? ... enge_Board

just scroll down.

DDMJ wrote:Also, to CT, X, DS, and all the teams that usually just link to their memberlist on their forums, can you guys please enter an actual list of who's going to be playing for you guys. Since we're trying to enforce this "locking" of teams thing, it's unfair if you guys have a remote link to manage your players-list seeing as you could easily change it even after the deadline. It's not that time consuming, SP did it.

EDIT: Damn, I thought I added this to my other post. Sorry for the double-post.

you guys have 3, then ...

Hoax · Post by **Hoax** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:57 am

Hoax wrote: Also does anyone know if the 'old' challenge boards are still up? I forgot what the links were, you could just play around with the address a bit. It was nice to be able to look back & see the old challenge boards for individual ladles and see who played. I think they were lost though when rain reorganised it all into one.

Guess I should have said "what players played."

Corn1 · Post by **Corn1** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:02 am

Even if we can't find it, I would like to suggest preserving it from now on. I know a lot of people are and will be curious as to who has played from what ladle and how long people have been attending it and such so at least moving it to another wiki page would be nice if you don't just leave it there.

owned wrote: you guys have 3, then ...

3 players that have signed up so far... the point isn't signing up in bulk; the point is signing up for you're team if you know you can come not just signing up because you can sign up.

owned · Post by **owned** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:05 am

and also screenshots and a game recording.

But anyways, are we gonna have seeding this ladle?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 5:38 am

so only 3 teams so far???

--EDIT--

I got the Fortress Brawl and this ladle dates mixed up....

1200 · Post by **1200** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:05 pm

I don't see why you need to put a cap on the number of players registering for each team just yet.
I mean before we get into that we should clear out some other grey areas like "Are we allowing substitutes that are not registered on the day of the tourny?" etc. This has been allowed in past Ladles.
If we allow things like that the cap doesn't really mean anything.

I mean if CT is registered to play in the Ladle i would like to think that they would be allowed to show up with any of their members come the day of the tourny. There should be rules and restrictions but i don't see a big benefit to this restriction except to satisfy the curiosity of some people...

I know some people may say, "Well in the World Cup & other international sports teams have to announce the team prior to the tournaments." Yea true but we are no where near organized and dedicated to the competition and teams are consistently turning up with less than the full team.

I would much rather allow teams to allow subs on the day so that there is more chance of 8vs8 taking place.