Forums
§ RS Warring League §
Quick find code: 135-136-28-66059198
Thanks for the posts 99
Multiclanning:
I wouldn't want to remove the warbands ladder either
From what I understand, your idea is to cap the amount of players teams can have in the warbands ladder? If so, this would make it easier for the reps to keep track of their memberlists as they would be smaller, but it would still require memberlist rules to work properly. I'm not sure it would encourage more people to war though. For example, say the memberlists are capped at 20 people, and a warbands fc has 23 people interested in warring. The extra 3 wouldn't be able to participate or form their own team. Not to mention that managing to pull enough to war takes discipline or a large memberlist - if we were to reduce team memberlists it would be difficult for the teams made from 'extras' to successfully manage their team.
Imo there are two main solutions to multiclanning in the wbs ladder:
1 - Add memberlist rules. This would require team reps to keep track of and repeatedly post a large memberlist, which is of course a pain and can easily lead to disputes and drama if neglected (hence why we haven't done it so far).
2 - A dispute-resolution approach. The issue people have isn't so much multiclanning, but excessive multiclanning. If a clan is accused of such, we could keep a tab on the players that participate in their next 2-3 wars. If it becomes clear the participants are indeed pretty much the same then the teams can be merged (and take the rank of the higher ranked team).
(answering next two sections in a bit) -
Clam Enigma's evil twin | Council of the RS
-•¤{
Multiclanning:
I wouldn't want to remove the warbands ladder either
From what I understand, your idea is to cap the amount of players teams can have in the warbands ladder? If so, this would make it easier for the reps to keep track of their memberlists as they would be smaller, but it would still require memberlist rules to work properly. I'm not sure it would encourage more people to war though. For example, say the memberlists are capped at 20 people, and a warbands fc has 23 people interested in warring. The extra 3 wouldn't be able to participate or form their own team. Not to mention that managing to pull enough to war takes discipline or a large memberlist - if we were to reduce team memberlists it would be difficult for the teams made from 'extras' to successfully manage their team.
Imo there are two main solutions to multiclanning in the wbs ladder:
1 - Add memberlist rules. This would require team reps to keep track of and repeatedly post a large memberlist, which is of course a pain and can easily lead to disputes and drama if neglected (hence why we haven't done it so far).
2 - A dispute-resolution approach. The issue people have isn't so much multiclanning, but excessive multiclanning. If a clan is accused of such, we could keep a tab on the players that participate in their next 2-3 wars. If it becomes clear the participants are indeed pretty much the same then the teams can be merged (and take the rank of the higher ranked team).
(answering next two sections in a bit) -
C.E.
Clam Enigma's evil twin | Council of the RS
W
arring League
-•¤{
Wicked
Fury
}¤•-
18-Apr-2016 22:35:04
Immunity
Honestly I'm personally ambivalent on this. There needs to be some immunity to give clans a bit of a break and prevent spam challenging. Whether it's 3 days or a week I honestly don't think makes much of a difference since wars are held on weekends anyway, so as long as it's not over a week the negotiated time of the war will end up being the same in 90% of the cases.
Time required for a war to occur
Atm, a war must occur within 3 weeks of the declaration. The reasoning behind giving several weeks is mainly threefold:
1 - Being ranked wars, clans/teams want to be on their best form and choose the optimal time and day. Allowing a couple of weekends of choice makes this easier.
2 - Clans are in multiple ladders and could have up to 6 challenges at once, so a few weeks to fight in gives them the chance to spread out the wars.
3 - Especially on holidays, exam time etc, it may be very inconvenient to war on one or two of the nearest weekends.
You may argue 3 weeks is still too long, others claim 2 weeks is too short. All I can say is that 1 week is too short and 4 weeks too long
-
Clam Enigma's evil twin | Council of the RS
-•¤{
Honestly I'm personally ambivalent on this. There needs to be some immunity to give clans a bit of a break and prevent spam challenging. Whether it's 3 days or a week I honestly don't think makes much of a difference since wars are held on weekends anyway, so as long as it's not over a week the negotiated time of the war will end up being the same in 90% of the cases.
Time required for a war to occur
Atm, a war must occur within 3 weeks of the declaration. The reasoning behind giving several weeks is mainly threefold:
1 - Being ranked wars, clans/teams want to be on their best form and choose the optimal time and day. Allowing a couple of weekends of choice makes this easier.
2 - Clans are in multiple ladders and could have up to 6 challenges at once, so a few weeks to fight in gives them the chance to spread out the wars.
3 - Especially on holidays, exam time etc, it may be very inconvenient to war on one or two of the nearest weekends.
You may argue 3 weeks is still too long, others claim 2 weeks is too short. All I can say is that 1 week is too short and 4 weeks too long
-
C.E.
Clam Enigma's evil twin | Council of the RS
W
arring League
-•¤{
Wicked
Fury
}¤•-
18-Apr-2016 22:49:00
Original message details are unavailable.
Immunity
3 - Especially on holidays, exam time etc, it may be very inconvenient to war on one or two of the nearest weekends.
You may argue 3 weeks is still too long, others claim 2 weeks is too short. All I can say is that 1 week is too short and 4 weeks too long
people will always claim that certain times are inconvinient, 2 seperate weekend is enough, if your whole team cant be on then train more people to be good enough for team. good teams will prove themselves by having a wider base of people to choose from.
Immunity
3 - Especially on holidays, exam time etc, it may be very inconvenient to war on one or two of the nearest weekends.
You may argue 3 weeks is still too long, others claim 2 weeks is too short. All I can say is that 1 week is too short and 4 weeks too long
people will always claim that certain times are inconvinient, 2 seperate weekend is enough, if your whole team cant be on then train more people to be good enough for team. good teams will prove themselves by having a wider base of people to choose from.
18-Apr-2016 22:52:20
Original message details are unavailable.
It would be upsetting to remove people from tb as we have to many people from a certain clan. I believe that a better way to do this would be to put a limit on the amount of people that have warred for a different team in the ladder. So say pvma had warred recently in the wbs ladder and we had a tb war coming up out of me tin kayne kristaps aus and zappy only 3 of them would be able to participate in a round.
Could work but it would require tracking of who participated in every war for every team. Possible, yes - if there's someone reliable at every war who can keep take note of participants. Not sure if it would work out as well as intended but definitely an idea to keep in mind
What did you think of point 2 (the dispute resolution approach)? Basically it's very similar to what you proposed, but only requiring monitoring for clans against who a plausible dispute has been lodged.
@Shyvana - the amount one can declare ahead is on my list to look into
Thanks for your input on immuniy and stalling as well
-
Clam Enigma's evil twin | Council of the RS
-•¤{
It would be upsetting to remove people from tb as we have to many people from a certain clan. I believe that a better way to do this would be to put a limit on the amount of people that have warred for a different team in the ladder. So say pvma had warred recently in the wbs ladder and we had a tb war coming up out of me tin kayne kristaps aus and zappy only 3 of them would be able to participate in a round.
Could work but it would require tracking of who participated in every war for every team. Possible, yes - if there's someone reliable at every war who can keep take note of participants. Not sure if it would work out as well as intended but definitely an idea to keep in mind
What did you think of point 2 (the dispute resolution approach)? Basically it's very similar to what you proposed, but only requiring monitoring for clans against who a plausible dispute has been lodged.
@Shyvana - the amount one can declare ahead is on my list to look into
Thanks for your input on immuniy and stalling as well
-
C.E.
Clam Enigma's evil twin | Council of the RS
W
arring League
-•¤{
Wicked
Fury
}¤•-
18-Apr-2016 22:56:13 - Last edited on 18-Apr-2016 23:02:38 by Calm Enigma
Original message details are unavailable.
Original message details are unavailable.
It would be upsetting to remove people from tb as we have to many people from a certain clan. I believe that a better way to do this would be to put a limit on the amount of people that have warred for a different team in the ladder. So say pvma had warred recently in the wbs ladder and we had a tb war coming up out of me tin kayne kristaps aus and zappy only 3 of them would be able to participate in a round.
Could work but it would require tracking of who participated in every war for every team. Possible, yes - if there's someone reliable at every war who can keep take note of participants. Not sure if it would work out as well as intended but definitely an idea to keep in mind
What did you think of point 2 (the dispute resolution approach)? Point 2 is certainly a better idea than the first, however i think everyone would accept that it's going to be broken so personally i'd like clarification on what multi clanning would actually be because Tb currently have 7 members of pvma and 7 members from dr + a few members who arent affiliated to clans so in a given round although unlikely, it would be possible for us to have 7 members from pvma or dr in tbs team. I hope that i am rotating people and giving them sufficient opportunity in tb and not really doing anything wrong imo however we are multi clanning inadvertently.
Original message details are unavailable.
It would be upsetting to remove people from tb as we have to many people from a certain clan. I believe that a better way to do this would be to put a limit on the amount of people that have warred for a different team in the ladder. So say pvma had warred recently in the wbs ladder and we had a tb war coming up out of me tin kayne kristaps aus and zappy only 3 of them would be able to participate in a round.
Could work but it would require tracking of who participated in every war for every team. Possible, yes - if there's someone reliable at every war who can keep take note of participants. Not sure if it would work out as well as intended but definitely an idea to keep in mind
What did you think of point 2 (the dispute resolution approach)? Point 2 is certainly a better idea than the first, however i think everyone would accept that it's going to be broken so personally i'd like clarification on what multi clanning would actually be because Tb currently have 7 members of pvma and 7 members from dr + a few members who arent affiliated to clans so in a given round although unlikely, it would be possible for us to have 7 members from pvma or dr in tbs team. I hope that i am rotating people and giving them sufficient opportunity in tb and not really doing anything wrong imo however we are multi clanning inadvertently.
PvM Addicts
|
Le Immortals
|
CPK
18-Apr-2016 23:05:56
I support will's idea, also to stop stalling by having an allied/placeholder team declare on you i support zappy's idea of re-introducing the limit of how many ranks you can declare ahead.
EDIT: Also if we're adding the limit back we need a cleanup on wbs ladder; that's zappy's idea too.
EDIT: Also if we're adding the limit back we need a cleanup on wbs ladder; that's zappy's idea too.
18-Apr-2016 23:40:57 - Last edited on 18-Apr-2016 23:47:11 by Carbon
Quick find code: 135-136-28-66059198 Back to Top