It's a bit long and I apologize for it but it's all important so please read it
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KtyXL3QAaiReKkldZcjb4LLdX3wWckrz6WToABlEgaE/edit?usp=sharing
thanks
here's the survey link
On NATF2's Future
posted in
TF2 General Discussion
It's a bit long and I apologize for it but it's all important so please read it
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KtyXL3QAaiReKkldZcjb4LLdX3wWckrz6WToABlEgaE/edit?usp=sharing
thanks
here's the survey [url=https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSf3jahFq2qLDF0J9IQ99nigXwcq-gZNyjSPi7be-V3iQDPgnA/viewform?usp=sf_link]link [/url]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KtyXL3QAaiReKkldZcjb4LLdX3wWckrz6WToABlEgaE/edit?usp=sharing
thanks
here's the survey [url=https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSf3jahFq2qLDF0J9IQ99nigXwcq-gZNyjSPi7be-V3iQDPgnA/viewform?usp=sf_link]link [/url]
Thank you for taking the time and putting the effort into this, truly. This type of community interaction is exactly how we need to go about figuring out our post-ESEA situation.
Thank you for taking the time and putting the effort into this, truly. This type of community interaction is exactly how we need to go about figuring out our post-ESEA situation.
you say the main allure of rgl is money, but right now the main allure of rgl is that it exists.
it is a functional (or dysfunctional, we'll see) league that has servers, a website, teams signed up etc. sigafoo has a spotty track record, but we know the season will actually happen, teams will compete and prizes will get paid out.
you guys can tear it down all you want, and a lot of the criticisms are valid, but tearing it down won't get tf2 matches played. i think it's important for the esea replacement to happen quickly so the small core playerbase doesn't melt away in the interim. while everyone else is still talking, sigafoo has a league set up. that's the allure, for better or worse.
you say the main allure of rgl is money, but right now the main allure of rgl is that it exists.
it is a functional (or dysfunctional, we'll see) league that has servers, a website, teams signed up etc. sigafoo has a spotty track record, but we know the season will actually happen, teams will compete and prizes will get paid out.
you guys can tear it down all you want, and a lot of the criticisms are valid, but tearing it down won't get tf2 matches played. i think it's important for the esea replacement to happen quickly so the small core playerbase doesn't melt away in the interim. while everyone else is still talking, sigafoo has a league set up. that's the allure, for better or worse.
it is a functional (or dysfunctional, we'll see) league that has servers, a website, teams signed up etc. sigafoo has a spotty track record, but we know the season will actually happen, teams will compete and prizes will get paid out.
you guys can tear it down all you want, and a lot of the criticisms are valid, but tearing it down won't get tf2 matches played. i think it's important for the esea replacement to happen quickly so the small core playerbase doesn't melt away in the interim. while everyone else is still talking, sigafoo has a league set up. that's the allure, for better or worse.
glassyou say the main allure of rgl is money, but right now the main allure of rgl is that it exists.
you guys can tear it down all you want, and a lot of the criticisms are valid, but tearing it down won't get tf2 matches played.
I think this is an active effort to figure out how we can create a league with all of the rules / stipulations everyone feels are the best. This is less about disliking RGL and more about the betterment of TF2 in my opinion.
[quote=glass]you say the main allure of rgl is money, but right now the main allure of rgl is that it exists.
you guys can tear it down all you want, and a lot of the criticisms are valid, but tearing it down won't get tf2 matches played.[/quote]
I think this is an active effort to figure out how we can create a league with all of the rules / stipulations everyone feels are the best. This is less about disliking RGL and more about the betterment of TF2 in my opinion.
you guys can tear it down all you want, and a lot of the criticisms are valid, but tearing it down won't get tf2 matches played.[/quote]
I think this is an active effort to figure out how we can create a league with all of the rules / stipulations everyone feels are the best. This is less about disliking RGL and more about the betterment of TF2 in my opinion.
that's true, but i think this is a valid concern
glassit's important for the esea replacement to happen quickly so the small core playerbase doesn't melt away in the interim
gotta go fast
that's true, but i think this is a valid concern
[quote=glass]it's important for the esea replacement to happen quickly so the small core playerbase doesn't melt away in the interim[/quote]
gotta go fast
[quote=glass]it's important for the esea replacement to happen quickly so the small core playerbase doesn't melt away in the interim[/quote]
gotta go fast
Read through the document and thanks for clarifying some points you made in it over DM with me. We're definitely keeping this and everything we've read so far in mind as we release our changes and survey tonight for updates for the first season.
Read through the document and thanks for clarifying some points you made in it over DM with me. We're definitely keeping this and everything we've read so far in mind as we release our changes and survey tonight for updates for the first season.
very weird post not sure if good but at the very least interesting. writing was hard to follow maybe use bullet points when listing things next time.
very weird post not sure if good but at the very least interesting. writing was hard to follow maybe use bullet points when listing things next time.
Costasvery weird post not sure if good but at the very least interesting. writing was hard to follow maybe use bullet points when listing things next time.
idk i thought it was well written, structured, and articulated. Paragraphs flowed pretty naturally with progressing points.
[quote=Costas]very weird post not sure if good but at the very least interesting. writing was hard to follow maybe use bullet points when listing things next time.[/quote]
idk i thought it was well written, structured, and articulated. Paragraphs flowed pretty naturally with progressing points.
idk i thought it was well written, structured, and articulated. Paragraphs flowed pretty naturally with progressing points.
sigafooRead through the document and thanks for clarifying some points you made in it over DM with me. We're definitely keeping this and everything we've read so far in mind as we release our changes and survey tonight for updates for the first season.
there's no reason to mention the DM and not mention anything about what was in it, not that there was really anything of substance in it anyway
https://pastebin.com/DRB3tKuv
looking forward to seeing your update
[quote=sigafoo]Read through the document and thanks for clarifying some points you made in it over DM with me. We're definitely keeping this and everything we've read so far in mind as we release our changes and survey tonight for updates for the first season.[/quote]
there's no reason to mention the DM and not mention anything about what was in it, not that there was really anything of substance in it anyway
https://pastebin.com/DRB3tKuv
looking forward to seeing your update
there's no reason to mention the DM and not mention anything about what was in it, not that there was really anything of substance in it anyway
https://pastebin.com/DRB3tKuv
looking forward to seeing your update
botmodeWhen it comes to maps, ESEA has 9 and ETF2L recently 9 as well. Nine maps is too many. Ascent, as a team, tries to get good practice on as many maps as possible and to cut it simply there are too many maps to practice. There are weeks when we don't play a map. There are weeks when we don't play two maps.
Having this many (or more) maps would not be a problem if that map pool was split into smaller ones for each seasonal season (esea and etf2l are 3 seasons per year) Spring season have core maps + propaganda/metalworks, summer season have core maps + sunshine/something else, and so on. And then each year, redefine what core maps are.
As a viewer, and as a lower level player who does not scrutinize every detail of play on a specific map but more on general 6s concepts, I enjoy watching and playing on shit as diverse as possible as it keeps the experience fresh, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. You gotta balance this (to keep viewers/masses interested in watching/playing) to your elite group needs.
Edit : coming somewhere with less practice than needed and adapting on the fly can also be a way to differenciate teams. For example on some motorsports the amount of practice at race tracks is restricted so sometimes teams step in the unknown. Therefore, if your team struggles to get enough practice on the whole map pool, so do your opponents.
[quote=botmode]When it comes to maps, ESEA has 9 and ETF2L recently 9 as well. Nine maps is too many. Ascent, as a team, tries to get good practice on as many maps as possible and to cut it simply there are too many maps to practice. There are weeks when we don't play a map. There are weeks when we don't play two maps. [/quote]
Having this many (or more) maps would not be a problem if that map pool was split into smaller ones for each seasonal season (esea and etf2l are 3 seasons per year) Spring season have core maps + propaganda/metalworks, summer season have core maps + sunshine/something else, and so on. And then each year, redefine what core maps are.
As a viewer, and as a lower level player who does not scrutinize every detail of play on a specific map but more on general 6s concepts, I enjoy watching and playing on shit as diverse as possible as it keeps the experience fresh, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. You gotta balance this (to keep viewers/masses interested in watching/playing) to your elite group needs.
Edit : coming somewhere with less practice than needed and adapting on the fly can also be a way to differenciate teams. For example on some motorsports the amount of practice at race tracks is restricted so sometimes teams step in the unknown. Therefore, if your team struggles to get enough practice on the whole map pool, so do your opponents.
Having this many (or more) maps would not be a problem if that map pool was split into smaller ones for each seasonal season (esea and etf2l are 3 seasons per year) Spring season have core maps + propaganda/metalworks, summer season have core maps + sunshine/something else, and so on. And then each year, redefine what core maps are.
As a viewer, and as a lower level player who does not scrutinize every detail of play on a specific map but more on general 6s concepts, I enjoy watching and playing on shit as diverse as possible as it keeps the experience fresh, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. You gotta balance this (to keep viewers/masses interested in watching/playing) to your elite group needs.
Edit : coming somewhere with less practice than needed and adapting on the fly can also be a way to differenciate teams. For example on some motorsports the amount of practice at race tracks is restricted so sometimes teams step in the unknown. Therefore, if your team struggles to get enough practice on the whole map pool, so do your opponents.
I feel like the way NA plays maps currently (2 halves, current esea system, etc etc) is significantly better than how things are ran in EU. I don't have any objective data to back this up (and I could be completely incorrect so feel free to call me out) but my impression of the EU ruleset is that it encourages teams to stalemate. When a map only lasts 30 minutes, and the score you get inside of the map is irrelevant to the points given it directly encourages teams to take the first 15-20 or so minutes to go up 1 or 2 rounds and then grind the game to a complete halt because its easy to time out the other team. In NA, doing this in the first half is futile for obvious reasons. Trying to time out the other team in the 2nd half can happen, but it is a lot harder of an endeavor to hold a team from getting momentum for 30 minutes unless you were just that much better in the first place.
I don't get around the EU scene very often but I get told it has a larger problem with stalematey and grindy games compared to NA. When the only real disadvantage to the NA ruleset is that playoff matches can extend out to an awkward length, an easy enough solution is to break apart the bracket resets for grand finals into separate days. Outside of that, a normal bo3 playoffs match under NA rules shouldn't really be taking longer than 4 hours max. It *could* go longer with golden caps but thats applicable to both methods so its not super relevant. 4 hours is still long but its not absurdly unreasonable, especially if you consider the average length is really more like 2 or 3.
I feel like the way NA plays maps currently (2 halves, current esea system, etc etc) is significantly better than how things are ran in EU. I don't have any objective data to back this up (and I could be completely incorrect so feel free to call me out) but my impression of the EU ruleset is that it encourages teams to stalemate. When a map only lasts 30 minutes, and the score you get inside of the map is irrelevant to the points given it directly encourages teams to take the first 15-20 or so minutes to go up 1 or 2 rounds and then grind the game to a complete halt because its easy to time out the other team. In NA, doing this in the first half is futile for obvious reasons. Trying to time out the other team in the 2nd half can happen, but it is a lot harder of an endeavor to hold a team from getting momentum for 30 minutes unless you were just that much better in the first place.
I don't get around the EU scene very often but I get told it has a larger problem with stalematey and grindy games compared to NA. When the only real disadvantage to the NA ruleset is that playoff matches can extend out to an awkward length, an easy enough solution is to break apart the bracket resets for grand finals into separate days. Outside of that, a normal bo3 playoffs match under NA rules shouldn't really be taking longer than 4 hours max. It *could* go longer with golden caps but thats applicable to both methods so its not super relevant. 4 hours is still long but its not absurdly unreasonable, especially if you consider the average length is really more like 2 or 3.
I don't get around the EU scene very often but I get told it has a larger problem with stalematey and grindy games compared to NA. When the only real disadvantage to the NA ruleset is that playoff matches can extend out to an awkward length, an easy enough solution is to break apart the bracket resets for grand finals into separate days. Outside of that, a normal bo3 playoffs match under NA rules shouldn't really be taking longer than 4 hours max. It *could* go longer with golden caps but thats applicable to both methods so its not super relevant. 4 hours is still long but its not absurdly unreasonable, especially if you consider the average length is really more like 2 or 3.
Noo don't do away with the halves rewind ruleset was good for lan but the half time is super good to allow teams to play strategically and comfortably while still having the possibility to come back and change their approach in the second half. With no halftime the first point that is won is easily the most important and it let's teams easily park the bus and force the other team to do crazy stuff out of desperation with the little time left.
With the half time the team that wins does so because they have actually cracked the other teams defenses and shown themselves to be the better team rather than simply getting lucky on one mid and wiping them and converting it to a round just to park the bus 1-0 with a sniper for the next 20 minutes.
Maybe I'm in the minority but the amount of comebacks I've seen enabled by the half time ruleset completely justifies the downsides (having to play a little longer I guess). Hopefully there's something in the survey though to gauge public opinion on it versus just going with what botmode suggested he wanted and sigafoo said he agreed he liked.
Noo don't do away with the halves rewind ruleset was good for lan but the half time is super good to allow teams to play strategically and comfortably while still having the possibility to come back and change their approach in the second half. With no halftime the first point that is won is easily the most important and it let's teams easily park the bus and force the other team to do crazy stuff out of desperation with the little time left.
With the half time the team that wins does so because they have actually cracked the other teams defenses and shown themselves to be the better team rather than simply getting lucky on one mid and wiping them and converting it to a round just to park the bus 1-0 with a sniper for the next 20 minutes.
Maybe I'm in the minority but the amount of comebacks I've seen enabled by the half time ruleset completely justifies the downsides (having to play a little longer I guess). Hopefully there's something in the survey though to gauge public opinion on it versus just going with what botmode suggested he wanted and sigafoo said he agreed he liked.
With the half time the team that wins does so because they have actually cracked the other teams defenses and shown themselves to be the better team rather than simply getting lucky on one mid and wiping them and converting it to a round just to park the bus 1-0 with a sniper for the next 20 minutes.
Maybe I'm in the minority but the amount of comebacks I've seen enabled by the half time ruleset completely justifies the downsides (having to play a little longer I guess). Hopefully there's something in the survey though to gauge public opinion on it versus just going with what botmode suggested he wanted and sigafoo said he agreed he liked.
bearodactylNoo don't do away with the halves rewind ruleset was good for lan but the half time is super good to allow teams to play strategically and comfortably while still having the possibility to come back and change their approach in the second half. With no halftime the first point that is won is easily the most important and it let's teams easily park the bus and force the other team to do crazy stuff out of desperation with the little time left.
With the half time the team that wins does so because they have actually cracked the other teams defenses and shown themselves to be the better team rather than simply getting lucky on one mid and wiping them and converting it to a round just to park the bus 1-0 with a sniper for the next 20 minutes.
Maybe I'm in the minority but the amount of comebacks I've seen enabled by the half time ruleset completely justifies the downsides (having to play a little longer I guess). Hopefully there's something in the survey though to gauge public opinion on it versus just going with what botmode suggested he wanted and sigafoo said he agreed he liked.
I think there are a number of people that agree with your thought on ESEA's format when it comes to regular season BO1's. The problem arises in any other format and I think there are ways to make up for this in regular season but the survey will definitely shed some light on what people think about this.
[quote=bearodactyl]Noo don't do away with the halves rewind ruleset was good for lan but the half time is super good to allow teams to play strategically and comfortably while still having the possibility to come back and change their approach in the second half. With no halftime the first point that is won is easily the most important and it let's teams easily park the bus and force the other team to do crazy stuff out of desperation with the little time left.
With the half time the team that wins does so because they have actually cracked the other teams defenses and shown themselves to be the better team rather than simply getting lucky on one mid and wiping them and converting it to a round just to park the bus 1-0 with a sniper for the next 20 minutes.
Maybe I'm in the minority but the amount of comebacks I've seen enabled by the half time ruleset completely justifies the downsides (having to play a little longer I guess). Hopefully there's something in the survey though to gauge public opinion on it versus just going with what botmode suggested he wanted and sigafoo said he agreed he liked.[/quote]
I think there are a number of people that agree with your thought on ESEA's format when it comes to regular season BO1's. The problem arises in any other format and I think there are ways to make up for this in regular season but the survey will definitely shed some light on what people think about this.
With the half time the team that wins does so because they have actually cracked the other teams defenses and shown themselves to be the better team rather than simply getting lucky on one mid and wiping them and converting it to a round just to park the bus 1-0 with a sniper for the next 20 minutes.
Maybe I'm in the minority but the amount of comebacks I've seen enabled by the half time ruleset completely justifies the downsides (having to play a little longer I guess). Hopefully there's something in the survey though to gauge public opinion on it versus just going with what botmode suggested he wanted and sigafoo said he agreed he liked.[/quote]
I think there are a number of people that agree with your thought on ESEA's format when it comes to regular season BO1's. The problem arises in any other format and I think there are ways to make up for this in regular season but the survey will definitely shed some light on what people think about this.
TwiggyHaving this many (or more) maps would not be a problem if that map pool was split into smaller ones for each seasonal season (esea and etf2l are 3 seasons per year) Spring season have core maps + propaganda/metalworks, summer season have core maps + sunshine/something else, and so on. And then each year, redefine what core maps are.
lol
[quote=Twiggy]
Having this many (or more) maps would not be a problem if that map pool was split into smaller ones for each seasonal season (esea and etf2l are 3 seasons per year) Spring season have core maps + propaganda/metalworks, summer season have core maps + sunshine/something else, and so on. And then each year, redefine what core maps are.
[/quote]
lol
Having this many (or more) maps would not be a problem if that map pool was split into smaller ones for each seasonal season (esea and etf2l are 3 seasons per year) Spring season have core maps + propaganda/metalworks, summer season have core maps + sunshine/something else, and so on. And then each year, redefine what core maps are.
[/quote]
lol
For
bearodactylNoo don't do away with the halves rewind ruleset was good for lan but the half time is super good to allow teams to play strategically and comfortably while still having the possibility to come back and change their approach in the second half. With no halftime the first point that is won is easily the most important and it let's teams easily park the bus and force the other team to do crazy stuff out of desperation with the little time left.
With the half time the team that wins does so because they have actually cracked the other teams defenses and shown themselves to be the better team rather than simply getting lucky on one mid and wiping them and converting it to a round just to park the bus 1-0 with a sniper for the next 20 minutes.
Maybe I'm in the minority but the amount of comebacks I've seen enabled by the half time ruleset completely justifies the downsides (having to play a little longer I guess). Hopefully there's something in the survey though to gauge public opinion on it versus just going with what botmode suggested he wanted and sigafoo said he agreed he liked.
Maybe tac pause should be allowed or come into play more often if teams need some time to rethink their strategy. I know i am no expert on the situation but I feel that if teams were granted 3 1-2 minutes pauses per map it would give teams some time to think of strategies.
For [quote=bearodactyl]Noo don't do away with the halves rewind ruleset was good for lan but the half time is super good to allow teams to play strategically and comfortably while still having the possibility to come back and change their approach in the second half. With no halftime the first point that is won is easily the most important and it let's teams easily park the bus and force the other team to do crazy stuff out of desperation with the little time left.
With the half time the team that wins does so because they have actually cracked the other teams defenses and shown themselves to be the better team rather than simply getting lucky on one mid and wiping them and converting it to a round just to park the bus 1-0 with a sniper for the next 20 minutes.
Maybe I'm in the minority but the amount of comebacks I've seen enabled by the half time ruleset completely justifies the downsides (having to play a little longer I guess). Hopefully there's something in the survey though to gauge public opinion on it versus just going with what botmode suggested he wanted and sigafoo said he agreed he liked.[/quote]
Maybe tac pause should be allowed or come into play more often if teams need some time to rethink their strategy. I know i am no expert on the situation but I feel that if teams were granted 3 1-2 minutes pauses per map it would give teams some time to think of strategies.
With the half time the team that wins does so because they have actually cracked the other teams defenses and shown themselves to be the better team rather than simply getting lucky on one mid and wiping them and converting it to a round just to park the bus 1-0 with a sniper for the next 20 minutes.
Maybe I'm in the minority but the amount of comebacks I've seen enabled by the half time ruleset completely justifies the downsides (having to play a little longer I guess). Hopefully there's something in the survey though to gauge public opinion on it versus just going with what botmode suggested he wanted and sigafoo said he agreed he liked.[/quote]
Maybe tac pause should be allowed or come into play more often if teams need some time to rethink their strategy. I know i am no expert on the situation but I feel that if teams were granted 3 1-2 minutes pauses per map it would give teams some time to think of strategies.
I think if they had like 90 second tac pauses you could do in between rounds that would be a really good feature, or just allowing a pause of whatever duration, and allowing them to do that for a tac pause (technically I think you're not supposed to tac pause in esea but ppl still do. Having a shorter one for both teams to discuss shit and figure out what they wanna fix would be good versus the 'oh lemme go to the bathroom' or get a drink or whatever that u will do with normal pauses lol
I think if they had like 90 second tac pauses you could do in between rounds that would be a really good feature, or just allowing a pause of whatever duration, and allowing them to do that for a tac pause (technically I think you're not supposed to tac pause in esea but ppl still do. Having a shorter one for both teams to discuss shit and figure out what they wanna fix would be good versus the 'oh lemme go to the bathroom' or get a drink or whatever that u will do with normal pauses lol
CorunsonForbearodactylsnip
Maybe tac pause should be allowed or come into play more often if teams need some time to rethink their strategy. I know i am no expert on the situation but I feel that if teams were granted 3 1-2 minutes pauses per map it would give teams some time to think of strategies.
I'm in favor of adding a 3-5 minute pause "for any reason" in addition to a technical pause
bearodactylI think if they had like 90 second tac pauses you could do in between rounds that would be a really good feature, or just allowing a pause of whatever duration, and allowing them to do that for a tac pause but o this having a shorter one for both teams to discuss shit and figure out what they wanna fix would be good versus the 'oh lemme go to the bathroom' or get a drink or whatever that u will do with normal pauses
between rounds would be ideal
ETF2L's cfg has a longer post round duration, which would give teams a greater opportunity to tac pause
[quote=Corunson]For [quote=bearodactyl]snip[/quote]
Maybe tac pause should be allowed or come into play more often if teams need some time to rethink their strategy. I know i am no expert on the situation but I feel that if teams were granted 3 1-2 minutes pauses per map it would give teams some time to think of strategies.[/quote]
I'm in favor of adding a 3-5 minute pause "for any reason" in addition to a technical pause
[quote=bearodactyl]I think if they had like 90 second tac pauses you could do in between rounds that would be a really good feature, or just allowing a pause of whatever duration, and allowing them to do that for a tac pause but o this having a shorter one for both teams to discuss shit and figure out what they wanna fix would be good versus the 'oh lemme go to the bathroom' or get a drink or whatever that u will do with normal pauses[/quote]
between rounds would be ideal
ETF2L's cfg has a longer post round duration, which would give teams a greater opportunity to tac pause
Maybe tac pause should be allowed or come into play more often if teams need some time to rethink their strategy. I know i am no expert on the situation but I feel that if teams were granted 3 1-2 minutes pauses per map it would give teams some time to think of strategies.[/quote]
I'm in favor of adding a 3-5 minute pause "for any reason" in addition to a technical pause
[quote=bearodactyl]I think if they had like 90 second tac pauses you could do in between rounds that would be a really good feature, or just allowing a pause of whatever duration, and allowing them to do that for a tac pause but o this having a shorter one for both teams to discuss shit and figure out what they wanna fix would be good versus the 'oh lemme go to the bathroom' or get a drink or whatever that u will do with normal pauses[/quote]
between rounds would be ideal
ETF2L's cfg has a longer post round duration, which would give teams a greater opportunity to tac pause
also idk if this would sound crazy, but how about teams switch sides when a team wins a round? I feel it would a way for both teams to play red and blue side equally
also idk if this would sound crazy, but how about teams switch sides when a team wins a round? I feel it would a way for both teams to play red and blue side equally
it would be nice if we could extend end of round time by a little bit. When we talk strats at the end of a round i noticed we usually get cut off by getting to mid before we can plan everything out
it would be nice if we could extend end of round time by a little bit. When we talk strats at the end of a round i noticed we usually get cut off by getting to mid before we can plan everything out
Costasvery weird post not sure if good but at the very least interesting. writing was hard to follow maybe use bullet points when listing things next time.
[quote=Costas]very weird post not sure if good but at the very least interesting. writing was hard to follow maybe use bullet points when listing things next time.[/quote]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrOsEP_0JdM[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrOsEP_0JdM[/youtube]
In the survey it asks which playoff ban order you prefer but these all seem a bit silly, I think it should just be one ban each, pick pick, then alternate bans down to the last map so both teams get a say in it. I think that's the most fair way of doing it and only doing 5 total bans and then one team picking at the end seems like it just gives that team too much control over the deciding map.
Maybe the second seed should have more control over the third in playoffs though to reward them a little, as is the seeds really don't matter at all because you just play the other one with equal footing as far as I know (you do get to choose if you want to be team A or B if you're the higher seed I think but they don't make much difference)
In the survey it asks which playoff ban order you prefer but these all seem a bit silly, I think it should just be one ban each, pick pick, then alternate bans down to the last map so both teams get a say in it. I think that's the most fair way of doing it and only doing 5 total bans and then one team picking at the end seems like it just gives that team too much control over the deciding map.
Maybe the second seed should have more control over the third in playoffs though to reward them a little, as is the seeds really don't matter at all because you just play the other one with equal footing as far as I know (you do get to choose if you want to be team A or B if you're the higher seed I think but they don't make much difference)
Maybe the second seed should have more control over the third in playoffs though to reward them a little, as is the seeds really don't matter at all because you just play the other one with equal footing as far as I know (you do get to choose if you want to be team A or B if you're the higher seed I think but they don't make much difference)
Please
sign in through STEAM
to post a comment.