Y'all remember ESEA and CEVO? Two leagues ran at the same time. One shit the bed so everyone went back to the other. The community will decide which league will be the premier one, we've been here before (multiple times even).
Unveiling NACL
posted in
TF2 General Discussion
Y'all remember ESEA and CEVO? Two leagues ran at the same time. One shit the bed so everyone went back to the other. The community will decide which league will be the premier one, we've been here before (multiple times even).
Tery_Y'all remember ESEA and CEVO? Two leagues ran at the same time. One shit the bed so everyone went back to the other. The community will decide which league will be the premier one, we've been here before (multiple times even).
Indeed. The same also went for lobby/pug services in the past. In the end, the community will/usually decide which will end up sticking around, usually the distribution could be like 70/30 or 80/20 and it winds up forcing the community to follow where the crowd is.
Also as mentioned in the OP:
The league will start with a few weeks break after the end of ESEA Season 31 playoffs, which are currently scheduled to conclude July 22.
I don't quite see why people continue to say it's "too late". Sure RGL announced itself prior already, but NACL still has some time to further establish itself and release more info.
If anything, both this and RGL could survive and work well in certain ways. It seems that RGL has the money so those like b4nny and etc. will be playing in that league. But will the league allow the players to play in the way that they prefer in terms of whitelists, maps, match formats, and etc. ? RGL could easily be the money league that doesn't quite have a format that people agree with while NACL could be the league that can provide a way to play that the community might prefer and perhaps be more "fun".
Anything could happen. It's still a bit early to make calls, but things will eventually/hopefully sort itself out in the next few months and we'll all see where it goes. It's unfair to put everything into RGL just because they announced first and ignore/neglect other leagues that are trying and in the end just trying to help and haven't been given a chance.
[quote=Tery_]Y'all remember ESEA and CEVO? Two leagues ran at the same time. One shit the bed so everyone went back to the other. The community will decide which league will be the premier one, we've been here before (multiple times even).[/quote]
Indeed. The same also went for lobby/pug services in the past. In the end, the community will/usually decide which will end up sticking around, usually the distribution could be like 70/30 or 80/20 and it winds up forcing the community to follow where the crowd is.
Also as mentioned in the OP:
[quote]The league will start with a few weeks break after the end of ESEA Season 31 playoffs, which are currently scheduled to conclude July 22.[/quote]
I don't quite see why people continue to say it's "too late". Sure RGL announced itself prior already, but NACL still has some time to further establish itself and release more info.
If anything, both this and RGL could survive and work well in certain ways. It seems that RGL has the money so those like b4nny and etc. will be playing in that league. But will the league allow the players to play in the way that they prefer in terms of whitelists, maps, match formats, and etc. ? RGL could easily be the money league that doesn't quite have a format that people agree with while NACL could be the league that can provide a way to play that the community might prefer and perhaps be more "fun".
Anything could happen. It's still a bit early to make calls, but things will eventually/hopefully sort itself out in the next few months and we'll all see where it goes. It's unfair to put everything into RGL just because they announced first and ignore/neglect other leagues that are trying and in the end just trying to help and haven't been given a chance.
Indeed. The same also went for lobby/pug services in the past. In the end, the community will/usually decide which will end up sticking around, usually the distribution could be like 70/30 or 80/20 and it winds up forcing the community to follow where the crowd is.
Also as mentioned in the OP:
[quote]The league will start with a few weeks break after the end of ESEA Season 31 playoffs, which are currently scheduled to conclude July 22.[/quote]
I don't quite see why people continue to say it's "too late". Sure RGL announced itself prior already, but NACL still has some time to further establish itself and release more info.
If anything, both this and RGL could survive and work well in certain ways. It seems that RGL has the money so those like b4nny and etc. will be playing in that league. But will the league allow the players to play in the way that they prefer in terms of whitelists, maps, match formats, and etc. ? RGL could easily be the money league that doesn't quite have a format that people agree with while NACL could be the league that can provide a way to play that the community might prefer and perhaps be more "fun".
Anything could happen. It's still a bit early to make calls, but things will eventually/hopefully sort itself out in the next few months and we'll all see where it goes. It's unfair to put everything into RGL just because they announced first and ignore/neglect other leagues that are trying and in the end just trying to help and haven't been given a chance.
MarxistThe community has sustained multiple leagues at a time on several occasions. This is nothing unusual. The period of time we've had over the last couple years here alone has sustained multiple leagues with RGL, UGC, existing alongside ESEA - not to mention other projects that pop up periodically.
The player base even supported CEVO and ESEA in addition to UGC/HL existing alongside one another for at least 2 seasons, and likely could have continued to do so if it weren't for CEVO's rule problems.
This^
And where is the "this too late" coming from? You have over a month before it starts, and it gives an actual offseason from ESEA. Pretty sure 90% of the teams ive been on were still trying out players right at the end of the ESEA deadline, I'm not sure how half these teams are going to live when playoffs end and RGL starts a day later.
If anything, RGL was too early, not NACL was too late.
[quote=Marxist]The community has sustained multiple leagues at a time on several occasions. This is nothing unusual. The period of time we've had over the last couple years here alone has sustained multiple leagues with RGL, UGC, existing alongside ESEA - not to mention other projects that pop up periodically.
The player base even supported CEVO and ESEA in addition to UGC/HL existing alongside one another for at least 2 seasons, and likely could have continued to do so if it weren't for CEVO's rule problems.[/quote]
This^
And where is the "this too late" coming from? You have over a month before it starts, and it gives an actual offseason from ESEA. Pretty sure 90% of the teams ive been on were still trying out players right at the end of the ESEA deadline, I'm not sure how half these teams are going to live when playoffs end and RGL starts a day later.
If anything, RGL was too early, not NACL was too late.
The player base even supported CEVO and ESEA in addition to UGC/HL existing alongside one another for at least 2 seasons, and likely could have continued to do so if it weren't for CEVO's rule problems.[/quote]
This^
And where is the "this too late" coming from? You have over a month before it starts, and it gives an actual offseason from ESEA. Pretty sure 90% of the teams ive been on were still trying out players right at the end of the ESEA deadline, I'm not sure how half these teams are going to live when playoffs end and RGL starts a day later.
If anything, RGL was too early, not NACL was too late.
NATF2: We will carefully consider all options to choose the best possibly league.
Also NATF2: RGL was announced first so everyone pay up even if you don't like it or the TF2 scene will explode into tiny bits.
NATF2: We will carefully consider all options to choose the best possibly league.
Also NATF2: RGL was announced first so everyone pay up even if you don't like it or the TF2 scene will explode into tiny bits.
Also NATF2: RGL was announced first so everyone pay up even if you don't like it or the TF2 scene will explode into tiny bits.
Are people only just now realising that RGL is deliberately beginning early to corner the market? I don't mean this to be derogatory, it makes sense since they are trying to run themselves as a "business", but it was pretty opaque let's be real
Are people only just now realising that RGL is deliberately beginning early to corner the market? I don't mean this to be derogatory, it makes sense since they are trying to run themselves as a "business", but it was pretty opaque let's be real
Hey all, just wanted to address the timing issue, since it seems to be the major point everyone's bringing up. (I'll address the other feedback later today.)
I don't disagree that it would have been ideal if we could have made an announcement or even mentioned something a week or two ago, but it was very important to us to have something concrete to offer, and we simply were not ready to do so until now.
ESEA generally announces seasons much closer to the end of the regular season, and their seasons start with a few weeks gap after the postseason. In contrast, RGL's league announcement was early (in the middle of the ESEA regular season), and their season starts extremely early (literally the day after ESEA playoffs are scheduled to conclude). I think it's very ignorant, at the very least, to schedule a season in that manner, and I can only assume that RGL must have had a very good reason to do so.
In the end, we did want to offer an offseason similar to that of previous ESEA seasons (currently three weeks between postseason to signup deadline), so we felt like we had some extra time to nail things down. There's a bit less than six weeks until our signups end from now, so there should be plenty of time to decide whether to play NACL.
To those that felt pressured to sign up for RGL because we were unable to make an announcement soon after theirs, I can only offer my deepest apologies. I do believe it's possible to play in both leagues, given the current format of both and our experience of many teams playing both ESEA and CEVO with even more severe time constraints. If your ability to play in NACL is a concern, please reach out to me and I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you.
Hey all, just wanted to address the timing issue, since it seems to be the major point everyone's bringing up. (I'll address the other feedback later today.)
I don't disagree that it would have been ideal if we could have made an announcement or even mentioned something a week or two ago, but it was very important to us to have something concrete to offer, and we simply were not ready to do so until now.
ESEA generally announces seasons much closer to the end of the regular season, and their seasons start with a few weeks gap after the postseason. In contrast, RGL's league announcement was early (in the middle of the ESEA regular season), and their season starts extremely early (literally the day after ESEA playoffs are scheduled to conclude). I think it's very ignorant, at the very least, to schedule a season in that manner, and I can only assume that RGL must have had a very good reason to do so.
In the end, we did want to offer an offseason similar to that of previous ESEA seasons (currently three weeks between postseason to signup deadline), so we felt like we had some extra time to nail things down. There's a bit less than six weeks until our signups end from now, so there should be plenty of time to decide whether to play NACL.
To those that felt pressured to sign up for RGL because we were unable to make an announcement soon after theirs, I can only offer my deepest apologies. I do believe it's possible to play in both leagues, given the current format of both and our experience of many teams playing both ESEA and CEVO with even more severe time constraints. If your ability to play in NACL is a concern, please reach out to me and I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you.
I don't disagree that it would have been ideal if we could have made an announcement or even mentioned something a week or two ago, but it was very important to us to have something concrete to offer, and we simply were not ready to do so until now.
ESEA generally announces seasons much closer to the end of the regular season, and their seasons start with a few weeks gap after the postseason. In contrast, RGL's league announcement was early (in the middle of the ESEA regular season), and their season starts extremely early (literally the day after ESEA playoffs are scheduled to conclude). I think it's very ignorant, at the very least, to schedule a season in that manner, and I can only assume that RGL must have had a very good reason to do so.
In the end, we did want to offer an offseason similar to that of previous ESEA seasons (currently three weeks between postseason to signup deadline), so we felt like we had some extra time to nail things down. There's a bit less than six weeks until our signups end from now, so there should be plenty of time to decide whether to play NACL.
To those that felt pressured to sign up for RGL because we were unable to make an announcement soon after theirs, I can only offer my deepest apologies. I do believe it's possible to play in both leagues, given the current format of both and our experience of many teams playing both ESEA and CEVO with even more severe time constraints. If your ability to play in NACL is a concern, please reach out to me and I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you.
@tsc: I don't think anyone is blaming you for this.
Also friendly reminder that RGL was founded to promote different rulesets and formats, not to preserve 6s. Betting on RGL to prevent a fracturing of the TF2 scene is making the fox guard the henhouse.
I mean sigafoo did listen to feedback, but if the one thing everyone could at least somewhat agree on, the global whitelist, unlike pretty much everything else like league format, maps and timelimits, was to be thrown out of the window it's clear where he wants to go with this.
It's like putting Iran in charge of enforcing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. It might work, but I really wouldn't recommend it if there's any other option.
I know NA is obsessed with having a paid league and endured all the shit ESEA pulled to keep it but at this point you might have to sacrifice something. What's more important, having a 6s league that will stay a 6s league with the rules you want even if it's free (you can still donate what you would've paid in fees to the prizepool) or having a paid league that may or may not force unpopular ruleset changes, just for the sake of having a paid league? I mean what's the downside of the free league?
I just don't see any advantage to RGL over NACL other than sigafoo throwing money at it. But that's neither guaranteed in the long term nor would I trust his motives (see early announcement and season start). He who pays the piper calls the tune. And I don't think he wants the tune you want.
@tsc: I don't think anyone is blaming you for this.
Also friendly reminder that RGL was founded to promote different rulesets and formats, not to preserve 6s. Betting on RGL to prevent a fracturing of the TF2 scene is making the fox guard the henhouse.
I mean sigafoo did listen to feedback, but if the one thing everyone could at least somewhat agree on, the global whitelist, unlike pretty much everything else like league format, maps and timelimits, was to be thrown out of the window it's clear where he wants to go with this.
It's like putting Iran in charge of enforcing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. It might work, but I really wouldn't recommend it if there's any other option.
I know NA is obsessed with having a paid league and endured all the shit ESEA pulled to keep it but at this point you might have to sacrifice something. What's more important, having a 6s league that will stay a 6s league with the rules you want even if it's free (you can still donate what you would've paid in fees to the prizepool) or having a paid league that may or may not force unpopular ruleset changes, just for the sake of having a paid league? I mean what's the downside of the free league?
I just don't see any advantage to RGL over NACL other than sigafoo throwing money at it. But that's neither guaranteed in the long term nor would I trust his motives (see early announcement and season start). He who pays the piper calls the tune. And I don't think he wants the tune you want.
Also friendly reminder that RGL was founded to promote different rulesets and formats, not to preserve 6s. Betting on RGL to prevent a fracturing of the TF2 scene is making the fox guard the henhouse.
I mean sigafoo did listen to feedback, but if the one thing everyone could at least somewhat agree on, the global whitelist, unlike pretty much everything else like league format, maps and timelimits, was to be thrown out of the window it's clear where he wants to go with this.
It's like putting Iran in charge of enforcing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. It might work, but I really wouldn't recommend it if there's any other option.
I know NA is obsessed with having a paid league and endured all the shit ESEA pulled to keep it but at this point you might have to sacrifice something. What's more important, having a 6s league that will stay a 6s league with the rules you want even if it's free (you can still donate what you would've paid in fees to the prizepool) or having a paid league that may or may not force unpopular ruleset changes, just for the sake of having a paid league? I mean what's the downside of the free league?
I just don't see any advantage to RGL over NACL other than sigafoo throwing money at it. But that's neither guaranteed in the long term nor would I trust his motives (see early announcement and season start). He who pays the piper calls the tune. And I don't think he wants the tune you want.
yeah I mean RGL was literally pushing to be first so the whole community would look at them first, but you literally have to pay to play like most of their divisions and even then the season starts instantly sooo I mean why wouldn't the majority just play a league that's free, has staff that are experienced with being a staff, and actually gives teams time to prepare? It also isnt going to be free forever, so if you stick with this league there will be a prizepool in the future
also i doubt anybody will even pay up in time for RGL that shit happened in ESEA so much in IM and (maybe) Invite
yeah I mean RGL was literally pushing to be first so the whole community would look at them first, but you literally have to pay to play like most of their divisions and even then the season starts instantly sooo I mean why wouldn't the majority just play a league that's free, has staff that are experienced with being a staff, and actually gives teams time to prepare? It also isnt going to be free forever, so if you stick with this league there will be a prizepool in the future
also i doubt anybody will even pay up in time for RGL that shit happened in ESEA so much in IM and (maybe) Invite
also i doubt anybody will even pay up in time for RGL that shit happened in ESEA so much in IM and (maybe) Invite
Based on the feedback from this thread, here are the probable changes to the league:
- Old: In Invite, teams will play each other twice during the regular season, with each match played as a map determined by a veto process.
New: In Invite, teams will play each other once during the regular season, with each match played as two maps determined by a veto process.
- Old: A team may only add one player per week, and a player only may switch teams once per week (but, after playing a match for a team as part of its roster, a player may not switch rosters to any other team for the remainder of the week). Team rosters are locked prior to the final weeks of the season, during which time players may only be added to a roster with admin approval.
New: A team may only make four player additions during a specified transfer window (from the start of the season to a few weeks before the end of the regular season). When adding players above the four player transfer limit, or outside of the transfer window, admin approval is required. Players may switch teams without limit, but require admin approval to switch to a team in a separate division or to be rostered on a team for the first time after the season starts.
- Old:
New: All players for a team in a match (whether they are rostered or unrostered) must not have played for another team in the same week of the regular season or round of the postseason.
In addition, here are some additional changes we are considering, for which feedback would be greatly appreciated:
- Old: There are no default match times; teams must negotiate match times, play the match, and report results by a specified deadline each week.
New: Matches will normally be scheduled by each team selecting at least three days of the week (between Sunday and Thursday, inclusive), with the match being played at 9pm CT on a randomly picked day among one of the days both teams in the match selected. Teams may choose by mutual agreement to forgo this standard procedure and instead manually negotiate another time to play the match. However the match is scheduled, match results must be reported by Friday noon CT.
- Old: A team may use up to one player not on its roster (merc) in a match with the approval of the opponent prior to the match starting; any additional unrostered players require admin approval prior to the match.
New: A team may use up to one player not on its roster (merc) in a match without admin approval; if the player is not rostered on a team in the same division, the opponent's approval is required prior to the match. Any additional unrostered players require admin approval prior to the match.
louster200What is your stance on STVs?
We will require all Invite matches (including the postseason grand final) to have publicly-available live STVs open to all and to have STV demos available shortly after the conclusion of the match, and we will highly encourage matches in other divisions to do the same. In addition, we will coordinate with Invite teams and interested casting organizations (such as teamfortress.tv) to help ensure matches are broadcasted wherever possible, but we will not require participating in that process to have access to a match.
Based on the feedback from this thread, here are the probable changes to the league:
[list]
[*]Old: In Invite, teams will play each other twice during the regular season, with each match played as a map determined by a veto process.
New: In Invite, teams will play each other once during the regular season, with each match played as two maps determined by a veto process.
[*]Old: A team may only add one player per week, and a player only may switch teams once per week (but, after playing a match for a team as part of its roster, a player may not switch rosters to any other team for the remainder of the week). Team rosters are locked prior to the final weeks of the season, during which time players may only be added to a roster with admin approval.
New: A team may only make four player additions during a specified transfer window (from the start of the season to a few weeks before the end of the regular season). When adding players above the four player transfer limit, or outside of the transfer window, admin approval is required. Players may switch teams without limit, but require admin approval to switch to a team in a separate division or to be rostered on a team for the first time after the season starts.
[*]Old:
New: All players for a team in a match (whether they are rostered or unrostered) must not have played for another team in the same week of the regular season or round of the postseason.
[/list]
In addition, here are some additional changes we are considering, for which feedback would be greatly appreciated:
[list]
[*]Old: There are no default match times; teams must negotiate match times, play the match, and report results by a specified deadline each week.
New: Matches will normally be scheduled by each team selecting at least three days of the week (between Sunday and Thursday, inclusive), with the match being played at 9pm CT on a randomly picked day among one of the days both teams in the match selected. Teams may choose by mutual agreement to forgo this standard procedure and instead manually negotiate another time to play the match. However the match is scheduled, match results must be reported by Friday noon CT.
[*]Old: A team may use up to one player not on its roster (merc) in a match with the approval of the opponent prior to the match starting; any additional unrostered players require admin approval prior to the match.
New: A team may use up to one player not on its roster (merc) in a match without admin approval; if the player is not rostered on a team in the same division, the opponent's approval is required prior to the match. Any additional unrostered players require admin approval prior to the match.
[/list]
[quote=louster200]What is your stance on STVs?[/quote]
We will require all Invite matches (including the postseason grand final) to have publicly-available live STVs open to all and to have STV demos available shortly after the conclusion of the match, and we will highly encourage matches in other divisions to do the same. In addition, we will coordinate with Invite teams and interested casting organizations (such as teamfortress.tv) to help ensure matches are broadcasted wherever possible, but we will not require participating in that process to have access to a match.
[list]
[*]Old: In Invite, teams will play each other twice during the regular season, with each match played as a map determined by a veto process.
New: In Invite, teams will play each other once during the regular season, with each match played as two maps determined by a veto process.
[*]Old: A team may only add one player per week, and a player only may switch teams once per week (but, after playing a match for a team as part of its roster, a player may not switch rosters to any other team for the remainder of the week). Team rosters are locked prior to the final weeks of the season, during which time players may only be added to a roster with admin approval.
New: A team may only make four player additions during a specified transfer window (from the start of the season to a few weeks before the end of the regular season). When adding players above the four player transfer limit, or outside of the transfer window, admin approval is required. Players may switch teams without limit, but require admin approval to switch to a team in a separate division or to be rostered on a team for the first time after the season starts.
[*]Old:
New: All players for a team in a match (whether they are rostered or unrostered) must not have played for another team in the same week of the regular season or round of the postseason.
[/list]
In addition, here are some additional changes we are considering, for which feedback would be greatly appreciated:
[list]
[*]Old: There are no default match times; teams must negotiate match times, play the match, and report results by a specified deadline each week.
New: Matches will normally be scheduled by each team selecting at least three days of the week (between Sunday and Thursday, inclusive), with the match being played at 9pm CT on a randomly picked day among one of the days both teams in the match selected. Teams may choose by mutual agreement to forgo this standard procedure and instead manually negotiate another time to play the match. However the match is scheduled, match results must be reported by Friday noon CT.
[*]Old: A team may use up to one player not on its roster (merc) in a match with the approval of the opponent prior to the match starting; any additional unrostered players require admin approval prior to the match.
New: A team may use up to one player not on its roster (merc) in a match without admin approval; if the player is not rostered on a team in the same division, the opponent's approval is required prior to the match. Any additional unrostered players require admin approval prior to the match.
[/list]
[quote=louster200]What is your stance on STVs?[/quote]
We will require all Invite matches (including the postseason grand final) to have publicly-available live STVs open to all and to have STV demos available shortly after the conclusion of the match, and we will highly encourage matches in other divisions to do the same. In addition, we will coordinate with Invite teams and interested casting organizations (such as teamfortress.tv) to help ensure matches are broadcasted wherever possible, but we will not require participating in that process to have access to a match.
Running a league has no relation to the format of the game.
Subs/mercs, ensuring games go smoothly, admins being readily available in case of match disputes or other issues, providing servers, roster locks, paying out prize winnings on time, etc. None of these are format specific and are generally pretty standard and boring admin tasks. RGL’s success as a league and player growth isn’t because of their ruleset or the gimmicky formats, but because they have a good system in place. Having all formats run in a consistent and semi-professional manner, with the possibility of all the new players who joined RGL trying out 6s is quite appealing. Sigafoo doesn’t interfere with RGL HL and leaves it in Exa’s hands, I doubt it’ll be any different with 6s. RGL is ultimately a business, and the community has shown it can just create a new league if he tried any shenanigans.
Pugchamp doesn’t have the best track record with taking swift action. I don’t think they’re “too late” with regards to NACL and have already made quite a few changes based on feedback, but they better finalize everything soon. League rules and guidelines, anti-sandbagging policies, move-ups and transfers, a functional site (the current one is barebones). The last one isn’t as worrisome for now considering they made pugchamp in a few weeks. Not having a prizepool sucks and I doubt any companies not related to TF2 trading are jumping at the chance of sponsorship, but that shouldn’t be the deciding factor for the leagues. Neither should be Froyo or any other team playing in RGL. I think people should temper their expectations and not commit to either RGL or NACL until we get more info. There’s still lots of time before RGL starts for further NACL announcements.
RGL commencing a day after ESEA ends is also confusing, since there’s really no time for roster swaps or trials. In fact, it hurts playoff teams more than those who didn’t qualify. If this wasn’t done in malice to be the first to start and was genuinely just to accommodate LAN playoffs in winter, why not shorten the offseason after the first season. Or at least ask the community about their opinion so they have a choice. It doesn’t seem fair that the rest of the player base suffers because of the invite LAN. Daffodil should address all that.
For that matter, why does this supposed “LAN” have to be playoff restricted? What if there’s a lot of contention for the 4th place, and the 5th place teams book their non-refundable tickets well in advance but miss out because of the RGL points system? What if Se7en wants to attend the LAN? The best course of action to me seems to be to push back the first season of RGL and separate the LAN from the season to avoid scheduling issues. But this should ultimately be left in the hands of the community and the people that it affects.
Running a league has no relation to the format of the game.
Subs/mercs, ensuring games go smoothly, admins being readily available in case of match disputes or other issues, providing servers, roster locks, paying out prize winnings on time, etc. None of these are format specific and are generally pretty standard and boring admin tasks. RGL’s success as a league and player growth isn’t because of their ruleset or the gimmicky formats, but because they have a good system in place. Having all formats run in a consistent and semi-professional manner, with the possibility of all the new players who joined RGL trying out 6s is quite appealing. Sigafoo doesn’t interfere with RGL HL and leaves it in Exa’s hands, I doubt it’ll be any different with 6s. RGL is ultimately a business, and the community has shown it can just create a new league if he tried any shenanigans.
Pugchamp doesn’t have the best track record with taking swift action. I don’t think they’re “too late” with regards to NACL and have already made quite a few changes based on feedback, but they better finalize everything soon. League rules and guidelines, anti-sandbagging policies, move-ups and transfers, a functional site (the current one is barebones). The last one isn’t as worrisome for now considering they made pugchamp in a few weeks. Not having a prizepool sucks and I doubt any companies not related to TF2 trading are jumping at the chance of sponsorship, but that shouldn’t be the deciding factor for the leagues. Neither should be Froyo or any other team playing in RGL. I think people should temper their expectations and not commit to either RGL or NACL until we get more info. There’s still lots of time before RGL starts for further NACL announcements.
RGL commencing a day after ESEA ends is also confusing, since there’s really no time for roster swaps or trials. In fact, it hurts playoff teams more than those who didn’t qualify. If this wasn’t done in malice to be the first to start and was genuinely just to accommodate LAN playoffs in winter, why not shorten the offseason after the first season. Or at least ask the community about their opinion so they have a choice. It doesn’t seem fair that the rest of the player base suffers because of the invite LAN. Daffodil should address all that.
For that matter, why does this supposed “LAN” have to be playoff restricted? What if there’s a lot of contention for the 4th place, and the 5th place teams book their non-refundable tickets well in advance but miss out because of the RGL points system? What if Se7en wants to attend the LAN? The best course of action to me seems to be to push back the first season of RGL and separate the LAN from the season to avoid scheduling issues. But this should ultimately be left in the hands of the community and the people that it affects.
Subs/mercs, ensuring games go smoothly, admins being readily available in case of match disputes or other issues, providing servers, roster locks, paying out prize winnings on time, etc. None of these are format specific and are generally pretty standard and boring admin tasks. RGL’s success as a league and player growth isn’t because of their ruleset or the gimmicky formats, but because they have a good system in place. Having all formats run in a consistent and semi-professional manner, with the possibility of all the new players who joined RGL trying out 6s is quite appealing. Sigafoo doesn’t interfere with RGL HL and leaves it in Exa’s hands, I doubt it’ll be any different with 6s. RGL is ultimately a business, and the community has shown it can just create a new league if he tried any shenanigans.
Pugchamp doesn’t have the best track record with taking swift action. I don’t think they’re “too late” with regards to NACL and have already made quite a few changes based on feedback, but they better finalize everything soon. League rules and guidelines, anti-sandbagging policies, move-ups and transfers, a functional site (the current one is barebones). The last one isn’t as worrisome for now considering they made pugchamp in a few weeks. Not having a prizepool sucks and I doubt any companies not related to TF2 trading are jumping at the chance of sponsorship, but that shouldn’t be the deciding factor for the leagues. Neither should be Froyo or any other team playing in RGL. I think people should temper their expectations and not commit to either RGL or NACL until we get more info. There’s still lots of time before RGL starts for further NACL announcements.
RGL commencing a day after ESEA ends is also confusing, since there’s really no time for roster swaps or trials. In fact, it hurts playoff teams more than those who didn’t qualify. If this wasn’t done in malice to be the first to start and was genuinely just to accommodate LAN playoffs in winter, why not shorten the offseason after the first season. Or at least ask the community about their opinion so they have a choice. It doesn’t seem fair that the rest of the player base suffers because of the invite LAN. Daffodil should address all that.
For that matter, why does this supposed “LAN” have to be playoff restricted? What if there’s a lot of contention for the 4th place, and the 5th place teams book their non-refundable tickets well in advance but miss out because of the RGL points system? What if Se7en wants to attend the LAN? The best course of action to me seems to be to push back the first season of RGL and separate the LAN from the season to avoid scheduling issues. But this should ultimately be left in the hands of the community and the people that it affects.
tscOld: In Invite, teams will play each other twice during the regular season, with each match played as a map determined by a veto process.
New: In Invite, teams will play each other once during the regular season, with each match played as two maps determined by a veto process.
2 matches is definitely better. I don't see any reason to change the format of invite to anything different than what ESEA had, playing each team only once during the season is really lame even if each match is two maps. What makes the invite season interesting is that you get to play each team twice and face them at the beginning and the end of the season, losing against a team on two maps and never getting to rematch them (unless you happen to make playoffs) is really lame and puts too much pressure on one day. Don't see any reason to do it like this, haven't even heard of anyone suggesting it either.
tscOld: A team may only add one player per week, and a player only may switch teams once per week (but, after playing a match for a team as part of its roster, a player may not switch rosters to any other team for the remainder of the week). Team rosters are locked prior to the final weeks of the season, during which time players may only be added to a roster with admin approval.
New: A team may only make four player additions during a specified transfer window (from the start of the season to a few weeks before the end of the regular season). When adding players above the four player transfer limit, or outside of the transfer window, admin approval is required. Players may switch teams without limit, but require admin approval to switch to a team in a separate division or to be rostered on a team for the first time after the season starts.
New roster transaction rules seem okay but might want to add a rule like in ESEA preventing players from jumping ships to 3+ different rosters during the season. Also, only allowing four people to join the roster during the season might be too few. Obviously you wouldn't want an invite team to have 5 different starters from the beginning of the season, but you also have to make sure teams can roster backups/subs as well (it's important to be able to add another player to your roster as an official backup and assure you can play with them, cause otherwise the other team can simply deny whatever ringer/merc you try to get)
New: All players for a team in a match (whether they are rostered or unrostered) must not have played for another team in the same week of the regular season or round of the postseason.
This rule doesn't make much sense to me either, I get preventing someone from joining another team within 7 days of doing so (ESEA rule), but why this? If my team dies, why should I wait a week before being able to play for another team? Or if I'm playing IM roamer for a friend team and am asked to play medic for an invite team, what's the point of making me wait a week before being able to play? Seems arbitrary and pointless to me at least.
[quote=tsc]
Old: In Invite, teams will play each other twice during the regular season, with each match played as a map determined by a veto process.
New: In Invite, teams will play each other once during the regular season, with each match played as two maps determined by a veto process.[/quote]
2 matches is definitely better. I don't see any reason to change the format of invite to anything different than what ESEA had, playing each team only once during the season is really lame even if each match is two maps. What makes the invite season interesting is that you get to play each team twice and face them at the beginning and the end of the season, losing against a team on two maps and never getting to rematch them (unless you happen to make playoffs) is really lame and puts too much pressure on one day. Don't see any reason to do it like this, haven't even heard of anyone suggesting it either.
[quote=tsc]
Old: A team may only add one player per week, and a player only may switch teams once per week (but, after playing a match for a team as part of its roster, a player may not switch rosters to any other team for the remainder of the week). Team rosters are locked prior to the final weeks of the season, during which time players may only be added to a roster with admin approval.
New: A team may only make four player additions during a specified transfer window (from the start of the season to a few weeks before the end of the regular season). When adding players above the four player transfer limit, or outside of the transfer window, admin approval is required. Players may switch teams without limit, but require admin approval to switch to a team in a separate division or to be rostered on a team for the first time after the season starts.[/quote]
New roster transaction rules seem okay but might want to add a rule like in ESEA preventing players from jumping ships to 3+ different rosters during the season. Also, only allowing four people to join the roster during the season might be too few. Obviously you wouldn't want an invite team to have 5 different starters from the beginning of the season, but you also have to make sure teams can roster backups/subs as well (it's important to be able to add another player to your roster as an official backup and assure you can play with them, cause otherwise the other team can simply deny whatever ringer/merc you try to get)
[quote]New: All players for a team in a match (whether they are rostered or unrostered) must not have played for another team in the same week of the regular season or round of the postseason.[/quote]
This rule doesn't make much sense to me either, I get preventing someone from joining another team within 7 days of doing so (ESEA rule), but why this? If my team dies, why should I wait a week before being able to play for another team? Or if I'm playing IM roamer for a friend team and am asked to play medic for an invite team, what's the point of making me wait a week before being able to play? Seems arbitrary and pointless to me at least.
Old: In Invite, teams will play each other twice during the regular season, with each match played as a map determined by a veto process.
New: In Invite, teams will play each other once during the regular season, with each match played as two maps determined by a veto process.[/quote]
2 matches is definitely better. I don't see any reason to change the format of invite to anything different than what ESEA had, playing each team only once during the season is really lame even if each match is two maps. What makes the invite season interesting is that you get to play each team twice and face them at the beginning and the end of the season, losing against a team on two maps and never getting to rematch them (unless you happen to make playoffs) is really lame and puts too much pressure on one day. Don't see any reason to do it like this, haven't even heard of anyone suggesting it either.
[quote=tsc]
Old: A team may only add one player per week, and a player only may switch teams once per week (but, after playing a match for a team as part of its roster, a player may not switch rosters to any other team for the remainder of the week). Team rosters are locked prior to the final weeks of the season, during which time players may only be added to a roster with admin approval.
New: A team may only make four player additions during a specified transfer window (from the start of the season to a few weeks before the end of the regular season). When adding players above the four player transfer limit, or outside of the transfer window, admin approval is required. Players may switch teams without limit, but require admin approval to switch to a team in a separate division or to be rostered on a team for the first time after the season starts.[/quote]
New roster transaction rules seem okay but might want to add a rule like in ESEA preventing players from jumping ships to 3+ different rosters during the season. Also, only allowing four people to join the roster during the season might be too few. Obviously you wouldn't want an invite team to have 5 different starters from the beginning of the season, but you also have to make sure teams can roster backups/subs as well (it's important to be able to add another player to your roster as an official backup and assure you can play with them, cause otherwise the other team can simply deny whatever ringer/merc you try to get)
[quote]New: All players for a team in a match (whether they are rostered or unrostered) must not have played for another team in the same week of the regular season or round of the postseason.[/quote]
This rule doesn't make much sense to me either, I get preventing someone from joining another team within 7 days of doing so (ESEA rule), but why this? If my team dies, why should I wait a week before being able to play for another team? Or if I'm playing IM roamer for a friend team and am asked to play medic for an invite team, what's the point of making me wait a week before being able to play? Seems arbitrary and pointless to me at least.
tscNew: All players for a team in a match (whether they are rostered or unrostered) must not have played for another team in the same week of the regular season or round of the postseason.
If mercs count as unrostered players that effectively bans mercing. You can't even allow your subs to merc for another team in case you need them.
crib_For that matter, why does this supposed “LAN” have to be playoff restricted? What if there’s a lot of contention for the 4th place, and the 5th place teams book their non-refundable tickets well in advance but miss out because of the RGL points system? What if Se7en wants to attend the LAN? The best course of action to me seems to be to push back the first season of RGL and separate the LAN from the season to avoid scheduling issues. But this should ultimately be left in the hands of the community and the people that it affects.
I don't think the NACL staff can tell you how the RGL LAN is supposed to work.
[quote=tsc]
New: All players for a team in a match (whether they are rostered or unrostered) must not have played for another team in the same week of the regular season or round of the postseason.
[/quote]
If mercs count as unrostered players that effectively bans mercing. You can't even allow your subs to merc for another team in case you need them.
[quote=crib_]
For that matter, why does this supposed “LAN” have to be playoff restricted? What if there’s a lot of contention for the 4th place, and the 5th place teams book their non-refundable tickets well in advance but miss out because of the RGL points system? What if Se7en wants to attend the LAN? The best course of action to me seems to be to push back the first season of RGL and separate the LAN from the season to avoid scheduling issues. But this should ultimately be left in the hands of the community and the people that it affects.[/quote]
I don't think the NACL staff can tell you how the RGL LAN is supposed to work.
New: All players for a team in a match (whether they are rostered or unrostered) must not have played for another team in the same week of the regular season or round of the postseason.
[/quote]
If mercs count as unrostered players that effectively bans mercing. You can't even allow your subs to merc for another team in case you need them.
[quote=crib_]
For that matter, why does this supposed “LAN” have to be playoff restricted? What if there’s a lot of contention for the 4th place, and the 5th place teams book their non-refundable tickets well in advance but miss out because of the RGL points system? What if Se7en wants to attend the LAN? The best course of action to me seems to be to push back the first season of RGL and separate the LAN from the season to avoid scheduling issues. But this should ultimately be left in the hands of the community and the people that it affects.[/quote]
I don't think the NACL staff can tell you how the RGL LAN is supposed to work.
SetsulI don't think the NACL staff can tell you how the RGL LAN is supposed to work.
I specifically mentioned who should address that in the line above it. It's quite clear in context and relevant to the discussion; were you genuinely confused or expected me to be? I don't get your point, unless it was just you being pedantic.
[quote=Setsul]I don't think the NACL staff can tell you how the RGL LAN is supposed to work.[/quote]
I specifically mentioned who should address that in the line above it. It's quite clear in context and relevant to the discussion; were you genuinely confused or expected me to be? I don't get your point, unless it was just you being pedantic.
I specifically mentioned who should address that in the line above it. It's quite clear in context and relevant to the discussion; were you genuinely confused or expected me to be? I don't get your point, unless it was just you being pedantic.
Of course, but if you want RGL staff to actually see it and do something about it this might not be the best place.
This doesn't seem like the place to discuss what changes RGL should make either. It would just derail the thread.
Of course, but if you want RGL staff to actually see it and do something about it this might not be the best place.
This doesn't seem like the place to discuss what changes RGL should make either. It would just derail the thread.
This doesn't seem like the place to discuss what changes RGL should make either. It would just derail the thread.
oh nacl like sodium chloride like salt lmao haha i get it
oh nacl like sodium chloride like salt lmao haha i get it
crib_a functional site (the current one is barebones)
NACL are using Citadel, the same open source league framework used by ozfortress, match.tf, pan.tf and respawnleague (I'm probably missing some, sorry). I can assure you its perfectly functional.
[quote=crib_]a functional site (the current one is barebones)[/quote] NACL are using Citadel, the same open source league framework used by ozfortress, match.tf, pan.tf and respawnleague (I'm probably missing some, sorry). I can assure you its perfectly functional.
As far as roster rules go, we're trying to strike the right balance that ensures rosters are allowed reasonable changes but not excessive changes. I'm currently tweaking and working through some ideas and hope to have something better to present soon.
bearodactyl2 matches is definitely better. I don't see any reason to change the format of invite to anything different than what ESEA had, playing each team only once during the season is really lame even if each match is two maps. What makes the invite season interesting is that you get to play each team twice and face them at the beginning and the end of the season, losing against a team on two maps and never getting to rematch them (unless you happen to make playoffs) is really lame and puts too much pressure on one day. Don't see any reason to do it like this, haven't even heard of anyone suggesting it either.
The change was made to align the Invite division more with the other divisions. The two formats are fairly interchangeable with subtle advantages to each; single round robin with two maps is a bit better for scheduling and ensures more map variety, whereas double round robin is a bit better for reflecting a team's progress through a long season.
This decision is probably better made once we know how many teams are participating in Invite and what their preferences are.
As far as roster rules go, we're trying to strike the right balance that ensures rosters are allowed reasonable changes but not excessive changes. I'm currently tweaking and working through some ideas and hope to have something better to present soon.
[quote=bearodactyl]2 matches is definitely better. I don't see any reason to change the format of invite to anything different than what ESEA had, playing each team only once during the season is really lame even if each match is two maps. What makes the invite season interesting is that you get to play each team twice and face them at the beginning and the end of the season, losing against a team on two maps and never getting to rematch them (unless you happen to make playoffs) is really lame and puts too much pressure on one day. Don't see any reason to do it like this, haven't even heard of anyone suggesting it either.[/quote]
The change was made to align the Invite division more with the other divisions. The two formats are fairly interchangeable with subtle advantages to each; single round robin with two maps is a bit better for scheduling and ensures more map variety, whereas double round robin is a bit better for reflecting a team's progress through a long season.
This decision is probably better made once we know how many teams are participating in Invite and what their preferences are.
[quote=bearodactyl]2 matches is definitely better. I don't see any reason to change the format of invite to anything different than what ESEA had, playing each team only once during the season is really lame even if each match is two maps. What makes the invite season interesting is that you get to play each team twice and face them at the beginning and the end of the season, losing against a team on two maps and never getting to rematch them (unless you happen to make playoffs) is really lame and puts too much pressure on one day. Don't see any reason to do it like this, haven't even heard of anyone suggesting it either.[/quote]
The change was made to align the Invite division more with the other divisions. The two formats are fairly interchangeable with subtle advantages to each; single round robin with two maps is a bit better for scheduling and ensures more map variety, whereas double round robin is a bit better for reflecting a team's progress through a long season.
This decision is probably better made once we know how many teams are participating in Invite and what their preferences are.
Who the fuck cares about other divisions make invite not bad end of story
Who the fuck cares about other divisions make invite not bad end of story
let's just have everyone switch to nacl after rgl season1
let's just have everyone switch to nacl after rgl season1
beatricehey guys check out my new league at https://cevo.com/
Stop. Cevo was a special time.
[quote=beatrice]hey guys check out my new league at https://cevo.com/[/quote]
Stop. Cevo was a special time.
Stop. Cevo was a special time.
Will the league have any kind of integration with Pugchamp? Shared conduct/cheating bans, name highlights for divs, etc?
Will the league have any kind of integration with Pugchamp? Shared conduct/cheating bans, name highlights for divs, etc?
tscThe change was made to align the Invite division more with the other divisions. The two formats are fairly interchangeable with subtle advantages to each; single round robin with two maps is a bit better for scheduling and ensures more map variety, whereas double round robin is a bit better for reflecting a team's progress through a long season.
This decision is probably better made once we know how many teams are participating in Invite and what their preferences are.
Maybe it's simpler from your end to make a league where you play only 8 matches a season or whatever and play each team once, but from a players perspective it's definitely not at all harder to schedule two matches a week versus one. Invite teams will already be scrimming those nights anyways. The map variety point I don't see the merit of either: how is making people play two maps per match any different? Assuming it's still pick ban that doesn't make any difference than pick banning twice for two maps spread out throughout the season.
ESEA had match schedules different for invite/other divs , and RGL is proposing something similar. If it's 30 open teams vs 8 invite teams there's no way it should need to be the same that just doesn't make sense. Point is there's no reason to look for some meaningless 'unity' in how the matches are scheduled out just for the sake of it looking nice or whatever.
It's just such an awful prospect to play invite and literally have one night of matches determine your entire season, well boys looks like we played bad, time to get our shit together and step it up for next time we play them. Oh wait we don't play them ever again and in fact we miss playoffs now regardless of what happens...
[quote=tsc]The change was made to align the Invite division more with the other divisions. The two formats are fairly interchangeable with subtle advantages to each; single round robin with two maps is a bit better for scheduling and ensures more map variety, whereas double round robin is a bit better for reflecting a team's progress through a long season.
This decision is probably better made once we know how many teams are participating in Invite and what their preferences are.[/quote]
Maybe it's simpler from your end to make a league where you play only 8 matches a season or whatever and play each team once, but from a players perspective it's definitely not at all harder to schedule two matches a week versus one. Invite teams will already be scrimming those nights anyways. The map variety point I don't see the merit of either: how is making people play two maps per match any different? Assuming it's still pick ban that doesn't make any difference than pick banning twice for two maps spread out throughout the season.
ESEA had match schedules different for invite/other divs , and RGL is proposing something similar. If it's 30 open teams vs 8 invite teams there's no way it should need to be the same that just doesn't make sense. Point is there's no reason to look for some meaningless 'unity' in how the matches are scheduled out just for the sake of it looking nice or whatever.
It's just such an awful prospect to play invite and literally have one night of matches determine your entire season, well boys looks like we played bad, time to get our shit together and step it up for next time we play them. Oh wait we don't play them ever again and in fact we miss playoffs now regardless of what happens...
This decision is probably better made once we know how many teams are participating in Invite and what their preferences are.[/quote]
Maybe it's simpler from your end to make a league where you play only 8 matches a season or whatever and play each team once, but from a players perspective it's definitely not at all harder to schedule two matches a week versus one. Invite teams will already be scrimming those nights anyways. The map variety point I don't see the merit of either: how is making people play two maps per match any different? Assuming it's still pick ban that doesn't make any difference than pick banning twice for two maps spread out throughout the season.
ESEA had match schedules different for invite/other divs , and RGL is proposing something similar. If it's 30 open teams vs 8 invite teams there's no way it should need to be the same that just doesn't make sense. Point is there's no reason to look for some meaningless 'unity' in how the matches are scheduled out just for the sake of it looking nice or whatever.
It's just such an awful prospect to play invite and literally have one night of matches determine your entire season, well boys looks like we played bad, time to get our shit together and step it up for next time we play them. Oh wait we don't play them ever again and in fact we miss playoffs now regardless of what happens...
Hey all, I'm here to report some updates as the NACL season approaches.
Most significantly, I am happy to report that ChampGG will be sponsoring the Season 1 Invite division with a prize pool based on the number of teams participating in the overall league! Exact details are still being finalized, but will be announced prior to the season starting.
We've also gone ahead and written the NACL rulebook, filling in missing details and making some adjustments where needed. The most significant adjustments based on the discussions within the thread:
- The Invite division regular season will be played as a double round-robin with one map per match.
- The Advanced division regular season will be played as a single round-robin with one map per match.
- Ringer rules are more flexible - you can ring for multiple teams in the same week, and a single ringer from the same division does not require opponent approval in Intermediate, Novice, and Fundamental.
This is fairly close to a final draft, but we will continue to make adjustments to these rules based on feedback prior to the season starting.
Finally, a reminder that the season signups close in a little over 3 weeks on August 11th, so make sure to sign up! (If you are a member of a team that is interested in playing in the Invite or Advanced divisions in the upcoming season, please reach out to me on Discord (tsc#0386) - we would like to have further and deeper discussions about these divisions prior to the season starting.)
Hey all, I'm here to report some updates as the NACL season approaches.
Most significantly, I am happy to report that ChampGG will be sponsoring the Season 1 Invite division with a prize pool based on the number of teams participating in the overall league! Exact details are still being finalized, but will be announced prior to the season starting.
We've also gone ahead and written the [url=https://gist.github.com/thesupremecommander/89d4ee9a0d735651f4f41a7598f810e5]NACL rulebook[/url], filling in missing details and making some adjustments where needed. The most significant adjustments based on the discussions within the thread:
[list]
[*]The Invite division regular season will be played as a double round-robin with one map per match.
[*]The Advanced division regular season will be played as a single round-robin with one map per match.
[*]Ringer rules are more flexible - you can ring for multiple teams in the same week, and a single ringer from the same division does not require opponent approval in Intermediate, Novice, and Fundamental.
[/list]
This is fairly close to a final draft, but we will continue to make adjustments to these rules based on feedback prior to the season starting.
Finally, a reminder that the season signups close in a little over 3 weeks on August 11th, so make sure to sign up! (If you are a member of a team that is interested in playing in the Invite or Advanced divisions in the upcoming season, please reach out to me on Discord (tsc#0386) - we would like to have further and deeper discussions about these divisions prior to the season starting.)
Most significantly, I am happy to report that ChampGG will be sponsoring the Season 1 Invite division with a prize pool based on the number of teams participating in the overall league! Exact details are still being finalized, but will be announced prior to the season starting.
We've also gone ahead and written the [url=https://gist.github.com/thesupremecommander/89d4ee9a0d735651f4f41a7598f810e5]NACL rulebook[/url], filling in missing details and making some adjustments where needed. The most significant adjustments based on the discussions within the thread:
[list]
[*]The Invite division regular season will be played as a double round-robin with one map per match.
[*]The Advanced division regular season will be played as a single round-robin with one map per match.
[*]Ringer rules are more flexible - you can ring for multiple teams in the same week, and a single ringer from the same division does not require opponent approval in Intermediate, Novice, and Fundamental.
[/list]
This is fairly close to a final draft, but we will continue to make adjustments to these rules based on feedback prior to the season starting.
Finally, a reminder that the season signups close in a little over 3 weeks on August 11th, so make sure to sign up! (If you are a member of a team that is interested in playing in the Invite or Advanced divisions in the upcoming season, please reach out to me on Discord (tsc#0386) - we would like to have further and deeper discussions about these divisions prior to the season starting.)
cant help but feel disappointed at low signups for this. especially for teams that scrim, what's the harm?
cant help but feel disappointed at low signups for this. especially for teams that scrim, what's the harm?
Don't forget to sign up your team for the first season of NACL. As a reminder, our league is completely free, with no unexpected fees!
In addition, we are happy to announce the details for the ChampGG-sponsored prize pool! The Invite prize pool will start at a base level of $600, with an increase to $900 if 50 or more full teams sign up for Season 1 and another increase to $1200 if 50 or more teams successfully complete the season.
Signups end on Sunday, August 11th. Please help spread the word and encourage your friends to sign up!
If you have any questions, or need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask here or within our Discord: https://nacl.gg/link/discord
Don't forget to sign up your team for the [url=https://nacl.gg/leagues/1]first season of NACL[/url]. As a reminder, our league is completely free, with no unexpected fees!
In addition, we are happy to announce the details for the ChampGG-sponsored prize pool! The Invite prize pool will start at a base level of $600, with an increase to $900 if 50 or more full teams sign up for Season 1 and another increase to $1200 if 50 or more teams successfully complete the season.
Signups end on Sunday, August 11th. Please help spread the word and encourage your friends to sign up!
If you have any questions, or need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask here or within our Discord: https://nacl.gg/link/discord
In addition, we are happy to announce the details for the ChampGG-sponsored prize pool! The Invite prize pool will start at a base level of $600, with an increase to $900 if 50 or more full teams sign up for Season 1 and another increase to $1200 if 50 or more teams successfully complete the season.
Signups end on Sunday, August 11th. Please help spread the word and encourage your friends to sign up!
If you have any questions, or need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask here or within our Discord: https://nacl.gg/link/discord
minicircleI tried.
https://i.imgur.com/irqPOsw.png
Never give up!
[quote=minicircle]I tried.
[img]https://i.imgur.com/irqPOsw.png[/img][/quote]
Never give up!
[img]https://i.imgur.com/irqPOsw.png[/img][/quote]
Never give up!
Please
sign in through STEAM
to post a comment.