Author Topic: NANWL Free Discussion Thread  (Read 17012 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Windflower

  • General
  • ****
  • Posts: 15021
  • ex PSG, 30th
    • View Profile
    • my jam
  • Side: Union
Re: NANWL Free Discussion Thread
« Reply #90 on: February 09, 2016, 11:27:56 pm »
Spoiler
Duuring is one of the only good mods lol
you haven't been on political threads or psg threads than lol

political threads are for cucks
duuring is the biggest cuck of them all
[close]
you're worse for posting on that thread in the first place

NAPL season 1 saw the greatest regiment winning
ribbit 🐸 cute? 😳 im not cute 😓 i mean my parents 👨‍👩‍👧 call me cute ☺️ but honestly 👉👈 ive never ❌ heard it 👂 from someone else 🗣 before 🥰 thanks i guess? 😳

Offline BabyJesus

  • General
  • ****
  • Posts: 12200
  • #1 Cringe poster and lover of Anna Kendrick
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Most Average MVP of All Time
  • Side: Union
Re: NANWL Free Discussion Thread
« Reply #91 on: February 09, 2016, 11:42:50 pm »
by request of gayboy

wait chantakeys not even in NWL right? Then he has no reason to post there. And I'm pretty sure he's been told more than once not to post there as well.
1st NWPC S2(21st)|(1st) 5v5 Draft~NA GroupFighting Tournament  |1st♕Rex's 6v6 Tournament | 1st TNWL S2(71st) | 1st NWL S5 (58e) | 3rd place Sleeks 5v5 (Highschoole DxD)
You are by far the best average player to touch this game.
Quote from: Risk
The BEST average player of all time

Offline Rutger Müller

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 5248
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Ryu? | Fancy?? | Rutger???
  • Side: Neutral
Re: NANWL Free Discussion Thread
« Reply #92 on: February 10, 2016, 01:31:25 am »
by request of gayboy

wait chantakeys not even in NWL right? Then he has no reason to post there. And I'm pretty sure he's been told more than once not to post there as well.
he just told me to post that so.. ya know

Offline Rutger Müller

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 5248
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Ryu? | Fancy?? | Rutger???
  • Side: Neutral
Re: NANWL Free Discussion Thread
« Reply #93 on: February 12, 2016, 07:16:00 am »
This just in! Comrade BeanBean "The Last Pirate" strikes again!

Many more posts have been deleted from ye old NWL Thread... you can post them here without oppression brothers!

Offline AP0CALYPS3

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6104
  • Luck is for Risk because he is bad at SMITE
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Memefried
  • Side: Neutral
Re: NANWL Free Discussion Thread
« Reply #94 on: February 12, 2016, 07:53:37 am »
So I actually asked IB about this.

IB said he was fine with the 71st being in the league, HOWEVER they would have to be penalized (he suggested they sit players out, like the rules said)

BeanBean told me he offered this compromise to Cheesey and was turned down

I have yet to talk to Cheesey tho


Offline Grimsight

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 2712
  • ᴅɪꜱʀᴇꜱᴩᴇᴄᴛ_Yᴏᴜʀ_ᴍᴇᴍᴇꜱ
    • View Profile
  • Nick: 3eVolt
  • Side: Union
Re: NANWL Free Discussion Thread
« Reply #95 on: February 12, 2016, 08:05:56 am »
What a silly idea. Why would the 71st be penalized for another regiment disbanding?

Offline AP0CALYPS3

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6104
  • Luck is for Risk because he is bad at SMITE
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Memefried
  • Side: Neutral
Re: NANWL Free Discussion Thread
« Reply #96 on: February 12, 2016, 08:15:20 am »
Wasnt about the 104th disbanding.

It was about them getting members from a shit ton of regiments already in the NWL.

By NWL rules, when you switch in between regiments in the NWL, you gotta sit a few matches.

From what BeanBean told me, He was willing to shorten the sentence for the 71st players from 3 matches to 1 and Cheesey still turned him down.

Offline Grimsight

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 2712
  • ᴅɪꜱʀᴇꜱᴩᴇᴄᴛ_Yᴏᴜʀ_ᴍᴇᴍᴇꜱ
    • View Profile
  • Nick: 3eVolt
  • Side: Union
Re: NANWL Free Discussion Thread
« Reply #97 on: February 12, 2016, 08:24:37 am »
Wasnt about the 104th disbanding.

It was about them getting members from a shit ton of regiments already in the NWL.

By NWL rules, when you switch in between regiments in the NWL, you gotta sit a few matches.

From what BeanBean told me, He was willing to shorten the sentence for the 71st players from 3 matches to 1 and Cheesey still turned him down.

I'm confused. Are you talking about sitting out players who have already played in a match for another regiment? I would agree that is fair.

Offline AP0CALYPS3

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6104
  • Luck is for Risk because he is bad at SMITE
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Memefried
  • Side: Neutral
Re: NANWL Free Discussion Thread
« Reply #98 on: February 12, 2016, 08:28:49 am »
Read rule #34 (giggity) on the NANWL thread.

It was added a few weeks ago I believe.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2016, 08:33:45 am by AP0CALYPS3 »

Offline Grimsight

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 2712
  • ᴅɪꜱʀᴇꜱᴩᴇᴄᴛ_Yᴏᴜʀ_ᴍᴇᴍᴇꜱ
    • View Profile
  • Nick: 3eVolt
  • Side: Union
Re: NANWL Free Discussion Thread
« Reply #99 on: February 12, 2016, 08:43:52 am »
Seems like this rule would require the entire regiment to sit out. There would have to be an exception else the 71st would miss their first 3 matches, at which point we would question what is even the point of letting them in.

Offline AP0CALYPS3

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6104
  • Luck is for Risk because he is bad at SMITE
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Memefried
  • Side: Neutral
Re: NANWL Free Discussion Thread
« Reply #100 on: February 12, 2016, 08:49:18 am »
Thats just it though.

Not only would beanbean be letting them in midseason, far past the deadline, he would be undermining and making exceptions for other rules. Rule #34 ( giggity x2) doesn't really allow room for exceptions as it states if players switch regiments for ANY reason they have to sit out.

I think a 1 match sit is more than fair.

Thus, the heart of the debate.

Offline Grimsight

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 2712
  • ᴅɪꜱʀᴇꜱᴩᴇᴄᴛ_Yᴏᴜʀ_ᴍᴇᴍᴇꜱ
    • View Profile
  • Nick: 3eVolt
  • Side: Union
Re: NANWL Free Discussion Thread
« Reply #101 on: February 12, 2016, 08:58:31 am »
Thats just it though.

Not only would beanbean be letting them in midseason, far past the deadline, he would be undermining and making exceptions for other rules. Rule #34 ( giggity x2) doesn't really allow room for exceptions as it states if players switch regiments for ANY reason they have to sit out.

I think a 1 match sit is more than fair.

Thus, the heart of the debate.

Indeed, this entire discussion predicates on there being exceptions for the 71st. And I would think this exception could be made as well, because the 71st has not made any grievous mistakes other than reforming a few weeks late.

Offline Grimsight

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 2712
  • ᴅɪꜱʀᴇꜱᴩᴇᴄᴛ_Yᴏᴜʀ_ᴍᴇᴍᴇꜱ
    • View Profile
  • Nick: 3eVolt
  • Side: Union
Re: NANWL Free Discussion Thread
« Reply #102 on: February 12, 2016, 09:36:22 am »
Wasnt about the 104th disbanding.
It was about them getting members from a shit ton of regiments already in the NWL.
I think a 1 match sit is more than fair.

My thoughts on the matter.

A compromise I propose:
- 71st allowed to enter the league and play all matches including the first week match
- Any returning 71st members may play unprohibited (returning members meaning present in the 71st at the time of the disband)
- Any 71st members that have played in a current NWL season match are banned for 3 weeks
- Any 71st memebers not present in the 71st at the time of disband are prohibited from play for 1-3 weeks (possibly on a case by case basis looking at history of regiment hopping)

This accomplishes 3 things:
1) In the name of a larger and more competitive NW scene, a well known skilled regiment is welcomed to play once again.
2) The regiment will not be handicapped to the extent of outright loss in their first few weeks as they will at least be able to play their core members.
3) Those coming from other regiments will receive a temporary ban for those worried of a large regiment hop.

Offline Bear

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4686
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: NANWL Free Discussion Thread
« Reply #103 on: February 12, 2016, 12:30:53 pm »
What happened to playing this game for fun, when did it become such a contest? Do any of you guys actually have fun playing competitively now or do you guys just do it cause you feel obligated too since any regiment thats worth shit plays in NANWL, and why so much salt my God. At least some of you are able to have constructive critisim, anyways whatever I dont care anymore.

I'm also posting to clear up that IV thing, BeanBean came in the IV ts and asked me about it but I'm not big on the whole bayonet side of this game so I basically said sucks to suck to the 71st and he said "Would IB share your opinion" and I was like "Idk I'm not IB" then we didn't really talk so there ya go.

Offline cheeseypants

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 1283
    • View Profile
  • Nick: 71st_Col_Cheeseypants
  • Side: Union
Re: NANWL Free Discussion Thread
« Reply #104 on: February 12, 2016, 03:36:57 pm »
I was offered a "compromise" of sorts the other day.  This included forfeiting up to three of our first matches (10-0 auto loss) in order to get in.

I did in fact say that we would not be joining under such terms for the following reasons.

-Even just 1 auto forfeit loss essentially puts us out of the running to win League 1, even if we beat all regiments we actually face, it is highly unlikely.

-We participated and wish to participate in league 1 for the competitive fun that the league provides.  Handicapping us by having us take 1-3 loses simply destroys any chance of a 71st victory.

I understand the rule that is in place and I understand that we violated that by reforming late.  I had no idea when NANWL would start, if it would start or if it even still existed when I reformed.  With that being said, I simply asked for the opportunity to join in when it won't affect anyone negatively.  In fact, filling that spot in League 1 would eliminate the bye week and strengthen the competition within League 1.

Thank you,

Cheese
Leader of the 71st