MRGL S1 | Suggestions & Questions

[Kore]

More like 3 months after NWBC pretty pls!

[MarxeiL]

New year rgl?

[maskmanmarks]

As its not RGL can larger regiments like 45th Nottinghamshire play with two teams, one grenadier roster and one centre company roster? Itd be nice to get as many people involved even if we get fucked in the end of the day

[Fietta]

Since for some strange reason you're not allowed to discuss roster changes in a roster thread. In regards to Smallest and Water being removed from the 27th roster this comment propped up.

(4) A player counts as part of a regiment once he/she has played one official match with this regiment.

They don't need to be removed. But equally they're not going to be playing so it doesn't matter.

If players want to be removed from a roster because they don't wish to associate themselves with that regiment, then why make a mountain out of a molehill? Just simply remove them from the roster, they're not in that regiment/team anymore. Create a spoiler within the rosters OP called 'Capped Players'; within capped players, place all the names of people who's been removed/left from the regiment but is unable to play in another regiment because they've already played a match in another.

Sometimes I do see NW rules/opinions to be sometimes quote primitive.

[Vegi.]

I mean why do u even fucking care dude.
The result in the end doesn't change. It's like you being mad about smallest and water not being accepted  to the 45thN roster

[Wursti]

Ive not seen Water nor Smallest post that they want to be removed. I dont even care if they keep playing for 27th or not

[Fietta]

I dont care if they get removed from the 27th roster and I dont care if theyre not added in the 45th roster, stop being silly, I understand the roster rules and can appreciate the rules surrounding players unable to join other regiments when they've played in another.

I'm simply giving a suggestion on a current, quite clear primitive way of handling capped players.

Ive not seen Water nor Smallest post that they want to be removed. I dont even care if they keep playing for 27th or not

Not necessary. If they're not in that regiment/team anymore, they should be removed from their roster anyways. Just please take my suggestion into consideration. Cheers!

[Wursti]

I think ure the one making a "mountain out of a molehill" just leave it be cuz as u said urself literally nobody cares that its handled that way and you knew it when you signed up for this

Spoiler

i rlly got baited by such retarded shit smh

[close]

[Fietta]

I gave a suggestion, I wasn't demanding them.

[Fralla8]

Wow guys calm down holy shit
If they aren't going to play for 27th and can't play for 45thN why should they be on either roster.
Nothing more, nothing less.

[Herishey]

I didn't say they won't be removed what I said is in the current rule-set they do not HAVE to be removed. The result is still the same if the players are or are not removed anyway since we are not using a player whitelist, only an admin one. To be honest the suggestion is pointless.

[Fietta]

Wow guys calm down holy shit
If they aren't going to play for 27th and can't play for 45thN why should they be on either roster.
Nothing more, nothing less.

Exactly this.

I didn't say they won't be removed what I said is in the current rule-set they do not HAVE to be removed. The result is still the same if the players are or are not removed anyway since we are not using a player whitelist, only an admin one. To be honest the suggestion is pointless.

What? It's not about that; if any player doesn't want to associate themselves with a regiment, then they should be removed with no questions asked, even if the 'result' is the same. They'll just be added to the 'capped' player list instead of being in a roster. It's merely a suggestion to improve on a quite primitive way of handling capped players, even if the result is the same.

It's how it works in Native because it makes sense, morals bro; it's not about what the result is, but what the players want.

[TheRealHunter]

Wow guys calm down holy shit
If they aren't going to play for 27th and can't play for 45thN why should they be on either roster.
Nothing more, nothing less.

Exactly this.

I didn't say they won't be removed what I said is in the current rule-set they do not HAVE to be removed. The result is still the same if the players are or are not removed anyway since we are not using a player whitelist, only an admin one. To be honest the suggestion is pointless.

What? It's not about that; if any player doesn't want to associate themselves with a regiment, then they should be removed with no questions asked, even if the 'result' is the same. They'll just be added to the 'capped' player list instead of being in a roster. It's merely a suggestion to improve on a quite primitive way of handling capped players, even if the result is the same.

It's how it works in Native because it makes sense, morals bro; it's not about what the result is, but what the players want.

And those players cant speak for themselves so you have to take word for them?

[Fietta]

Again, besides the point. This is a suggestion for a ruleset change, and not some devised plan to get water and smallest into the 45thN roster. I'm making a suggestion.

What Water and Smallest want is entirely up to them; but what happened in the roster thread brought up a ruleset issue which clearly isn't actually handled, so I'm just giving my two cents.

Suggestion, suggestion, suggestion. This isn't some long standing argument about the 27th roster, literally a change to the ruleset, calm yer tits.

[Herishey]

Shadey handles the roster updates anyway so it's up to him how he manages this, since the rosters are not for public viewing anyway I see no real reason why it matters.