Discussion

[Lightning.]

Spoiler

AnnouncementWe announce a big rule change that came about because of unfortunate events where members were left out. This is not something that we want to see. We want everyone to be given the chance to play as it is not fair to the organizers or your own members. From now on regiments will be divided into two different tiers. In tier-1 we will have the 4e, 1er, 2Lr, Nr4, CB and 8th. In tier-2 we will have 33rd, 5to, Nr10 and 6e. It will still be one league but the expectations for the numbers will be less on the tier-2. So basically we expect the tier-1 to bring a minimum of 15 players and the tier-2 will try to bring 12. But if a regiment only has 2 players needed then they will be allowed to play but there will not be a perfect balance. Is this rule change fair? I don't think it is fair towards the regiments in tier-2 who might be struggling with numbers but it came about before the whole situation with the minimum of 10 players rule gets out of control. Additionally, we will add a rule that does not allow you to make ludicrous additions to your roster ahead of a game against your rivals. Also, if two regiments end up with the same points for the first position the decider will be whoever won the meeting between them. Thanks for understanding.

[close]

What do you people think about the change in minimum attendance?

[Aless]

Doesn't affect the 8th. So I think it's alright.   

[Erik le Rouge]

Spoiler

AnnouncementWe announce a big rule change that came about because of unfortunate events where members were left out. This is not something that we want to see. We want everyone to be given the chance to play as it is not fair to the organizers or your own members. From now on regiments will be divided into two different tiers. In tier-1 we will have the 4e, 1er, 2Lr, Nr4, CB and 8th. In tier-2 we will have 33rd, 5to, Nr10 and 6e. It will still be one league but the expectations for the numbers will be less on the tier-2. So basically we expect the tier-1 to bring a minimum of 15 players and the tier-2 will try to bring 12. But if a regiment only has 2 players needed then they will be allowed to play but there will not be a perfect balance. Is this rule change fair? I don't think it is fair towards the regiments in tier-2 who might be struggling with numbers but it came about before the whole situation with the minimum of 10 players rule gets out of control. Additionally, we will add a rule that does not allow you to make ludicrous additions to your roster ahead of a game against your rivals. Also, if two regiments end up with the same points for the first position the decider will be whoever won the meeting between them. Thanks for understanding.

[close]

What do you people think about the change in minimum attendance?

Necessary and will do the league a lot of good. Changing it now is the right thing to do

[Tardet]

Spoiler

AnnouncementWe announce a big rule change that came about because of unfortunate events where members were left out. This is not something that we want to see. We want everyone to be given the chance to play as it is not fair to the organizers or your own members. From now on regiments will be divided into two different tiers. In tier-1 we will have the 4e, 1er, 2Lr, Nr4, CB and 8th. In tier-2 we will have 33rd, 5to, Nr10 and 6e. It will still be one league but the expectations for the numbers will be less on the tier-2. So basically we expect the tier-1 to bring a minimum of 15 players and the tier-2 will try to bring 12. But if a regiment only has 2 players needed then they will be allowed to play but there will not be a perfect balance. Is this rule change fair? I don't think it is fair towards the regiments in tier-2 who might be struggling with numbers but it came about before the whole situation with the minimum of 10 players rule gets out of control. Additionally, we will add a rule that does not allow you to make ludicrous additions to your roster ahead of a game against your rivals. Also, if two regiments end up with the same points for the first position the decider will be whoever won the meeting between them. Thanks for understanding.

[close]

What do you people think about the change in minimum attendance?

I believe that was the right decision made by Lindblom and I salute it, not an easy one at that. I understand some regiments see things differently, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but the initial rule of 10 was meant for regiments which do not have the resources to bring more, not for regiments which are selecting the very best members from a larger player base only to give themselves higher chances in certain (or all) match-ups.

As a host, you are bound to take decisions which are going to displease a part of your attendance. So long as the majority sticks behind your ruling and understand the reason why it was made (and I believe that will be the case here) then it shouldn't be an issue. From my perspective, this new rule saves a lot of potential damage dealt to the league on the long term, making it automatically more healthy and entertaining.

[Chri]

Spoiler

AnnouncementWe announce a big rule change that came about because of unfortunate events where members were left out. This is not something that we want to see. We want everyone to be given the chance to play as it is not fair to the organizers or your own members. From now on regiments will be divided into two different tiers. In tier-1 we will have the 4e, 1er, 2Lr, Nr4, CB and 8th. In tier-2 we will have 33rd, 5to, Nr10 and 6e. It will still be one league but the expectations for the numbers will be less on the tier-2. So basically we expect the tier-1 to bring a minimum of 15 players and the tier-2 will try to bring 12. But if a regiment only has 2 players needed then they will be allowed to play but there will not be a perfect balance. Is this rule change fair? I don't think it is fair towards the regiments in tier-2 who might be struggling with numbers but it came about before the whole situation with the minimum of 10 players rule gets out of control. Additionally, we will add a rule that does not allow you to make ludicrous additions to your roster ahead of a game against your rivals. Also, if two regiments end up with the same points for the first position the decider will be whoever won the meeting between them. Thanks for understanding.

[close]

What do you people think about the change in minimum attendance?

great rulechange

[QuinnML]

I'm against dividing teams like this in Leagues to be honest. It kind of feels like you've separated out 4 teams that no one expects to win for the Tier 2 label, and I feel like it will pretty much always be the case with these kind of systems. It's self-fulfilling really, the second tier has lower requirements on the teams with the unspoken justification that they aren't going to win it anyway so whatever. I can't shake the feeling that if there was a serious title favourite in this situation then a different approach would be taken.

I think, hopefully uncontroversially, that leagues like this should have one set of rules that apply to every team. In the case that the rules make it very difficult for 4/10 of the teams to actually play, then either the base rules should be reconsidered or the team applications should be more selective. I'm not sure about this compromise where rules standards are lowered in order to pad out the number of competitors.

The final angle on this is that can't the latest rulechange be seen as a bit patronising? To join a tournament, keen to show the worth of your players, and then the organiser tells you that you are only tier 2 anyways so just bring whatever you can (again, I think the implication is inescapable that these teams will not win the league). Either way, I'll still be rooting for Ironfist and the 33rd this League, I'm just not sure I agree with this latest change.

[Tardet]

I think, hopefully uncontroversially, that leagues like this should have one set of rules that apply to every team. In the case that the rules make it very difficult for 4/10 of the teams to actually play, then either the base rules should be reconsidered or the team applications should be more selective. I'm not sure about this compromise where rules standards are lowered in order to pad out the number of competitors.

The cavalry scene is nowhere near as active for such a drastic approach. In theory, certain regiments in the CL would probably better belong to a division of their own where you could indeed have a different ruleset, much like it was the case for the RGL in the infantry scene. The issue is, there aren't enough regiments at the moment in the scene to make two divisions so you have to find a middle ground where everyone can play in the same league but also that said league can remain somewhat enjoyable for everyone. A 'selective' approach like it was the case for the CCL where you tell the regiments to either meet the standards or fuck off is inherently unhealthy for the scene, at least in its current state.

[QuinnML]

Doesn't have to be that they meet the exacting standards or are told to fuck off, it's possible that, for example, as part of the selection system two tiers are organised like with previous CNWL. I don't see the issue with being placed in tier2 if you are competing for the tier2 title. What strikes me as odd is being told you are tier 2 and then still having to compete with supposed tier 1 teams for the same title.

There are surely enough teams for this anyways. We already have ten here, I don't see the 32nd or Ve 10th off the top of my head, and the Cuirassier Brigade is at least two full regiments. Even with two tiers of 5 teams you can have home-away fixtures as proposed in CCL. I think it's fine to just have ten teams in one league but I don't see how my last point was drastic when we already have two recent examples of application pre-vetting being done.

Like I said originally, what is strange to me foremost is taking ten teams into one league system, then telling 4 that they are tier 2 and don't need actually need to conform to the original rules.

[Dume]

I need thorvic or someone else to explain the unbalance thingy in the match of CB vs 5to

[Thorvic]

I need thorvic or someone else to explain the unbalance thingy in the match of CB vs 5to

Yes I'll write an official post in the Result topic. Feel free to leave your thoughts here. To sumarize my thoughts on this, I think the outcome of this match wouldn't have been significantly different with a perfect balance from the beginning as the new rule -which I didn't understand at the first glance- seemed to allow. But for the sake of fairplay, I support the idea of fully re-playing the CB vs 5to match. I think it's better to leave the final decision to the tournament hosters, as CB is likely (and it would totally be fine) to not accept the rematch by themselves.

[QuinnML]

Spoiler

[close]

Honestly a little sad that some players can't type gg after a close game, but there are clearly still sore losers in the community in 2020

[Thyrell]

Posting about someone not typing gg is quite sad by itself.
Especially when you say "Oh that was surprisingly easy" in the 8th round.

Good match though.

[Naz]

Spoiler

[close]

Honestly a little sad that some players can't type gg after a close game, but there are clearly still sore losers in the community in 2020

That random reset really messed with our flow though, not gonna lie.

[Tardet]

Props to the Nr4 for giving us one hell of a fight and being patient/understanding with our issues. I'm not sure my heart can take it if all matches are that stressful but from a competitive perspective, this was both very entertaining and challenging. Looking forward to seeing how you guys do in your other matches cause if you keep playing like you did tonight, no one is safe.

[Ciiges]

That random reset really messed with our flow though, not gonna lie.

What "flow" lmao?
Was your early dismount in a flow?
We had someone who lagged out after being in the lead with only ONE swing actually having hit anything in that round, and did you a favor by resetting it.
You're lucky I was eating for the first 5 rounds

gg?