in another competitive games such like LoL (the actual most competitive and seen livestream game EVER) who play X or Y side is defined literally 6 mins before they play, and it forces them to make strats for both sides before the match set up starts
making live vetos forces everyone to be ready for every situation with really not thinking time, which forces you to be ready before the match set up starts (as i said before)
They do not have the opportunity to **** talk and have a flame war with other contenders. They have an enforced deadline and consequences when causing delay in a multi million dollar venture.
They also have a limited roster unlike our case, they cannot entirely switch out their players for every other match.
You know what happens when you have live vetos? You veto, pick a map, then the other clan discusses strategy and who is going to play the new map, trying to get some other player on that might not have been necessary in the originally posted set, who takes which spot and so on... This drags the whole thing out way longer than it needs to, it's been like that the last 2 tiw's and it was the reason i really didnt enjoy them. It seemed like a huge waste of time. Why not force the vetos earlier, so it is clear what's played and have it run more smoothly by giving teams a little bit of time to pick spots and a basic game strategy.
Honestly, the only real reason for you insisting on this can be, that you try to get an advantage by picking weird and unusual civcombinations and not allowing the opponent time to create a gameplan. And you talk about making it competitive... Trying to get cheap wins?
I really cant see any reason whatsoever to do live vetos. The truth is it makes it so much more awkward for everyone including myself, the players, the streamers etc... It also seems as if the majority want them sorted before the set. I think what we should do is arrange map picks and vetos 1 hour before a set.
@Fugs the only cheap win in this tourney is Europe (using RM players), nothing else.
Oh and i understand the 1hr rule, clans with 100+ members needs time to manage the players and decide who plays what, play few practice game and watch some records if there is time left, fine.
@Fugs the only cheap win in this tourney is Europe (using RM players), nothing else.
Oh and i understand the 1hr rule, clans with 100+ members needs time to manage the players and decide who plays what, play few practice game and watch some records if there is time left, fine.
That is how RB plans to knock out xCs into the Silver League.
What exactly is your problem with a vote?
If you wan't a tournament where you dictate every rule, then i suggest you go host one. A vote is the only fair way to do it here.
dont answer anymore pls bcoz i wont
making live vetos forces everyone to be ready for every situation with really not thinking time, which forces you to be ready before the match set up starts (as i said before)
They also have a limited roster unlike our case, they cannot entirely switch out their players for every other match.
Honestly, the only real reason for you insisting on this can be, that you try to get an advantage by picking weird and unusual civcombinations and not allowing the opponent time to create a gameplan. And you talk about making it competitive... Trying to get cheap wins?
Oh and i understand the 1hr rule, clans with 100+ members needs time to manage the players and decide who plays what, play few practice game and watch some records if there is time left, fine.
Oh and i understand the 1hr rule, clans with 100+ members needs time to manage the players and decide who plays what, play few practice game and watch some records if there is time left, fine.
That is how RB plans to knock out xCs into the Silver League.