Season 5 suggestion and discussion thread

[Jdrew]

Yea. See teams shouldn't be able to do that. We would have lost if it wasn't for nikhao in that match. Being able to veto players stops that from happening.

[Soraboy]

Seems like you guys have some good Ideas.
My suggest is, that two Teams have 3 matches like in this Season.
Before the matches happen they choose the map together. Normally each Team can choose one time and one time both Teams have to agree on the Map. It happens to often that both leaders say : "Omg we need to choose the map this time it's important, we don't want to agree on a Map for both Teams we practiced so hard and bla bla bla."
Seriously, just create a script or throw a Coin in real Life as Admin or something if Teams won't agree on a Map.
I mean, most of the Teams had 3 Matches and everytime the Leaders said that they never will have 3 Matches because they have a reallife and shit lol. At least the result was that each Team was choosing one time and at the 3th time both won't agree on a Map. Or, as I said both wanted to choose as first Team.

Please write a Ruleset which says something like that the Team who gets his 5 Members quicker than the other one at the first match can choose the Map for the first match, if the second Match happens the other Team choose one time and if a 3th Match happen just throw a Coin if there is a endless discussion.

Idk if you understood the whole text, I was writing it quickly with my mobile phone.
Probably the Text is bullshit but just think about the text I was writing in the big Size. I think it could be very helpful for the next League.

[strawhatpirate]

For both 4v4s and 3v3s you'll need custom maps to compensate for the player amount. But I do support the idea of allowing 3v3s, 4v4s and 5v5s at the same time.

We might need to make 3v3s core members only since a sub in 3v3s would make a huge difference.

[Ballistic]

We might need to make 3v3s core members only since a sub in 3v3s would make a huge difference.

Agreed. Subs in a 3v3 match can influence the game a lot.

[MrFritz]

Was there ever a limit for how many times a team can veto? This was never set from what I've read or seen so either show me where this is or make it a rule to be able a team to veto only one sub and the team captain has to be the one who vetos him.

[Eraaaaz]

We should just not use subs at all, this whole veto stuff isn't really thought-out.

[danhezee]

I would rather make it so there is no subs then arbitrary limits on how many times you can veto. An arbitrary limit is just going to be abused. Teams would pick the best players last and they wouldnt get veto'd.

[Kiwi]

http://buildandshoot.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=10943

It would be good having a limit of veto's so i won't rage every time after getting veto'd.
Also would be good allowing teams to choose the team value how said over this reply.(like 3vs3 to 6vs6) But this would need increased teams IMO(12 to 14)

[danhezee]

Team size can be any size. I just went with a limit in hopes to get two or more teams from the big clans. No clan has ever did a good job fronting two teams. So I am for removing the team sizes.

I have also thought about it. I am for keeping 5v5. Soon we are going to have a way to dynamically launch match.py servers. We could theoretically run multiple leagues with different sizes and maybe different gamemodes with some modifications to key scripts. We could have less official leagues and tournaments.

[CobaltAK]

I've always been against the whole subs thing. Isn't the point of a clan match league match to show off how great your skills as a team is?

In my honest opinion, I really think there should be a set amount of members in the league (something like 12 for 5v5's or whatever) and would participate in their own league matches exclusively. No subs, no vetos, no bullshit.
(Not sure if anyone's said this, but this is my own personal opinion)

[MrFritz]

Well when a sub is completely nessesary, it isn't bad to have that option. When teams are getting 4v5'd and they need a player to fill that spot, a sub is necessary. When we have to wait 30 minutes for one player to join, then a sub is definitely necessary.

[Ballistic]

The thing about subs is that some teams abuse them. They keep their subs ingame while a core member is spectating, because they know that the sub is better then the core.
IMO teams should start a game with 5 cores. Subs should only be used when a core quits in the middle of the game, leaving the the team with only 4 players. If the core returns (or another core enters the game) the sub should leave immediately.

[Venator]

Edit the script so anyone can type in /pause and the game will only resume after 8 people type /ready again.

[danhezee]

This is the current draft.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vtl ... UZiTw/edit

Feedback is encouraged.

[Pedroh]

Yes, i agree with the YouTube Channel, where all the matches, or parts of it would be posted.