Just as the topic says, I'm here to poll public opinions on how they would run TWDS if they were given the choice.
The top 4 teams from the group stage will be drafting 2 new players to their team. However, some of these group stage teams have 5 players while others have 6.
If anything, there should be a 7 on 7 maximum on the big team stage if this ruling stays in place, as it's really not fair at that stage to have an uneven amount of players on the rosters (especially when that amount does not exceed the in-game threshold for players).
I'm a huge supporter that the teams with one less player should be able to draft another player so that every team proceeding from the group stage has a chance at 8v8 play. It is a clear advantage in my book, unfair at worst and circumstantial at best.
but maybe i'm just biased because it would give my 5-man team an extra player to draft
What are your thoughts?
Should teams with less players on their roster draft more players?
Re: Should teams with less players on their roster draft more players?
Yes, but first all players who haven't shown up to play at all should be removed from their teams/the tournament. PG has 6 on paper, but only 4 have played at all. Probably similar story for some of the other teams.
Re: Should teams with less players on their roster draft more players?
I agree with the notion that you should have to play to earn your keep. This prevents stuff from happening like a team drafting a top tier but inactive player, and then ends up using subs anyway because that guy never shows up. This also means the average player performing well, despite his team losing, has a better chance of moving into the later stage.
Honestly if we are adding more players to the teams to proceed with a tournament with large scale teams and maps, I think we should remove subs or tournament participant subs. This makes the games more of a grueling crucible with those involved rather than teams having to pick up the slack with what they have on their own when they are short handed.
So far it's a 5-0 lead that team player counts should be balanced going into this second stage, this is without my vote. Let's hope the council hears our word if this opinion is agreed upon.
Honestly if we are adding more players to the teams to proceed with a tournament with large scale teams and maps, I think we should remove subs or tournament participant subs. This makes the games more of a grueling crucible with those involved rather than teams having to pick up the slack with what they have on their own when they are short handed.
So far it's a 5-0 lead that team player counts should be balanced going into this second stage, this is without my vote. Let's hope the council hears our word if this opinion is agreed upon.
Re: Should teams with less players on their roster draft more players?
Should go like:
1. Bottom 4 teams eliminated, players go to draft pool
2. All players from draft pool and on remaining teams who haven't played are removed from tournament
3. Top 4 teams draft 2 players each from pool
4. Second draft, where teams with less than 8 players draft from pool, also captains are allowed to trade players back into the pool if they have less than 6 games played (or some other low amount of games/matches)
6. Some kind of sub system for remainder of tourney:
A. players left in draft pool become sub pool (gives players who participated but ultimately didn't get picked in draft a good chance to still play, also won't imbalance teams in favor of subs, however will be a small/not great pool to pick from)
B. or subs must be in tourney (on team or in sub pool) and within certain rating of player they replace (so if limit is set as no higher than 0.5 of person they replace, for example, Akira (3.7) can't sub for Killerking (2.9) but can sub for Trev (3.6). It also gives teams better options if they are missing a key player, but also overvalues skilled players who rarely show up (Chron - 3 games played, unlikely to show up, but you could have me/trev/akira/dant/myrk/etc sub for him))
C. No subs at all (could be interesting/different from recent tournaments having a team that drafted based on attendance showing up with 8 vs a team that drafted purely on skill only having 5)
A is most fair to players that don't get re-drafted and leads to larger games while still prioritizing attendance and team composition
B will probably lead to the most balanced games, and more participation, but makes actual teams matter less
C makes team composition/attendance more important, but leaves more players out, and has a greater chance of imbalanced games
or you could make things more complicated with a combination of all 3, and say:
- Teams are allowed max 1 sub from sub pool with no restrictions
- Teams are allowed an extra sub, but if they are on an active team - must be no more than x higher rated than the person they are replacing, if they are in sub pool - no restrictions, if they are not in tournament - captains must agree
- Teams can field 8 players/use their subs regardless of how many the other team has (so if team A has 6, they can use 2 subs even if team B only has 4 + 2 subs)
IMO this is the best since it leads to more participation/larger games, still keeps team composition/attendance important, and gives teams a chance if they are missing a key player while still keeping things fair with subs.
1. Bottom 4 teams eliminated, players go to draft pool
2. All players from draft pool and on remaining teams who haven't played are removed from tournament
3. Top 4 teams draft 2 players each from pool
4. Second draft, where teams with less than 8 players draft from pool, also captains are allowed to trade players back into the pool if they have less than 6 games played (or some other low amount of games/matches)
6. Some kind of sub system for remainder of tourney:
A. players left in draft pool become sub pool (gives players who participated but ultimately didn't get picked in draft a good chance to still play, also won't imbalance teams in favor of subs, however will be a small/not great pool to pick from)
B. or subs must be in tourney (on team or in sub pool) and within certain rating of player they replace (so if limit is set as no higher than 0.5 of person they replace, for example, Akira (3.7) can't sub for Killerking (2.9) but can sub for Trev (3.6). It also gives teams better options if they are missing a key player, but also overvalues skilled players who rarely show up (Chron - 3 games played, unlikely to show up, but you could have me/trev/akira/dant/myrk/etc sub for him))
C. No subs at all (could be interesting/different from recent tournaments having a team that drafted based on attendance showing up with 8 vs a team that drafted purely on skill only having 5)
A is most fair to players that don't get re-drafted and leads to larger games while still prioritizing attendance and team composition
B will probably lead to the most balanced games, and more participation, but makes actual teams matter less
C makes team composition/attendance more important, but leaves more players out, and has a greater chance of imbalanced games
or you could make things more complicated with a combination of all 3, and say:
- Teams are allowed max 1 sub from sub pool with no restrictions
- Teams are allowed an extra sub, but if they are on an active team - must be no more than x higher rated than the person they are replacing, if they are in sub pool - no restrictions, if they are not in tournament - captains must agree
- Teams can field 8 players/use their subs regardless of how many the other team has (so if team A has 6, they can use 2 subs even if team B only has 4 + 2 subs)
IMO this is the best since it leads to more participation/larger games, still keeps team composition/attendance important, and gives teams a chance if they are missing a key player while still keeping things fair with subs.