BigMac
Joined: Dec 19, 2004
|
  Posted:
Apr 25, 2006 - 19:13 |
 
|
I'm curious.
Why is it that the number of teams per coach is limited by division?
I would have imagined that the load to the database is determined by the total number of teams per coach...
Me for example i do not use any of the other Divisions right now, and i'd gladly trade my stunty slots for ranked ones.
(to clarify the above: I am just ASKING so i'd appreciate an ANSWER not comments like "5 is enough" which i am expecting from the usual forum suspects...)
On a sidenote, i'd rather see a mechanism introduced that stops people from retiring their teams early on. I think it would be beneficial to the matchup situation if more teams that don't do too well are availiable as opponents. I once suggested a minimum of 5 games played before a team may be retired. |
|
|
Sleep
Joined: Feb 09, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2006 - 19:19 |
|
because one should be enough! gotcha! |
_________________
The more skill one has, the less luck one needs.
With skill and luck you get snake eyes! |
|
BigMac
Joined: Dec 19, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2006 - 19:21 |
|
|
AvatarDM
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2006 - 19:40 |
|
|
vanGorn
Joined: Feb 24, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2006 - 19:47 |
|
Your sidenote is a good idea, BigMac. That would hamper the RRR-frontloading. |
_________________
Gimme a pint of fungus beer!
Then we will climb the ladder.
 |
|
Zatoc
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2006 - 20:34 |
|
to increase donations why doent christer charge $2 per extra ranked slot. i would buy some |
|
|
MiBasse
Joined: Dec 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2006 - 20:38 |
|
Since Ranked has no incensitive for people to play in in the first place why request more ranked slots?
 |
|
|
ozjesting
Joined: Jan 27, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2006 - 20:41 |
|
While 5 is indeed enough...if you had a game minimum before retireing a team there would be a rash of conceded games I would imagine. So a lot of lame moments as people feast on this new species of cherry (cherry juice?) and a whole lot of wasted of time for many. |
_________________
Say GO AWAY to CuddleBunny! |
|
Zlefin
Joined: Apr 14, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2006 - 20:47 |
|
I'd like more R slots too. There's just not enough slots to have all the teams i want at one time. I'd like around 10. I'd play 'em all; and i play other divisions enough anyways. I just need more space to experiment without having to retire teams.
Zlefin  |
|
|
Britnoth
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2006 - 20:52 |
|
| Quote: | | Another reason to limit the R teams is to get people who want to play alot involved in the other divisions. Allowing more teams in R would just increase the number of games played there, which is not needed at this point. We don't want to kill off the other divisions entirely |
Well, now that DivX and Ladder have both been executed, that argument doesnt really hold up anymore I think.
| Quote: | The minimum 5 games before creating new team rule does have a purpose. One being to discourage people from needlessly retireing teams, the other to actually get people to play in divisions other then ranked, too. DivX/unranked/Ladder are at this point so inactive that I'd rather see it increased to 10 games minimum then seeing it removed.
-Mnemon |
Very prophetic, it was removed and those did die. |
|
|
BigMac
Joined: Dec 19, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2006 - 20:54 |
|
Ok "Stunty" is silly, and "Academy" is lame. "Factions" is freak so that leaves "Ranked" and "Unranked". How exactly is it desireable to play in unranked and ranked? I mean either you want to have games add up to some stats, or you don't. (Which escapes me, but have it your way then). |
|
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Jan 26, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2006 - 21:07 |
|
I'd prefer more [U] slots actually. I can't participate in all the leagues I'm interested in. I must admit that perhaps even more interesting leagues would pop up if there were more slots, though. |
|
|
Pmg
Joined: Nov 24, 2003
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2006 - 21:22 |
|
If you make a Poll about the 5 Ranked slots, my guess is that you would see 90 or 95% of the coaches wanting more slots in ranked. I've read Christer's response earlier but see no reason not to make the game the way teh coaches want it, thus more fun for most of the poeple, instead of protecting semi-dead divisions that very few people play.
I am for the Majority! Get those slots up to 8! |
|
|
jimimothybodles
Joined: Mar 31, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2006 - 21:42 |
|
i think i'd rather see less than more.. i think that would encourage you to stick with a team more and not just retire it. i'm really bad for doing that.  |
_________________
"Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a day.
Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
~Ancient Snotling Proverb |
|
BunnyPuncher
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2006 - 21:46 |
|
I'd like to see more because that way when I get bored with a team I can just ignore it for a while instead of consigning it to the purgatory of U. |
_________________
|
|
|
|
New Gnones vs Old Gn...
Search
