Leonresevil2 wrote: They let you determine the time length for bans and picks now? That seems new to me, it was always 90 seconds or 2 minutes I thought.
Nacelle wrote: Winners of a round who get done early shouldn't be allowed to watch another game. Neither should the losers of a game announce to everyone else which champions the winning team used and really did good with. This would give a team an unfair advantage in knowing who to ban in the next round. We had a similar instance of this at Nexus with Starcraft where one team watched our strat against another team in the semi-finals and then knew the exact counter to what we were going to do.
Shroud wrote: ewww... 3 vs 3
Plague wrote: You are right in the game it only allows for about 2 minutes for that. the 10 minutes to pre-game creation. so you have up to 10 minutes(I hoping less) to figure out what the bans will be and up to 10 minutes to figure out the picks. and we create the game and the bans and pick entry should be quick because we already have them decided.
Leonresevil2 wrote: Does "we already have them decided" mean the tourney staff have already decided who can be banned? Confusingly phrased, sorry.
Arxon wrote: From my experience... Don't limit champs. An all tanky team can be beat really easily with a few tank eating champs.
Leonresevil2 wrote: Ok. Can we say who all is interested, to get an idea of numbers? Or will we just wait until the event and see who all signs up?
Nacelle wrote: How about everyone who knows a code phrase, when they sign in, get a little something extra, maybe a ticket. A word from that phrase in posted in a random thread every couple days. That way everyone will read all of them trying to find the word.
Twodavez wrote: Hey, i can start playing 3v3 to get the feel for it, it just figured based upon the difficulties i've seen at other lans with these type of games, fewer total teams might be smoother and go a little faster, but that's just my opinion.
Plus i'm not sure how many total noobs will be playing but with random teams, i figure i'd rather have 3 noobs with 2 experienced people than 2 noobs with one experienced person to carry.
Nacelle wrote: While not a %100 way to evaluate a players skill. We should go by their level. Random never turns out very fair. It could put a whole team of noobs up against a whole team of level 30s. When you sign up, also put down your level. That way the person in charge of the event can evenly distribute the pros. Also the point of "random" is to make it fair for everyone. But sometimes being on a team with your friend is just as fair as a random person you don't know. For instance, My son is level 30 and I'm 19. It would be just as fair for us to be together as it would for me to be placed on a team with another level 30 person. I think that it would be nice when signing up to also write down other people that you would like to team with. Than if it's fair, according to levels, they could be put together. I know my example could apply to Twodavez and Daveyo. Daveyo is level 30 and Twodavez is lower. I know they would want to be on teams. Why separate them if it's still fair to everyone else? my $.02
The biggest reason is that we don't have just a handful of people that are good at League, we have quite a few. Being a free game, we're also anticipating that we will have about the same amount of people who are not as experienced. Hell, you can play quite often and still not be on the same level as another person, as I found out when we got rolled by the Daves
Nacelle wrote: I'm certainly NOT on the side of fair. I mention it because that's the idea behind random teams. I'd prefer picking teams, but that's they way they want it to be. I assume it's because My sons and I rolled the Demigod tournament and they don't want to see something similar happen again. Not that we would with LoL, I played with my son and his cousin in a 3v3 match last night and they stunk up the place. Whatever happens, it's should still be fun as long as no one gets mad at the low levels for dying too much.
We have 1436 guests and one member online