Match Expansion

[Deleted User]

Hello all, another quick question for you all in which I present to you two options.

Option 1: We can stay as is, with 5 battles per match. The complicated consecutive weeks ordeal can stay in place and we can be on our merry way.

Option 2: We expand each match to 7 battles. This allows for more people to get in on the action and reduce the pressure of any individual match. In addition we would also remove the hard cap of consecutive weeks battling. Though if the committee notices any players wishing to participate being routinely skipped for the same other individuals to battle week in and week out, we will still step in.

Why am I proposing this, you ask? Well to be quite frank I didn't expect nearly this many participants. We currently have 92 and possibly counting. So do your voting thing guys. Oh and in case I wasn't clear, this means selecting 5 or 7 participants each week, not 5 or 7 battles per person.

[InnocentSerenity]

I'm assuming 7 participants from each of the 6 nations, which means 42 each week (Apologies, if I'm wrong). Which means a little less than half of the contestants will participate each week. I'd say it'd be nice amount, as opposed to less than a third each week.

[AuthorReborn]

The more the merrier, the way I see it.

[Ojama Yellow]

a little iffy on this one. ruin nation from season 1 couldnt even reach 5 battlers a week anymore due to so many people dropping out. gonna abstain for now.

[Exalted]

ill say 5 due to the fact of out of the 92 ppl not everyone is likely gonna end up fighting in the first place we have 6 nations so around 15 players per nation,Now consider the possibility of each nation getting a good chunk of battlers unable to participate either due to the fact they drop out or are unable to battle for a few weeks in consecutive turn we will likely end up with much much few ppl per week in the first place and the odds of sending the exact set of participants twice raises under this possible scenario it would be a much more suitable and manageable for each nation and staff to send out 30 battlers(all nations) per week about 3 weeks and everyone gets a chance to fight as well giving odds for less mishaps to happen as its easier to fit inactive players in later weeks or replace with participants from earlier weeks by allowing some freedom to to pick good battles in each set to go on.while puting half of all players per week raises the odds pf some matches not happening in said weeks and more DQ then needed for a nation with a low turn up.

[Jacobliterator]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qMFFfsXLlbA

[NickCrash]

Inability to participate is an issue that we can tackle as we move forward. If we reach a point in which this issue becomes a serious problem, we may as well return to 5 battles per week. With 15 people in each Nation, it does not mean 7 will fight one week and the rest the next one. If someone cannot battle for rl reasons, another subs. The problem arises when people who want to fight are left out for others that are deemed better by the Nation they end up in. If we are informed of the latter, we can assure you that the problem will no longer exist.

[Deleted User]

Inability to participate is an issue that we can tackle as we move forward. If we reach a point in which this issue becomes a serious problem, we may as well return to 5 battles per week. With 15 people in each Nation, it does not mean 7 will fight one week and the rest the next one. If someone cannot battle for rl reasons, another subs. The problem arises when people who want to fight are left out for others that are deemed better by the Nation they end up in. If we are informed of the latter, we can assure you that the problem will no longer exist.

Yup, with the way the poll looks that's what I was thinking too. We'll do 7 until/if a problem arises, then we can drop it back to 5 if need be.

[Ojama Yellow]

Yup, with the way the poll looks that's what I was thinking too. We'll do 7 until/if a problem arises, then we can drop it back to 5 if need be.

that would be a good solution. voting 7.

[Exalted]

Yup, with the way the poll looks that's what I was thinking too. We'll do 7 until/if a problem arises, then we can drop it back to 5 if need be.

i can live with this solution

[Reignited'Light]

7, cause I don't really like the consecutive weeks limitation idea.

[Lord Bagel]

7, cause I don't really like the consecutive weeks limitation idea.

Agreed, though I still feel we need to make sure everyone gets to play no matter how good some people might be. For the most part I like consecutive weeks but if you get stuck with no great players available to play and the opposing has all there best players available it could be problematic.

[Deleted User]

As I said, as long as the leader isn't going out of their way to keep a particular player from battling week in and week out it'll be a non issue.

[Odybld]

Let me throw this here before I sleep...

Install a point system. 7 matches, with five counting for 1 point and the last two for two points. These are for the games between the marquee players of each nation. So it's (5×1)+(2×2)=9 so that breaks ties nice and dandy. Hell, you can even add one more 2-point match and make it 11 points total. Or two 1-point matches.

In general, I'd preferably want both higher tier players and lower tier ones being involved a lot, without the latter ones being shoved aside for the formers, and without each nation having to kinda gut their roster each week for charity towards lesser players. The more the merrier, for both sides.