2012-02-29, 02:30:55
(This post was last modified: 2012-02-29, 02:32:26 by UnifiedDoom.)
Last weekend I observed and played in one 3v3 game due to a lack of players by one team. The games were organized because the team with 4 players ready was willing to let the other team play rather than just take a default win both times. Now while this is very sportsmanlike I feel as though this isn't the ideal solution.
I propose that instead of starting any future games like this we do this. With the approval of the ready team's captain a team lacking in players can field a 4th substitute player for their tournament team that isn't registered as a member as long as they can find one with the approval of the other team's captain of course. This is what I should have proposed during the KCTZ vs. Heroes game and I feel as though it's a more proper solution. I'm skeptical about the balance of 3v3 games (income dispersions putting excessive pressure on one player to do well) and they aren't constant with the rest of the tournament rules anwyay so it isn't an accurate representation of the team's skill or merit in the tournament. Setting a precedent that if a team is lacking a player 3v3 is also a bad option because it will encourage laziness and rather than punishing the team that failed to follow the rules it puts the other team captain in the akward position of either having to be painted as unsportsmanlike or dismissing one of their own players and playing in a different environment. Also the concept of allowing a 3v3 also means that if both teams bring 5 players and agree to do a 5v5 or a 1v1 with their best players, despite one of the main qualities about this tournament being that is it 4v4 and not 5v5.
I propose that instead of starting any future games like this we do this. With the approval of the ready team's captain a team lacking in players can field a 4th substitute player for their tournament team that isn't registered as a member as long as they can find one with the approval of the other team's captain of course. This is what I should have proposed during the KCTZ vs. Heroes game and I feel as though it's a more proper solution. I'm skeptical about the balance of 3v3 games (income dispersions putting excessive pressure on one player to do well) and they aren't constant with the rest of the tournament rules anwyay so it isn't an accurate representation of the team's skill or merit in the tournament. Setting a precedent that if a team is lacking a player 3v3 is also a bad option because it will encourage laziness and rather than punishing the team that failed to follow the rules it puts the other team captain in the akward position of either having to be painted as unsportsmanlike or dismissing one of their own players and playing in a different environment. Also the concept of allowing a 3v3 also means that if both teams bring 5 players and agree to do a 5v5 or a 1v1 with their best players, despite one of the main qualities about this tournament being that is it 4v4 and not 5v5.
