Messages

301

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Point the Goldfish's guns forward

« on: April 04, 2014, 02:54:00 pm »

in what universe is one light weapon viable?

a competent crew armed with even one merc or art.

From the same post you claim to be disabled and made useless by a single light weapon. Does the goldfish need some love? Probably. But is it this useless floating target that you seem to see it as? Certainly not.
I guess my concern is that if every ship and every gun can be viably used in competitive play (as things currently stand), then what happens when you buff something? Sure, the only instances of some things working are when one of the best players is using it, but how much is that player going to wreck the scene if you buff them?
Maybe that is the wrong outlook to have in a game with a delicate balance between making casual and competitive fun. But it is the feeling I have when people talk about buffing squid arcs, goldfish arcs, carronades, and flamers. They are all viable right now if just a little bit more risky.

@Velvet, I can post some videos... OVW and the Ducks scrim every Wednesday night. Alistair Silas has been bringing his goldfish pretty successfully, though he has limited internet and hasn't been able to participate in the more public events.

If you could post any videos that would be very helpful, thank you. As it is it's difficult for me to accept that all of the ships are competitively viable as all my experience suggests otherwise and that it's quite a narrow set of weapons and ships that are used to effect in competitive play. Maybe I might learn something new.

There are barely any situations where it's good call to turn in the side guns if the front gun isn't a hwacha.

you dont turn in the side guns. the side guns gain arc incidentally as you move and twist. you are not playing for high dps in a goldfish you dont need to be hitting every time. you just need to hit at the right time. when it is of most value to your team.

If you are flying a goldfish you must fly unexpectedly aggressively and aggressively defensive. with the speed of a goldfish you can weave in get some hits and get out, not easily mind you, the engineers need to be up to snuff. you can also fly in such a way that you target the ships targeting your allies. you can remove enemies from arc on  your allies and you can just straight up remove the damage sources. giving your ally time to repair and kill the threat. (this all assumes you are using the hwatcha or carronade which are the most popular weapons on the goldfish, if you are going for a damage goldfish with the flak or lumber your gunner better be good because you have to be constantly changing target to what ever ship is the biggest threat/easiest pickings.)

by removing damage sources from your allies and thus preventing damage that was going to be taken, you are essentially healing your allies, in a round-a-bout way. the goldfish functions much like the cleric in 4th edition dungeons and dragons.  yes you are supporting your allies but you are doing it by beating the fuck out of the most opportune enemy. and it becomes more and more useful the more allies you have.

The Artemis has the final say in disable. Triple art effectively used has far greater range and precision as well as more consistent, maintained disable and a lesser vulnerability to return fire than a Hwacha. Both the Hellhound and Manticore are (at least alone, and in my opinion) highly ineffective against the combination of gat mortar and art disable that you'll experience trying to get close to most high level teams.

if you turn the gun arcs forward you remove its capability to be hitting almost no matter what direction the ship is facing and moving, thus making it boring.

I do not see how highly varied gun angles are necessary when, as has already been discussed at length, the Goldfish is fantastically manoeuvrable and unlike a Mobula or Galleon doesn't need a gun arc in every direction to quickly attack enemies on any side.

302

Community Events / Re: <Development Discussion for VIP Event> Project Red Skies

« on: April 04, 2014, 02:38:18 pm »

This is interesting. The aerodrome was fun and a continued tradition of competitive events with a focus on narrative and fresh ideas would be a nice change from win-at-all-costs TDM tournaments.

my thoughts on VIP balance:

Maximum points on a Hunter win: 50, and realistically it will be close to 35 or 40 as a couple of kills will probably not be on the VIP.
Prey always get 75 points if they win.

You say this compensates the Hunters' natural disadvantage - I would contend that the rules actually favour the Prey even if you ignore the maximum points gain.

The Hunters' objective is in direct conflict with tactical considerations. They have to focus down a specific target - even if the non-VIP is left vulnerable the Hunters are incentivised to ignore the opportunity because an unwanted kill can decrease their points gain. This puts the Hunters in a tactically sticky situation where they have to make difficult choices and decide between 2 unwanted possibilities
The objective of the Prey is the intuitive desire to avoid allowing your ship to die, which is not really a change from normal gameplay. The Prey only need to try to win, and they have the added option of taking advantage of the rules to minimise their opponents' points. The Prey can just play the game like any other, focusing the target that the situation necessitates which I think gives them a clear advantage.

I think forcing the Prey onto a defensive footing is a great idea. However I think it may be difficult to achieve that just through the scoring system. It might work to give the Prey a significant points penalty for every VIP death, forcing them to play to the same limitations and considerations as the Hunters. Or instead - or better, as well - you could apply loadout restrictions, for instance force the VIP to fly a Galleon*, Spire, Goldfish, Squid or Mobula and possibly restricting the Hunters to more offensive ships like the Pyra or Goldfish.

*perhaps not a galleon. But they are nice big targets so would be pretty vulnerable to focus fire, and if the Prey took some kind of penalty for letting their VIP die it would make people very cautious about using these things to tank which might create an interesting dynamic.

303

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Point the Goldfish's guns forward

« on: April 04, 2014, 12:53:46 pm »

Double artemis lumberjack on the second fastest and second most all around maneuverable ship in the game would be in my opinion very unbalanced.

Same for double gat hwacha or double mortar carronade.

how so? I feel the lumberthing would be strong but probably not too much. Unlike other long range ships, its DPS is reliant on all of the crew being some distance from important repair areas unlike the other heavy gun ships which have short repair distances, at least when the crew is properly coordinated. It's highly vulnerable to arts; not just the heavy gun being disabled but the low armour would be a significant disadvantage when trying to snipe against Artemis junkers.
I'm not arguing for angles that would make it possible to get 2 gats or mortars on 1 target so I'm not sure what the strength of those 2 builds are. They would be made more powerful, yes, thanks to possible bifectas or shorter turning angles but I'm not aware that those builds are strong or viable at all right now so a buff wouldn't be unwelcome.

As far as fun goes, I really really enjoy flying the goldfish.  I've been flying the blenderfish all week and if you handle your engagement correctly it absolutely murders Junkers, mobulas, galleons, squids spires and just about anything that's not a Pyra.  Ramming a Junker, Mobula Squid or Spire without a balloon and armor while you still have armor up is frequently an instakill, Galleon's have always been prone to easy balloon locks.

Gunning on a goldfish is also really fun and tense as your whole ship depends on your skill. 

Granted, engineering is likely not super thrilling as it involves carefully timed buffs, chem sprays repairs and the occasional side gun shots however it can be a nice ship to engineer on when taking a break from piloting.

I don't dispute that piloting and gunning on a goldfish can be as satisfying as on any other ship if not more so. While I can understand you and I agree that the goldfish engineer slot is a nice place to relax from piloting, what with the long walks, fresh air etc.
Unfortunately for the people who like to engineer as their primary playstyle a relaxing ride is probably less appealing.

The other point from the perspective of fun is that because the Goldfish is perceived as weak by some players it's not fielded so often as other ships, which decreases variety in the game and in my opinion this indirectly makes the game slightly less enjoyable than it could be.

What the Goldfish really needs is: A new close range skill based piercing modifier heavy weapon, a change to heavy weapons making them more resilient to breakage and/or easier to rebuild, maybe more maneuverability for funsies (though it really doesn't need it).

there are already 2 close range weapons. If the Goldfish relies on a single weapon to make it worthwhile again, it's going to mean a total lack of varied loadouts and a weapon strong enough to do that job might give an unwanted buff to the Galleon too. I feel whatever the buff is it needs to be specific to the Goldfish and definitely not to a specific gun, to avoid unwanted side effects and to ensure that there's more than one viable build for the ship.

In competitive play in most games, teams will usually favor characters or play styles with the highest dps.  That being said, I'm sure at some point a team will realize an instakill has really high dps, and may figure out a way to use a Golfish effectively against all the Junkers in competitive right now.

I disagree. A large number of teams favour sniping, and I think a significant part of the reason for that is that it's the least risky play style. Ramming and reliance on a single, easily disabled heavy gun is even riskier and less predictable than brawling so I think you're mistaken to think that it could ever win matches reliable or satisfy the requirements of a competitive meta. I also think the predominance of the artemis in competitive play would put the Goldfish at a very severe disadvantage.


@redria: No offence taken, sorry if my phrasing was overly defensive or reactive.
I don't know if I've seen a goldfish, let alone a hwachafish, used to great effect in evenly matched highlevel games recently. I may have missed some, competitive being my primary reference as I think pub matches generally have too high skill differentials and too many unrelated factors that confuse balance issues.

304

Gameplay / Re: Realism has had it's fun...

« on: April 03, 2014, 07:10:33 pm »

brawling would be no fun if it was easy. I don't know the best way to phrase it, particularly considering that I'm hardly the most experienced pilot, but, well.. just the fact that your brawling build doesn't work for your team does not mean that brawling is no longer a viable strategy. Yes, the balance has made certain tactics and builds less effective but in my opinion "turret fighting", while perhaps more common than it should be, is nothing like the best tactic and brawling remains pretty viable. In fact in my experience the most mobile and versatile teams who show the most willingness to adapt, to develop new plans midway through matches and surprise their enemies tend to come out on top.

I think that the frequency of sniping is not due to its superiority as a strategy but because many players consider close or midrange engagements too risky, especially in important competitive matches. And that risk is due to the unpredictability inherent in brawls being decided too quickly. While I think this risk is a good thing and should remain, I don't think faster ships would make brawling better, since the risk would remain, and possibly increase, and many teams will still prefer to take the safer option of a slow engagement at long range, presuming you managed not to obsolete sniping completely.

Of course, faster ships might just slow down engagements because it's even easier to dodge the finish. I personally don't think it's good for the pilot to have that much evasion capability. They are only one member of a 4 man crew yet already have a hugely disproportionate share of the power and responsibility to control their ship's fate - if gunning is becoming increasingly important then I'm not going to complain.

305

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Point the Goldfish's guns forward

« on: April 03, 2014, 06:20:37 pm »

@Skrim: yes, it is possible to use the sideguns. Balance is a precise thing and the fact that something is possible or sometimes works does not mean it is in the state it should be in. If the gun positions were adjusted to allow certain bifectas and trifectas, the goldfish would be able to lay down enough long range DPS to be even worth considering for sniping, and gain a fair amount of DPS in brawling that would put it on a better par with comparable ships. I have argued a number of other weaknesses that would, in my opinion, mitigate the effects of this buff and leave the Goldfish reliant on what are still quite situational tactics. I feel there is a certain amount of contempt being displayed in this thread as some people neglect to read others' arguments for the buff and assume that the people who favour this change don't understand the most basic and intuitive principles of flying certain goldfish builds. I am not wailing about the ineffectiveness of this ship, I am offering my thoughts about why I think it isn't a great ship right now and suggesting a specific change that will bring it into a better state of balance without significantly changing the character of how the ship is flown.

@Nidh

I contend that a gat/hwacha is not as powerful as a gat mortar. Firstly, the pyra is much better equipped to deploy both weapons simultaneously. I am not proposing fully forward facing side guns so the bifecta of those guns would not be usable whilst charging. The permahull DPS of a hwacha is lower than a mortar and I feel the hwacha is actually weaker to gat disable than the gat is to hwacha disable. I don't think it's been suggested that a hades or merc bifecta should ever be viable on a fish.

@Crafeksterty and Redria

I disagree with your apparent belief that the people whoa re unhappy with the current Goldfish have been flying it incorrectly. I don't think any poster in this thread is an inexperienced player, and while I can believe that you are better pilots than me, I don't think the skill differential is great enough to explain why so many people feel the Goldfish is ineffective. A lot of us have flown the goldfish before, even used it in competitive play in the past. The further issue with your experiences of noncompetitive play is that all of you are good players even if not always playing competitively. This means that, at least in pubs, your own skill is significant enough to tip the balance of the game even with an ineffective ship, and there are so many variable factors of crew and team variation that pretty much any build will get some success, particularly in the hands of experienced pilots. While not always a great representation, competitive matches are the least affected by factors such as disorganisation or huge skill differentials and therefore I think very important for assessing balance. And judging by the dearth of competitively flown Goldfishes, the current balance isn't very good for this ship, and rather than making a sweeping change with unwanted side effects like nerfing the art or buffing heavy guns I think the balance change should be one specific to the Goldfish that makes it more fun as well as more powerful.

I'd like to repeat my first post as it seems some missed it - I don't feel the guns should all point straight forward; there should be the edge of an overlap between 2 arts on the side slots. Not entirely sure about the numbers here, but I think that would lead to an acceptable overlap between a gat and hwacha and one that is too narrow to be viable, or nonexistent, when trying to use hades or merc on the side. When a galleon can field a perfect overlap between a light gun and 2 heavies as well as having significantly superior durability to a goldfish, I don't see how anyone can complain about OP firepower here. At long range, I can imagine double art + lumberjack would become viable, which would be pretty strong but be highly mitigated by the fact that the Goldfish's manoeuvrability doesn't help greatly in a snipe-out, its big, weak hull and front gun would be highly vulnerable to the normal sniping meta and it has to totally sacrifice its brawling ability to get this moderate longrange capability.
Something combining carousels or flamethrowers with a carronade would be nasty (and extremely fun!) but still would go down in seconds to good gatmortar, not effective versus efficient chemspray techniques and unlike a Pyra, reliance on 3 guns and the Goldfish's long engineering walks mean that it's impossible to lay down full DPS while getting any maintenance in - meaning this build would be highly reliant on excellent crew coordination and using your disable to avoid taking damage. Seems like a dangerous but not OP build requiring skilled play to utilise effectively; exactly what GOIO needs more of.
The gathwacha builds would be slightly buffed by this change but not excessively. The gats narrower angle means you would get no trifectas so it basically means slightly less steering is need to get the correct angles and that it's actually possible to achieve significant permahull against a team that are tanking hull properly. It'll still take more than 1 reload to down most ships meaning that the gathwachafish is in the same old situation of having to compensate for a slower kill with clever use of disable.

306

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Point the Goldfish's guns forward

« on: April 03, 2014, 02:59:54 pm »

goldfish isn't balanced. Anything works in pubs, so imo the only relevance of balance in non-high level play is how it contributes to the game being fun. I feel the current balance of the goldfish is not fun, because firstly it makes the goldfish unexciting to crew on and secondly makes the Goldfish pretty rare leading to less variety in most matches.

High level is much the same as pubs. Weak Goldfish = less variety and less interest and fun, a narrower choice of viable ships leading to a shallower and less varied tactical layer. Competitive is the good proof that the goldfish is weak - because no one really uses it.

Could those postulating that the goldfish would be OP with a narrow trifecta (limited to certain guns) suggest some of the ship builds that they think would be too powerful and how the issue would emerge? I don't really see it myself but I may be missing something.

Redria, I don't think it's right to attribute the rarity of the Goldfish and squid in competitive to piloting difficulty. Some teams will learn anything if it will work best. They are difficult to pilot effectively, yes, but even when piloted well they attain a damage output that is lesser or equal to other ships, with no capability to snipe effectively and a low armour that is a much larger issue in high level play against teams that are spamming arts or have nailed down their mortar timing. I see the Goldfish's manoeuvrability as compensated by other weaknesses beyond just the bad gun angles.

307

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Point the Goldfish's guns forward

« on: April 02, 2014, 05:28:36 pm »

https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,2784.0.html

my bad, checked the gameplay forum but missed that thread.
Nevertheless, considering the lack of change that thread has catalysed in 5 months maybe it's time to try a new one in a different forum to see if it can attract some more attention.

308

Feedback and Suggestions / Point the Goldfish's guns forward

« on: April 02, 2014, 05:07:51 pm »

There's a trend I've noticed particularly in competitive but also (to a lesser extent) in pub matches. You see Junkers, all the time. Pyramidions, also common. Galleons or mobulas are seen often enough. Spires and squids; occasionally, with unpredictable rates of success. But Goldfish? I feel that right now that ship is highly underpowered and additionally somewhat uninteresting to play on, resulting in them being a somewhat rare sight in the smoky skies.

I think the heart of this issue is that the goldfish is so heavily reliant on its main gun - most viable goldfish builds only make use of the side guns as backup because a single light gun has very limited DPS and spinning constantly to get tantalisingly close to a bifecta is difficult, leaves you too busy maintaining angles to perform other manoeuvres and is not really worth the effort with no great light + heavy gun synergies to match a gatmortar. The result is a pretty uninteresting ship, both in terms of entertainment value and competitive prospects.

The Goldfish is not very fun in my opinion for a few reasons. Firstly, it is totally ineffective at getting kills since no heavy guns adequately combine armour stripping and permahull damage and as previously mentioned it's not particularly viable to use your side guns to shore up these deficiencies. This means you either have to very slowly blend enemies down or run a build such as disable or flak that is near totally reliant on your ally to cooperate with you to compensate your inability to get kills singlehandedly.
The second issue is that the enginners' tasks generally involve fixing the balloon, fixing the hull, taking the long trip to the rear engine and occasionally putting out fires on the front gun. Even when on occasion the sideguns do see some action, it's very often the gunner that handles these because the primary and secondary guns are almost never needed to fire simultaneously. Having no

The ship's total reliance on the front gun means that any goldfish build will have a very narrow range of tactical options, extremely limited and specialised firepower and perhaps most importantly, be very vulnerable to the disable builds prevalent in competitive play. The goldfish can't participate in sniper battles because it has a third of the firepower, significantly less armour and much more disable vulnerability than comparable ships. In brawls, it isn't an entirely hopeless prospect but falls short of ships such as the Pyramidion or Junker because of the inability to get a quick kill and again, the dreaded artemis. I mean, the Pyra blend more effective than the Blenderfish. The "synergy" between the Hades and the nice big Goldfish hull just compounds these issues.

My proposal is to give the much-neglected sideguns some love and rotate them forward. Not enough to allow for the madness of a double/gat hwacha combo, but at least far enough to get light gun bifectas with guns such as the artemis, flamethrower and rocket carousel. Yes, a Goldfish trifecta would be a massive buff. But as it is the goldfish is a ship with everything against it and nothing in its favour. This change would make the Goldfish a mild contender in sniping and a strong brawler but I think that the deck is so stacked against this ship right now that even this buff would leave it with a significant number of disadvantages. Unlike every competitively viable ship, the Goldfish still wouldn't have the option of bringing a secondary set of weapons so would have to choose between brawling and sniping. It would still be unable to make proper use of very strong sniping weapons such as the Hades or Mercury and remain extremely susceptible to art disable, that large, lightly armoured hull abetting the problem of constant explosive bombardment. Overall I think with these and other weaknesses in mind, the buffed Goldfish would retain the same character of a ship that has to work closely with its ally, whether specialising in support or relying on situational effectiveness by ambushing enemies or catching them off guard. I think the competitive meta needs some variety and this buff would make the goldfish not OP but a very interesting addition to the roster of frequently seen ships.

The rotation would also fix the previously mentioned issue of nothing interesting for engineers to do. A constantly viable trifecta would introduce the choice and variety present on the other vessels as prioritising between gunning and ever-vital repair work becomes necessary.

309

Community Events / Re: Press Start Community Guns of Icarus Tournament - Sign ups extended to April 30

« on: March 29, 2014, 12:57:02 pm »

sorry Imagine for misunderstanding you there. I agree there are many other competitive and relevant clans beyond those two.

Zeck, that post doesn't really address the concern that there will be issues with mixing highly experienced and inexperienced clans. It's not that I respect these new teams less because they don't play or intend to play a lot of GOIO. It's just that a team with little experienced the game is not going to be anywhere near on a par with the average competitive team, meaning that if the clan teams get involved the consequence will be some very lopsided and uninteresting matches.

I would suggest that if you want the majority of teams involved to be those 5 with little or no experience of the game, you either respec the event into something entirely casual, possibly going so far as to remove the notion of a tournament or elimination completely, or you deny experienced teams entry and focus on bringing in some of the newer clans who don't yet have great prospects with the main competitive events. Rebranding your event as a "Sky League for newer and casual clans" might be your better bet imo.

310

Community Events / Re: Press Start Community Guns of Icarus Tournament - Sign ups extended to April 30

« on: March 25, 2014, 05:32:32 pm »

Holy moly, guys, turn down the dial on the elitism meter...

Elitism? What is elitist about stating the fact that a tournament between a highly skilled and a generally inexperienced team may not be very interesting? My understanding is that this is a pretty widely accepted fact in all areas of competition.
Now that it's clear the the tournament is intended to be more casual the situation makes slightly more sense. This wasn't at all clear as the OP has expressed an interest in involving the seriously competitive teams and creating videos that are interesting to watch - and the general understanding is that a competitive tournament is going to be, well, competitive. You probably won't think this is very nice but I'm not particularly interested in participating in an event where the majority of teams are hugely inexperienced and have no real interest in or commitment to competitive play.

Perhaps you're right, and there is a certain amount of elitism in competitive play. The object of most tournaments is to find and acknowledge the best teams. Most participants want to be the best and play with the best, and the viewers are watching because they want to see the game's best players face each other down in tense matches. If not, we would all play pub matches, watch pub matches and be happy with it. I don't actually see a problem with that kind of "elitism".

Where elitism is a problem is when people are being refused entry to a group (for instance in this case the competitive scene) because they are not "good enough". This is not that situation. This is a tournament where the majority of teams have no connection with the GOIO community, don't play GOIO actively or competitively and don't have any apparent interest in playing GOIO actively or competitively. I don't grudge them that, but equally I don't think they will be much fun to compete against or have much fun competitive against seasoned competitive players rather than against each other. Mixing these two rather separate casual and competitive communities with different interests and different skill levels into the same tournament does not seem like a good idea to me.

Imagine, you seem to think I am criticising the organisation of this event out of contempt or some delusion of superiority. To clarify: I'd love to see this tournament, or any new event, succeed. However, I don't feel that it necessary to refuse to acknowledge any issue or flaw that the proposal may have. Failing to point these problems out is not going to achieve any kind of resolution.
You have taken offence to the critical feedback being offered in this thread. I would counter that all good feedback on any creation is to some extent critical, because nothing is perfect. It is the unfortunate truth that in the case of a highly inexperienced creator the proportion of criticism must be higher as they have more to learn and more to improve upon.

311

Community Events / Re: Press Start Community Guns of Icarus Tournament - Sign ups extended to April 30

« on: March 25, 2014, 03:02:20 pm »

Ah crud. I forgot to clarify again NO CASH. If the team chooses to get a prize it will be steam gift cards or a tangible item. International laws and even local laws are very difficult with cash. It's a prize pool that can get the team Steam gift cards or a tangible item or they can donate it to Child's Play under their name instead of PSC.

I know it seems unnecessary however I feel odd forcing the winners to donate. I'm pretty confident every team would however I would still like to allow the teams to decide themselves.

my mistake, I just generally meant putting the money towards the winners. I understand your reasoning although I still respectfully disagree. Competitive teams are interested in any well organised and well presented event, an (insignificant) cash prize would probably mean rather less than the joy and satisfaction of winning (or indeed losing) closely matched games.

and yes, I agree with Allien that with 5 of the team slots filled by total newcomers, your tournament will have issues. If some regular competitive teams do participate a lot of  those matches will be total stomps which may make things rather less interesting for everyone involved.

312

Community Events / Re: Press Start Community Guns of Icarus Tournament - Sign ups extended to April 30

« on: March 25, 2014, 12:32:25 pm »

that's a great improvement, thanks. I would still encourage you to leave out the cash prize. I don't think any team would take the money for themselves so it seems a rather unnecessary choice to offer.

313

Community Events / Re: Press Start Community Guns of Icarus Tournament (Signups close march 26th)

« on: March 20, 2014, 01:07:19 pm »

Perhaps you should consider hosting a smaller scale tournament first? You're aiming pretty high for a first pitch and you may be disappointed. I think the involvement of money in your pitch for this one is not encouraging for a startup organiser and you will need some practice to avoid technical issues, to get used to the quirks of the game and to establish yourself with the reputation necessary to draw any significant number of participating teams.

Additionally I'd suggest that you'd make all information about your tournament available on this forum. You'll have enough issues trying to organise a tournament with no prior reputation or experience without making potential participants jump through unnecessary additional hoops. It may also be worth looking into streaming via Twitch, whether you look into doing it yourself or contact established casters. A Twitch stream is a pretty standard expectation for any competitive event now.

Finally... well. Even if we ignore the issue with your inexperience: you're too ambitious. To put it simply, competitive GOIO rarely draws any significant attention beyond the teams participating. I'd be highly surprised if any number of people were willing to involve money in the competitive scene. Forget ad revenue. You will not get that many views, you will not become famous. If you do an excellent job, participants will probably be grateful and think more highly of you, and that's about it.

As for the profit sharing with charity, I too don't really see the need for tangible prizes or any kind of money split. Give it all to charity, or better, don't ask people to let you handle their money at all. I would much prefer to see you show a feature on the charity with each match to encourage people to donate directly; that way you aren't casting doubts on your own legitimacy by asking people to give you money, yet will still be supporting a good cause.

314

Community Events / Re: Sky League Signups (Closes March 15th)

« on: March 16, 2014, 07:10:58 pm »

It wouldn't be favoritism because reliably showing up to events with 8 players is a great verification that a team will in the future. It would be far better to figure out no shows before they no show when brackets can still be fixed. Especially for the first bit due to it being a group of round robins.

my thoughts exactly. but it's really not a big effort or a big deal for any of the parties so there's no point in having a confrontation over it. If Urz feels it's a good idea he can contact as many teams as he feels necessary and I won't be complaining. ^^

Mad Hatters change
Both captains for the Mad Hatters have stepped down and I (Velvet) am the team's only contact for now. Secondary contact and logo will be coming as soon as possible.

315

Community Events / Re: Sky League Signups (Closes March 15th)

« on: March 16, 2014, 05:56:13 pm »

It shouldn't be too much of a problem. I didn't see anything special about no-shows, but I'd go so far as to assume that not showing up within 5-10 minutes of the scheduled match start results in the team that did show up getting an automatic win. Getting teams to 'verify' their numbers would probably mean having the team captain or so provide the names of those on their ships, which is pretty much the same thing as them signing up for the tournament. You just have to take their word for it.

yeah, if they intentionally lie that would be a problem. The concern here is more with teams that haven't thought the commitment through than ones actually trying to crash the tournament. I think requesting a tentative list of crew for each team wouldn't be much to ask for and would inspire a little more confidence that matches will actually be played. Yes, forfeited matches don't break the tournament, but they are pretty annoying and make for boring Saturdays.

@redria: yeah, I wouldn't mind at all if all teams were "verified", it just seemed simpler not to go to the trouble of verifying the teams with reliable track records.