OMPL VI Discussion Thread

stresh wasn't playing. Every time Chazm tried to challenge him he johned. So OM room substituted tzop in. The Consort wasn't playing. Every time Laxpras tried to challenge him he johned. So I substituted Ham in. Do you see the irony here?

Anyways, the rule is dumb. It's similar to the "no substitutions in the last 10 minutes of a football game to prevent time wasting" idea. As for the specific case raised against me, I did not intend to sub Ham into AAA, especially not from the start of the week. What Ham played depended on the team and whoever needed to be subbed out. Let's suppose I started Ham in AAA, but one of my AG players needed to be subbed out, I just screwed myself. It was a tactical decision to save Ham and see where he was needed. Maybe other managers should learn how to make them instead of banning substitutions. :bloblul:
 
The Immortal said:
stresh wasn't playing. Every time Chazm tried to challenge him he johned. So OM room substituted tzop in. The Consort wasn't playing. Every time Laxpras tried to challenge him he johned. So I substituted Ham in. Do you see the irony here?

Anyways, the rule is dumb. It's similar to the "no substitutions in the last 10 minutes of a football game to prevent time wasting" idea. As for the specific case raised against me, I did not intend to sub Ham into AAA, especially not from the start of the week. What Ham played depended on the team and whoever needed to be subbed out. Let's suppose I started Ham in AAA, but one of my AG players needed to be subbed out, I just screwed myself. It was a tactical decision to save Ham and see where he was needed. Maybe other managers should learn how to make them instead of banning substitutions. :bloblul:
Click to expand...

I think that the issue more or less, is that Chazm actually called activity where as laxpras did not so I do not exactly see how you were forced to sub him in. That being said I think in any other case if it was not a player of Ham's caliber and who has started every week until this one it would probably not seem as suspect and thus not be an issue. That is my view on the ordeal.
 
Zesty43 said:
I think that the issue more or less, is that Chazm actually called activity where as laxpras did not so I do not exactly see how you were forced to sub him in. That being said I think in any other case if it was not a player of Ham's caliber and who has started every week until this one it would probably not seem as suspect and thus not be an issue. That is my view on the ordeal.
Click to expand...
Thats not how its supposed to work, you're supposed to sub before activity is called to prevent any further problems in deciding activity as if activity is called prior to a sub its relatively easy to avoid a game if you want to and you've already called activity so you have a leg up. The prerogative is on the team who has the "inactive" player, not on the one to call activity to force a sub - whats stopping a last second activity call at the end of the week and obviously at that point there's no way to play a game with a sub? Its just not a good path to go down.
 
Fuck drama.
Click to expand...
this shouldnt be drama i legitimately think the rules should be changed

If you're building a team prepping for one player to the extent that it matters that much, doesn't that mean that any prep against you is near-meaningless as your team choices are be dictated by your opponent and you face a different opponent at any time?

Not to mention if you're building in a way to attempt to counter team your opponent and fish for a matchup you probably deserve to lose.
Click to expand...
ok this is just an awful argument. You're saying you deserve to lose for prepping a certain opponent? Unsurprising you haven't had competitive success here...

This also invites a whole other set of issues in the cases of emergencies - as MZ said in discord, is a team just supposed to take a loss because a teammate's dad ends up in the hospital? Its ridiculous. Play the game of Pokemon, teambuild properly and you shouldn't have those issues.
Click to expand...
This is the main concern I see, you don't want to punish people for legitimate emergencies. A conceivable fix to this is, if there is a legitimate excuse, something like a 3-day extension should be guaranteed.

It was a tactical decision to save Ham and see where he was needed. Maybe other managers should learn how to make them instead of banning substitutions.
Click to expand...
I agree with TI. The problem is the rules, not using the rules. If I was a manager, I would definitely start people with no intention of them playing and then sub them out last minute. It's an easy way to get a big advantage and there's no reason not to do it. Something something dont hate the player hate the game
 
Zesty43 said:
I think that the issue more or less, is that Chazm actually called activity where as laxpras did not so I do not exactly see how you were forced to sub him in. That being said I think in any other case if it was not a player of Ham's caliber and who has started every week until this one it would probably not seem as suspect and thus not be an issue. That is my view on the ordeal.
Click to expand...

I was making a point since Laxpras brought up challenging The Consort the whole week. The stresh case can be equally applied to The Consort, assuming anyone wants to argue one substitution is more fair over the other.

Do you want managers to announce at the start of the week who they're going to sub in? Substitutes are known. Managers and players of opposing teams should take them into account. And as I already said, I didn't even know for sure what Ham was going to play until today. Also, let's not forget, Heliolisks literally tried to substitute Adrian into AAA and Laxpras into MnM in the middle of the week. Excusing the lack of knowledge about substitution rules, the irony here is rich. Now assuming it was legal, it would have actually been a good decision.
 
Laxpras said:
ok this is just an awful argument. You're saying you deserve to lose for prepping a certain opponent? Unsurprising you haven't had competitive success here...
Click to expand...
my apologies! i forgot all the success you've had in the metagame that has a playerbase that you can count on one hand. I'm glad you feel so much more accomplished than me, because let me tell you, outside of your little tiny matchup-based hole known as AAA, you're not.

It's not even a bad argument - how much is your opponent's prepping on you going to do if you've been prepping just as hard against them? Do you realize that if you're altering normal team choices because of an opponent, then you're not going to be bringing the same stuff that you usually bring, and vice versa. Sure, tendencies can be picked up, but its not like a whole weeks worth of prep time is going to do anything.
Laxpras said:
This is the main concern I see, you don't want to punish people for legitimate emergencies. A conceivable fix to this is, if there is a legitimate excuse, something like a 3-day extension should be guaranteed.
Click to expand...
Who's to determine if an excuse is "legitimate" or not? It's also not conceivable to have weeks overlap into each other, that really doesn't make much sense in almost every scenario.
Laxpras said:
I agree with TI. The problem is the rules, not using the rules. If I was a manager, I would definitely start people with no intention of them playing and then sub them out last minute. It's an easy way to get a big advantage and there's no reason not to do it. Something something dont hate the player hate the game
Click to expand...
You realize that also puts your team at risk if you actually need a substitution? There happens to be a maximum of 2 subs per week, you know, and you're already putting them at risk - say you need an actual sub, then your whole gameplan is messed up and you have more sub-optimal players in metagames they don't play. Last minute subs also put you at risk since if scheduling doesn't work out then you're almost guaranteed to get an activity loss, especially since if the player doesn't schedule earlier in the week an opponent can request a forcesub which not only makes this scheme pointless, but also puts you at a liability for an activity loss once again.

Great manager strategies from Lax "I'm not going to play this is a joke signup" pras.
 
In light of recent events myself and UC have talked and have decided to ABOLISH the use of substitutes in OMPL for our team, the buyer bewears. its such a dirty and cheap tactic for real man. Together we aspire that other managers follow in our footsteps and change OMPL for the better, together!

- president scarf
 
It may have been a tough week for us, but this gif is me remembering how wonderful my team is!
090.gif


We'll get 'em next week Hydreigons!!
 
Since our chances of playoffs are pretty much eliminated...

E4 Flint I'm challenging you to a Bo3 in BH, OMPL style. I've had great games this tournament but I still wanna see how I stack up against the veritable best BH player. Also, you still owe me a rematch from last year.

Lmk when you'd like to play (I know you'll accept since it's a challenge)
E4: maybe in sept
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GL Volkner said:
Since our chances of playoffs are pretty much eliminated...

E4 Flint I'm challenging you to a Bo3 in BH, OMPL style. I've had great games this tournament but I still wanna see how I stack up against the veritable best BH player. Also, you still owe me a rematch from last year.

Lmk when you'd like to play (I know you'll accept since it's a challenge)
Click to expand...

Pretty sure you have to get 8 badges to challenge the Elite 4
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top