-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
TRF Rugby Leagues
- Thread starter best_fullback
- Start date
best_fullback
Academy Player
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2006
- Messages
- 375
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
best_fullback
Academy Player
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2006
- Messages
- 375
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
Right have over 30 replies to the survey now so I think it is worth sharing the results.
1. Are you interested in playing in a TRF dedicated online League system?
97% Yes
3% No
2. What console(s) do you own?
36% Xbox 360
38% PS3
26% PC
This question isn't exactly completely relevant at this point in time, though it is good to see a good spread of platforms.
3. How often do you play games online? (Seperate sessions per week)
32% 1-2 times
36% 3-4 times
13% 5-10 times
19% 10+
Goes with my original prediction that 2-4 games a week would be best for everyone! (also see question 11)
4. When you play games online, on what days are you free to play?
33% No restriction, can usually play anytime
38% Friday, Saturday and Sunday
29% Weekdays
I think this massive spread really reinforces the idea that there should be no dictated time everyone has to play. Players can sort out a workable time between themselves.
5. Are these days restricted to evenings or any time?
68% Evenings
32% Any time in the free days
Again, reinforces what I said above
6. Where are you located?
80% Europe
3% Americas
17% Australasia
0% Africa, Asia, Pacific
Also shown in the fact that everyone who has put themselves forward has been from the GMT timezone!
7. Do you think the timezone you live in would be cause an issue if you had to repeatedly play several people across the other side of the world?
57% Yes
43% No
This backs up the decision to have different timezone leagues.
8. Would you prefer to play people exclusively in your region?
57% Yes
43% No
Again, backs up the decision to have different timezone leagues. However I have already mooted the idea of a continental cup at the end of the season which, with enough interest, could happen (see question 10).
9. Leading from the previous question, do you think on this basis you would prefer to play in a region specific League?
75% Yes
25% No
10. Leading on from this, would you object to an annual short 'Champions Cup' style competition between the winners of the respective leagues?
36% Yes
64% No
Leads on from what I said after question 8; it will really be down to who is interested or not.
11. What do you think is a reasonable maximum amount of games to be expected to play per week in a dedicated league such as this?
4% 1
32% 2
35% 3
25% 4
0% 5
4% 6+
Again backs up the initial estimate of 2-4 games per week with those three getting 92% of the vote.
12. When joining the league do you think:
21% It is more relevant to choose a team, and then no one else can pick that team in your league, meaning the league will be decided in a large part by the rating of the teams
79% It is more relevant to choose any team you wish, regardless if someone in your league already has picked that team, because it will mean leagues will then be decided on the ability of the player and not the team they have chosen.
The next few questions allowed you to chose a pre-set answer or give personal answers:
13. For relegation and promotion from the Leagues, do you think that:
79% It should be straight-forward top two get promoted, bottom two relegated.
Play off ideas included:
- I like the idea of play-offs for relegation and promotion. Not such a big deal but seems slightly more fun.
- Top four play each other in semis/final - bottom two play each other in a final for the drop.
- 1 promotes/relegates directly, another one possibly through play offs
- promotion/relegation game
- In principle, a two up two down system is best. But this could only be done after a reshuffle after the first season when placements are obviously going to be a bit scewed if you get me.
I personally am against the idea of play offs (and would be highly ironic of me to endorse it after writing this: http://www.therugbyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?22296-Second-Place-First-Loser..!) but I am open to the idea of having play offs for 2nd promotion place etc as personally I think the winner of the league should be the winner.
14. Punishing players for not fulfilling fixtures is a problem issue. How do you think they should be treated?
7% No punishments
79% Punish with a 2 strike system. Failure to fulfil a game for the 1st time will result in a loss and 0 points. The opposition team will be registered with a victory and 4 points. This can be done a maximum of two times. From the 3rd failure to fulfil a fixture in the correct time onwards, the opposition team will still be awarded a win and 4 points, but the team failing to play will be deducted points.
Ideas put forward included:
- No punishment provided apologies are offered within x hours of sheduled game time on the board. Otherwise they drop points. Quitters are ejected from the league unless they explain apologies during the game. It is then the choiuce of the quittee if he chooses to agree to reschedule or claims the victory. Also, if the point on the clock is 1 try at 0-20 minutes, 2 tries at 20-40 minutes, 3 tries at 40-60 minutes or 4 tries at 60-80 minutes, the non-quitter earns the right to a 5 BP victory if they choose to claim it.
- If one player fails to turn up the other player can choose if he wants to postpone the match or win and go through to next round.
- Try to postpone You never know what might come up.
- The other team rewarded points and deduction of 1 point per future match missed possible? Half way through the season, wipe the slate clean so they now have 0 missed games.
I am a big fan of the idea of giving the player who wants to play being given the option to postpone the fixture if he wishes. I really want punishments to be the real last resort, and I hope that they don't have to be used often. Maybe a mix of the 2 strike policy and giving the option to the player to postpone if they wish?
15. What do you think is a reasonable punishment?
29% Shouldn't be punished
Other suggestions included:
- other team rewarded points and deduction of 1 point per future match missed possible?
- scaling point deductions - 3rd failure, lose 2pts, 4th failure 4points, repeated failures after that 8pts deductions each time
- the opposition team shouldnt be rewarded maybe just awarded the win and the other player just getting points deducted increasing every time it happens
- Different amount of points deductions
- Expulsion from the league
16. Players quitting while a match is in progress is also a problem issue, as you cannot tell if they have purposefully quit, or that their connection has dropped. How do you feel a disconnection should be treated?
4% No punishment
82% One chance in the whole season when if you quit/disconnect you will not be penalised. Obligation on both players to replay the fixture. Beyond this both players should speak, and if they mutually agree to replay the fixture again then no penalty should come of it. If there is refusal to replay or the quitter avoids a rematch then a loss should be given, and a win to the opponent. Any quits after this will mean points deductions.
Other suggestions included:
- It needs to be done an individual basis. If a player drops out when they're 20 points up it's probably a connection problem. If they're behind, you have to be a bit more suspicious.
- I believe it should be based on an honour system , were all a decent sort I reckon and should the connection actually go as it sometimes does for me there should be no punishment , however if the player is forced to turn off the game by either something happening at home or being a ***** and quitting if losing heavily then they shoul have points docked from their tally.
- Restart match but play one half and each teams previous score stands e.g disconnection in the 2nd half with a score of 30-28 rematch with same teams play the 1st half and just add on to the 30-28.
17. What do you think is a reasonable punishment for persistent quitting/disconnecting?
11% Shouldn't be punished
Other suggestions included:
- Remove them from the league (a lot of backing for this)
- Scaling points deductions
- Relegated immediately so top team in other league is promoted immediately. Team Promoted gets relegated teams points in new league, Team Relegated gets a deduction of points from their previous league eg: -15 points, so they will at least have a chance of not being relegated in this league.
- Players can vote to ban the quitting player from league
18. Do you have any further comments or suggestions that you wish to add? Thank you very much for completing the survey!
- There should be special considerations for teenagers who have school work to fulfill.
- as regards someone quitting or lagging out , I reccomend that the other player photograph the time and score of the game so that if they believe it to be a genuine reason they can try and reset the scenario
- I definitely think there should be a Cup or Tournament including all Timezones.
- It may be best to have 2 types of league running 1. league based off skill where any team can be picked by each player 2. league based off real-life leagues/competitions or simply where each player has control over 1 team and no other player can pick that team for the duration. -Option 2 will allow fans of real leagues and their home teams the chance to play as them be that as a lowly under-dog or top club trying to stay on top.
What does everyone think about these results? Are there any glaring errors or brilliant ideas I am missing? I will try, at some point, to produce a more finalised version of what the rules will look like after my exams (June). If anyone reads this and thinks of any more ideas then feel free to reply. Its never too late to add ideas! Thank you to everyone who too the time to fill out the survey
1. Are you interested in playing in a TRF dedicated online League system?
97% Yes
3% No
2. What console(s) do you own?
36% Xbox 360
38% PS3
26% PC
This question isn't exactly completely relevant at this point in time, though it is good to see a good spread of platforms.
3. How often do you play games online? (Seperate sessions per week)
32% 1-2 times
36% 3-4 times
13% 5-10 times
19% 10+
Goes with my original prediction that 2-4 games a week would be best for everyone! (also see question 11)
4. When you play games online, on what days are you free to play?
33% No restriction, can usually play anytime
38% Friday, Saturday and Sunday
29% Weekdays
I think this massive spread really reinforces the idea that there should be no dictated time everyone has to play. Players can sort out a workable time between themselves.
5. Are these days restricted to evenings or any time?
68% Evenings
32% Any time in the free days
Again, reinforces what I said above
6. Where are you located?
80% Europe
3% Americas
17% Australasia
0% Africa, Asia, Pacific
Also shown in the fact that everyone who has put themselves forward has been from the GMT timezone!
7. Do you think the timezone you live in would be cause an issue if you had to repeatedly play several people across the other side of the world?
57% Yes
43% No
This backs up the decision to have different timezone leagues.
8. Would you prefer to play people exclusively in your region?
57% Yes
43% No
Again, backs up the decision to have different timezone leagues. However I have already mooted the idea of a continental cup at the end of the season which, with enough interest, could happen (see question 10).
9. Leading from the previous question, do you think on this basis you would prefer to play in a region specific League?
75% Yes
25% No
10. Leading on from this, would you object to an annual short 'Champions Cup' style competition between the winners of the respective leagues?
36% Yes
64% No
Leads on from what I said after question 8; it will really be down to who is interested or not.
11. What do you think is a reasonable maximum amount of games to be expected to play per week in a dedicated league such as this?
4% 1
32% 2
35% 3
25% 4
0% 5
4% 6+
Again backs up the initial estimate of 2-4 games per week with those three getting 92% of the vote.
12. When joining the league do you think:
21% It is more relevant to choose a team, and then no one else can pick that team in your league, meaning the league will be decided in a large part by the rating of the teams
79% It is more relevant to choose any team you wish, regardless if someone in your league already has picked that team, because it will mean leagues will then be decided on the ability of the player and not the team they have chosen.
The next few questions allowed you to chose a pre-set answer or give personal answers:
13. For relegation and promotion from the Leagues, do you think that:
79% It should be straight-forward top two get promoted, bottom two relegated.
Play off ideas included:
- I like the idea of play-offs for relegation and promotion. Not such a big deal but seems slightly more fun.
- Top four play each other in semis/final - bottom two play each other in a final for the drop.
- 1 promotes/relegates directly, another one possibly through play offs
- promotion/relegation game
- In principle, a two up two down system is best. But this could only be done after a reshuffle after the first season when placements are obviously going to be a bit scewed if you get me.
I personally am against the idea of play offs (and would be highly ironic of me to endorse it after writing this: http://www.therugbyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?22296-Second-Place-First-Loser..!) but I am open to the idea of having play offs for 2nd promotion place etc as personally I think the winner of the league should be the winner.
14. Punishing players for not fulfilling fixtures is a problem issue. How do you think they should be treated?
7% No punishments
79% Punish with a 2 strike system. Failure to fulfil a game for the 1st time will result in a loss and 0 points. The opposition team will be registered with a victory and 4 points. This can be done a maximum of two times. From the 3rd failure to fulfil a fixture in the correct time onwards, the opposition team will still be awarded a win and 4 points, but the team failing to play will be deducted points.
Ideas put forward included:
- No punishment provided apologies are offered within x hours of sheduled game time on the board. Otherwise they drop points. Quitters are ejected from the league unless they explain apologies during the game. It is then the choiuce of the quittee if he chooses to agree to reschedule or claims the victory. Also, if the point on the clock is 1 try at 0-20 minutes, 2 tries at 20-40 minutes, 3 tries at 40-60 minutes or 4 tries at 60-80 minutes, the non-quitter earns the right to a 5 BP victory if they choose to claim it.
- If one player fails to turn up the other player can choose if he wants to postpone the match or win and go through to next round.
- Try to postpone You never know what might come up.
- The other team rewarded points and deduction of 1 point per future match missed possible? Half way through the season, wipe the slate clean so they now have 0 missed games.
I am a big fan of the idea of giving the player who wants to play being given the option to postpone the fixture if he wishes. I really want punishments to be the real last resort, and I hope that they don't have to be used often. Maybe a mix of the 2 strike policy and giving the option to the player to postpone if they wish?
15. What do you think is a reasonable punishment?
29% Shouldn't be punished
Other suggestions included:
- other team rewarded points and deduction of 1 point per future match missed possible?
- scaling point deductions - 3rd failure, lose 2pts, 4th failure 4points, repeated failures after that 8pts deductions each time
- the opposition team shouldnt be rewarded maybe just awarded the win and the other player just getting points deducted increasing every time it happens
- Different amount of points deductions
- Expulsion from the league
16. Players quitting while a match is in progress is also a problem issue, as you cannot tell if they have purposefully quit, or that their connection has dropped. How do you feel a disconnection should be treated?
4% No punishment
82% One chance in the whole season when if you quit/disconnect you will not be penalised. Obligation on both players to replay the fixture. Beyond this both players should speak, and if they mutually agree to replay the fixture again then no penalty should come of it. If there is refusal to replay or the quitter avoids a rematch then a loss should be given, and a win to the opponent. Any quits after this will mean points deductions.
Other suggestions included:
- It needs to be done an individual basis. If a player drops out when they're 20 points up it's probably a connection problem. If they're behind, you have to be a bit more suspicious.
- I believe it should be based on an honour system , were all a decent sort I reckon and should the connection actually go as it sometimes does for me there should be no punishment , however if the player is forced to turn off the game by either something happening at home or being a ***** and quitting if losing heavily then they shoul have points docked from their tally.
- Restart match but play one half and each teams previous score stands e.g disconnection in the 2nd half with a score of 30-28 rematch with same teams play the 1st half and just add on to the 30-28.
17. What do you think is a reasonable punishment for persistent quitting/disconnecting?
11% Shouldn't be punished
Other suggestions included:
- Remove them from the league (a lot of backing for this)
- Scaling points deductions
- Relegated immediately so top team in other league is promoted immediately. Team Promoted gets relegated teams points in new league, Team Relegated gets a deduction of points from their previous league eg: -15 points, so they will at least have a chance of not being relegated in this league.
- Players can vote to ban the quitting player from league
18. Do you have any further comments or suggestions that you wish to add? Thank you very much for completing the survey!
- There should be special considerations for teenagers who have school work to fulfill.
- as regards someone quitting or lagging out , I reccomend that the other player photograph the time and score of the game so that if they believe it to be a genuine reason they can try and reset the scenario
- I definitely think there should be a Cup or Tournament including all Timezones.
- It may be best to have 2 types of league running 1. league based off skill where any team can be picked by each player 2. league based off real-life leagues/competitions or simply where each player has control over 1 team and no other player can pick that team for the duration. -Option 2 will allow fans of real leagues and their home teams the chance to play as them be that as a lowly under-dog or top club trying to stay on top.
-------------------------------------------------------------
What does everyone think about these results? Are there any glaring errors or brilliant ideas I am missing? I will try, at some point, to produce a more finalised version of what the rules will look like after my exams (June). If anyone reads this and thinks of any more ideas then feel free to reply. Its never too late to add ideas! Thank you to everyone who too the time to fill out the survey
lucky number 7
International
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2010
- Messages
- 5,251
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
I still think we should geld those who fail to play fixtures....
Pdougietigeers
Academy Player
- Joined
- May 24, 2011
- Messages
- 8
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
Great idea count me in
Gamer iddougiekf1
format: PS3
Time code:GMT
Gamer id
dougiekf1format: PS3
Time code:GMT
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2010
- Messages
- 20,876
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
I tried toget on to my psn account yesterday and it sent out an e-mail to an address I don't have a password for**So I have to make a new account, it'll probably be Thursday and it'll probably be someit along the lines of cmac95. But you can take Mrhobo37266 off the list.
I also think this thread should be made an official TRF league in a new sub forum because I found a site yesterday when scouting F1 2010, a game I just ordered, and it was called Apexracingleagues or something and it was set up to get online leagues for F1, Forza, GT etc... and they had 100's of members and I think that could work really well on TRF. It's jiust an idea I don't really care though.
*So I have to make a new account, it'll probably be Thursday and it'll probably be someit along the lines of cmac95. But you can take Mrhobo37266 off the list.I also think this thread should be made an official TRF league in a new sub forum because I found a site yesterday when scouting F1 2010, a game I just ordered, and it was called Apexracingleagues or something and it was set up to get online leagues for F1, Forza, GT etc... and they had 100's of members and I think that could work really well on TRF. It's jiust an idea I don't really care though.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2010
- Messages
- 20,876
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
Just made a new account. Name:SEEMAC95
Wondered when something like this would come up. Havnt really read through everyones posts but I have a few ideas/opinions.
NH v.s SH probably won't work, lag will be a bit of an issue here.
And on the issue of lag rules like keeping your dam sister off the laptop while your playing a comp game helps. Everyone else using the internet in your house while your playing online equals copious amounts of lag, not fun.
1 game a week is about the max you can do and it takes even longer alot of the time due to other peoples commitments with work/school/kids/sport etc(I've played in two full Rugby League Live comps). In the league comps generally we aimed for 1 game a week. Didnt matter if it took longer (which it did sometimes) as long as the players are still trying to suss out a time to play. No communication in the week equalled a loss unless they had a good reason like being on holiday in which case you'd tell the organiser.
Drop outs will be a problem at the start as everyone is always keen ... until they get their done over a few times and realise their no good. Although they'll get weeded out eventually as the comps go on and on
Rules need to be sussed such as rules around pausing in game, substutions, playing players out of position, same team allowance, game length.
Be a good Idea to keep the leagues to about 8 players. Especially if their ongoing tournaments with relegation and what not. Short tournaments would keep people interested rather than long drawn out ones that take ages. 8 players at one game a week would take almost two months! (and then you got finals) and again I highly doubt you'd get through more than one comp game a week. Sometimes yes but other times you might not have the chance to play once (it happens more than you'd think).
Definitely needs to be a no holds barred when it comes to quitters. You quit your out. I played easily 30+ comp games and got no quits. I know there are times when you connection disconnects but their rare. Very rare
NH v.s SH probably won't work, lag will be a bit of an issue here.
And on the issue of lag rules like keeping your dam sister off the laptop while your playing a comp game helps. Everyone else using the internet in your house while your playing online equals copious amounts of lag, not fun.
1 game a week is about the max you can do and it takes even longer alot of the time due to other peoples commitments with work/school/kids/sport etc(I've played in two full Rugby League Live comps). In the league comps generally we aimed for 1 game a week. Didnt matter if it took longer (which it did sometimes) as long as the players are still trying to suss out a time to play. No communication in the week equalled a loss unless they had a good reason like being on holiday in which case you'd tell the organiser.
Drop outs will be a problem at the start as everyone is always keen ... until they get their done over a few times and realise their no good. Although they'll get weeded out eventually as the comps go on and on
Rules need to be sussed such as rules around pausing in game, substutions, playing players out of position, same team allowance, game length.
Be a good Idea to keep the leagues to about 8 players. Especially if their ongoing tournaments with relegation and what not. Short tournaments would keep people interested rather than long drawn out ones that take ages. 8 players at one game a week would take almost two months! (and then you got finals) and again I highly doubt you'd get through more than one comp game a week. Sometimes yes but other times you might not have the chance to play once (it happens more than you'd think).
Definitely needs to be a no holds barred when it comes to quitters. You quit your out. I played easily 30+ comp games and got no quits. I know there are times when you connection disconnects but their rare. Very rare
best_fullback
Academy Player
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2006
- Messages
- 375
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
Thanks mate some great suggestions there. Good to get some input from someone who has already played in a competition similar to this. I have been thinking about the issue of fulfilling fixtures, and as you say, it seems a lot more logical and equitable to allow people to draw out fixtures as long as there is communication and intention to fulfil it. If there isn't any then it should be relevant to consider it a forfeit. Also your experience of zero-tolerance to quitters is good to know, and that opinion is shared by many here.
Thank you for your help
michaelbolton
Academy Player
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2011
- Messages
- 85
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
No worries best full back
Just to add I think Randomised team selection is a bit harsh every week. I'd say if you win a comp with a team you must swap for the next tournament. So one might carve up with the ABs in one tournament but then you'd have to swap to another. Carve up again with Aussie and the next you couldnt pick NZ or Aussie etc etc (if this tournament is on-going). Carve up with the 'saders and move on for the next.
In the rugby league comp you'd think the Storm would waste everyone considering the talent in that team however that wasnt the case. The better players usually prevailed no matter what team they had (as long as they had atleast an average team rather than a cellar dweller). Good player with average team usually beat the average player with good team. In other words ABs probably wouldnt dominate every tournament even though they may in real life haha jjaaokes. Would you have an advantage being the ABs? maybe so but someone has to play as the best teams. Hence the change team rule if you win the tournament.
My example of a good tournament would be if you had 8 players in a say super 15 team tournament you all pick the best team available so you'd have a tournament with say Crusaders, Canes, Blues, Reds, Warratahs, Bulls, Stormers, Sharks All of which would be pretty even stat wise (hopefully). Remembering that you'd have full squads to pick from you'd be able to stack the starting line-ups pretty good for every team that I named. Of course the Cheetahs (sorry), Highlanders (sorry) Rebels (not sorry) etc would be the 'worse teams' thats why you'd never play a proper super 15 with 15 players. That way no-one gets the reaaaall crap teams.
ITM cup a bit trickier but again pick the best 8 teams and leave the scraps Auckland/wellington/waikato/canterbury/otago/hawkes bay/b.o.p/Counties. or best 6 teams and leave the scraps.
Same with internationals 6 player tournament. NZ, ENG, WALES, OZ, SA, FRA (example!) I'd say that would be fairly even stat wise (near enough) and a good player with WALES would be able to knock over the ABS easy. 8 players? just chuck in Argentina and Ireland. Still be a fairly evenish contest. More players you have the bigger the difference in teams really.
Another suggestion is maybe after the first tournament the player relegated up gets first choice of team in comp. Second choice goes to player who finished second, third to third, fourth gets forth pick etc etc with the winner of the tournament given the last choice of team. Even that would be harsh but ensure it was a fairly open tournament which would be more enjoyable for all (I think so anyways)
Shouldnt be a problem for the winner of the tournament to then get last pick of team the next tournament. It's more about the player than the team, right? it is definitely funny watching lots of people go Aussie and storm in rugby league live and pummeling them with the kiwis or Rabbitohs. Online is hugely different to what goes on in reality. Hell Ireland would knock over the ABs online...
Just to add I think Randomised team selection is a bit harsh every week. I'd say if you win a comp with a team you must swap for the next tournament. So one might carve up with the ABs in one tournament but then you'd have to swap to another. Carve up again with Aussie and the next you couldnt pick NZ or Aussie etc etc (if this tournament is on-going). Carve up with the 'saders and move on for the next.
In the rugby league comp you'd think the Storm would waste everyone considering the talent in that team however that wasnt the case. The better players usually prevailed no matter what team they had (as long as they had atleast an average team rather than a cellar dweller). Good player with average team usually beat the average player with good team. In other words ABs probably wouldnt dominate every tournament even though they may in real life haha jjaaokes. Would you have an advantage being the ABs? maybe so but someone has to play as the best teams. Hence the change team rule if you win the tournament.
My example of a good tournament would be if you had 8 players in a say super 15 team tournament you all pick the best team available so you'd have a tournament with say Crusaders, Canes, Blues, Reds, Warratahs, Bulls, Stormers, Sharks All of which would be pretty even stat wise (hopefully). Remembering that you'd have full squads to pick from you'd be able to stack the starting line-ups pretty good for every team that I named. Of course the Cheetahs (sorry), Highlanders (sorry) Rebels (not sorry) etc would be the 'worse teams' thats why you'd never play a proper super 15 with 15 players. That way no-one gets the reaaaall crap teams.
ITM cup a bit trickier but again pick the best 8 teams and leave the scraps Auckland/wellington/waikato/canterbury/otago/hawkes bay/b.o.p/Counties. or best 6 teams and leave the scraps.
Same with internationals 6 player tournament. NZ, ENG, WALES, OZ, SA, FRA (example!) I'd say that would be fairly even stat wise (near enough) and a good player with WALES would be able to knock over the ABS easy. 8 players? just chuck in Argentina and Ireland. Still be a fairly evenish contest. More players you have the bigger the difference in teams really.
Another suggestion is maybe after the first tournament the player relegated up gets first choice of team in comp. Second choice goes to player who finished second, third to third, fourth gets forth pick etc etc with the winner of the tournament given the last choice of team. Even that would be harsh but ensure it was a fairly open tournament which would be more enjoyable for all (I think so anyways)
Shouldnt be a problem for the winner of the tournament to then get last pick of team the next tournament. It's more about the player than the team, right? it is definitely funny watching lots of people go Aussie and storm in rugby league live and pummeling them with the kiwis or Rabbitohs. Online is hugely different to what goes on in reality. Hell Ireland would knock over the ABs online...
Last edited:
DuncTheDoodle
First XV
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 1,664
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
Member ID: SquidgyGoat
Conference: GMT
Console: PS3
Strikes me as a really good idea, I've only had my PS3 for a week or so now, hence why I've just signed up. I'll probably be getting both games. Anyway, I'm signed up now.
Conference: GMT
Console: PS3
Strikes me as a really good idea, I've only had my PS3 for a week or so now, hence why I've just signed up. I'll probably be getting both games. Anyway, I'm signed up now.
