| From | Message |
|---|
dedomane
08-Apr-09, 08:28
|
 minimum team members
j
|
|
I don't think we should go as far as banning them! That is a little too harsh.
Perhaps their rank and score on the Team table should not count without a minimum of members. I'm not sure whether 5 should be the minimum. 3 or 4 sounds fairer to me.
Teams have to start from somewhere. They have to get to two before three, and three before 4. A team with just one player is simply not a team. In that case, perhaps a time limit for gaining another member should be imposed.
|
dedomane
10-Apr-09, 14:48
|
Fair comment mate. The anger momentuum gained on me that night..
Yep, i agree, their rank and score on Team table should not count without a minimum of 4-5 players.
That way, the wolf is fed and sheep are all there! Old Macedonian proverb, meaning win-win.
How do we get there?
|
dedomane
24-Apr-09, 15:49
|
Seriously guys, no one else have a comment on this issue?
|
|
Well I would be against this idea of banning small teams, if you want to know.
|
maca
25-Apr-09, 06:10
|
...
Same to me. I just can't approve banning small team altogether. Maybe the small teams could rather reside in a separate small-team ladder, or their entries on the ladder could be changed so that they indicate they're sort of a special case.
Regards,
MaCa.
|
|
When I played in other team games there used to be a minimum number of players, round about 7. If a team was 'short' they forfeited games. Having just two players seems to go against the spirit of what team play is all about, so I can sympathise with dedomane's point. A team is supposed to spread the risk a bit wider than a doubles pairing, IMO.
|
chessnovice
25-Apr-09, 10:20
|
I think you lost the owner of the site at "yes, the owner of the site will at beginning loose few memberships". If he's losing memberships, it's probably a sign that people are unhappy. It's not very efficient to make some people happy at the expense of others.
|
|
Tim_b
Two players is the minimum amount of players for a match and the most regularly used here, so I cannot see why a team that has two members should be any worse than a team that has twenty of them.
|
rj111
14-May-09, 17:07
|
weight by match size
We had a match with 10 players on each team. Another match with two players each. The value of a win is the same for each. Yet the 10 player match took much longer since a match doesn't end until the very last point is earned.
It seems matches with more players should be given more weight. Thus large teams would make larger matches and smaller teams will have a more difficult time rising up the ranks unless they add more members.
If a team has only two members, they have to play a LOT of games to keep their position. Our team finishes 2 or 3 matches a day and has 100+ active matches. Pretty hard to do that if you only have a few members.
|
Log in 
