GC Qualification Idea?

Originally Posted by NonEtHiCaL

Some people don't want to hit the forums what so ever, so theyd never sign up. I think a more simple solution would be having people accept / decline like crews. If they decline, it rolls over to the 65th spot etc.

That's actually a dope idea. @Pugz @Noble your thoughts on this?

Originally Posted by NonEtHiCaL

Some people don't want to hit the forums what so ever, so theyd never sign up. I think a more simple solution would be having people accept / decline like crews. If they decline, it rolls over to the 65th spot etc.

That's actually a dope idea. @Pugz @Noble your thoughts on this?

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Nicholas

That's actually a dope idea. @Pugz @Noble your thoughts on this?

Ethan's idea of adding an accept/decline option, along with the roll-over to 65th, etc, is definitely a good idea. My only objection is that I don't think the site is active enough for that right now and that it's an an idea better suited for when things pick up. For example, there are currently only 45 people ranked in the text arena, which is an improvement from last month which only saw 29 people ranked. I don't even know how X plans to fill a 64-man GC since it seems unlikely that there will be 64 ranked by the end of this month. For the time being, it probably makes more sense to do a top 64 (as much as you can), give a heads up and check-in opportunity to the top rankers in advance, and fill in the rest manually through forum sign-ups if you insist on having 64 combatants. I think we had reduced the GC to 32 at one point when I was still on staff because the activity was so low.

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Nicholas

That's actually a dope idea. @Pugz @Noble your thoughts on this?

Ethan's idea of adding an accept/decline option, along with the roll-over to 65th, etc, is definitely a good idea. My only objection is that I don't think the site is active enough for that right now and that it's an an idea better suited for when things pick up. For example, there are currently only 45 people ranked in the text arena, which is an improvement from last month which only saw 29 people ranked. I don't even know how X plans to fill a 64-man GC since it seems unlikely that there will be 64 ranked by the end of this month. For the time being, it probably makes more sense to do a top 64 (as much as you can), give a heads up and check-in opportunity to the top rankers in advance, and fill in the rest manually through forum sign-ups if you insist on having 64 combatants. I think we had reduced the GC to 32 at one point when I was still on staff because the activity was so low.

Why tag NOBLE in my idea? I couldn't care less what NOBLE thinks about it.

Why tag NOBLE in my idea? I couldn't care less what NOBLE thinks about it.

[Thug Killaa]

Originally Posted by NonEtHiCaL

Why tag NOBLE in my idea? I couldn't care less what NOBLE thinks about it.

check IMs muhfucka

[Thug Killaa]

Originally Posted by NonEtHiCaL

Why tag NOBLE in my idea? I couldn't care less what NOBLE thinks about it.

check IMs muhfucka

[Esso]

A 32 is probably what its gonna end up being....shii, some folks would have 2-3 accounts qualified if we went with straight numbers. X had mentioned cutting the field to 32 if needed....doing the accept/decline bit there would prolly be a good idea to ensure the most possible active participants.

Side note: Macc is good for business round here....active, shows up when hes supposed to, and cares about the site....keep talkin that shit homie.

[Esso]

A 32 is probably what its gonna end up being....shii, some folks would have 2-3 accounts qualified if we went with straight numbers. X had mentioned cutting the field to 32 if needed....doing the accept/decline bit there would prolly be a good idea to ensure the most possible active participants.

Side note: Macc is good for business round here....active, shows up when hes supposed to, and cares about the site....keep talkin that shit homie.