Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
The 2012 PW Draft winner is...MNG, feedback for next year
-
08-04-2012 7:29am#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Congratulations to all involved but especially the winner Mr. Nice Guy. The streets of Leinster will no doubt be lined with fans as he brings the belt home (or something along those lines).
As I asked in the other thread though, will there definitely be no other draft until 2013? This looked like loads of fun and I'd love to be involved in one sometime soon.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Congrats MNG!!!lebowskilite wrote: »Congratulations to all involved but especially the winner Mr. Nice Guy. The streets of Leinster will no doubt be lined with fans as he brings the belt home (or something along those lines).
As I asked in the other thread though, will there definitely be no other draft until 2013? This looked like loads of fun and I'd love to be involved in one sometime soon.
The draft is a once a year event on PW Boards. The next draft will be held next January0 -
Dare_2_defy wrote: »Congrats MNG!!!
The draft is a once a year event on PW Boards. The next draft will be held next January
That's a shame, I had ideas swimming around my heads for ages after I first saw this. Would no one want to make it a more regular thing?0 -
-
lebowskilite wrote: »That's a shame, I had ideas swimming around my heads for ages after I first saw this. Would no one want to make it a more regular thing?It's like Wrestlemania. Once a year. Do it too many times and it will take the shine off it.
plus its ****ing hard work!
but yeah congrats to everyone, as a draft virgin it was lots of fun,and will definetly be doing it next year0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Just realised I didn't say congrats to MNG And thanks to those who voted for my roster, all things considered :PYes but it is not in the preliminary rules.
Ah, ok. Misunderstood what you were saying.Any stip rd has to be approved by those running the draft in advance and upon signing up you have agreed to abide by any stips placed in rounds.
I do get why that's being included after the problem this year. But is it actually necessary? I mean, one would imagine that it goes without saying that when you sign up, you plan to abide by the stips...without wanting to be that guy, the next obvious question is "Or what?". Whats the punishment? To play out the scene...
"I don't like this stip and if we go through with it, I'm dropping out".
"If you don't go through with the stip, then you're going to be kicked out!"
"Well, I was going anyway...."
It's not that I want to criticize the people running the draft. I love the concept, I think ye are great for running it. I hope this post isn't taken personally, and I'm only saying this to try and make sure the fun and enjoyment can be retained. But it's like saying "If you don't try and score goals in football, then you won't be able to win". That part of the rule doesn't need to be said.
I just think that the problems with that round turned out to be;
1. People were given to much time to try and figure out what the mystery stipulation was, and in turn were given so much time to hate the idea of it being what it eventually turned out to be. I think people even said "Oh, they'd never do that!" and then that happened.
2. Instead of a vote or something where it felt like a decision had been made after logical discussion, it felt like some people liked it, some complained and then a snap decision was made to cancel the round and restart it. It didn't feel, at least to me, as if a unanimous decision was reached; rather, some people complained so loud, their worries overwrote the excitement of others. Had there been a vote and then the round was reset, fair enough. Even if the vote had only had 33% of people against it and it was reset, I think that would have been fine too. But I just think it was on and then it was off suddenly.
Again, I don't mean anything personal here; I just think that round could perhaps have been handled better by not just the organizers but the players as well. And I'm not sure if we need a rule included to state the obvious as a result.
I'm also going to throw out another idea for a rule...
"If someone drops out, all trades made involving that roster within the prior 24/48/72 hours are reversed".
I spoke about this when I dropped out; between the above round problems, and then losing Taker because the trades were suddenly reversed without warning, I ended up planning shows twice and having to scrap them twice when I was allowed make a switch and then was told a few days later my switches were voided. If there was some form of rule which at least prepared me for the possibility of such switch backs, I'd have been a tad more prepared. It also means there won't be another problem of someone dropping out but offloading people in the time before they do, as happened this year. But there should be some form of a time limit whereby once someone has got someone and is making plans with that wrestler, the wrestler shouldn't then be removed from their roster...
(Apologies if grammar or that is all over the place. I'm wrecked posting this at midnight so I know there's some problems here and there :P)0 -
-
-
-
Also as a side note the draft tends to slow down in "quality" picks around round 10 or so; hence I'd suggest from round 10 remove some requirements (i.e. make it after 1950 or remove the WWE/TNT/ROH rule etc.) to open up more wrestlers to choose from and keep the suspense going to the end on the roosters.
I wouldn't agree with this. I think this is when smart choices really start to matter. Personally there were plenty of wrestlers to choose from right up until my very last pick that would've added value to anyone's rosters. I was very tempted to add Phil LaFon and Doug Furnas to my roster (had them in previous years), a great tag team, that I think went unpicked this year, but didn't fit the roles I wanted to fill at the time.
There is also the question of the random order; it was brought up the idea of random only every two rounds and do a reversed order for the second round (obviously will benefit some more then others during stip rounds though).
Again I'd disagree with setting up any kind of structured order, even if it is to reverse order between two rounds. In that kind of scenario if I'm picked 10th, I'd see it as getting two crap numbers twice in a row. Also I like that bit of tension when the orders are released each round, the relief at a low number, or the slight disappointment at a high one.
But essentially, I don't think the order where you get your draft matters if you do it smartly. In the dead wrestler round this year I got 13th, I went for the Miracle Violence Connection, plenty of bigger names available, but I felt a smart choice for what I wanted in my roster.Teamshadowclan wrote: »
I just think that the problems with that round turned out to be;
1. People were given to much time to try and figure out what the mystery stipulation was, and in turn were given so much time to hate the idea of it being what it eventually turned out to be. I think people even said "Oh, they'd never do that!" and then that happened.
2. Instead of a vote or something where it felt like a decision had been made after logical discussion, it felt like some people liked it, some complained and then a snap decision was made to cancel the round and restart it. It didn't feel, at least to me, as if a unanimous decision was reached; rather, some people complained so loud, their worries overwrote the excitement of others. Had there been a vote and then the round was reset, fair enough. Even if the vote had only had 33% of people against it and it was reset, I think that would have been fine too. But I just think it was on and then it was off suddenly.
Again, I don't mean anything personal here; I just think that round could perhaps have been handled better by not just the organizers but the players as well. And I'm not sure if we need a rule included to state the obvious as a result.
I agree with you here. A few players got a bit too upset, and it was hard to judge whether complaints were being lighthearted or serious. Especially those who indicated they just weren't going to abide by the stipulation.
I'd like to see the rules saying something like:Like the last few years there will be special rounds to shake the game up a bit and keep everyone on their toes. Any stip rd has to be approved by those running the draft in advance and upon signing up you have agreed to abide by any stips placed in rounds. Stip rounds may or may not force changes to player's rosters at any time, not just their current draft pick.
Something along those lines to indicate to players that flexibility is necessary, and that rosters could be impacted at any time. Also moderators should keep in mind that greater restrictions in the opening rounds make it easier to unbalance rosters who haven't had good picks in the first few rounds.Teamshadowclan wrote: »I'm also going to throw out another idea for a rule...
"If someone drops out, all trades made involving that roster within the prior 24/48/72 hours are reversed".
I spoke about this when I dropped out; between the above round problems, and then losing Taker because the trades were suddenly reversed without warning, I ended up planning shows twice and having to scrap them twice when I was allowed make a switch and then was told a few days later my switches were voided. If there was some form of rule which at least prepared me for the possibility of such switch backs, I'd have been a tad more prepared. It also means there won't be another problem of someone dropping out but offloading people in the time before they do, as happened this year. But there should be some form of a time limit whereby once someone has got someone and is making plans with that wrestler, the wrestler shouldn't then be removed from their roster...
I was affected by this as well, when I traded Tiger Mask for Chris Benoit. (Although I would say this was a bit of a fairer trade than Carlito for 'Taker
). The player in question had indicated they were looking for Asian wrestlers, and with that in mind, Benoit for Tiger Mask was a fair trade. However, it turned out that the player quit soon after, so it looks like he was actively trying to screw things up, which was, quite frankly, a jerkwad move.
So I'd agree with TSC on having a rule governing this. I'd also specify that moderators would retain the right to overturn any trades that seem to be made with the intention of unbalancing / ruining the game. So if somebody trades Randy Savage for Sho Funaki and quits 5 days later, that could be reversed. (Of course a player doesn't necessarily have to quit)0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement