DrHappinessIf RGL wants productive feedback, then perhaps individuals shouldn't isolate the exact audience that RGL needs to cater towards.
Again if we did this, Proland wouldn't exist. RGL wouldn't exist. Listening to others opinions outside of your own circle is important, but when those voices are very skewed, and you know that. You take it with a grain of salt. There are a few voices that stand out on the forums who are actually well reasoned and we listen to those moreso.
DrHappiness The decision to separate players from playing in one team because they are dominant in recent history is the antithesis of what a competitive league should stand for. One thing I should point out is that RGL is completely within their right to do this as it is their league, but that does not mean we just have to accept it and go along with the decision. Earlier in the thread, Sigafoo debunked dominant teams not separating players in professional sports, pointing out the fact that they were under the effect of a Salary Cap.
What they have apparently failed to realize in avoiding to enforce an actual Salary Cap is the actual intention of what a salary cap is supposed to do. In the current method of roster changes and a player worth in the TF2 scene, no player has an attached value and players are free to transfer between teams in regards of their localized league's rules to prevent hijacking. Because players do not have a monetary value attached to them, the idea of a salary cap does not work with the rule that RGL have put forward. The rule's goal is similar to a salary cap, which is the prevention of a dominant team to encourage more competition but fails to realize that the method put forward prevents any team from establishing themselves.
DrHappinessI understand that froyotech is a unique case because of their strength and dominance over the past 3 or so years if not more, with Se7en being the only team that can really challenge them. But I don't see that as an issue that requires breaking apart an established team because of that. RGL have shot themselves in the foot and have created a problem that, if they are not careful, will cause them more harm then good in the future. There are so many clauses and loopholes that would have to be addressed without the rule being seen as nothing more than an artificial handicap towards the other teams in the League.
Having hard rules is how you create loop holes. Having guidelines that you judge by allows context to weigh into decisions.
DrHappiness What defines someone as the best player in their respective class? Who determines that?
I don't think you could define that and have it always apply 100% of the time.
DrHappiness What about roster changes mid-season? What would happen if you don't have enough teams without more than one froyo member on each team?
Roster changes would have to abide by our rules and a majority of teams won't have froyotech players this season.
DrHappinessWhat would label a team in RGL only as a Super Team? Is this rule only for froyotech or is it for any team that establishes themselves as dominant? If Cat Noises win the next few seasons, would they be broken up as well?
Again, it's about context, not just winning. Winning != super team, it's about how much, how to dominate and what are they doing in the market. Are they poaching the best players or are they building off of their own. How is good is the next teams to them, etc... As I've stated before, having a rule that just states "winning 3 times in a row causes a breakup" would not be a good rule.
DrHappinessWhat you believe is 'more interesting' should not be a determining factor when making decisions for your League, but rather an objective view as to whether or not the decision would be a benefit to your league, both in viewership and participation.
I believe that having a healthy competitive ecosystem is a benefit to viewership and participation. If a healthy portion of teams in the top level of play, regardless of format, feel they can contest the top team(s), that leads to better participation and viewership.
DrHappinessYou have established this rule only to say you will never use it again most likely, making it seem like the rule is only being made since you don't like froyotech being as strong as they are, almost like reverse favoritism.
I also listed a bunch of data showing how strong they are and how my goal is to create a healthy competitive ecosystem. It's not like I picked them out of the blue because they won a game one time.
DrHappinessYou use the latest ESEA season as an example, but forget that the teams distributed themselves naturally and through choice, not the League forcing them to do so.
See the first point. "I believe that having a healthy competitive ecosystem is a benefit to viewership and participation. If a healthy portion of teams in the top level of play, regardless of format, feel they can contest the top team(s), that leads to better participation and viewership."
My point is that in ESEA when you had the top team choose to disband partially, that created a better competitive ecosystem and that's why people are excited over this season. Obviously, there's a difference in the way it's being accomplished, but the end goals are arguably a benefit to the league and viewership.
DrHappinessYou acknowledge that your rule is harsh but apparently made no effort to find a rule that would encourage (not force) a competitive atmosphere or be at all compromising to the players that it would affect the most.
Of the rules that we've played around with if we did make a more general rule. Which is our goal for the next season (depending on how this season goes,) though all teams would be affected. It still would have hit froyotech the hardest due the caliber of players they have on their team and how they've picked up players from other teams over the seasons. The end result would be very similar.