obe_I'm torn on this one. The very idea of having a limit on good players is downright stupid obviously. Removing this cap will definitely make the HL scene so much more interesting to follow since the skill cap will raise exponentially, but without it, I'm worried about a team full of invite level players downright rolling all over every team they play against. If a team has 9 invite players they could probably scrim once a week and still roll over half of the teams in platinum. The best solution I can think of is a new league that's a step above platinum and the invite players can form full teams and play against each other there.
Or maybe the challenge of beating a juggernaut team full of invite players will actually fuel the platinum scene further and makes things even more interesting to follow/spectate. Can't exactly predict the future. This is just how I'm looking at things.
#9: There's nothing wrong with stacking good players in a competitive environment but UGC HL isn't exactly played for huge cash prizes and you need to think about HL as a spectator sport. It may not be as interesting to follow the platinum scene (currently the only HL league worth following imo) if there's one supercharged team that's just eating the entire league's lineup alive.
Never heard of a top competitive league banning a team because they were better than other teams in any sport or game. Yeah you could have an invite HL league but it'd be less than 4 teams more than likely. I don't get why you should feel afraid of better players in the pool. You're completely denying the point of competitive play. If platinum is the top league, why aren't they playing against the best teams? It's ridiculous that the rule could ever be in place, and it basically bans players from competing (assume every invite team has 7 players, 8x7=56 players, 16x3=48 players, well fuck those 8 players you guys are banned). Honestly whoever was in favor of the rule should go back to pubs if they don't want competition.