Feedback

This is an official 'open' page for feedback to the 4CCC. Want to express what you think would be good for the cup? Please make a heading and do so here. I will attempt to at least address hot topics, thanks. --DrBorisG (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Please only speak for yourself on this page, I don't want a bunch of posts dragged in here as 'evidence'

PES14

This is still a hot item. I urge patience and especially urge waiting to see how things are after we get a new Game Version / Yairpatch / Filerloader exe combo pack. Nevertheless, please let your opinions be known.

4chan League when? --Tr4pD00r (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Weight/Heart Abuse

I would like some tests done on weight to see if its a determining factor. Also, we use the middle heart option, but there isn't enough data for us to know if that's the best option to use, I'd like some tests done on that as well AmandaBynes (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Big/Small/Dead teams

Got issues with the current 4CCC policy for teams of whatever category? Let it be known.

Rules

Got issues for how we're handling deadlines, double managing, the new rules for switching teams, or anything else? Say so here.

Idea for qualifiers

Let's consider this: Team 1-8 are qualifier teams, Team A-H are relegated babbies. 1, 2 and A are dead teams, and 3, 4 and B are teams with inactive managers. The idea is to have obligatory signups for the qualifiers, but only for the teams who failed to qualify last time. A sign up would be the team manager say the team wants to participate in the Qualifier talk page.

Since only the manager can sign up the team, this would mean Teams 1, 2, 3, 4 and A wouldn't participate, assuming teams 5-8 don't forget to sign up (B would participate because it's unfair for a team with a manager to go from Babby to dead, even if the manager isn't active).

This would:

• Easily let us see which teams are dead.
• In addition, warn us of teams with inactive managers, and alerts the team that they may need a new manager.
• Remove teams with no interest from circulation altogether, at least until they get a manager.

Problem 1: There's the chance that there's less than 8 teams signed up (counting the babbies) for the qualifiers, even if unlikely

Possible Solution: Put all the signed up teams in the Babbies automatically. Either do a small qualification round for the teams with inactive managers or select the highest ranked teams.

This is only a rough idea but I'd like to hear Boris' opinion on it. Powdinet (talk) 11:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I talked to you about this on the comfy stream but for the sake of writing it down - This is kind of what we're doing, we're just taking failure to make an export as a tacit version of failure to sign up. --DrBorisG (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

New Friendlies Format Ideas

Since there's a lot of talk about cutting down the number of friendlies per year to reduce manager stress and clear up the timetable, I have a few ideas on that front

• 1 - Do them at the same Foetus/Babby Qualifiers, and exclude those teams that are participating in that cup. This reduces the total number of events and it means teams don't benefit in rankings by having the option to play extra games in a season (so Babby/Elite teams get their friendlies, Foetus teams get the Qualifiers, no team gets to play both)
• 2 - From what I heard, the current plan is to reduce the total number of Friendlies to two blocks per year, immediately before Elite cups. My idea is to instead stick to four blocks per year (before each main cup like usual), but limit competition to the teams not taking part in the upcoming cup. This would reduce manager stress so they can focus solely on the cup and not having to rush an export for the friendlies a few weeks before, and it would also ensure that the teams that aren't competing in that cup will still participate in some way and won't fall behind. Meanwhile, if Friendlies are reduced to just before Elite Cups, this means any team in the top 8 of that competition will have to wait 5-6 months before they have another official match which I think will lead to a big loss of interest for fans of all but the largest teams. Finally, as an added bonus, ping-pong teams get to participate in less friendlies so there's less chance of a mediocre team going up in the rankings just because they got to play extra games.

For reference, the number of friendly matches played per year (assuming no dead teams)

• 224 with the current system (two friendlies per team before every major cup)
• 144 with my suggested method
• 112 with the currently planned new system (two friendlies per team before Summer/Winter cups only)

Obviously, these are just rough ideas and have their own set of problems, but I think they go far towards fixing the current problems with Friendlies scheduling. NearlyEnoughDakka (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Individual managers

Is somebody being a problem child? Let's discuss what to do about them. Bluntly, this section is not for being AB/whoever/, you need to be offering actual evidence of some sort.

Anything Else

If you have any other issues please make a catagory and post them here.

Boris talks about managers too much on air. (M3owmix, assuming that was him culling his own anon post.)

Yes, I agree, I've been working on that for a while, sorry if it's still a little too invasive. It's like using 'nil' for me, difficult to correct. --DrBorisG (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)