d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Diablo II > Diablo 2 Discussion > Legit Dueling > Nl Melee Lader Discussions And Suggestions > Thnks For The Inputs :)
Prev1339340341342343353Next
Add Reply New Topic
Views: 60940Replies: 3529Track Topic
Member
Posts: 11,206
Joined: Sep 18 2008
Gold: 408.00
#3401
Sep 23 2011 11:49pm
Quote (Darkstar @ Sep 23 2011 08:28pm)
so why do we qq about the speed of the ladder when we have a rule like this:

5) If you Issued the Challenge Must wait 12 hours after Completion of Challenge to Issue another Challenge


To stop a complete halt of the ladder, forcing someone to be challenged before getting a chance to challenge someone else.. the issue with slowing down the ladder is afk bungholes.. not the rules that have been set in place forever.

This post was edited by Ludafish on Sep 23 2011 11:50pm
Member
Posts: 24,551
Joined: Sep 10 2004
Gold: 1,000.08
#3402
Sep 23 2011 11:50pm
Quote (dark-soul @ Sep 24 2011 12:45am)
It got added in the beginning to prevent someone from challenging someone losing and then just challenging the person ahead of them. It could be changed to only apply to the loser imo.


thats a good idea. i liked the way kwan and adam ran their ladder before. was more action going on
Member
Posts: 28,258
Joined: Jan 29 2004
Gold: 2,000.00
#3403
Sep 24 2011 01:36am
Quote (Ludafish @ Sep 24 2011 12:49am)
To stop a complete halt of the ladder, forcing someone to be challenged before getting a chance to challenge someone else.. the issue with slowing down the ladder is afk bungholes.. not the rules that have been set in place forever.


This is true. Wasn't expecting this post from you tbh lol.
Member
Posts: 20,676
Joined: Nov 20 2009
Gold: 6.00
#3404
Sep 24 2011 02:40am
Quote (Ludafish @ Sep 23 2011 11:49pm)
To stop a complete halt of the ladder, forcing someone to be challenged before getting a chance to challenge someone else.. the issue with slowing down the ladder is afk bungholes.. not the rules that have been set in place forever.

i see your point of view on this, but id like to see the rule go the way dark-soul was leaning towards by suggesting the rule only be applied to the loser. this would keep your main argument in check since only the winners would be progressing, as they should.

Quote (dark-soul @ Sep 23 2011 10:45pm)
It got added in the beginning to prevent someone from challenging someone losing and then just challenging the person ahead of them. It could be changed to only apply to the loser imo.


ok i can understand blue, but if changed to red blue wouldn't be a problem.
Member
Posts: 103,224
Joined: Jun 6 2006
Gold: 15,410.01
#3405
Sep 24 2011 02:46am
i honestly like 12 hour period lol. you shouldn't be a problem defending , it benefits you then them honestly lol. if u loose that person you can just challenge someone behind or ahead of them, ez lol.

This post was edited by Neko on Sep 24 2011 02:46am
Member
Posts: 24,551
Joined: Sep 10 2004
Gold: 1,000.08
#3406
Sep 24 2011 03:49am
Quote (Neko @ Sep 24 2011 04:46am)
i honestly like 12 hour period lol. you shouldn't be a problem defending , it benefits you then them honestly lol. if u loose that person you can just challenge someone behind or ahead of them, ez lol.


actually the more i think about it that 12 hour period doesn't bug me as much as it used to do before :lol:
Member
Posts: 103,224
Joined: Jun 6 2006
Gold: 15,410.01
#3407
Sep 24 2011 05:28am
Quote (Fusa @ Sep 24 2011 02:49am)
actually the more i think about it that 12 hour period doesn't bug me as much as it used to do before  :lol:


Just gotta defend twice, not much you just safe forever :lol:
Member
Posts: 11,206
Joined: Sep 18 2008
Gold: 408.00
#3408
Sep 24 2011 07:45am
Quote (Darkstar @ Sep 24 2011 03:40am)
i see your point of view on this, but id like to see the rule go the way dark-soul was leaning towards by suggesting the rule only be applied to the loser. this would keep your main argument in check since only the winners would be progressing, as they should.


The whole point is having to defend your position once in a while rather than just advancing. You're allowed to challenge 2 spots in front of you. Whether you skip someone or not, they should still have a chance to challenge you.

I've climbed both the NT ladder and UGML multiple times, this rule has never really seemed like an issue to me.
Member
Posts: 33,618
Joined: Feb 26 2003
Gold: 1.00
#3409
Sep 24 2011 11:47am
Quote (Ludafish @ Sep 24 2011 08:45am)
The whole point is having to defend your position once in a while rather than just advancing. You're allowed to challenge 2 spots in front of you. Whether you skip someone or not, they should still have a chance to challenge you.

I've climbed both the NT ladder and UGML multiple times, this rule has never really seemed like an issue to me.



I agree, it's not really an issue, the worst part is waiting days for people to meet up to actually do a challenge (cough cough ahem CASEY :P )...no j/k of course <3

The only thing I don't like which I thought you and I had eliminated with the NT ladder is still being able to challenge 2 spots ahead of you when you get to the top 5...I think it should still be you have to go through everyone once at the top 5, not sure when it got switched back or why, but being #3 and being able to skip #2 and challenge for #1 just seems down right silly. It should be once you get to the #6 spot you have to go through each and everyone from there on up, or if that's too many, then maybe at least the top 3?

Member
Posts: 11,206
Joined: Sep 18 2008
Gold: 408.00
#3410
Sep 24 2011 12:48pm
I'm down for that. I'd like to revamp a few things about the NT ladder.
Go Back To Legit Dueling Topic List
Prev1339340341342343353Next
Add Reply New Topic

© 2003-2026 d2jsp  Contact