ML league season 【Team version】starts soon!!
Period: 3rd July to October
Everyone is welcome but make sure you are available at more than the half of weekends or 2 days in a week during this period.
If you would like to join, write “I’m in / name in ML / your rank in leaderboard” in reply. like “I’m in / Naoki Miwa / 5th”
Registration will close at 2023-07-03T00:00:00Z
I’m in/Jason Smith/80th
I’m in / Wim / 62nd
in / Matteo Cillo / 9th
I am Islom.memory/28 th
I’m in/Javohir Abdufattokhovuz/31
like “I’m in / Esteban Muñoz / 5th”
I’m in / MashrabAmirqulovuz / 67th
Iʼm in/NafisaToʻraqulova/346th
This is awesome. I can’t commit to this unfortunately. But good luck to all and thank you Naoki for doing all this!
Iʼm in / Sherali Rajabov/314th
Regarding the rules, I think it would be fairer for people who are, e.g. strong at National Names to give them the opportunity to play 3 full games with it. With the current random system they might play none.
It also makes planning really unpractical for the names events. Some people are very strong at National Names, some are very strong at International Names and there is not a 100% correlation. That means, compared to all other events where you can choose the strongest for Cards, Numbers etc…, for Nat./Int. you are handicapped because of the random choice. It devalues the importance of Names events in general for this format.
Because of that, I would find one of two alternatives much more preferable:
Nat. and Int. are both represented fully by 3 matches each. BUT: no athlete can play both, a team needs to decide. E.g. Andrea for Nat. and Katie for Int. That would be exactly like in ML proper.
It is being determined before the match whether there will be three Nat. or three Int. - also very much like ML proper where you need to decide for each set which of the two you want to choose.
The only thing to solve with regards to option 2 would be what to do if one team prefers Nat. and the other prefers Int., without introducing a random element again. That is why I would prefer option 1.
We vote on that alternative in another article (Team match on ML) and 6 out of 8 players so far (I think many of them are the participants of the previous team match) prefer the current rule to the Option 1.
Of course, there’s a possibility that the result changes soon but I would like to support the current result.
anyway, thanks for sharing your idea 
@NaokiMiwa Thank you for your answer.
Just a suggestion: It might make sense to let all the current players vote for the new Team League. 8 votes of a past match is not a lot, neither is a 6-2 (if two people switched votes it is already a tie and the above post already has two likes). Also, I am not quite sure that all who voted knew that the 18 games option would mean that nobody can play both Nat. and Int. - in your post after the poll you wrote you had not thought of that restriction. Without such a restriction, I would also not be in favor of it but with it, it seems like a good balance.
Making a new poll in this thread, with a clear explanation what both options are (A. 15 games, 3 Names games with random Nat. or Int. // B. 18 games, 3 Nat. and 3 Int. but nobody can play both Nat. and Int.) could help to have an update based on the current opinion spectrum. Might also be important to motivate Names players to get interested in this format.
Thank you for all your work in promoting this new format!
I’m in/ igor.kemicer
/326th
@SimonReinhard yes, maybe we have to make another poll on that.
The number of registration is still small so shall we make it aruond the registration deadline?
btw, would you like to join in that? It’d be nicer if you can compete
@NaokiMiwa Yes, that sounds good with having the poll closer to the end.
I am really considering taking part although with many things coming up I am not sure I can commit to being able at 50% of the weekends from now on. Is there a possibility to not be a main player in a team but like an additional one who plays when it works for them but not every time?
I see
If there’s an additional player system, strength balance between the teams could not be maintained.
That restriction (availability at 50% of the weekends) is just a rough standard.
We can change the standard to “availability at 3 or more days in a week” for example.
Would this work for you?
“I’m in/Vishvaa/3rd”
