I do currently understand the issues about the client, but I do not believe that stating how I think the new client can be fixed would have any value to my application. It is essentially covered by me saying that I am willing to hear out the issues players have, and I will do the best I can to make them heard.
That’s nonspeak. Why even elect a PC if you have no ideas and plan on resolving all issues through “what players want.” The point of the position is to give devs a quick and easy way to communicate with an individual on community concerns. If they wanted to just manually gather community feedback on every single issue, particularly something with the breadth of client issues, then they would just abolish the position.
Likewise it isn’t very comforting to think that you view this as pressing enough to open your application with it and yet you don’t think there is any value in explaining how you would solve the issues.
I think it is fairly obvious that I would not give up on ladder. I am simply saying that changing the way ladder currently functions is not the top priority. This does not mean I would not continue to change map pools according to the current schedule. Perhaps what I should have said is that CHANGING ladder comes second, not maintaining.
Fair.
Yes, I believe a poll on the current player satisfaction with the way ladder works. While there is already a poll run by Gorton about how players like the maps, so far, there has been 0 inquiry in the form of polls about what players would like to be changed about the ladder system, and what they would like to stay the same.
The polls are by me, not Gorton. What are you supposed to inquire into other than pool size? It isn’t like there is a reason to dislike the implementation of veto or no repetition code. Otherwise, yes, that’s basically what I plan on doing.
Currently, there are no changes needed to be made to trainers from what I have gathered. Though that does not mean there are no changes wanted. I think the list of trainers should be updated so that trainers who are no longer actively training would have their trainer role removed.
For tournament directors, I would make sure that the list of TDs is legitimate and contains people that can be relied on to direct when asked. I also would be able to recruit people that I believe can host a tournament, but do not know much about becoming a TD.
Yes, for trainers there is not much to be done. The bottleneck is the player-side rather than from a lack of trainers. The best thing to do would be to create additional resources to rise players up to the level that most trainers tend to expect. Basically, refining guides so that people can approach trainers knowing the basic bos and the game terminology and be able to use trainers as a personal way to learn advanced concepts.
You make the rules to become a TD. I can already tell you that it is basically not possible to make becoming a TD any easier than it currently is. All it requires is an approval of your tournament rules, and I have yet to deny a tournament that wasn’t bennis (or feather using bennis’ account) and his fake 5k tournament.
The best way to approach it in my opinion is the utilization of the ladder week scoreboard to make an “automatic” tournament that can provide all player levels something to do. This would function kind of like the lichess system where they host monthly blitz tournaments. This should hold people over until TDs that hope to host more specific tournaments come up.
I’d also like to thank Morax, Yuri, and as always LOTS for their particularly large donations this year. I think FAF has seen over $2000 provided for this year on the tourney scene which is more than double what we usually get.