Rumblers League Week 1: Siriel v Darth Drizzle - Who won?

[KJS]

This is the voting thread for the match between Siriel and Darth Drizzle.

The match can be found here. Please ensure you have read both of the strategies and all of the discussion before voting.

Rules
- Anyone voting must give a valid reason for their vote (a valid reason should be more than just a few words).
- Participants in the match CAN vote for their own team (or their opponents, if they so wish!), but they shouldn't give reasons. There should be no more attempting to sway other voters in this thread.
- The vote results are public, so we can see who voted.
- The poll will be up for 2 full days.

Please note: Following the final poll results, a store thread will go up whereby credits won for winning/drawing/participating can be spent. The store will be open each week for 24 hours following poll results.

Match discussion threads will, from this point on, be posted on Tuesdays and discussion will be for 5 days (this is because I've come to realise we need more breaks, rather than having something related to the league ongoing at all times - matches, polls, credit-spending periods and strategy writing).

N.B. The Rumblers League has always been given special dispensation for polls, in case anybody was wondering.

[Jcogginsa]

I'm voting for Darth Drizzle. While the Speed amping strat employed by Savitar is potenting, Drizzle brought up the point that other powers were unable to function while amped, which kneecapped a lot of the strat. So with that, I think that Drizzle
s team can get the win.

[Cleric of Hell’s Brigade]

Voted Siriel. Savitar amping the speed should still work, as from what I understand only meta powers had trouble working with the amp (plus both Vibe and Killer Frost’s powers hinder speed users, so I can understand why maybe their powers didn’t work well speed amped).

[Stigmazilla]

Going Darth, Shadow King is fairly intimating, and he doesnt seem to be hard countered. Doom is tough but I dont think he's quite upto the task

[KJS]

- Anyone voting must give a valid reason for their vote (a valid reason should be more than just a few words).

Quick reminder:

We genuinely may as well not bother writing strategies if the reasons for voting are going to be as vague and short as they have been so far.

Saying "so-and-so is very powerful" - and/or voting for an entire team being defeated when only mentioning two or three people in the fight - kind of makes this a waste of time.

Not having to explain the vote in your own match means there are three matches, every two weeks, to comment on - it's not a lot of effort. Discussion in each match went on for a week. If these votes (or at least the majority of the votes in the four matches so far) show anything, it's that the matches/discussion have barely been looked at. It all seems a bit pointless.

[Jcogginsa]

Quick reminder:

We genuinely may as well not bother writing strategies if the reasons for voting are going to be as vague and short as they have been so far.

Saying "so-and-so is very powerful" - and/or voting for an entire team being defeated when only mentioning two or three people in the fight - kind of makes this a waste of time.

Not having to explain the vote in your own match means there are three matches, every two weeks, to comment on - it's not a lot of effort. Discussion in each match went on for a week. If these votes (or at least the majority of the votes in the four matches so far) show anything, it's that the matches/discussion have barely been looked at. It all seems a bit pointless.

Well

1. You didn't exactly give us a good guide on what a decent length should be. I certainly wouldn't describe mine or Cleric's posts as just being a few words long.

2. The opening post says we must give a valid reason for our vote, not that we must comprehensively address each element of the strat. As worded, both myself and Cleric's posts fit the description

[Darth Drizzle]

Quick reminder:

We genuinely may as well not bother writing strategies if the reasons for voting are going to be as vague and short as they have been so far.

Saying "so-and-so is very powerful" - and/or voting for an entire team being defeated when only mentioning two or three people in the fight - kind of makes this a waste of time.

Not having to explain the vote in your own match means there are three matches, every two weeks, to comment on - it's not a lot of effort. Discussion in each match went on for a week. If these votes (or at least the majority of the votes in the four matches so far) show anything, it's that the matches/discussion have barely been looked at. It all seems a bit pointless.

I see what your saying, it's just generally the reasons for voting wers always short or even non existent in the past.

If we want to up the reasons for posting votes going forward im for it, just wasn't expecting it this week.