I know we must rely on whatever subs are available at the time but can there be some sort of experience requirement for subs or have fellow team members be able to sub for each other?
Hmm...sad to see this suggestion largely ignored. The substitution system as I see it now is flawed and in conjunction with a few other concerns such as activity levels and matches not being played, this is a huge problem.
Before I even go into the tactical disadvantages this offers to a team, I'd like to know exactly why there's suddenly such a disambiguation between what the rules say on arranging a sub and how subs are currently being passed out. The rules explicitly state that a sub is chosen from the substitute list and yet I'm seeing many cases where players are being allowed to sub who are not on that list. Now I've been informed that a substitute may be chosen from anyone who is not on your team or on other teams currently still playing as well. It's painstakingly obvious that the cause of this sudden disregard of the rules is because there is a lack of reliable substitutes to call on for assistance. But with the history of this event, the drama involved, and the event's participation size, surely this should be a higher priority? Or at the very least, the list could be updated with people who have subbed a match before to make it easier to find one, no? As it stands, I wasn't even truly aware until just a few hours ago that we were ditching the list rule and were just picking anybody who's free. Therefore it would stand to reason why I might have a problem with trying to arrange for a sub if I don't have any confidence in the current people on that list. Excuse me if I seem a bit paranoid here, but seeing as how there have been countless occasions and rulings where it's stressed that the players read the rules and follow them to a T, I find it just a bit strange that ignoring what's written there is suddenly acceptable, especially without it being explicitly stated that this was allowed.
Strategically speaking, I don't see any possible way for a sub to benefit a team, much less compensate as being somewhat of an equal trade off for the player lost with the limitations in effect currently (As an aside, I also noticed that nothing about the limitations subs are forced to use when dueling is listed in the rules; you might want to add that in there). The fact that the substitute cannot so much as modify any of the decks provided for him/her means that there is absolutely no way to adapt in case something unexpected is thrown their way, and I would say that in this PvP environment that kind of tactical decision making is very crucial for winning a difficult match-up. I can see the point in making decks set in stone to avoid subs creating illegal decks and the like, but if we're expecting subs to have read the rules just like the regular players, then surely both of them would be capable and equally guilty of the same mistake in the same situation, yes? If the sub is RNG'd from a list then they wouldn't have been present for any discussion concerning deck choices to begin with, which already puts them at a tremendous disadvantage. I would like to see subs receive a pre-made list of decks and then have the ability to modify them slightly as they please. This doesn't account for users making up decks on the fly if they realize an idea is garbage, but at the same time this prevents difference in skill level from making too much of an impact on a match outcome. I'm also not certain of whether or not it's intended for this list to remain in effect or if subbing will become grabbing whoever's available, but depending on which choice is made, the problems some people have with substitute skill level would be reduced.
As it stands currently, people who are equally active but unable to agree on a match time are heavily penalized for opting to take a substitute which I believe is causing matches to simply go unplayed and which is in turn a risk for unneeded drama. It's like a game of chicken: Nobody wants to be the first to sub, so they wait or hope for their opponent to make the first move. From an organizer stand point I'm sure this seems fair, but to the player who has been active, online frequently, flexible with their active hours, and good with PMs and contacting their opponent, I could easily see how this could be taken as unjust. In this case the choice between the lesser of two evils is much more difficult to decide upon which I suspect is causing the players in question to choose the third option: Ignoring the situation completely.
