FFA is alive thanks to FML and Ugri's ladder. Thanks to all of you for continuing to keep it alive, and become even bigger than before. Glad to see more players join.
Also, elves are winning, thank god. I'm still afraid one of the randoms in the finals will go the typical am mk pal crap.
What I didn't like:
Same as every other season. I've said it many times, and will say it again, FFA should be played for the win, not for points. There should be no points given except for winning. Maybe for top score you can give 1 point. 10/10/5 system is really detrimental to idea of ffa where it's all about last man standing. Everyone should be playing for the win, not points. Mentality of "yeah it's ok I'll suicide this guy, and get at least 10 points, or if I'm lucky still pull off a win" should be gone. It's really against the spirit. But just IMO, I'm sure most people would disagree.
Outside of elves, everyone continues to ignore the problem of cheese. It's boring as hell to watch and absolutely disgusting how people go for personal problems vs each other instead of teaming the cheesers first. Am / mk / pal or bm / sh/ tc in game ===> team them out. Shit's way too stupidly op and makes games insanely boring.
Season 18:
No real suggestions, I think the format is good.
I must admit that I believe you to be somewhat intelligent, and that I really like your idea of only giving points to the winner - forcing people to do what it takes to win.
After you state this you argue that people should just stop cheesing (hero-wise), because it is too strong and will just get the person who does it teamed.
I cannot make this into a valid point. I truly believe that the idea of only giving points to the winner would make for more interesting games, but when you only get points for winning, I don't understand how you can say that people should choose sub-par heroes, when you also agree they are better, while trying to win?
I also agree that playing only to try and win would be better in most cases (the later the tourney gets, the more chance there is that someone will suicide the one who is winning if this person is a rival, but in the first rounds atleast), but I also want to see people perfect what they are doing - I want to see nice macro-, micro-, general management, and then you want to "limit" the cheese?
To me it seems like an excuse for wanting the win to be determined by who has the best ffa-sense (only), because that person would know who's stronger with what hero-comp etc., and be able to judge each person individually and compare them to the other players in the game, but that would make games less dependant on skill (with skill I mean things you can train against bots).
These questions are not to spite you, but because I really liked the idea you proposed about only winner gets points (in some situations), and I don't know if you're just trolling with the entire thing when you (in my mind) afterwards make a counter-arguement and propose that aswell. So if you are not trolling, could you please explain to me how you see these two things simultaniously happen?
p.s. sorry for the wall of text and if some english terms aren't used correctly
Show Posts