Enjoy w3arena stats with some distance. #3 anima is 394/122 and got owned by yaws 3-0 this weekend. Yaws maybe plays a session once a month...
About jon_irenicus; He always seemed to be around but lost interest in ffa/fml somehow. He won a title, what else can u achieve? He is complete.
Maybe a game like this would be fun to watch a cast of Mage? like one of the games - I haven't watched solo in years:p
Purebe has gotten a bit busy recently, but theoretically I should be casting a few solo games with him at some point :)
Sounds awesome! I've been extremely busy and will continue to be so for the next two weeks, but then I've got a lot of time to catch up with your great casts :)
I can only second what Renaud said about the intro being a bit long, but otherwise good. Tbh i like the long outtro with credits, but I guess that's a matter of taste :)
I always assume there's some nice shoutcasting behind, and lately it's been more or less you and purebe (with the occasional other).
I am a lot more interested in who is playing, because that - for me - decides a lot more about the game than who's shoutcasting. Whether it's you solo, you and purebe, you and worpex, you, purebe and maga, doesn't matter to me, because i know I will have some people who knows more about ffa than me tell me what's going on and analyzing / being fun. But if it's a showmatch between 2 solos and 2 good ffa'ers or a random ffa from bot that is ungodly horrible will make me stay up an xtra 45min and watch, or choose not to watch it.
The cast decides a lot more for me than the casting. The casting is very important, but at the moment you're doing great and purebe is pretty fun. I really liked Wreck's insight aswell, because he's extremely good at spotting power-relations and has huge game-knowledge (from my limited perspective :D)
/e I forgot to add that ungodly long names don't hurt me, but that might just be me.
I'm not sure if this is the wrong place to post it, but here goes nothing:
I think it would be awesome if you could include names of the players in the games in the name of the videos on Youtube. I see you included it in the description, but still. Just my two cents:)
I completely understand that you believe it to be boring/too good and should be teamed, but I can't make it fit together with your other (and in my opinion much more valid point) about wanting to play for the win and not play for an adequate amount of points.
@Pers
I had not thought about that point, and I do agree it is very likely that people will play more passively in the early phases of the game - clear disadvantage. It also makes it much easier to get rid of a person, because they are simply a more valuable target (they got more points), and early teaming will probably happen more often.
The major arguement that it is a good idea aspires from the idea that after the first person is knocked out, you still get enough points from becoming second or third to actually be "satisfied", and this would not happen if you didn't get points for anything but first.
I find the latter arguement to have a lot of significance, but I am also not a player and don't have to play hoarding games, but can x8 or skip (if it's a shoutcast). My main problem with the current situation is that it rewards 2nd and 3rd place too greatly.
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