Community > Community Events

Titles, who has them, and what they do.

<< < (21/32) > >>

Alistair MacBain:
As far as i know Scrims can also be for titles.
You can be challenged for a title at any time.

Brick Hardcastle:
http://cloud-4.steampowered.com/ugc/487822565138953287/A8A6439BB2956202513B787B81F6A3BE948075DF/1024x819.resizedimage

Yeah, I was kinda under the impression that titles could change hands in scrims as Ducks and OVW seem to swap them about during their weekly scrims. I hope I haven't been too presumptuous. Hatters and Gents could very well win it back off us next week anyway.

Velvet:

--- Quote from: Brick Hardcastle on April 24, 2014, 06:18:46 pm ---Yeah, I was kinda under the impression that titles could change hands in scrims as Ducks and OVW seem to swap them about during their weekly scrims. I hope I haven't been too presumptuous. Hatters and Gents could very well win it back off us next week anyway.
--- End quote ---
yes, one reason that it hasn't bothered me so much. anyway, I'm not exactly annoyed by this case - my interest in pursuing this is not a grievance against BFS or even to do with a desire to keep the title.

In the past there was a similar disagreement about whether all scrims should by default be involved in Muse's scrim points system - not everyone liked the idea of all scrims being forced into association with the "serious" competitive scene. I believe in the wake of that discussion it was affirmed that a match only came into the competitive system with the prearranged knowledge & consent of the teams involved. As the titles are meant to be a part of the same structure I assumed that the same principle would be applied - titles should only change hands in scrims if both teams have agreed that titles are at stake. I didn't really think about the OvW & Ducks scrim, kind of don't see its relevance since both teams are clearly in agreement that it's OK for titles to be at stake.

Regardless of what the actual rules say, I think it is important that practice scrims should not have forced involvement in the broader competitive scene. If teams want to arrange regular fights between themselves where points/titles are at stake that's cool. But my team (and as far as I know, most others) view scrims as an opportunity to test new builds, improve our play and have fun in a more relaxed, low pressure environment. We're not playing the builds we're most comfortable with or making an all-out attempt to win, and if there was pressure to do so I think that would reduce the value we got out of the experience. Therefore I would greatly prefer that the "default" setting for a scrim is a practice without any competitive baggage.

I'm quite happy not to contest the exchange of titles in this case.
Nevertheless, I would like to see a precedent set that a team can involve itself in scrims without competitive concerns getting automatically involved. I would be quite happy to have "competitive" matches during any of the scrims my team participates in but I would like to know and to have consented to the fact that we're fighting for a title (or points, if that system ever returns to prominence).

redria:
I can understand your concerns Velvet.

The general idea I understood was the titles were a fun addition for teams to look at. They have no bearing on any other competitive event, and are simply a moving entity that goes to whoever captures it next. Whether it be practice or scrim or testing, I see it as a fun title to have moving around constantly. So if you take your B-team or try out a new build maybe you lose the title, but next week maybe they run tests and you take it back. Or the title gets taken from them and it winds its way around the clans.

My opinion is that a team should indicate before the match that they are interested in the title so the holding team would have a little foreknowledge, or could say no. But the titles don't seem a serious part of the scene, just a fun addition to watch for kicks. ^.^

Velvet:

--- Quote from: redria on April 25, 2014, 11:55:38 am ---I can understand your concerns Velvet.

The general idea I understood was the titles were a fun addition for teams to look at. They have no bearing on any other competitive event, and are simply a moving entity that goes to whoever captures it next. Whether it be practice or scrim or testing, I see it as a fun title to have moving around constantly. So if you take your B-team or try out a new build maybe you lose the title, but next week maybe they run tests and you take it back. Or the title gets taken from them and it winds its way around the clans.

My opinion is that a team should indicate before the match that they are interested in the title so the holding team would have a little foreknowledge, or could say no. But the titles don't seem a serious part of the scene, just a fun addition to watch for kicks. ^.^

--- End quote ---
I do appreciate that which is why I'm trying not to be too aggressive or pushy about this (I also appreciate that I'm not doing so well on that front. ^^)

The fact that this is meant to be a part of the Muse competitive system is part of why I'm a bit hesitant to drop this. I'd like to maintain the principle that if an overarching competitive system is applied to scrims it should be only on an opt-in basis.

but yeah, for this case at least I've reached an amiable resolution with Brick and I'm happy for BFS to have the title without an argument. until we steal it back.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page