Community > Community Events

Titles, who has them, and what they do.

<< < (22/32) > >>

redria:

--- Quote from: Velvet on April 25, 2014, 04:50:28 pm ---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.

--- End quote ---
Woah, wait, what? This is... pretty unrelated to Muse's system (which won't be around much longer). :P

Anyway, if you guys sorted it out all is well. ^.^

The opt-in vs opt-out concern is certainly valid. Since we have pretty much made up the rules on this as we went (and I didn't even help make the titles in the first place) we've just treated it as casual. More fun to let the titles move fluidly than to make them bitterly contested. :D

Sammy B. T.:
There are two options

1. Strict rules on what counts as scrim and suddenly no one will play (what we were doing at the beginning of titles)
2. Lax rules where titles have high mobility.


I initially preferred the former, especially after everyone took the titles from the ducks during various practices, however I quickly realized that the high mobility is fun. Let the titles bounce around and have fun with them. Its better for titles to move around instead of having one team jealously guarding them.

AbbyTheRat:
Third Option, allow for scrims to be both. Let teams pick if the scrim will have titles change hand or not.

Sammy B. T.:
Nope, that was option 1.


And no one would play for titles because a huge deal was made about them.

Velvet:
redria, this is my reason for believing this was a part of the Muse competitive system.
excerpt from OP of this thread, posted by Muse employee:

--- Quote ---As per the wishes of Squash and the ducks, we're bringing the titles into the full ruleset for competitive, and making a new thread so that all questions about them will go here, and he won't have to deal with them. Down to business!
--- End quote ---

Although it's true that with their system essentially defunct and no Muse involvement in maintenance of titles, those rules are no longer particularly relevant or binding. I just assumed they'd remain in force with no clearcut policy in place to replace them. That said, it's clear that the consensus on what the rules are is against that assumption - that acknowledged I am now simply arguing for what I think they should be.


--- Quote from: Sammy B. T. ---1. Strict rules on what counts as scrim and suddenly no one will play (what we were doing at the beginning of titles)
--- End quote ---
I don't at all see that an opt-in system is a strict ruleset or that it would stop teams from allowing transfer of titles. For example I have every intention of agreeing with BFS that some of our scrim matches can have titles at stake. Ultimately it won't bother me too much if my clan loses titles while experimenting during practices but I think it would be nicer to be able to draw a distinction between when a scrim is a practice or a competition.

I suppose it is true that titles will be more mobile if all scrims count and that does stop teams from hoarding titles - although to do that they'd have to avoid competing in tournaments, too. However I don't think titles changing hands regularly is inherently a good thing - while total stagnation is bad, I'd rather see fewer, more hotly contested title transfers than regular and rather meaningless ones.

The primary benefit of the titles is, as I see it, to add some excitement and put something extra at stake in otherwise uninteresting matches, as well as giving clans a badge of honour as they have a (questionable) claim at being the best players on that map. That works perfectly in scrims where the teams have agreed it will be a title fight - you get an intense match because the teams are a little more invested as their pride is on the line, with a somewhat tangible result in that the title could publicly change hands. But if there's no specific agreement, you get a situation where every scrim is a title fight, and is therefore taken seriously to the detriment of casual play, experimentation & practices, or every scrim is a title fight so titles change hands too often, too easily and therefore don't really matter to anyone (current situation).

I think your claim that there would be few title fights is most likely correct. But that's more because of a broader stagnation of the competitive scene  - in particular scrims, which are much less respected than tournaments as competitive events - than anything else. And the solution to that is not, in my eyes, to force competitive and practice scrims to be the same thing.

However I can see the appeal of keeping the titles casual rather than particularly competitive. I guess we have tournaments for serious matches, if people prefer to keep it that way there's no harm if titles are a bit of unimportant fun on the side.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page