I'm don't feel this really addresses the over all concern for the players who think SCS has become too serious with the same outcome every week and has gone away from the initial idea of it being a practice event to help teams become better not discourage them from competitive. The rewards will probably have some increase in initial sign ups for people who want to get the title but once they have the title you are left with the same problems of why teams aren't signing up. I feel this is more of a temporary band aid.
I think bearit was trying to express an overall feeling that he doesn't agree with titles in his initial post and even though it wasn't clearly stated that way, I don't feel you should have dismissed him so quickly, instead ask why he thought it wasn't a good idea.
I'm don't feel this really addresses the over all concern for the players who think SCS has become too serious with the same outcome every week and has gone away from the initial idea of it being a practice event to help teams become better not discourage them from competitive.Timmy B was not serious tournament and it had rewards as far as I know, so why SCS shouldn't have them too? Why do you think only serious matches should be rewarded?
Therefore it doesn't help SCS and only benefits the already established winners
I'm don't feel this really addresses the over all concern for the players who think SCS has become too serious with the same outcome every week and has gone away from the initial idea of it being a practice event to help teams become better not discourage them from competitive.Timmy B was not serious tournament and it had rewards as far as I know, so why SCS shouldn't have them too? Why do you think only serious matches should be rewarded?
The concern is that these rewards won't accomplish anything and will only benefit the few teams already at the top: including you and Lueosi. SCS isn't very dynamic with the same teams winning every week and few new joiners. It's great to see recent teams like RAWR and Why So Serious but they don't stand a chance against the established winners
You can only use one title and I doubt any players will flaunt "Skirmisher", but the distinguished elite will proudly display their "Skirmish Champion". Therefore it doesn't help SCS and only benefits the already established winners
How is that different than any competitive game out there? Of course best teams will get rewards. Every single top team or player had to practice and earn their place where they are now. If anyone wants rewards, then work for it. I played tournaments even though I knew Rydrs would take golden badge, but so what? At least I know I tried. Should we just drop rewards just because it wouldn't be fair for weaker teams? If they really care that much for rewards, maybe they can be motivated by them to get better.Yes it's ok to give a "Skirmish Champion" award, but "Skirmisher" isn't a reward. I don't believe a winners title will have any affect on new teams' motivation. Here's a solution instead of complaints: a real reward for participation, or even better, dynamic rewards for playing SCS
It has been over twelve hours so I'll ask this again, and if I don't have a response in the next few hours then I'll take my best guess: What is the reasoning behind this? Why make it a thing? For the love of GoIO, stop talking in circles and just answer me honestly.
Considering that SCS is the only competitive 2v2 event currently running, the idea that it's "too serious" and "should be a practice event" betrays a cluelessness which would be funny, if not for the fact that there are people holding that opinion who have been tasked with "building the competitive scene".
KitKatKitty: Given the massive failure of your event (Blood and Brass), you're not really in a place to be criticizing other organizers. In fact, before the winter break, SCS ran four tournaments with equal or greater participation than Blood and Brass. Maybe you should be asking Lueosi for advice?
Maybe I am reading your posts wrong. I feel like you have animosity towards this subject. If I had to guess (which I will) I would say the purpose / reasoning is to get more people to sign up to SCS...
Maybe I am reading your posts wrong. I feel like you have animosity towards this subject. If I had to guess (which I will) I would say the purpose / reasoning is to get more people to sign up to SCS...
I just, I don't understand this, how is me asking for information a bad thing? Am I a bit annoyed, ya. I asked before I went to work and now I just really want to go to bed, but I still haven't gotten what I would qualify as an answer. Is it really too much to ask for an explicit "we felt this would be a good thing because X, Y, and Z"?
I'm don't feel this really addresses the over all concern for the players who think SCS has become too serious with the same outcome every week and has gone away from the initial idea of it being a practice event to help teams become better not discourage them from competitive.Timmy B was not serious tournament and it had rewards as far as I know, so why SCS shouldn't have them too? Why do you think only serious matches should be rewarded?
The concern is that these rewards won't accomplish anything and will only benefit the few teams already at the top: including you and Lueosi. SCS isn't very dynamic with the same teams winning every week and few new joiners. It's great to see recent teams like RAWR and Why So Serious but they don't stand a chance against the established winners
You can only use one title and I doubt any players will flaunt "Skirmisher", but the distinguished elite will proudly display their "Skirmish Champion". Therefore it doesn't help SCS and only benefits the already established winners
How is that different than any competitive game out there? Of course best teams will get rewards. Every single top team or player had to practice and earn their place where they are now. If anyone wants rewards, then work for it. I played tournaments even though I knew Rydrs would take golden badge, but so what? At least I know I tried. Should we just drop rewards just because it wouldn't be fair for weaker teams? If they really care that much for rewards, maybe they can be motivated by them to get better.
I don't know about anyone else, but if I was in their places (new players/team) I would be motivated and would feel great accomplishment once I would finally get that reward.
It's same as MMOs for example. You just gotta deal with it, some stuff is hard to get, if you're not willing to put enough work or you don't have time or whatever, you might never get it, it's that simple. Not everyone can have everything. You won't see me complaining about guild wars 2 and legendary weapons for example "Hey, I'm too lazy to grind for hundreds of hours to get that legendary weapon, that's not fair, I don't have as much time as hardcore players". It's good that games have some hard to achieve goals, that's what many people keeps playing.
I see your point. This is a valid point.
Solidus has a great point here. I like titlesI'm don't feel this really addresses the over all concern for the players who think SCS has become too serious with the same outcome every week and has gone away from the initial idea of it being a practice event to help teams become better not discourage them from competitive.Timmy B was not serious tournament and it had rewards as far as I know, so why SCS shouldn't have them too? Why do you think only serious matches should be rewarded?
The concern is that these rewards won't accomplish anything and will only benefit the few teams already at the top: including you and Lueosi. SCS isn't very dynamic with the same teams winning every week and few new joiners. It's great to see recent teams like RAWR and Why So Serious but they don't stand a chance against the established winners
You can only use one title and I doubt any players will flaunt "Skirmisher", but the distinguished elite will proudly display their "Skirmish Champion". Therefore it doesn't help SCS and only benefits the already established winners
How is that different than any competitive game out there? Of course best teams will get rewards. Every single top team or player had to practice and earn their place where they are now. If anyone wants rewards, then work for it. I played tournaments even though I knew Rydrs would take golden badge, but so what? At least I know I tried. Should we just drop rewards just because it wouldn't be fair for weaker teams? If they really care that much for rewards, maybe they can be motivated by them to get better.
I don't know about anyone else, but if I was in their places (new players/team) I would be motivated and would feel great accomplishment once I would finally get that reward.
It's same as MMOs for example. You just gotta deal with it, some stuff is hard to get, if you're not willing to put enough work or you don't have time or whatever, you might never get it, it's that simple. Not everyone can have everything. You won't see me complaining about guild wars 2 and legendary weapons for example "Hey, I'm too lazy to grind for hundreds of hours to get that legendary weapon, that's not fair, I don't have as much time as hardcore players". It's good that games have some hard to achieve goals, that's what many people keeps playing.QuoteI see your point. This is a valid point.
Yeah, I think titles are great! Personally I think a title for entry and a sweet badge for winning would be awesome! But I also understand if badges are reserved for larger tournament wins.Solidus has a great point here. I like titlesI'm don't feel this really addresses the over all concern for the players who think SCS has become too serious with the same outcome every week and has gone away from the initial idea of it being a practice event to help teams become better not discourage them from competitive.Timmy B was not serious tournament and it had rewards as far as I know, so why SCS shouldn't have them too? Why do you think only serious matches should be rewarded?
The concern is that these rewards won't accomplish anything and will only benefit the few teams already at the top: including you and Lueosi. SCS isn't very dynamic with the same teams winning every week and few new joiners. It's great to see recent teams like RAWR and Why So Serious but they don't stand a chance against the established winners
You can only use one title and I doubt any players will flaunt "Skirmisher", but the distinguished elite will proudly display their "Skirmish Champion". Therefore it doesn't help SCS and only benefits the already established winners
How is that different than any competitive game out there? Of course best teams will get rewards. Every single top team or player had to practice and earn their place where they are now. If anyone wants rewards, then work for it. I played tournaments even though I knew Rydrs would take golden badge, but so what? At least I know I tried. Should we just drop rewards just because it wouldn't be fair for weaker teams? If they really care that much for rewards, maybe they can be motivated by them to get better.
I don't know about anyone else, but if I was in their places (new players/team) I would be motivated and would feel great accomplishment once I would finally get that reward.
It's same as MMOs for example. You just gotta deal with it, some stuff is hard to get, if you're not willing to put enough work or you don't have time or whatever, you might never get it, it's that simple. Not everyone can have everything. You won't see me complaining about guild wars 2 and legendary weapons for example "Hey, I'm too lazy to grind for hundreds of hours to get that legendary weapon, that's not fair, I don't have as much time as hardcore players". It's good that games have some hard to achieve goals, that's what many people keeps playing.QuoteI see your point. This is a valid point.
i think that looking back on all the previous tournaments, that badges are cool. I wanna do more scs. yay titles. i want two titles plz. badges are cool thx. nvmYeah, I think titles are great! Personally I think a title for entry and a sweet badge for winning would be awesome! But I also understand if badges are reserved for larger tournament wins.Solidus has a great point here. I like titlesI'm don't feel this really addresses the over all concern for the players who think SCS has become too serious with the same outcome every week and has gone away from the initial idea of it being a practice event to help teams become better not discourage them from competitive.Timmy B was not serious tournament and it had rewards as far as I know, so why SCS shouldn't have them too? Why do you think only serious matches should be rewarded?
The concern is that these rewards won't accomplish anything and will only benefit the few teams already at the top: including you and Lueosi. SCS isn't very dynamic with the same teams winning every week and few new joiners. It's great to see recent teams like RAWR and Why So Serious but they don't stand a chance against the established winners
You can only use one title and I doubt any players will flaunt "Skirmisher", but the distinguished elite will proudly display their "Skirmish Champion". Therefore it doesn't help SCS and only benefits the already established winners
How is that different than any competitive game out there? Of course best teams will get rewards. Every single top team or player had to practice and earn their place where they are now. If anyone wants rewards, then work for it. I played tournaments even though I knew Rydrs would take golden badge, but so what? At least I know I tried. Should we just drop rewards just because it wouldn't be fair for weaker teams? If they really care that much for rewards, maybe they can be motivated by them to get better.
I don't know about anyone else, but if I was in their places (new players/team) I would be motivated and would feel great accomplishment once I would finally get that reward.
It's same as MMOs for example. You just gotta deal with it, some stuff is hard to get, if you're not willing to put enough work or you don't have time or whatever, you might never get it, it's that simple. Not everyone can have everything. You won't see me complaining about guild wars 2 and legendary weapons for example "Hey, I'm too lazy to grind for hundreds of hours to get that legendary weapon, that's not fair, I don't have as much time as hardcore players". It's good that games have some hard to achieve goals, that's what many people keeps playing.QuoteI see your point. This is a valid point.
They're f***** titles, guys. This is a dumb thing to throw a hissy fit over.
Your opinions are always so insightful.
First, the SCS is the only 8-player event currently running. But we've had Aero 3 (4-player), Blood and Brass (8-player) and now Cronus (4-player) which at the current state of competitive is a good mix for all teams to play in event they enjoy. Seeing as most clans can not field 8-player teams you can't fault organizers for putting on 4-player competitions.
Just because SCS is the only 8-player event doesn't mean it should be serious. The SCS was created as a practice event. For teams to come together to practice on a reliable basis. If the organizers of SCS would like to create a serious 8-player event they can but that doesn't mean they should change the intent of the SCS. My comment doesn't portray cluelessness yet quite the opposite. I've actually spent time talking to people of the community and having members fill out surveys. Which if you would like to you can fill one out too. RIGHT HERE (https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,7120.0.html) because I don't have a large enough ego to think that I know everything that the community thinks and will change the event based on what the communities feedback is.
Which comes to your last comment...just because the SCS has, at 1 point in time, a higher turn out than the Blood and Brass does not mean that the Blood and Brass was a failure. Not only has quite a lot of the participants personally told me they thought it was a success but 100% of the responses from the survey said they enjoyed playing in the event. The lack of turn out comes from the lack of teams able to field 8-players than it was about the event itself.
For Sunday Community Skirmish: Do you think it has become "too serious" and why or why not?
The largest competitive event? Did Hephaestus League not count? As far as I'm aware, not only was it the largest, but the most successful. Other events, such as Aerodrome have also done quite well and are a bit more innovative than a standard bracket. Sky League was about as popular as the R&D Invitational.
so SCS Rewards - I definitely don't see a downside to the titles, I don't think they'd be detrimental in any way. perhaps though, the implementation could be tweaked for better appeal. maybe an additional title for the 2nd place team would be a decent addition?
With all due respect: Urz has broken the Code of Conduct multiple times today (well... yesterday 'cause midnight) is this really not going to be dealt with?
so SCS Rewards - I definitely don't see a downside to the titles, I don't think they'd be detrimental in any way. perhaps though, the implementation could be tweaked for better appeal. maybe an additional title for the 2nd place team would be a decent addition?
Titles aren't detrimental and they could even help advertise SCS. The issue I have, which was poorly stated, is that I wish the participation title sounded cooler. I hope that people will use the new title, but in my opinion "Skirmisher" isn't attractive enough for players to change from their current unlockable ones. If people are happy and want to use the title of Skirmisher then there's no issue
A title for second/third place would be good, and so would one for the organizers/casters/refs, but first there should be a better participation title. Suggestions can be taken and voted on using the forum system or by the SCS organizers (blind vote please). By brainstorming together I'm sure we can come up with good titles that players will gladly replace their old ones for, and help draw interest from prospective teams
The largest competitive event? Did Hephaestus League not count? As far as I'm aware, not only was it the largest, but the most successful. Other events, such as Aerodrome have also done quite well and are a bit more innovative than a standard bracket. Sky League was about as popular as the R&D Invitational.
Sky League: 21 teams
Claiming the Fjords: 15 teams
Hephaestus Challenge: 14 teams
Anvalan Conflict: 14 teams
Sky Tournament: 12 teams
R&D Invitational: 8 teams
I don't agree with you that titles or any kind of rewards should be given just for participation.Signing up is an accomplishment because few teams do. We want more players to join, and titles are a good way to show that you've participated in SCS. The title doesn't have to be flashy but it should be attractive enough for people to switch from their current titles. If everyone used the title then it would help advertise SCS. There should be future additional titles to show further accomplishments. Will you change your title to Skirmisher?
Signing up and getting in a lobby is not really an accomplishment that should be rewarded.
I get the feeling that people are reading too much into this.
In my opinion, it wont make the scs more competitive, well maybe in the first 2 weeks but then, once some teams have that title, they wont have to compete that much and it'll all calm down. After that, it'll just be some nice advertisement. Plus once a team has the winner titel, they will probably back off a bit and then the other Teams who will probably still be wanting that title will have an easier time. It should all sort out well
They could back off, or they could keep tryharding their best to prevent any other team from getting the title.
If everyone gets the title, it's a pretty empty and meaningless title. If only a few people have it, it can be something to take pride in. The Skirmisher title is already pointless before it's been released. The Skirmish Champion is another story. Teams could easily win it, and then sit back and let other teams win it (showing an incredible level of arrogance). This means that less people would participate or try in SCS. I have my title, why bother competing again (or why bother tryharding again)? On the other hand, a few teams could win it, and then keep fighting over every Sunday to prevent as many teams as possible from getting it. This makes the title more valuable in a way, but would also cause the SCS to become increasingly more tryhard competitive.
The Skirmish Champion is another story. Teams could easily win it, and then sit back and let other teams win it (showing an incredible level of arrogance).
Someone might like it. And that's all what we can say about it. I would recommend to lock this thread to prevent some more unnecessary offtopic flamewars. We all got the announcement.
like the flamer being terrible or something.
Keep this thread constructive and on-topic.
@Dem: I think you're misunderstanding what I was saying. A team that thinks that they have to let other teams win the title is arrogant.
For example, lets pretend your clan wins the first SCS with titles. Then in the next round, they feel the need to sit out and let another clan. That would be arrogant. They'd be assuming that by participating, they're going to win. And the only way to pass on the title is to not participate.
I don't think any team that wins it can do anything to prevent people from thinking that they are arrogant...
Refresh my memory: when was the last unorthodox match up successful?
You haven't watched a lot of my matches, have you? Practically every build of mine except the basic Hades, double Art, double Carro Mobula screams unorthodoxism.
My thought was that two ships of 4 players each showing up at the same time to play a game despite differences in time zones and life schedules with the expectation to remain playing the game for upwards 2 hours warrants serious play.
Odd ship loadouts and tactics pop up pretty commonly in SCS, it's a great field for experimenting in. They generally don't do that well, but once in a very blue moon there's an interesting outcome. Some people take it more seriously than others of course, and they're generally going to win.
In my opinion, far more interesting than specific loadouts are tactics employed. Watching a perfectly valid ship (meta or not) that does weird things together with his ally is much more entertaining than watching a non-standard ship pretending to be meta and doing the exactly same thing a meta ship would do, just not as effectively.Can you give an example?
Can you give an example?
I get the feeling that people are reading too much into this.