2sy_morphiendLooking for medic to reform smile theory with, will be sandbagging open next season, be good.
typically you have to be good to sandbag open, june
Upvote
Upvoted
0
Downvote
Downvoted
Expanding Open
posted in
TF2 General Discussion
[quote=2sy_morphiend]Looking for medic to reform smile theory with, will be sandbagging open next season, be good.[/quote]
typically you have to be good to sandbag open, june
typically you have to be good to sandbag open, june
The only thing that seems kinda dumb to me is that the new ranking system contradicts itself in a lot of areas. Typically, High open level players/teams are better than low IM, same goes for High IM and low invite, although that might just be because invite level IM teams run a train on the other teams all season and then break up/make another team/refuse to play in invite. It seems like there's a more efficient way of going about this
The only thing that seems kinda dumb to me is that the new ranking system contradicts itself in a lot of areas. Typically, High open level players/teams are better than low IM, same goes for High IM and low invite, although that might just be because invite level IM teams run a train on the other teams all season and then break up/make another team/refuse to play in invite. It seems like there's a more efficient way of going about this
defiance2sy_morphiendLooking for medic to reform smile theory with, will be sandbagging open next season, be good.typically you have to be good to sandbag open, june
I'd give a shit but last time I seriously played open the others teams tried to get us moved up ╰(◓‿◓)╯
KhakiThe only thing that seems kinda dumb to me is that the new ranking system contradicts itself in a lot of areas. Typically, High open level players/teams are better than low IM, same goes for High IM and low invite, although that might just be because invite level IM teams run a train on the other teams all season and then break up/make another team/refuse to play in invite. It seems like there's a more efficient way of going about this
Because new teams are formed from older players and are immediately recycled into open, former play-off open teams do worse in im and break-up or can't hack it to begin with and only got moved up because 75% of im dies every season, and IM sandbagging at this point is a celebrated comp. TF2 tradition.
[quote=defiance][quote=2sy_morphiend]Looking for medic to reform smile theory with, will be sandbagging open next season, be good.[/quote]
typically you have to be good to sandbag open, june[/quote]
I'd give a shit but last time I seriously played open the others teams tried to get us moved up ╰(◓‿◓)╯
[quote=Khaki]The only thing that seems kinda dumb to me is that the new ranking system contradicts itself in a lot of areas. Typically, High open level players/teams are better than low IM, same goes for High IM and low invite, although that might just be because invite level IM teams run a train on the other teams all season and then break up/make another team/refuse to play in invite. It seems like there's a more efficient way of going about this[/quote]
Because new teams are formed from older players and are immediately recycled into open, former play-off open teams do worse in im and break-up or can't hack it to begin with and only got moved up because 75% of im dies every season, and IM sandbagging at this point is a celebrated comp. TF2 tradition.
typically you have to be good to sandbag open, june[/quote]
I'd give a shit but last time I seriously played open the others teams tried to get us moved up ╰(◓‿◓)╯
[quote=Khaki]The only thing that seems kinda dumb to me is that the new ranking system contradicts itself in a lot of areas. Typically, High open level players/teams are better than low IM, same goes for High IM and low invite, although that might just be because invite level IM teams run a train on the other teams all season and then break up/make another team/refuse to play in invite. It seems like there's a more efficient way of going about this[/quote]
Because new teams are formed from older players and are immediately recycled into open, former play-off open teams do worse in im and break-up or can't hack it to begin with and only got moved up because 75% of im dies every season, and IM sandbagging at this point is a celebrated comp. TF2 tradition.
I liked playing Mackey's team, cause every time I tried something sneaky he'd anticipate it and be like "lolnol8rnerd". (That's what I imagined him saying anyways)
Made me think more about how to go for plays and the positioning, instead of having stupid shit work because Open.
I liked playing Mackey's team, cause every time I tried something sneaky he'd anticipate it and be like "lolnol8rnerd". (That's what I imagined him saying anyways)
Made me think more about how to go for plays and the positioning, instead of having stupid shit work because Open.
Made me think more about how to go for plays and the positioning, instead of having stupid shit work because Open.
I enjoy scrimming their team. It's never a roll for any side and it's a fun experience. Like Zigzter said, I feel like I learn something a lot easier against them than I do other teams in open.
I enjoy scrimming their team. It's never a roll for any side and it's a fun experience. Like Zigzter said, I feel like I learn something a lot easier against them than I do other teams in open.
killemdeaderI understand, but players, as well as teams, are hesitant to make the commitment of time and money to ESEA when they know that a large portion of their matches won't be close. People play to have fun, and when they start losing badly, it's really easy for teams to fall apart. Unless there is a viable way to seed teams before the season starts, ESEA isn't going to attract the UGC crowd.
What's the point of seeding teams in a league so that the best teams play the best teams and the worst teams play the worst teams? Technically, proper seeding would have it so that the worst team plays the best team in week 1, but that's going against what you're saying. Even more technically, shouldn't proper seeding only have the need of having a tournament, because isn't the point of a league is to properly seed the best teams for playoffs? The whole idea of a season transitioning into playoffs is that ideally the top X amount of teams are the best teams, not half of the best teams and half of the decent teams.
I'm not sure with the whole argument of "people play for fun, so when teams start losing badly, they fall apart." I'm pretty sure teams falling apart because they lose happens at any level of practically any game, and the people who stick together and actually care about getting better will get better (ie: eMg). Also, the thought of "I only have fun when I win, so if I'm not winning, then I don't want to play anymore" sounds like someone who is too lazy to improve and wants all the right cards to be dealt for them. If someone has this mindset, then fine. However, having this mindset does not mean you have the right to complain about ESEA not giving you a golden schedule that makes your team go 14-2, when realistically you're on a team that should be going 5-11 and needs improvement.
[quote=killemdeader]I understand, but players, as well as teams, are hesitant to make the commitment of time and money to ESEA when they know that a large portion of their matches won't be close. People play to have fun, and when they start losing badly, it's really easy for teams to fall apart. Unless there is a viable way to seed teams before the season starts, ESEA isn't going to attract the UGC crowd.[/quote]
What's the point of seeding teams in a league so that the best teams play the best teams and the worst teams play the worst teams? Technically, proper seeding would have it so that the worst team plays the best team in week 1, but that's going against what you're saying. Even more technically, shouldn't proper seeding only have the need of having a tournament, because isn't the point of a league is to properly seed the best teams for playoffs? The whole idea of a season transitioning into playoffs is that ideally the top X amount of teams are the best teams, not half of the best teams and half of the decent teams.
I'm not sure with the whole argument of "people play for fun, so when teams start losing badly, they fall apart." I'm pretty sure teams falling apart because they lose happens at any level of practically any game, and the people who stick together and actually care about getting better [b]will get better[/b] (ie: eMg). Also, the thought of "I only have fun when I win, so if I'm not winning, then I don't want to play anymore" sounds like someone who is too lazy to improve and wants all the right cards to be dealt for them. If someone has this mindset, then fine. However, having this mindset does not mean you have the right to complain about ESEA not giving you a golden schedule that makes your team go 14-2, when realistically you're on a team that should be going 5-11 and needs improvement.
What's the point of seeding teams in a league so that the best teams play the best teams and the worst teams play the worst teams? Technically, proper seeding would have it so that the worst team plays the best team in week 1, but that's going against what you're saying. Even more technically, shouldn't proper seeding only have the need of having a tournament, because isn't the point of a league is to properly seed the best teams for playoffs? The whole idea of a season transitioning into playoffs is that ideally the top X amount of teams are the best teams, not half of the best teams and half of the decent teams.
I'm not sure with the whole argument of "people play for fun, so when teams start losing badly, they fall apart." I'm pretty sure teams falling apart because they lose happens at any level of practically any game, and the people who stick together and actually care about getting better [b]will get better[/b] (ie: eMg). Also, the thought of "I only have fun when I win, so if I'm not winning, then I don't want to play anymore" sounds like someone who is too lazy to improve and wants all the right cards to be dealt for them. If someone has this mindset, then fine. However, having this mindset does not mean you have the right to complain about ESEA not giving you a golden schedule that makes your team go 14-2, when realistically you're on a team that should be going 5-11 and needs improvement.
TheFragilekillemdeaderI understand, but players, as well as teams, are hesitant to make the commitment of time and money to ESEA when they know that a large portion of their matches won't be close. People play to have fun, and when they start losing badly, it's really easy for teams to fall apart. Unless there is a viable way to seed teams before the season starts, ESEA isn't going to attract the UGC crowd.
What's the point of seeding teams in a league so that the best teams play the best teams and the worst teams play the worst teams? Technically, proper seeding would have it so that the worst team plays the best team in week 1, but that's going against what you're saying. Even more technically, shouldn't proper seeding only have the need of having a tournament, because isn't the point of a league is to properly seed the best teams for playoffs? The whole idea of a season transitioning into playoffs is that ideally the top X amount of teams are the best teams, not half of the best teams and half of the decent teams.
I'm not sure with the whole argument of "people play for fun, so when teams start losing badly, they fall apart." I'm pretty sure teams falling apart because they lose happens at any level of practically any game, and the people who stick together and actually care about getting better will get better (ie: eMg). Also, the thought of "I only have fun when I win, so if I'm not winning, then I don't want to play anymore" sounds like someone who is too lazy to improve and wants all the right cards to be dealt for them. If someone has this mindset, then fine. However, having this mindset does not mean you have the right to complain about ESEA not giving you a golden schedule that makes your team go 14-2, when realistically you're on a team that should be going 5-11 and needs improvement.
fuck.
[quote=TheFragile][quote=killemdeader]I understand, but players, as well as teams, are hesitant to make the commitment of time and money to ESEA when they know that a large portion of their matches won't be close. People play to have fun, and when they start losing badly, it's really easy for teams to fall apart. Unless there is a viable way to seed teams before the season starts, ESEA isn't going to attract the UGC crowd.[/quote]
What's the point of seeding teams in a league so that the best teams play the best teams and the worst teams play the worst teams? Technically, proper seeding would have it so that the worst team plays the best team in week 1, but that's going against what you're saying. Even more technically, shouldn't proper seeding only have the need of having a tournament, because isn't the point of a league is to properly seed the best teams for playoffs? The whole idea of a season transitioning into playoffs is that ideally the top X amount of teams are the best teams, not half of the best teams and half of the decent teams.
I'm not sure with the whole argument of "people play for fun, so when teams start losing badly, they fall apart." I'm pretty sure teams falling apart because they lose happens at any level of practically any game, and the people who stick together and actually care about getting better [b]will get better[/b] (ie: eMg). Also, the thought of "I only have fun when I win, so if I'm not winning, then I don't want to play anymore" sounds like someone who is too lazy to improve and wants all the right cards to be dealt for them. If someone has this mindset, then fine. [b]However, having this mindset does not mean you have the right to complain about ESEA not giving you a golden schedule that makes your team go 14-2, when realistically you're on a team that should be going 5-11 and needs improvement.[/b][/quote]
fuck.
What's the point of seeding teams in a league so that the best teams play the best teams and the worst teams play the worst teams? Technically, proper seeding would have it so that the worst team plays the best team in week 1, but that's going against what you're saying. Even more technically, shouldn't proper seeding only have the need of having a tournament, because isn't the point of a league is to properly seed the best teams for playoffs? The whole idea of a season transitioning into playoffs is that ideally the top X amount of teams are the best teams, not half of the best teams and half of the decent teams.
I'm not sure with the whole argument of "people play for fun, so when teams start losing badly, they fall apart." I'm pretty sure teams falling apart because they lose happens at any level of practically any game, and the people who stick together and actually care about getting better [b]will get better[/b] (ie: eMg). Also, the thought of "I only have fun when I win, so if I'm not winning, then I don't want to play anymore" sounds like someone who is too lazy to improve and wants all the right cards to be dealt for them. If someone has this mindset, then fine. [b]However, having this mindset does not mean you have the right to complain about ESEA not giving you a golden schedule that makes your team go 14-2, when realistically you're on a team that should be going 5-11 and needs improvement.[/b][/quote]
fuck.
op said :
I think that the skill gap between Open and other options (such as ugc) hinders the growth of competitive 6s. I see some teams getting absolutely rolled in open, while others are easily competitive in IM or have players with far-above-open skill level.
I'm OK with open being this way, but this skill gap between ugc and open is really only widening. At some point it will be nearly impossible for new players (as in players from pubs) to ever make it into open or beyond.
Everyone talks about expanding competitive, but I really don't see how to accomplish that without making open actually open and good for entry level players. In this sense, at least, UGC is more effective in bringing in the newest players(Iron) and giving them balanced competition until they are ready for higher and higher leagues.
In order to keep bringing players up to competitive, I think something has to be done to make the most important part of comp (actually playing on a team in a league) more fun and less discouraging.
The only solution I could think of would be to make a Main division in tf2. The current middle - top of IM would be main, middle+ open - middle IM would be the new IM, and then Open could spread out to accommodate players of lower skill than are currently in open. I think bringing the bottom tier of competition closer to what beginning-competitive players are ready for (similar to how UGC Iron is not too far of a leap out of pubs).
Maybe cevo will become that entry level league, but at the moment cevo seems to be plagued with endemic technical and logistical issues that really limit how successful it will be.
edit: In the very likely case that ESEA doesn't want to change anything, what can we as a community do to further these ends? I think one option would be to change the attitude of the community to be more similar to CS. In CS, playing in higher leagues is a huge accomplishment that people strive for above all else, but many players in tf2 would rather sandbag lower leagues because they know that they will be successful.
Suggestions? Thoughts?
op said :
[quote]I think that the skill gap between Open and other options (such as ugc) hinders the growth of competitive 6s. I see some teams getting absolutely rolled in open, while others are easily competitive in IM or have players with far-above-open skill level.
I'm OK with open being this way, but this skill gap between ugc and open is really only widening. At some point it will be nearly impossible for new players (as in players from pubs) to ever make it into open or beyond.
Everyone talks about expanding competitive, but I really don't see how to accomplish that without making open actually open and good for entry level players. In this sense, at least, UGC is more effective in bringing in the newest players(Iron) and giving them balanced competition until they are ready for higher and higher leagues.
In order to keep bringing players up to competitive, I think something has to be done to make the most important part of comp (actually playing on a team in a league) more fun and less discouraging.
The only solution I could think of would be to make a Main division in tf2. The current middle - top of IM would be main, middle+ open - middle IM would be the new IM, and then Open could spread out to accommodate players of lower skill than are currently in open. I think bringing the bottom tier of competition closer to what beginning-competitive players are ready for (similar to how UGC Iron is not too far of a leap out of pubs).
Maybe cevo will become that entry level league, but at the moment cevo seems to be plagued with endemic technical and logistical issues that really limit how successful it will be.
edit: In the very likely case that ESEA doesn't want to change anything, what can we as a community do to further these ends? I think one option would be to change the attitude of the community to be more similar to CS. In CS, playing in higher leagues is a huge accomplishment that people strive for above all else, but many players in tf2 would rather sandbag lower leagues because they know that they will be successful.
Suggestions? Thoughts?[/quote]
[quote]I think that the skill gap between Open and other options (such as ugc) hinders the growth of competitive 6s. I see some teams getting absolutely rolled in open, while others are easily competitive in IM or have players with far-above-open skill level.
I'm OK with open being this way, but this skill gap between ugc and open is really only widening. At some point it will be nearly impossible for new players (as in players from pubs) to ever make it into open or beyond.
Everyone talks about expanding competitive, but I really don't see how to accomplish that without making open actually open and good for entry level players. In this sense, at least, UGC is more effective in bringing in the newest players(Iron) and giving them balanced competition until they are ready for higher and higher leagues.
In order to keep bringing players up to competitive, I think something has to be done to make the most important part of comp (actually playing on a team in a league) more fun and less discouraging.
The only solution I could think of would be to make a Main division in tf2. The current middle - top of IM would be main, middle+ open - middle IM would be the new IM, and then Open could spread out to accommodate players of lower skill than are currently in open. I think bringing the bottom tier of competition closer to what beginning-competitive players are ready for (similar to how UGC Iron is not too far of a leap out of pubs).
Maybe cevo will become that entry level league, but at the moment cevo seems to be plagued with endemic technical and logistical issues that really limit how successful it will be.
edit: In the very likely case that ESEA doesn't want to change anything, what can we as a community do to further these ends? I think one option would be to change the attitude of the community to be more similar to CS. In CS, playing in higher leagues is a huge accomplishment that people strive for above all else, but many players in tf2 would rather sandbag lower leagues because they know that they will be successful.
Suggestions? Thoughts?[/quote]
Please
sign in through STEAM
to post a comment.