SpaceCadetI just can't get into a game where you spend
60% running around smashing stuff for building resources
20% building houses whenever you see an enemy
15% jogging from place to place without seeing anyone
and only about 5% of the time actually aiming and fighting
underrated post
[quote=SpaceCadet]I just can't get into a game where you spend
60% running around smashing stuff for building resources
20% building houses whenever you see an enemy
15% jogging from place to place without seeing anyone
and only about 5% of the time actually aiming and fighting[/quote]
underrated post
GetawhaleSpaceCadetI just can't get into a game where you spend
60% running around smashing stuff for building resources
20% building houses whenever you see an enemy
15% jogging from place to place without seeing anyone
and only about 5% of the time actually aiming and fighting
underrated post
Ye if you land Junk Junction every game
PlayStyle
If you want land tilted towers and use things like launchpads and rifts then you dont need to waste time on finding players / farming mats
[quote=Getawhale][quote=SpaceCadet]I just can't get into a game where you spend
60% running around smashing stuff for building resources
20% building houses whenever you see an enemy
15% jogging from place to place without seeing anyone
and only about 5% of the time actually aiming and fighting[/quote]
underrated post[/quote]
Ye if you land Junk Junction every game
[u][b]PlayStyle[/b][/u]
If you want land tilted towers and use things like launchpads and rifts then you dont need to waste time on finding players / farming mats
[quote=mastercoms]https://clips.twitch.tv/JazzyAmusedDogeOMGScoots
https://clips.twitch.tv/SassyDifficultHerdStoneLightning[/quote]
just because it got cut off by the new page, here are some highlights from the first week of the fortnite summer skirmish. and a few more:
https://clips.twitch.tv/CreativeArtisticOkapiFailFish
https://clips.twitch.tv/HealthyEagerPotatoRickroll
https://clips.twitch.tv/CrowdedEnchantingPigeonUnSane
https://clips.twitch.tv/ViscousCoyWebWholeWheat
https://clips.twitch.tv/HelplessSecretivePidgeonImGlitch
https://clips.twitch.tv/ProudWrongWaterEleGiggle
https://clips.twitch.tv/BlueLightGiraffeDAESuppy
https://clips.twitch.tv/ExquisiteSwissPoxSoBayed
https://clips.twitch.tv/RockyCaringCheddarBlargNaut
https://clips.twitch.tv/GorgeousWrongGorillaCclamChamp
https://clips.twitch.tv/AnnoyingSplendidWolfSuperVinlin
They cancelled the tourney 6 rounds early and changed the win conditions since no one won enough:
https://clips.twitch.tv/ResourcefulZanyConsoleJonCarnage
The one moment I did like though: https://clips.twitch.tv/AltruisticBoxyGooseWOOP
I love Fortnite. It's one of my favorite games and I also think it really does have a lot of potential for esports, but Epic has a lot of work to do on many, many fronts before they can start with these experimental tourneys. I know they're excited to see Fortnite competitive in action, but I feel like they're rushing too much and it could hurt them in the long run even if they manage to eventually work out all the kinks.
This tourney was absolute trash. I hated every aspect of it and have no idea why Epic thought that set up would work
shit casters
shit servers
shit rules
shit players (as in it was more streamers than actual pro players)
i mean for fucks sakes they didn't invite the best duo in the fucking game, they had to tag along with streamers.
lets not mention the proven pedophile kevie1 being invited and going home with $50k
This tourney was absolute trash. I hated every aspect of it and have no idea why Epic thought that set up would work
shit casters
shit servers
shit rules
shit players (as in it was more streamers than actual pro players)
i mean for fucks sakes they didn't invite the best duo in the fucking game, they had to tag along with streamers.
lets not mention the proven pedophile kevie1 being invited and going home with $50k
$250k hide and seek cup, brought to you by epic games
$250k hide and seek cup, brought to you by epic games
Honestly, the game's fun, but it's not eSports-ready.
Honestly, the game's fun, but it's not eSports-ready.
people`s eyes focused on the pigeon hole this game created and that bad reputation it comes with overshadowing the potential this game has in the hands of people who can actually play it.
rolls mine.
people`s eyes focused on the pigeon hole this game created and that bad reputation it comes with overshadowing the potential this game has in the hands of people who can actually play it.
rolls mine.
https://www.pcgamer.com/epics-first-official-fortnite-competition-was-a-total-disaster/
Seems like they didn't account for players playing to win. With the amount of money on the line that epic threw at this, someone should have realized that players would go for winning strategies over fun strategies or entertaining strategies. Hell, the only reason that teams in TF2 don't park the bus after one round win is because there's not enough money in it to do the most boring, awful strategies to win. For a grand prize of more than I make in a year you'd bet your ass I'm playing heavy on spire for an hour with an engie and a pyro to back me up.
Any potential esports future for Fortnite would probably need to see gameplay significantly different than what the casual game is. Probably a much smaller pool of players to start with, maybe a smaller map or constant shrinking of the circle, definitely something to put time pressure on players to limit the effectiveness of waiting. Maybe some kind of reward for aggression, since, all else being equal, the optimal strategy is to take as few fights as possible.
As it stands, epic tried to hammer a square peg into a round hole by pushing Fortnite as an esport. It's designed from the ground up as a casual, drop-in drop-out game, and could excel on that basis alone. Successful sports require skill-based play, an enjoyable or accessible viewing experience, and gameplay that's relatively consistent from the lowest levels up to the highest. Fortnite has, arguably, one of those things, and without some drastic changes, will probably either fail as an esport, or "succeed" as long as epic is willing to dump money into it to keep the hype machine going.
Show Content
TF2 has largely failed as an esport for the same reasons
Seems like they didn't account for players playing to win. With the amount of money on the line that epic threw at this, someone should have realized that players would go for winning strategies over fun strategies or entertaining strategies. Hell, the only reason that teams in TF2 don't park the bus after one round win is because there's not enough money in it to do the most boring, awful strategies to win. For a grand prize of more than I make in a year you'd bet your ass I'm playing heavy on spire for an hour with an engie and a pyro to back me up.
Any potential esports future for Fortnite would probably need to see gameplay significantly different than what the casual game is. Probably a much smaller pool of players to start with, maybe a smaller map or constant shrinking of the circle, definitely something to put time pressure on players to limit the effectiveness of waiting. Maybe some kind of reward for aggression, since, all else being equal, the optimal strategy is to take as few fights as possible.
As it stands, epic tried to hammer a square peg into a round hole by pushing Fortnite as an esport. It's designed from the ground up as a casual, drop-in drop-out game, and could excel on that basis alone. Successful sports require skill-based play, an enjoyable or accessible viewing experience, and gameplay that's relatively consistent from the lowest levels up to the highest. Fortnite has, arguably, one of those things, and without some drastic changes, will probably either fail as an esport, or "succeed" as long as epic is willing to dump money into it to keep the hype machine going.
[spoiler]TF2 has largely failed as an esport for the same reasons[/spoiler]
people in this thread all like "wow how can anyone support that"
and yet b4nny hub the only way to play TF2 on Faceit more than once a month
people in this thread all like "wow how can anyone support that"
and yet b4nny hub the only way to play TF2 on Faceit more than once a month
Spyromancerpeople in this thread all like "wow how can anyone support that"
and yet b4nny hub the only way to play TF2 on Faceit more than once a month
I refuse to believe there's a real human on the other side of this alias
[quote=Spyromancer]people in this thread all like "wow how can anyone support that"
and yet b4nny hub the only way to play TF2 on Faceit more than once a month[/quote]
I refuse to believe there's a real human on the other side of this alias
MikeMatSpyromancerpeople in this thread all like "wow how can anyone support that"
and yet b4nny hub the only way to play TF2 on Faceit more than once a month
I refuse to believe there's a real human on the other side of this alias
dingdingding!
right now I am merely the embodiment of this tune https://soundcloud.com/dsci4/rymetyme-trace-move-vip-audio-update-clip
[quote=MikeMat][quote=Spyromancer]people in this thread all like "wow how can anyone support that"
and yet b4nny hub the only way to play TF2 on Faceit more than once a month[/quote]
I refuse to believe there's a real human on the other side of this alias[/quote]
dingdingding!
right now I am merely the embodiment of this tune https://soundcloud.com/dsci4/rymetyme-trace-move-vip-audio-update-clip
Spyromancerpeople in this thread all like "wow how can anyone support that"
and yet b4nny hub the only way to play TF2 on Faceit more than once a month
You've gone from irrelevant to incoherent.
Like, even if this thread was somehow about Faceit, you already lost that battle my guy. Move on. Your hub was the TAB Clear to b4nny's Crystal Pepsi, the Phantom Menace to his Empire Strikes Back. The John Harriman to his Jean Luc-Picard.
[quote=Spyromancer]people in this thread all like "wow how can anyone support that"
and yet b4nny hub the only way to play TF2 on Faceit more than once a month[/quote]
You've gone from irrelevant to incoherent.
Like, even if this thread was somehow about Faceit, you already lost that battle my guy. Move on. Your hub was the TAB Clear to b4nny's Crystal Pepsi, the Phantom Menace to his Empire Strikes Back. The John Harriman to his Jean Luc-Picard.
Apparently you can still buy an offshoot of TAB Clear, nice.
Apparently you can still buy an offshoot of TAB Clear, nice.
Not to mention it was first made in WW2, learn something new erryday
Not to mention it was first made in WW2, learn something new erryday
https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2018/06/05/coca-cola-japans-next-innovation-clear-coke.html god damn every day I find a new reason to move to jappen
sageausAlso right now the best of the best players on stat websites are at max hitting 50% winrates (that's with really generous rounding majority are around 30-40%) How can you possibly seriously market an esport when the best players in the game have literally less than a coin flip's chance of coming first place in the main game mode.
The game works really well casually but why does everything need to be pushed as an esport now :(
"The best of the best players" are not playing pub games to get good winrate they are playing pubs simply to have fun or take as many fights as they can to improve at the game even when they are playing like this they can get a decent winrate. The players who are trying to win will very easily get above 70+ winrate for example check the solo leaderboard. These players are not even playing for winrate they are playing for the number of wins. If winrate actually ment anything then all these players will have 90+ winrate and the only games they would lose will be to RNG like getting put into a game with against another good player.
It is also a battle royale game mode it is supposed to be a hard game to win. Which is why it is so popular to play and watch.
[quote=sageaus]
Also right now the best of the best players on stat websites are at max hitting 50% winrates (that's with really generous rounding majority are around 30-40%) How can you possibly seriously market an esport when the best players in the game have literally less than a coin flip's chance of coming first place in the main game mode.
The game works really well casually but why does everything need to be pushed as an esport now :([/quote]
"The best of the best players" are not playing pub games to get good winrate they are playing pubs simply to have fun or take as many fights as they can to improve at the game even when they are playing like this they can get a decent winrate. The players who are trying to win will very easily get above 70+ winrate for example check the [url=https://fortnitetracker.com/leaderboards/pc/Top1?mode=curr_p2]solo leaderboard[/url]. These players are not even playing for winrate they are playing for the number of wins. If winrate actually ment anything then all these players will have 90+ winrate and the only games they would lose will be to RNG like getting put into a game with against another good player.
It is also a battle royale game mode it is supposed to be a hard game to win. Which is why it is so popular to play and watch.
[img]https://i.gyazo.com/36600d2730d2a96352f6ce31af7abbfe.png[/img] massive brain on this guy
Show Content
copperr"The best of the best players" are not playing pub games to get good winrate they are playing pubs simply to have fun or take as many fights as they can to improve at the game even when they are playing like this they can get a decent winrate. The players who are trying to win will very easily get above 70+ winrate for example check the solo leaderboard. These players are not even playing for winrate they are playing for the number of wins. If winrate actually ment anything then all these players will have 90+ winrate and the only games they would lose will be to RNG like getting put into a game with against another good player.
It is also a battle royale game mode it is supposed to be a hard game to win. Which is why it is so popular to play and watch.
If you sort that site by "solo" and "win %", you'll find that win percentages are down to about 70% within the first 10 players, and about 50 within the first 100 and that's disregarding the relatively low number of games played for a lot of players. The season 5 win percentages follow a similar pattern if you cut people below 60 games played (which, based on info I can find about average match lengths for fortnite, should equate to about 20 hours of game time over the past week, which I'm using as an arbitrary baseline for a *moderately* dedicated player). If you sort by total wins you get an even clearer picture, where the most experienced players are generally sitting close to a 55% winrate, skewing below.
The big takeaway here is that the number of players that achieve a win rate greater than 50% is infinitesimally small, considering the size of the Fortnite install base, claiming that players trying to win will "very easily get above 70+ winrate" is simply ignorant. This also speaks to the impact of player skill on the outcome of the game. I couldn't really drill down into that too far without data on in-game deaths, but I'd be willing to say that Fortnite is closer to Yahtzee than it is to chess when it comes to skill indexing.
Additionally, the inherent streamability of battle royale games isn't due to the challenge, it's because there's an inherent narrative structure and tension in "land, grab gear, try to be the last person to die" and the pacing works out in such a way that good streamers have time and freedom to interact with their stream. Not to mention that the time from losing one game to starting another is pretty low, which is beneficial for audience engagement. The big leap is from streaming one player's POV to casting competitive games, which misses a lot of that built-in structure. Not to mention that, as I stated in an earlier post, the type of play that players
should and
will be engaging in if they want to actually win the money that epic is putting up is INCREDIBLY boring to watch.
This post was more effort than it's worth, but whatever
[spoiler][quote=copperr]
"The best of the best players" are not playing pub games to get good winrate they are playing pubs simply to have fun or take as many fights as they can to improve at the game even when they are playing like this they can get a decent winrate. The players who are trying to win will very easily get above 70+ winrate for example check the [url=https://fortnitetracker.com/leaderboards/pc/Top1?mode=curr_p2]solo leaderboard[/url]. These players are not even playing for winrate they are playing for the number of wins. If winrate actually ment anything then all these players will have 90+ winrate and the only games they would lose will be to RNG like getting put into a game with against another good player.
It is also a battle royale game mode it is supposed to be a hard game to win. Which is why it is so popular to play and watch.[/quote]
If you sort that site by "solo" and "win %", you'll find that win percentages are down to about 70% within the first 10 players, and about 50 within the first 100 and that's disregarding the relatively low number of games played for a lot of players. The season 5 win percentages follow a similar pattern if you cut people below 60 games played (which, based on info I can find about average match lengths for fortnite, should equate to about 20 hours of game time over the past week, which I'm using as an arbitrary baseline for a *moderately* dedicated player). If you sort by total wins you get an even clearer picture, where the most experienced players are generally sitting close to a 55% winrate, skewing below.
The big takeaway here is that the number of players that achieve a win rate greater than 50% is infinitesimally small, considering the size of the Fortnite install base, claiming that players trying to win will "very easily get above 70+ winrate" is simply ignorant. This also speaks to the impact of player skill on the outcome of the game. I couldn't really drill down into that too far without data on in-game deaths, but I'd be willing to say that Fortnite is closer to Yahtzee than it is to chess when it comes to skill indexing.
Additionally, the inherent streamability of battle royale games isn't due to the challenge, it's because there's an inherent narrative structure and tension in "land, grab gear, try to be the last person to die" and the pacing works out in such a way that good streamers have time and freedom to interact with their stream. Not to mention that the time from losing one game to starting another is pretty low, which is beneficial for audience engagement. The big leap is from streaming one player's POV to casting competitive games, which misses a lot of that built-in structure. Not to mention that, as I stated in an earlier post, the type of play that players [i]should[/i] and [i]will[/i] be engaging in if they want to actually win the money that epic is putting up is INCREDIBLY boring to watch.[/spoiler]
This post was more effort than it's worth, but whatever
they should patch in a nuke proof suit and put it on the opposite end of the map from the nuke
only spawn it in the storm
they should patch in a nuke proof suit and put it on the opposite end of the map from the nuke
only spawn it in the storm
even if they somehow make players not just hide in shells, fix all the lag and invite good players, you physically cant spectate 100 players at once it will never ever work.
even if they somehow make players not just hide in shells, fix all the lag and invite good players, you physically cant spectate 100 players at once it will never ever work.
AntimoonIf you sort that site by "solo" and "win %", you'll find that win percentages are down to about 70% within the first 10 players, and about 50 within the first 100 and that's disregarding the relatively low number of games played for a lot of players. The season 5 win percentages follow a similar pattern if you cut people below 60 games played (which, based on info I can find about average match lengths for fortnite, should equate to about 20 hours of game time over the past week, which I'm using as an arbitrary baseline for a *moderately* dedicated player). If you sort by total wins you get an even clearer picture, where the most experienced players are generally sitting close to a 55% winrate, skewing below.
The big takeaway here is that the number of players that achieve a win rate greater than 50% is infinitesimally small, considering the size of the Fortnite install base, claiming that players trying to win will "very easily get above 70+ winrate" is simply ignorant. This also speaks to the impact of player skill on the outcome of the game. I couldn't really drill down into that too far without data on in-game deaths, but I'd be willing to say that Fortnite is closer to Yahtzee than it is to chess when it comes to skill indexing.
Yep sorry I was saying talking about the pro players when i said " The players who are trying to win will very easily get above 70+ winrate" and i still stand to my point. Atm most most pro players play pubs to simply improve at the game and most dont care about their stats. Some of the only Pro players who are trying to win all the pub games are the players who are trying to get on the leaderboard so they can gain exposure. Another example is the solo showdown tournament which had prize pool for vbucks all the players in the top 1000 had around 80% winrate.
Still most loss comes down to a mistake which could have been avoided and not by complete chance.
[quote=Antimoon]
If you sort that site by "solo" and "win %", you'll find that win percentages are down to about 70% within the first 10 players, and about 50 within the first 100 and that's disregarding the relatively low number of games played for a lot of players. The season 5 win percentages follow a similar pattern if you cut people below 60 games played (which, based on info I can find about average match lengths for fortnite, should equate to about 20 hours of game time over the past week, which I'm using as an arbitrary baseline for a *moderately* dedicated player). If you sort by total wins you get an even clearer picture, where the most experienced players are generally sitting close to a 55% winrate, skewing below.
The big takeaway here is that the number of players that achieve a win rate greater than 50% is infinitesimally small, considering the size of the Fortnite install base, claiming that players trying to win will "very easily get above 70+ winrate" is simply ignorant. This also speaks to the impact of player skill on the outcome of the game. I couldn't really drill down into that too far without data on in-game deaths, but I'd be willing to say that Fortnite is closer to Yahtzee than it is to chess when it comes to skill indexing.
[/quote]
Yep sorry I was saying talking about the pro players when i said " The players who are trying to win will very easily get above 70+ winrate" and i still stand to my point. Atm most most pro players play pubs to simply improve at the game and most dont care about their stats. Some of the only Pro players who are trying to win all the pub games are the players who are trying to get on the leaderboard so they can gain exposure. Another example is the solo showdown tournament which had prize pool for vbucks all the players in the top 1000 had around 80% winrate.
Still most loss comes down to a mistake which could have been avoided and not by complete chance.
copperrYep sorry I was saying talking about the pro players when i said " The players who are trying to win will very easily get above 70+ winrate" and i still stand to my point. Atm most most pro players play pubs to simply improve at the game and most dont care about their stats. Some of the only Pro players who are trying to win all the pub games are the players who are trying to get on the leaderboard so they can gain exposure. Another example is the solo showdown tournament which had prize pool for vbucks all the players in the top 1000 had around 80% winrate.
Still most loss comes down to a mistake which could have been avoided and not by complete chance.
I don't see much crossover between the top 1000 of the solo showdown and top players in, well, any other metric. The fact that there's virtually no crossover indicates to me that the players who won the solo showdown aren't especially good at winning, per se. I think you may be mistaking getting around 80% of total possible points with winning 80% of games. In fact, you could have gotten to 932nd place while only making it to the top5 of a game. Theoretically, if you got second place 50 times in a row, you could have made it to 37th place without ever winning! The point here is that
skill only does so much for players. More skilled players are definitely going to survive more encounters, but the difference between a win and a top 5 can come down to things like what kind of shield consumable was dropped, or what the rarity of a gun was. Winning the game is frequently going to be out of the player's control by the time the final encounter starts.
The entire format of a battle royale game inevitably results in closer relative levels of skill as the game progresses, weaker players being eliminated sooner. This narrowing of the skill gap only serves to heighten the impact that random elements have on the game
Also, it's worth noting that I don't think that any of this necessarily makes Fortnite a bad game, it just makes it a very poor competitive game.
Unrelated, I'd be interested in any sources you have on the winrate for players who want to win (namely the ones that get 70+) because as far as I can tell, based on the season 5 win% leaderboard, across all platforms, they make up about .00002% of the Fortnite playerbase.
[quote=copperr]
Yep sorry I was saying talking about the pro players when i said " The players who are trying to win will very easily get above 70+ winrate" and i still stand to my point. Atm most most pro players play pubs to simply improve at the game and most dont care about their stats. Some of the only Pro players who are trying to win all the pub games are the players who are trying to get on the leaderboard so they can gain exposure. Another example is the solo showdown tournament which had prize pool for vbucks all the players in the top 1000 had around 80% winrate.
Still most loss comes down to a mistake which could have been avoided and not by complete chance.[/quote]
I don't see much crossover between the top 1000 of the solo showdown and top players in, well, any other metric. The fact that there's virtually no crossover indicates to me that the players who won the solo showdown aren't especially good at winning, per se. I think you may be mistaking getting around 80% of total possible points with winning 80% of games. In fact, you could have gotten to 932nd place while only making it to the top5 of a game. Theoretically, if you got second place 50 times in a row, you could have made it to 37th place without ever winning! The point here is that
skill only does so much for players. More skilled players are definitely going to survive more encounters, but the difference between a win and a top 5 can come down to things like what kind of shield consumable was dropped, or what the rarity of a gun was. Winning the game is frequently going to be out of the player's control by the time the final encounter starts.
The entire format of a battle royale game inevitably results in closer relative levels of skill as the game progresses, weaker players being eliminated sooner. This narrowing of the skill gap only serves to heighten the impact that random elements have on the game
Also, it's worth noting that I don't think that any of this necessarily makes Fortnite a bad game, it just makes it a very poor [u]competitive[/u] game.
Unrelated, I'd be interested in any sources you have on the winrate for players who want to win (namely the ones that get 70+) because as far as I can tell, based on the season 5 win% leaderboard, across all platforms, they make up about .00002% of the Fortnite playerbase.
Realm Royale seems to be using a way better format for their (community hosted, mind) tournaments so far:
Duos, 30 teams, play 10 games.
Uses a score system like golf (less points = better), your duo gets positive points = to their placement at the end of the game and then loses a point for every kill the duo gets.
Encourages aggressiveness to get kills, hella reduces camping, and Realm Royale is a fast enough game that 10 games doesn't take ages regardless.
Realm Royale seems to be using a way better format for their (community hosted, mind) tournaments so far:
Duos, 30 teams, play 10 games.
Uses a score system like golf (less points = better), your duo gets positive points = to their placement at the end of the game and then loses a point for every kill the duo gets.
Encourages aggressiveness to get kills, hella reduces camping, and Realm Royale is a fast enough game that 10 games doesn't take ages regardless.
DarkNecridRealm Royale seems to be using a way better format for their (community hosted, mind) tournaments so far:
Duos, 30 teams, play 10 games.
Uses a score system like golf (less points = better), your duo gets positive points = to their placement at the end of the game and then loses a point for every kill the duo gets.
Encourages aggressiveness to get kills, hella reduces camping, and Realm Royale is a fast enough game that 10 games doesn't take ages regardless.
TSM's Daequan actually suggested something similar to the score system that Realm Royale has currently in a video sometime back about how in pro scrims (if you believe that's a thing), people just camp, farm materials, and wait until the final circle to actually fight because there's no real incentive to kill. What they're trying to get is 1st. And while he talks about how it is in a different patch of the game, the same points that he makes still apply. Even though things like explosives (rockets, C4, hand grenades/grenade launchers, clingers) and LMGs and miniguns to a smaller extent being buffed to be sort of anti-building tools, stopping people from camping in a building, bush, or skybase for the entire match isn't something that's worth using your ammo/explosives/team resources.
Full Video
Start of change discussion
What is suggested
The way the Friday Fortnite events do their system with players is really good and should be adopted universally IMO. You're going against everyone else in the server trying to get the most kills between you and your partner. Whether or not Epic decides to have duos be the ultimate format or 4 man squads is yet to be determined last time I checked. Seemed like they were leaning more towards duos being the main format but things can change. Of course the way that Friday Fortnite does its system has its detriments, since it's played in pub squads games, but that to me seems like the right track for developing a good, long-lasting competitive system.
[quote=DarkNecrid]Realm Royale seems to be using a way better format for their (community hosted, mind) tournaments so far:
Duos, 30 teams, play 10 games.
Uses a score system like golf (less points = better), your duo gets positive points = to their placement at the end of the game and then loses a point for every kill the duo gets.
Encourages aggressiveness to get kills, hella reduces camping, and Realm Royale is a fast enough game that 10 games doesn't take ages regardless.[/quote]
TSM's Daequan actually suggested something similar to the score system that Realm Royale has currently in a video sometime back about how in pro scrims (if you believe that's a thing), people just camp, farm materials, and wait until the final circle to actually fight because there's no real incentive to kill. What they're trying to get is 1st. And while he talks about how it is in a different patch of the game, the same points that he makes still apply. Even though things like explosives (rockets, C4, hand grenades/grenade launchers, clingers) and LMGs and miniguns to a smaller extent being buffed to be sort of anti-building tools, stopping people from camping in a building, bush, or skybase for the entire match isn't something that's worth using your ammo/explosives/team resources.
[url=https://youtu.be/sIuWk-Fw0o0]Full Video[/url]
[url=https://youtu.be/sIuWk-Fw0o0?t=320]Start of change discussion[/url]
[url=https://youtu.be/sIuWk-Fw0o0?t=804]What is suggested[/url]
The way the Friday Fortnite events do their system with players is really good and should be adopted universally IMO. You're going against everyone else in the server trying to get the most kills between you and your partner. Whether or not Epic decides to have duos be the ultimate format or 4 man squads is yet to be determined last time I checked. Seemed like they were leaning more towards duos being the main format but things can change. Of course the way that Friday Fortnite does its system has its detriments, since it's played in pub squads games, but that to me seems like the right track for developing a good, long-lasting competitive system.
New format was revealed for this week's Summer Skirmish. Pro players queue up for pub solo matches and get points for the tournament based on kills and if they win.
https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/summer-skirmish
https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/summer-skirmish-week-2-standings-friday
New format was revealed for this week's Summer Skirmish. Pro players queue up for pub solo matches and get points for the tournament based on kills and if they win.
https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/summer-skirmish
https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/summer-skirmish-week-2-standings-friday
esports on pubs
I'm sorry but this is clearly ridiculous, regardless of whether this game is e-sport ready, that format is pure garbage
esports on pubs
I'm sorry but this is clearly ridiculous, regardless of whether this game is e-sport ready, that format is pure garbage
Pubstomping is now esports boys
Pubstomping is now esports boys
The person who ended up winning the $130,000 1st place prize was actually cheating
https://www.reddit.com/r/FortNiteBR/comments/90ouq3/a_crime_was_committed_yesterday_during_the/
Esports monkaS
The person who ended up winning the $130,000 1st place prize was actually cheating
https://www.reddit.com/r/FortNiteBR/comments/90ouq3/a_crime_was_committed_yesterday_during_the/
Esports monkaS