Hikarikaze wrote:jdc55 wrote:My idea for map selection is as fair as it gets.
And what dictates the order of this map selection? A sniper-oriented team would be at an advantage if games 1 and 2 happened to be snipers and rails maps for example, and vice versa if a different map type was selected. You can try to create the most fair map selection process in the world, but it's a fact that true randomization tends to be the most fair method.jdc55 wrote:This gives a chance for everyone on the team to show their skills in every match and not have to miss out on it because random map types were chosen. This format helps those who are actually good or consistent at all or most map types to have great seeds and not just on a random lucky map draw. It also causes for wide map variety in the league. So teams will be stepping out their comfort zones. Every Game type will have atleast 3 or 4 maps proving the variety of maps this format will have.
Randomization prevents the selection of predictable and popular map picks. This already makes teams step out of their comfort zones and already ensures a wider map variety without any bias in the map selection process.
Proper leagues also follow some sort of randomization in their map selection instead of fully selecting maps manually. OWL randomly draws maps for competitors to play on and those players practice in advance. The only exception I can think of to this is R6S because game modes in R6S aren't as night and day compared to Overwatch or PB2, and some maps aren't considered suitable enough for competitive play, unlike in PB2 where every approved map by technicality is considered suitable enough for ranked/competitive play. Instead, a game like R6S only follows a certain map pool to utilize for their tournaments.jdc55 wrote:So assigning specific random maps each and every match is way too inconcistent for players. And again, it also makes it to where certain players each and every time have to wait for an oppertunity to play. All players on a team should have the oppertunity to play in each and every match.
How is it inconsistent? If maps are randomly selected and players are given a window of time to practice on those maps, then that'll mean that players did have an opportunity to play on those maps and at least learn them, giving them more of a chance to compete properly.
jdc55 wrote:What you aren't understanding is what I'm arguing against. That is below
PL Format
Best of 3
Game 1: Random Game Type
Game 2: Random Game Type
Game 3: Random Game Type
It's way too random and brings no type of consistency.
jdc55 wrote:This way everyone on a team wether they specialize in any game type has the oppertuninty to play every week and not have to wait. It closes a gap because all teams would have to work on all game types.
jdc55 wrote:It's way too random and brings no type of consistency. Also makes countless players not able to play every single week. Teams should be able to use their players to their maximun capacity each and every match.
jdc55 wrote:And Idk if you even know what that means, but it's the most balanced system. It takes every team out of their comfort zone, makes them focus on Maps and game types they don't specialize in and gives all players equal oppertunity to play in a match.
Hikarikaze wrote:jdc55 wrote:What you aren't understanding is what I'm arguing against. That is below
PL Format
Best of 3
Game 1: Random Game Type
Game 2: Random Game Type
Game 3: Random Game Type
It's way too random and brings no type of consistency.
You're equating map selection to game type selection. That's not what I'm arguing for.
I'll give you an example. Say game 1 happens to be a sniper map. Rather than you or anyone else picking something like stryde-sniper, the selection is picked at random. This eliminates bias in map selection and offers more map variety because the chance of selecting a different map that is also not as used is higher. An unfamiliar map will also force players to step out of their comfort zone and learn a brand new map. There's no better way to showcase a consistent skill level than to have players across different maps, especially those that players aren't accustomed to entirely. It also makes the entire competition more interesting because it's technically something new to see.jdc55 wrote:This way everyone on a team wether they specialize in any game type has the oppertuninty to play every week and not have to wait. It closes a gap because all teams would have to work on all game types.
First of all, why would you have specialized teams to begin with? This is an inherently flawed design. If you read my initial post, then you would know that specialized teams only belong in specialized competitions. Specialized teams will inevitably be out of place in an area not within their expertise and thus be at a disadvantage. Allowing team owners to run these kinds of team compositions when the overall competition is beyond what a team specializes in is a terrible decision to make.
You can't focus on the "core 5" modes, then allow teams that only focus on one of those modes in as well, and also want all of the players to have a fair opportunity to succeed and play as well.jdc55 wrote:It's way too random and brings no type of consistency. Also makes countless players not able to play every single week. Teams should be able to use their players to their maximun capacity each and every match.
What's so hard to understand about announcing randomly selected maps (or game types even) ahead of time and giving players time to practice so they can play on those maps or game types? Explain to me how countless players would be unable to play if randomization was a thing unless you happened to announce what was upcoming at a very inconvenient time. Give me some scenarios where that would realistically happen so I can better understand this, because that right there sounds silly.
Claiming that randomness will bring inconsistency is also a redundant point, because of course randomness will be inconsistent. This is the whole nature of randomness. Even the slightest glance of consistency brought by a random system would be just that: random. You say that "it'll be too random and also inconsistent" but you don't really explain how that's such an issue. If matches are every week, then announce the next selection right after the match and give players that following week to prepare and practice for the next match. Where's the issue in operating that way?jdc55 wrote:And Idk if you even know what that means, but it's the most balanced system. It takes every team out of their comfort zone, makes them focus on Maps and game types they don't specialize in and gives all players equal oppertunity to play in a match.
You can't theoretically have specialized teams then if you'll eventually force them to learn game types outside of their expertise. That makes those teams less specialized and more well-rounded. I said before allowing specialized teams was a flawed design, but this just eliminates the reason to even have specialized teams: eventually, those teams will not be specialized towards one game type anymore. It seems like your league is flawed on multiple levels, from team composition allowance to map selection in general, but this is to be expected when you try to make a competitive scene out of a game that's not competitive at all.
Hikarikaze wrote:jdc55 wrote:What you aren't understanding is what I'm arguing against. That is below
PL Format
Best of 3
Game 1: Random Game Type
Game 2: Random Game Type
Game 3: Random Game Type
It's way too random and brings no type of consistency.
You're equating map selection to game type selection. That's not what I'm arguing for.
I'll give you an example. Say game 1 happens to be a sniper map. Rather than you or anyone else picking something like stryde-sniper, the selection is picked at random. This eliminates bias in map selection and offers more map variety because the chance of selecting a different map that is also not as used is higher. An unfamiliar map will also force players to step out of their comfort zone and learn a brand new map. There's no better way to showcase a consistent skill level than to have players across different maps, especially those that players aren't accustomed to entirely. It also makes the entire competition more interesting because it's technically something new to see.
jdc55 wrote:I feel like this is going way over your head. Every team is going to have flaws and have game types and maps they aren't particularly good at. I'm not saying teams should specialize in certain maps, I'm saying that all teams aren't going to be perfect and are not going to be perfectly well rounded.
jdc55 wrote:But game types shouldn't be random. Maps should only be random only within the game type category. What I'm arguing against is, randomness on the bigger scale. what PL did was throw game type categories out the window, and just made every single map random no matter the game type. That's what I'm arguing against. Maps should only be randomized within Game type categories. It should only be Best of 5, so every match focuses on all core 5 game types. So there's still team going out their comfort zone when playing.
jdc55 wrote:And I don't think you understand how teams are formed in PL. I'm pretty sure they aren't going to let you choose anyone like in PWL. There's most likely going to be a draft.
jdc55 wrote:So even if you try to well round your team, other teams are going to pick players you are trying to focus on. So making a well rounded team isn't going to be easy at all. And so for this reason is why teams have to work on game types they don't specialize in, or in other words, "not good at".
Lance Ryder Wilson wrote:For some reason, I don't think this game can't be active and fun, like it was fun before.
Let me state some reasons, why I don't like this game:
1: Immaturity has reached a new level.
2: Game Masters have become extremely abusive.
3: Staff barely check reports.
4: Most of the maps are very bad nowadays.
5: Immature map titles.
6: This extreme vendetta of hate from PB2 active users towards me for me being a complete annoying troll person ages ago. I literally got banned in the wiki server, before I even entered it.
Let me state some reasons, why I still play this game:
1: There maybe immature players, but that doesn't mean it is everywhere.
2: Playing some old maps are still fun.
3: ALE is improved.
Let me state some stuff, that can improve this game:
1: Clans, we really need them, since unofficial clans are becoming overpopulated.
2: More things in ALE like decorations, vehicles, etc.
3: Events.
4: Staff plays.
5: Lenient rules.
6: Player Points should be removed.
7: If you fall and die, it should not count as a death.
8: Melee weapons like crowbar, shovel, axe, hammer, etc. should be added.
Hikarikaze wrote:jdc55 wrote:I feel like this is going way over your head. Every team is going to have flaws and have game types and maps they aren't particularly good at. I'm not saying teams should specialize in certain maps, I'm saying that all teams aren't going to be perfect and are not going to be perfectly well rounded.
It feels like what I said went over your head, not the other way around. The point isn't to create a completely balanced team. The point is that you can't allow a team that specializes in a few areas and also complain that every player should have a fair/equal opportunity to play, when the entire competition itself extends beyond that specialty. That's a natural disadvantage for that team in those cases and contradicts what you want.
When you know very well that a competition is going to be more than something like snipers, why would anyone in their right mind ever focus on having a team comprised of mostly sniper pros and why would anyone even think that's a proper team composition not worth pointing out against? This is a fault that falls on both the person that organized the team roster and the people that allowed that team composition in.
If this competition were to be, say, 6v6 for example and there are 4-5 game modes, you most likely will want 1-2 players for each game mode on one team, not 3-4 players for one game mode and 1-2 for the rest.jdc55 wrote:But game types shouldn't be random. Maps should only be random only within the game type category. What I'm arguing against is, randomness on the bigger scale. what PL did was throw game type categories out the window, and just made every single map random no matter the game type. That's what I'm arguing against. Maps should only be randomized within Game type categories. It should only be Best of 5, so every match focuses on all core 5 game types. So there's still team going out their comfort zone when playing.
Did you miss the part where I asked you how this was a problem? Because you keep dancing around this point without giving me any explanation as to how randomization is an issue. I even asked you to give me realistic scenarios because the way you explain it implies it was an issue of some degree before in the past. Why should I consider this a valid point? Just because you keep saying this doesn't mean it's a proper argument.jdc55 wrote:And I don't think you understand how teams are formed in PL. I'm pretty sure they aren't going to let you choose anyone like in PWL. There's most likely going to be a draft.
You don't even sound sure about how team formation works yourself. "Most likely" doesn't necessarily mean that's how things will be.jdc55 wrote:So even if you try to well round your team, other teams are going to pick players you are trying to focus on. So making a well rounded team isn't going to be easy at all. And so for this reason is why teams have to work on game types they don't specialize in, or in other words, "not good at".
This is a double sided issue. When players don't want to expand their skill set, you will end up with specialized players only to choose from. Choosing them will inevitably make your team a specialized team.
The main reason a team will be difficult to make well-rounded at first is usually because players themselves are not well-rounded. But if they compete in game modes that they don't excel in, they become more well-rounded over time due to being accustomed to those modes. This makes making a well-rounded team easier next time around and makes specialized teams less likely to appear. Your claim that making a well rounded team isn't going to be easy at all will eventually become false on this premise.
jdc55 wrote:Ok what are you even talking about now? I'm going off of how the Plazma League system was on recruiting players. I'm not talking about revamping the whole league.
jdc55 wrote:Idc if there's a draft or not.
jdc55 wrote:I really don't know where your getting all this "Specialized teams" from. I never said teams are going to be "specialized".
jdc55 wrote:I said teams will specialize in certain game modes no matter how you recruit. That's inevitable.
jdc55 wrote:And this is where you misunderstood. I never said team owners are going to be focusing on certain game types.
jdc55 wrote:When you do Best of 3 and Randomize maps no matter the game type, It brings no type of consistency. Wanna know why? Because we'll have a huge variety of maps.
jdc55 wrote:I didn't say why because all PL Players and people who were involved already knows this.
jdc55 wrote:Basically every single match will be different and unpredictable.
jdc55 wrote:It also makes it to where certain players aren't able to play. The players who aren't good at these maps have to sit out by Owners decision. And if the next week of maps are randomized, who the hell knows? The same type of maps may even be drawn again, and they'd have to sit out again.
Hikarikaze wrote:Explain to me how countless players would be unable to play if randomization was a thing unless you happened to announce what was upcoming at a very inconvenient time. Give me some scenarios where that would realistically happen so I can better understand this, because that right there sounds silly.
jdc55 wrote:It does not matter how the team is formed, everyone will have a strong suite no matter how teams are made.
jdc55 wrote:With my Best of 5, All Core 5 Format, everyone will have a opportunity to play in every match. and the maps will be more consistent and predictable, making it easier for teams to work on the game types they are weak in.
jdc55 wrote:The draft...PL has always been like this and no one has a problem with it. So I doubt they'll throw it out the window.
jdc55 wrote:WOW MAN! You really think so? -_-
jdc55 wrote:And randomized map types still shouldn't be a thing. The whole league should focus on all Core 5. Every match needs to be Core 5. That's the whole competitive side of PB2 into every single match. All Core 5. And not some half ass Best of 3 Randomizer.
Hikarikaze wrote:jdc55 wrote:Ok what are you even talking about now? I'm going off of how the Plazma League system was on recruiting players. I'm not talking about revamping the whole league.
Ah, so everything I say did go over your head because I was speaking on the premise of improving whatever scraps you call "PL/PWL/etc" like, you know, the original topic asked for. You're telling me now that you were going after a straw man this whole time?jdc55 wrote:Idc if there's a draft or not.
This is a very informative opinion with a lot of substance to it.jdc55 wrote:I really don't know where your getting all this "Specialized teams" from. I never said teams are going to be "specialized".
You literally just said it afterwards:jdc55 wrote:I said teams will specialize in certain game modes no matter how you recruit. That's inevitable.
I didn't make this notion up out of thin air. The first person in this debate to mention the word "specialized" was you. I only responded based on the words you wrote yourself.
Also no, teams don't have to specialize in certain game modes if the players themselves are not specialized. This is basic knowledge. I'm not sure how much more simpler I have to explain that making a "specialized team" perform in areas outside of that team's expertise will eventually make them less specialized so no, teams at a certain point after competing for a certain amount of time will no longer become specialized.jdc55 wrote:And this is where you misunderstood. I never said team owners are going to be focusing on certain game types.
Who said that you said that? Because I definitely didn't say that. Are you sure you know exactly what you're responding to? It sounds like you're going to attack another straw man.jdc55 wrote:When you do Best of 3 and Randomize maps no matter the game type, It brings no type of consistency. Wanna know why? Because we'll have a huge variety of maps.
Again, how is this a problem? This is the third time I asked you and you still offer no explanation.
Variety is a good thing. It has ramifications that exist outside of your league too, such as more approved maps being exposed out to general competitive play. So again, for the fourth time, what is the problem with randomization? If it gives a huge variety, then what's so bad about it?jdc55 wrote:I didn't say why because all PL Players and people who were involved already knows this.
What a garbage excuse. I'm not a PL player and I'm not involved, therefore I don't know it. Why do you think I'm asking you if not for the reason that I don't know prior to asking?jdc55 wrote:Basically every single match will be different and unpredictable.
And this is a bad thing? This is a competition of skill; unpredictability is a constant in every match all of the time. This is why prediction and reading the game properly is a skill in itself. What skills are you testing with this competition besides the general game knowledge of aiming and shooting at people with different weapons? That can always be done outside the league.jdc55 wrote:It also makes it to where certain players aren't able to play. The players who aren't good at these maps have to sit out by Owners decision. And if the next week of maps are randomized, who the hell knows? The same type of maps may even be drawn again, and they'd have to sit out again.
Man, you really can't read. I asked you to explain how countless players wouldn't be able to play. There is nothing barring players from playing, even on maps those players aren't good in. A team owner's decision is separate; that can be brought about in any match, but there's nothing inherent that blocks people off from playing in randomization. I even asked for examples so more light would be shed and the issue you keep implying exists would be better understood. Do you need a refresher? Or do you want me to translate this in a language you understand?
This is what I literally asked you to do:Hikarikaze wrote:Explain to me how countless players would be unable to play if randomization was a thing unless you happened to announce what was upcoming at a very inconvenient time. Give me some scenarios where that would realistically happen so I can better understand this, because that right there sounds silly.
That isn't rocket science. Instead you go ahead and repeat the same thing you've been saying to me ad infinitum that I've been requesting an explanation for in order to get clarity on that side of the debate. The fact you still haven't managed to back up that claim tells me that this point isn't valid and thus I'm not going to believe that point to be true regardless of how many times you write it out in your half-baked responses until you do back it up.jdc55 wrote:It does not matter how the team is formed, everyone will have a strong suite no matter how teams are made.
Yes, it literally does. In any game with roles in it, team composition does matter. That's why there are roles, and the composition of the team is what gives those roles value. Even in games with no set in stone roles like CoD, professional teams create roles of their own to formulate their strategy around (flankers, direct pushes, etc)
Look back to my OW example a few posts back: a team of all supports. Against a proper team, that team has a smaller chance of winning because of that team composition alone. These are equally skilled players on both teams. If team composition really doesn't matter, then the support team should be able to win just as easily, but they don't.
Similarly, if you have a team where a majority excels in sniper maps, how can you expect that team to do well in a game type like arena? You can't, because that majority's skill doesn't encompass that map type and their current skill set isn't as compatible with this game mode. If team composition really didn't matter, a snipers-majority team would easily be able to crush an arena-majority team and the chances of winning for either team would be closer to 50/50, but realistically, this isn't the case. Explain to me why that is.jdc55 wrote:With my Best of 5, All Core 5 Format, everyone will have a opportunity to play in every match. and the maps will be more consistent and predictable, making it easier for teams to work on the game types they are weak in.
It's funny how you can easily boast about the positives of your "system," but lock up in place when you can't properly explain how things end up or operate without this system in place. The things you compliment your own system over are possible solutions to problems, yet you can't even describe the problems this solves.jdc55 wrote:The draft...PL has always been like this and no one has a problem with it. So I doubt they'll throw it out the window.
Just because people are fine with something doesn't mean that thing isn't flawed or improper.jdc55 wrote:WOW MAN! You really think so? -_-
What is this even a response to? loljdc55 wrote:And randomized map types still shouldn't be a thing. The whole league should focus on all Core 5. Every match needs to be Core 5. That's the whole competitive side of PB2 into every single match. All Core 5. And not some half ass Best of 3 Randomizer.
Translation: I'm going to keep repeating this same thing over and over again because it's clearly true.
Based off what I read from you, I'd be really concerned if you had anything at all to do with anything competitive in this game, especially from an organizational standpoint. To me, you don't seem qualified in the slightest to handle it. Just my 2 cents.
jdc55 wrote:Because every single match it focuses on different parts of the competitive side of the game. And it shouldn't be that way at all.
jdc55 wrote:Doing this is like turning CGSO eSports into pistol only and occasionally adding a buy system.
jdc55 wrote:This is like basketball but the first 5 games, you don't have to dribble.
jdc55 wrote:If you think Snipers should come up twice in a best of 3, then you most definitely yourself aren't qualified to even give your 2 cents.
jdc55 wrote:How is this bad you say? Because it doesn't focus on Core 5 map types. Every match should be Core 5 map types.
jdc55 wrote:I'm speaking to Tempus about this flawed system, because he was in the PL chat as a mod.
jdc55 wrote:It doesn't do a Half ass Best of 3 consisted of 3 random maps out of 13 maps.
jdc55 wrote:"I don't seem qualified". Sir with this system we had exactly 6 Successful events with top players and clans involved.
jdc55 wrote:I focus on all map types every match to balance the league out.
jdc55 wrote:Because it doesn't focus on Core 5 map types.
jdc55 wrote:Because it doesn't focus on Core 5 map types.
jdc55 wrote:Because it doesn't focus on Core 5 map types.
jdc55 wrote:Let's be real people, How many people would specialize in Rockets out of any team in Plazma League. I'd say up to 1.. Maybe 2. I also feel that Rockets isn't really a competitive weapon. I don't mind rockets being added to a mix, like in Warfare or Arena, But a Rockets only map is a no.
jdc55 wrote:My system was the best system.
Hikarikaze wrote:jdc55 wrote:Because every single match it focuses on different parts of the competitive side of the game. And it shouldn't be that way at all.
Yes, it should. There is a reason those different parts exist. If there's no focus or attention directed to the "different parts," what's the point in having them? You can't have a coin and only focus on one side of it when there's another side you can also focus on.
This is a competition of skill, again, so the competition should focus on the various parts of the game that require different skills to succeed in.jdc55 wrote:Doing this is like turning CGSO eSports into pistol only and occasionally adding a buy system.
This is a terrible example, because weapons are a core component of CSGO. You're arguing against random maps and game types, so use an example from CSGO relating to that.
And seriously, you're really going to compare an actual competitive game like CSGO to a game where the word "competitive" has no meaning? In CSGO, every map can be used for general competitive play and every weapon is viable enough to kill someone because every weapon uses the same general skill set plus or minus a few extra skills associated with specific weapons. Every player has a chance to win equally because there's only one gameplay skill curve, which is universal across the entire game.jdc55 wrote:This is like basketball but the first 5 games, you don't have to dribble.
Interesting example, considering professional competitions don't change intrinsic and grounded rules in a game on a major scale.
You're not arguing this properly. You're now equating random map/type selection to random rule allowances now. This would actually be like playing on random courts each match, and for random game types, it'd be like playing a normal game first, and then playing up to 21 the next. Again, basketball has only one general skill set that's universal across the game types it has, but that's because those other game variants (key word being variants) are built around the rules of basketball, the same way the different map types are built around the core gameplay of PB2.
However, the major problem with PB2 is that there's a plethora of maps that focus on specific parts of that core skill set, so this "universal" skill set ends up being divided into different, random pieces in every map. There's no single skill set you can easily apply to in any map, and thus you can't compare this game to anything like CSGO or even basketball, because those two latter games don't divide up their skill sets randomly across different portions of the game. Everything stays simple and universal, even across different game types because again, those game types are variants that don't exist to turn those games into something entirely different. With PB2, you can make it seem like a different game with an entirely different skill set attached to it.jdc55 wrote:If you think Snipers should come up twice in a best of 3, then you most definitely yourself aren't qualified to even give your 2 cents.
Nope, I don't think that at all nor did I ever say selections should come up more than once in a row. I appreciate the random assumption however.
Duplicated selections can simply be fixed by randomly selecting a mode again until a duplicate isn't selected. That's not rocket science. Perhaps you haven't played an actual competitive game before, but I have, so clearly I have experience and knowledge in what I'm talking about. The fact you're not really understanding my point of view shows you don't have knowledge on proper competitive formats and systems.jdc55 wrote:How is this bad you say? Because it doesn't focus on Core 5 map types. Every match should be Core 5 map types.
I'm seeing you throw this term around a lot. Who are you to decide what the 5 main game modes are in this game? Because according to this game, the only main modes are DM, cooperative, and TDM, by technicality.
"How is this bad, you say? [insert repeated claim here]"
See anything wrong with this explanation?jdc55 wrote:I'm speaking to Tempus about this flawed system, because he was in the PL chat as a mod.
Alright, and I'm speaking to you now because the topic wanted suggestions and I gave them before you entered this conversation.jdc55 wrote:It doesn't do a Half ass Best of 3 consisted of 3 random maps out of 13 maps.
Who said it had to be "best of 3?" lol
I don't even have to write anything because you keep on automatically arguing against words nobody but you have said so far. Sounds like you're just yelling at yourself nowjdc55 wrote:"I don't seem qualified". Sir with this system we had exactly 6 Successful events with top players and clans involved.
I could care less. Your track record isn't going to change my opinion of you. You still sound unqualified and your responses just make yourself look worse. Sorry you can't seem to handle an opinion though loljdc55 wrote:I focus on all map types every match to balance the league out.jdc55 wrote:Because it doesn't focus on Core 5 map types.jdc55 wrote:Because it doesn't focus on Core 5 map types.jdc55 wrote:Because it doesn't focus on Core 5 map types.
Could you say that again? Because this game has way more than 5 "map types." Now you're just contradicting yourself. Remember this little quote you made?jdc55 wrote:Let's be real people, How many people would specialize in Rockets out of any team in Plazma League. I'd say up to 1.. Maybe 2. I also feel that Rockets isn't really a competitive weapon. I don't mind rockets being added to a mix, like in Warfare or Arena, But a Rockets only map is a no.
You say you focus on all map types yet outright refuse to include a map type in. Sure doesn't sound like focusing on all map types to me.jdc55 wrote:My system was the best system.
Arrogance: 100
And that's another reason not to take you seriously. Hopefully you realize my low opinion of you is made by none other than you on my behalf.
Oh, and since it's very obvious you know next to nothing on competitive games and competitive leagues in general, a big reason competitive leagues in other games tend to exist is because those games tend to literally be competitive. PB2 isn't competitive in the slightest when it comes to ranking and sorting "player skill." Just nailing the word "competitive" on like you do doesn't make it competitive and you'd have to be naive as ever to even believe PB2's current state will allow a proper competitive league to flourish up to its full potential when it can't even allow a proper ranking system to exist.
Now next time you want to respond still, make sure you respond to each individual part piece by piece rather than lazily quoting my entire post. Maybe I will take you an undecillionth of a percent seriously at best.
jdc55 wrote:[...]
Hikarikaze wrote:Now next time you want to respond still, make sure you respond to each individual part piece by piece rather than lazily quoting my entire post. Maybe I will take you an undecillionth of a percent seriously at best.
jdc55 wrote:Why should I realize your low opinion on me? My system worked best. My events were successful.
jdc55 wrote:You're the one who should realize my low opinion on you. Someone who hasn't been in any form present in the competitive community.
Hikarikaze wrote:I'm a person that gives you the ground to be a competitor in.
jdc55 wrote:You literally have a system that people don't complain about vs a system people constantly complain about. Even that reason alone is enough to tell which one would work out best.
Hikarikaze wrote:Just because people are fine with something doesn't mean that thing isn't flawed or improper.
jdc55 wrote:How can you argue that a system to where all map types are played in each match [Which allows equal opportunity for everyone to play] is worse than a complained about and obviously flawed system?
jdc55 wrote:Lmfao. I'm sorry but you don't even know what I mean by "Map types". Never did I say a Map type is "COOP, TDM".
Hikarikaze wrote:Who are you to decide what the 5 main game modes are in this game? Because according to this game, the only main modes are DM, cooperative, and TDM, by technicality.
jdc55 wrote:And you should care for my track record.
jdc55 wrote:I'm sorry but please don't act like you know how to run a Competitive league, when you have 0 idea what your talking about.
jdc55 wrote:You obviously aren't fit to even put your 2 cents in what is good and what is bad for competitive. You have 0 experience, and I have all the experience anyone has ever had.
jdc55 wrote:So tell me, am I still unfit?
jdc55 wrote:Now please stop arguing because your obviously an amateur who's trying to sound smart, yet you know literally nothing about PB2 Competitive.
Hikarikaze wrote:Who said it had to be "best of 3?" lol
Hikarikaze wrote:Duplicated selections can simply be fixed by randomly selecting a mode again until a duplicate isn't selected
Hikarikaze wrote:"How is this bad, you say? [insert repeated claim here]"
Hikarikaze wrote:I love conversing with people like you that think they know everything there is just because they had one success.
Hikarikaze wrote:Where do you see the term "map type" anywhere? I see the phrase "game mode" but not what you're seeing.
Hikarikaze wrote:By this logic, my constant "complaining," if you can call it that, means your current system is garbage
Hikarikaze wrote:That same post history says you aren't even original because you at one point suggest to copy and paste a CoD gamemode entirely. You wonder why I have a low opinion of you; this topic is just the icing on the cake for me.
Hikarikaze wrote:Yep. Forget unfit, "incompetent" would be a compliment for you.
Hikarikaze wrote:Ah yes, the classic argumentum ad populum fallacy, where it's assumed that something is proper or correct just because people accept it.
Hikarikaze wrote:because I'm not that insecure to constantly bring up all of the things I've done
Hikarikaze wrote:Oh, and I'm just playing, jdc55. You know I love you kappa
jdc55 wrote:Put those 2 things together, and what do you have? My system.
jdc55 wrote:I'm actually in tears. It's kinda as if I'm watching my child grow up and finally understand life. But also as if my child still doesn't acknowledge his father.
jdc55 wrote:You just came up with the same system I've literally been proposing this whole time. I think you need to go back and reread everything I just said and compare it what what you just said above. Then come back at me again.
jdc55 wrote:I think you need to go back and reread everything I just said and compare it what what you just said above. Then come back at me again.
jdc55 wrote:I mean, if you ask me.. It's a pretty good claim. Don't blame me because some people don't listen.
jdc55 wrote:One Success? Make that 6.
jdc55 wrote:I mean well, I never said anything about Game modes sir.. Idk where you even got that from. You may wanna reread all my post.
jdc55 wrote:Lol, Wow this comment aged well.. Really well.
jdc55 wrote:Oh that uplink thing? Oh that was just all fun and games. I'm a big fan of Cod though. Best FPS Franchise.
jdc55 wrote:Lol 6 successful events would say otherwise.
jdc55 wrote:I mean yea.. Gotta make the players happy don't you? Otherwise you'll end up like PB2 Champions League.
jdc55 wrote:Idk man, I felt like I had to because you don't seem know a lot of things man. I thought bringing it up would make you realize, I know what I'm talking about. But ig being arrogance isn't the answer for brick walls. That's my fault.
Hikarikaze wrote:Wait a minute, you were arguing against this. That scenario would still have the randomization you yourself didn't want. So does that mean you're arguing for the same thing you're arguing against? lol
jdc55 wrote:I also don't think it's balanced for a League to randomly pick out maps when it comes to a Match.. In PWL we did Best of 5 to 8. All 5 games consisted of all Competitive game modes.
jdc55 wrote:all Competitive game modes
Hikarikaze wrote:Who said it had to be "best of 3?" lol
Hikarikaze wrote:Duplicated selections can simply be fixed by randomly selecting a mode again until a duplicate isn't selected
jdc55 wrote:MATCH
Best of 5
Game 1: Snipers
Game 2: Arena
Game 3: Rails
Game 4: Warfare
Game 5: Rays
Every game has a specific game type with multiple maps within them.
Hikarikaze wrote:What you're saying is that you now suddenly agree with my side which is contradictory to your entire argument.
Hikarikaze wrote:Your argument isn't good so your claim isn't very valid.
Hikarikaze wrote:And adding a winking emote at the end just solidifies my point that you're clueless
jdc55 wrote:Amateur hour at it's finest
jdc55 wrote:So you telling me, that best of 5, where every match is chosen "Randomly", but two map types don't come out twice isn't my system? When It's Map type cap is 5.. aka (I Gotta say it again) Core 5. And also known asjdc55 wrote:all Competitive game modes
jdc55 wrote:And also, sorry for my error here. When I said "Game Modes", I meant Map types. Back in old PWL everyone use to refer to Map types as Game modes, since no one actually cared for the actual game modes.. But anyone who has been apart of the Competitive league scene would know exactly what I'm talking about. It's just that I had to switch my vocabulary up with you and say "Map types".
jdc55 wrote:what PL did was throw game type categories out the window, and just made every single map random no matter the game type.
jdc55 wrote:Lol, Literally the only difference is, the Map types won't be random. They'd be set in order, then shuffled throughout the weeks of the season, to give everyone fair play time.
jdc55 wrote:Hikarikaze wrote:What you're saying is that you now suddenly agree with my side which is contradictory to your entire argument.
In no way shape or form am I contradicting myself, or agreeing with you. You're the one who is agreeing with me, and you don't even know it. I don't think you fully even understood how my system even worked. Because if you did, then you'd know that they're exactly the same thing, just with a slight difference.
jdc55 wrote:Hikarikaze wrote:Your argument isn't good so your claim isn't very valid.
I don't see how you can say this man. I mean.. You did agree with me didn't you?
Hikarikaze wrote:There's more than five "map types," some of which can be competitive enough if done right. Just because you can only see five types doesn't mean there are in actuality five.
Hikarikaze wrote:In the previous statement I quoted from you, you imply that game types and map types are separate on one hand, then go around and equate the two to be the same.
Hikarikaze wrote:If map types and game types are the literal same, then this statement makes zero sense because if duplications aren't allowed in selection and a "game type" can't occur twice in a row, then this is quite literally the system you keep arguing for, yet you used this as a counterargument against me. So again, like I said, you're arguing against the thing you're arguing for simultaneously.
Hikarikaze wrote:If there is a slight difference, it's not exactly the same thing. You don't understand how equivalency works.
Hikarikaze wrote:and now you're agreeing on the same thing I've been arguing against.
jdc55 wrote:You can argue that Rockets is competitive, but adding rockets would be completely useless seeing that nobody really plays it on a competitive level. The most popular rockets map, that MOST Rockets players play, is Nyove-rockets.
jdc55 wrote:What? What are you talking about? Never did I say I agreed with PL's system. I'm against it. I was just telling you what PL was doing wrong. Geeezzz man. So you're just going to put words in my mouth?
jdc55 wrote:The only difference is, I'm not randomizing it. I'm inserting them specifically to satisfy all players needs and play time. That's the only difference. You're basically for my system, except you want it to be Randomized.
jdc55 wrote:And when you say things like "Who says it has to be best of 3?", that implies you're Pro-Best Of 5.
Hikarikaze wrote:This is yet another straw man you're arguing with. I never mentioned rocket maps to begin with, so why are you going off on a tangent to argue against rocket maps specifically now?
Hikarikaze wrote:There's more than five "map types," some of which can be competitive enough if done right. Just because you can only see five types doesn't mean there are in actuality five.
Hikarikaze wrote:I'm not putting words in your mouth; I'm telling you what the words coming out of your mouth mean in terms of logical sense and the argument at hand. The only one putting words in others' mouths is you here.
Hikarikaze wrote:If it's randomized, it's not "your system" because your system isn't randomized, so I'm not arguing for your system. Again, you need to understand how equivalency works. Two things are not the same if there is at least one difference among them to separate them from each other.
Hikarikaze wrote:I never mentioned I was pro-"best of 5" or "best of 3"
Return to Feedback and Insights
Users browsing this forum: No registered users