I didn't read all the posts but I'll put in my two cents even though I didn't keep track of the tournament this year. I think some improvements have been made, but it's a work in progress. One idea might be to not allow defenses to be moved once in place. This would prevent anyone from removing any to allow for easy caps.
If you don't want people to help each other outside of your corpmates then you'd have to eliminate the ability to use contractors, and no hailing of any sort or trading.This stops the ability to give money, resources, defenses, with the exception of corpmates. I don't know how you could make it more fair for everyone playing.
I didn't like playing extended rebangs for the same reason. I never thought it was right for the winner to already be decided before the game had been played. It takes no skill to win if the playing field is uneven. If you earn the win then it should be yours, plain and simple. No one wants to work hard and end up with nothing.
2011 Champ
Moderators: Moleman, Kwijibo, Luna
-
CrazyChef
- 2010 Starport Champion
- Posts: 1350
- Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 11:44 pm
- Location: stuck at warp
Re: 2011 Champ
Luna there is no balance in this game and hasnt been in a long time. The token whores that Toonces has promoted on regular servers is a testimate to that! That said, Champs has always been a team effort, and I believe that strategy, "elbow rubbing" and looking at the " big picture" is all part of the game. Building and invading are the core of this game, but making allies and having friends help you is also part of it. Happy New Year!
Re: 2011 Champ
The starport championships are a reflection of starport the game we play throughout the year, it is a co-op and due to the free to play element, an inherently unbalanced game.
Complaining about the championships or extended bangs being decided before they commence is just a complaint that should be directed at the game as a whole.
However, who wants to play a restrictive game? Arent the best moments in starport when people come together as a team against a common foe?
The crux of the matter is that people see the championships as a way of representing who are the best solo players, but this is inherently not a solo game.
We can do 2 things, create a Starport Solo championships, no trading of planets, cash etc, fixed defs once put in place etc etc
Another way to fight this feeling of the game being decided in advance would be for other players to create their own team with a designated winner (like cycling teams), people underestimate that it is a true multiplayer skill to be held in such regard that players are willing to give of their time with no "material" reward.
To complain about the current format as being flawed is IMHO incorrect, it perfectly reflects the nature of starport.
However, if the community puts forward a solo champs request then thats perfectly reasonable.
What I do find distasteful is the way people slag the winners and their teams and try to cheapen their combined efforts, especially if they havent taken part in the game.
Happy new year
MJS
Complaining about the championships or extended bangs being decided before they commence is just a complaint that should be directed at the game as a whole.
However, who wants to play a restrictive game? Arent the best moments in starport when people come together as a team against a common foe?
The crux of the matter is that people see the championships as a way of representing who are the best solo players, but this is inherently not a solo game.
We can do 2 things, create a Starport Solo championships, no trading of planets, cash etc, fixed defs once put in place etc etc
Another way to fight this feeling of the game being decided in advance would be for other players to create their own team with a designated winner (like cycling teams), people underestimate that it is a true multiplayer skill to be held in such regard that players are willing to give of their time with no "material" reward.
To complain about the current format as being flawed is IMHO incorrect, it perfectly reflects the nature of starport.
However, if the community puts forward a solo champs request then thats perfectly reasonable.
What I do find distasteful is the way people slag the winners and their teams and try to cheapen their combined efforts, especially if they havent taken part in the game.
Happy new year
MJS
Re: 2011 Champ
p.s.
If a solo champs is implemented, the top 10 would be all experienced players such as Kuka, ChicoX, CC, D-Tox, myself, Mat, Viper etc
You have to understand that the key multiplayer element is the best way that a relatively inexperienced group of players can achieve
some relative amount of success in the Champs format or any non-perma server.
Form a team, its what u do in perma
MJS
Toonces, design a championship entrants only ship. That will encourage people to play,
If a solo champs is implemented, the top 10 would be all experienced players such as Kuka, ChicoX, CC, D-Tox, myself, Mat, Viper etc
You have to understand that the key multiplayer element is the best way that a relatively inexperienced group of players can achieve
some relative amount of success in the Champs format or any non-perma server.
Form a team, its what u do in perma
MJS
Toonces, design a championship entrants only ship. That will encourage people to play,
-
WeGotDeathStar
- Posts: 918
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 3:45 am
- Location: Mr.Angry's House Drinking His Beer Watching Captain Kangaroo Re-runs
Re: 2011 Champ
What Luna is trying to say is if a solo player works their butt off during the champs that the outcome should not be influenced by a "Team" of players that made a decision as to who will Gold and Silver cup that year. I agree with this %100 and you do not need to have a "Team" to do well on champs, if you have enough time and skill a player can obtain a cup with relative ease. Perfect example is Darth.Invader this year. He entered and did the deed by himself thus securing a 7th place finish. not bad for a first timer.
The current dynamics of the game allow for "Team" play to dominate the top 5 positions of the champs, nothing wrong with that but I feel and many others do think that the Champs should be a reflection of individual skills not to be decided by 4-5 players at the beginning of the Champs. Different strokes for different folks it seems. Nothing wrong with both views either. The exp patch was a great addition to rebangs and champs. Keeps players from coming in and "Buying" a cup the last day of Champs. This was never fair to the solo players that worked hard only to have the work put in erased by a last minute PK changing the Top 10 rankings of a Champs or rebang. As far as this exp system being used on permas, I really think the idea is flawed and should not have been implemented, it makes PK's irrelevant. Basically whoever got a head start in rankings can never be passed with the corp having no fear of dying/losing exp. Good example of this is on Golden Age. Phase of Pwnsauce got popped, he has 325 million exp and the guy that PK'ed him got 2 million exp. A true kick in the face and killing players in top corps used to be a game changer. Now it is a regular occurrence and does not influence rankings like it once did. It wasn't broke and did not need fixing. But all the high exp players got what they wanted, a free pass to do as they please on permas instead of a calculated approach deciding if dying was worth the potential reward there are zero repercussions when a player dies.
Question is how can next years Champs be more about individual skill and less "Team" play? Maybe a separate "Solo" Champs could be introduced alongside the traditional Champ system currently in place. While some feel the merits of a "Team" of individuals should be favored what about the Solo players that want to play Champs. Where does this leave them? It shouldn't be a popularity contest that decides a winner and a loser. Many solo players have the skills and talent to beat a "Team" of players. Why not level the playing field a bit and let the best individual player win.
The current dynamics of the game allow for "Team" play to dominate the top 5 positions of the champs, nothing wrong with that but I feel and many others do think that the Champs should be a reflection of individual skills not to be decided by 4-5 players at the beginning of the Champs. Different strokes for different folks it seems. Nothing wrong with both views either. The exp patch was a great addition to rebangs and champs. Keeps players from coming in and "Buying" a cup the last day of Champs. This was never fair to the solo players that worked hard only to have the work put in erased by a last minute PK changing the Top 10 rankings of a Champs or rebang. As far as this exp system being used on permas, I really think the idea is flawed and should not have been implemented, it makes PK's irrelevant. Basically whoever got a head start in rankings can never be passed with the corp having no fear of dying/losing exp. Good example of this is on Golden Age. Phase of Pwnsauce got popped, he has 325 million exp and the guy that PK'ed him got 2 million exp. A true kick in the face and killing players in top corps used to be a game changer. Now it is a regular occurrence and does not influence rankings like it once did. It wasn't broke and did not need fixing. But all the high exp players got what they wanted, a free pass to do as they please on permas instead of a calculated approach deciding if dying was worth the potential reward there are zero repercussions when a player dies.
Question is how can next years Champs be more about individual skill and less "Team" play? Maybe a separate "Solo" Champs could be introduced alongside the traditional Champ system currently in place. While some feel the merits of a "Team" of individuals should be favored what about the Solo players that want to play Champs. Where does this leave them? It shouldn't be a popularity contest that decides a winner and a loser. Many solo players have the skills and talent to beat a "Team" of players. Why not level the playing field a bit and let the best individual player win.
Re: 2011 Champ
WeGotDeathStar wrote:What Luna is trying to say is if a solo player works their butt off during the champs that the outcome should not be influenced by a "Team" of players that made a decision as to who will Gold and Silver cup that year. I agree with this %100 and you do not need to have a "Team" to do well on champs, if you have enough time and skill a player can obtain a cup with relative ease. Perfect example is Darth.Invader this year. He entered and did the deed by himself thus securing a 7th place finish. not bad for a first timer.
The current dynamics of the game allow for "Team" play to dominate the top 5 positions of the champs, nothing wrong with that but I feel and many others do think that the Champs should be a reflection of individual skills not to be decided by 4-5 players at the beginning of the Champs. Different strokes for different folks it seems. Nothing wrong with both views either. The exp patch was a great addition to rebangs and champs. Keeps players from coming in and "Buying" a cup the last day of Champs. This was never fair to the solo players that worked hard only to have the work put in erased by a last minute PK changing the Top 10 rankings of a Champs or rebang. As far as this exp system being used on permas, I really think the idea is flawed and should not have been implemented, it makes PK's irrelevant. Basically whoever got a head start in rankings can never be passed with the corp having no fear of dying/losing exp. Good example of this is on Golden Age. Phase of Pwnsauce got popped, he has 325 million exp and the guy that PK'ed him got 2 million exp. A true kick in the face and killing players in top corps used to be a game changer. Now it is a regular occurrence and does not influence rankings like it once did. It wasn't broke and did not need fixing. But all the high exp players got what they wanted, a free pass to do as they please on permas instead of a calculated approach deciding if dying was worth the potential reward there are zero repercussions when a player dies.
Question is how can next years Champs be more about individual skill and less "Team" play? Maybe a separate "Solo" Champs could be introduced alongside the traditional Champ system currently in place. While some feel the merits of a "Team" of individuals should be favored what about the Solo players that want to play Champs. Where does this leave them? It shouldn't be a popularity contest that decides a winner and a loser. Many solo players have the skills and talent to beat a "Team" of players. Why not level the playing field a bit and let the best individual player win.
There should be a teams champs and a solo champs for both categories then.
Re: 2011 Champ
It wasn't my intention to lessen anyones achievement or win on Champs. Teamwork is WORK, whether you do it solo or you organize helpers in your cause. I'm only stating that Champs has become more of a specialized team of steller individuals that combine forces to win. The best of the best against everyone else in easier terms. I'd just like to see it a bit more balanced to show actual skill rather than the ability to get a massive effort of friends together. I've benefited from playing that role before but it's not as fufulling.
We all have friends and people we've played with that most could ask for help for Champs. It would be more refreshing to see it be an actual free for all of building, invading and space fights. I know I wouldn't be suited for most of this type of game play, but it does give a certain feeling of achievement if you could win by your own merits, rather than it ending up being a personality contest of who has the most skilled friends.
I've played Champs as a "helper" many times so I can see both sides. Most times I knew I didn't stand a chance of winning against skilled players, so I settled into the sidekick role and helped haul defenses, found others players planets and provided recon. I think a good idea might be to entertain the idea of team awards rather than individual. The "team" gets the same equal reward divided. This would make it where everyone in a corp has the same gain and shares in the reward and title. Would that be a step in the right direction or do people actually need to be recognized as the "king/queen of the hill?"
We all have friends and people we've played with that most could ask for help for Champs. It would be more refreshing to see it be an actual free for all of building, invading and space fights. I know I wouldn't be suited for most of this type of game play, but it does give a certain feeling of achievement if you could win by your own merits, rather than it ending up being a personality contest of who has the most skilled friends.
I've played Champs as a "helper" many times so I can see both sides. Most times I knew I didn't stand a chance of winning against skilled players, so I settled into the sidekick role and helped haul defenses, found others players planets and provided recon. I think a good idea might be to entertain the idea of team awards rather than individual. The "team" gets the same equal reward divided. This would make it where everyone in a corp has the same gain and shares in the reward and title. Would that be a step in the right direction or do people actually need to be recognized as the "king/queen of the hill?"
Re: 2011 Champ
A tag team champs would be a good solution then. You have to register as a two player corp within the first 24 hrs and that corp is locked in for the entire game, no personalising cols etc.
No contracting or trading of planets etc.
Solo champs is too anti- starport, but a locked in 2 player corp champs would still reflect the team working, co-op element that the game is based on.
The rankings would be corp only and the Corp members would recieve the same trophy based on the corp standings.
This would still enable teams to have a chance of invading and not turn the PK champs into a semi-pax game.
I would also disable the ability to source pop from sol/earth....as happens in pax.
Anyway Im off to play Skyrim for a few months - have fun
MJS
No contracting or trading of planets etc.
Solo champs is too anti- starport, but a locked in 2 player corp champs would still reflect the team working, co-op element that the game is based on.
The rankings would be corp only and the Corp members would recieve the same trophy based on the corp standings.
This would still enable teams to have a chance of invading and not turn the PK champs into a semi-pax game.
I would also disable the ability to source pop from sol/earth....as happens in pax.
Anyway Im off to play Skyrim for a few months - have fun
MJS
-
M2-Destroyer
- Posts: 1381
- Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:27 pm
- Location: The Bonny, Bonny Banks of Loch Lomond!
- Contact:
Re: 2011 Champ
Skyrim!
Haha - Good few days game time in and i STILL feel like i have an eternity to go! Greatest value for money game that i've ever bought Here's to a fellow Skyrimonian
Haha - Good few days game time in and i STILL feel like i have an eternity to go! Greatest value for money game that i've ever bought
Here's to a fellow Skyrimonian 
Re: 2011 Champ
Just because there are teams doesn't mean that the winner isn't the best competitor.
But two different champs seems like a neat idea, so long as they take place at different times.
But two different champs seems like a neat idea, so long as they take place at different times.
-
Saber-Fury
- 2011 Pax Champion
- Posts: 933
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 2:40 pm
Re: 2011 Champ
solo champs sounds good but along with the normal champs that'd be 4 games (solo and team for pax and pk), so they'd need to be appropriately spaced. perhaps 2 in the summer and 2 around thanksgiving as usual.
a solo champs is definitely the best way to determine who is the best. I agree champs should be about skill and tactics more so than getting help. That being said:
-The settings the in the solo champs will almost surely have some sort of loophole or need tweaking and changes; they should be tested on a temporary server a few months before the actual champs.
-The talk of people who were solo being 'screwed' out of first place is inaccurate. As KUKA pointed out to me, all of the winners in the history of the champs are people you would expect to have a good chance to win anyway if it was a 'solo' game. The day has not come when a bunch of noobs working together has gotten someone gold. "hardworking but single people getting screwed out of first" does not happen on a yearly basis - it's prevalence is minimal at best. Those who suggest it is a common occurrence are correct in the potential for it to happen, but wrong in the frequency of it occurring. This may be because only established players play champs anyway and only a few people who haven't played before try each year, but the fact remains that there aren't, and never really were, little guys getting screwed out of a better finish. It's not like one group dominates the champs each year either - there's usually 2-3 of them competing to get their guy the win.
-It should be noted that if champs were a solo game, anyone who got beaten by someone with helpers might be even further behind. Let's look to an example from this year, one that has been used to argue against the gold going to a team -Darth.Invader (or something like that), aka Copler, placed 7th in pk. (good job btw) However, literally half the people who were actively playing were helpers for D-tox or chico.x. No one from chico's team placed (unless you count viper, who only helped a little at the end), and only kuka and cc placed on tox's team. So literally half the people were invading, fighting, and without any colonies which = little exp, all because they were not playing for themselves. But if it was a solo champs, people would all be playing for themselves and you'd have at least 10 people that wouldn't have been helping anyone and would have been playing for themselves, just of the people who helped others this year. The people helping tox and chico (all of dogzilla, poon3s, altair, myself, kuka, cc, etc) are AT LEAST capable of bronzing in a solo game. And, not trying to diminish anyone who placed this year in champs, but as has been noted by players other than myself - the exp amounts this year, save for tox and chico, were just pitiful. You could get a silver with under 300k; last year you needed at least 400k. You could bronze with a meager 130k - last year was 200k. If more people had played for themselves, a lot of the bottom bronze would not have placed, and some of the silvers would have been bronzes.
In summary, in a solo game, yea, you might place higher because someone doesn't have help, but you could also place much much lower, as everyone will be playing for themselves. The latter seems to have been forgotten; people seem to take for granted that the solo 'darkhorses' of the typical champs would fair better automatically in a solo game, when in reality they would be both helped and hurt.
a solo champs is definitely the best way to determine who is the best. I agree champs should be about skill and tactics more so than getting help. That being said:
-The settings the in the solo champs will almost surely have some sort of loophole or need tweaking and changes; they should be tested on a temporary server a few months before the actual champs.
-The talk of people who were solo being 'screwed' out of first place is inaccurate. As KUKA pointed out to me, all of the winners in the history of the champs are people you would expect to have a good chance to win anyway if it was a 'solo' game. The day has not come when a bunch of noobs working together has gotten someone gold. "hardworking but single people getting screwed out of first" does not happen on a yearly basis - it's prevalence is minimal at best. Those who suggest it is a common occurrence are correct in the potential for it to happen, but wrong in the frequency of it occurring. This may be because only established players play champs anyway and only a few people who haven't played before try each year, but the fact remains that there aren't, and never really were, little guys getting screwed out of a better finish. It's not like one group dominates the champs each year either - there's usually 2-3 of them competing to get their guy the win.
-It should be noted that if champs were a solo game, anyone who got beaten by someone with helpers might be even further behind. Let's look to an example from this year, one that has been used to argue against the gold going to a team -Darth.Invader (or something like that), aka Copler, placed 7th in pk. (good job btw) However, literally half the people who were actively playing were helpers for D-tox or chico.x. No one from chico's team placed (unless you count viper, who only helped a little at the end), and only kuka and cc placed on tox's team. So literally half the people were invading, fighting, and without any colonies which = little exp, all because they were not playing for themselves. But if it was a solo champs, people would all be playing for themselves and you'd have at least 10 people that wouldn't have been helping anyone and would have been playing for themselves, just of the people who helped others this year. The people helping tox and chico (all of dogzilla, poon3s, altair, myself, kuka, cc, etc) are AT LEAST capable of bronzing in a solo game. And, not trying to diminish anyone who placed this year in champs, but as has been noted by players other than myself - the exp amounts this year, save for tox and chico, were just pitiful. You could get a silver with under 300k; last year you needed at least 400k. You could bronze with a meager 130k - last year was 200k. If more people had played for themselves, a lot of the bottom bronze would not have placed, and some of the silvers would have been bronzes.
In summary, in a solo game, yea, you might place higher because someone doesn't have help, but you could also place much much lower, as everyone will be playing for themselves. The latter seems to have been forgotten; people seem to take for granted that the solo 'darkhorses' of the typical champs would fair better automatically in a solo game, when in reality they would be both helped and hurt.
-
CrazyGardenGnome
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 2:55 am
- Location: Sol IIIa
Re: 2011 Champ
agreed, but I also agree with Luna. If you make one mistake, you shouldn't lose 6 months of work/exp. The old system encouraged inactivity once you got high exp.WeGotDeathStar wrote:Basically whoever got a head start in rankings can never be passed with the corp having no fear of dying/losing exp. Good example of this is on Golden Age. Phase of Pwnsauce got popped, he has 325 million exp and the guy that PK'ed him got 2 million exp. A true kick in the face and killing players in top corps used to be a game changer. Now it is a regular occurrence and does not influence rankings like it once did.
If you die invading, you should only loose 100k or 2% or whatever. If you're PK'd you should loose up to 25% exp, perhaps proportional to the amount of damage the other person did, eg, if the player was outnumbered and it was an unfair fight then you would get less exp (for permas).
-
WeGotDeathStar
- Posts: 918
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 3:45 am
- Location: Mr.Angry's House Drinking His Beer Watching Captain Kangaroo Re-runs
Re: 2011 Champ
WeGotDeathStar wrote:What Luna is trying to say is if a solo player works their butt off during the champs that the outcome should not be influenced by a "Team" of players that made a decision as to who will Gold and Silver cup that year. I agree with this %100 and you do not need to have a "Team" to do well on champs, if you have enough time and skill a player can obtain a cup with relative ease. Perfect example is Darth.Invader this year. He entered and did the deed by himself thus securing a 7th place finish. not bad for a first timer.
The current dynamics of the game allow for "Team" play to dominate the top 5 positions of the champs, nothing wrong with that but I feel and many others do think that the Champs should be a reflection of individual skills not to be decided by 4-5 players at the beginning of the Champs. Different strokes for different folks it seems. Nothing wrong with both views either. The exp patch was a great addition to rebangs and champs. Keeps players from coming in and "Buying" a cup the last day of Champs. This was never fair to the solo players that worked hard only to have the work put in erased by a last minute PK changing the Top 10 rankings of a Champs or rebang. As far as this exp system being used on permas, I really think the idea is flawed and should not have been implemented, it makes PK's irrelevant. Basically whoever got a head start in rankings can never be passed with the corp having no fear of dying/losing exp. Good example of this is on Golden Age. Phase of Pwnsauce got popped, he has 325 million exp and the guy that PK'ed him got 2 million exp. A true kick in the face and killing players in top corps used to be a game changer. Now it is a regular occurrence and does not influence rankings like it once did. It wasn't broke and did not need fixing. But all the high exp players got what they wanted, a free pass to do as they please on permas instead of a calculated approach deciding if dying was worth the potential reward there are zero repercussions when a player dies.
Question is how can next years Champs be more about individual skill and less "Team" play? Maybe a separate "Solo" Champs could be introduced alongside the traditional Champ system currently in place. While some feel the merits of a "Team" of individuals should be favored what about the Solo players that want to play Champs. Where does this leave them? It shouldn't be a popularity contest that decides a winner and a loser. Many solo players have the skills and talent to beat a "Team" of players. Why not level the playing field a bit and let the best individual player win.
Mel'Kaven wrote:There should be a teams champs and a solo champs for both categories then.
Thats what I said already mel,
Anyways none of this is meant to detract from anybodys winning of the Champs. it is meant to help the next Champs become more skill based instead of how many people you know. Every year it's the same exact group "Teaming" to play Champs. Who will win is decided before the end of Champs. Anyone else sick of seeing this? I'm sure there are enough "Noobie" teams that could win the Champs but it boils down to how many people will help you. The players that have been dominating the Champs are the ones that pay players tokens to help them build/invade, buy other players followers with tokens, etc. Buying an advantage does not make you a better player it only means you have deep pockets.
As far as a solo Champs I would like to see some sort criteria put into place before a player enters the Champs. Something along the line of having minimum 2k achievement points would be a good start, this would prevent multi's and new accounts from influencing the Champ outcome. I don't think that a next door neighbor or such of a player should be allowed to create a new character and enter the Champs to help the above mentioned player. Toonces already has this system in place with the token trading so it wouldn't be hard to do. Keeping the Champs a level playing field would a solo win more rewarding.
I have written this on the basis of a PK Champs not a PAX Champs as I do not have the experience playing any PAX games so if I have missed any changes that may also be relevant to a PAX game please correct me.
PS @ Saber, I only mentioned Darth.Invader because he is a player that does not have any real rebang experience. So if a player that doesn't know the in's and outs of rebangs could place in the Top Ten I consider this a good thing. I do not know Coplers stats when it comes to rebangs, if he has a similar backround then he deserves a congrats as well.
-
WeGotDeathStar
- Posts: 918
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 3:45 am
- Location: Mr.Angry's House Drinking His Beer Watching Captain Kangaroo Re-runs
Re: 2011 Champ
I compare Starports Champs to this analogy......
Lets say you have two people that are entered into a contest, for example a car show.
Contestant 1: Spent 500 Hours rebuilding a car with blood sweat and tears all put into it. A car that before hand was something that should have been put into a junkyard. The person that rebuilt it has many individual skills that all allowed him/her to complete their task. A person that could do body work, do engine work, is creative enough to make parts needed to restore this car. This person did ALL OF THE WORK himself
Contestant 2: This person has deep pockets and goes out and buys the exact same car already restored and enters it into the same exact car show. this person did not do a single thing to restore this car, all he did was buy it. Or Contestant 2 pays someone to restore the same car with the intentions of entering it into the car show. Basically both scenario's of Contestant 2 are the same, end result is he/she PAYED SOMEONE ELSE TO DO ALL OF THE WORK and did not do any of it themselves.
At the end of the car show the cars mentioned above are judged, Contestant 2 wins. In reality the 2 cars are exactly the same, the question is how did they both end up that way? Who really deserved to win at the end of this competition.
My opinion is as such, I feel that the creative work of ONE person outweighs the TEAM aspect of another person at the end of certain competitions. Starport Champs being one of them.
A SOLO Championship should be created to put all these issues to bed.
Lets say you have two people that are entered into a contest, for example a car show.
Contestant 1: Spent 500 Hours rebuilding a car with blood sweat and tears all put into it. A car that before hand was something that should have been put into a junkyard. The person that rebuilt it has many individual skills that all allowed him/her to complete their task. A person that could do body work, do engine work, is creative enough to make parts needed to restore this car. This person did ALL OF THE WORK himself
Contestant 2: This person has deep pockets and goes out and buys the exact same car already restored and enters it into the same exact car show. this person did not do a single thing to restore this car, all he did was buy it. Or Contestant 2 pays someone to restore the same car with the intentions of entering it into the car show. Basically both scenario's of Contestant 2 are the same, end result is he/she PAYED SOMEONE ELSE TO DO ALL OF THE WORK and did not do any of it themselves.
At the end of the car show the cars mentioned above are judged, Contestant 2 wins. In reality the 2 cars are exactly the same, the question is how did they both end up that way? Who really deserved to win at the end of this competition.
My opinion is as such, I feel that the creative work of ONE person outweighs the TEAM aspect of another person at the end of certain competitions. Starport Champs being one of them.
A SOLO Championship should be created to put all these issues to bed.
-
JuliusCaesar
- Posts: 1581
- Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 9:23 pm
- Location: Middle of nj, usa
Re: 2011 Champ
There is no honor in starport people! HOW MANY TIMES DO I NEED TO SAY IT?!
.
.
Re: 2011 Champ
I know! I as agreeing!WeGotDeathStar wrote:WeGotDeathStar wrote:Question is how can next years Champs be more about individual skill and less "Team" play? Maybe a separate "Solo" Champs could be introduced alongside the traditional Champ system currently in place. While some feel the merits of a "Team" of individuals should be favored what about the Solo players that want to play Champs. Where does this leave them? It shouldn't be a popularity contest that decides a winner and a loser. Many solo players have the skills and talent to beat a "Team" of players. Why not level the playing field a bit and let the best individual player win.Mel'Kaven wrote:There should be a teams champs and a solo champs for both categories then.
Thats what I said already mel,
/salute
(:
Re: 2011 Champ
Champs is the facebook of SGE. Just more time consuming.
-
Saber-Fury
- 2011 Pax Champion
- Posts: 933
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 2:40 pm
Re: 2011 Champ
kango.. champs has never been won by someone who buys their way in.
your car analogy is not really what happens in terms of contestant 2. Contestant 2 would be the same as contestant 1 except he would have his friends helping him build the car. He would be as proficient as contestant one. He would do a lot of the work himself, and direct his friends when he was taking a break. The end result would not be the exact same car, but a superior one than contestant 1's. Contestant 1 would still have a car of excellent quality, and if contestant 2 did not have his friends helping him, contestant 1 may have won, or he might not have anyway.
I pointed this out in my post - you don't seem to realize that the "token-paying" thing doesn't happen regularly. It's a reasonable possibility to assume, and it makes sense to think it might happen - but the bottom line is it rarely does, if at all, and has never had a major affect on the game. If token helpers have ever decided champs, it was once, a long time ago. (And that's a big if so I'd like someone who's played a lot of them to confirm/deny that)
two things that need clarification:
1. the helpers on the winning teams choose to help their guy. they do not get paid - at most, they might have their entrance tourney paid for... and they still wouldn't profit from that. this is why it is a group of established corps and friends who usually win. There has never been a guy who just paid a bunch of random people lots of tokens to help him in champs who has won. This year for example it was Dogzilla vs D-Tox and some of his friends. I can speak for tox's side - no one got paid a cent, and the people who helped him are guys he's known, played with, and is friends with. And Dogzilla are all longtime friends and corpies.. no token helpers there
2. the guy being helped doesn't just sit around doing nothing. In all honesty I have no idea why anyone would think that, or have any reason to believe that's the case. I watched tox play a great game on his own - he built, traded, and killed npcs using superb planning and tactics. Chico likewise was impressive.
here's another interesting stat from this year - only 2 players ended up with over 100k followers - tox and chico. The rest, from 3rd place down, were under 100k followers. 100k followers is not hard to solo build on a 15 day bang. Tox and chico, the contenders for gold, are perfectly capable of building 100k on their own, probably more. my point - if it was solo game, you'd still have those guys on top.
anyone good enough to challenge the people with all the help.. is probably one of the people helping them. the only people capable of contending with the gold winners have been in the demographic of the people who choose to help them - thus they are not being screwed out of anything as it is their choice to help someone. rank 3 and under of this years champs are not being screwed by the teams at the top, because based on the numerous stats I've documented, Chico and Tox could of outpaced (at least this years field) on their own. Everyone who could of contended with them was helping them.
I think we definitely can agree that a solo champs is at least needed alongside the traditional team champs, and that individual players, not teams, should be competing for the title "starport champion"
seriously though, documentation of the token-paying winners you mention is necessary. tbh kango, it seems like what you are saying is all theoretical - you have no references, and have the same views as I had before I played champs. Now don't get me wrong they are not illogical theories - far from it - they're well thought out deductions - but this is a case where theory is not reality. I believe this is your first champs. This is my second year, thought I have played pax as well. I have seen no token paying and no players winning who couldn't have prevailed in a solo game anyway. All of them have been deserving. You and I haven't played in the older champs, we've only heard the rumors. So if an older players wants to correct me on anything feel free - if there's some token whore who one or something please correct me.
In your first year, you think that these champs were decided by people buying helpers, and/or letting others do all the work for them? You must not have been paying much attention dude.
I know your ideas because I once shared them not too long ago. I'd heard that champs was a popularity contest won by lazy lumps who begged or paid for people to build, fight, and invade for them. Then I actually played one. All the myths evaporated and I could see the simple truth - all the winners had deserved it. No skilless noobs or token whores won. You had to have friends, yes - but you also had to be good. I saw how people played, how the game went down, what techniques/strategies were used etc - and the people who won always had impeccable tactics.
I don't believe the starport champion should be decided by who has the most friends - but no one has ever won it simply because they were popular - they were skilled players who had a lot of friends. As i've stated - I agree a solo champs would be the most definitive - thought one could also argue that this is a team game anyway and that even if you are popular and get a lot of help, you earned it (that's another matter though and I don't even agree with it entirely) Though all the starport champions may of had help, the team game still produces deserving winners, and they happen to be people who would be very competitive in a solo game as well - so let's have one! When a token whore, or toolish, skillless noob with tons of friends wins champs, only then will an SGE Champion not have deserved it.
your car analogy is not really what happens in terms of contestant 2. Contestant 2 would be the same as contestant 1 except he would have his friends helping him build the car. He would be as proficient as contestant one. He would do a lot of the work himself, and direct his friends when he was taking a break. The end result would not be the exact same car, but a superior one than contestant 1's. Contestant 1 would still have a car of excellent quality, and if contestant 2 did not have his friends helping him, contestant 1 may have won, or he might not have anyway.
I pointed this out in my post - you don't seem to realize that the "token-paying" thing doesn't happen regularly. It's a reasonable possibility to assume, and it makes sense to think it might happen - but the bottom line is it rarely does, if at all, and has never had a major affect on the game. If token helpers have ever decided champs, it was once, a long time ago. (And that's a big if so I'd like someone who's played a lot of them to confirm/deny that)
two things that need clarification:
1. the helpers on the winning teams choose to help their guy. they do not get paid - at most, they might have their entrance tourney paid for... and they still wouldn't profit from that. this is why it is a group of established corps and friends who usually win. There has never been a guy who just paid a bunch of random people lots of tokens to help him in champs who has won. This year for example it was Dogzilla vs D-Tox and some of his friends. I can speak for tox's side - no one got paid a cent, and the people who helped him are guys he's known, played with, and is friends with. And Dogzilla are all longtime friends and corpies.. no token helpers there
2. the guy being helped doesn't just sit around doing nothing. In all honesty I have no idea why anyone would think that, or have any reason to believe that's the case. I watched tox play a great game on his own - he built, traded, and killed npcs using superb planning and tactics. Chico likewise was impressive.
here's another interesting stat from this year - only 2 players ended up with over 100k followers - tox and chico. The rest, from 3rd place down, were under 100k followers. 100k followers is not hard to solo build on a 15 day bang. Tox and chico, the contenders for gold, are perfectly capable of building 100k on their own, probably more. my point - if it was solo game, you'd still have those guys on top.
anyone good enough to challenge the people with all the help.. is probably one of the people helping them. the only people capable of contending with the gold winners have been in the demographic of the people who choose to help them - thus they are not being screwed out of anything as it is their choice to help someone. rank 3 and under of this years champs are not being screwed by the teams at the top, because based on the numerous stats I've documented, Chico and Tox could of outpaced (at least this years field) on their own. Everyone who could of contended with them was helping them.
I think we definitely can agree that a solo champs is at least needed alongside the traditional team champs, and that individual players, not teams, should be competing for the title "starport champion"
seriously though, documentation of the token-paying winners you mention is necessary. tbh kango, it seems like what you are saying is all theoretical - you have no references, and have the same views as I had before I played champs. Now don't get me wrong they are not illogical theories - far from it - they're well thought out deductions - but this is a case where theory is not reality. I believe this is your first champs. This is my second year, thought I have played pax as well. I have seen no token paying and no players winning who couldn't have prevailed in a solo game anyway. All of them have been deserving. You and I haven't played in the older champs, we've only heard the rumors. So if an older players wants to correct me on anything feel free - if there's some token whore who one or something please correct me.
In your first year, you think that these champs were decided by people buying helpers, and/or letting others do all the work for them? You must not have been paying much attention dude.
I know your ideas because I once shared them not too long ago. I'd heard that champs was a popularity contest won by lazy lumps who begged or paid for people to build, fight, and invade for them. Then I actually played one. All the myths evaporated and I could see the simple truth - all the winners had deserved it. No skilless noobs or token whores won. You had to have friends, yes - but you also had to be good. I saw how people played, how the game went down, what techniques/strategies were used etc - and the people who won always had impeccable tactics.
I don't believe the starport champion should be decided by who has the most friends - but no one has ever won it simply because they were popular - they were skilled players who had a lot of friends. As i've stated - I agree a solo champs would be the most definitive - thought one could also argue that this is a team game anyway and that even if you are popular and get a lot of help, you earned it (that's another matter though and I don't even agree with it entirely) Though all the starport champions may of had help, the team game still produces deserving winners, and they happen to be people who would be very competitive in a solo game as well - so let's have one! When a token whore, or toolish, skillless noob with tons of friends wins champs, only then will an SGE Champion not have deserved it.
-
WeGotDeathStar
- Posts: 918
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 3:45 am
- Location: Mr.Angry's House Drinking His Beer Watching Captain Kangaroo Re-runs
Re: 2011 Champ
Let me clarify, I am not saying that everyone that enters Champs does the things described but I do know that certain player bought his followers on one of the Champs this year.And it has also happened on many other occasions as well. Does this not support the consensus that players buy their places in the Top ten rankings by doing this?
Also think of all the Big Bangs and IGH's that people came in out of nowhere, killed someone in the top ten for a easy bronze cup. Broken Monkey ring a bell? Based on what has been done on all the other rebangs and extended rebangs it is not hard to expect the same kind of behavior on Champs. How many people got burned out of a Top 10 finish because of this. People making multis to get around the fuel restriction is another example, many others as well
I'll admit that I have not followed every single Champs played but I do know it's the same people every single year that win. It would appear that chico and tox have their teams accordingly and one year tox's team decides who will place highest along with chico's team.
If this kind of gameplay is going to continue then it is time to rename Champs what it really is,
Starport GE Annual: I Have More Tokens And Helpers Then You Championships or Starport GE Annual: I Bought My Followers Championships.
Also think of all the Big Bangs and IGH's that people came in out of nowhere, killed someone in the top ten for a easy bronze cup. Broken Monkey ring a bell? Based on what has been done on all the other rebangs and extended rebangs it is not hard to expect the same kind of behavior on Champs. How many people got burned out of a Top 10 finish because of this. People making multis to get around the fuel restriction is another example, many others as well
I'll admit that I have not followed every single Champs played but I do know it's the same people every single year that win. It would appear that chico and tox have their teams accordingly and one year tox's team decides who will place highest along with chico's team.
If this kind of gameplay is going to continue then it is time to rename Champs what it really is,
Starport GE Annual: I Have More Tokens And Helpers Then You Championships or Starport GE Annual: I Bought My Followers Championships.
Re: 2011 Champ
The people complaining about the format of the champs don't really seem to get it, in KUKA's opinion.
The winner was decided in advance? Really? In 2011 KUKA's pretty sure Chico had decided he would be winner, and that D-Tox decided he'd try to win this year too. There are others who had gold ambitions. The year before, CC and Chico and Mat and Thorin had decided to try to win. Every year lots of people "decide" it - but only one actually does.
As for "teams", the winning team has at most 4 or 5 helpers. Of those helpers, only maybe half are very active and/or experienced. Is that really SO hard to overcome? If you play for a year on a perma and have 3 good corpies, you should be able to compete with the best of them.
People are making a big deal of what is really not a huge imbalance. Every year the biggest imbalances have to do with exploits or bugs - not the strucure of the game or teams. No-one gained any measure of advantage from capping cols that had defs removed (as it sounds like Luna was suggesting) - to KUKA's knowledge no-one did that this year. There was no giving of deaths. This was purely team versus team, and we're not talking about big teams.
And to an earlier point, Starport is a corp-based game. This whole "should measure solo skills" thing is like saying they should find a way to somehow make the Superbowl just quarterback versus quarterback. There is no part of Starport that is just about who the best individual player is on any other server, yet there are rankings. Did Luna get the most xp on her perma because she was the "best player", or because she coordinated the best team of support? This solo talk is a sideshow - the only reason to delude yourself into thinking this is a reason "you can't win" is because you don't have the confidence you can get the support of 2-4 solid players - hardly a herculian feat.
From what KUKA can see, the biggest reason people don't seem to compete is all in their heads. Asking people about why they don't play, they say "I'm not ready for that". Why not? If u've played and won a single rebang, you're ready. Detach your ego and just see what you can do. It's stunning how many good players just don't want to put their egos on the line and give it a shot, win or lose. It's a ton of fun, it's hardly as imbalanced as token-dripping permas and rebangs, and it's even pretty easy to get a bronze - with many good players dedicated to helping their "horse in the race", there are a lot of places in the top 10 that go unclaimed and could be won with relatively little effort. KUKA's seen people work harder for a silver on a regular rebang than it would take them to bronze in the champs.
The winner was decided in advance? Really? In 2011 KUKA's pretty sure Chico had decided he would be winner, and that D-Tox decided he'd try to win this year too. There are others who had gold ambitions. The year before, CC and Chico and Mat and Thorin had decided to try to win. Every year lots of people "decide" it - but only one actually does.
As for "teams", the winning team has at most 4 or 5 helpers. Of those helpers, only maybe half are very active and/or experienced. Is that really SO hard to overcome? If you play for a year on a perma and have 3 good corpies, you should be able to compete with the best of them.
People are making a big deal of what is really not a huge imbalance. Every year the biggest imbalances have to do with exploits or bugs - not the strucure of the game or teams. No-one gained any measure of advantage from capping cols that had defs removed (as it sounds like Luna was suggesting) - to KUKA's knowledge no-one did that this year. There was no giving of deaths. This was purely team versus team, and we're not talking about big teams.
And to an earlier point, Starport is a corp-based game. This whole "should measure solo skills" thing is like saying they should find a way to somehow make the Superbowl just quarterback versus quarterback. There is no part of Starport that is just about who the best individual player is on any other server, yet there are rankings. Did Luna get the most xp on her perma because she was the "best player", or because she coordinated the best team of support? This solo talk is a sideshow - the only reason to delude yourself into thinking this is a reason "you can't win" is because you don't have the confidence you can get the support of 2-4 solid players - hardly a herculian feat.
From what KUKA can see, the biggest reason people don't seem to compete is all in their heads. Asking people about why they don't play, they say "I'm not ready for that". Why not? If u've played and won a single rebang, you're ready. Detach your ego and just see what you can do. It's stunning how many good players just don't want to put their egos on the line and give it a shot, win or lose. It's a ton of fun, it's hardly as imbalanced as token-dripping permas and rebangs, and it's even pretty easy to get a bronze - with many good players dedicated to helping their "horse in the race", there are a lot of places in the top 10 that go unclaimed and could be won with relatively little effort. KUKA's seen people work harder for a silver on a regular rebang than it would take them to bronze in the champs.
Re: 2011 Champ
excellent post Kukes
Re: 2011 Champ
Also an excellent post Joel....
Re: 2011 Champ
Totally agree Kuka - precise and direct answer for all of the Community on Starport on the Playing of the Champs ( Pax and PK ).
I can only be honest in saying that it does kind of dissappoint me that the attendance on the Champs is far lower than i wouldve expected, i mean its a 2 week game that happens once a year.
This "Planning the winner " thing .. LOL yeah ok .. Fact of the matter is this : I Played the PK Champs at every available time i had, tried to use the tools i had in order to compete against someone that tbh was in a far better situation than i was ( Chico.X ) - The guy worked so hard building with his team - both him and i were online as much as possible trying to win - we both deserved to win.This is the TRUE Starport.
To say " the winner was chosen in advance " is pretty harsh - Fact is Chico and i worked hard and in reality this years Champs was kind of a " 2 Horse Race " between Chico.X and me right up until the last few hours.
Reason being nobody else really submitted a Team to compete.
This years Champs was by no means a walkover for Team Imperial Guard, everybody associated with it put every ounce of effort into achieving the win - this wasnt won myself.
Chico.X also owes just as much appraisal for the players he had helping him too - because they also worked hard for him. - If he had won it he couldnt have said he won it alone - because he didnt play alone.
Bluntly - People shouldnt Judge a Tournament Winner/Team and give opinions on whats right and whats wrong with the Tournament itself unless they actually compete in it too try to win or help a friend win.
To say " i dont play Champs because i dont think 4 People helping one guy to win is right " is pathetic tbh
Starport is a Multiplayer Game - its core fundamentals revolve around " Team ethics and Team support" - You all do it in Permas - some even do it on Rebangs.
How many times have you Invaded another corp for a friend ? - maybe built a few Colonies for them to get them started on an extended Rebang - or made them some cash ?.
Simple fact is this :
The Players that finished in the Top Ten are more than capable of competing for the Gold in a Rebang without any Tokens or help whatsoever. - not many Players can say that nowadays.
I can only be honest in saying that it does kind of dissappoint me that the attendance on the Champs is far lower than i wouldve expected, i mean its a 2 week game that happens once a year.
This "Planning the winner " thing .. LOL yeah ok .. Fact of the matter is this : I Played the PK Champs at every available time i had, tried to use the tools i had in order to compete against someone that tbh was in a far better situation than i was ( Chico.X ) - The guy worked so hard building with his team - both him and i were online as much as possible trying to win - we both deserved to win.This is the TRUE Starport.
To say " the winner was chosen in advance " is pretty harsh - Fact is Chico and i worked hard and in reality this years Champs was kind of a " 2 Horse Race " between Chico.X and me right up until the last few hours.
Reason being nobody else really submitted a Team to compete.
This years Champs was by no means a walkover for Team Imperial Guard, everybody associated with it put every ounce of effort into achieving the win - this wasnt won myself.
Chico.X also owes just as much appraisal for the players he had helping him too - because they also worked hard for him. - If he had won it he couldnt have said he won it alone - because he didnt play alone.
Bluntly - People shouldnt Judge a Tournament Winner/Team and give opinions on whats right and whats wrong with the Tournament itself unless they actually compete in it too try to win or help a friend win.
To say " i dont play Champs because i dont think 4 People helping one guy to win is right " is pathetic tbh
Starport is a Multiplayer Game - its core fundamentals revolve around " Team ethics and Team support" - You all do it in Permas - some even do it on Rebangs.
How many times have you Invaded another corp for a friend ? - maybe built a few Colonies for them to get them started on an extended Rebang - or made them some cash ?.
Simple fact is this :
The Players that finished in the Top Ten are more than capable of competing for the Gold in a Rebang without any Tokens or help whatsoever. - not many Players can say that nowadays.