MOBAFire's first Mini Guide Contest of Season 14 is here! Create or update guides for the 30 featured champions and compete for up to $200 in prizes! 🏆
The_Nameless_Bard wrote:
I get it if it's just that balancing is a pain in the *** and you don't want to have to do it, really I do, but then just say that, cut the ****, and get it over with instead of all this nonsense.
It's not. The idea behind it was that in certain teams people wouldn't talk to each other so there was little entertainment, especially when things down to go downhill and the team is behind. So the logic behind this really is to try to make it a fun experience for everyone, but a result on paper is usually different from the outcome. What we were planning to do is after the teams were made, we would make a poll and see if people are satisfied with the result. If not we scrap the whole thing and balance it out ourselves.
GrandmasterD wrote:
Dear Diary, I was nice today. I really hope that MOBAFire hottie Emikadon noticed it.
The_Nameless_Bard wrote:
b-but.....I thought I was your MOBAFire hottie....
You're not supposed to read my secret diary!!
The_Nameless_Bard wrote:
b-but.....I thought I was your MOBAFire hottie....
No worries, you can have him.
GrandmasterD wrote:
“Now that you put it that way, I do apologise for my unnecessary, rash, and aggressive behaviour. All I was trying is to just get the best to happen for the MOBAFire Inhouses as I think this community deserves this. I do hope you accept this apology.”
That took about two minutes to make up and type; apologies aren't hard, and they definitely aren't all that tough to make them look sincere, but Maintained didn't even try! He just used the same phrase again and was hoping no one would notice his limited vocabulary. Also, the tone was terrible.
Also, I take from this that – and please, correct me if I'm wrong, which you won't do considering I am right, but I'm being polite here – you simply came along, didn't bother to read what the apology was about, and just +1'd it because you have a fetish for men who apologise all the time. You should totally marry a politician. Do not worry, that advice is totally on the house; free of charge.
That took about two minutes to make up and type; apologies aren't hard, and they definitely aren't all that tough to make them look sincere, but Maintained didn't even try! He just used the same phrase again and was hoping no one would notice his limited vocabulary. Also, the tone was terrible.
Also, I take from this that – and please, correct me if I'm wrong, which you won't do considering I am right, but I'm being polite here – you simply came along, didn't bother to read what the apology was about, and just +1'd it because you have a fetish for men who apologise all the time. You should totally marry a politician. Do not worry, that advice is totally on the house; free of charge.
Right, and I suppose that's easy for you to say because your pride is easy to swallow isn't it? Plus, it's not that hard to figure out what he was apologizing for considering it was only the 6th or 7th comment of the thread... And is it so wrong to encourage people who aren't being toxic? Perhaps it is just our differences, but considering he made the first move to at least attempt to repair the situation he certainly went a lot farther than most other people would. And thank you for the advice, I'll be sure to keep it in mind the next time I look for a boyfriend :)
GrandmasterD wrote:
No one does, but well, if you've done your homework and actually bothered to read the thread, then maybe I can feign interest.
I'm glad we're on the same page.
GrandmasterD wrote:
No, it has nothing to do with a popularity contest; it's about people either just picking the best team to just create those wonderful 20-minute-surrender stomps we all know and love. Or people simply get an advantage by having the ability to play with all of their wonderful friends whilst the other team is just a bunch of people thrown together because they couldn't pick their friends. We might as well just go 5-man normal queue, or hey, pick your ranked team and scrim against another team. However, I'm pretty sure this has nothing to do with the MOBAFire Inhouses, although maybe you know something I don't, which I strongly doubt.
Well I suppose it all just hinges on people actually playing by the rules and not picking all the diamonds on a single team. No, I may not have the most experiences with inhouses, but from the amount of people responding this thread, it seems to be a pretty big deal with the balancing and all that. If you guys make the majority, who's to say it won't work if all of you set the example? It makes it easier on the refs, and people get to play with their friends. Though considering it's an inhouse, everyone should be friends anyway. Maybe that's just me being optimistic, but I've seen the pictures of the end game screens and I recognize enough names on there to see there are regulars.
GrandmasterD wrote:
So your idea is to make everyone happy and combine the two systems to create a more complicated, more time-consuming, system? Brilliant! I have to say, I find it very typical of you, and perhaps even poetic. However, as you have no doubt noticed from my earlier expressions, you're creating an overcomplicated system that will only consume more time and in the end you don't get the best of either world. It's kind of silly to let the Diamond choose the other Diamond on their team because it's their bestest buddy, and then the balancer has to say “Yeah, but we can't do that.” Seriously, what's the point of choosing people?
Happy people = more fun.
Again, this entire idea hinges on people actually cooperating and not making it difficult for the refs. You have a voice chat system, so picking people shouldn't be a problem. As far as I know, referees should be in the chat with everyone else, so if they notice a pattern of high elo going on, they can easily jump in and say, "nope, pick someone else" or something along those lines.
I really don't see the harm in giving it a shot. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, and then maybe we can learn from it and find a different way to approach balancing.
Quoted:
No worries, you can have him.
C'mon, you should at least haggle. You don't go to business school? Oh, I thought... because... Hah. Racism jokes, I love 'em! We're all having a good time.
Quoted:
Right, and I suppose that's easy for you to say because your pride is easy to swallow isn't it? Plus, it's not that hard to figure out what he was apologizing for considering it was only the 6th or 7th comment of the thread... And is it so wrong to encourage people who aren't being toxic? Perhaps it is just our differences, but considering he made the first move to at least attempt to repair the situation he certainly went a lot farther than most other people would. And thank you for the advice, I'll be sure to keep it in mind the next time I look for a boyfriend :)
No need to swallow if you don't mean it; it's called manipulation. He was only pushing it so we wouldn't actually have an active discussion on the subject; manipulation, again. How can you still not understand what I mean? This is about the fourth time I've spelt it out, and I really do hope that's sufficient.
All people, especially myself, wanted was an actual in-depth discussion regarding this idea; where it came from, why it'll help, etc. etc. Not some random half-***ed cop out apology because that doesn't actually get my anything. Apologies are meaningless; this isn't the Catholic Church.
I did attempt to repair the situation; I told Maintained that I wanted a reasonable discussion about whatever it is they are suggesting and it just got pushed aside with “I apologise, let's make a fresh start now.” However, I'm sure that in your eyes that's actually moving forward, because everything that isn't confrontation is a solution...
Also, be sure to take my advice more often; it tends to be very helpful.
Quoted:
I'm glad we're on the same page.
We are? I don't think we're even in the same library yet, but all right.
Quoted:
Well I suppose it all just hinges on people actually playing by the rules and not picking all the diamonds on a single team. No, I may not have the most experiences with inhouses, but from the amount of people responding this thread, it seems to be a pretty big deal with the balancing and all that. If you guys make the majority, who's to say it won't work if all of you set the example? It makes it easier on the refs, and people get to play with their friends. Though considering it's an inhouse, everyone should be friends anyway. Maybe that's just me being optimistic, but I've seen the pictures of the end game screens and I recognize enough names on there to see there are regulars.
Playing by the rules? The rule is – and I'm quoting: “Each leader must pick who they want on their team, one by one, starting with the leader in a lower division/elo.” That doesn't mention anything about making a pick that could potentially upset the balance. Also, we aren't the majority, we are just a few people who managed to find this thread and tried to absorb some information; a lot of people who actually play have yet to make an appearance in this thread, and most of them are, if I recall correctly, part of one or more, more-or-less, tight cliques.
Quoted:
Happy people = more fun.
Again, this entire idea hinges on people actually cooperating and not making it difficult for the refs. You have a voice chat system, so picking people shouldn't be a problem. As far as I know, referees should be in the chat with everyone else, so if they notice a pattern of high elo going on, they can easily jump in and say, "nope, pick someone else" or something along those lines.
I really don't see the harm in giving it a shot. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, and then maybe we can learn from it and find a different way to approach balancing.
An idea that combines two ideas will always end up with no one being happy, not with everyone being happy. Also, that equation seems rather false to me, but oh well, I'm not the math expert here. Oh damn, I just did it again. We're still having a fun time, right?
The original idea doesn't hinge on that, the original idea hinges on the fact that people pick whoever their friends are and then they're having more talkative groups, which should improve balancing. However, this is a logical fallacy as that train of thought assumes that skill level is almost equal among all players, and that's far from true.
Sure, referees could step in, but that kind of defeats the purpose of this system. Also, let us not forget that people have a big advantage when they're playing with people they play with a lot over the group of people who almost never plays together.
I'm sort of disappointed though, I really am. As it seems that you haven't really read Maintained original post considering you bring up a lot of rules and ideas that were initially not presented or discussed; Psiguard mentioned something along that line, but nothing really concrete. This is also exactly why I wanted to have an open discussion with everyone involved because it can help clear up these things and possibly add additional rules or perhaps a different balancing system that is tailor-made for this kind of “choose your team mates” idea.
Trying it out without having any evidence that supports this idea in theory is a waste of an inhouse or two, and will put them in a worse light then they already are. It's fine that we come up with new ideas to polish these inhouses, but at least let us discuss the details together, instead of trying to prevent that and just doing it your way; that's not how this works, these are community games, thus the entire community – or well, at least those who express their interest – should have an opportunity to put their thoughts on, albeit virtual, paper.
I really have no idea what all the fuss is about...
1) it's just a game, if you don't think this idea is a good one then just skip a week of inhouses, big deal.
2) insulting each other really isn't going to help anyone, Maintained made a good step saying sorry for his comments but then the rest is just laughing at him for it?
3) I personally think this is a great idea, and tbh not so much different from the current system where everyone just randomly joins a team and 1 person (the host) tries to balance the teams.
Last, but certainly not least, don't take your real life **** and throw it over our heads... we don't care and it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion about the game itself.
tl;dr Everyone behave, it's ok to disagree but not ok to insult others.
1) it's just a game, if you don't think this idea is a good one then just skip a week of inhouses, big deal.
2) insulting each other really isn't going to help anyone, Maintained made a good step saying sorry for his comments but then the rest is just laughing at him for it?
3) I personally think this is a great idea, and tbh not so much different from the current system where everyone just randomly joins a team and 1 person (the host) tries to balance the teams.
Last, but certainly not least, don't take your real life **** and throw it over our heads... we don't care and it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion about the game itself.
tl;dr Everyone behave, it's ok to disagree but not ok to insult others.
DuffTime wrote:
ok ok plz carry me omg
i was only waiting for you to ask
Temzilla wrote:
Too hot to be icecream.
Luther3000 wrote:
He looks like a hair gel advert on legs
Toshabi wrote:
Icecreamy, with hair as slick and smooth as the ocean waves of Cocobana
IceCreamy wrote:
I really have no idea what all the fuss is about...
1) it's just a game, if you don't think this idea is a good one then just skip a week of inhouses, big deal.
2) insulting each other really isn't going to help anyone, Maintained made a good step saying sorry for his comments but then the rest is just laughing at him for it?
3) I personally think this is a great idea, and tbh not so much different from the current system where everyone just randomly joins a team and 1 person (the host) tries to balance the teams.
Last, but certainly not least, don't take your real life **** and throw it over our heads... we don't care and it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion about the game itself.
1) it's just a game, if you don't think this idea is a good one then just skip a week of inhouses, big deal.
2) insulting each other really isn't going to help anyone, Maintained made a good step saying sorry for his comments but then the rest is just laughing at him for it?
3) I personally think this is a great idea, and tbh not so much different from the current system where everyone just randomly joins a team and 1 person (the host) tries to balance the teams.
Last, but certainly not least, don't take your real life **** and throw it over our heads... we don't care and it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion about the game itself.
2. His apology was accepted, at least by me, but no one's questions have actually been answered. Up until him actually giving me an answer, albeit still one that doesn't tell me much, every time anyone asked for actual reasoning that isn't a fallacy, they got deflected. That's not cool and no one likes it.
3. It's fine if you're just going to ignore balancing all together, but only so many people know each other. No one can honestly think you still won't end up with teams where no one talks because of this. Any person who cares about winning will just take all the high elo players or anyone else he knows who is good.
As an aside, Nick made an interesting comment about a way to balance this last night. You could try giving people a point value based on their rating. People who play together frequently and work well together (Moon and Taco or Nick and I, for example) would cost a small amount of extra points to place on the same team. Each captain would get the same amount of points to make their team (think like in a miniatures game such as Warhammer or the, now, dead D&D Minis game) and be able to pick based on that. The downside is, no matter what, that you end up labeling people. But at least then you'd have some real semblance of balance while still allowing people to pick the people they like playing with, to an extent.
You need to log in before commenting.
“Now that you put it that way, I do apologise for my unnecessary, rash, and aggressive behaviour. All I was trying is to just get the best to happen for the MOBAFire Inhouses as I think this community deserves this. I do hope you accept this apology.”
That took about two minutes to make up and type; apologies aren't hard, and they definitely aren't all that tough to make them look sincere, but Maintained didn't even try! He just used the same phrase again and was hoping no one would notice his limited vocabulary. Also, the tone was terrible.
Also, I take from this that – and please, correct me if I'm wrong, which you won't do considering I am right, but I'm being polite here – you simply came along, didn't bother to read what the apology was about, and just +1'd it because you have a fetish for men who apologise all the time. You should totally marry a politician. Do not worry, that advice is totally on the house; free of charge.
That is because the entire apology was one big joke; as said, he didn't even try to make it look real. Maybe if he had tried... I guess I could've kept my mouth shut, because I do like a good lie.
No one does, but well, if you've done your homework and actually bothered to read the thread, then maybe I can feign interest.
No, it has nothing to do with a popularity contest; it's about people either just picking the best team to just create those wonderful 20-minute-surrender stomps we all know and love. Or people simply get an advantage by having the ability to play with all of their wonderful friends whilst the other team is just a bunch of people thrown together because they couldn't pick their friends. We might as well just go 5-man normal queue, or hey, pick your ranked team and scrim against another team. However, I'm pretty sure this has nothing to do with the MOBAFire Inhouses, although maybe you know something I don't, which I strongly doubt.
So your idea is to make everyone happy and combine the two systems to create a more complicated, more time-consuming, system? Brilliant! I have to say, I find it very typical of you, and perhaps even poetic. However, as you have no doubt noticed from my earlier expressions, you're creating an overcomplicated system that will only consume more time and in the end you don't get the best of either world. It's kind of silly to let the Diamond choose the other Diamond on their team because it's their bestest buddy, and then the balancer has to say “Yeah, but we can't do that.” Seriously, what's the point of choosing people?
I tried explaining it, but I mistook your response for an aggressive one which is the reason why I reacted so negatively. I should have probably taken a deep breath or two before making a response, but unfortunately, I can't change the past. :\
I still don't believe a word of it, but I'm sceptical like that. At least this tone is a lot better.
Dear Diary, I was nice today. I really hope that MOBAFire hottie Emikadon noticed it.