I think the BMs are going to be a lot stronger than you're accounting for, Ari. Vanja and I were both pretty much completely gone last game, and we tend to be the backbone of our team's strong UA presence -- we both fic and icon, and tend to place well in those contests. And I am definitely back in the game, and Vanja seems to be around a bit more, as well. Not to mention the fact that the rest of team is definitely more than just social. We're still strong contenders. /staunch team loyalty!
Well, see, I mostly said it because the last time I said in JM that BMs were strong and there will be more minigames too, there were people jumping on me going NO WE'RE NOT WE JUST FEEL THAT WAY BUT WE'RE REALLY NOT. >.>;
I think the problem is that I don't feel like the description up there is completely accurate. Looking at previous games, most of our points came from two members specifically, and primarily from UA and MWS, not FFMG. We are strong in minigames, especially from our less-active members, but that's not all we do, though sometimes it seems like that's all people focus on.
It just seems like alliances are being proposed assuming our Game 3 strength, which was fairly anomalous as far as activity goes, especially from our most major point-earners.
Not trying to complain or anything, just clarifying how I feel my team has performed and will in the future. ^_^
No, but. Your scores aren't primarily from FFMG because FFMG doesn't make up the primary score-giving of the game, period. If you take a look, this game you guys have 1.5x as many MG points as the more active teams, and 3x as many as the less active ones. And that's with you being less active this time around. Checked game 2, and you had almost twice as much as the next highest minigames participants.
Again, like I said, I'm just saying all that up there because every time I tried to say you guys are strong, I got oodles of complaints about how you weren't. *shrugs*
In my point of view, there was never a question as to whether Team Black Mages were strong. I think their performance in Game 1, 2 and really Game 3 (in which they were missing some of their major front-runners and still ended up in 3rd place). The problem here is that there is the perception that they are over-powered which they aren't. BMs may have the most number of active participants but there are still a couple that are the main point earners within the team. (As opposed to say, Thieves who have a few who are all high point earners). When these main point earners dropped off in Game 3, there was expectedly a big drop in their points, though this was buffered by their participation in GF and MG (both of which are dependent on numbers for point earning)
Reply
Reply
It just seems like alliances are being proposed assuming our Game 3 strength, which was fairly anomalous as far as activity goes, especially from our most major point-earners.
Not trying to complain or anything, just clarifying how I feel my team has performed and will in the future. ^_^
Reply
Again, like I said, I'm just saying all that up there because every time I tried to say you guys are strong, I got oodles of complaints about how you weren't. *shrugs*
Reply
The problem here is that there is the perception that they are over-powered which they aren't. BMs may have the most number of active participants but there are still a couple that are the main point earners within the team. (As opposed to say, Thieves who have a few who are all high point earners). When these main point earners dropped off in Game 3, there was expectedly a big drop in their points, though this was buffered by their participation in GF and MG (both of which are dependent on numbers for point earning)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment