Score Breakdown + Alliances

May 02, 2012 20:44

Hello everyone~! I hope you enjoyed the results. Here are the score breakdowns courtesy of sunflower_mynah:

Graph version )

alliances

Leave a comment

arivess May 7 2012, 03:00:22 UTC
I've been trying to base it off of what I know of earlier games, but one problem is, I don't have actual score breakdowns, so I can only really see the general end results that everyone else got.

BMs: I think I addressed it a little bit down there too now, and to you personally, but I guess it's better for everyone else to see the summary too. I think I kind of just didn't get what you meant until you guys explained it here? So I was kind of frustrated because I wrote down what I thought you guys said, which is actually fairly opposite to what I thought, and then you and V pulled a "but that's wrong", so it was kinda like... uh, guys, make up your mind, then.

I think some of what I put up there is true, though. In this game at least, nearly all the BMs had mid-range scores, but no one did spectacularly. I do know a lot of your previous points were from V and Vanja, but please understand that since I don't have individual scores for past games, I've really no idea how much, and didn't actually think about it at all this time around because they had average scores, though still fairly high.

I also agree the 1v1 dealie is probably not the fairest, but as I explained to Xinn too, I think it's at least a somewhat plausible idea that someone else would raise the possibility anyway, so we might as well put it up to vote.

The problem with MWS is what Breyzy and Yin brought up that I think we're both answering down there. It is seeing a lot more use, and it does have the potential to be stronger than UA simply because it doesn't have an activity cap, but it's also the most effort-requiring points-earning activity here, because UA is kind of balanced against MWS, and I mainly balance MG against UA and partially MWS.

Plus, while you can say some teams like posting to MWS more than others, it has pretty much no restrictions whatsoever, because... basically as long as you have the will to make fanworks, you can? Ish. It doesn't matter what you're proficient at, because anything earns points. And you technically don't even have to be that familiar with FFs if you're doing something other than writing.

Umm. I guess I'm not sure what point I'm making except MWS is very much a team size thing too.

Reply

sunflower_mynah May 7 2012, 11:48:58 UTC
Everything's really a team-size thing in the end, it's just that it so happens that MWS is a little more flexible on that point. As I already addressed down there, I think MWS is likely to fluctuate far too much to get a proper gauge on it. I think what it is good for is being used as a benchmark of which teams have the potential to enter which contests - that is, teams with a lot of regular iconists are more likely to be represented in an icontest, and so on. (None of this really makes any kind of indicator as to who participates in one of the more 'random' contests, though.)

but it's also the most effort-requiring points-earning activity here

/nod

And teams who have stayed afloat via MWS are usually teams who have people who naturally gravitate towards styles/works that result in a lot of point-earning in MWS. It's actually not that easy to increase participation in MWS to earn points, it's just that some people lean towards things that would've earned a lot of points in the first place.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up