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*
I think the problem, in general, in using this game as a gauge is that it's an anomaly as far as activity is concerned: it's been quieter than expected and we know that it was, in general, fairly bad timing for most people - school obligations, family obligations, etc. Anyway, my thoughts on the whole affair:
BMs:
The thing is this. We were an insanely strong team prior to Game 3, but a large portion of that was V and Vanja - and you can see how much they did by the fact that our points are much lower without them around. Both of them participated heavily in minigames, UA and MWS - and UA and MWS make up most of the points. Add to that the fact that minigames and GF were a lot smaller in Game 3 than they were in Game 2, and we also had fewer new members to sort - our strongest players were out of the game, and our strongest activities were, in effect, crippled.
We're still third.
So no, I don't think we're that strong - a lot of it comes from V and Vanja, as I said, but V's already said she'll be more active so... I think that
( ... )
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
( ... )
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.
I... don't think I agree with the Thieves section either. We might only have one writer (me), but my FF participation will be high this time, since there's ff_exchange and me and Mysti have a drabble project planned (at least 10 each). Not to mention that I will be joining any UA contests that catch my eye, as well as the crack meme that we've got planned.
I really don't think it's fair to discount "just iconists", considering we have the H-twins as well as katy_111 (and that's not counting me as well), all three of whom post large batches of icons at a time. Very large batches. And don't forget, all of us iconists entered and cleaned up last game. Completely cleaned up. Having one artist doesn't make up for all the points we get from the regular iconists, and with my writing as well? I just don't see how it's going to be as negative for us as you're predicting
( ... )
I think one thing is, Mysti said you might have misread the "one writer (I think?)" as I'm not sure if you count as a writer or not. To clarify, I more meant I don't know whether or not any of the others write. Also, I do know you write very well (you're honestly one of my favourite writers from the comm), but while you may say you'll join any UA contests that catch your eye, but to date, you haven't joined that many, so I haven't counted it in my assessment
( ... )
Comments 45
Thief+WM+Monk vs. Soldier+BM+Dragoon plz.
Reply
Is...is it just spoonybards and me then?
Reply
From MWS:
Soldier:
spoonybards
rayiroth
Black Mage:
ireth_oronra
You, of course. EDIT: I apologise. I do have you listed. I'm not sure how I missed it. D:
chacusha, now she's joining us.
White Mage:
serah
Previously-thief-now-Neutral:
arivess
I... may have missed more.
Oh. I have.
EDIT:
Dragoons
the_cosmos_girl, who contributed one art piece.
Reply
Reply
Reply
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
BMs:
The thing is this. We were an insanely strong team prior to Game 3, but a large portion of that was V and Vanja - and you can see how much they did by the fact that our points are much lower without them around. Both of them participated heavily in minigames, UA and MWS - and UA and MWS make up most of the points. Add to that the fact that minigames and GF were a lot smaller in Game 3 than they were in Game 2, and we also had fewer new members to sort - our strongest players were out of the game, and our strongest activities were, in effect, crippled.
We're still third.
So no, I don't think we're that strong - a lot of it comes from V and Vanja, as I said, but V's already said she'll be more active so... I think that ( ... )
Reply
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 ( ... )
Reply
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
I really don't think it's fair to discount "just iconists", considering we have the H-twins as well as katy_111 (and that's not counting me as well), all three of whom post large batches of icons at a time. Very large batches. And don't forget, all of us iconists entered and cleaned up last game. Completely cleaned up. Having one artist doesn't make up for all the points we get from the regular iconists, and with my writing as well? I just don't see how it's going to be as negative for us as you're predicting ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment