Another Survivor?...

[Useless]

Now that Survivor #3 is finished it has caused some discussion, certainly among the players who were there on the night. And unless we find out why certain things were wrong or what feedback the players (or anyone else) has to offer, there may never be another Survivor event, at least not one run by html.

This would be a shame, so I wanted to post this poll to give everyone a chance to give constructive criticism on the event. Please, no flames, just post positives and negatives, vote on the poll if you want. If you vote "Something else", please, say what it is. The idea is that if we can spot the things that went wrong or that people didn't like, we would be able to prevent them in a future event. Cheers.

 

[Quasi^]

Well as a mere spec:

Balanced teams is always good.
Had to download a load of files from qoou redirect, ucc decompress them copy them to folders etc. for the first two maps. I guess if the maps are a surprise it can't be helped. Annoying though.

 

[Solar´]

Maybe up the players, 16vs16, that would be crazy and awsome at the same time

 

[Quasi^]

Yeah 32 players on Siege, now _that_ would be one to watch

 

[Dj_AL]

Teams were balanced but the other team started voted off their best players. Not to smart is it =)
WE kept on kicking the bottom fragger on each defense. Was easy as that. That way we had stronger team the longer we played but the other team had a "diffrent" strategy.

Teams were bad but not THAT bad. The other teams stategy just made it worse.

Id like to se more normal maps not new maps which we dont know of.
Perhaps Overlord Hispeed and the old ones also =)

 

[w1sh]

I think all your poll options are an issue; the custom maps, the teams & the thing taking too long

From what I saw the teams were still a little one sided at the start, but it's true that Blue made it worse for themselves.

This can't be changed much tho since from the 3 survivor's I have watched, some people (Blue team last survivor) are thinking that at the end of the event there's only gonna be 2 winners. So the mentality seems to be voting off the best players early on so that people have a higher chance of personally reaching the final 2v2...so I don't really know what you can do about team balance

IMO, just remove customs which are unknown and which people don't even have files for, lol. That kinda disrupted the flow of the event last time when people had mismatches etc etc

I also think the team sizes appear to be a bit too large at the beginning, too much chaos and these huge teams also make the event last way longer than it should

 

[Solar´]

Teams were balanced but the other team started voted off their best players. Not to smart is it =)
WE kept on kicking the bottom fragger on each defense. Was easy as that. That way we had stronger team the longer we played but the other team had a "diffrent" strategy.

As you said strategy, voting off better players can up your chances to get to the finals

I also think the team sizes appear to be a bit too large at the beginning, too much chaos and these huge teams also make the event last way longer than it should

The teamsize makes it just more interesting, it really is allot of fun, it's one of the few chances to play those maps with lots off people imo

 

[Bossk]

My 2 cents: Give priority at sign up to players that missed the last survivor event. Some people don't check forums that often or are busy with other stuff.

 

[Stylefish]

Teams were balanced but the other team started voted off their best players. Not to smart is it =)
WE kept on kicking the bottom fragger on each defense. Was easy as that. That way we had stronger team the longer we played but the other team had a "diffrent" strategy.

U cant honestly say the teams were even at all, even in 12vs12 blue had no kind of a chance and after 5 rounds red had kicked XB, Salva, Free, Axl and Vitzy while blue had kicked Mic, BN, Farac, Prom and Nightwing. So red has kicked slightly better players than blue and still end up with a way stronger team which is no surprise when the 5 best players are on one team and the 5 worst players are on the other team

The "problem" in survivor is that kicking good players increases ur chance of getting to the final because it doesnt matter at all how the games go until 3v3 and then ur chances of getting picked are obviously better when being the best player left in ur team. Also the chance of getting top frags 3 times in a row are getting better the more good players are gone. Fortunately most players havent understood this yet. To stop this I would add a good amount of "temporary immunities" on each map for most frags or getting harder objectives which prevent people from getting kicked on that map.
Alternatively kick only people from the losing team. Do that every 2 maps so team sizes are even. In case one team wins both maps just have an objective which allows the player who gets it to vote 1 player out of his team. He has to join the losing team then to even up the size.

Big teams and length of the event were ok for me, wouldnt change that tbh. Some of the maps were a bit annoying but it wasnt too bad.
However, there shouldnt be special editions of maps from people who participate in the event with hidden boots or whatever, thats pretty lame. Also, maps should be accessible for everyone prior to the event to avoid texture mismatches and such stuff.

 

[Ulv]

Something else: UTV (although decently one) could have been better

 

[Dj_AL]

The "problem" in survivor is that kicking good players increases ur chance of getting to the final because it doesnt matter at all how the games go until 3v3 and then ur chances of getting picked are obviously better when being the best player left in ur team. Also the chance of getting top frags 3 times in a row are getting better the more good players are gone.

dont really agree on that one. My first survivour i won all 3-4 first immunitys and kicked the best players from my team. Still i got flamed ALOT afterwards and ppl wondering what stupid tacs i used. After that i played 2 more survivours and and won both. Once with bssk and once with twnz as he picked me to be hes 2v2 partner.
Both these times during the whole game we kicked the last fragger on defense.

We had some kind of "deal" in our team so we continued. This was a nice strategy also cause then you know whos good on your own team and whom to pick in the 2v2. And it made it really intense at the end when less players and you need to be top fragger.
Apparently this worked twice for me and ur tacs "failed" hard when ending up with 2NAs in 3v3. Big creds for those players though making it all the way to the 3v3 but kinda stupid on the blue side.

Keep the rulez as it is and with same player amount. Just change some maps to normal we play duing pugs and not stupid maps.

 

[Useless]

Something else: UTV (although decently one) could have been better

Yeah, I forgot to mention this. I was having to do UTV, alt-tab out to answer people's (late) pm's about setting it up, take screenies, watch what every other player was doing so that my demorec would be close enough to record them properly, and it was my first ever time using it, let alone broadcasting. So if I was speccing another event like this someone else would have to do the UTV if it's me doing the report. Doing both this time was fkin hard and I still missed a bunch of stuff in the demos because of it.

And another thing: freakeh told me I wouldn't be able to follow certain players on UTV for the early rounds or it would cause all sorts of problems. So I had to stick with constant flybys and static shots until around the 4v4, which I'm sure also sucked for watchers

 

[Stylefish]

dont really agree on that one. My first survivour i won all 3-4 first immunitys and kicked the best players from my team. Still i got flamed ALOT afterwards and ppl wondering what stupid tacs i used. After that i played 2 more survivours and and won both. Once with bssk and once with twnz as he picked me to be hes 2v2 partner.
Both these times during the whole game we kicked the last fragger on defense.

We had some kind of "deal" in our team so we continued. This was a nice strategy also cause then you know whos good on your own team and whom to pick in the 2v2. And it made it really intense at the end when less players and you need to be top fragger.
Apparently this worked twice for me and ur tacs "failed" hard when ending up with 2NAs in 3v3. Big creds for those players though making it all the way to the 3v3 but kinda stupid on the blue side.

Keep the rulez as it is and with same player amount. Just change some maps to normal we play duing pugs and not stupid maps.

Its an obvious fact that your chances of winning rise when better players go out. Your chances of getting immunities are higher, your chances of getting top fragger are higher and your chances of being picked in 2v2 are higher. Only reason not to kick out good players is that another good player will kick you after because he doesnt trust you anymore.
Kicking out the bottom fragger no matter what, even if it is based on a 1minute siege defense or because someone with a high fragcount crashed during the game is not really what I call a good strategy, it is just a deal within the team. Using this I dont really see the point in any kind of immunities.

Considering my tactic "failing hard"...if we had lost vampire as expected I had a good chance of being picked by Twnz which wouldve made me win. There was also a chance of you being picked by KD which wouldve made me win as well. So my strategy gave me roughly a 50% winning chance and pretty much a 100% chance of getting into final.
If you are in the 3v3 with 5 other top players the odds are just 67% to get to final and 33% to win.
So you were just lucky to win, easy as that.

 

[Dj_AL]

So you were just lucky to win, easy as that.

Not really lol. Tried both strategys. Failed once with ur tacs and got flamed by every1 else after. Got kicked out in the 4v4 the 1st Surv Cup.

After that i have won 2 straight Survivour with same tacs.
Explain that please lol. Kinda clear to me which is best tac. Your not always right you know and apparently this shows that your wrong.

And i did not win the 3v3 map cause i did not know final obj as useless wrote in the report i was lost at end.

ITs noob tac kicking fraggers first easy as that as i know i will make it to the 3v3 with frag tactic style.
If kick bt randomness its way less % for me making it to the final. THis been shown CLEARLY twice now.

Ive won 2 you won 0? Wonder what tacs to use next time.

 

[html]

Here's my 2 cents on some comments, no disrespect meant in any of them by I kept my comments short and to the point.

Maybe up the players, 16vs16, that would be crazy and awsome at the same time

gl getting 32 ppl, gl trying to balance 16v16 player wise
most importantly I dare you to find 7 maps suitable for 10v10 and above, and maps that players won't moan about

I also think the team sizes appear to be a bit too large at the beginning, too much chaos and these huge teams also make the event last way longer than it should

that's mostly to allow more people to play + i don't think anyone had ever played 12v12 assault (i wish i had the chance to)

My 2 cents: Give priority at sign up to players that missed the last survivor event. Some people don't check forums that often or are busy with other stuff.

people that didn't play in it? people that signed up but didn't show? people that signed up but weren't selected?

U cant honestly say the teams were even at all, even in 12vs12 blue had no kind of a chance and after 5 rounds red had kicked XB, Salva, Free, Axl and Vitzy while blue had kicked Mic, BN, Farac, Prom and Nightwing. So red has kicked slightly better players than blue and still end up with a way stronger team which is no surprise when the 5 best players are on one team and the 5 worst players are on the other team

1) if you take a look at the 6 players dropped between the 10v10 and 5v5 map
blue: Bn m1cr0 Farac Ase Insp d1sc
red: Axl Salva XB pogo riv mym
i daresay if that was a pug blue would win
2) are twnz salva dj sphere and riv ALL better than m1cro insp d1sc ase and yourself?
3) im not here to argue that teams weren't unfair, yes i fucked them up, but you're overdramatizing it

to answer the argument between u and dj about who to vote: it's up to each and every players to decide what's best for them there is no "guaranteed best way for success in survivor" and that's a fact and that's what makes survivor nice, the unexpected and the thrill of maybe getting voten off no matter what you do.
now it is my opinion that it is best to vote the worst players off your team to keep your team stronger and win the 3v3
but if you get an immunity you can choose to vote whoever you damn well please, so please stop arguing (you and Dj about what IS the best method, there isn't one)


also atm I have no plans on hosting any more survivors

 

[Thrasher (_!_)]

WE kept on kicking the bottom fragger on each defense.

As a lesser skilled player that generally plays back def....you show exactly why this kind of thing is of no interest to me.

Until someone comes up with a system that allows all players to have a chance, it's just another scam for the more skilled players to massage their egos.

 

[html]

As a lesser skilled player that generally plays back def....you show exactly why this kind of thing is of no interest to me.

Until someone comes up with a system that allows all players to have a chance, it's just another scam for the more skilled players to massage their egos.

As a lower skilled player myself I woud've never shared my survivor knowledge let alone host 3 events if I thought survivor was "another scam for the more skilled players to massage their egos". Thank you very much.

I think syphus kd and smant proved everyone has a chance, back in NA days, even with a low ping i was 1 of the worst fraggers around and often ended up in the final anyway (as much as 30% of the time)

if you're good at getting objectives there's always a chance for you in survivor

although if you are a top tier player your odds are definitely better of getting through

and trasher should something come up that gives "every player an equal chance" then its the top skilled ego players that won't play because there's indeed no point if trying hard/being better makes no difference to the outcome.

the actual system is the best and im sure of that, every player that knows the game has a chance.

 

[Useless]

Tbh, even though Twnz and DJ won, I think Fish was this event's best player in terms of strategy. Look at the six players in the 3v3, this is how I think they got there:

Twnz: Got so many immunities by taking objectives that hardly a map went by when he wasn't the one doing the eliminating on red. Some of those objectives he got by taking other people's launches (eg. Riv) and he was a strong enough fragger that he was never in danger of being on the bottom on defence, which was pretty much ALWAYS the second round for the reds. This meant that he wasn't at the bottom of the second round scores and when other reds did vote they had no strategy, just picking the lowest scorer. Twnz was safe for practically the whole time, particularly since he took two votes which both should have been DJ's. Twnz's strategy, if he had one at all, was Get Primary Immunities. Did this work? Clearly.

DJ: Again never on the bottom of the second round frag count. The players on red who could have caused him trouble got mostly bumped early on (Salva: one bad round and paid heavily; Riv: hugely unlucky d/c in Balli, leading to lowest score; XB: one bad round, like Salva, let himself down on Bridge def by being unable to claim a good fragging spot; Sphere: self-pwned in Desert and Twnz pounced). Even in spite of Twnz unknowingly stealing two of DJ's votes, DJ spotted the 'reds def in second round' pattern and identified that as his path to Survival. His strategy worked and he deserved to win, whether or not Twnz was on his team.

Loco: The luckiest player on the red team imo. Look at the screens in the report; his best performances usually only got him to around the middle of the tables, he had at least four very narrow second round escapes when certain players only just came lower than him, should have gone out in Lavafort][ if I'm being honest (Mym's combined score = 9, Loco's combined score = 0) and was consistently saved from elimination by red voting out whoever was lowest in the second round. Clearly no strategy, just amazing luck One plus point was that he was always willing to set launches, which the voters might have spotted, so fair enough.

Stylefish: The event's second best player imo, after Twnz. Made sure he was always near or at the top of the tables on any given round and played far more intelligently than most of his team-mates. Did himself a massive favour by winning a permanent immunity in Bridge (8v8) but I'm pretty certain he would have made it to the 3v3 without one. Always found def spots which would get him frags and keep him safe, unlike others such as m1cro or Bn, and fought hard for every objective he could find and thus survive all the second rounds. And if he got an occasional vote into the bargain then all the better.

Killerdude: Usually did only just enough to keep his head above water and, like DJ, recognised that the second rounds were always the important ones. Had votes been based on the first round he would definitely have been out in Siege][ and DustBowl and he still should have said goodbye after Ballistic, yet Fish amazingly chose higher-placed Insp. Strategic or not, he had probably even more luck than Loco.

Smant: Apart from leaving jumpboots for himself, smant's strategy mirrored kd's, except to an even greater degree. Time and time again he did only the bare minimum to avoid being last, yet should still have almost certainly gone out in The Scarab, and certainly in Bridge. A bit of luck and not being worst for 90% of the time got smant through to the 3v3.

So, a mixture of luck, chance, weird decisions and immunities all contributed in different ways to the fates of all six players. If there is a golden rule of Survivor, maybe it's something like: get all the immunities you can on attack for a bonus, but whatever you do just don't be last in the second round. This didn't work for everyone but they would appear to be the exceptions that disprove the rule.

 

[X-Bomb]

red played the whole survivor game backwards!

the whole point in the game is to survive - you increase your chances of survival by voting out the biggest threat.

in the food chain if the zebras had a chance to wipe out the lions, you think they will let them live?
no chance, the sooner people realise this the better it will be IMO. If both teams did this the final will be equal anyway.

The problem is if people follow this way of thinking then the better you perform the more likely you are to be voted out. I would suggest to have multiple immunities per map. With one of those objectives giving 1 person the vote to kick out someone who does not have a immunity.

besides this i think the whole idea is quite gimmicky in its current format, and unless you take all the immunities it doesn't matter what you do you are at the mercy of someone else no matter how well you play.

im not saying it wasnt fun (it was). I would personally like to see a modified structure where you have a bit more impact on whether you survive or not, rather then relying on uber luck.

 

[Dj_AL]

im not saying it wasnt fun (it was). I would personally like to see a modified structure where you have a bit more impact on whether you survive or not, rather then relying on uber luck.

was not really "uber" luck in our team.