One objective gives kick rights, one other objective gives immunity rights (meaning can't be kicked) for that map.
This would work great.
Another Survivor?...
- Thread starter Useless
- Start date
-
Hey - turns out IRC is out and something a little more modern has taken it's place... A little thing called Discord!
Join our community @ https://discord.gg/JuaSzXBZrk for a pick-up game, or just to rekindle with fellow community members.
One objective gives kick rights, one other objective gives immunity rights (meaning can't be kicked) for that map.
This would work great.
in a 12v12 10 ppl are still up for a ''zomg random vote fo'' and its twice as much stuff to write down and type for me
i dont see that ''solving'' anything and how will you handle special cases imagine in a 4v4 with player 01 to 04, player 01 has perma immunity, player 02 gets the kick immunity, player 03 gets the immunity immunity -_-, yet player 04 gets topfrags on D and all objectives on attack except the one that gives kicking rights and the one that gives immunity from being kicked. player 02 has no choice but to kick 04 how is that any fairer?
Not quite, as the sphere/twnz ''incident'' proves, survivor is not you in a jungle versus everyone else you are still in a team and if you piss all of your team off with your decisions, prepare to face the consequences of your actions.
If you are a good player and everyone votes good players out, including you, you actually increase your chances of getting voted off for being good. Whereas if players generally vote the worst players out, you just have to not be the worst. So yeah perhaps if you vote out the best players you slightly increase your chances of getting the immunity on a map, but if you do good in the map but fail to get the immunity you are much more exposed to being voted out ; this is not the case if your team generally votes weaker players out.
as i said to solar in my previous post, what if you put to many immunities and many maps end up where the ''vote'' to kick someone only falls down on 1 or 2 candidates that have no immunity, i dont think thats fair either. + it removes much of the thrill of the game, what if on maps like bridge 9v9 you put 5 immunities and 3 minutes after the map starts half the team is already sure not to be voted off, why would they bother attacking anymore?
im not saying what you're suggesting is impossible but i dont think its a good idea.
feel free to host the next survivor with any rules you like though i sure would play in it (if i can obv.) but good luck running it....... especially if you add a lot of rules to make it more complex
Last edited:
The only thing I would change is the amount of custom maps.. I didn't enjoy playing any of them and if your (html) idea was to try and get people to play the map and like it then you obviously didn't think that through. I dont like Gladiator or Bioassault in a 6v6, and you make me play it 12v12. 
You should also think about putting shorter maps earlier on so that the whole thing doesn't last as long and then put the longer maps later on when its 6v6 or less. Wasn't that bad this time coz we steamrollered blue team but if teams were equal, would have been longer than it already was.
You should also think about putting shorter maps earlier on so that the whole thing doesn't last as long and then put the longer maps later on when its 6v6 or less. Wasn't that bad this time coz we steamrollered blue team but if teams were equal, would have been longer than it already was.
This is pretty much it. Everyone who played in that event was capable of getting objectives (it's AS, come on!), no-one was a nooblet, everyone knew what the immunities were beforehand - fragpower aside, it was as even a playing field as html could make it. If it hadn't been then only the top fraggers would have ever gotten any immunities. Had Twnz not been involved at all the spread of voters across red would have been much more widespread. Twnz and Wish are always a bit imba. Too many players being saved by immunities on the same round would kill the game - this is exactly why the permanents were so hard, to avoid that very thing.
Ye, I think a few people thought there were too many custom maps, that's why I put that as one of the options. Thing is people are kinda sick of playing the same pug maps over and over, plus the customs gave 'lesser' players a good chance of getting immunities, assuming some of the better players might not know the maps. The Scarab in particular was one where all the lower ranked players tried loads of things to get immunities, especially on blue - that was the whole point.
There are literally no league maps suitable for 12v12, 11v11... Possibly 8v8 would be about the time to start the league maps, which means that from 12v12 to 9v9 they would all have to be customs to fit everyone in, and in Survivor #3 they almost all were. Larger maps for more people gave people a good chance to get settled into the match and maybe play better, plus it's a bit more fun for people like Promax and Vitz who got voted out early. I mean playing Frigate 12v12 and getting booted after two minutes of match time would suck.
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.
1)What fable is trying to say is that u were lucky i picked him and not u. TBH it was 50/50.
I decide to pick him because i wanted to stick with my team8 but if i think about it now, i shud have picked you so he could have won it
2) Talk bout team tactics ???, i don't know about my team8 but i wasn't keeping score in each round, the only round i was interested in was the eliminating round and since the team were unbalance we didn't have the change to vote the last fragger on defence since we won no map...
Back to topic :
For next survivor:
-I would recommend 1) take more time to make the teams 2)get some help, for example they could have been made by useless, ban and html. (ranking player from 1 to 24).
-Custom maps are funs, idc if i don't know the map, 12v12 action was fun
-The lenght of this event wasn't a problem for me, i was puggin right after the event lol
-Maybe a new format for the final, u keep playin until 1v1 and then it's a bo3 speed run
Last edited:
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.
I only played one survivor, so I can hardly win 2 like you did then. Maybe you understand what KD said considering you being lucky.
The funny thing about your so called tactic is that it is based on everyone on your team following it. All you do is kicking the lowest fragger and praying the rest does the same. This makes about as much sense as playing poker and telling all other players to fold when they have good cards. It works as long as other players follow it.
It is no surprise that your first tactic of kicking any good player was not successful either. A good voting strategy is based on kicking the highest threat possible without raising your threat too much towards those players that get immunities most likely. So basically kick a good player as soon as he has a "bad" score on a map so you dont get too much attention from the rest or get a perm immunity of course.
I agree with you that Im not always right but as soon as we have a discussion about probabilities, math or any other kind of logical thinking Im gonna be pretty much always right. Therefore you can beat me in any discussion about Ikea products.
If I had got a chance to vote when we got to 6v6 I would have voted Twnz off, purely because he was voting off the weaker fraggers and I knew by the time we got down to 6v6 that I would start to struggle. Can't see a problem with voting off the weaker players at the start but as a weaker player it would make more sense to vote off stronger players however I dont think our team ever got to that position, it certainly seemed like the same people got to vote everytime. The definition of weaker player on reds side was pretty much if you are crap at DM then you were voted off, there was no consideration for attacking assistance and IMO that was wrong.
As for the rest of the event, I think it went pretty well. I wasn't too keen on some of the custom maps picked but other than that it was fine. Making it bigger teams will just lead to making the even last longer and I think its long enough at present, its supposed to be something different, 6v6 is a format used by AS for ever.
You need to keep it different whenever you make a survivor event, whether it be different maps or format just to keep it interesting.
I'd also be in favour of giving preference to those people that signed up but were not selected (disregard those that signed and then couldnt play)
As for the rest of the event, I think it went pretty well. I wasn't too keen on some of the custom maps picked but other than that it was fine. Making it bigger teams will just lead to making the even last longer and I think its long enough at present, its supposed to be something different, 6v6 is a format used by AS for ever.
You need to keep it different whenever you make a survivor event, whether it be different maps or format just to keep it interesting.
I'd also be in favour of giving preference to those people that signed up but were not selected (disregard those that signed and then couldnt play)
You can make 1 or 2 extra immunities and reduce them as the number of players reduces. Ill flip that right around, charge 4 which was immunity on bridge in this round went within 1 min, there was no point for anyone else on red to carry on playing after that. if there were 1 or 2 extra immunities then people would have reason to continue.
Maybe the permanents could be downgraded to, say, something which immunises you for the next two or three maps? Or even changed to like a trump card which you can play at any time to avoid being booted, like you get the permanent in the 8v8 and then you come last in the second round of the 6v6. At that point you can spend your immunity and survive?
trump card sounds good, but how will that work- people will just vote the "trump card player" (making them waste the trump, then vote off who they really wanted). The idea is good though!
Always the same with you. You always think your ideas are the right ones but as you can see your wrong. Even html agrees with me voting of good players is a BAD IDEA in the long run. And its been shown twice as im double survivour champ and your not. Perhaps you just cant accept that i won twice and continue arguing trying to flame me with stupid Ikea comments. Sad isnt it trying to start another flame discussion. Just shave it and accept it deine BRATWURST. Your tactics apparently suxx.
Well, it's like a Get Out Of Jail Free card. Imagine Fish got the permanent in Bridge and then came last in the second round of the following map - he could play his card then and the voter would be forced to vote out someone else, perhaps higher up the table. This is the reward for getting the permanent in a previous round - you get to stay for one more chance even if you don't deserve to. But it could be played at any time, presumably on maps where you would otherwise not be safe.
Your argumentation is based on a sample size of 1 where both of our tactics ended up the same (getting to 3vs3 and hoping to get picked by Twnz). Considering my odds of getting there were worse than yours at the start because Im a worse player than you I guess my tactic went out quite good. You ignore any kind of argumentation from other people and just read what you like to read, eg. you say that html agrees with you (although he says that there is no best tactic), still you ignore that pretty much everyone else disagrees with you. It just shows how limited and ignorant you are on that matter.
Just because your tactic worked it doesnt have to be the best. The best part is that it was not your tactic which got you to the final, it was only your fragging ability and the other players tactics which got you there. Even if you had KD, Wish and Twnz on your team you would prefer kicking KD to kicking wish/twnz even though you will most likely not be picked in 2vs2 then. It is obviously better to kick a good player in that case, still you are too ignorant to admit it. Just imagine you had kicked Twnz in the 4vs4, you would have got to play on the far better team and you would have been the best player left meaning you would have most likely gotten the first pick as best player which is pretty much a 100% chance of winning the 2on2. But of course its better to pray for getting picked by Twnz and not by Kd. I guess I could explain that to an average 10yrs old and he would understand it. I wish you would actually read and think about my post just for once and consider the fact that you might be wrong on something.
I´d love to continue this rhetorical duel with you but this is gonna be my last post as you are obviously unarmed.
2 Times CHAMP with kicking worst fragger aka DJtactics
1 Time getting kicked out before the 4v4 with using Fabletac aka kicking betterplayers.(my first survivour night was dumb and stupid)
Says all really.
1 Time getting kicked out before the 4v4 with using Fabletac aka kicking betterplayers.(my first survivour night was dumb and stupid)
Says all really.
I think you missed what XB is getting at, say I got this card, what is to stop the person that gets the vote voting me next round just so I play the card. It is in essence useless because if a voter has any sense they will vote for you to make sure you use the card whether they were going to originally vote for you or not, its really only any good for the subsequent map.
Hmm, yeah. Well, there must be other applications. What if winning a primary immunity gives you the ability to kick a player on the other team? I think that would be far more interesting and would preclude all these arguments about people voting off people on their own team. This way your fate would be in the hands of the other team, which would make people work even harder for frags and primary immunities. One problem with that might be that there would be no incentive to play well or get lots of points, because the other team will just vote off your team's best player after each map. So, maybe anyone who wins any immunity during the map - primary, secondary or permanent - is exempt from being voted off by the other team.
I dunno, I'm just trying to think.
I dunno, I'm just trying to think.
I guess Useless is trying to say that you can use the card before the other person makes his vote, for example after finishing a map at the bottom.
Edit: Nm, as Useless didnt mean that Im just proposing this as an option
And one last word to dj, u fail to understand my tactic, Im nowhere saying kick the best player all the time, Im just saying you should kick the best player possible without becoming a threat to the other good players.
You also fail to see that it is not your voting strategy which made you win it is just the other people´s voting strategy and a good portion of luck your benefitting greatly from. It´s no surprise a top4 fragger gets to the top4 when evereyone kicks out the worst fragger remaining, is it?
Edit: Nm, as Useless didnt mean that Im just proposing this as an option
And one last word to dj, u fail to understand my tactic, Im nowhere saying kick the best player all the time, Im just saying you should kick the best player possible without becoming a threat to the other good players.
You also fail to see that it is not your voting strategy which made you win it is just the other people´s voting strategy and a good portion of luck your benefitting greatly from. It´s no surprise a top4 fragger gets to the top4 when evereyone kicks out the worst fragger remaining, is it?
I haven't played Survivor but the above is how I was expecting most people to play it (who got the immunities). If you do vote vote out the biggest danger to yourself without going too far, and if you don't get the vote make sure you keep your head down and remain useful.