I rolled over a whole spuad of ninjaing EPICs as comm because someone forgot to turret me :D I recorded the whole thing and will post the demoes tomorrow.
That Isle round was phenomenal, we were beaten down until we had absolutely nothing then somehow we scratched up a base then we owned the BE comm.
Going to agree on that. It would have been nice to play Fuel, I don't know why the map didn't work, so I'll check that today. Even though we lost, Forest was really fun, and that only really reinforces my view it should be official. And to be fair it probably doesn't need any changing, although I'd like to see what can be done with middle with regard to the restriction of commander buildings.
These moments made this pug worthy the effort. Just how did Reznov, teamkilled Bloodraven? lol :eek: And DDD, epic last second boomtank, I still don't understand how utterly (EPICLY) we failed there, as we had sticky stuns too loool, and were around the CV for more than 2-3 seconds!! :eek: Forest: The middle is very tricky with the explosive barrels, totaly forgot that ( next time I'll use it against the enemy ) gg
MVP is such an idiotic neologism for "player with most points (on the winning team)". just wanted to say, nothing against you personally paradox ...
implying that the player with the most points actually has been the most valuable player. particularly in a game where the objective isnt to rank up as many points as possible. in empires the player with the least points could have been the one who killed the cv with a smart move though all odds where against the team, thus making him the mvp.
I cant know that since I didnt play so I can assume he's MVP looking at his score. And a lot of the times players with a lot of points are valued players if it's revive spamming massive killing building destroying or anything you get points for he did it and th us making him valuable. Edit about your ninja, without the team getting points and holding ip he might have never gotten th e chance etc ..
yeah, no paradox, its not about you - i just meant to voice my aversion towards the term. it creates a totaly wrong perception of a players value - though the real one is probably immeasurable ...
I find it more fitting than leadership or what not. A guy may lead well and all but without players that will follow and do shtuff his input is worthless. But a player that just gets a lot of points without leadership just always is good with or without someone telling him what to do.
if you attack a rax, kill a few guys but cannot take it out you get a lot of points but in the end archieved nothing. if you attack a rax and take it out faster then the enemy could react you get 1 point for destroying a building (maybe 1 extra for rebuilding your own rax there) and opened an attack route your team might need to succeed. but i doubt you can measure this in any way. in other situations the 1st example might have been justified for MVP bc the guy kept so many troops busy and the team could push up somewhere else - or the 2nd guy took out a rax but it didnt help at all in the end. but if you need a word, why not keep speaking about the top player - this indicates that he has archieved to end up ontop of the scoreboard. anyway, its just my dislikement for the word and i only wanted to voice it once. im not planning on harassing you any time you use it ...
Thats one way to look at it. The other way is you took out 1 rax that can get rebuild pretty fast. Whilst the other way you kept guys busy took tickets unpressure other parts of themap keep guys dead for x times 10 seconds and when you die they need engies repairing it and thus again players that need.to repair etcetera.