Zalon  /  2 Sep 2010, 23:30
Signup for EQL 12 is open
Finally the summerbreak is coming to an end, as the 12th edition of the European Quake League is set to start in less than 3 weeks. The signups opened just yesterday, and already a vast amount of teams have already signed up.

If your team is not one of them, call up your old mates (or poke them on facebook) and get them ready for a quality fall season of QW 4on4.

Players without a team can apply for this seasons Team building initiative, players of any skill-level can apply.

European Quake League | Sign up | Team Building
2010-09-03, 00:10
The way I see it, the current map vote system is an extremely poor one that creates a risky gambling situation for each clan making its choice, and this needs to be removed immediately. If the purpose is to find the two most popular maps, then 2 maps per clan is the only suitable solution. It removes all uncontrollable gambling factors and displays preference at a clan level with 100% accuracy.

The vote system from last year was crude with its multiple combined options, but at least the necessary data could be extracted from the results. This gives literally half of the picture, and not necessarily a half representative of popular opinion.

Since the ONLY purpose of a poll like this is to get popular opinion, you shouldn't randomly throw away half of the potential votes and expect to get an accurate picture. All you're doing with this system is lessening the chance that maps which a majority of people actually like will get through.

In fact, the one-vote-per-clan system itself is a significant barrier to this itself, since one person's objection to a map means that the clan isn't likely to vote for it, even if 3 or 4 of the other players would gladly take it as their home map, but one objection at a time.
2010-09-03, 00:27
Wall of text Stev, happy for you input... But lets be honest, what ever approach we decide on, someone will find a way to hammer it.

Your last point is the reason why we've never had clan votes before, because it would rarely be the whole team agreeing.

If a second poll is needed for the second map, that can be added later... Lets see in a week if it gives any problems. For my own team, the only kenya map we care about is cmt1b, so that was what we voted. We don't have 2 favourites, so our second vote would be random.
2010-09-03, 06:57
The forum voting of last year was rather bad since people who didnt even play in eql10 voted...

Clans will vote for the map they know best and to be honest the same map is usually the one they like the most.

As far as popular opinion goes I think it is pretty clear from what I have heard and seen players talk about that a majority liked eql11 more than eql10.

There are players who want variation and new maps and this season along with the ladder atleast caters to their needs to some extent. It would be wonderful if there actually existed a couple of maps that 70-90% of the players could agree on to be added to TB3 but so far there has been too many candidates and no consensus amongst the players.

There is a shitload of variations if we want to add 2 more maps to TB3: cmt3&4, cmt3&1b, cmt4&1b, cmtx+exmy, cmtx+exmytdm, exmy+exmytdm and then we have a couple of more maps like schloss, grim, bay12, ukpakX, enraged etc etc...

How will we be able to come to a satisfying conclusion? We could continue with the ladder, add all these maps and see which ones are the most popular after a few ladder seasons. Still, whatever we do there will be a minority or even a majority who opposes the current solution

Perhaps getting to play more maps in the ladder will make a few more players happy?
2010-09-03, 09:09
Perhaps just making it into a tb3 tourney? Then everybody would be happy 8)
2010-09-03, 11:03
nah, tb3 is boring - all the time the same maps, let have some other choice as well
2010-09-03, 16:51
Hooraytio, obviously the forum for last year's vote was not exactly ideal, but 1-vote per clan is even less accurate, considering we get one person's perspective out of each clan. Only allowing one map vote by one person per clan makes it even less accurate. The ideal situation would be 2 maps per player, but apparently that's not a readily achievable goal.

A compromise would be what Zalon suggested with the second vote being made after the first vote is completed, but this would only work if (a) The results of the first vote were not made public and (b) You were not allowed to vote for the same map twice.

I guess that would give a fair representation of the desires of about 15% of the active EQL players, which is better than nothing.

As to your comment about maps that 70-90% of the players want, a consensus will never be reached while the map pools are so transient. People will only care about what they know has some kind of permanence, and that will never happen if we have inaccurate votes by a fickle minority of players at the start of every season. If it keeps changing each time, no one will give a damn, and, if my experiences talking with some clan leaders (the only people with votes) are accurate, there's a very real chance we'll see two completely different maps this season.
2010-09-03, 17:46
Love the team building initiative =)
2010-09-03, 19:22
2010-09-03, 21:46
We just had a vote inside the clan and then went with that.
2010-09-03, 21:51
2010-09-04, 06:20
Stev, how would we go about finding those two maps then?
2010-09-04, 23:04
#6: Why should clans with more players on the roster have stronger vote-power? I think the basic entity than enters the tournament is a clan, so the clan should have just one vote. If they can't cooperate to choose what's the best answer for them as a clan, maybe they shouldn't sign-up in a _team_play event in the first place. It's not very wise for a player who wants to play kenya maps 24/7 to enter a clan full of kenya haters, is it.

Also, I was going to post a comment saying that I'd put all my Goldrush money on the case that nothing except cmt1b, cmt3 and cmt4 gets chosen in this poll and that the poll is kinda pointless. Your last paragraph therefore surprised me and I'm looking forward to see the results
2010-09-06, 07:09
I write this at 07:20 in the grip of a sudden fever, so excuse me if I ramble incoherently.

#12: Firstly, this isn't about kenya-hating or kenya-loving clans, it's about general map approval. Even so-called "kenya-hating" clans have to take part in this poll, so, theoretically, the only thing that comes into it is map approval, even the begrudging sort.

Assuming that everyone in a clan would vote the same way is also false. The tks vote (the only internal process to which I have been privy) was a 3:3 split with an external tiebreaker used to decide it. I sincerely doubt that this sort of duality is unique to them, and tossing away the votes of 50% of the players as irrelevant seems ludicrous when the poll is designed to pick 2 maps, not just 1, and the two maps in tks' case is not in question.

But fine, you can disagree with allowing each individual player a vote if you choose to view clans as a unique, democratic entity like some kind of ridiculous mirroring of the electoral college system (something which is patently false and assumes that most clans even have some kind of internal dialogue about these things, when the truth is that about 50% of the clans I have asked didn't even discuss it at all, and the person signing up unilaterally decided it). We can move on to the main point.

I would like to question the nature of this poll. What is its purpose? Surely it is to determine which additional maps the community thinks it wants. The fate of eql12 determined solely by a pure popularity contest. With that in mind you should be aware that, if you limit the number of votes available, you lessen the accuracy of the data gathered by a poll. Determining map pool by approval rating in a fickle community which, confusingly, demands stability is a bad enough idea, but consider what kind of voting percentages we are likely to see.

We have 8 maps up for vote. Now, three of these maps have vaguely similar levels of popularity historically, but the voting public is fickle at best. What will the winner's approval rating be? I suspect it will be cmt3, but who knows. What percentage of these 30-40 clans will choose it? Perhaps 40%? I think that is highly optimistic, but let's use the figure for simplicity's sake.

That leaves 60% of the votes to be divided between the other 7 maps. Realistically, cmt1b will be a top contender for second, followed by cmt4, with some remainder probably being split between the tertiary pool of e2m2tdm, schloss and grim. Realistically, what is the second most popular map's approval rating going to be, based on 1-clan-1-vote? 30%? 20%? I suspect this estimate will be more accurate.

If the 2nd-place map gets 20% of the votes (which is already ridiculously low approval for something we're going to have to live with all season), and you realise that only about 20% of the players had votes at all, it becomes apparent that around 5% of the players in the league will have voted for the 2nd-place map. The illusion of democracy in this is pathetic. This is merely the staging of a lottery with which no one will be satisfied.

There are only two ways to decide this kind of thing; Expert opinion, or popular opinion. This poll, as it stands, achieves neither.
2010-09-06, 07:21
As a tangential argument, I wonder why the map pool is even up for discussion when the primary (maybe even the only) valid complaint about custom maps is the relatively poor level of knowledge players exhibit due to inexperience.

Surely the only way to remove this obstacle is to introduce some stability to the map pool and enforce the same one over multiple seasons instead of replacing them with the coin flip that is the Quakeworld community's popular opinion. I say stick with what we had last season before considering tossing everything out for something people can complain about not knowing all over again.

However, it seems to me that many of the EQL admins are only interested in the illusion of compromise and would prefer to continue treating everything outside of tb3 as inferior, interchangeable objects instead of committing and perhaps actually achieving something. You will never find a pool of 5 maps on which the entire community will agree (the entire community doesn't even agree on the current pool of 3, as I'm sure all opponents of tVS are aware) but a compromise is vastly preferable to flip-flopping between random map picks and the rejection, confusion and anger that accompanies it.
2010-09-06, 07:53
On the other hand it is pretty simple to set up a new tournament with whatever maps you like and get teams to play.

I think the ladder is a good way to introduce other maps for example.

Now: We are tired of TB3 and want new maps!
Then: Players learn the new maps, some have fun and some hate it. Not everyone feel like learning them.
In a while: We are tired of TB5 and want new maps! But some havent even learnt the 2 new maps. They get tired and quit. The new maps didnt help to recruit new players.
Later: ?

Or perhaps ppl liked the new maps and everyone was happy for a while until some guys wanted new maps again and the whole circus started all over.
2010-09-06, 08:14
You know as well as I do that any secondary tournament would be pathetically unsuccessful in the modern climate, regardless of map pool. Only a major tournament like EQL stands any chance of effecting change.

"In a while: We are tired of TB5 and want new maps! But some havent even learnt the 2 new maps."
That's the whole point of keeping the same maps around; So people can actually learn them. No one is bothered when they think "kenya" is some vile, transient concept which will change or disappear next season.

"Or perhaps ppl liked the new maps and everyone was happy for a while until some guys wanted new maps again and the whole circus started all over."
Are you using the slippery slope argument? I promise you, no one is going to marry a goat because EQL is using 5 maps this season.
2010-09-06, 08:45
I am still having problems with how the community should select the two maps... Its not like cmt3&1b are accepted by a majority.

I think we need to make 2 maps from scratch, play mixes, get player feedback and then evaluate them. As of now, no map seems popular eough to stick.

The notion that the players liked eql11 more than eql10 doesnt make you question the need for more maps though?
2010-09-06, 08:53
Besides, if enough players wanted more maps wouldnt we be playing tb5 or even tb7 already? Is competetiveness really that superior to fun? Or are we still mostly playing tb3 because it is fun and competetive at the same time?

Couldnt you make a questionnaire, asking as many known 4on4 players as possible if they want TB3 or TB3+2, and if they wantTB3+2 which 2 maps, and present the result?
With the result it will be clear if we should go on with TB3 or TB3+2 and we dont have to discuss the IF anymore. Then we can just keep playing TB3 OR focusing on the two new maps. It is a waste of time to just discuss this without knowing what most players really want.
2010-09-06, 12:48
I think it's a completely valid argument though, if you are so bored with a stable 3 map pool now, it would not take long to be bored with a stable 5 map pool. What is the whole argument of forcing the bonus maps if on the other hand you want stability and keeping the same map pool for a long period of time. If you insist on new maps then in the least you should be happy about changing them every season.
2010-09-06, 15:06
ahem... sry for disturb the map pool discussion but i didnt find a better place to ask.. any chance for a duel tourney in parallel with eql?
2010-09-06, 16:15
duel ladder!
2010-09-06, 19:04
Bored now? After only 14 years? I don't think that betrays a particularly fickle nature. No one's even asking for tb3 to disappear, just for it to be appended slightly.

And I don't see why you should object to a stable 5-map pool. If these 5-map tournaments are going to be played anyway, then clearly having a stable pool is good for the people who object based on a decreased standard of gameplay on unknown maps.

And, make no mistake, tournaments with 5 maps consistently appear every year. You can't just ignore them and let them fill up with "random kenya shit" because people will eventually stop caring. They are a consistent feature of leagues, so we have to legislate for them.

We have two options really.
1) Continue varying the pool every year creating laughably poor playoff games between teams inexperienced on whichever lottery maps made it into the pool.
2) Compromise and make every 5-map tournament (which seems to be every second one) based on a fixed pool so even inactive and inexperienced players will learn the maps, raising the standard of gameplay in a few short seasons.

CMT3 saw a marked improvement in the standard of play last season, which is surprising considering it saw 6 plays across 6 divisions in the previous season. I think removing it from the pool now would be beyond foolish, since it seems by far the most accepted custom map. A little persistence worked wonder for it, as was predicted.

Why not take the same chance again and see where it leads? What is there to lose if you keep EQL10's pool? The league isn't contractually obliged to obey the results of a hilariously inadequate poll of a staggering minority of voters choosing largely based on selfishness (how many clans do you think chose maps based on how good they were for the community instead of what they thought they could win), ignorance and apathy.
2010-09-06, 19:39

"Besides, if enough players wanted more maps wouldnt we be playing tb5 or even tb7 already? Is competetiveness really that superior to fun? Or are we still mostly playing tb3 because it is fun and competetive at the same time?"
2010-09-06, 20:27
Consistency is the key to a strong argument. It's funny, because a principle argument of maintaining the well-known tb3 is "competitiveness" and a principle argument of introducing a larger pool is "fun", but you can just swap them around to suit your argument because that's how it is. A large part of the fun in qw is competition, so you can't really separate them. No one would be playing if there were no competitions because it would be boring as hell.

As to the reason we don't have a set pool of 5 maps, it's not through complete lack of demand. The community is obviously divided on the subject, and only a blind man would deny that, so some sort of compromise would be optimal. My hypothesis is put forth quite clearly in this thread if you'd care to read it some time.
2010-09-06, 20:31
There are like four real competitors among the Kenya maps. Make it a 7 maps map pool, include them all, stop the discussions and let people practice em all instead of wasting time in the forum. Eod!
2010-09-06, 20:50
I do agree with some of Stev's sentiments, mainly concerning stability. During eql10 I had no motivation whatsoever to train cmt1b more than being able to play it a comparable bottom div3 level in my mind. A lot of this was because of all the bad rep the map was getting (much of which I would agree with) and I couldn't foresee this map being played in our top 4on4 tournament any time soon. CMT3 has been featured in a lot of seasons so far and has actually had some decent MIX gaming on it during the years. I'm not really convinced it's a great map, but the steady (and slow) rise in game play proficiency certainly speaks volumes for the need for stability. Having said that, I'm not quite sure if I would think all or any of tb3 would be great maps if they were introduced now (as in the past 5-6 years . Jumping around cmt3 it feels like the map could actually work (and I had this feeling way back in the day as well). Jumping around cmt4 it's just way too much space, convoluted pent mechanism, rigged quad area, totally out of proportion RA temple of mightiness and way too much mandatory swimming, chaos. I've actually done quite well in mixes and as a ringer when playing cmt4, it just never felt all that enjoyable, even when you were running quads with stacked gear etc. cmt1b, just no, there is like nothing compelling in the whole map, even running around it makes me feel like the battles that are going to be fought there will suck ass most of the time. And that's what I thought back x years ago when it was featured in div1 level play and those games looked like utter crap. I honestly have problems understanding how people find that map interesting, other than being proficient at it themselves.
2010-09-07, 05:23
Sorry nio but you are just completely wrong, cmt4 is the only decent 4on4 map of the cmt bunch. cmt3 is the worst of them all. cmt4 was the first to be accepted and played and is probably to this day the most played cmt map.
2010-09-07, 05:32
And Stev, I don't object stable 5 map pool any more than I object non stable 5 map pool. The gameplay outside of tb3 is not going to reach interesting levels in QW's lifetime anyway so it won't matter to me. I just think it's funny that people insist on getting more maps to play because the old ones are "boring" and "new is fun" and then object new maps once their preferred ones got added to the pool. If you want consistency, then let's stick with tb3.
2010-09-07, 09:12
I see cmt3 and cmt1 being played much more than cmt4, luckily. For me cmt3 is the only one I can enjoy out of the kenya maps, but I haven't played cmt1 for years
2010-09-07, 09:32
Stev mentioned CMT3 was played only 6 times over 6 divisions for a whole season... how did the other maps fare? and how much in percent is 6 maps anyway? like 2? also how many percent of maps played were cmt?

Are there no good exmxTDM maps that can stand up to the CMT "hype"?
Seems like the people tired of TB3 want some more maps, they just have no clue what to get, cause there are not really anything outthere as appealing as the TB3 map pool.

Your argument is "if you would just give it a try.. just commit to A FEW MAPS... ANY maps really.. I'm sure you'll like some of them".

I have an ambivilent relationship to that argument. Cause on one hand I wouldn't mind 2 more maps in the pool actually, if they were good.
On the other hand I don't wanna commit over several seasons to maps that might suck in the end and spend 2 years on that.
Feels like current TB3 map pool survived 10+ years of map pool survival test. Survival of the fittest! =)

Sure you can argue that some of the CMT maps didn't get a fair chance in that race since they werent even made. But they have actually been around for a long time, They have been given exposure in both fora, and tournaments. aerowalk and ztndm3 got into the 1on1 pool and it seems to me there were no real contestants for those 2 extra spots. But there are nothing really in the 4on4 department.

I'm none the wiser though - as I said, I wouldn't mind having a 5 map pool in QW also, but I don't wanna commit to any 2 random maps and stick with them for a few years, just to see if they are good enough.
2010-09-07, 09:37
To me all the 3 maps in tb3 has a unique style. They require different set of skills to conquer and different type of strategies. To me they have all the variety in the world I need... having played since 1999 myself, I still learn new things on TB3 and they are still hard to master as a team. Sure you can be good on DM3, it's the most map played of all.. But master them all at the same time.. good luck!
2010-09-07, 10:11
Very valid arguments ParadokS. In 1on1 the maps were accepted simply because they are good enough, which is not the case in 4on4. I think the only way to get a few new maps that meets the standard is to get Link back in action. Without him and his cmt project I don't think we would even consider anything else than tb3 atm.
2010-09-07, 10:28
Yeah hagge but only recently. cmt4 was in the leagues when Hib was still playing and that was a long time ago. I think Para has a point about aero and ztn, they are simply good enough as maps that no one really has a problem having them in duel tournaments. Of course I object additional maps in 4on4 if it means I have to play garbage like cmt3.
2010-09-07, 10:40
Agreed it's kinda good point that cmt maps have tried to get in the 4on4 pool for a long time but always failed.
2010-09-07, 10:41
"But master them all at the same time.. good luck!"

Ever heard of Milton?
2010-09-07, 11:01
The sooner we get a stable map pool the better. I would think the best solution would be to use the regular season for tb3 only, and the ladder for experimenting with other maps. My only negative feeling towards new maps, is that the regular EQL seasons are used as an experiment platform. I think it is great that the ladder had a large variety of maps. If desired, some maps that eventually become popular in the ladder, could be brought up for discussion to be included in the regular season. But of course, it is the tourney admins choice, and kudos to them for putting effort into this.
2010-09-07, 11:24
if you put them in just the ladder they can be entirely avoided, especially by div1 teams who have made their mind up already. the point is to not just get div1 to play them, but simply everyone who is interested in achieving a high standard of play ANYWHERE.
yesterday sr beat tks on cmt3 by 150 frags, and thats without the amount of prac they put into tb3, it's not rocket science, you time the same shit, you control the same areas, you fight the same fights, and div1 players and teams are the best at that. they have shown us that it can be done on tb3, and putting visceral feelings aside, they would show us this on cmt maps and beyond
2010-09-07, 11:28
and fyi putting a timetable on how long it takes to raise the level on any nontb3 map is questionable at best, if you give a shit, you will start grasping it quicker than you think.
2010-09-07, 11:35
also truthfully, what are we arguing about? what we like? blaze likes cmt4, not cmt3, tvs doesnt like e1m2, i dont like dm2, schloss and grim, almost all of us like dm3, paradoks likes e2m2tdm, and rikoll likes e3m7.
2010-09-07, 11:48
Well the top half of the scene doesn't give a shit, so it's never going to happen. Understand that kenya maps are not played outside officials practically at all. For one round of kenya, thousand dm3s will get played. That is why kenyas will never ever reach anywhere same level of play.
2010-09-07, 11:54
people give a shit, enough to keep a string of cmt1b mixes going last summer.
it's not the best evidence for it but i'm trying ;p
people are very scared to step on your toes and to question what you have to say, your arguments should be based in you not giving a shit if that's the case, not questioning the quality of maps you don't give a shit about.
cmt1b is good, and so is cmt3, im reluctant to say cmt4 aswell but thats opinion creeping in again
2010-09-07, 11:58
and it could very well be true that the top half dont give a shit, but this isnt a discussion about what maps give you the fuzziest feeling, its about what should be considered for a competition. and what the usual response is that it should be about fun not competition, then i really don't know where to run in this hamsterwheel of insanity
2010-09-07, 12:04
I also feel like there is enough variety in the TB3 maps. I wouldn't mind that much playing some kenya in the groupstages, it can be fun sometimes. But I still got the opinion that it would feel boring to watch or play an important decider in the playoff on a map that neither team knows that well. It will take YEARS to come up to the same standards of play. And that is if all keeps pracing those maps. I wanna have exciting and high-standard playoff games THIS season
2010-09-07, 12:10
you want to be considered the best but only in maps you took a grinder to for a decade, but you want it to be about fun, but theres a harsh competition too!
if you're the best players in the game, but you feel it can only be achieved after years of repeated rocket launchings and shaft shootings and armor pickups.

i just don't get it i'm sorry ;[
2010-09-07, 12:11
I totally concur with Rikoll's 36 comment. And with Para's points I'm positive too.
At first, I liked cmt3. Probably due to its fancy and cool design. But there's something wrong with it, dunno what it is. Maybe the rooms are too spacious dunno.
Don't fool yourselves that coercing people into playing kenya maps is gonna do good to the community or make the numbers bigger. It's a misconception: new guys have loads to catch up with and don't even pay attention to what they play on. It's those new maps that actually disencourage some players from continuing their QW careers.

My conlusion is: TB3 for tournaments like EQL and a completely new ladder made of cmt maps and/or other (no tb3!). Then we will know the feedback and make a stable map pool after some time.
2010-09-07, 12:14
and also we're a kenya CAMP that heavily campaigns against the will of the people!
the term kenya alone is so ludicrous it reveals very primitive thinking in a time when everything was magical. they're called maps, and they aren't all the same, and you can play them in different ways, all that the best players know how to do the best.
you're not entitled to take a shit on "not the top half" opinion because you held the ball the longest. these maps are worth playing
2010-09-07, 12:17
my team is made up of a good chunk of cpma players that are relatively new correct, and we still play tb3 every day without discrimination and we get dominated by the top just like we would on "far away land" maps, it's the game, not the maps
2010-09-07, 12:20
The problem with cmt3 is that all the key areas are non-defendable. Even e1m2 is less mindless flood based map than cmt3. cmt3 reminds me of wind tunnels and is about equally good for tdm.
2010-09-07, 12:21
in addition we adapted to what we were presented with, a single player map with a literal start and an end, and a deathmatch map with a floor that opens up like it's indiana jones and enough buttons for a drum machine.
2010-09-07, 12:21
what exactly is non-defendable on cmt3?
2010-09-07, 12:23
fern you are so off point, it has nothing to do with you getting dominated. It's about playing the playoffs, games like sr vs fusion or tvs vs sd etc. We don't want to see those games played in obscure maps that no one knows how to play well (compared to TB3, not some cpma players)
2010-09-07, 12:23
do you have any idea how undefendable ra-rl and quad are on cmt4?
2010-09-07, 12:24
rl, ra, ya, quad and penta. The whole map is just one big tube.
2010-09-07, 12:24
im not making it about me being dominated, its part of a point. you don't give a shit, that's perfectly fine, but you wish to impart your knowledge on something you don't give a shit about. ;E!!#%!%!#%
2010-09-07, 12:26
At least you can have some tp with quad, ya and penta in cmt4. Also there are not a million entries for speedjumping into ra like cmt3
2010-09-07, 12:28
you're applying standards and practices you don't even apply to tb3, these objections boil down to that you don't give a shit ;p
2010-09-07, 12:29
you said the words tp, quad, ya, pent and cmt4 in a sentence and it didn't mean anything, its infuriating ;p
2010-09-07, 12:31
paradoks' post on the forum revealed a lot about what you perceive to be tradition in this game, and far be it from me to try and compromise that, but it has to bearing on this discussion.
2010-09-07, 12:31
no bearing*
it's about this league that wants you to compete against eachother, and people have different ideas about that.
2010-09-07, 12:32
i want to stop posting ;[
2010-09-07, 12:32
Are you drunk fern?
2010-09-07, 12:33
bored, and i'm actually apathetic at this point, but this is a discussion that gets dominated by strong voices ;p
2010-09-07, 12:34
Well it is much about the history of the maps also, to me it is the backbone of quake. I dont care about the actual number of maps, it's just a number. All I want is a stable map-pool with enough variety to make it fun.
If it is tb2,tb3,tb5,tb9 i dont care!
We DO have a stabile map pool, and it turned out to be 3 maps in it. I don't see the point in going for tb5..
I bet if we would have had tb5 now then we would instead have the same conversation about tb7.
I do get the people though who wants something new, but I feel it belongs in other tournaments such as the ladder as someone proposed.
2010-09-07, 12:36
Besides ra is actually defendable in cmt4, from the water it's pretty easy actually. I used to do that a lot.
2010-09-07, 12:40
so queers are gonna end up marrying animals too? there is no slippery slope here, there are maps outside of tb3 that are good, but the history of this game has molded into a conservative one, and that is hard to argue.
"the kenya camp" dont hold these opinions deliberately to try and dismantle your history, but qw isn't the tablet of time, its a game that has many options
2010-09-07, 12:42
if you can hold the ra from the water on 4 you can hold the ra on 3 aswell ;p
2010-09-07, 12:45
not to mention the many ways to predict movement at ra on cmt3, also theres an unpredictability with the water red for example someone just jumping in from high and taking it right from under your nose ;p
2010-09-07, 12:46
2010-09-07, 12:47
No you can't for many reasons. If you would actually stop and think for a second instead of blindly defending your favourite map, you would see it too.
2010-09-07, 12:48
Well it's just my opinion, and to be fair most of the people who stayed with quake for this long probably don't like to try new things very much
My point is just that I dont feel any urge to try and fix something that isnt broken.
I enjoy playing on tb3 and I dont think I will ever get bored in playing on those maps.
I know there are other good maps, and it is not out of lazyness that I am not trying to learn them, its because I dont feel any need to do it cause I already think it's enough fun as it is atm.
If you for example was playing hockey and you liked everything about it, you thought everything was perfect already and really loved playing hockey. And then some guy comes and says hey come on play tennis with me!! Are you lazy? you can learn it quickly! Yes! again with the sport-parallels..
2010-09-07, 12:49
well you could also blindly assign cmt3 as my favorite map when it isnt o-o
stop and think yo!
2010-09-07, 12:50
I think fern should spend his time developing two new maps for us that are up to the tb3 standard instead of arguing here :[ As long as we don't have any good maps instead of tb3 there will be no point in having anything else than tb3. Bojakaa.
2010-09-07, 12:50
so let's go play tennis with the stick and pads on, that's basically what you're saying razor ;p and comparing a sport with one surface to a game with several maps isnt quite right either. blaze once used the comparison of playing tennis on an ice surface or something ;p, good times
2010-09-07, 12:53
so it's on me to do it cause i don't agree with you? what a preposterous collection of words you managed to put together there
2010-09-07, 12:58
Yes, the ball is in your hand mate. What will you do with it?
2010-09-07, 13:00
Fern, listen this: , and relax, it will help to stop commenting Chill bro, u have already won the fight, this eql has a 5 map in the map pool, as the major part of the community wanted
2010-09-07, 13:01
chamone hagge, hit me with another good point!
2010-09-07, 13:02
I would find it hard to believe that anyone who is happy with tb3 would design some new maps though. So yes, it is up to the ones who want change to find and/or design new maps and try them out on the community. Preferably in the ladder.

So far, new maps have been weighed and measured and have been found wanting.
2010-09-07, 13:03
A smash point?
2010-09-07, 13:03
and yet it's a map discussion and not a happyjoyjoy fuzzy history affirmation thread, stick to the thread
2010-09-07, 13:04
True that Hooraytio. I would rather go play some tb3 than designing new 4on4 maps.
2010-09-07, 13:05
So where is the happyjoyjoy fuzzy history affirmation thread? Seems like I'm in the wrong place
2010-09-07, 13:14
ok the sports comparisons can be lame , it didnt really reflect my point i was trying to make.
I just ment that if you are content/happy with something, you arn't trying to fix it are you?
The only thing we can do is have polls about it cause it's simply a matter of taste of what you prefer.
2010-09-07, 13:22
Well if TB3 is so good, that is, the things that are in it, is how QW teamplay should be, then why LG, pent and ring is present only in one of the three maps? Is for "real teamplay" necessary to NOT have those items in the map? I mean, surely I'm big pro-diversity guy, but this price for diversity just seems too big to me. If you claim that TB3 is "teh shit" then please explain why not having LG, pent and ring in majority of the games is "teh shit", why is it so important.

And now let me guess the answer. It's not really about the items. It's just about the fact that these three maps are the only three maps included with original Quake that don't suck donkey balls for 4on4. That is the real reason. It's not that they are "teh shit", it's that they just suck the least. I think that is pretty poor reason for any map to be chosen into such luxurious category as "TB3" (any TB<anynumber>. Those maps just have been here since beginning and it wasn't necessary to come to any wide accepted conclusions about which maps should be played. The time just showed that it's these maps which are the least wrong. If you do not perceive as "laziness" that some part of the community has no problems settling for maps chosen into some "TB3" category on such poor criteria, let me clearly say that I absolutely do perceive it as nothing but pure laziness.
2010-09-07, 13:22
and some are also happy and content to not play if they don't get what they want, that is their taste and preference, and a competition is supposed to cater to neither.
2010-09-07, 13:32
Guys, what was btw wrong with midcit? One of the maps I atleast considered a really nicely balanced map and had some really good games on. There was whine like hell on this one but I still feel it was quite good for 4on4. Haven't heard one proper explanation why it wasn't good, or was it just that people didn't want to prac it?
2010-09-07, 13:34
Yeah Johnny only dm3 is close to perfect map. Mapwise I would switch e1m2 to cmt4 in a heartbeat as I have said before. But the "map people" always completely disregard the aspect of level of gameplay which is to me even more important than "perfect" maps. Simply the fact that everyone disagrees on everything when it comes to the additional maps kinda ruins things and then we have games where on team is afk. So I rather play a good game in a bad map (e1m2).
2010-09-07, 13:46
map people ;p
what has been perfected over the years is the 4on4 game, not the tb3game, if your preference lies in 4on4 gameplay and not tb3 gameplay you can apply it to anything.
but what is going on is there is a distinct mental block that leans heavily towards tradition, and your traditional preference weighs heavier as a div1 player, thus making it that much harder to oppose it.
2010-09-07, 13:47
you don't give a shit, and you won't play it, so you won't apply your fuzzy skills that you like to apply in tb3, so there is no hope in reaching a higher level.
2010-09-07, 13:53
when i say you its not really you blaze, just came out that way
2010-09-07, 13:54
Well if we look away from the fact that they do have all the history, and that they do have the highest standard of play today simply because they have been here for so long, then I STILL think they are good maps. If I look at them purely as maps.
No... LG pent and ring doesn't have to be present for it to be a good teamplay map.
Dm2 and e1m2 are excellent maps as they are. An LG in dm2 would totally ruin it.
I haven't played any CMT maps so far that I like better.. CMT3 is just horrible, every room is way too big and undefendable as blaze said. CMT4 and CMT1 is ok but only ok.

And If I have the opinion that I'd like to play a map with history rather than the perfect designed map.. Arn't I allowed to have that opinion?

And I DO like them purely as maps as well.. so for me ye I rather stick to tb3.
Just because you say they suck doesnt mean they do.
Feel free to give any other examples than the LG/pent/ring one if you'd like.
2010-09-07, 13:55
no one is allowing or disallowing anything, it's a discussion ;p
2010-09-07, 14:01
#88 You are so, so wrong. If that was the case, then 4on4 games should be as high level in cmt maps as they are in tb3 right now. But nothing could be further from the truth. The deep insight that we have gained about the tb3 maps is a fundamental part of the high level gameplay that we have on them. Even if you keep forcing cmts to the leagues nothing will change since people dont voluntarily play those in mixeds the same amounts that they play tb3 maps.
2010-09-07, 14:05
Just compare the situation with duels. There's aeros being played every day. Maybe it is the second most popular duel map? When we have a map like that in 4on4, then whithin some years there would be hope. But it's not happening with what we got right now, that much is clear.
2010-09-07, 14:09
what was wrong about what i said? you just also said they don't want to, so it's not happening, that's the entire point, the refusal to apply the 4on4 knowledge.
2010-09-07, 14:11
within some years there would be hope? you're SO sure but theres no evidence for EITHER side, cause it's not happening :E
2010-09-07, 14:13
all we know is the top half don't give a shit, i don't give a shit about cricket, and i sure as fuck don't know the rules either ;p
2010-09-07, 14:16
"what was wrong about what i said?"

"what has been perfected over the years is the 4on4 game, not the tb3game"

4on4 game was perfected only in tb3. Everywhere else it's crap (and it's gonna stay crap unless we see big changes in the way people play tdm outside of the leagues).
2010-09-07, 14:21
i see the 4on4 game as seperate from the maps but ok, agree to disagree, 100 comments yay!
2010-09-07, 14:29
#91: My argument goes "LG is a good thing & LG is missing in 67% of the tb3 games/maps -> therefore tb3 is not chosen very well"
Your argument goes "LG would be a bad thing in dm2 & LG is not in dm2 -> therefore dm2 is ok". That is sure correct, but it does not disprove my argument. I do agree LG does not have to be everywhere, but having it only in one third of the maps is far from ideal. That QW has only two main weapons is one of the main reasons why many FPS players don't want to play QW. Yet in 4on4 the amount of weapons is even more limited, for what reasons...
2010-09-07, 14:44
Well, I was doing my best to address every point made in this thread and every possible argument I could think of about a 5-map pool, but I guess that ship sailed when I went to bed and missed 70 posts. I guess I'll pick an interesting one that I haven't covered already.

Niomic talks about how he doesn't feel that any of the top contenders are very good maps, but then talks about how he's not sure tb3 would be considered good maps if they were introduced today.

Right there he's simultaneously taking two sides of the argument. One one hand, he can see objectively that some of the community is driven by nostalgia and conservatism. They reject change in a way that is not unique to quakeworld, and try to justify to themselves that what they know is right without truly understanding it. They think the id maps are some holy trinity of incredibly 4on4 gameplay, when, in reality, all these maps were made without any knowledge of for what they would be used or how they would be played.

Let's go through a checklist.
How many of these maps were made for 4on4? None.
How many of these maps were made knowing rocket jumps were viable for everyone? None.
How many of these maps were made for quakeworld? None.
How many were made with knowledge of bunny hopping or speed jumping? None.
How many of them were made knowing that the lg was the most terrifying weapon in the game, and that everyone would be hitting 40%? None.

Now, how many of the "DM" maps were of suitable size to even be considered for 4on4? Two. Don't you think it is an amazing coincidence that two perfect 4on4 maps came out with the game, when the developers knew nothing about the game they were releasing?

They didn't have some kind of unifying design philosophy. They just got incredibly lucky that their game works in such a way to allow for great gameplay on those maps. Do you think that luck is impossible to replicate? They aren't Persian sword-smiths; Their secrets lost in the sands of time. They were just a bunch of guys good at making sure there were no technical flaws in their maps who knew that spreading items about made things interesting.

Do I like tb3? Certainly. Do I think they are great maps which I don't want to replace? Yes! But I am under no illusion that they are perfect. All of them have flaws; Even the beloved dm3 (the best 4on4 map of all time) has quirks, perhaps quirks that would prevent it from getting into a map pool today if it hadn't come out with quake. But, if it was in that position, I would fight for it. I would champion its cause for addition to a standardised 5-map pool because it deserved to be there.

There would be many people who hated it and judged it by impossible standards because they had not learned everything they knew about the game while hopping around its corridors, and I would be having this same argument, substituting whatever "perfect" map id would have designed to replace it.

None of us is immune to personal bias. Even I, a disgusting kenya-loving cunt, has done that in the past. I have rejected maps out of hand because I didn't want to learn it, or I didn't like some of the textures, or I thought a lift was gimmicky, or there were too many spawns, or there were too few spawns, or the spawns were in places which reward dying, or one of the rooms was too big, or one of the corridors was too long and narrow, or quad was too closed, or pent was too much of a lottery, or discharging was too easy, or lg was too powerful in some important area, or control was too hard, or a lock was too easy, etc., etc.

But all of these things apply to tb3 too. Every single one. Everything I was finding wrong with these maps was also present in the holy trinity. Do you know what keeps these things from breaking the game? Degree. As long as they aren't present to a degree at which they break gameplay, they are largely inconsequential. They are "flavouring). No map is perfect. If a map was perfect, it would probably be boring. Stop looking for a perfect map, and start accepting that there are good maps. Even maps which are as good as some of tb3.

Stop changing maps in and out until people get tired of the idea, because that hasn't happened yet in all these years of 5-map tournaments with random map pools. Accept that a stable 5-map pool is an excellent compromise between two opposing sides, pick two good maps and stick with them.
2010-09-07, 14:49
2010-09-07, 15:00
Ok well I interpret from "Is for "real teamplay" necessary to NOT have those items in the map?" that you ment you wanted them in all maps in order to get good teamplay. So i gave example that dm2 is fine without them.
I feel dm3 is enough to have those items, if we wouldn't have a single map with those items I too would probably complain.

What do you mean main weapons? Equally good weapons? All weapons is used alot apart from NG/AXE. Sure they are not equally good but isnt that a good thing?

I just think that anyone have the right to play any maps they like for whatever reason they like, and whatever AMOUNT of maps they like too. Without having to be called lazy etc. Lazy can only be applied if it is actually something you WANT to do but is too lazy to do it.

Or do you think we are too stupid to know what we "really" want?
2010-09-07, 15:03
I don't think most people think that tb3 maps are perfect. I think most people regard them good enough as maps, and the games played in them as excellent.
2010-09-07, 15:12
with Stev here. stop changing the maps around, give a nice selection of the best kenya maps there are. give them a fair chance, see which one sticks around. see the tb3-only-fractions' arguments disintegrate. repeat. enjoy a more diverse, more newbie-friendly, more interesting qw. done.
2010-09-07, 15:21
Ye although what is a perfect map? I think they are great maps as far as item placement goes and the design of the maps. Ye I dont have a clue who the hell made them and he probably didnt have our competetive games today in mind when he made them. I guess he was just lucky cause they ARE good and suits extremly well for todays competetive games. E1m2 has some weird elements in it cause of the single player design but it still works great for 4on4, it is my favourite map probably.
And the history and tradition only adds to it and makes the games played in them perfect. So it is not like we are playing on a bunch of sucky maps and ONLY because it is original quake.
2010-09-07, 15:27
Treat this as a separate post filled with opinions and likely my own personal bias, where I tried to state only facts above.

For me, it's obvious that cmt3 has to make it into the pool. In the previous season it was basically on par with the popularity of some of tb3, and it seems of high quality to me after studying it and dozens of other maps. It's also the most accepted one amongst most of the more conservative division 1 players (I said most, blAze. Don't hurt me, please) who seem to append most tirades against maps with "but I guess cmt3 is ... okay". High praise indeed!

The second map was a tougher one, because so many people level the "ffa" and "povdmm4" criticism at cmt4 that it can't be ignored. And, to be honest, I agree with them about red armour, lg, the 57 cells, quad and its many easily-accessible, undefendable entrances. It's not a bad map overall, I just think there are better. Maybe I'm wrong?

My vote has to go for cmt1b. I organised many mixes and wrote many lengthy forum posts on it, and I guess that paid off when it got into the pool after one short summer of exposure. People do seem to like it, but of course there are the vocal opponents to consider too. People who are going to shout all the louder because it wasn't in any other pool in recent years. I think their criticisms are largely nebulous and fuelled by subjectivity and personal bias instead of anything concrete.

What are the major criticisms? Some think it looks horrible? Some think that the ramp jump feels gimmicky? Some think that some of the rooms are too big?

Niomic tries to be objective and reasonable, but even he says "even running around it makes me feel like the battles that are going to be fought there will suck ass most of the time". It is hardly clear criticism, and I respectfully disagree with the sentiment. Quad battles are exhilarating. Yellow armour's defensive chokes, stairs and numerous ambush spots both above and below the bars make for tense exploring. Venturing to pent for health, rockets or cells can be terrifying given its proximity to lg, mega and the overlooking window, meaning an act of desperation can mean your doom. Cross-stairs is rife with escaped shafters with mega venturing up to attack ya or quad, and firing down at them is daunting. RL is in an area where anyone can come around the corner after using the silent lift, or make the ramp jump with a fresh YA making defending it difficult at such close quarters. Quad teleporter offers a highly risky way to get to quad, interestingly tapering the advantage usually given by teleporters 2 metres away from quad. Silverdome (the mandatory big room) has an interesting, difficult upper level to negotiate, as well as a risky airlift which means doom if a shafter is waiting there for you. GL, just below quad, is a highly defensible position which offer respite from relentless quad onslaught, but contains a teleporter from red armour reducing its viability as a long-term strategy. I don't find any of these things boring or uninteresting, and I've probably named every room on the map.

Some don't even level any specific criticism at it, and just say "it sucks ass" without having any idea why. They don't even attempt to address objective points about the map because in something as complex as 4on4, objectivity is hard, and why attempt objectivity if it's too hard for you? Nonsense, I say. Good and bad maps exist for more reasons than "someone thinks it is icky". CMT1b is a good map.
2010-09-07, 15:48
feels like all CMT maps tries to do too many things at once. They need all weapons, all powerups. Since we learned how to speedjump and how great it was.. hell, lets make all the maps speedjumpable like mad!

I still think there is enough quality and diversity in TB3 for competetive play and if you want to discover a few more excellent maps, do it in a ladder/Cmt tournament etc.

And it's not like you are forced to play 4on4 only.. ppl usually play LOTS of maps.. 1on1 2on2 4on4 FFA, aim maps, trick maps... there is alot of diversity outthere for you to play on.

Not ALL ppl like ALL of the tb3 maps, just shows you how different they are from each other. and that is a compromise in itself imo. to get those 3 maps accepted. But ofc your theory is that, well, if we can't even agree on the 3 maps already play we probably cant agree on ANY map pool.. wether it be 1 3 5 or 100... so whats the point? just lets play all and that is obviously impossible.

I dno.. I really dont know

And when I don't know, I better stick to what I DO know.. TB3 for 4on4.
But we'll probably join any kenya tournament/ladder like we always do anyway. If at least to give the maps a try... like we always do.
And what goes for eql, the tb5 map pool will stretch into playoffs+finals?

And if EQL decided that half of EQL seasons should be with TB5, it seems like noone knows what they want. EQL is giving us the worst of both worlds.
Forcing PPL to play kenya maps every 2nd season, usually changing maps also, if they want to win the thing, then next season TB3 again.
IF you don't know what you REALLY want, keep them seperated!!!
Let those new maps come out in the open by themselfs... keep playing and pushing those kenya ladders and tournaments. Convince us that some new aerowalk/ztndm3 for 4on4 is outthere.

Not this halfhearted bs about forcing us to play any 2 random kenya maps with the argument that "more is better, and they are probably as good as tb3.. you'll see.. in time"
2010-09-07, 15:52
5-map tournaments aren't going away, as much as you would like that. They are held as part of the primary league's tour every single year. EVERY SINGLE YEAR. You can't just pretend they don't exist, or will magically cease to exist. You HAVE to legislate for them, because letting them continue with random map polls doesn't satisfy anyone for various reasons.

The question isn't "Should we stick to tb3?"; It's "When we don't stick to tb3, what should the maps be?".
2010-09-07, 15:57
lol, you say 5 map tournaments aren't going away, as if it was set in stone. The only reason they are here in the first place, is an attempt to get more maps in the pool.
That obviously isn't working as intended, and the fact that they still run both 5-map and 3-map pools in the same tournament, just shows they don't know which direction to go.
So ofcourse I don't need to pretend they exist, but I can lobby as much for them to be tb3 only ALL YEAR, as you can lobby for them to be tb5 only.. ALL YEAR.

We had a nice compromise with kenya tournaments and tb3 tournaments before, I think we should get that back on track again.
2010-09-07, 16:41
What I am lobbying for right now is a compromise, not for what I want. Both sides are obviously unhappy with the current situation which has existed in various states since the beginning of Quakeworld. Don't ascribe selfish motivations to what you disagree with just because that makes your argument stronger.

The EQL crew have attempted a compromise with splitting the year into 50% large map pool, 50% small. This is obvious insufficient since it doesn't address the valid concern of the decreased standard of gameplay on maps which are constantly swapped out. A stable large map pool would fix this making it quite an excellent compromise.

It is only you lobbying for what you want all year long. And it is your voice (and the voice of others who will never be satisfied with any map even should it be designed by the hand of Allah himself) that maintains this constant, entirely unsatisfactory state of flux. If you don't like any maps, or don't even know why you like the maps that you do (instead admitting ignorance and repeatedly referring to time and experience as the only possible way to judge maps), then perhaps you shouldn't pick any maps. Leave it to those who have at least attempted to discern between good maps and bad instead of unilaterally deciding against them all and unwittingly maintaining the constant shifting between maps which will never achieve a decent standard of gameplay as a result.
2010-09-07, 17:10
You are not lobbying for a compromise, because a compromise is what we already have... 50% kenya pool, 50% tb3 only. That is the compromise now - and i don't feel it's working at all.
So.. Either you split it up and do some more advertisement for the kenya tour/ladder, get more games played and really find some good maps that can be long lasting. THEN you can add like 2 maps to the TB3 eql, if clans do wish so. And run with it for like 2-3 seasons.. but all the way. also for finals etc. for all divisions...

We have 3 good maps that works. You have alot of maps of which you don't know are really good or not, but who cares, just pick 2 and get on with it.. that's your way.

Noone just "picked" tb3 and said "lets get on with it". They were in a large pile of maps played for many years and were the last maps standing after many years of phasing out worse maps. So I think YOU can't merit that fact either.

It's hard to just put in more maps selected random into a pool of maps that has been shaped over years of play.

So at the moment I stand by my conviction that TB3 only is the way to go for the EQL and it will also be for the QHLAN and next seasons EQL anyway. So why delay the inevitable.. just start that extra tournament/ladder NOW and save yourself to wait another year before we have this discussion again.
2010-09-07, 17:48
totally agree with what Para just said. Make two leagues! No biggie. One to be competitive and the other to be experimental. That is just a FREAKIN' awsome solution. Although I appreciate your efforts to dissect, analyze and find a compromise, Stev.
2010-09-07, 17:49
Midcit must be the best map ever, not even the most map critical guys seems to argue with me about it
2010-09-07, 18:02
"You are not lobbying for a compromise, because a compromise is what we already have... 50% kenya pool, 50% tb3 only. That is the compromise now - and i don't feel it's working at all."

Er, I am lobbying for the 50% kenya to have a stable pool. not only is that a compromise, but it's a compromise built upon an already existing compromise designed to satisfy you more.

Apologies if I didn't make this clear. I have written about 3 novels worth of posts over the last two days and I guess some of my points might be lost in seas of text.
2010-09-07, 18:08
I just hope enough many people expect cmt3 to be in the pool anyway and vote for something else. And then hopefully, cmt3 is left out.
2010-09-07, 18:09
Hey look, we all agree after all! Tea and cake for everyone!
2010-09-07, 18:20
More qw maps, less q2,q3,qlive,ut maps :E Those games have horrible 4on4, but can be really nice for duels / ffa. And keep it simple. Even though I've never really enjoyed e2m2 (prolly cos I've barely played the tdm version ever), it still feels so much more like a qw (tdm) map. It feels quite simply without having all kinds of nonsense all over and convoluted ideas copied badly from successful maps.

Midcit was played when I was quite inactive so I don't really know, felt quite qw to me. Schloss has many good things going for it, but I don't like all the thematic stuff in it, too much clutter. It also feels large, but seems to get quite crowded in 4on4 play, not that I can really say that it's all bad. Rather crowded than have huge vastness of abyss space like cmt's Grim seems ok, although I don't enjoy the under water rl, don't really like it in e1m2 either :E

If we don't have a separate league, then the big league needs to simply force specific maps in stone for _many_ seasons, maybe even try to find ways of encouraging play on those maps (besides the obvious).

I wonder how many people feel like they really wanna play 4on4 in a league when there are new maps (even if they really don't come close to mastering tb3) compared to the people who find themselves even less motivated to play (having barely enough time to keep up with all the developments in tb3 high level play). I generally fall into the latter
2010-09-07, 18:37
1tsinen: Oh God, not midcit. I could argue against it for hours, or you could ask Milton what he thinks about it too. It's a featureless circuit split in two. The only reason it is even considered is because it is simple enough that a mollusc could learn it in ten minutes. It's a hodgepodge of design features stolen from existing maps and placed in a big, boring 2-dimensional square.
2010-09-08, 00:27
A couple of replies to blAze:

ztndm3 actually met with quite a lot of hostility when it started to enter the map pool for euro duel tournaments. There was much whining and specs going on about how lame it was seeing such a map played in duelmania and that it was far too easy to dominate with mega and ra close together. Then 7mins they were spooging all over the close finish In fact as I recall one of the reasons cited for some top players not going to reunion lan (organised by qhlan crew in summer 2003) was the inclusion of aero and ztn.

Then there is the argument you come back to that cmt maps are not played much in mix games which shows that people don't enjoy them. But dm2/e1m2 are hardly played either compared to dm3, I mean probably 90% of mix games are on dm3. So doesn't it follow that we should play tb1 not tb3?

I'm probably slightly different from most in that I've actually got less conservative as I've got older. I've played QW quite a long time (not as long as some) and while 7-8 years ago I was kinda anti custom maps for 4on4 (despite loving them for all other forms of the game), I mean "tb3" was actually a phrase I coined in some discussion threads I had with Link back then. I actually drew up a blueprint for a 'villans style' tb3 only invitation only league and discussed it with ParadokS a bit (early 2004 I think) but in the end it was never needed.
But more recently I am a lot more open to the prospect of custom maps in 4on4. I enjoy dm3 always and e1m2 is lush with mm3. But dm2 simply isn't as enjoyable as a nice cmt game for me. I'm not bored of playing dm3 I just do genuinely find some stuff a bit repetitive and in some ways the fact that clans have refined their play so much gets a little frustrating, you know, like players always knowing the perfect places to stand, shoot etc (not saying that is bad just that I also like the variety and opportunity to innovate on new maps).

Back in the day when leagues had a bigger map pool one of the more exciting things was learning the new maps and formulating strategies and tactics. IMO that is actually a skill as well, not just refining tb3 play, but also the ability of players and clans to develop their game in a new environment. For some people, the response is doubtless "I'd rather spend my time playing top games on tb3 than doing that" which is fine, but I do miss it.

Edited by HangTime on 08 Sep 10 @ 01:35CET
2010-09-08, 01:25
" I'm not bored of playing dm3 I just do genuinely find some stuff a bit repetitive and in some ways the fact that clans have refined their play so much gets a little frustrating, you know, like players always knowing the perfect places to stand, shoot etc"

I often felt that way concerning duels, but watching duels in 2010, all I can think of is 'wow'. The game is still being refined at quite a decent pace, especially on a map like dm4 that has seen incredible amounts of play. This is in a way multiplied in 4on4, especially with mm3 and high playing level standards. Even with all this knowledge, you see top level people making mistakes, people out thinking opponents in ways I hadn't seen and more and more elaborate ambushes, blocking, rushing etc.

I understand the enjoyment you can get from figuring things out and formulating tactics and strategies on a more clean slate, taking giant steps at first. I guess I just prefer the basic level to be really high and seeing things play out with more nuances and ever improving.

This is a bit biased towards a spectator point-of-view as I've taken far too many breaks during my career to really develop steadily with the rest of the scene. But still spectating and playing enough to enjoy the micro improvements when I see them. In a way this describes how many probably feel about custom maps. The progress curve is quite steep, but you are still concentrating on keeping the macro level things in check instead of doing the really sweet nuanced stuff. This is what I go trough most of the time when I come back I start to get the base level of playing back to pretty much an earlier acquired level and generally when I start to get into more intelligent and flow gaming, the season is over or I have other things to attend to. This is mitigated to a degree by the fact that I spec so much and try to actually take in what I see in a thoughtful way. All of this is indeed one of the reasons that I personally don't really like getting into kenyas that much as I would have two obstacles to conquer at the same time
2010-09-08, 05:47
dm2 and e1m2 are still played MASSIVE amounts if you compare them to cmt maps, instead of dm3. When people want some variation in a mix, they play dm2 or e1m2, not cmt maps. With this amount of playtime, it's just ridiculous to have cmts in official tournaments.
2010-09-08, 05:59
Also it doesn't really matter if ztn was not accepted at first because right now it is played daily. Cmt maps are old, maybe older than ztn, and they have been in and out of 4on4 tournaments forever, but still no one ever plays them outside every second EQL season.
2010-09-08, 06:45
Try suggesting a cmt map in a prac after having played 1-3 TB3 maps. People drop and/or say good night faster than USA burned money in Iraq...
2010-09-08, 11:25
#108 of Paradoks is sooo right.... Who the hell wants to see a final game on kenyas? We want top-notch action rife with incredibly well-developped strategies. And that's what tb3 provides.

Conlusion that MUST be taken into account: KEEP THEM SEPARATED. Make TB# EQLs and CMTs Ladders. Once we've played the ladders with cmts , WE WILL DECIDE which maps are the most suitable to join the noble TB3.

Make a vote on that and do not force us to acccept unwanted things!!
2010-09-08, 11:26
TB3 EQls*
2010-09-08, 11:45
TB3 EQls
2010-09-08, 13:26
I’m not suggesting that cmt is played as much as e1m2 in mix. What I’m getting at is that if CMT are excluded from the map pool because they are played significantly less than e1m2 in mix, then surely e1m2 should also be excluded from the map pool because it is played significantly less than dm3 in mix? According to dm3 is played 4on4 approx 7 times as much as e1m2 and of course that figure is hugely biased downwards by the impact of clan games (i.e. in clan games the ratio of dm3:e1m2 will be way lower than the ratio for mix games).

CMT maps are in no way old compared to ztndm3, ztndm3 came out in 1997 or early 1998 which predates CMT (with the exception of an earlier version of Andromeda 9) by a good 5 years. So in fact it took a good 8 years or so for ztndm3 to finally get accepted (by which I mean not a huge amount of whine) as a tournament duel map in Europe. Don’t forget ztndm3q even got made because people were so vocal about the ‘poor’ item layout etc. ztndm3 was in no way accepted overnight, it took many years. As for it being played daily, that’s partly because duels just get played more times than 4on4. For a duel you only need to find 1 opponent, for 4on4 you need 4 opponents and 3 teammates. Even the least popular of the 5 main duel maps is played way, way more times than the most popular 4on4 map according to

In summary I’m not saying cmt should definitely be included in tournaments, just that I think some of the arguments against it are severely flawed (or at least those same arguments can/should be applied against tb3 maps). Who knows, maybe the best approach is to just have eql-tb3 and eql-kenya as separate tournaments, that way you still get to play cmt etc if you want to. With eql-kenya having a stable map pool (not sure how many maps total) and being played alongside the regular EQL seasons (maybe a knockout tournament).
2010-09-08, 16:58
Even after all this discussion, people still bring out the same tired, old, played-out arguments, convinced that the decade-old desire for a larger map pool will disappear if they repeat themselves enough, instead of listening to the suggested compromises.

And separate tournaments is NOT a compromise; It's a division of an already small and struggling community which would further no one's goals, unless their goal is to see the game die even faster.
2010-09-08, 17:40
Stev, and you are doing what exactly? Although I do agree that separate tournaments might not work, especially if they are overlapping, you are already creating separation or fragmentation with having kenyas included, even in discussion. I think it's quite high'an'mighty of you to assume that you are the only one working for some illusive progress and compromise. Still, I think you've at least put quite a lot of effort into this discussion and that's always nice
2010-09-08, 17:48
I still think we would have played more maps if the majority wanted to.
Things like that happen when enough people want something.
What is your take on that Stev?

I mean we used to play _any_ maps, just have a look at nqr2 and nqr3. Somehow the players thought it was too many maps and that it was too much of an effort to keep track of all those maps so naturally it boiled down to 3 maps (again). Smackdown was always 3 maps afaik.
2010-09-08, 18:16
I'll give it a shot. Sometimes far too many maps (usually accompanied with a heavily biased ruleset to make the extra maps even lest interesting), sometimes inconsistent pools, sometimes terrible maps, sometimes biased rules, sometimes because they wait until the week of the tournament to announce a map pool which no one can have practiced or even predicted (hello this season!), sometimes because they listen to the people who HATE all custom maps when picking the pool, thus making sure that no on can possibly be satisfied, and sometimes seasons (regardless of the pool) just fail for no good reason.

There will always be whine because people who want a larger map pool are not exactly a staggering majority, so it's literally impossible to please everyone involved in the tournament. You just have to find a middle ground which addresses as many of the genuine problems as possible.
2010-09-08, 18:27
Niomic: The EQL admins currently have a compromise implemented where they split the year between one 3-map season and one 5-map season. That is basically a perfect split compromise between the two opposing sides. What I am suggesting is a concession by the side that wants 5 maps to cater to conservative and inactive players. There is no further way I can possibly suggest further concession, without splitting the community in two, without saying "take tb3 all year every year", and that's not much of a compromise.
2010-09-08, 18:43
#132 isnt really a sufficient explanation... you could still prac or mix on other maps. But not enough ppl are interested in that.
2010-09-08, 19:04
Majority wants to play more maps. Check here for instance. Your "my friends tell me they don't like non-tb3" does not really count as any proof of anything.
2010-09-08, 19:37
And yet tb3 won
2010-09-08, 20:00
Hooraytio: Smackdown wasn't tb3 only. The map pool was nearly always 5 maps (tb3 + e3m7/dm6/e2m2 and maybe some others). One of the hardest things was that the core admin team wanted a consistent map pool between continents (back in the early days when there were visions of LAN finals between the divisions) which made choosing the maps tough due to the cultural differences between the different regions. For example dm6 was more 'popular' in Europe than in Australia.
2010-09-08, 20:06
HangTime, you are blindly looking at the ratios, but map knowledge doesn't grow linearly. dm2 and e1m2 are in a mature state and the level of gameplay in them is high. Because of this, even though dm3 is played much more, it results only as a tiny rise in the level of gameplay compared to other tb3. The fact remains: cmt maps are not played practically at all and the level of gameplay in them is extremely poor. You can keep talking about it, but until you can show me the stats that they are played on daily basis by the majority of teams, there is very little substance in what you are saying. I don't know about duels, but I suspect people were playing ztn also outside of tournament games. And yes, duels are much easier to play so introducing new maps makes more sense because it is actually realistically possible for the players to get proficient in them. Dreaming about popular maps in tdm outside of tb3 is just utopistic. Every season there is less clans participating and especially this season seems to see a dramatic drop in the amount of participating teams.
2010-09-08, 20:08
The poll was stacked against custom maps to a laughable degree, and you think that's a win?
1) It split up the 5-map options into two separate categories, effectively halving the custom map votes.
2) It forced people to choose between two specific combinations of maps which don't represent anyone's desires (I'd rather play tb3 than fucking midcit).
3) The poll was replaced by another, more detailed poll to determine the EQL pool at a point when the tb3 option was in last place, and only once the poll became obsolete, and everyone who got the result they desired began to vote between custom maps, did tb3 gain some tiny amount of traction.
2010-09-08, 20:14
Hooraytio, why would anyone commit to getting 8 players to practice a map if there is zero guarantee that it will ever be used for anything? Even e1m2 games are almost completely absent from mixes and rarely seen outside of leagues and pracs for said leagues. If e1m2 had not been a part of the standardised pool, it would never be played. It would be treated with the same disdain as all other episode maps.

It's not like duel where you just need one like-minded person to play with you, and even duel showed a severe limitation of the map pool before a standard was decided upon.
2010-09-08, 20:15
And Johnny you are intentionally misinterpreting the poll results. If you want to know if people prefer tb3 or kenya, then you have to ask that, not something else.
2010-09-08, 20:19
Also if these are public polls where people can just register fake accounts to the forum and vote 50 times they have no value. You have to collect votes only from real players who are registered in the league.
2010-09-08, 20:20
Yet it is based on some relevant data, while Hooraytio bases his statements on what a couple of people he knows tell him + his subjective opinion.
2010-09-08, 20:23
Also, he's a god damn admin of the competition and main admin of that competition started that poll. He surely can have his own opinion on certain matters but he's saying something that is in direct contradiction with measurements from a method his team established. I wonder how and why he stays on the admin post in such paradox situation, personally I would immediately resign.
2010-09-08, 20:30
then why dont they play more maps?
2010-09-08, 20:33
i base my opinion on the fact that clans dont prac other maps with a few exceptions and that ppl dont mix other maps with a few exceptions. what more proof do you need? make another bogus poll on the forum?

are you serious?
2010-09-08, 20:35
you need to start mixing on new maps to get attention, you managed that with cmt1b but still it seems like not many ppl started to like it. good try though.
2010-09-08, 20:39
"It's not like duel where you just need one like-minded person to play with you, and even duel showed a severe limitation of the map pool before a standard was decided upon."

Dont you think the standard for 4on4 has been decided? To me it seems pretty damn clear that TB3 is the standard and the seasons with 5 maps are experimental. Seriously, good luck finding more maps that enough ppl will agree on. To me it seems like we will continue this argument forever.
2010-09-08, 20:42
#144 btw, i think i am entitled to an opinion.
how do you think things are decided in an admin team? ppl just randomly vote for stuff? no, they have opinions.
2010-09-08, 20:53
Finally, im not against playing new maps but i see too many problems with trying to force new maps on such an old community. TB3 isnt superior, we have just played them for 10+ years and its not that easy to change. If you thinks its possible to introduce more maps then figure out some way to do it. Obviously mixing a map for a whole summer and then add it to EQL10 didnt work, only 2 clans played it regurlarly.

To really know what the players want then query all eql12 players on irc and ask them, dont rely on a poll on because there are ppl voting who dont even play in a clan, like Johnny_cz...
2010-09-08, 21:23
You could use it's much easier than irc. Then you can just collect the nicks that are actually registered in the league. And please dont try to twist the question with some weird options, it's simple enough: do you want other maps besides tb3 in eql - yes/no.
2010-09-08, 21:36
Well I made it for you, use freely:

2010-09-08, 21:48
I think there is a big problem with voting for absolutely tb3 only, even if that's what many prefer. You are not just taking a stance in favor of tb3 but against any map additions. Even if tb3 won with some margin, leaving out a major percentage of players in a small scene like this is quite drastic.

I'm not saying it's because of kenya, maybe more because of the time of year, but eql10 and eql12 now don't look so hot. eql10 had a decent amount of teams, but wasn't really active, eql12 seems to have quite a few teams so far :/
2010-09-08, 21:58
There has been a small decline in teams every subsequent season, but yes now it is more dramatic than before. I guess we just have to face the facts and enjoy while we can.
2010-09-08, 22:03
"Even if tb3 won with some margin, leaving out a major percentage of players in a small scene like this is quite drastic."

Does the same not hold true the other way around just as well? Especially since it's reasonable to presume that we are talking about the core of today's scene? How interesting is this game to anyone without div1?
2010-09-08, 23:57
With regards to the accuracy of that poll, if half of the people in that thread (a ridiculous number, considering average voting numbers in similar threads) faked and voted for 5 maps, then, at the time the poll closed, 3 maps and 5 maps would have been roughly tied. Even if tb3 edged out a win, do we live in the kind of community where 49% of the vote means you get absolutely nothing? Slight majority rules and everyone else suffers? That's complete nonsense.

It reminds me of a rather over-the-top quote I read once. "You want to know about voting. I'm here to tell you about voting. Imagine you're locked in a huge underground night-club filled with sinners, whores, freaks and unnameable things that rape pitbulls for fun. And you ain't allowed out until you all vote on what you're going to do tonight. You like to put your feet up and watch 'Republican Party Reservation.' They like to have sex with normal people using knives, guns, and brand new sexual organs you did not even know existed. So you vote for television, and everyone else, as far as your eye can see, votes to fuck you with switchblades. That's voting. You're welcome."

"Does the same not hold true the other way around just as well?"
Of course it does, that's why there is "one season each" if you like. Not only that, but the 5-map pool is in the least active part of the year, none of tb3 have been altered or removed from it, and the league is still dominated by tb3 because you can win every match without winning a single custom map. Not only that, but this season will be immediately be followed by a special div1 league for tb3 only, raising the number of 3-map leagues in which you can participate. Aside from my suggestion about fixing the map pool, there are literally no more concessions that can be made.

You are being handed almost everything you want on a silver platter with the smallest possible string attached, and you offer nothing short of total refusal. That's not even close to a reasonable attitude.
2010-09-09, 00:24
Yes you can win every match but that doesn't mean to say that it's enjoyable. Look at tVS vs SD on cmt1b, was it really that enjoyable for either side?

It's fair to say that dm3 is the most popular map but beyond that teams get forced to play less popular maps when they might prefer not to. So of course people are going to argue against it. However we need to ask ourselves how much weighting we give to enjoyment. Is it better for the majority to be slightly happy and the minority really unhappy? Or the minority to be really happy and the majority to be slightly unhappy?

One thing I struggle to grasp is why div1 players would be that fussed about eql12 maps when there is eql-pro around the corner. Effectively they could consider that eql-pro is their 'real' EQL and that EQL12 is just some extra bonus league that includes custom maps. These div1 clans should qualify for eql-pro regardless of how they perform on the kenya maps.

What I'd find interesting would be to hear more from low-div players as to what they think of kenya maps. Do they just want tb3 or extra maps as well? There is a general perception that oldschool (typically high-div) players want tb3 only whereas it's newbs wanting cmt. But I'm not so sure, I think a lot of low div players are either very casual players that don't want to spend time learning new maps, or maybe even newer players that want to focus on tb3 and improve there since learning CMT just so they can win div3 may not appeal (tks from EQL10 being an obvious exception). But ultimately it's hard to know because not many are active/vocal enough to be heard.
2010-09-09, 01:27
tVS vs SD is an example of poor sportsmanship rather than the actual downsides of introducing new maps. Why did they do what they did? Because they didn't like the map and because they knew they were going to lose? SD were soundly defeated on their home e1m2 by 126 frags, which is a map they likely picked because of tVS' well-known dislike for it, in an act of hilarious hypocrisy. (I don't have a problem with any of the suddendeath players involved in it; Everyone makes mistakes. But god damn, what a total dick move).

I recall a dm3 with Na Fianna where the opponents just ran around like idiots /killing, resulting in a score of something like -200. However, we're not going to toss dm3 because some players decided that they didn't want to play a map against a team that was going to destroy them there, and subsequently wasted everyone's time and made a mockery of the league.
2010-09-09, 06:46
You could also compare new maps to the new ball used in the world cup in South Africa this summer. The german league used the ball for a whole year while others didnt, partly (or mostly?) because of sponsorship issues. Anyway, the result was that we saw a lot of shit shots from a distance and most freekicks were utter crap. Some players managed to handle the ball, like Forlan, but most of them struggled. Germany scored a lot of goals from 1-3 meters range and the play was very different from the world cup 2006. Even though the ball was shit that time as well. Add to this the annoying vuvuzela sound that ruined all chances of team communications and you have a lot of pro´s playing some rather shitty games. (some games were still epic but honsetly the level of play was considerably lower)

Yeah i compared to sports again and perhaps this sounded totally lame but we cant get enough of those sport references!
2010-09-09, 06:54
Stev, you can not just lump together the two different 5 map options like that. I for example could possibly vote for something like cmt4+e3m7, but would never ever vote for something that holds a risk of having to play utter shit like cmt3. In other words you can not count votes for a specific map combination to hold true for any map combination. That vote was not about 3 maps vs 5 maps. Many voters who voted one 5 map option might still prefer the tb3 option over the other 5 map option.
2010-09-09, 07:26
Yeah, sport references arent that far out, really. Per def QW IS actually a sport. If you were to compare QW with other sports, I think comparing it with other sports like other games (be it card, board or computer games, also referred to sometimes as 'mind sports') would be more fair to your arguments :-).

But yeah, I guess you could compare anything to everything. The football itself would to me be more like the speed, damage and behavior of weapons and such, but those kind of comparisons are very individual. The annoying vuvuzelas could be your gf yelling at you because you forgot to do some random house duties you promised you were gonna do. Gosh, nothing breaks my concentration more at least.

Maps in QW would to me be more what kind of venue you're playing. Is it your home venue, away venue, artificial grass, natural grass, big, small, etc. Also things that affect your level of play depending on what you're used to. Sure, you could make that perfect pass to your wing down towards the corner flag on your home venue 90% of the time, but on unfamiliar ground it is a different story. Even though I'm sure we could get CMT1-5 maps up to a high level of play pretty fast, it would take years to come to get it at the TB3 level of finesse. I just don't think the regular EQL season should be the ground to experiment with other maps that are played at a much lower finesse level than TB3.
2010-09-09, 07:27
"One thing I struggle to grasp is why div1 players would be that fussed about eql12 maps when there is eql-pro around the corner. Effectively they could consider that eql-pro is their 'real' EQL and that EQL12 is just some extra bonus league that includes custom maps."

Just because there is some rumours about a league after EQL12, doesn't mean that there is anyone left to play it (myself included). My personal problem is that I have very limited free time after work and I prefer to use it on doing things that I like doing, not playing cmt3. Sure I could do 'SD' and just idle on the map but it would also be waste of everyones' time and pretty lame too.
2010-09-09, 07:39
Here you go boys, enjoy:
2010-09-09, 07:48
Stop making fake posts in
2010-09-09, 08:05
Looks like TB3 is winning 4:1, go vote map-people. Of course the votes must be verified somehow afterwards because there is no other way to control faking.
2010-09-09, 08:06
Well Johnny_cz and Stev cant vote since they havent even signed up for eql12...
2010-09-09, 08:11
Well then they have extra motivation to join in the league and play some QW.
2010-09-09, 08:27
Well it is already decided that the map pool will consist of 5 maps. Their main problem, as i get it, is the way those 2 extra maps are selected. And also, to some extent, the inconsistency of the EQL map pool.

In the end the community will have a very hard time, if its even possible, to decide on 2 extra maps to complete the pool of 5. So far noone has been able to suggest a good way to accomplish this. And to be honest, even with Johnny_cz pasting the bogus poll result from the forum, the interest for more maps to be played competetively seems mild at best.

An important thing that noone has been able to answer is: If enough ppl wanted more maps then wouldnt we be playing more maps already? Noone has been able to give a satisfactory answer to this since noone said this: Enough ppl dont want more maps. The ppl that really really want more maps are too few and they also have too different opinions about which maps should be played.

Until this changes we can discuss this forever and the players will be more or less dissatisfied with the current situation depending on what season is coming next, a tb3 season or a tb3+2 season.
2010-09-09, 08:44
I want tb3 until there will be new maps that can sweep me away in the same way that aero swept me away when it comes to duel.
2010-09-09, 08:59
Yeah of course it is decided, I made the poll just out of academic interest. It may very well be true that majority in EQL wants more maps, but I would like to know, not guess.
2010-09-09, 09:18
This thread is getting way too long for my Hero, is a pain to browse it while driving! Nice way to pass the time in the Johannesburg traffic jams though.
2010-09-09, 09:50
Come home and play QW Ake!
2010-09-09, 10:00
Not yet Maybe next year!
2010-09-09, 10:16
Hoping for that then!
2010-09-09, 11:06
Hoping for not total failure season like EQL10 was. :E
2010-09-09, 11:18
EQL11 was more succesful than EQL10 but it is a little harsh to call EQL10 a total failure...
2010-09-09, 15:48
EQL11 was the funniest and most active tournament in many many years imo. at least in div1.

About the map issue in mixes: I think it is kind of irrelevant argument to what people actually likes to play in CLAN games.
First of all most servers are set to DM3 from start. But the biggest reason is that DM3 works best for mixes, it is the easiest map to have decent teamplay on for a mix.
Dm2 and e1m2 can be more chaotic and ffa and mixes.
That's at least the reason for me that I like dm3 most in mixes, but in clan games dm2/e1m2 is just as fun.
So if you are gonna look at that kind of statistic then look at prac-games between clans, because then dm2/e1m2 is probably played ALOT more. Even though dm3 might still be most popular there as well.
I think it is because it is so bright and shiny and makes people happy with those blue clouds, dm2 is dark and depressing.
2010-09-09, 16:01
love the sd-tvs discussion, here we go again. so, forcing "new" maps into the pool is a good way to go? ofcourse you will think NO, but then again, last seasons voting for maps was far from democratic. it was just GG.

solution1: EQL=tb3, EQL-ladder: TB5
solution2: division votes for tb3/tb5 as we've seen before
2010-09-09, 16:04
The result in blaze poll looks interesting so far
2010-09-09, 16:21
When you can see the names it gets more interesting than an anonymous forum poll.
2010-09-09, 16:31
haha just make it tb3, the posts from #159 onward are just too lol.
you have no intention whatsoever to discuss anything map related, you just want your traditional mappool which is fine.
it doesn't matter what any poll says, even if kenya is re-introduced based on majority votes it depends on teams not afking and not trying if they don't like it.
tradition > *, now thats GG bps! ;D
2010-09-09, 16:33
Nice arguing to call posts in opposition to be "too lol"...
I guess you only accept votes when they slightly favour tb3+more maps and not the other way around.

The amount of maps for this season was decided long ago but the interest for more maps seems low, thats all im saying.
2010-09-09, 16:39
As far as the map related discussion goes I think both sides have discussed the maps in depth and analyzed them from a 4on4 perspective and not only from what they feel about it. There will always be feelings involved though since the players who are left should care pretty much about the game after all these years.
2010-09-09, 16:39
you're right, my plan is to fuck around and afk on dm2 because i find the map ugly and i don't like it based on gut feelings.
No dummy, i don't only accept votes if they agree with me, i actually want tb3 if it comes down to people really not wanting to try anything other than tb3.
2010-09-09, 16:45
also hooraytio, how many cmt1b mixes did you play last summer? was it indepth analysis when you left after about 2 of them because ... ehhh it dun feel good in my gut yo.
2010-09-09, 16:47
it's pretty goddamn clear there will be no change in preference, and like i said in the forum, if div1 isnt trying to play the best 4on4 on kenya maps there is no reason to introduce them in the first place.
2010-09-09, 16:47
When 12% of players have voted, 95% want TB3 only. Definately a different kind of result that I was expecting.
2010-09-09, 16:51
i wouldnt say thats surprising especially with the amount of div1 votes but yea, even if it was the other way around, if div1 rejects it there is just 0% chance the level of play will rival tb3 any time soon.
2010-09-09, 17:01
I'm only interested in the facts so lower divs go ahead and vote. I'm sure there is support for more maps in div1 too.
2010-09-09, 17:02
"i wouldnt say thats surprising especially with the amount of div1 votes but yea, even if it was the other way around, if div1 rejects it there is just 0% chance the level of play will rival tb3 any time soon."

I agree that any kenya maps will not be accepted in div1 and get the top level of play you want in this season.
But I'm not so sure kenya maps won't ever get accepted. I just think DIV1 has pretty good feeling what the generel community wants. Afterall most div1 players have been around the longest. And our gutfeeling tells us TB3 is what the majority wants.

But IF it turns out like 80% wants kenya maps in one shape or the other... I seriously think many of us will rethink our position on tb3 as the one and only sollution. So far it's not looking good though for the tb3 haters

I really hope as many as possible will participate in this poll.

On another, though related note, is actually fully functional again. But it's lacking all the content we had before. I'm gonna start a work group soon and organize some re-adding of all that content. adding all the maps we have available and taking screenshots of them, uploading and taking screenshots of all the texture sets we can find, tagging maps and making groups, so it's alot easier to browse around and find something you might like to try out.

More on this later!

Edited by ParadokS on 09 Sep 10 @ 18:04CET
2010-09-09, 17:05
first of all no one knows whether you would change your mind, and just flatout claiming you would is ...... too lol!
secondly i don't hate tb3 at all, so you shall stop referring to me as such
2010-09-09, 17:33
stop the personal attacks fern... calling me dummy isnt gonna help your cause.
2010-09-09, 17:36
clapclap, what an excellent performance as the victim ;p
2010-09-09, 17:38
And even though i havent mixed cmt1b more than max 5 times i really tried to give it a chance in our official matches on it during eql10, i didnt idle and i didnt press kill. however, those matches didnt exactly make me want to play it more. you have to accept that there are players that dont enjoy cmt1b.
2010-09-09, 17:40
FYI this isn't my "cause" like i'm a spokesperson for PETA, i like tb3 just the same, it's not about having an advantage, cause we wouldn't have one if it wasn't rejected, theres fun playable maps thats all? sorry to have offended you with my "diverse" "nontraditional" "views"
2010-09-09, 17:40
i dont enjoy 1on1 so i dont play that either. the same thing but on another level.
2010-09-09, 17:41
ya and tvs doesn't enjoy e1m2, i don't understand what it has to do with anything
2010-09-09, 18:20
What one enjoys has everything to do with it. Why play if you dont enjoy it?

I dont think you want to play other maps to win vs clans who dont know them. You think other maps are fun. I think TB3 is more fun and rather stick with that.

You havent offended me with your views about other maps. What offends me is when you call me dummy. Your tone is also slightly ironic and sarcastic which may irritate people. You make your points perfectly clear anyway so there is no need for those extra comments not related to the discussion.
2010-09-09, 18:29
hey victim, dummy isn't a very strong word at all, i'm keeping it tame ;[
as far as tone goes, you're pretty much projecting.
also you shouldn't be talking about unrelated comments, your sports analogy was pretty funny in itself and doubting whether i prefer to see one kind of vote over another is quite irrelevant too i'd say.
this discussion has played itself out in many ways and if this doodlevote is representative enough there is nothing to argue about, i only want kenya if people want to raise their level on it themselves, that is all.
2010-09-09, 19:11
2010-09-09, 19:34
21% of players voted, 81% of the voted for TB3 only. Keep voting:
2010-09-09, 20:40
With over a week of signups left, you should probably avoid removing votes until they are closed.
2010-09-09, 20:59
Also one thing to bear in mind is that maybe some people hate kenya so much they might have boycotted signing up to EQL12 due to the 5 map pool. So there could be a bunch of tb3 zealots missing out on the chance to vote, whereas if the decision hadn't already been taken, they might have signed up and hence been eligible.
2010-09-09, 21:19
unless there is some decision tied to the this vote it's meaningless. it might be 50/50 or it might be 70/30 for either side, so what? we already know there is a substantial amount of people on both "sides".
we need a decision, not more debate. even better if we find a working compromise but i'd rather see someone take a stand for either side than more uncertainty/weak compromises.
2010-09-09, 21:22
or do a proper vote on the eql site, one man one vote or one clan one vote, whatever. this is just more nitpicking and repetition of the same arguments. make clear that the outcome is the final word in the debate for this season, too.
2010-09-09, 21:27
Well, I think it's interesting at least. I certainly thought it was more interesting when it was 21-1 when only your vote was for more maps (which was subsequently removed because you haven't signed up for EQL yet), but it seems the initial landslide was because of some over-eager conservative voices, and it's looking a little more as expected now.
2010-09-09, 21:28
Sounds kinda far fetched and wouldn't matter in the big picture anyway.

Stev: this poll remains open, people are welcome to cast their vote after they have signed up.
2010-09-09, 21:29
there are no maps good enough compared to TB3s..
2010-09-09, 21:34
dEus I'm doing this simply out of my own curiosity. It is already decided that this season will be a 5 mapper. I'm not forcing anyone to vote, but the more do the better.
2010-09-09, 21:36
I'm not a fan of clan votes. People play this game, people should have their voice heard.
2010-09-09, 21:41
don't remove my vote then

actually i don't mind the doodle vote, it's just that i'd like to see a 'real' voting on the eql site as well if we're gonna vote on this. that could be one solution to the dilemma. or, like i said the admins could come up with a definite proposal. getting tired of refreshing this (not really)
2010-09-09, 21:42
There is no dEus in EQL. Even if I leave it there, the script that will check the votes against EQL player list will not count it.
2010-09-09, 21:44
Well they can use this vote just as well if they want to. It's a real vote even if it's on another site.
2010-09-09, 21:52
I still don't see the point in removing votes until signups are done. I'm sure your script is marvellous, but you can't trust people to re-vote once their clan eventually signs up, and it seems silly to sacrifice long-term accuracy for short-term accuracy.
2010-09-09, 21:59
dEus vote was misspelled in a way that it would not count anyway. Jesus Christ. Fine...

2010-09-09, 22:00
While we're on the subject of polls, I started one which is of more immediate importance, given that this season has already been stated to be 5 maps.

Check it out at
2010-09-09, 22:50
If you want we can vote about the spring eql if it's tb3 or tb5
2010-09-10, 00:35
that'd be great 1tsinen! but why is this eql's map pool format written in stone? would it be impossible to change it to tb3 only?
2010-09-10, 06:27
We dont need a vote about that since spring season is TB3 already.
2010-09-10, 06:27
A ddk poem about map whine would feel right about now :-)
2010-09-10, 06:29
The whine is really at an all time low compared to other pre-seasons beefs. So far this discussion has been alot more constructive than previous ones.
2010-09-10, 06:51
Yes, gonna stay constructive until the actual maps that are gonna be played in addition to tb3 is announced I bet..
2010-09-10, 07:00
EQL Admin team announces the maps...
EQL Admins: This is madness!
2010-09-10, 07:28
Epic paint skills:
2010-09-10, 07:43
Haha, nice one Rikoll!
2010-09-10, 08:17
I'm a bit worried that there is so much focus on CMT's and the only alternative that sometimes show up are the episode maps. Surely there are other maps that are interesting enough to consider for 4on4 play.

Hope will have more content soon just like Para says, it was a great source for discovering "new" maps. I even started gathering material for the site, but apparently it's not so easy for any user to just upload it unfortunately...if it hasn't changed. :I
2010-09-10, 09:18
If people want some changes then go do/fix a map/s that are good. There are several that could be made to tdm versions which would work really good. So I hope you will try to focus your energy onto getting out a proper map instead of just commenting here. There has been a couple of mappers who has been active (good sign) and made some own versions already. I personally haven't taken a good look on those maps but according to comments there has been some good and some bad about them. So how about you guys either help these guys to create a good map from scratch or then make some tweaked version of the already excisting ones?
2010-09-10, 09:32
e1m6tdm looked promising!

endtdm anyone?
2010-09-10, 09:41
and yet again Hooraytio comes screaming for the episode maps

ukooldm, ukpak, plpak, whateverrandommapthatsometimesturnsupatXS4ALL, ukcldm, baldm - the list of maps with interesting, non-gimmicky layouts that although perhaps would need tweaked item placements goes on and on...
2010-09-10, 09:43
if you can tweak those maps you can surely tweak episodemaps
2010-09-10, 10:00
e1m3 and e3m7 are very different and extremely entertaining maps imo. Might be some balance issues, but doesn't change the fact that they're funny as hell to play. Some tdm version of those would be highly appreciated from me at least. I'd personally play a e1m3 / e3m7 mix over dm3 any day. Too bad the interest for those seems to be dead :-D
2010-09-10, 10:02
Also Castle by tiddles have some great 4on4 potential. Really unique areas, like that quad and the pent bars (yeah bears some resemblance to cmt4, but that part of cmt4 is really good imo).
2010-09-10, 10:09
Except that castle is even more narrow than DM2 :S

Also hate the pent bars on CMT4. The fact that you can't see the pent bars (i.e. you don't know if you open for an enemy) disrupts the whole flow of the game. But i guess that's "teamplay"... :}
2010-09-10, 10:14
e3m7 is really fun, I don't think it needs any tweaking. It's good as it is. Rapecloset ftw.
2010-09-10, 10:15
It is more narrow than dm2, but it also has LG. And how some bars you only need to worry about 4 times during 20 minutes disrupt the whole flow of anything is beyond my understanding :-D
2010-09-10, 10:19
Ake I agree with you, the pent bars are one of the few complaints I have about cmt4, an otherwise good map.
2010-09-10, 11:04
What are you talking about! the pent bars in CMT4 is the funniest about the map!
Every pent is bound to have some interesting fights at YA and hilarious stuff can happen like people getting stuck behind the bars with the pent.
2010-09-10, 11:08
Sure it's funny but it's just too random for serious gaming.
2010-09-10, 11:17
Imo it seems much less random than the big, open areas with several platforms you can jump from a height, with the pent spawning at the bottom, which is the case in cmt1b, cmt3 AND dm3. Specially with voice com the randomness is close to non-existent.
2010-09-10, 12:01
When someone gets the pent on CMT4 in a timely manner it doesn't disrupt the flow, but when it doesn't get taken for several minutes due to all the action going on and noone dares or noone is able to opening the bars, then it's really annoying.
2010-09-10, 12:25
Pent is the most boring item so its pretty nice when it stays behinds those bars forever!
2010-09-10, 12:41
So now that there seems to be some intrest, how about grabbing one of the active mappers (or maybe a mapper should say something here) and making a couple of tweaked versions? Make a channel on irc and start talking/deciding what you will do/change/tweak!
2010-09-10, 14:16
I agree with rikoll, I mean in dm3 it is really random who gets pent. Everyone just jumps down and one lucky bastard gets it
In CMT4 you have it in your hands to control YA-room. The one who controls YA controls pent. And then it is just about communication to open in the right time, nothing random with that.
2010-09-10, 14:20
It's not necessarly a bad thing with random pents though, it gives the team that is behind a bigger chance to grab it and turn around the game.
2010-09-10, 14:25
I actually believe there should be a 25% percent possibility for the team who is not in control of the room to get it. Then it gives more purpose to the pent and it becomes more crucial to the game, not a 2 man combo of teamplay like in cmt4.
2010-09-10, 14:36
A lot of the randomness in dm3 pent comes from bad tactics and defense, miscommunication and assumptions. Sure, people get lucky at times, but far too often people get through to pent with just sg from window and do swirly jumps just at the right time If it's defended correctly, then it's not much different from even dm3 quad, which I should add, also gets taken by very well timed (and sometimes lucky) speed jumping sg guys cmt3 pent is a lot harder to really defend nicely.

I'm very ambivalent when it comes to pents. In a way I don't really like those super massacre luck pents, but I like the element the pent brings to the game, especially for the team that's down. And I love all the things people have come up with to block and hinder pent, many times making it totally ineffective. And then you add a delayed ring or quad to the mix and things get really stressful at the end of the pent when suddenly some cloaked predator starts opening up a can of devastation as soon as the pent runs out

Dm3 pent might be one of the best compromises in that you have a possibility to discharge, make nice looping jumps to the pent, hide out at lifts and penthide, defend it in a multitude of ways. If the pent is too easily defendable, I think it would provide too much advantage to the team that's in control of the map. Still, so many things are advancing and some people are getting really good at defensive and neutralizing play. Personally I hate playing against people like that, but it brings, yet again, more elements to powerups and map control etc. I think many current high level duelists have an advantage in this, because they mostly have to learn to cause cumulative damage and impose their will in situations without having to get a kill, just a small advantage in position, item timing and possibly making the opponent retreat once again.
2010-09-10, 14:40
Yeah, cmt4. Sure, it's been a source of many hilarious situations, but I agree with people that say it fucks too much with the flow of things, especially if it gets delayed more. It feels stupid to be going for a powerup for minutes. I give much more value to the nice delaying of pent, ring, quad on various maps to gain advantage in timing attacks to items later on in the game. Because in all these situations, you have to _really_ defend the item and when pressured enough, you'll have to take it. Defending a button in a hard-to-get-to position is totally different :/
2010-09-10, 16:04
I'm really up for doing some serious mapping. But that requires a team. So if there's anybody around willing to participate, feel free to irc me up at #suddendeath
2010-09-11, 15:19
Not a single comment today? Is everybody too busy drinking beer? Feels like it's time for a cold one!
2010-09-11, 15:42
Wonder the same thing hagge. I just popped the cap off of a cold one now aswell, mm!
2010-09-11, 17:18
Might be needed in SA, should be starting to get hot down there I suppose?
2010-09-11, 20:16
Hmm Yeh, haven't had rain since beginning of may though so its been realtime dry during the "winter". Getting warmer now but summer also means more mixed weather I think :s good thing there is qtv so I can still spec under good conditions!
2010-09-11, 21:47
I agree with the comments above about cmt4 pent being no more random than cmt3/dm3 etc. I just can't understand that concept, I mean for example it is possible to deny the enemy from taking pent for a while if you don't let any enemies get to YA ledge. On dm3 good luck trying to stop the enemy from taking pent, unless you grab it yourself I'd say it is extremely difficult to prevent for any length of time. In relative terms cmt4 pent is incredibly non-random since it is physically impossible to take the pent without a button being pushed by somebody.

AV: ukooldm were designed/selected for duel (United Kingdom One on One DeathMatch league) so although a couple are nice maps (I've always been a fan of 6) they probably wouldn't make good EQL maps.

As for Castle, my first reaction was that it 'smells like' a tdm map but if you actually think about it it is unlikely to work. Basically there are two areas which both contain YA/RA/RL (plus lg at one of the areas and pent at the other) I think modern teams with item timing would be able to lock that down pretty sharpish. As mentioned like dm2 it is pretty cramped in terms of architecture. Although of course maybe the reality of play would turn out different than I imagine.
2010-09-11, 23:17
What I meant was that in practice it's almost impossible to have control of the situation and status on 2 different locations, ya and penta. When you get the message that it's secure to open the penta, in fact the situation has already changed and you end up opening it to enemy. Or you have a man go to get the penta but you lose the control of the ya in the meanwhile. I don't recall that ever going "according to the plan".
2010-09-12, 07:11
ukooldm is a bad example of map series suitable for 4on4, i agree, i just wanted to get the point across that there are a crapload of maps out there that may have been forgotten about.
2010-09-13, 09:06
Can't believe I read most of this thread Same old, same old.

In my opinion, TB3 has a very good variety with three maps that have such different characteristics. Like others mentioned, I feel 'newer' maps are frequently overly designed and balanced.
2010-09-13, 12:45
As someone already mentioned there're plenty of maps that have a good structure, but lack in item placement. Thus, creating a whole new map seems pointless.

Ie. I'd do some adjustments to DM2.
2010-09-13, 16:41
blAze: That's hardly any more random than "pent/window/lift/water-tunnel safe" on dm3 though is it? Some guy can still bulldoze his way through and steal it anyway. Yes the situation can change on cmt4 but that's because QW if a fast paced game, same as any situation can change. If some guy goes to pent and you lose control of ya in the meantime that's not random imo, that is either bad play by your team or good play by the opposition.
2010-09-13, 16:59
If you secure dm3 penta well, your chances to get it are very high. Of course there is always an element of enemy slipping by just at the right time. At least you see the entire situation the whole time and don't have to guess what is happening in another place.
2010-09-13, 17:15
The team in control of cmt4 YA gets pent a hell of a lot more than the team in control of dm3. Not only is YA a near impenetrable fortress, but pent itself is protected by a narrow upstairs choke-point and a very long stairwell giving plenty of notice of any approaching enemies to prevent premature openings. Especially if you have mm3, there's really no good reason for enemy getting pent if you have YA. I don't really like cmt4, so I should be the last person to defend it, but that criticism seems unwarranted.
2010-09-14, 06:27
just a couple of days remained and we still dont know that on what maps will we play? :S
2010-09-14, 08:03
...and the prevention of the premature openings (what a weird expression to use ) by not opening the bars interrupts the flow of the game as mentioned before. :\
2010-09-14, 08:43
#261 its a signup vote... you will have to wait until signups close
2010-09-14, 14:18
One question here. Since it's been known that this EQl will probably (?) be tb5... Why aren't we notified of the two additional maps we're going to play on? So that we could practice instead of squabbling here?
2010-09-14, 16:33
Apparently it's easier to sabotage extended map pools than to just stick with the same two so people can learn them.

The vote is practically worthless anyway. 1 map per clan is too small a sample size to produce anything but ridiculous results.
2010-09-14, 18:23
If you secure cmt4 penta well, your chances to get it are very high.

It simply isn't random. You don't have to 'guess' what is happening at another place, that's the whole point - it's a teamgame and you should ensure that as a TEAM you are strongly positioned to take pent and have good communication to that regard. If you press the button when you haven't got someone checking if enemy quad lg is coming round the corner then well, more fool you. If the situation has changed since you got the message to press the button than that is a failure by your team to set up well. It's no different that when you see so-called div1 clans that let a guy drop from lift onto pent at dm3. They failed to set up well and they got punished It (cmt4) happened in a recent prac we played and it was NOT random that SR stole the pent. It was because we took a risk by just standing next the bars when there was an enemy quad around and then requesting it be opened (also the guy was a bit slow pushing the button). It may be 'frustrating' or even 'funny' but it certainly isn't random. As I said, it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to take pent without the button being pressed.

Maybe it just needs a change of mentality to understand it. I'm not going to pretend I know more about 4on4 tactics than a proven winner like blAze but to me anyone that thinks cmt4 pent is random (relative to pent on most other maps) is either mistaken or has a totally different interpretation of the word "random" than I do.
2010-09-15, 07:21
Well put, HT.

However, if you extend that line of thought somewhat, the natural conclusion is that nothing but the very spawns at the start of the game are random, and I also actually think that is so. This also kinda contradicts what I said earlier about CMT4 pent being less random than DM3 / cmt1b / cmt3 pent. If enemy is getting it even if you were the superior stacked team before it spawns, it is just a result of insufficient strategy / tactic / skills / etc / blabla. If every player plays their start spawn right, the things that happens after that are just a cause of strategic and tactical decisions, skills, teamplay etc.

It seems that most others think different of this, though. Funny how it always is the same team that wins every year, and the same players making it to the top of the duel tournaments. Ah, well :-)
2010-09-15, 07:30
I mean, why do you think the same five guys make it to the final table of the World Series of Poker EVERY SINGLE YEAR? What, are they the luckiest guys in Las Vegas?
2010-09-15, 07:30
I mean, why do you think the same five guys make it to the final table of the World Series of Poker EVERY SINGLE YEAR? What, are they the luckiest guys in Las Vegas?
2010-09-15, 07:30
why did i post that twice, sorry ;[
2010-09-15, 08:17
Stop posting twice fern, STOP IT NOW!
2010-09-15, 12:13
Yeah I guess you can always argue that nothing in the universe is random, but the trajectories of particles is determined etc. But I think in general HT you have too rosy picture of what can be achieved with team communication. Even at best, it's chaotic. In the end you rely more on your experience and instincts than communication.
2010-09-15, 12:23
In some games mm2 works so well that you start to wonder why ppl use mm3 at all. Experience&instincts or the opponent wasnt all that good.
2010-09-15, 12:56
"nothing but the very spawns at the start of the game are random" I agree, I have also always thought this. I hate people complaining about luck all the time, you can only complain about startspawns imo.

And what I hate most is people complaining about being telefraged and that they are so "unlucky"... just DON`T walk on the spawns There isn't a single spawnspot in TB3 you have to cross over.
Althou today it is rarely seen that people walk on spawns, not many years ago it was so many people walking on spawns all the time, even div1 players playing for 10 years.
2010-09-15, 13:31
well its not just walking.. sometimes you are in an infight and can't really avoid it.
2010-09-15, 13:37
Then you were probably too focused on the fight to pay attention to the tele spot, which still makes it your own fault. Imagine all the times you had a fight ending on a tele spot, and NOT being telefraged. If you're in a position, and in a fight where youre actually forced to fight upon a tele spot, you probably already made a bad decision
2010-09-15, 14:10
Well there is more than just the startspawns, when you die (you could have prevented this to some extent, i agree) and spawn next to enemies 5+ times in a row it is rather unlucky. Perhaps you deserved to die that first time but getting spawnraped isnt exactly something you can prevent once it has started.

Also, you are in an rlfight in sng-room on dm3. You kill eachother and then you spawn at ya while the other guy spawn lifts or sng-tele. One lucky guy and one unlucky guy in that example.
2010-09-15, 14:25
Spawnfrags are a result of dominating an area, so I won't even comment on that. However, to that SNG rl-fight scenario:

There's so many different circumstances, that it is hard to argument properly. If you play well enough, it is a situation that shouldn't arise though. If you're the one coming from RA, and walks into the RL waiting at SNG, you have already somewhat failed. First off, you walk into a situation in an infavorable spot; the enemy have the high ground advantage. Second off, why go in there in the first place if you're actually aware there is an enemy RL there? You have RA safe, an quite easy to defend spot with height advantage vs anyone who wants to attack. You also have a shorter way to the next quad, and can block almost every path he has to quad from one position (by ring ofc, looking over to lifts, sng tele exit and checking entrance to ra from sng at regular intervals). I could probably go on and on, but it is a bad move to force a fight you don't need to force with an disadvantage. And if you actually force it, you should be able to pull away and pick up a new RA instead of fighting it out until death. If you decide to fight til death, be ready to eat the consequences. You're only yourself to blame if the spawns doesn't suit you. If you walk into sng unaware of enemy RL there, well, then there's something missing in team play or your own awareness.

Too many what if's, but the amount of scenarios are endless, so what to do. Just don't do stupid things, and random things wont happen. If you do stupid things, be prepared for random things to happen.
2010-09-15, 15:20
"Spawnfrags are a result of dominating an area, so I won't even comment on that."

Is it a result of dominating (lol) an area if I spawn a statistically very improbable amount of times in the same spot? Especially if we add that I had killed you with rl near the same spot, dying at the same time myself, you get the pack because of a closer spawn (let's say dm2 tele) and then I spawn there 5 times or even at water Please tell me what I could've done better? Even if we start to talk about issues like slowspawning to mitigate the possible repercussions of actually spawning there often, what is the best way to deal with it if you know rl is spawning at low soon and you know the exact timing. You take a calculated risk after which it is not in your hands, cos it's RANDOM. Or maybe every death after I spawn the first time in a map is simply my fault.

I think you are taking it way too far. It sounds like you're putting the burden on the player in all situations, like you could control and know everything in all situations. I can't count how many times I've seen people pick up hill mh by mere luck after a huge fight at quad / ring / hill and managing to escape because of that. Or getting favorable spawns when escaping with low health. There doesn't exist a perfect way to handle a situation and always survive. You can play it extremely well or badly, but you are still subject to so many things that are practically speaking out of your control. Ofc for example you could tell your team mates to stop fragging so that enemies won't spawn while you're seeking a lifeline. Unfortunately fragging is not really a choice in many situations and it becomes (once again) practically impossible to weigh all the possibilities in a situation which takes place within seconds. With real-time mm3 (lan), you can get into more instant detail, but even that isn't enough.

I guess every time I get hit by an enemy rocket it's my fault again, and if that rocket throws me directly on a spawn so quickly that even air control wouldn't help and at that exact moment an enemy spawns and I'm shooting a rocket and the get the pack...

Pretty much every sport contains a degree of luck, because there is no way you can practically control enough of the variables and situations. But most good sports are built so that even with luck involved, the most prominent individuals or teams will fare better in the long run.
2010-09-15, 15:35
Luck to me is somewhat more of a religious or spiritual thing, an expression people use to explain things that happens they don't quite understand, or as often seen in QuakeWorld an excuse to say something in the lines of "Hey I am much more skilled than you, but you got best off either way because you were lucky". If it is because of lack of control of the different variables or whatever, doesn't really bother me. As you said, it is impossible to control every variable, and I agree to that. So the one that can get the grasp of most of them, has the upper hand. Of course it is about taking risks, and even the best of the best will fail from time to time. Blame it on luck / unluck if you want, but it changes nothing, and the only reality you're left with is just you not having control of the situation, and by so fucking it up.

It seems to me you define luck by some fortunate events happening in your favor that you can't control. If that is luck for you, sure I'll roll with that. I'm done discussing meanings of words, anyway. At the end of the day, the best one wins, so what you call luck is neglicable in my world nontheless.

2010-09-15, 15:53
I guess what I'm advocating is simply the acceptance that there is a luck factor and it swings both ways. Like in poker and other sports, it's simply the nature of the game (and the world at large) and the sooner you accept it, the better. I do have to laugh at myself a bit though, because for years I've been telling some poker friends to not focus that much on single hands and 'luck' in those, yet I can easily admit that I often get pissed off when I get unlucky or the opponent gets lucky in a fight in qw But I am trying to focus on simply doing my best, thinking about possible mistakes I made and always evolving to a better version.

In my conceptual world I actually believe in universal causality (all hail Lord Causality!), but I try to avoid thinking about it, because I fear that it could lead to the utter loss of any meaning in life, as you're simply biological whole reacting to stimuli. Not that I believe there is really any meaning to life, but individuals, genes, social groups and societies do a good job of creating a one
2010-09-15, 17:41
Of course luck plays a part in QW just like in poker. It's just that the longer interval you view, the smaller part it plays. That's why when you play enough games the ones with most skill usually surface. To me good or bad luck means simply statistically improbable things, there is nothing religious about it.
2010-09-15, 17:46
For example in povdmm4 it's statistically improbable to spam into the right spawn spot when there is 4 of them and you can only guess one. So if someone keeps guessing the right spot many times in the row, I would call it luck and it's totally possible to lose one round to a slightly inferior opponent because of such things.
2010-09-15, 18:24
Its easy to avoid the prediction rockets if you actually care, so its your own fault if you keep spawning on top of them.
2010-09-15, 18:54
If someone is spamming them, it's not possible to avoid getting hit if you spawn at the spawnspot that he is shooting at.
2010-09-15, 19:01
And of course you can always spam a spawnspot with lg too, but I guess for rikoll it's no problem avoid getting hit from that either, and thus luck has no effect.
2010-09-15, 19:33
Just forget it blaze, there is no luck and every time you get hit or die, it's simply because you suck!
2010-09-15, 19:40
luck is a skill :>
2010-09-15, 20:20
More often than not, keep spamming rockets or LG at a spawn point is gonna hurt you more than it taste. At least if you bring luck in the picture, come with proper, not obvious fail examples.
2010-09-15, 20:53
Spamming lg has no downside. People are just usually too proud to lower their %. Your denial of the existence of luck in games is almost religious.
2010-09-15, 21:10
Well, spamming LG might not have a downside apart, but its not gonna be gamebreaking in any way either. It is still a stupid example.
2010-09-15, 21:22
lol what a discussion... ofc there is luck. eod.
2010-09-15, 21:23
It's quite obvious you dont understand what you are talking about.
2010-09-15, 21:27
Yeah its obvious. Lets do a alot of povs and you are free to use that excellent tactic and see how much if changes back and forth vs a player who wants to win. Anyways, I'm not gonna take the spirit away from you, keep beliving, and I'll stick to my religious belives which is trying to figure out why excactly things fail when they do instead of blaming luck like every sensible person here :-)
2010-09-15, 22:29
See there, you didn't understand. If only I would use a tactic that gives an advantage, what would that prove? However when both players use it, it's entirely possible that player A keeps spawning at the spam and player B keeps spawning elsewhere. I guess most of us sensible people here would call it luck. Also talking about "a lot of povs" does not make sense because it is specifically in short term when luck has the biggest impact. One hand of poker, one round of quake. The more hands or rounds you play the more improbable the improbable occurances become and thus their impact on the end result diminshes.
2010-09-16, 05:10
I beat en_karl on an end game once. I'm obviously better than he is and luck played no part. G fucking G.

... God damn imbeciles, go pray to allah or something.
2010-09-16, 06:48

What if you are the one who snuck in there with rl, actually plays good enough to kill an enemy ra/rl but die in the process and then spawn at ya while nmy spawn at sng/tele... Then it must be freaking bad luck to not get rewarded for killing a more stacked nmy.

Ofc you should figure out why things went wrong but come on? I mean sometimes you just land on a random pine, get shoot with a quadrocket but survives and goes flying onto a spawnpoint and get telefragged, going for tele/ya on dm2 but get hit by a random pine and pushed into lava... there are loads of situations that in the short run could be decisive in close games but that you hardly could have imagined would happen and THUS NOT being able to avoid them. Still, pure skill will win in the long run.
2010-09-16, 06:51
What it meant to prove is that a factor you call luck can be removed from the equation by playing "smart". Usually I don't care enough about povs to take those kind of precautions, but I could make an exception just to make a point.

Hoens: what a completely retarded comment. If you lost several times to en_karl on end before he lost one, it is obvious that he is better than you. But that you did better than him that round, or he was sloppy and / or didn't really care enough to try to put up his best performance, is very probable. Also a level where it is easy to avoid the initial spam rockets.

My main point here, is that I think everything that happens within a game can be explained. If a player gets killed and leave a pack, he always have / would have an option if he had played his cards different. If he fucks up because of lack of knowledge of the game situation, it is no problem for me if he blame luck. But I find it much more entertaining and rewarding to find the underlying cause of that particular fuck up. If that is due to things that happened 5 sec ago or 1, 3, 5, or whatever number of minutes ago, doesn't bother me so much.

In povs in particular, there is also that reason why you die in the first place; You got outaimed. With a start pent time, you should always be able to dish out more damage than your enemy as long as you avoid that prediction rocket, which sorry to say, can't hit vs a decent player who tries to avoid it. Feel free to prove me wrong. Sure you could stand and LG at spawn points, and it won't have any downsides. But you will still be in range of his LG, and he has pent when he spawns, at which point you don't. And again, feel free to prove me wrong. (I'm not saying I would win, I'm just saying I'm sure I would remove that luck factor you're talking about).
2010-09-16, 07:09

I like how you use the word random to a pine that hits an enemy. Pines are often thrown out for a reason, and that is to hit / block enemy players. There is an endless amount of different situations, and it is always better ways to handle a situation if it ends up with you being owned.

I'm not gonna comment more on concrete situations mentioned that may arise and may have been luck, but feel free to contact me on IRC to discuss more. I find these kind of discussions really entertaining, but feel like this comment box is a bit ineffective as such. Show me some demos with situations you claim is luck, and I'd be happy to discuss it.

#300 soon I guess. Nice post :-D
2010-09-16, 07:18
You are wrong, luck can not be removed from the equation. It is always there and it's impact on short term can be significant. You can try to play smart and wait after your opponents rocket has exploded and time your spawn after that, but if he is spamming without pause the next rocket will hit your feet. I have proved you wrong in this in the million povs that I have played. If the players are equally skilled, then there is nothing left to decide the outcome besides random events, i.e. luck. Even with the penta you still lose armor and the push effect will throw you harder from a spammed lg than non spammed because of those extra cells that you have time to hit. It makes no difference if you are also at your opponents lg range because human reaction time means that you will hit cells to your opponent while he can not hit you.
2010-09-16, 07:32
You keep saying that. Lets do a pov session some day, and you can prove me wrong. Until then I remain ignorant. :-)
2010-09-16, 07:35
I guess Rikoll is taking spawns out of the equation entirely as spawns don't happen if you don't die, as you always have an opportunity of not dying if you "play your cards differently in the first place"
2010-09-16, 07:43
If you use quotation marks, at least quote me right :-(
2010-09-16, 08:34
2010-09-16, 08:56
Rikoll vs the world, let's get him boys!
2010-09-16, 09:05
Sure. Usually I have not used such tactics with you because I didn't need to, but in games vs good opponents like maga or Ihminen it's quite typical that the end of the round goes to lg spam when neither one wants to lose.
2010-09-16, 10:08
A grenade is thrown at a purpose yes, but i mean one thrown for another purpose than hitting you. Or perhaps thats not possible since the skill of the player should make him hit his intended target... blah. Luck will continue to be a factor. And it will affect the outcome more the more evenly skilled players you have.
2010-09-16, 14:08
Many times grenades are not thrown on purpose. People do actually hit wrong keys at times, but I guess it all comes back to me sucking when I die so why do I even bother :E
2010-09-16, 15:35
What I mostly ment was that the only thing you can't affect in ANY possible way is the starting spawns. After the starting spawns it is theoratically possible to play 100% perfect and make the absolute perfect decision at the exact right times in every single moment.

Ofcourse achieving this practically is pretty hard.
But there is a truth in the expression "luck comes with skill"
Pure luck plays an extremly minor part in games.

Sometimes you see someone having an extremly good game with that perfect flow going, just owning everything and eventually ending on 100% eff, even with evenly matched teams. So it is possible

But ye sure if you DO die, the following spawn is ofcourse lucky/unlucky.
2010-09-16, 15:42
i'd say about 97% skill and 3% luck
2010-09-16, 16:10
I would say something along the lines of:
This is ten percent luck, twenty percent skill
Fifteen percent concentrated power of will
Five percent pleasure, fifty percent pain
And a hundred percent reason to remember the name!
2010-09-16, 16:27
It's completely fine when you are playing and when you are trying to improve to completely rule out the existence of luck. I would personally say that this is a great practice for many reasons.

However, outside the game on forums you can't deny that luck never plays a part. The reason is because, there are many random factors in the game and this is one of the reasons it is so dynamic and fast. I myself am indeed a propagator of "making your own luck", so I see it in many situations as something a player himself created - however, there are many situations which are not like this.

Blaze is completely correct in his assertion that luck has a massive short term effect and a very small long term effect, poker is the same way. In poker you can lose a hand where you are 98% favourite and there is nothing you can do about it. The only thing you can do is to keep making the correct decisions because your equity in that situation is so massive you are a winner for sure in the long term. There is always variance and a good players job is to reduce the variance with skill, but it can never be eliminated entirely.

On dm2 duel you can lose one fight where you are favourite due to an extremely unlikely but excellent shot or string of shots your opponent makes. Then if your opponent runs to either low or is perhaps already in nailgun room, you can potentially spawn in those areas repeatedly with no chance of escape. After it's 5-0 and he has the ability to sit in Ra-Mega/tele the rest of the game, you manage to pull off an amazing attack - he doesn't spawn anywhere near you and is safe to cs again. Do you see the disparity there? It is a win gained by luck, and quakeworld is not like poker, if you win one map in a tournament that has a much larger degree of effect than winning one hand in poker.

Yes you can always eliminate variance as a player, it's why the same players are able to stay at the top. But you can never eliminate it all.
2010-09-16, 16:36
Oh, and this dm2 example that I used - it's actually one of the biggest driving points to discern why the map is bad in 1on1. In my example the luck of spawn frags is very big meaning that you can lose frags without you doing anything but clicking spawn, there is nothing you can do if you spawn at tele a bunch of times. That wouldn't be so bad but, then you add in the highly defensible position that is RA-Mega, which allows one guy to have a massive statistical advantage as he gets to defend or run easily - you have to be lucky and he has to fuck up for you to actually win that situation. This is why the map is bad.
2010-09-16, 16:40
Dont start that duel map discussion again!
2010-09-16, 17:07
Why not Hooraytio? I suggest we make this the comment thread to end all threads, containing all the same discussions we've loved and hated in the scene during the last 10+ years
2010-09-16, 17:31
Ye i agree ddk, I didnt completely rule out luck though, I said it was 3%
I was mostly thinking 4on4 though.
1on1 is a bit different cause when you die in 1on1 it has much more impact on the match.
2010-09-16, 17:33
In the other hand 1on1 is alot easier to keep track of things and be in control, and if you are the most skilled player you take it to where you want the game to be and rule out pretty much all luck factors. The most skilled player almost allways wins 1on1 imo.
2010-09-16, 18:06
I bet you anti-luck guys think there is no talent either, that everyone can prac to become div0.
2010-09-16, 18:38
Or maybe the non-anti-luck guys needs to stop thinking so much about luck and start thinking more what you could have done differently in the situations that went bad.
If you do that then ye maybe you become div0! It's all about the right attitude, having a decent setup mouse/mousepad etc, having a decent strategical thinking and after that then ye it is just about pracing and routine. So ye I believe everyone can be div0.
2010-09-16, 20:38
I don't think luck so much because it's something you have no control of, but I'm not going to deny it's existence either. You can only make decisions based on what you know and you can never know everything about the ongoing game. If for example you are at dm3 ra with 200a/1h it probably is the best decision to try to get more health from sng. If someone then just happens to spawn behind you and shoot you in the back and you die, it's not because you made a bad decision, you just got unlucky that he spawned at that exact spot, at that exact time.
2010-09-16, 20:56
On another note, 66% of players do not want other maps beside TB3 in EQL, when approximately 32% of players have voted. You can still vote at:
2010-09-16, 21:08
Nice to see Lakerman voting as well
2010-09-17, 02:30
seems like there are some invalid votes, deus removed, lakerman voting etc..
2010-09-17, 05:40
Stev insisted for the poll not to be fixed before eql signups close. I removed deus' vote before that since he had not signed up for eql. So I guess I will leave lakerman there for now in case he will sign up for the league later.
2010-09-17, 06:29
#319 you need talent too, dont you realize that strategical thinking is partly something you are born with? Practice and talent is what is needed to become the best... otherwise everyone would be practicing to become great like messi and earn millions playing football. A little luck like being in the right place at the right time to meet the right ppl doesnt hurt either
2010-09-17, 07:59
#325 lucky for me that I have the talent! x[
2010-09-17, 08:26
More or less talent but not div0 talent.
2010-09-17, 09:00
Talent plays a really small part from my experience. It will get you up at a decent level quicker than the rest, but in the end it is just about practice, practice and practice. It is also about how you spend your time when you're actually playing. There is no right or wrong way to spend your time when playing, but there is certainly well documented paths that lead to improved play when it comes to sports.

By taking a stance and convincing yourself there is no such thing as luck f. ex, you take an absolute approach for removing as many of those "luck variables" as possible. It can be hard to convince yourself that, but one way is through communicating with others playing the game in a broad approach. Skills are measured in comparison to others playing the same game as you. Talent will get you that far, but only through lots of practice, a clear goal and analyzing your path and game play can you become the best. The more time spent on a game, the less impact the talent you or other players posses matters, until it is reduced to a close-to-zero variable in the equation.

So yeah, ALMOST everyone dedicated enough to become better and/or the best at their game, can do so. Talent can sure be a boost to increase the motivation of going that path. How many that is dedicated and motivated enough spending so much time on a computer game, is a different story :-)
2010-09-17, 09:06
Ofc you can always become better than you are now and analyze why things went good or bad to improve. I see talent as that extra edge that is needed to reach the absolute top. Players with a little less talent will go far but they will never reach that top position unless some other guys quit.
2010-09-17, 09:13
So you can always become better by analyzing, but never reach the top position? That is quite an interesting conclusion
2010-09-17, 09:33
I see it completely the other way around. Anyone can reach their own potential by practicing a lot, but it's the natural talent that separates players. No amount of mind games or self suggestion would make us run as fast as Usain Bolt for example no matter how hard we would practice. Our personal potential is simply lower when it comes to running.
2010-09-17, 09:35
So I would say that practice takes you that far, but only talent can take you all the way.
2010-09-17, 09:42
#330 you can analyze all you like but you will have a deminishing return to your skills relative to time spent. Every player will have a different learning curve and different top notations as well.
2010-09-17, 09:43
#330 Yes I suppose it's not impossible to think that everyone can always get closer to the top of their own personal potential by trying to improve their game. But if the theoretical top of their potential is lower than someone else's, they can never reach the top position.
2010-09-17, 10:02
There is people that is good at painting since they are born, and people that have to practice all their life to become really good painters. You can't say that practice is better than talent and talent is better than practice. It's an equation [ Practice + Talent = Skill ]. If you don't practice your talent won't be enough, and if you practice without talent it just takes more time. But skill is always relative to who you compare you're self with. Some got more talent and some practice more.
2010-09-17, 10:08
I understand where Rikoll is coming from re: Luck however I think that while we can manipulate the likelihood of receiving good/bad luck, and also how we respond to it, we cannot totally eliminate it.

Let’s say we have two players fighting. Assume that neither player makes a mistake and they both die (anyone who thinks it is impossible to die if you don’t make a mistake is detached from reality), leaving at least one pack (even if you don’t drop RL, the enemy might). One player spawns closer to the pack than the other guy (assume that the further spawn doesn’t gain some other advantage like spawning where he can take another powerful item). This is luck. Of course ultimately skill has an effect, the more skilled a player is, the better placed he is to take advantage of that luck (getting the pack). Or conversely the more skilled a player is the better he can respond to NOT getting the pack. But it is still luck.

A counter argument might be that if one team was playing perfectly, this wouldn’t happen – that they would be covering their teammate (or path to that location / spawn points) and deny the enemy from taking the pack. But the problem with this sort of “perfectionst” attitude is that it is micro, not macro. Playing in such a way doesn’t consider the overall game. If teams are controlling access to packs, this might in turn have a negative effect on their ability to control key areas on the map like armours, powerups and weapons. Kinda like blAze’s example of 200a/1h at RA. Sure, going to SNG for health is a risk. You can avoid getting boomsticked in the back by a respawner, if you never go there. But is sitting at RA with 1h really going to win your team the game? Walking near a spawn point isn’t necessarily bad play if you were likely to die anyway. Sometimes so-called ‘mistakes’ are only exposed as ‘mistakes’ because of bad luck. QW is about risk-taking and inherent in that is the influence of luck.

The key here is that, as blAze intimated in our little cameo regarding cmt4 pent (although I don’t think it is a particularly good example), QW 4on4 is a fast paced game and it is not feasible to be able to influence the action of all other players so as to eliminate luck. In a duel I think it is a bit easier, the top players can have more influence over stuff by positioning themselves so as to reduce the impact of spawn locations (the main random element in the game). You only have to worry about 1 other player not 7. You have got the timings on the items locked down and can do stuff like making sure that you don’t kill your opponent in situations where they can spawn RA etc.
2010-09-17, 10:09
I could sit and play 1on1 vs Rikoll for 100 hours but in the end i think he would win a vast majority of the games. Why? Because I am a defeatist? Because Rikoll analyzes his mistakes better? Because i blame luck? Perhaps a mix of those, but there is also the talent part. Rikoll has quite obviuosly more talent than me and that plays an important role.
2010-09-17, 10:14
Yes but if 2 people practice the equal amount, the more talented one will end up better. You can think skill as logarithmic curve and player's personal talent as the base with the time used in practicing in the y-axel.
2010-09-17, 10:17
hooraytio you couldve won more games vs rikoll before he went to bootcamp for duelling with milton (and taking the hiroshima of beating after beating until he got better) ;p
2010-09-17, 10:18
and still couldn't beat milton
2010-09-17, 10:30
As we really have the possibility to do it, i think we should remove luck from QuakeWorld and introduce karma instead!
2010-09-17, 10:32
antiluck 2 plz
2010-09-17, 10:47
Well can you please explain then what is exactly "talent" in QW. The running example is pretty bad and also any other sport cause they have the physical aspect to it.

In QW it is all in the mind. So what exact part of that mind do you mean when you refer to "talent", and that which cannot be achieved by practicing,analyzing,routine or experience? I'd still say it is about having the right attitude and a "winning-head" After that it is practice.
2010-09-17, 10:51
Mind (brain) too is physical. Of course it's more complicated than measuring something like anaerobic muscle cell concentration etc, but in the end the brains of talented players work better for gaming.
2010-09-17, 11:08
I only wanted to separate mind and body cause the physical aspect didn't feel very relevant to QW. But what is talent then exactly? you didnt answer me.. whatever it is im sure it can be achieved by one of the things I said.
Talent just feels like some magical word.
2010-09-17, 11:16
In my opinion talent is the combination of all of your personal properties that affect your gaming results, from strategical thinking to tactical thinking, from creativity to hand-eye coordination, from multitasking to item timing, from reaction time to multitude of other things.
2010-09-17, 11:18
#346 pretty much sums up what you need to be good at to be good at qw.
2010-09-17, 11:26
#345 talent is not magic

What if we dont compare to sports but to music or acting instead then? You think everyone can play the guitar like Jimi Hendrix if they practice enough? Write pieces like Mozart? You think everyone can write songs that ppl will actually like? What about acting? Will you be the next Sean Connery, Leonardo DiCaprio or Julia Roberts if you take enough drama classes? Humor is a great example as well, some ppl just arent funny no matter how hard they try.

Talent exists and even though it might be a complexe thing for some ppl to understand it will have an impact on your maximal potential no matter what it is that you undertake.

You are a good example as well. Why arent you as good as milton for example? He probably spent more hours than you but with his talent and I think he would still be better with the same hours spent.
2010-09-17, 11:46
#348: ".. good example as well".

None of your examples are good. First off, music, standup and acting isn't a competition in that way you have a winner and loser at the end of the day. How individuals perceive art is highly subjective, while the winner and loser of a match is not.

I don't like talking on behalf of others, but I'm also sure that if razor really had the ambitions to become better or equal as Milton, he could have achieved it. I somehow doubt that is his ambitions at all.

Also, all the stuff blaze mentions is things you also can practice (yes, even reaction times!) and continuously become better at. So wheres the limit? Only thing I know, is that the theoretical limit is out of reach for anyone no matter what talent or time they put into QW.
2010-09-17, 11:48
#346: Well I think all those things can be practiced

#348: No one will ever know. Everyone might be walking around with a musical masterpiece in their heads if they just put their minds into it. And I mean REALLY put their minds into it.

(ye i know im sounding a bit silly)

Ye Milton is probably MVP in 4on4 atm but he also plays alot, if he plays less then maybe players like rikoll for example get better than him It's hard to know really.
2010-09-17, 11:50
I don't think talent is a word that you can use to differ some players from others in a computer game. Honestly, that's like saying someone was born to play QuakeWorld. I think dedication is what separates some players from others, for example you can have two players that practice about the same amount, but instead you have one of the players having a bit more of a habit of watching demos of his opponent, spectating more games etc. That also helps alot in terms of tactics, positioning etc. I definitely think everyone that are dedicated enough can become good at whatever they aspire to become good at. Then there's always going to be something that sets everyone apart, for example. Some people become mad aimers, some are better at tactics, defensive play etc.
2010-09-17, 11:52
You can practice stuff but without talent you will only reach a certain level.
With regards to music there actually ways to measure the technical skill when playing an instrument, not just subjectively say that a song is good. Im not sure but i think the best actors consider themselves winners all the way to the bank.

Both luck and talent exist but practice is important to acheive at your own personal peak.
2010-09-17, 11:54
"Honestly, that's like saying someone was born to play QuakeWorld." That is excactly what I believe though.
2010-09-17, 11:58
Yeah lets take a 160cm long guy and tell him to practice like hell to become the best basketball player. With your logic he would become pretty close to the top if he just sets his mind to it...

You can practice all the stuff blaze mentioned, thats how you improve, but some will have an easier time improving than others. Thats whats called talent.
2010-09-17, 11:59
Hooraytio: if someone would walk up to you with a big gun and say "you have 10 years to become as good as Milton or I will shoot you and your family!"
Do you think then that you would be able to become as good as milton in those 10 years?
2010-09-17, 11:59
"Also, all the stuff blaze mentions is things you also can practice (yes, even reaction times!) and continuously become better at. So wheres the limit?"

The limit is individual. Concider this simplified example. You have your personal theoretical maximum. Every prac hour halves the distance from your current skill to your theoretical maximum. Even though you can always get better than what you are now, when will you achieve your pesonal maximum? Never. But someone else's personal maximum is higher than yours, so the same amoung of practice hours will lift him higher.
2010-09-17, 12:00
"Hooraytio: if someone would walk up to you with a big gun and say "you have 10 years to become as good as Milton or I will shoot you and your family!"
Do you think then that you would be able to become as good as milton in those 10 years?"

If Milton would spend an equal amount of time on practicing then no.
2010-09-17, 12:04
#355 I would try ofc. He can, however, prac those 10 years as well and from what i can see he is more talented and have a higher personal potential than me. Yeah I can actually say that from analyzing matches featúring both players...

Most div0-1 players are close to Milton, who is arguably the best player right now, but i doubt most of you could actually become as good. There have been players recently who rose from div4-5 to div0-1. Did they suddenly play less or why isnt one of them better than milton already?
2010-09-17, 12:10
Comparing physical sports, specially a sport that emphasizes on height, is just silly. Compare to other mind sports instead, like chess, poker, and the like. However, quick google search:
2010-09-17, 12:15
It is not silly. Even in QW you will need certain physical aspects in order to perform well. It is a combination between your mind, eyes and hands to become good.

You seriously dont think that everyone got different theoretical maximums?
2010-09-17, 12:20
No, because I think in QW that limit is off reach by far for anyone, and the maximum level of the current best players always is gonna be far below the theoretical limit of anyone without a handicap / retardation.
2010-09-17, 12:20
No not if milton kept playing ofcourse not. It was only hypotethical if hooraytio, or any other quaker, would be able to reach Miltons current level in 10 years, if they were under that threat. I believe they would.
2010-09-17, 12:20
Besides, if you think it is silly to make that example with height then you atleast agree that height, something you are born with (you cant practice to be long), has an effect in basket. The there surely must be things you are born with that makes you better suited to become a good qw player.

Why do you think some ppl become leaders and some followers? Heritage and environment my friend.
2010-09-17, 12:23
#362 perhaps they would but milton would still be ahead if he kept playing because as #361 says, the maximum limit has not been reached yet. Some ppl will however, based on their talent and practice time close in on it faster. You have managed to paint yourself into a corner, with teamplay! I bow to the masters
2010-09-17, 12:25
The discussion was never if anyone could reach the maximum or how far we have possibly gone along the road. The question was if talent played a part on the road there. Guess what? It does.
2010-09-17, 12:26
I think anyone who has been actively practicing a game for more than 10 years is close to their maximum limit. But I understand if you Rikoll have to tell yourself that to keep yourself motivated.
2010-09-17, 12:27
I already said basketball was a sport that emphasizes on height, which is why it is a sport that never rarely appeal to low people. However, that list I pasted in surely shows that short players, when showing extreme dedication and close to endless amount of practice, even as short as 1.6m, can compete at the highest level of basketball with success.

Do you honestly believe that leaders today would be successful leader with their methods 10000 years ago? 2000 years ago? 500 years ago? 200 years ago? 100 years ago? Even 50 years ago? Or even that a successful leader in a western country today to be a successful leader in Northern Korea? Of course not. It is about environment and that particular leader's ability to adjust to that particular environment.
2010-09-17, 12:33
But did anyone of the short players be considered the best player at that time? No.

And a persons ability to adjust to said environment is the instinctive-feel, talent, that makes him a good leader. Methods? I was talking about personality, speechcraft, general appeal and other things you might or might not be born with...
2010-09-17, 12:54

A leaders personality, speechcraft(wtf?), etc are reflected through his methods. You honestly also think those abilities are something you are born / not born with? I'm pretty sure good methods for leadership can be taught and practiced to become as good as any leader by a dedicated person.

A talented leader has an instinctive feel to make good decisions that makes him a good leader? I think most leaders acting on instincts today would be bitch slapped from here to hell by most company owners when the bad results come rolling in.

As I've tried to point out in less detail since I thought it was obvious, physical sport is very different from most mind sports, which is why it is usually silly to compare the two in the way you do. At least less silly than that comedy, acting, music comparison you made, but nevertheless silly . The mind, in contrary to the body, of normal people has no limit that can be used up. There is always room for more information to be processed. Dedication and time put into gaining and processing that information in the direction you want it is whats limiting you.


If that is so, I should still have 7 more years before I reach my limit? Tbh, I don't look at myself as a very talented person in computer games (I've competed at several at a high level). I just look at myself as an extremly dedicated player, with crystal clear goals and good methods for trying to reach those goals. I don't have to convince myself of anything to keep motivation, but I find the path of gaining deeper understanding of games usually more entertaining than actually playing the game. That is enough to keep me motivated
2010-09-17, 12:57
Well the discussion was originally about if anyone can become div0. Not how long it takes to become div0, so ye it might take 10 years of extremly hard dedication for some people, but I believe they can still get there.
And it is not like the div0's are still improving with rocket-speed, there is not much more to learn to be honest, just perfecting small details.
So with dedication you will catch up.
2010-09-17, 13:06
#369 qw isnt just a mind game.

#370 without talent all dedication in the world wont make you the best.
2010-09-17, 13:09
I didn't say you need 10 years to get close to your maximum. Besides, perhaps you are fast learner compared to others. Also I think it's safe to say you are talented in QW and supposedly a multitalent too if you are good in other games as well. So as much as you would like to attribute your success only to your dedication, part of thanks goes to your parents for good gaming genes.

I have never been very dedicated, certain types of games to just come easy to me. Like in BF2142 it didn't take me long to be #1 mech pilot in Finland, and that was against thousands of players who, unlike me, had probably played the previous versions of BF and similar games. I've also always been good in arena type of fps gaming, in DooM, QW rocket arena and now in Pov. Not so good in QW dueling though, I just can't keep track on so many things at the same time, but I'm good at concentrating on one at the time.
2010-09-17, 13:14
I didnt really practice but i owned everyones ass in call of duty 1 and the expansion united offensive...
2010-09-17, 13:29
#371. Ye you keep saying that, but talent is still a fuzzy concept, and none of you still haven't pointed your finger at a specific thing that is "talent" and that which cannot be achived by practice.
But ok let's agree on that talent is something that takes you faster to your goal then.
2010-09-17, 13:31 <-now we listen to this
2010-09-17, 13:32
that sounds like kenyan music ew ;[
2010-09-17, 13:36
#374 We have pointed out several things that players can have an aptitude for and others have to practice those feats a lot more in order to excel. You and rikoll have dismissed them incorrectly. But i can agree on the fact that we disagree. Cheers.
2010-09-17, 13:37
#371 I pointed out some things that talent consists of. No one can improve those above their own, personal, individual limitations.
2010-09-17, 13:39
You mean #374?
2010-09-17, 13:54
2010-09-17, 13:58
#377. Ye that is what I just agreed with you on, that it can take different amount of time in order to get good. But you originally stated that not all can become div0. That's where I disagreed.

#378. Ye you pointed out those things but I think all are achievable with practice as we already said. And these limitations you talk about are also pretty fuzzy, what are they really? I think we need some expert on brains that can explain things
2010-09-17, 14:02
" However, there is plenty of evidence that at any age people can move outside their present boundaries, developing new skills and taking on new challenges. In my Brainware workshops I used juggling as just such a 'boundary-breaker'. Everyone can juggle with one bean bag! But with sufficient practice, everyone can learn to juggle with two bean bags, and then three and even four. The underlying lesson is that we should assume that there are no limits to what we can do, until proved otherwise! "
2010-09-17, 15:14
I would presume that the time used on practicing increases for every bean bag that you add. Therefore you are approaching your limit when practicing with those. Talent means that after a week of practicing, one person can juggle more bags than another, because he is inherently better at it.
2010-09-17, 15:37
I really recommend that you read a (meta-)meta-study type book called Talent is Overrated. It gives good insight to what multiple studies in various fields have found. The basic gist of it comes back to what blaze mentioned about ten years. But even then we have to take into account very focused training. QW is lacking a lot of components in that area:
* Coaches
* Analysts
* Technicians making sure that all the gear fits the player and works to the maximum capacity
* Practice maps with possibility to reset formations and have bots play the enemy in semi-random ways
* Team training on the level of formations and pre-formulated collective actions and reactions to certain situations. I know some teams have practiced setting up traps, blocking, flooding and some tricks, but it's still a far cry from having everyone know a bunch of different attack and defense formations that can be referred to by a simple letter or short name and also having back-out plans if xyz happens during execution.

Focused training and countless repetitions are key and since we are lacking the things mentioned above, it is imperative to play at a higher level and spec high level games to really get the most of it. Focused practicing is many times not all that fun and I know that I generally can't be arsed to do it outside of certain aspects of 4on4. Almost without exception, the teams consisting of people who have played more than others at a high level (especially in a steady team) are the ones reaping the rewards. The only way around that would be to start focusing on the issues that are missing. The advantage for newer players is that they don't have the baggage of the past and they are seeing the game at the level it's gotten to in over a decade. If you had a professionally managed, coached and analyzed team consisting of players who have some experience in FPS tdm and commitment to what it requires to be at the top, I could imagine a new top team forming in a couple of years (assuming they have enough prac opponents). This might push other teams to develop further or simply submit to the fact that they don't have the resources to match that kind of focus.

Many things that affect qw play can actually have their roots in other non-obvious things that people have been practicing consciously or unconsciously in other fields of life. Traits like analytical thinking, knowing what it takes to get good at _anything_ you do, background in (team)sports etc. can have very real benefits in bringing your game to a certain level faster than someone who doesn't have those to begin with. Still, there is a limit to what one can accomplish alone in the most highly contested areas today. The bar is so high that just having the right coaches and staff at the right time could make the difference, or just having a good day The bar is certainly nowhere close to this high in qw and I don't think it has been in any multiplayer FPS so far. Simply because most games have died out too fast. The only game that comes to mind is not an FPS, but rts: StarCraft. This image might be due to the fact that I've read up quite a lot on how they do things in Korea, but still, it's a game that has been around for close to as long as qw and has seen real professional level facilities to push people. What it most certainly leads to is that it takes away most of the fun in the game. The Korean game camps are very harsh and only the players that make it to the highest team level get any kind of real compensation, most other players are simply grinding full work days trying to pass level tests to see if they can progress. Dunno if sc2 will take it to another level, haven't really been speccing in a while, but ofc it benefits from the decade of sc play, when pretty much all of the game mechanics have remained the same (unlike qw->q2->q3->pk).
2010-09-17, 17:34
#383, ye i have already said that I understand that some people might pick up things quicker than others. But it is the limit thing you talk about I dont quite get, I dont really believe that milton was borned with a better brain suited for quakeworld and that hooraytio cant ever reach miltons level. Even if everyones brain has a limit i believe that limit is far beyond the maximum limit you can reach in quakeworld anyway. So unless you have some retardation or whatever I believe everyone can reach the humanly possible maximum skill level of QW.
2010-09-17, 18:33
#385, Of course Hooraytio could reach Miltons level with the right dedication and practice, to say he can't is just stupid. We all started from somewhere, even Milton was a beginner at some point. And much like most of todays top players he was a nobody at some point in time, but due to hard work, practice and dedication he's reached the absolute top.

The way that blAze and Hooraytio thinks isn't going to get anyone near the absolute top. To believe that some people are more gifted than others and that one will never reach their level is just bullshit. Anyone with the right mindset can get to the top. Of course since this game has been around for so long and it hasn't changed much all the last 5 years at least it's going to take a lot of effort for someone to get as good as Milton for example, but it's definitely possible.
2010-09-17, 18:53
Valla, I think at least blaze was simply referring to limitations that cannot be overcome by any amount of effort. This is very true when it comes to some sports, but I'm not quite sure if we're there yet. Even sports technology and our understanding of the human body are developing so fast that it might take a long time before we have people trained so close to the optimum level that pretty much only genes will matter
2010-09-17, 19:05
"The way that blAze and Hooraytio thinks isn't going to get anyone near the absolute top."

Neither does wishful thinking. Only a handful of people have the talent to threat Milton even with massive amounts of practice and I guess I'm just gonna be stupid then and say that Hooraytio is not one of those people.

To me it's just as stupid to say that anyone can beat Usain Bolt on 100 meters as it is to say that anyone can beat Milton in QW.

When I started to play online with my friends I had no head start in the amount of pracs. Actually since I had to share the computer with my brother I was playing half less than my IRL friends. Still I was so far above them in skill that I didn't lose one single map in DooM duels for years. I have no other rational explanation for that except inherent talent for gaming.
2010-09-17, 19:14
Very nice input, niomic, nice to get some info based on scientific research into this toybox of speculations. And I indeed belive you're right, the level of todays best QWers, even if its the best through all time, is far away from any theoretical limit. The reason for it is simple; We're not getting paid doing this.

Anyways, no matter who is RIGHT and who is WRONG, taking Blaze and Hoorays stance towards this subject (if you actually WANT to become better) is gonna get you nowhere and is probably gonna limit you even more than your "lack of talent" or whatever. So if you actually want to become better, be positive, don't believe in luck or talent, and go have fun becoming better. It is an neverending path
2010-09-17, 19:23
That's like saying don't believe in evolution because that will never get you to heaven... :rolleyes:

I don't feel like being a realist and accepting things as they are ever limited my success.
2010-09-17, 19:44
"Almost without exception, the teams consisting of people who have played more than others at a high level (especially in a steady team) are the ones reaping the rewards."

Yeah and the reason they have played more than others at a high level is that they are more talented and despite somewhat equal amoutnt of playing, others can't reach their level...
2010-09-17, 19:49
#388 maybe your friends didnt have the same mindset as you had? even if they claimed or by the looks of it had the same mindset we can never know. Maybe they didnt know themselves either, most people dont know their own potential really.
There are also so many outside factors like how you were brought up, stimulation, environments, all people you hang out with etc etc. Some people get smarter, get better logical thinking etc, and then can adapt better and faster to for example QW or pretty much anything.
But that isn't talent imo. It is something you can develop and get better at.

I dont believe either that anyone can beat that guy in 100 meters, but I believe anyone with the same (possible) physical abilities as him can do it, WITH the right mind. But again the sport comparisons is not relevant in this discussion.

Just try find some evidence instead that you actually get borned with a more "talented" brain then someone else. Then I'll shut up
2010-09-17, 20:17
Well, Usain Bolt's time will be broken, probably quite soon. Anybody who's been following track & field sports, knows that records have been broken like they're nothing in the past century, some being broken yearly at times.

I believe talent is something to describe a combination of genes, upbringing, early influences etc. These are things that are quite hard to really study that well because they get into so much inter-relational complexity that we can't begin to comprehend. One key point found in many of the study results was that one hour of prac for me doesn't have to be even close to the gains in an hour of prac for you. This is a question of intensity, focus and doing and training the right things at the right time. Many really good and world class players in sports or music had the same amount of _hours_ spent in training in their passion, but the difference came from what I describe above. I would imagine that it is an easy exercise to imagine 'just' playing prac games 1000 times instead of playing them with full intensity and concentration during the whole period and having your mind work all the time, full steam. This can be mentally very grueling and there's no point in training past a certain amount of time per day 4-8 hours depending on task and practice type.

A nice example of how much talent matters:
2010-09-17, 20:33
You complain that the concept of talent is too fuzzy and then start talking about mindsets and people you hang out with...

To me limitations in your brains are just as physical as limitations in your muscles, they are just more complex and difficult to measure.

Why don't you find some evidence that equal efforts always lead to equal results instead then.

You already said that "I understand that some people might pick up things quicker than others". So what is "picking up things quicker than others" if not a talent?

I actually believe that is the most important talent for those who play computer games professionally. They don't need to get to the highest level that will ever be achieved in the game in question, they just need to get good quicker than others so they can win the money tournaments while the game is "hot" and then they can move on when the time comes.
2010-09-17, 20:42
The whole "after 10 years prac you could reach Milton's level" argument is kinda amusing. If you think back 10 years, who was the best player in 4on4? Trinidy? Pietro? Rock? Nowadays we have at least a dozen players who are at that level or higher.

This doesn't mean that it's just about how much dedication you have though, since players who have played the same amount, with the same amount of dedication, are not always the same skill level.

Skill is just a combination of factors, which includes both the amount you practice and some kind of innate 'talent' which may be nothing more than how quickly you can analyse a situation in realtime, how you perceive certain things. Basically not something that people would necessarily view as a traditional 'skill' but nevertheless something which can influence the outcome of a game.
2010-09-17, 20:50
First you say that anyone can beat milton with enough practice and then you say someone will break bolts record... with the right mindset anyone who is not paralyzed should be able to beat bolt. How come almost all elite 100 metres runners are of african descent? Because they have the right type of muscles for fast running. Everyone are not suited for everything, it should become obvious if you just take a look around in your community. Same apllies to qw. QW is not just a mind game.
2010-09-17, 20:50
And Nio, to me the fact that some nerd kids of some nerd parents become good in chess after dedicating their life to it is not that amazing or surprising. They probably have high IQ anyway etc etc. Too bad they didn't do the planned experiment that would actually have some meaning and adopt some random kids from 3rd world.
2010-09-17, 20:54
HT: what if Pietro and Rock would play now as actively as the other top players for one year, would they still be 9 years behind in skill, or back on top because they are just talented players?
2010-09-17, 21:22
#394: Yes I still claim talent is a bit fuzzy concept. I dont see what was that fuzzy about the mindset/people you hang out with thing. Mindset was only a word I used for the whole "putting your maximum amount of effort that you possible can thing" that we already discussed earlier. And people you hang out with/environment you are in etc, all the way from birth those things affect you and shape who you become. Nothing fuzzy with that.

"So what is "picking up things quicker than others" if not a talent?"

I already wrote in previous post about it. Yes I am well aware of that some people pick up things quicker, but as I said I think it is more about how you develop AFTER birth. Again: Stimulating environments, all people you meet and pretty much everything happening during your life. But I don't think of that as a talent.

The whole argument here is that you think that talent is something you are simply borned with and cant be achieved in ANY possible way. And that is where we disagree I guess. And no i can never find any evidence that equal effort=equal skill.
So I guess we can never find out anyway.

#396: I said anyone with same physical ability as in good genes in order to become a good athlete, not anyone that isnt paralyzed.
2010-09-17, 21:25
My point is, Milton got as good as he is today by all the things that have happened in his life from birth. He wasn't borned with it. And if that development/learning happend to milton on this planet, yes then I believe the same circumstances theoratically can happen to hooraytio and his mind. God this turned into a weird discussion
2010-09-17, 21:34
blaze, I think you think chess is more about intellect or intelligence than it actually is. It's mostly a game of developing excellent memory systems to remember thousands of situations and plays. That's why they can play those crazy speed games with one guy vs 20-40 players, they aren't thinking all that much, they're looking into their memory system to find that 'picture' that represents the situation and then applying their knowledge of what works best. Many great chess players are in fact not even at the median level of IQ's. And even their memory systems are mostly strictly for chess boards with chess rules. In a test where ppl with hardly any chess experience and good chess players had to remember I think 15 boards, the good players remembered something like 13-14 if the pieces were on the board according to actual possible situations in a chess game. If however they were mixed in a way that simply doesn't happen in a game, the good players only scored one higher than regular joe's (think it was 6 vs 7).

And I just noticed that you weren't as ignorant as I (reluctantly) thought. You simply stated that it's ludicrous to think that _anyone_ [and everyone] could beat Usain Bolt if they really wanted to [and had the best training].

Since you're from a technical school blAze, where is your proof of this 'talent' which is hard to find when situations are actually probed in depth and through huge amounts of analysis work. Or is it simply an ominous set of traits like a certain mental drive (or even illness/mutation) combined with very good baseline (genes, parents etc) and then combined with perfect training from as early on as possible, which could even mean in the womb judging by recent findings.

I do however agree (and so do the studies) that there are a group of people that pick up many or most things a bit quicker and this helps them shine, especially in situations that you mentioned: other fps's with a very short life In the long run however, even this quickness didn't result in always being a step ahead as the curves start to become so close that the marginal is replaced by more mundane things like mood, weather etc.
2010-09-17, 21:46 <- This is the line of thinking I was going for.
2010-09-17, 22:06
"HT: what if Pietro and Rock would play now as actively as the other top players for one year, would they still be 9 years behind in skill, or back on top because they are just talented players?"

This is a very multi-faceted issue. First of all those players are used(know what it takes) to getting on top and staying on top, so they have that covered. Many of the things that have changed and developed can be picked up quite quickly by watching top level games and getting back to playing with the best players. And since it's a team game, it won't matter as much and they could possibly be playing reasonably well with a top team within a season. That doesn't mean they'll be passing Milton any time soon. But we also have to take into account that qw players haven't been playing and praccing in a really intensive or professional manner for the last ten years. Some have put a lot of time into it, some a lot of intensive effort and some have put in both (like Milton). Still, most players are playing quite casually and if someone was at the top in 2000, it won't require all that much to catch up, if they really try. But then again how do you really measure it. I've played many pracs with tVS and some really good mix teams where I've done really well (even topfragging) in many of the games. Yet, when we look at it in the long run, I'm simply not consistently good enough to be a regular 4th in the top echelons of qw tdm (at least not yet . Past top players probably have quadding honed so much that they could shine with just getting a few quads to run with. Para is not the best example, but when he was taking longer breaks and playing very seldom, even he would come and play at times and rock the quad almost like he'd never been gone. A good past and now new quadder can easily look better than they would in comparison if they weren't running quad, but simply having to play a really good game otherwise.
2010-09-17, 22:31
I believe HT knows all that stuff, I think his only point was that it can differ in how long it takes for people to learn something, for example QW, and become good.
And I think we all agree now that it takes different amount of time, some people learn things quicker and better, some others a bit slower.
The discussion have more been about WHY that is so. The talent-side says it is something that cant be learned and that you just have it naturally.
Me/rikoll side have been stating that we think you CAN learn this, you can keep developing your brain, and to start learn things faster and better.

But again I am only speaking in what I believe. Isn't there any brain experts out there?
2010-09-17, 22:43
Well, I'm definitely not an expert, just a very curious person who's read about this issue quite a few times and the book I mentioned, a meta-study type of compilation of other studies and meta-studies touches upon pretty much all of the things we are discussing here. I'm not saying that it is a definitive piece of literature by any means and we still have a long way to go before we understand even half of how all this works and really fits together. But it does a good job of referencing a lot of studies and making fairly well crafted arguments / conclusions. It is worth noting however that a lot the issues and studies discussed in the book concentrated on the greatest players of sports, music and business. In that sense, the correlation might not work all that well for something so much more casual and less contested as qw, but it's still worth noting what those studies have found.
2010-09-17, 22:58
You are probably right about chess being a memory game for the most part since even computers, with no intellect, can get good at it. Either way, whether their genetical talents lie in logical thinking or memorizing things is not really that relevant to the argument. The test would be much more credible if it had been done with random kids instead. Then and only then would it work as any kind of proof that really anyone could be taught to be a chess champion.

I am a bit confused now. Do you think that anyone and everyone could beat Bolt's time with the proper training and dedication or not? Shouldn't everyone be able to pick up things equally fast if they just have the right mindset and training? Where is the proof that the curves become close? There are players who have played for years whose skills are at rock bottom and no improvement in sight. I guess your argument is that they are playing with a wrong "mindset" or whatever but to me that is far cry from sufficient explanation for the phenomenon.

I can't prove you talent any more than I can prove you gravity. It's simply a label for the differences in skill when equal amount of effort has been but into training. I think it's kinda silly to think that we would have so different approaches into playing to explain the differences in skill (with few exceptions). Most of us just play the game without putting too much thought into it.
2010-09-17, 23:20
For example Xamp used to be top mountain biker in Finland and he told me once that when they run all the tests with him the doctor told him that he will never be at the top on short distances. So that was at least one expert's opinion about his personal potential and limitations. I can't see any reason why some parts of your body could have individual limitations while others couldn't.
2010-09-17, 23:49
I agree that the test could've been made even better, but come on, even this was pushing it in a certain ethical sense.

I certainly don't think that anyone and everyone could beat Bolt's time with just proper training and dedication. I initially misread what you had written and simply tried to come back and say that I had done so

Right genes, mindset, upbringing, stimulation, social groups, country, resources, schooling, laws, rules ... Many of those things you can't simply just _do_ and like I said, we're very far from understanding how all those really come together and what would be the perfect setting. It is whole, where the individual might not have a say in even most of the things. You can't simply adopt the right mindset, you can't just go out and get the best possible training a) because we don't know what it is b) because you couldn't afford it and c) because it could be different for you than for someone else, making a even harder.

"There are players who have played for years whose skills are at rock bottom and no improvement in sight."
I challenge you to name a player like that, especially concerning the latter part. Many players might not be improving _relative_ to the rest of the scene (like me), but I've definitely improved in absolute terms over the years, even with my many breaks and inactive seasons. Some very idle players might even get left behind and become worse both relatively and absolutely. But we weren't talking about an idle subset just to get that point to work

"Where is the proof that the curves become close?" In the studies. Once you are at the very highest top of any sport, especially individual sports, development comes in very small steps and you might take some steps back at times. Even a simple concept (but hard in practice) as peaking is about trying to get those last little nanoadvantages to be at your very best at the exact time of execution. At the peak, you can no longer gain enough advantage with a quicker learning ability as such, because any improvement is so miniscule that other factors cause more variation. For example a friend of mine who is multiple time European bench press champion or finalist can have quite big variances in his scores in competition time and in training. There simply isn't anything that major left that could see you benefit enough to always be a step ahead compared to a bit slower but just as (or more) diligent opponent. You are probably very familiar with the often quoted 80/20 rule. Not that I think it applies to everything but here it works as a good model to show what is happening: you are basically spending 20% of your total time to achieve 80% of your potential and the last 80% of that time to try to squeeze out that last 20%. I'm probably stuck at around 82%

I don't want to start referencing all the studies and meta-studies referenced in the book and like I said, I don't take it as truth, but it certainly does put things into new light.

One last thing that I want to bring up is a social phenomenon that was studied in the book. It's much easier for people to contend that all the better sports players / musicians / business men etc are talented at birth than to have to face the reality that getting excellent requires huge amounts of work and sacrifice and it's probably not all that fun, more like compulsory. Most people simply cruise along in life and I would say that in at least the western society, that's quite optimal and that's what animals are supposed to be like, optimal, not fkn world 100m sprint champions Money and fame play a role in all of this, but I don't think those have been the main driver for most of the greatest. This could already be changing however and we are seeing a lot of parents who have read the biographies of Tiger Woods etc. raising their kids kind of like those three German girls. The funniest thing is that if you're jumping on the bandwagon at a point when many more people are doing it, you aren't exactly getting that much in the way of relative gains anymore And from the documentaries I've seen, many of the parents of these kids were neither good parents or coaches - those kids probably won't make it. They also get delusional about how well their kid is doing, especially in the earlier small circuits they are playing in. Wait until that kid is starting to attend his first real international championships and see what's up =
2010-09-17, 23:49
No.. I thought I was clear about my opinion on the 100 meter thing, but apparantly not. I DONT believe _ANYONE_ can beat him. But I believe if you theoratically had the exact same quality of genes for building an athlete body as that guy has, then ye sure, you putting your mind into it will determine it. But as I already said we should skip all sports etc from this discussion that heavily depends on your body's perfomance. Including the mountainbike thing.
For QW the only physical thing you need to do is move your arm a little. So please lets only discuss the mind here.
Yes we are different skilled, yes we are different smart, yes we learn things different fast. We have agreed on this, I feel like i repeat myself now. The thing we disagree on is that you believe you are borned with this naturally and can't ever be learned.
I think it can.
2010-09-18, 00:04
blaze, that's anecdotal evidence concerning one athlete from one doctor in a very small sport in a small country with very few full-time professionals. Doctor's misdiagnose shit all the time because either they made a mistake, they don't know better or we simply don't understand everything well enough yet. Or maybe they don't know how to take everything into account when it comes to a quite multifaceted sport as mountain biking (although you didn't specify what we are talking about here as there are many very different types of racing there). Maybe many of the other top riders (this is assuming they actually had numbers from other riders, if not then wtf) had better explosive power numbers in tests or better resistance to acids or whatever. There's so much more that goes into a sport. I bet a lot of people have better legs and hips than Usain Bolt, so what :/ And the psychosomatic nature of our bodies as a whole makes this even more difficult.

Many studies have flaws in them too and a lot of the findings can be skewed or presented in that way. But when we get to a meta-study level that goes through large amounts of studies and processes it with a clear understanding of what is really causation, what is correlation, what factors were left out etc., then we start getting to something that I wouldn't dismiss so quickly. Ofc you could do a piss poor job in your meta-study as well, but I think that would come clear quite quickly, as by that time, most of those studies used as basis have already been peer-reviewed and criticized for years or decades.
2010-09-18, 00:14
razor, I think you mean anyone as in everyone

Based on this discussion, I have come to respect Rikoll's view on luck a bit more. Not because I don't think luck doesn't exist, but focusing on luck and unlucky moments simply isn't constructive. You simply have to understand that's part of the game and keep working on things that _you can affect_. That's a thing my dad has been saying since I can remember - Don't waste time worrying about things that you have little or no control over and focus on things that are in your control. That doesn't mean denying them
2010-09-18, 00:23
razor, when you say anyone like that it sounds like you mean that no one could beat Usain, I guess a better way to put it would be:

"I DONT believe _JUST_ anyone can beat him." There the focus is given to the fact that you can't take just anyone off the street and mold him into a Usain crusher, although that could happen. If we really think further about it, if you start training a person to beat Usain, by the time your trainee is at a high enough level (assuming they make it), Usain probably isn't in his prime anymore and beating him wouldn't be setting any new world records
2010-09-18, 00:27
hm, well I think the word anyone can be used for that meaning as well.
2010-09-18, 00:28
ah ye "just anyone" sounds better
2010-09-18, 00:53
As it is the test really proved nothing.

If you don't think that dedication and training would bring anyone on Bolt's level, then why do you think that is? What would you call the cause of that difference? I would call it talent. You mention "Right genes" so maybe we are talking about the same thing after all since genes define your physical properties. The rest can affect your performance but only inside your personal potential that is limited by your genes.

I still find it a bit paradoksal that you don't seem to have problems to believe that some people are more talented in fast learning but at the same time they can not be more talented when it comes to maximum performance. I see no reason not to believe that the skill curves of individuals can not only grow at different speeds but also to different heights. The problem with those studies that you refer to is that in all likelyhood they are comparing athletes whose inherent talents are from the very top of the population and very close to each other (otherwise they wouldn't be top atheletes). We on the other hand are comparing anyone who just happened to pick up this game, not just Milton vs Reppie.

I'm not going to start naming any names. Play some mixeds and you will learn about the players who haven't learned anything in 2 years of active playing.
2010-09-18, 00:55
"But I believe if you theoratically had the exact same quality of genes"

Well if you would have the exact same quality of genes with a top QW player I see no reason why you could not reach his potential. The rest is only training.
2010-09-18, 01:01
"But as I already said we should skip all sports etc from this discussion that heavily depends on your body's perfomance. Including the mountainbike thing."

And I already said we shouldn't because to me the brain is just as much part of your body as your legs. It's just more complex and harder to study, but it is not some spiritual or magical thing, it exists in the same physical world as everything else.
2010-09-18, 01:04
Well I never said that quick learning is a talent and I don't believe that you can be quick at learning everything. It's just a trait that some people pick up better while growing up and maybe the have a genetic predisposition that helps too.
2010-09-18, 01:05
"Doctor's misdiagnose shit all the time because either they made a mistake, they don't know better or we simply don't understand everything well enough yet. Or maybe they don't know how to take everything into account when it comes to a quite multifaceted sport as mountain biking "

Yeah... or maybe he was just right.
2010-09-18, 01:08
Well I am perfectly happy to call "talent" a "genetic predisposition" if that will help us to get to bed tonight.
2010-09-18, 04:36
I actually agree with what Razor says as well it being a genetic predisposition. So it's just the standard nature-nurture discussion I suppose.

But to make a separate point within context, to bring this idea home a bit more I would say that generally the majority of the people in the gaming community when trying to get good don't do nearly enough analysis and just settle with grinding games. Which in itself of course is a fair approach considering that I think we all play games because we like playing the game by default . But of course when it gets competitive and big strides are desired in performance, unless you are naturally pre-disposed to learning/improving in the game or have the mindset required by default, a lot of analysis is required to really break down the game. Once the understanding of the game improves you can then pick different areas which you can logically assume will teach you the correct skills or ability to handle certain scenarios as you drive towards gathering together the bigger picture. This is what I believe you have to do if you start running into any walls, because you don't have a coach there to help you. In a sport the coach would be the guy preparing you and teaching you with specific training methods aimed at your weaknesses or lack of understanding, then eventually when you mature as a player you'll gain the bigger picture and you can innovate all by yourself.

I think when you try to approach everything in this same way, you'll just generally get better at it over time, each skill you learn will help you learn the next skill. The more you analyse the better you get at it, the wider the scope your understanding achieves. I believe this supports the nurture argument quite significantly, the more you do something the better you get at it, and the earlier you start the more time you have. It's all about the man hours that you put into something and it's my opinion that all the stuff you have learned will carry over into anything else you do. Although children have the advantage of soaking in and learning information much quicker in most cases it seems - language being an example of something that the brain is particularly receptive of in the infantile state. This is mere speculation on my part as I am by no means an expert but, perhaps the enhanced ability to learn language is due to a greater ability to recognise patterns (I suppose that's a really bastardised description of language, apologies!).

So I believe there is definitely evidence to show that nurture plays a part but even if you are lacking that advantage, if your mind is open enough in my opinion you can use analysis to change many many things, from the way your mind reacts to situations and what approaches it takes, to the methods and approaches you use in-game.

As a very simple example of the aforementioned, when I first started duelling competitively in q3 back in 2004, I would get extremely angered, so so raged that I couldn't regain composure in-game, I wouldn't be able to do -anything- other than rage and just shut down mentally. I narrowed it down to the fact that I weighed so much in terms of luck and if I were to get unlucky (or even not so, as I began to exaggerate so much) I would just become completely defeatist. Clearly this wasn't a healthy way to duel and I wasn't enjoying the game so, I just decided one day that I would ease myself into two new ideas. 1. I'm not skilled enough to worry about luck so luck no longer exists and I will never utter the word again in the context of duel 2. I'm not going to take any duel seriously anymore for a month to train myself to not care about who I lose to or what situations I lose in (to eliminate any ego-rage).

It worked! I had good results and this is definitely why I respect Rikoll's mindset very much, the only odd thing is that I think it's ignorant to truly believe outside of the game when you are not playing that luck doesn't exist . The point of the idea is to make sure you approach every situation with an analytical mindset to help yourself improve and not just put it down to luck each time - remove the arrogance/ego etc. Either way after a couple years I started to become quite good at duel and in 2007-8 I became internationally good as well able to compete with all the top20 players - only really unable to win vs or get an edge in situations against the top4-5. But I have to say I don't think that I'm naturally a great player, ironically I became the best when I hadn't the manhours that I had when I was much younger, in 08 when I had my best results I was playing very little and I regret not playing more. Either way, I think so much is about approach and that is my point, and I think it's neglected often with people who say "I want to improve".
2010-09-18, 04:42
damn there are quite a few errors there, my bad, late night posting ftl :E
2010-09-18, 04:45
Actually before I goto bed, I recommend anyone interested in the subject of success whether it be about athletes or programmers (bill gates, bill joy etc) to check out Malcolm Gladwells new book, Outliers. I just got done reading it and it was awesome! There's a chapter in there about "10,000 hours", their evidence suggests that it is the required time to truly become masterful in any endeavour at all.
2010-09-18, 08:48
#415: I dont really know which parts are refering to me or niomic now but if the first part was for me about the Bolt thing: Yes having athlete-genes we can call talent, it is something you are borned with, and after that it is about dedication.
That's why I think it was irrelevant with sports, because in QW I don't really feel you are borned with a brain that have some sort of knowledge/quick-learning-ability that can't ever be learned by someone else in ANY possible way.
I mean you can learn to learn so to speak, DDK sums it up nice. You can keep developing your mind and start learn things at a faster rate.

But ok so bottom line is you think people are borned with brain-genes that will make them superior and the rest of us is doomed. That is where are disagreement is I guess, and as long as no-one posts any proof of either this or that I guess we arn't going anywhere with this discussion.
2010-09-18, 09:15
I wish dag,reppie and milton could have a threesome and what kind of sick player that would come out of that.
2010-09-18, 09:45
"HT: what if Pietro and Rock would play now as actively as the other top players for one year, would they still be 9 years behind in skill, or back on top because they are just talented players?"

Hard to say, it depends on how much that 9 years deficit (it's probably less because Pietro was playing as late as 2003, and some modern top players maybe hadn't started in 2000 - was Fix playing QW TDM then?) balances off with differences in talent. It may just be that e.g. Milton just has more talent than those guys anyway.

It's worth noting that 15 years ago, I used to be very much more aligned with the nurture school. I thought that it would be possible to make a (good) professional footballer simply by giving them sufficient training, in fact I've often harboured ambitions that when/if I have a son, I'll get him heavily involved in football from a young age (assuming he likes it of course!) and see what happens with that.

To be fair I think that the majority of QW skill can be learned. You could take any player and give them the right conditions and they would develop (at least in the long term) into a div1 player. Some years ago Slackers had some kind of project to develop 'new' players, they started with UL but later on there was like a slackers2 team which ultimately gave them some genuine starters for the first team (e.g. zero). But I still believe there is some kind of innate talent that will give certain players the edge when all else is equal. And indeed that talent may be something as mundane as the ability to take advantage and learn from the training that you do.
2010-09-18, 10:07
HT: But question here is if you believe you were borned with this talent (some sort of genes in the brain), and that this talent (to learn things better and faster than others) is not possible to pickup DURING your life in anyway whatsoever.
That's what the debate is about.
2010-09-18, 10:45
Well, at least I have been using the term talent as a synonym for what Niomic called a genetic predisposition, so it's something that you are born with. For me certain things have always been "naturally easy" so I didn't even realize that some people question the whole existence of talent. For example at school I was always much better at drawing than almost anyone I knew, even though I didn't put any extra effort into it. I was just better to start with, and stayed better as long as we had those classes in school. On the other hand there was other subjects like math where I felt that no matter how much effort I put into it, I can't reach the level of some people who were doing seemingly nothing to be good at it.

But I guess for a person who is not particularily good or bad in anything it's easier to believe that genetic predispositions do not exist and anything can be achieved by just training.
2010-09-18, 12:01
Well I can see your point, we simply have different beliefs.
I was also good at drawing when I was a kid, but I also remember distinct reasons to why that could have been.
I was in a perfect environment for it, and I started looking at things and study details and stuff. I just kept
on improving. I didn't automatically start with a kickass drawing the first one I did. Many other factors probably
also affected me to improve faster than the other kids at the daycare center. I don't believe I simply
had it from start before I was even born.
There are so many variables affecting someones path from day 1 they were born, that decides and shape who they become
so it's not really easy to proove anything or come to any conclusions.
2010-09-18, 12:07
You can be naturally good at various things, and some might be good at something the first time they try something. But the development of that mind they have that suits them for that particular thing started after birth imo.

If a baby pops out and make a rembrandt painting the first day I am prepared to change my view
2010-09-18, 12:46
QW still isnt all about the mind razor... you need to have quick arm/hand movement, have hand-eye coordination, nimble fingers etc

#430 well you just said that being good at painting and music was not like winning in games/sports. But atleast Mozart composed great music at the age of 4. Talent exists.
2010-09-18, 12:50
#430, Well in terms of painting, music, mathematics etc you can be born gifted in the terms that you can have certain genetics that will make you progress a lot faster than others in these subjects. A new born can never be "good" at any of those as you have to develop the basics first. But it's definitely possible for a devoted 7 year old to paint insanely well, or play an instrument as a professional for example, or even be way ahead of children in the same age in mathematics. However, we're discussing a computer game here, I don't think topics like sports, mathematics, music or even painting should be discussed as they are completely different. Some people learn faster than others and will progress faster, but I definitely think everyone can reach the top, some people just don't put the effort in or are slower at progressing and don't reach their full potential until real late. If hooraytio for example would have decided 4 years ago that he wanted to compete at the absolute top of division 1 and he put the effort in, would you say that he would never be able to reach this goal as he wasn't born with the right genetics for it? Of course not. In the topics of Quake vs Sports vs Music I'd say that I could never become the next Messi in soccer, as I wasn't born with the right physical attributes for it. I'm pretty sure I could never become the next Steve Vai in music either as I don't have perfect pitch. But a computer game is different, it's more "neutral" and doesn't require any special gifts, anyone with the right effort and devotion can become good at it.
2010-09-18, 12:54
You are wrong when you think that a computer game should be excluded from the list of things that need special gifts to become the best at. Everything in life can be mastered to the extreme but to be in the absolute top you will need talent and a naturak feel for it.
2010-09-18, 12:58
I mean come on? It is insane to believe that some things require special gifts and some dont. Why would mathematics require gifts but not history? Why music and not gardening? Taking care of kids at a daycare center requires a certain gift as well.

Nothing that a human being can ever undartake is excluded when it comes to natural talent for it.
2010-09-18, 13:34
#431 And what do you use in order to move your arm/fingers + hand-eye coordination? The brain. All this can be trained. Unless you have some big injury in your arm or whatever it won't be any issue.
So yes it is only a mind-game, we are simply sitting still and using our brains.
For running 100 metres and for most sports it requires a total different kind of physics where some might have an advantage.

Ok mozart composes great music at 4, nice example, almost a proof. But only almost.. what happend with his mind from age 0-4 ? We cant really know that.

valla: "you can be born gifted in the terms that you can have certain genetics that will make you progress a lot faster than others in these subjects" is this proven? If so
then this kills this discussion and my side loose, so post a link.
2010-09-18, 13:37
#432 I have to agree with hooraytio on this. Painting,math and gaming is not really that different in this discussion. Everything that only involves the mind should be in this category.
2010-09-18, 14:45
But anyone given the same training as Mozart between ages 0 and 4 should be able to compose equivalent music pieces?
2010-09-18, 15:07
Well it is not only the "training" he got from 0-4. I am talking about every single little thing happening with his mind from the day he is born. It is a pretty complex thing and 4 years is pretty long where I think we cant even comprehend what amount of stuff that can shape your mind in that time.
2010-09-18, 15:17
It is pretty far fetched, feel free to call me naive, but I still like to believe it until anyone proves me wrong.
No matter what the truth is I think we can safely say that (no matter what intial "talent" you were born with or were "ment" to be) you will defenatly achieve more in your life in any field if you have the attitude that anything is possible.
And just not like "hm crap i wasnt born with talent"
2010-09-18, 15:27
"No matter what the truth is I think we can safely say that you will defenatly achieve more in your life in any field if you have the attitude that anything is possible."

Why is it safe to say that? For me it would seem that living in somekind of fantasy and denial would become an obstacle in the long run.
2010-09-18, 15:35
So you dont believe that people TRULY believing in themselfs and putting everything they possibly can into something will achieve more in that particular field?
Not compared to others but compared to themselfs if they have the attitude that they can't acomplish something because they lack the talent.
Well, I think it is a healthy attitude.
2010-09-18, 15:38
#437, Uhm, no. As I said, you can be born with certain psychological or genetical attributes that will affect things like music. Mozart was a musical prodigy, most likely was he born with certain psychological attributes that made him this, perhaps synesthesia?

But as I already stated before, none of these abilities would play any role in a computer game. Most professional gamers or even, Div1 QW players are in there late 20's, that just proves my fact that people have gotten this good with practice and devotion. It would be different if a 7 year old started playing and kicked our asses, then that would certainly be someone with immense talent and I'd say he was naturally gifted, but that hasn't happened, that's why it's not comparable with music, painting or mathematics. As a person can be gifted in those areas from birth.
2010-09-18, 15:44
Ive been saying from the start that talent+traning will get you far, not only talent.
Talent is whats separates the champions from the rest of the top.
2010-09-18, 16:19
"So you dont believe that people TRULY believing in themselfs and putting everything they possibly can into something will achieve more in that particular field?"

I think the only thing they will achieve is a burnout when the turth finally hits them and they realize that impossible wasn't possible after all. Perhaps then they end up not achieving even the things that they otherwise would have with a more realistic attitude. (And achieving more in life and in particular field are completely different things anyway.)
2010-09-18, 16:24
Well Valla it is abit unfair comparison because new players simply don't pick up old games like QW. I'm sure there are talented young gamers out there who could in theory rise to the top of QW in just a few years bypassing most of the oldtimers who have been grinding this for 13 years. But to find those talents we would need such masses of new players that it's just never going to happen.
2010-09-18, 16:52
Well I have already agreed that people are suited for different things. Everyone becomes different persons as life goes on, and you should go for what you are suited for ofcourse, and in THAT field you will achieve more by this attitude (that you can achieve more and more by dedication and hard-work and that you don't have some pre-set talent since you were born that decides what your max-limit are.)

But I still believe that anything that isnt affected by any sort of physical requirements is still possible to achieve even if they suck at it from start. But I might accept the fact that some things will simply take too long too learn and master at a later stage in life.
But I defenatly don't believe QW is one of those things.
2010-09-18, 19:01
To get on the subject of Mozart. This is again brought up in the book I mentioned. When you study his childhood on more detail, it becomes quite clear that Mozart in fact _DID NOT_ compose great _original_ pieces until he was in his teens. He had received training from early on, so in his teens he was already 10 years in. Before that, he did make good compilations or mash-ups of prior art / compositions. Also worth noticing is that he honed his compositions _a lot_, he didn't just sit down and compose great shit even in his teens or later years.

And I wasn't really advocating that talent would be _just_ genetic predisposition, but a combination things that accumulate into something that can be seen as an innate ability to do something.

DDK brought up 10 000 hours. I could believe it's a decent average for those that are focused deeply on what they are doing for those 10k hours, have good support and hopefully a good basis to begin with. If it was just doing something casually for 10k hours, I think we would have a lot more pro's Just as a fun fact to consider with 10k hours vs 10 years:
2,7h/d every day or
3.8h/d weekdays

That's _a lot_, especially if you have a field of expertise that requires practice in quite different areas (mixed martial arts is a pretty good example). I would imagine that my avg during my qw career could be something like 0.25h/d, putting me at like ~1150h or almost 50 days. And I'm talking about actually _playing_. All my speccing and config stuff might put me somewhere around 2500h
2010-09-18, 19:15
Oh yeah, and out of that 1k+ hours, probably a lot of it is playing pretty casually If we believe time and assume that the stats are from three years (I don't know, just judging from the news items), then we see players like Moltas, kp and Rikoll clocking in almost 1k hours during the three years, putting the average at _under_ 1h/d My qwstats for that time say a tad over 200h, or 12min/d
2010-09-18, 19:41
"And I wasn't really advocating that talent would be _just_ genetic predisposition, but a combination things that accumulate into something that can be seen as an innate ability to do something."

Well I suppose that is then just a question of whether you want to use a narrow or a broad definition for the word talent. I would probably use the word 'skill' if I want to speak of the whole and reserve talent just for the genetic predisposition part.
2010-09-18, 21:34
#386 Of course Hooraytio could reach Miltons level with the right dedication and practice, to say he can't is just stupid.

Lol? Without knowing Hooraytio's QW skills (so no offense...), I am absolutely sure he will not reach Milton's level, no matter how much he will practice. This simply has to do with individual talent / maximum potential which is a genetic given.
2010-09-18, 23:22
#358: "There have been players recently who rose from div4-5 to div0-1. Did they suddenly play less or why isnt one of them better than milton already?"

Obviously because I play less?! My god..
2010-09-19, 11:33
It's all about talent and skill.
Back in 1999-2000 when Q3 was released I was at my prime of gaming activity. I was a huge nerd which fucked up his social life at that time so what else was I supposed to do?
Anyways I played a lot... A LOT. I was pretty new to online fps so the qw/q2 players had a headstart on me. After 3-4 months I was allready poking at the top of ctf and a little bit at duel. Just once I reached that point I didn't seem to really improve anymore. I did improve, but others were passing me again and specially at duel I was losing touch with the topplayers. I remained a top div2-lowdiv1 ctf player though.

I never had the right mentality for duel as I can't stand losing in duel, but in ctf I sure had. I played like on average 3-4 hours a day I think. Ofcourse not every week that much, but I played a lot. My talent for FPS simply doesn't allow me to reach the top. I'm 100% certain of that.

Since 2002 I play FPS casually. Sometimes I play a season in a clan sometimes just pubs. In qw when I'm playing an 'active' season with a team in a player for the lower 2 divs. Right now I play QL casually and in ctf/ca my skillrating is always between 50-60. Just an average player. If I had the talent I would be able to stay near the top without much practise, but I just don't have it.

2010-09-19, 11:35
Where is the edit button?
2010-09-19, 11:56
Wtf blixem! come in here and join the wrong side??
Well I am prepared to accept it if just anyone posts some links to some studies or whatever that proves it, so far the only one doing this is niomic. So mozart obviously didn't prove anything then if it is correct what niomic said?

#452: The ability, skill and current level you have in FPS might be the cause of how you have lived your life since birth, and how you developed your mind. It is no way to be sure this was already decided before you was even born how good you would become in FPS. It feels a bit weird to me.

Maybe you need to go soulsearching in Himalayas and empty your mind, then start a total new way of living, start thinking differently, everything around you is different and you suddenly turn into the greatest FPS player of all times.
2010-09-19, 11:59
Btw i have been googling around myself some about it, but can't seem to find any decent proof to it. I would actually be happy now if someone could just prove it so we can get on with our lifes
2010-09-19, 12:11
Razor, Niomic didn't really link or quote any studies, results or conclusions. He just name dropped some book and then wrote his own opinions as far as I can see.
2010-09-19, 12:17
Well ye I agree, I didnt mean it like that, I also think those studies doesn't prove anything really. But I ment he is at least trying to post something.
But as it is now all we do have is opinions and beliefs.
But I guess we can agree on that the difference in skill at toplevel can be called talent, no matter if you got it before birth or during life.
2010-09-19, 13:47
Most of the things I referred to in the book are not simply my opinions, but my versions of what was in the book, because I'm not interested enough to start scanning through the book again to check details or find the studies :/
2010-09-19, 13:50
"But I guess we can agree on that the difference in skill at toplevel can be called talent, no matter if you got it before birth or during life."

Agreed, talent is what separates champs from the other top players.
2010-09-19, 13:54
Well to me it's still unclear what exactly is the conclusion that the book you refer to came to. I don't think anyone argued that training is necessary to achieve greatness. So basically, does the book deny the existence of genetic aptitude or not? And on what basis.
2010-09-19, 15:20
Compare it to saying that blixem can become as good as Roger Federer if he just practices enough. That is obviously not true.
2010-09-19, 17:34
I don't think we're far enough in the Gattaca movie type of genetic selection and preference to make it a prime factor in success. Of course some of the people that have received some of the best training available _today_ happened to also have certain advantages to begin with, but most of the examples and study data in the book found that a lot of the greats don't seem to be all that special when it comes to genes. As sports, arts and science evolve, I think we'll start to see more people receive the best possible preparation for their endeavor and therefore more emphasis will be put on having the best genes for that specific task. Also it's going to get more and more difficult to achieve the highest levels (although there might be more ppl trying). Still, I can't emphasize enough how important the right kind of work ethic and mindset are, especially in well defined things like running a short distance. I don't think most people have what it takes mentally and support wise to do it, even if they were genetically able enough. In qw sense it might be like practicing the jump rocket from dm3 hill to hit the ra path 10000 times so that you can do it while moving, without having to setup. Since the level of play in qw is nowhere near the highest it could be, it isn't really worth the effort to practice things like that as much as would be required. Even in world championship level sports (especially team sports), most players aren't really putting all they have into it, because it simply isn't required to stay at that level. This again comes back to optimizing as the gains start to become so small when you're close to the top that simple variances can have a bigger effect than what you've gained with 10% more effort.

I don't think there's any point in saying that blix can't become as good as Federer _now_. It's very unlikely that blix could've been as good as Federer even if he'd started as a kid. It still doesn't mean that Federer is necessarily a better genetic fit for the sport. And even gene's aren't set in stone, because mutations happen during our lifetime and where and how we grow up have an effect on how well we can actually utilize our gene baseline. There are probably thousands and thousands of people that are genetically better suited for tennis than any of the champions, but so what.

I'm quite quick to pick up on many things probably due to being raised around curiosity and analytical thinking. In addition, my parents weren't around that much so I had good time to get bored and figure stuff out my self and having access to computers already as a small child really widened the area where I could try things out. But, I'm not really good at repetition. I like the quick gains I can get because I generally learn the basis of things fast, but I'm generally not that interested in the very small gains that I could get with many times more effort, and so I move on to new and more interesting things I am however very interested in how this all works and especially how different people see things and how much some of those views are simply based on culture or beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence, because there's always something new there.
2010-09-19, 17:50
So I suppose that is a no then.
2010-09-19, 18:05
Well it does deny that people are simply born to do things or that there's some magical single thing that could be referred to as talent AND that it just doesn't matter that much _now_. Many of the example people didn't really even display any real knack for the things they would end up being good in in their earlier years. That might be possible in the Gattaca like future where genes are cherry picked for certain tasks and everything else has already been optimized really far.
2010-09-19, 18:08
Multitasking for the win! What an awful paragraph of writing, hope the ideas get through anyway
2010-09-19, 20:47
I don't think anyone even suggested that talent is a single, magical thing. I'm confident that when people speak of talent, they simply mean the combination of genetic aptitudes whichever they may be that make one better in some task. As you said there are no professional programs to create superior players in qw. Since most of us pretty much train the same way just by playing the game, differences in training can't really explain the differences in skill.
2010-09-19, 20:55
Umm, a lot of players play a lot more and many have been playing a lot more during most of this last decade. In addition, as this discussion has shown, do actually think more about what they are doing and why, and try to consciously learn from that. Also the level at which you've played for a long time makes a big difference. I know I can get a lot more out of myself when playing in div1, unless it's truly rape. And if you're playing with top teams most of the time with top teammates, it's quite a different world.
2010-09-19, 21:29
Sure there are some exceptions who at least claim to have some kind of analytical approach (rikoll, ddk) and some that play just play massive amounts (rikoll) but for the most there are no such big differences. It's also very hard to see any pattern from there. Compare rikoll and locktar for example. Rikoll has like 4000 more games played, he at least claims the have an analytical approach to training so if that's all there is to it, he should be a superior player by far, yet that is not the case at all.
2010-09-19, 21:42
Also there's the drive to win, ego etc. that can be very helpful. You can easily see in mixes who is taking it more seriously and who judging by their commentary certainly think about a lot of aspects in the game. I also have an analytical approach to the game, but what I don't do is actually think all that much during or after the game. My work is already so taxing for my mind that I just don't want to get into qw that deep _while_ I'm playing. I have noticed at times when I actually do think a bit more about situations that it would be a great benefit, but just don't want to do it It's not that I'm playing 'nollat taulussa' as we say in Finnish, but I can clearly recognize that there is a totally different level of concentration and consciousness possible while playing.

But sure, we all have very varying backgrounds, different life situations and things that have ultimately led to where we are now. And at least I'm very content with where this conversation has taken us and have been glad to take part in it, but at the same time, I think we've pretty much peaked already and might get down to just semantics and other not-so-relevant issues if we continue

Let's _play_ more!
2010-09-19, 21:58
Yeah but if I know these guys at all, I don't think there is a big difference in their drive to win. Also as a thumb rule you need to get good before you can play in div1 so playing in div1 is not so good reasoning why someone is skilled. As to myself, I don't really think about my game that much nor do I play anywhere near as much as many but somehow I seem to be able to compete in div1 anyways. I guess I will attribute that to genetic aptitudes until some proof is found one way or the other.
2010-09-19, 22:24
just posting to be part of it!
2010-09-20, 06:58
#468: "Rikoll has like 4000 more games played, he at least claims the have an analytical approach to training so if that's all there is to it, he should be a superior player by far, yet that is not the case at all."

Seriously? Are you aware that those stat pages only have been up for the last 2-3 years? And that is the exact same time span I've been around. Locktar have played this game for probably 10+ years more than me, obviously with varying activity, but still. Experience is a huge factor in this game, and the only way to get more experienced is by playing more.

Another thing is that locktar too is an analytical player, even though it doesn't always looks like that since he enjoy fooling around abit as well. Much of that time and games on my behalf are also povs / 2on2 / 4on4, which I doubt together is even 5% of locktars games / time spent.

Reducing what level I've reached the last 3 years of playing QW to a mere gene thing, is actually somewhat insulting. I think I've come very far considering on how much time spent I have on this compared to most others, and I think the only significant factor to that is how I approach the game, not my genes.
2010-09-20, 07:04
2010-09-20, 07:05
I think the general consensus now is this Rikoll: Practice is important to reach the top but the talent is what separates the champs from the rest of the top.
2010-09-20, 07:53
So that is the general consensus, huh? Well.. Nice to have you around Hooray, so that you can state that the general consensus is what you yourself think. Still repeating yourself, still nothing scientific to back it up, just speculations like every comment on this thread is. And I did the same, not implying anything else. Nothing wrong with it, it just grows boring pretty quick and is why I haven't bothered to check this the last days.

It is also funny how you pro-talent guys always use the same method : Person x in the sport y is really fucking great, and person z in this community could never reach x' level due to x' talent in sport y. Its so stupid claiming you're right about something using that method. 'Cause guess what? It proves jack shit

So for now I'm just gonna let you guys believe talent is what differs the champs from the rest of the top, and I'll continue with my believes and try my best to work my way to the top with the approach I think is best.

2010-09-20, 08:01
"Reducing what level I've reached the last 3 years of playing QW to a mere gene thing, is actually somewhat insulting."

Oh come on now. Why are you intentionally misinterpreting things? No one has even implied anything like that.

You are right about the stats though, they are too incomplete to get anything conclusive out of them in this matter.
2010-09-20, 08:22
If one day you are considered the best player ppl will still think youve got talent rikoll :trollface:
2010-09-20, 08:23
I want to see new maps in tournaments, because I wanna see how div1 players playing news maps, how tactics evolve and new battles takes place on different settings.
When you watch div1 playing dm3 dm2 or e1m2 you just know where they are holding position, when they attack and so on. I wanna see those things in new maps, that would be fresh for me as watching qw games for about 5 yrs now. ( I know thats not pretty long
2010-09-20, 10:38
This must be one of the longest threads in a long time.
2010-09-20, 11:29
Well this is usually what happens when retards start to argue over retardness that has nothing to do in this thread, RETARDS! . I mean who could've thought there were people on the internet who had different oppinions about things or that people have a different meaning for the same word (talent).
I mean you're arguing over nature vs nurture, something where both sides have evidence to their cause which basically makes both sides "right".
Most commonly people agree that both have an important effect.

Anyway this is like watching the old "do you wipe your ass sitting down or standing up?" question where people on both sides think the people on the other side are insane. fun times
2010-09-20, 11:30
Anywho has there been a clan vote for what maps to be added or is that still coming up?
2010-09-20, 11:59
I find it really strange that people still think you can be the absolute best by simply practicing. Sure, to reach your personal maximum you have to practice as hard and dedicated as Rikoll apparantly does, but that is not a guarantee or formula to be better than someone else. Why would QW be any different from tennis, football or chess? It is a game and I could practice as much as I want with true dedication but I would never be good at chess. Sure, I can be a lot better than I am now, but not good in the absolute sense.

It is really funny how people keep talking about scientific proof. Take a look at the evolution theory which is basically a generalization of what we are talking about. It has to do with genetics and modifications to them which allow a specie to be better at surviving (on average) than others, BECAUSE OF THOSE GENES.
2010-09-20, 12:14
Is is not that hard to understand: practice + talent = recepie for win
2010-09-20, 12:42
Yes, keep believing it is that easy, Hooray. If you keep repeating yourself endlessly, maybe some more will take your side. Or what do you try to accomplish by repeating yourself over and over? Actually I'll use it against your own arguments, just to follow the lines of this retarded discussion:

Lets say practice + talent = recipe for win

Talent is something you are born with, a static value that will never increase in any way. Practice is something you can always do, and you can always achieve more practice, by well, practicing. The more you 'practice', the less 'talent' matters in the 'recipe for win' sum. As the amount of practice rises, the relative impact 'talent' has in your equations, gets close to zero. Therefore, add enough 'practice' and 'talent' will have so little impact on your sum that it is small enough, or unimportant enough to be neglected.

According to your own simplified equation, I was right all along, but is still a retard for wasting time on this joke

last words:
2010-09-20, 12:48
You still dont get that the one with more talent will become the better player with the same amount of practice.
2010-09-20, 12:49
Also, its quite amusing that you keep saying your last words over and over. Last words are supposed to be last
2010-09-20, 12:51
Since you stated earlier, noone is close to maximum potential in qw yet. That must mean that talent still plays a significant role in that equation!
2010-09-20, 13:04
Can't we start another thread about a more interesting subject that everyone comments on?
2010-09-20, 13:30
The forum is at your feet Ake, feel free to start one!
2010-09-20, 15:04
Well, if we want to treat talent as something that is just a combination of kinds of shit we can't really compute or weigh amongst all the variables, the formula would probably more like:

intense focused well guided practice * talent modifier = win

But that's just really simplified. Because there are probably a lot of people that would have enough of this 'talent', but for example don't enjoy competition or the area where their talent would serve them best in terms of success, if enough practice was applied.

Oh well, some us suck, some of us rock, some of us believe in talent in its most magical form, some of us think that talent is not a well defined concept and it helps people deal with not being all that great at anything and so far talent probably isn't the gate-keeper in most endeavors. Waiting for Gattaca.
2010-09-20, 15:12
"The more you 'practice', the less 'talent' matters in the 'recipe for win' sum"

Only if you make the assumption that practice part of the sum can grow to the infinite, which to me is clearly false assumption. The closer you get to your personal maximum, the slower you develop in relation to the used time. Thus I believe that practice part of the equation can only approach to your personal maximum, but never reach it (because that would need an infinite amount of time). If that is true, then talent would always have a significant role in the sum.
2010-09-20, 15:18
"there are probably a lot of people that would have enough of this 'talent', but for example don't enjoy competition or the area where their talent would serve them best in terms of success, if enough practice was applied"

Well I don't think anyone is arguing that. Of course there is a lot of wasted talent. I felt like I was good at drawing, but I have not drawn a single picture in 15 years because it doesn't interest me anymore. It's irrelevant though, because in the competition we are interested in the people who are competing, not the ones who aren't.
2010-09-20, 15:30
#480. Well both sides can't be right.
2010-09-20, 15:47
Why not? I'm right cos I rawk! And blAze and his minions think they rule the planet so ofc they are right. That's why life is so sweet ;P
2010-09-20, 16:27
Both sides don't have to be right in the absolute sense, where if one side is correct thus the other must be wrong. They can actually coexist. Don't be so narrow-minded.
Our genes decide how our bodies will be built, it is written in our DNA. That is why some have brown eyes and some have blue, and why others have red hair and some have black. What you seem to have failed to realize is that our genes also decide how our brains will form. Each and every persons brain is completely different from the next, their all of different sizes and shapes. The brain is also divided into hemispheres that control certain aspects of our body, and these are all also different in each person which is why some become great musicians and artists and others have great hand-eye coordination.
While we all agree that we can train and become better, every cell in our body is different thus we can never be completely equal.

Why is it so hard for you to believe that if we both train the exact same amount time in quake that our skills will be very different. When a brainscan could prove that for example when I play quake only a small part of my brain the size of a peanut is active while you're brain has a area the size of a peach that is active. We just can't control how good or how large of an area of our brain is dedicated to certain skillsets that we use to control our body.
2010-09-20, 16:37
Rkd, I'm not sure if you mean to, but you are coming off as (again) saying that those things are set in stone in our genes and that definitely is not the case. You could have the 'best baseline genes' for your brain for certain types of activities, but received lacking nutrition during your fetal period and childhood and lacked any real stimuli. I don't believe that genes matter enough YET for most healthy bodied people to achieve good success in areas where they are not totally unsuited for. Certain physical barriers (also including the brain) can of course prohibit you from success in certain things. The limits of our body and especially the mind have barely been scratched and that's why we see such rapid progression in many areas even today. I'm hoping this development will lead to something more humane and constructive as mandatory mindfulness training and other empathy boosting rituals for the new-era
2010-09-20, 16:45
And I'm starting to sound like a really broken record.

It's not just the time you train, it's the WAY you train!

Even then you might have very many different types of trainers and training suited for different phases in your career. And unfortunately those are very personal as well. One great trainer might produce 10 world champions, but would be unable to produce one from a certain person, even if all the prerequisites were the same. And since there are still so many question marks in science, sports and arts about how all this works and especially how it comes together, it will be a long time before we could actually design personal training that would benefit one as much as the other (relatively). Fortunately you don't need that kind of super level macro and micro knowledge yet. At least for me, it gives all of this a human flavor. Once we start having kids prepared in petri dishes for certain things and put into that pipeline for life, I think we've already lost :E
2010-09-20, 17:04
Barely been scratched, rapid progression? Is that a joke...

"The proposed piecewise exponential decaying model, describing momentary expansion in a finite context, suggests a major global fading of WR progression."

The fact is that progression is coming to a halt.
2010-09-20, 17:17
#495 Well this discussion was about if you are born with an individual hard-limit in the mind which can't be passed no matter what you do in life. So if that is true then the other can't be right. If you did read the discussion.
But you are the first who wrote something pretty logical which I can buy, and not just "person X played less then person Y but is still better".
2010-09-20, 17:23
No, it's not a joke, but it doesn't mean that we couldn't be some what close to limits based on our current understanding in certain very limited things like many Olympic sports. The records might not be broken by much, but like I stated before, a huge number of records in olympic sports have been broken during my lifetime and that's not a long period. 'Rapid progression' probably wasn't such a good way to put it in terms of actual results, but more in terms of how we understand how those results can and are being achieved and how much more we might possibly achieve without major changes in human biology. On the other hand, a lot more people are born almost all the time and mutations are happening in this man-warped nature a lot more than previously. Most mutations are at most marginal and insignificant, but it could have a bearing on future record holders.

Like I tried to express earlier, my statement was weighted towards the mental side quite heavily. And even there, it might not be that we have all kinds of unused capacity, but more about understanding how things work and achieve much greater things through that understanding. Sub 8 second times in the 100m dash aren't exactly very high on my list of hopes for our future as humanity
2010-09-20, 17:40
Some arbitrary number of broken records during someone's lifetime is not anecdotal evidence? The model shows that we are approaching our limits fast and in fact the researchers see the situation so grim that as a solution they offer inventing new sports, just to keep it interesting. I still have no reason to believe that our brains exist outside of the boundaries that limit the rest of our bodies. I'm inclined to believe that the amount of information that we need to process is increasing, but our capacity to process it is not, thus we get even less and less done...
2010-09-20, 17:57
It's not really anecdotal in the general sense as it is recorded fact and applies to competition that is partaken by a significantly large number of competitors. I don't really disagree with what you are saying about results in certain sports, even if the records are broken, the margins are getting very very small. Fortunately for the huge sporting business and no doubt the competitors, most sports don't really live by records. They live event to event, league to league, charismatic player to the next. We're also limiting what our bodies are capable of stretching to by limiting the amount of allowed drugs. I'm definitely not a proponent of that sub-genre that exists in many sports unofficially, but risking early death by pumping people up with what ever we can discover might push the limits quite a bit further, in some sports in particular.

Like I stated in the old team info display discussions, I really don't think it's the amount of information that's important, in the end. It's how you use it to build knowledge and wisdom and act upon it directly in certain situations (like qw tdm). I think that we are being forced to really start thinking about how to automate to some degree this transformation as there are certainly limits to how well we handle raw data or even some what structured information. The internet especially is acting as testing ground for a lot of this and quite frankly the results haven't been all that great so far. A lot of bullshit thrives here and in media at large. That's why more and more actual knowledge workers are coming important. I don't believe that we'll ever see more than a marginal amount of people in the very heavy processing areas.

Blah, I'm going to have to call it quits and leave those thoughts a bit unprocessed and definitely unfinished. Not that I'm not interested, it's just going further and further and I could've used this time to practice to reach my very finite limits ;P
2010-09-20, 18:57
Well what I basically was after is that the number of records in your lifetime doesn't really hold any valuable information unless you compare it something. 'Huge' is completely relative term and according to the model the progression in your lifetime is not huge if you compare it to the progression before your lifetime (in the general sense). I think in QW we are similarily quite close to our limits, I can't really say I have progressed in pov for example anymore in a long time. Perhaps the opposite. New maps would of course partially break this development and we would see more rapid development from the basic gameplay. But like you say about sports, I'm not so interested in the 'record breaking' in new maps, but I rather just keep competing from event to event at the same high level.
2010-09-20, 19:11
Not sure where you got 3 years from for, it launched in February last year and if you sort the Last Active column you can see that the earliest entries are 05/02/2009. So the players you cited (rikoll/kingpin/moltas) are actually averaging around 100 minutes per day and bear in mind that only counts games played with that nick so all those aliases like secret-service etc don't get counted. It's also plausible that further games not monitored by the site have been played (e.g. QH LAN etc) although admittedly I wouldn't expect the total to be high. But in any regard I would say those guys have probably been putting in a good 2hrs a day on average. Still a long way to go to hit 10,000 hours, to be sure, but the likes of Moltas and KP have been pretty active for a good 5 years at least(?)

"Why would QW be any different from tennis, football or chess? It is a game and I could practice as much as I want with true dedication but I would never be good at chess. Sure, I can be a lot better than I am now, but not good in the absolute sense."

Chess IMO is a bit different from the rest because it is not a 'realtime' game. At no point do you directly interact with your opponent, it is turn based. It is also played under much more controlled conditions, an 8x8 board with the same pieces each game that can behave exactly the same way. IMO Chess is actually an example of a game which could be learnt to a reasonably good standard. The openings (and end-game tactics) in particular are learnt and what sets them apart from learning initial spawns in QW is that they are 100% accurate. If you play d4-d5 c4-nf6 nc3-e6 etc this results in literally exactly the same outcome every single game. In QW, you will never see exactly the same outcome a few seconds into a game, players will always be a few units in different positions, have slightly different health levels etc. I strongly believe that there will come a time when computing power reaches a level that makes it 'unbeatable' in chess. This is because it is so structured, it isn't like a sport, or even QW, where you have simultaneous interactions between multiple players.
2010-09-20, 19:23

Like I stated, a) I don't know the actual period for all the stats and b) my assumption was based on the news items at the site, which clearly stated that most of the work had been completed just under 3 years ago. Sure it might have been a while before everything was worked out and there were some bugs involved as usual, but my assumption was based on another (possibly incorrect) assumption: to develop a site for stats, you have to have stats or at least know what you can get and I would imagine the easiest way is to just install stat collection and start parsing away.

And there is an interesting bit:
"Unfortunately due to time constraints there has been a few issues that have remained unaddressed over the past two months.
(1) Total Timeonline getting corrupt."

I contacted pleuraxeraphim on IRC and asked him to give his input on the stats issue
2010-09-20, 19:28
And I just noticed that I had made a mistake. It should be 2 years even with the date I was using and maybe it will end up being more like 1,5 years once pleura confirms it.

Man, seems like a much longer time since stats started
2010-09-20, 20:05
#496 Never meant for my comments to come off as "the day you are born everything is written in stone, you will be x good in math, y good in soccer and z good in music".
The only thing I want to say is that you should never refute something when it goes against your beliefs when you don't have all the facts.
Personally I have always been of the belief that the way we are raised and taught has much more of an impact to what we become good at and especially (maybe even only) what kind of workethic we get. But that doesn't mean that I don't believe that my genes have nothing to do with it.
I do also believe that we are far from close to having found out the optimal way of training in any sport or game for that matter. For example there is no telling how good a person would be able to become at soccer if he was since childhood always trained to play with a ball to improve his motorskills, and had a team of professionals train him in different areas every day, having the kid watch video tapes of games and analyzing them etc etc. However there's no proof to say that he would become the worlds greatest soccer player.

Another example of genes having an affect IMO, is when I started playing soccer at age 4. I played together with the same bunch of guys untill like the age of 12. And there were some who sucked at soccer from day one and 8 years later still sucked at soccer and there were those who were great at soccer from day 1 and were still great at soccer at age 12. And usually kids who suck at one ballsport sucks at all the other ballsports aswell, since they were never born with that type of motorskills.

I doubt there are many professional athletes out there who at age 4-6 when they started playing the sport sucked at it and then just decided hmm I'm gonna train really hard and become the best.
2010-09-20, 20:31
Well most of the greats didn't suck, but many of them weren't all that special. Also in casual junior leagues it's so easy to get a gap with a bit more effort or starting a bit earlier or simply developing faster towards puberty as we can develop years apart.
2010-09-20, 22:46
time to get my qw gears from the basement!
2010-09-21, 06:33
@504 Chess programs on fast enough computers are practically unbeatable by humans already. Theoretically unbeatable however is another question and still far away:

Regarding earlier discussion about luck. Chess is often used as an example of a game where luck has no effect. Indeed there is no randomness built in. But since you don't have complete information about your opponent or infinite time to calculate the absolute best move, you have to make guesses.

Any game has an element of luck as long as neither player has solved it.
2010-09-21, 06:42
510 comments, holy fuck! qw is alive!
Keep on rocking guys.

And yeah, as a chess fan i can admit that modern chessprograms is too tough for humans.
But so what? It's just a tool for chessplayers. And nobody cares that Formula1 bolids are faster than Usain Bolt
2010-09-22, 02:33
Well, too bad you guys dont have the same interest for learning/praccing kenya maps like the way you make discussions

I already talked to the admins of EQL and they agreed to make me head admin for this season. So the new TB3 are schloss, e3m7tdm and cmt2.

Took my 1 hour to read the comments...ty very much
2010-09-22, 03:29
One a more serious note about the map issue: It's like a democratic political debate and players wont agree 100 %. So as in the political life, or in a marriage if you like (coz lets face it, men and women were not made to live under the same roof together), its all about give and take and making compromises, because we are all different.

And that is the end of the map discussion thank you very much

The only way to solve this is to make 2 leagues. TB3 only and Kenya. What kenya lovers must understand is this: To make kenya maps more popular takes time. But it is possible. It's just like any other product you want to make good PR for, you just have to know how to do it the right way. The only reason clans have been playing some CMT maps is because I knew how to make that happen. Not only because the maps were actually made, that was just the first step. I made a lot of hype about it before they got finished. Then you must go on promoting it, for a long long time. And you need patience.

Im not sure about this and correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt very much there has been anyone around doing that job good enough since i left the scene (prolly not since this debate is still going on). You need a good front (a kickass website), a good idea and arguments to back that idea up.

Then you will awake some enthusiasm, and that enthusiasm will slowly grow. So you build it up step by step and then suddenly one sunny day you got a league with 20 ++ clans all being enourmosly happy with a random 10-map-pool. And then you acheived victory because when you reach that peak, it will only grow coz by then the community are strong enuff to stand its own ground.

Im sure you can read MY enthusiasm here. And i get that enthusiasm from YOUR enthusiasm. Youre still here after all these years and nothing has changed. That is why it will work, if its done right.

Btw I am also really thrilled to be called stuff like "legendary whiner" and "fragbag" (love you HT and Hagge). Brings a smile to my face actually and makes me wanna whine some more and kick Hagges ass on dm4
2010-09-22, 10:13
Haha I never in my dreams could believe you would read that Link, especially since you haven't been seen anywhere around here for years and years You definately did a good job with the CMT tourney and you created a lot of enthusiasm about the new maps. Even though you were a fragbag it was fun to have you playing with us and trying to teach us all the tips and tricks in every map

If you would start yet another one I'm sure there would be clans joining and as progress on the maps evolves, people would also enjoy them better. So when will we get a new CMT tourney? I'm not sure it can be done without you!
2010-09-22, 14:13
one solution for this problem: make a tourney with keynia maps only, and the winner team earns 1000 euro prize money. I wonder how silent all those tb3 only lovers get, and start practicing keynia maps all of a sudden

Link we need you for this to be admin, il donate 50 euro to it
2010-09-22, 15:05
#515. The problem is that most quakers is too old/got jobs and 1000 euro isn't THAT much. We are simply playing because it is fun. And to get people to play something they
don't really want to for an entire season, and only for the money, then it would have to be like at least 10 times that money
Just look at how many that actually went to DH, and there it was decent prizepool, dunno if they actually got it in the end though?
2010-09-22, 16:51
They didn't? :/
2010-09-22, 16:58
Well it's not exactly news that people would do unpleasant things for money. I mean we go to work every morning...
2010-09-22, 19:23
Go to work? No, we are QW players which means that we are scandinavians who study (play Quake all night) for a few decades, except for summer when we switch off our computers and do, er, 'summer stuff'
2010-09-23, 06:35
Hey what's that about, I was only 30 when I graduated??
2010-09-23, 12:27
its because you played to much qw during your univ. time
2010-09-23, 13:02
I graduated summer 09, was almost 28 at the time and I must say: rather university until im almost 30 than starting to work when i was 16-20
2010-09-24, 11:56
Loads of whine, just the way we like it!

I hope there are no plans to change the map pool. Clearly this is one of the best things to happen in a long time in QW

Bring the BEEF
2010-09-24, 13:08
Just curious, which maps do you think it is?
2010-09-27, 09:40
I personally hope we remove cmt4 next time and give the good ol' cmt5b a chance
2010-09-28, 14:22
cmt5b...the masterpiece that ppl dont wanna learn :/

You have to be logged in to be able to post a comment.