mvp

[triceratops]

mvp in a game shouldn't be awarded to a player of the losing team. it's pointless, how valuable are you if your team still loses? if in the case of an mvp being on the losing team, it should be renamed 'the good job, but you still lost award'. and the player on the winning team with the best score or however mvp's are decided should get the mvp.

[Dameon Angell]

it should be renamed 'the good job, but you still lost award'.

I agree. Good times.

[ZeUs!!]

help: (triceratops) (public 0): everyne knos that i often speel words wrong, can there be a command for people who tyoe words wrong so i type ?caht and my chat comes up or i type ?lagahggga and my lag comes up? thanks, justin

Or it went something like that

[Hero*]

MVP's are overrated

[Jason]

help: (triceratops) (public 0): everyne knos that i often speel words wrong, can there be a command for people who tyoe words wrong so i type ?caht and my chat comes up or i type ?lagahggga and my lag comes up? thanks, justin

Or it went something like that

Haha! I remember that one. ?spellcheck <insert string here> would be sweet.

[Desperate]

mvp in a game shouldn't be awarded to a player of the losing team. it's pointless, how valuable are you if your team still loses? if in the case of an mvp being on the losing team, it should be renamed 'the good job, but you still lost award'. and the player on the winning team with the best score or however mvp's are decided should get the mvp.

I disagree. A player on the losing team can still have a great match even if the rest of his team sucked. That way, he might be the most valuable player on the field.

[Ikrit]

i agree with Desperate, if someone goes 20-10 and the rest of his team go out like 3-10 and we'll say the other team's best # of kills is 13, why shouldn't the 20-10 guy get mvp? he's obviously the best guy out there

[Nockm]

MVP should always be the guy with the best Wins minus Losses.

Why? Killing a lot means nothing if you die a lot too. Just killing a few is still good if you die even less. If everyone on the field gets a +/- 0 w-l, then the game is a draw. It is up to any individual to increase their w-l to tip it in favour of their team, and the higher w-l you have, the more you have 'carried' your team. I shouldn't even have to be explaining this really.

However I'm completely open to any other rational suggestions.

[Nockm]

i agree with Desperate, if someone goes 20-10 and the rest of his team go out like 3-10 and we'll say the other team's best # of kills is 13, why shouldn't the 20-10 guy get mvp? he's obviously the best guy out there

I believe in Hockey Zone MVPs, where the MVP is the player with the highest rating: They acknowledge this 'win' factor by increasing the ratings of each player in the winning team by a certain amount. MVP is now decided after this little boost.

In TW this would be analogous to each player on the winning team receiving, say, 3 extra kills. Then after that MVP is decided. That sounds pretty crap though. Anyway... just adding fuel to this thread here.

[Dameon Angell]

(Kills on the Defense - deaths on Offense)+(average life time *ie: the average amount of time you were alive per death you had*+1 *these are lives, so you start with 0, not 1)+(total terrier kills) = MVP

Basically the person who did the most damage fending off the enemies attacks, died the least when you were rushing into the flag room, stayed alive the longest per death, and killed the enemy terrier the most should equal who your MVP was.

example

(52-24)+(60 "in seconds")+(2) = 90, your MVP rating. Player with the highest MVP rating gets it.


note: its 1:48 in the morning, i'm thinking out my ass, so if the math is off, i'll fix it when i'm awake.

[Due]

i agree with Desperate, if someone goes 20-10 and the rest of his team go out like 3-10 and we'll say the other team's best # of kills is 13, why shouldn't the 20-10 guy get mvp? he's obviously the best guy out there

idd!

[Awesome]

mvp should be the player with the best +/- (tk's subtracted from kills)
in the event of a tie, give it to the guy on the winning team
if both people who are tied are on the winning team, give it to the guy with the most kills

[Ephemeral]

However I'm completely open to any other rational suggestions.

Unless someone can figure out a way to grant MVP to reward TEAMPLAY, I say get rid of it. A way that doesn't seduce or reward a player for non-team play. A way that gives every and any ship a chance to be rewarded.

Frankly, I'm not sure that this is possible. Take this example;
Team A is losing badly. Score is 8:50 to 0:00, Team B is owning and Team A hasn't seen the inside of the flag room at all. A few people on Team A get pissed and leave and subs enter game. One of these subs, JoeBlow, pulls a great move out of his ass and Team A takes the flag room. They are then able to hold it for a great comeback. JoeBlow plays a fair game other than his great move to change the entire game around. He missed near half the game but was the key for Team A winning the match. His overall record is not outstanding. But without JoeBlow and that one play, Team A would have definitely lost the game.

This is just one of many examples that could be used to illustrate 'teamplay'.
So what kind of algorithm or method could be used in a cases like this?

[Fortress]

i disagree...

the mvp is for the player, not the team, thus it goes to the best player, not the best guy on the better team... that wouldn't make sense who wants a mvtp most valueable team player... no it's mvp

excuse my spelling

[Ephemeral]

I think you missed my point. It's a team game, or is supposed to be.

Taken from the TW web site...
"Welcome to SSCU Trench Wars, an exciting team-based game platform."

"Primarily created as a team-based flagging game..."

"Your primary mission in Trench Wars is to help your team..."

Therefore it is my opinion that any MVP should be primarily based upon team play, not individual play. As such, see my previous statement.