Score Breakdown + Alliances

[arivess.livejournal.com]

Hello everyone~! I hope you enjoyed the results. Here are the score breakdowns courtesy of sunflower_mynah:

SORTING



CONTESTS



FANWORKS



MINIGAMES



GF








SORTING

BLACK MAGES: 22.1% [1st]
DRAGOONS: 11.1% [5th]
MONKS: 9.8% [6th]
SOLDIERS: 16.1% [4th]
THIEVES: 20.9% [2nd]
WHITE MAGES: 20.1% [3rd]

CONTEST (UA)

BLACK MAGES: 20% [2nd]
DRAGOONS: 10.8% [5th]
MONKS: 4.1% [6th]
SOLDIERS: 18.7% [3rd]
THIEVES: 33.8% [1st]
WHITE MAGES: 12.7% [4th]

FANWORKS (MWS)

BLACK MAGES: 8.2% [5th]
DRAGOONS: 6.1% [6th]
MONKS: 12.4% [4th]
SOLDIERS: 28% [1st]
THIEVES: 23.9% [2nd]
WHITE MAGES: 21.5% [3rd]

MINIGAMES (FFMG)

BLACK MAGES: 27.1% [1st]
DRAGOONS: 8.7% [6th]
MONKS: 9.4% [5th]
SOLDIERS: 18.5% [3rd]
THIEVES: 19.4% [2nd]
WHITE MAGES: 16.8% [4th]

GARDEN FESTIVAL (FFES)

BLACK MAGES: 43% [1st]
DRAGOONS: 4.7% [6th]
MONKS: 10.2% [4th]
SOLDIERS: 19.5% [2nd]
THIEVES: 9.3% [5th]
WHITE MAGES: 13.4% [2nd]

And that brings us to our second topic -- alliances. We need to decide them before Game 4 can start, of course. I'll list the strengths and weaknesses of each team (as far as I know them), and a short description of the proposed alliances, and you guys can have a vote.

We're going to do something different this time around. Since we have 4 really strong teams, we've decided it's nearly impossible to have 3 alliances of 2 teams, because one of the alliances will automatically be way stronger than the other two, which kind of makes having a competition pointless. So for this game at least, most of the proposed alliances will be two alliances of 3 competing against each other. Like a final boss fight, I think someone told me.

BLACK MAGES
Strengths: High level of participation in everything (except fanworks this time, it seems), one of the teams with the highest active/semi-active members count
Weaknesses: Not as strong as everyone keeps thinking, as most of their presence is social and just... presence. They're still mainly big in minigames and sorting, although they do win a decent number of contests.

DRAGOONS
Strengths: The few members there are still fairly steady and participate in most things
Weaknesses: There are very few members, and their previously most active member is going to be too busy

MONKS
Strengths: Similar to dragoons, participation, though low, is fairly steady and well-rounded. May have more active members than dragoons, though they didn't answer the feedback poll.
Weaknesses: Again, similarly, there are very few members, and some previously active members will be too busy

SOLDIERS
Strengths: Amazing levels of participation in everything. Their non-MVPs scored about as much as the other teams' MVPs.
Weaknesses: The absolute smallest team. They got to 2nd place through an enormous amount of effort, which would be unfair to force them to uphold, although they probably still will. Problem is, however, while a bigger team can potentially score more, they can't really do too much more than they already have.

THIEVES
Strengths: Generally strong and active team, with mid/high participation from a fair amount of members.
Weaknesses: I am leaving the team, which, if it had happened in game 3, would have put thieves in 3rd place, so... uh. Plus, thieves have mainly iconists. My leaving does leave them with only one writer (I think?), and no artists.

WHITE MAGES
Strengths: A lot of MWS-ing, which isn't restricted by the activities going on.
Weaknesses: Aside from the two MVPs, most other members only participate occasionally, although there are a lot of them. Also, has no really strong iconists to compete in graphics challenges; whole team is mostly writers.

Also, a small analysis of which teams make which types of fanworks. Note that I'm going by regular UA entries here, not MWS, because for MWS, as long as you're making some kind of fanwork, you'd get points, but in UA, if all the people for one type of fanwork goes on one alliance, there isn't much to compete for.

Graphics: Mainly thieves, with a couple black mages and one soldier.
Art: One soldier, one black mage, now, since I'm out?
Writing: Mainly white mages, but with a couple from each team, still.

And with that, the alliance options:

Thief+Soldier+Monk vs. BM+WM+Dragoon: A Thief+Soldier combo might be too strong, plus monks will likely have more active members than dragoons
Thief+Soldier+Dragoon vs. BM+WM+Monk: Slightly more balanced, but Thief+Soldier might still be too strong?
Thief+BM+Monk vs. Soldier+WM+Dragoon: Might actually be fairly balanced. If you take out my score, these three would have been about even for game 3, with S/W/D having slightly more. Problem with this is, Thieves and BMs have almost all the iconists.
Thief+BM+Dragoon vs. Soldier+WM+Monk: Same as previous
Thief+WM+Monk vs. Soldier+BM+Dragoon: Possibly the most balanced? This largely depends on how active the WMs who didn't vote in the poll are, though.
Thief+WM+Dragoon vs. Soldier+BM+Monk: Similar to previous, but I think S/B would have more activity than T/W, so giving Thief/WM the Monks might be a little more balancing
Thief vs. Soldier vs. Black Mage vs. White Mage vs. Dragoon+Monk: I'm most worried about White Mages for this one... The other bigger teams can probably perform about the same, and putting Dragoons and Monks together this game would have given them about the same as White Mages.

And the poll! Which... I hope... posts from here... haha...

[Poll #1837853]

I just tried to post two polls in one post, and it really Did Not Work, so, uh, please see following post regarding stamping question changes.

Comments

[breyzyyin.livejournal.com]

I wasn't sure how to respond to this post. Yin and I voted together and...all I can really say is that I think the team assessments in this post are accurate as far as the results of Game 3 would lead one to believe. No one can really predict how the teams are truly going to be in future games, as I'm sure no one expected the results that actually happened in Game 3 in general. So, yes, while I can see why there might be some issues from the team mods with the team assessments here, I think the assessments themselves are accurate for the data that has been presented so far. Personally, I don't have an issue with the Alliance proposals, even knowing that things might not be totally accurate based off of Game 3 data, I agree with Ari: the most balanced alliances for 2v2 *are* the ones the post kind of says they are. Just in general, Yin and I both thought that the two proposals that it says are the "most balanced" here ARE the most balanced...so, I don't really feel like it needs to be open for even more mod discussion than it already has been? We've discussed the idea of alliances like this multiple times already in JM and team strengths/weaknesses...at this point, I'm not sure how much *more* discussion is going to be helpful when I don't think there's really anything more to add. All I can add here are our two mod opinions on what our two teams' strengths/weaknesses are, but I'm pretty sure it is things everyone already kind of knows, lolz. ♥

Yin's thoughts on White Mages: we are one of the bigger teams as far as numbers go, but we're very specialized in that writing seems to be our "thing." There are two people who occasionally do graphics, and one of those does fan art...and the rest of our active members are geared more towards writing. We submit a lot to MWS, but as Game 3 indicates: submitting a lot of written work to MWS doesn't instantly make a high placement in the game itself. As point-tallier, I can tell you WMs do post a lot there...and I know we submit a lot to writing challenges at UA, but considering the sheer amount of awesome writers in all of the teams, we're not guaranteed placement there (basically: we have as much of a chance of placing in UA as any of the other teams do, no more or no less...we don't tend to "sweep" the writing challenges as far as placement goes). So "writing as a strength" is true, but there's a big difference between that and being considered a "powerhouse" team...posting a lot of writing to MWS doesn't necessarily mean we're going to get high placement (it just means we like to write, lolz). The WMs are not minigame-oriented as well. Personally, I know I will apply more for minigames if they're not the logic-based kinds...but, I know that the WMs in general have never had super strong minigame participation (which kind of worries me, but I've mentioned that multiple times). I think, as far as the bigger teams go, we might actually be the weakest one simply because our members are very specialized. On the other side of that, we have more members than most of the other teams...so we do have the potential to be strong. I think, for us in Game 4, our "strength" will be on whether or not we have more participation overall.

Part 2 (since we write too much O_O;)

[breyzyyin.livejournal.com]

I find it worrying that there is this thought that the smaller teams can make up a lot of points in MWS...to an extent, that could be true. But, there's also the "burn-out" factor and it isn't necessarily fair to expect other teams to participate in EXTRA activities to make up for the fact that their team isn't as big. As I saw in my point-tallying, Soldiers and Dragoons have been pretty consistent with submitting to MWS in all of the past games. It was only the same couple of people, but they were consistent. With the exception of Soldiers in Game 3 (which, who knows what Game 4 will bring), however, they never really have managed to have the points that that the other teams get in MWS simply because they just don't have as many members submitting to it. MWS relies on a member having free time and the like, so I guess I'm worried that members of the smaller teams might burn out in an attempt to "make up some extra points to stand against the bigger teams."

I think some teams are just going to be at a disadvantage and the biggest factor that is against *or* for the teams is number of active members. The reality is, the smaller teams are not going to do as well as the bigger teams (especially if the bigger teams have a lot more active members submitting to MWS, minigames, or even UA--> you have 4 Thieves or WMs submitting to a minigame for equal points, with only 1 or 2 Monks: the Monks still don't earn as much. That's just simple math). The numbers just aren't on their side. From that stance, I think the 2v2 alliances are a good idea: partnering smaller teams with the bigger teams will make them feel like they're on a more active team in general. I think 1v1 might hurt the teams more than help them, especially when there are teams where only one or two members are active...there's a sense of isolation when it is just your team alone, and I think competitions in general still need a sense of camaraderie (it happened with the WMs in Game 1 since we really weren't seeing any level of "team/alliance"-ness then...in Games 2 and 3, we had a very different alliance experience: we had fun getting to discuss things with our alliance partners, and it helped motivate us).

My thoughts on Soldiers: I admit I find it odd that we're considered one of the stronger teams now. As everyone has emphasized, a lot of the teams just had low activity/participation in Game 3. I think we Soldiers maybe took advantage of that, lolz (you know, because we're Soldiers and think strategically XD)! We didn't actually do ANYTHING different in Game 3. It was even the same people constantly submitting anything for points. That's what I love about my team: we're small, but we're diligent and we do try our best! However, I think once the other teams start getting more active as they are indicating they will, we'll be back towards the "not as strong" side of the spectrum...we just don't have the numbers to compete against the bigger teams *if* they do get really active. I think in Game 3 we showcased that if the teams were more balanced in terms of member size and activity levels, the smaller teams like Soldiers have the chance to get pretty high placement-wise. When that's not always the case, it becomes apparent. As the the team mod, I can tell you that we can't do MORE than we've been doing...because that's actually what we've always done in *all* of the games. All I can say is that the Soldiers will continue to do what we do, and I think that will be the case for the other smaller teams. I think the only TRUE weakness that the smaller teams have is that they're smaller, because statistically speaking the teams that only have two active members won't earn the same amount of points as the teams that have four or more of them...heck, it lowers even the chances of placing in UA, because the odds just aren't on your team's side at that point. O_O; That's actually why I'm more for a 2v2 alliance as well. It allows the smaller teams to feel like they have a shot at advancing if they work with the bigger ones, and it won't make any of the teams feel isolated.

~...So, uh, that's Breyzy and Yin's perspective? I'm sure that it doesn't really matter, but we felt like we should say something here too. ♥

[glacialphoenix]

Um, to clarify, because I know I said that in my own comment as well, and I think I really should state this as the MWS mod: it's not that you guys should be expected to make the difference in MWS, it's that because MWS has no hard cap on numbers, it's pretty much the only community that actually has this kind of... hmm, leeway, so to speak. But it is definitely unfair to expect teams to make up the difference in MWS, and I am honestly personally against MWS being used as a crutch - yes, it will earn your teams points, yes, it's possible to keep your team afloat through MWS points, but any situation where a team feels forced to use MWS to remain on par with people is far from ideal. I really don't want to see Soldiers (because I'm really not sure what to say for WMs, as far as I can tell the WMs adore writing anyway? please correct me if I'm wrong) forced into this kind of situation, because as gil tallier for two games, I've only ever seen the same few people participating, but the participation has always been nothing short of amazing for those same few people.

Also, wait, with 2v2 do you mean 2 teams, or 3 teams? /suddenly confused Mysti

[breyzyyin.livejournal.com]

I think the WMs post in MWS just because they like writing as well (at least, I know that's the case for Yin, lolz!)...I'm definitely not saying that's what you're saying (I thought your comment was very accurate, actually ♥), but Yin and I have both seen comments where people *have* said "Small teams can post things to MWS to make up." and I, as a mod of one of the smaller teams, do have a problem with that mindset...because I personally think it ignores the reality that that's a lot of pressure to put on the few active members of a small team. I do know I submit a lot to MWS because I want to earn points for my team, but I never felt like I "made up" the points that we missed by just not having too many active members. The way things are set up in MWS, you'd have to submit something worth a lot of points to do that...I'm not an artist, and I can't write super long fics nor post super huge icon posts on a really regular basis. There is no way for me to make up those points...I feel like when I see comments like that, I'm personally letting my team down by NOT being able to make up those points. I think we just wanted people to realize how it might come across when people say stuff like that. :/

Looking at the WMs, they're fairly consistent and regular with MWS posting in terms of writing...and they placed fourth in Game 3. I definitely think saying you can "make up" points in MWS is not necessarily true...it does help teams earn *extra* points, but that is not the same thing.

The reality is, with how the sizes of the teams are in terms of active members, there's not going to be a way to make things even for the teams: MWS is not a crutch, nor is UA and minigames. When you have small teams with not very active members, you just have small teams with not very active members. Just as the BMs are saying that Game 3 was anomalous for them...Game 3 was anomalous for Soldiers. We didn't change our participation: the other teams did. I'm not downplaying my team: the few of us who are active participate AWESOMELY and I feel we really earned the place we got in Game 3...but, do I expect it again when the bigger teams start getting more active in general? Not really. We'll give it our best and try our hardest, but that's because that's what we've always done...to the point of possibly even burn out in some cases. We're a strong team despite our lack of members, but do I think we're as strong as the teams with more active members? Not really. I just wanted to get a "small team" perspective out there, since so far I've been seeing more of the representation of the big teams commenting here. ...Yin just wanted to mention some more about WMs so she tagged along, haha. And she felt like she needed to address the MWS thing also since we've kind of been talking about it before. XD

Also, wait, with 2v2 do you mean 2 teams, or 3 teams? /suddenly confused Mysti
~Lolz, we *meant* the "2 Alliance" idea. IDK why we typed it out that way other than lack of sleep. O_o

[glacialphoenix]

Looking at the WMs, they're fairly consistent and regular with MWS posting in terms of writing...and they placed fourth in Game 3. I definitely think saying you can "make up" points in MWS is not necessarily true...it does help teams earn *extra* points, but that is not the same thing.

/nod

I mean, looking at the pattern for MWS, usually when a team successfully keeps afloat via MWS, there's at least one extremely prolific person who tends to post a great deal of fanworks, and each post tends to be worth a lot. (For example, and although I represent the extreme end of the spectrum, I could post several fics in MWS and the total points earned by those fics would simply not match one post from someone else, you know?) So that may be why there's that perception - if you see someone earning a couple hundred points off each post, it's easy to say, woah, holy crap, they CAN make up via MWS - and this is partly true in that it's possible, but it's fallacious to apply it to everyone across the board, because some people just can't. I feel, generally speaking, that MWS does have this tendency to get either overrated or underrated - it's easy to forget someone's there if they only post in MWS and don't really do much else, but having seen the total scores? There are people in ff_land who can claim more points from nothing but MWS than I have this entire game. And I don't participate in UA beyond voting (mostly), but I've participated in almost all the minigames, almost all of GF, and voted on everyone in classchange AND claimed reference bonuses... so that's what you can earn off one community versus near-max for three. At the same time, though, as in the case of the WMs, it's kind of unfair to expect people to do well purely FROM MWS alone, or expect people to be able to 'make up.' (I'm guilty of this, really. Not the making up, but I honestly really did overestimate the WM gain in MWS, mostly because I saw a lot of posts from them in general? I apologise for that.)

And of course MWS activity is the hardest to gauge - it has the possibility of fluctuating insanely. For example, I know ff_exchange is going on right now, and we have people taking part... and it's eligible for points in MWS as well. So if people do decide to post their exchange fic here, that's a lot of points coming in, and that can change the MWS balance quite drastically.

tl;dr that's kind of my thoughts on where MWS stands as a point-giving comm, really.

[breyzyyin.livejournal.com]

I totally agree with what you've written here. ...I'd say more, but I feel like I'd just be repeating a lot of what you said (so, I apologize if this response is lame, lolz). As a point-giving comm, MWS might actually be the most unpredictable...so I never know how I feel about people equating MWS posting to a team's strengths/weaknesses. If anything, I think it might just help showcase an individual's strengths or activity/participation levels: one of our Soldiers really only ever posts in MWS, so that's actually the only reason I know they're still active here since I don't usually see them on any of the other ff_land comms, lolz! XD

[glacialphoenix]

If anything, I think it might just help showcase an individual's strengths or activity/participation levels

Unfortunately, I think that's where the line blurs a bit: an individual's strengths or activity/participation levels are going to reflect back on the team's strengths or activity levels. Black Mages do well in minigames because most individuals in Black Mages happen to like and participate in minigames - and it's made even stronger because we have the numbers to support that kind of participation. It adds up. Similarly, if a team does have constant, regular posting in MWS I would consider it a strength of the team's because regularity is good and it is a constant contributor to the team's points overall. If that makes sense? Whether this is actually sufficient to make it on par with the other teams' activity is something else altogether.

[breyzyyin.livejournal.com]

What you said makes sense, but I think "Whether this is actually sufficient to make it on par with the other teams' activity is something else altogether" is the main issue when it concerns MWS. I think the same can be said for *any* of the point-giving comms to a degree. Like you mentioned with minigames...having several members who like something and submit consistently will always reflect positively on a team's points. When you only have one or two members who consistently do something, you won't always be able to compete against the other teams regardless (which is basically why I say "size of active members" is probably the most significant factor when it comes to discerning a team's strengths: the more people you have submitting something, the more the points add up). Again, it goes to activity/participation levels to a degree. When it concerns teams like WMs, they obviously like submitting to MWS...especially when it comes to writing. It is a strength of theirs, but the points maybe don't add up to what teams that participate more on other point-giving comms might receive, especially if those other teams are also relatively active on MWS as well. For any of the point-giving comms, it really all depends on how many people you have entering or submitting things (obviously, even the bigger teams can drop in activity/points if their members become busy or don't feel like participating as much in certain point-giving comms). I think that's what you're saying, but correct me if I'm wrong? ♥

[glacialphoenix]

Yep, we're on the same page. I think also (seeming) frequency is an issue: I see the White Mages posting a lot, but because of the nature of MWS, they might not be earning as many points as they look like they are? Whereas if you were to see someone consistently participating in something like FFMG, you know they're probably going to earn around the same range of points each time they participate, or if you see someone voting in FFCC, you know they're going to earn 10 points each time they vote. Not disagreeing, just thinking maybe it's where a lot of misperception potential comes from.

[breyzyyin.livejournal.com]

Yes, my thoughts exactly! XD Lolz, I can never word things to make them sound so understandable. I should work on that (or let Yin comment more, since she's better at that kind of thing, haha!). ♥

[arivess.livejournal.com]

Yeah, if anything, bigger teams should generally be expected to score more in MWS than smaller ones, simply because they have more people who can potentially post stuff. Plus, saying people can make up points in MWS is a bit... :\ I know my POV is a little off since I only very sporadically post fanworks, but it's the lowest points to effort ratio in the entire game, and by necessity. In the same amount of time, you get about twice as many points from UA for even just entering, much less winning, and about 3-4 times from MG. In a game with more people in general, then yeah, maybe it's fine to say smaller teams can make up the points with fanworks, but when you have some teams double the size of others, it's a bit misleading and unfair.

[arivess.livejournal.com]

Yeah, one of the problems with WMs having writing as their main team strength is just that -- Thieves have most of the iconists, so they usually take at least two placement spots. But because there are so many writers from all the teams, WMs usually only get an average amount of wins from writing contests.

And also, yes, one of the main reasons I would still peg WMs as one of the stronger teams is because of sheer number of participants. A lot of them disappeared this time around, weirdly enough, but as far as end of game 2 / start of game 3 went, they had the largest number of actually-active people, so they have the highest potential, if members would get around to even just doing minigames.

And yes, I also agree that Soldiers... I guess are almost the exact oposite, when you think about it. Very very few numbers, but high levels of activity. That's partially why I tried to emphasize the size count up there, too? Because even though you guys got second, and got very very close to first (if Sel won the drawing contest instead of me, and we were very close, you would have won instead, I think), this is about the limit, because you only have this many people. You can't get more active because you don't have the manpower for it, and it's also kind of unfair to count your score expecting all three of you to pull activity levels equal to the MVPs from all the other teams, which... you guys pretty much did this time around.

[breyzyyin.livejournal.com]

I think the WMs might be the "dark horse" of the comm: if our activity levels get to Game 2/early Game 3 level, we'd probably be really strong. I'm going to try to get us more pumped up for minigames! I promise! ♥

I think, unfortunately, the later Game 3 results are a reflection of people's RLs getting busier...which there isn't much one can do about that. Hopefully, all of the teams will have members who can participate more in Game 4, as I think that was probably the main issue for pretty much every team. :)

But, initially, Breyzy and I really just wanted to say that we rather liked the concept behind a 2 Alliance idea and we agreed with the alliance assessments you made on this post about what might be the most fair and/or balanced. ...Clearly, we just have a habit of writing more than we really need to. It's probably a gift...or an annoyance, lolz. ♥

[breyzyyin.livejournal.com]

*headdesks* Uh, meant the "2 Alliance" thing...not 2v2! O_O; IDK why we typed it out that way. :/ *FAILS FOREVER* 1v1 meant all single teams meant "Thief vs. Soldier vs. Black Mage vs. White Mage vs. Dragoon+Monk" option! So sorry for the confusion, but we can't edit the comment anymore. O_o