| Account Details | |
|---|---|
| SteamID64 | 76561198027192301 |
| SteamID3 | [U:1:66926573] |
| SteamID32 | STEAM_0:1:33463286 |
| Country | United States |
| Signed Up | August 7, 2015 |
| Last Posted | October 2, 2019 at 10:28 PM |
| Posts | 428 (0.1 per day) |
| Game Settings | |
|---|---|
| In-game Sensitivity | |
| Windows Sensitivity | |
| Raw Input | |
DPI |
|
Resolution |
|
Refresh Rate |
|
| Hardware Peripherals | |
|---|---|
| Mouse | |
| Keyboard | |
| Mousepad | |
| Headphones | |
| Monitor | |
Guys I figured it out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iczmIosE4z4
http://nodtotherhythm.com/?Fq8GkToi
Edit: I did it again and it turned out WAY more unsettling: http://nodtotherhythm.com/?hVkB869a
SpaceCadet3CP is a very interesting idea. If the maps are made correctly, I think it could end a lot of the stalemate TF2 we play on a nightly basis.
Make mid extremely large (maybe 2 times as large as process)
Add 3 "mini" cap points to Middle (You need all 3 to capture Middle)
Faster spawn times (allows both teams to continue fighting for Middle and allows creativity in back caps)
This way, mid-fights are not 2 teams smashing into each other every time. There could potentially be 2-3 straight up team fights for control of Middle before a single Last Push happens.
I believe a lot more strategy and creative teamplay will dominate the game instead of the current format.
Make a super big mid, and sniper pretty much becomes an upgrade to scout, and we all know how much fun perma sniper is in 6's. Also, why would you not want teams smashing into eachother for midfights, that's one of the most exciting and entertaining parts of the game.
mahrezwhat's weird is how his friends are making fun of him and just not taking him seriously
You... haven't met leaky, have you.
I have a 3 liter pitcher dedicated to iced tea, and on days off I'll go through it twice, if it's hot.
H Y D R A T I O N
Maybe talk to Geel, or submit a ticket with the scrap.tf support staff, or post on their reddit.
joshuawnKredibleThe person who ended up winning the $130,000 1st place prize was actually cheating
https://www.reddit.com/r/FortNiteBR/comments/90ouq3/a_crime_was_committed_yesterday_during_the/
Esports monkaS
officially speaking, no he wasn't.
https://www.reddit.com/r/FortNiteBR/comments/90q2bn/summer_skirmish_week_2_friday_winner/?st=JJVL3H5V&sh=ec14de5c
with that said, i do think it's really stupid that console & PC players are lumped into these tournaments yet simultaneously allowed to play on platform-separate servers.
iirc it is possible to flag XIM users. and while games ultimately should cater to the comforts & I/O preferences of players, i do think anyone using native KB/M or XIM (which is even better than native due to, at minimum, its support for macros & its ability to leverage controller-specific options like aim assist) should be forced to play at least on cross-platform servers (the default option for PC players).
this isn't to say that idropz_bodies was necessarily using XIM, but tournament organizers need to take all the necessary precautions to minimize bad press and animosity from competitive scenes & their viewership. someone winning over $100k shouldn't be stuck in a position to be vilified or distrusted in any capacity.
I feel like the bigger question here is why any players competing in a big tournament with a sizeable cash prize were using controllers to begin with. That's like going to a home run contest and choosing to swing with a whiffle bat. I understand that maybe some players are more comfortable playing on a controller than a mouse and keyboard, but they're really fighting an uphill battle.
This really serves to highlight the problems with cross-platform play in tournaments. I feel like this whole Fortnite Esports experiment is going to provide the esports scene with a lot of lessons for how things should be done, or how they shouldn't.
I played russian style when I played starcraft. It let me pivot with my elbow to hit hotkeys all over the board, and kept my wrist at a good angle. If you need high APM across an entire keyboard, I'd go for russian style every time, but only if you know your keys by touch.
Having a small form factor keyboard helps too, unless you've got a big lap and big hands.
Can't wait to see what format they have for the next one! And then see how that format's inevitably flawed metagame is exploited.
Source parts for cheap via craigslist, newegg, ebay, and maybe aliexpress if you're a risk taker. It takes a while to find good bargains, but it is doable. If you pay MSRP for your build, you're going to be sorely disappointed at the cost to performance ratio.
Also, weight your purchasing decisions towards getting the newest and most powerful cpu you can. Apart from the fact that TF2 demands much more from your cpu than your gpu, it's generally easier and cheaper to upgrade your gpu and ram down the road than it is to get a new mobo and cpu.
Bob_MarleyIf we assume it's an acrostic poem for anal, it has ABBC rhyme scheme. A BBC. There is a BBC-themed amusement park planned for 2020 in Kent, England. BBC has also promised that half its workforce will be women by 2020. So at least half the employees at the park will be women. While the son is taking the mom on the water slide, the dad is doing anal with one of the many female employees. If we assume that the mom and dad have an open marriage (it's 2020, so yeah.) Then it would be reasonable for the girl to go home with them so that the mom can join in on the fun too. Further, in England the age of consent is 16. But you aren't legally an adult until 18. So the female employee could technically be a kid and everything would be A-ok!
Why are they making an amusement park themed around big black cock?
Pretty consistent with most of the med mains I've known, including the zoophilia part in the middle.
I watched two things tonight: this, and the original German version of "Funny Games." I'm not sure which was a more excruciating experience.
Can't wait til' the next one.
copperrYep sorry I was saying talking about the pro players when i said " The players who are trying to win will very easily get above 70+ winrate" and i still stand to my point. Atm most most pro players play pubs to simply improve at the game and most dont care about their stats. Some of the only Pro players who are trying to win all the pub games are the players who are trying to get on the leaderboard so they can gain exposure. Another example is the solo showdown tournament which had prize pool for vbucks all the players in the top 1000 had around 80% winrate.
Still most loss comes down to a mistake which could have been avoided and not by complete chance.
I don't see much crossover between the top 1000 of the solo showdown and top players in, well, any other metric. The fact that there's virtually no crossover indicates to me that the players who won the solo showdown aren't especially good at winning, per se. I think you may be mistaking getting around 80% of total possible points with winning 80% of games. In fact, you could have gotten to 932nd place while only making it to the top5 of a game. Theoretically, if you got second place 50 times in a row, you could have made it to 37th place without ever winning! The point here is that
skill only does so much for players. More skilled players are definitely going to survive more encounters, but the difference between a win and a top 5 can come down to things like what kind of shield consumable was dropped, or what the rarity of a gun was. Winning the game is frequently going to be out of the player's control by the time the final encounter starts.
The entire format of a battle royale game inevitably results in closer relative levels of skill as the game progresses, weaker players being eliminated sooner. This narrowing of the skill gap only serves to heighten the impact that random elements have on the game
Also, it's worth noting that I don't think that any of this necessarily makes Fortnite a bad game, it just makes it a very poor competitive game.
Unrelated, I'd be interested in any sources you have on the winrate for players who want to win (namely the ones that get 70+) because as far as I can tell, based on the season 5 win% leaderboard, across all platforms, they make up about .00002% of the Fortnite playerbase.
copperr"The best of the best players" are not playing pub games to get good winrate they are playing pubs simply to have fun or take as many fights as they can to improve at the game even when they are playing like this they can get a decent winrate. The players who are trying to win will very easily get above 70+ winrate for example check the solo leaderboard. These players are not even playing for winrate they are playing for the number of wins. If winrate actually ment anything then all these players will have 90+ winrate and the only games they would lose will be to RNG like getting put into a game with against another good player.
It is also a battle royale game mode it is supposed to be a hard game to win. Which is why it is so popular to play and watch.
If you sort that site by "solo" and "win %", you'll find that win percentages are down to about 70% within the first 10 players, and about 50 within the first 100 and that's disregarding the relatively low number of games played for a lot of players. The season 5 win percentages follow a similar pattern if you cut people below 60 games played (which, based on info I can find about average match lengths for fortnite, should equate to about 20 hours of game time over the past week, which I'm using as an arbitrary baseline for a *moderately* dedicated player). If you sort by total wins you get an even clearer picture, where the most experienced players are generally sitting close to a 55% winrate, skewing below.
The big takeaway here is that the number of players that achieve a win rate greater than 50% is infinitesimally small, considering the size of the Fortnite install base, claiming that players trying to win will "very easily get above 70+ winrate" is simply ignorant. This also speaks to the impact of player skill on the outcome of the game. I couldn't really drill down into that too far without data on in-game deaths, but I'd be willing to say that Fortnite is closer to Yahtzee than it is to chess when it comes to skill indexing.
Additionally, the inherent streamability of battle royale games isn't due to the challenge, it's because there's an inherent narrative structure and tension in "land, grab gear, try to be the last person to die" and the pacing works out in such a way that good streamers have time and freedom to interact with their stream. Not to mention that the time from losing one game to starting another is pretty low, which is beneficial for audience engagement. The big leap is from streaming one player's POV to casting competitive games, which misses a lot of that built-in structure. Not to mention that, as I stated in an earlier post, the type of play that players should and will be engaging in if they want to actually win the money that epic is putting up is INCREDIBLY boring to watch.
This post was more effort than it's worth, but whatever