Just some constructive feedback.

In the SC1 AK thread, if a player is not capable of an AK, but beat 3 players, it is not considered an almost allkill.

Alive should not be counted because his team was already up 1 game. There are only 3 players left when he started. He is now nowhere near all kill. In fact it is impossible for him to achieve an allkill even if he wins 3 in a row. That is why he is not considered an almost all kill.

RyanRushia

United States2748 Posts

February 09 2011 03:35 GMT

#42

hahhahah that webomic is hilarious, thanks for posting

Tektos

Australia1321 Posts

February 09 2011 04:41 GMT

#43

To avoid confusion why not just put:

- All Kill
- Reverse All Kill
- 3 Streak / 3 Kills

Include everyone who got 3 kills regardless of if it was almost an AK or not, otherwise we're just arguing semantics which is a waste of time.

mizU

United States12125 Posts

February 09 2011 06:05 GMT

#44

Updated, sorry.

Vehemus

United States586 Posts

February 10 2011 02:50 GMT

#45

This is the kind of stuff I love seeing on the forums.

I hope you continue to do these threads and keep them updated in the future. Thanks.

jeeneeus

1168 Posts

February 10 2011 08:29 GMT

#46

On February 09 2011 12:34 GhostFall wrote:
Just some constructive feedback.

In the SC1 AK thread, if a player is not capable of an AK, but beat 3 players, it is not considered an almost allkill.

Alive should not be counted because his team was already up 1 game. There are only 3 players left when he started. He is now nowhere near all kill. In fact it is impossible for him to achieve an allkill even if he wins 3 in a row. That is why he is not considered an almost all kill.

Doesn't it make more sense that Alive has the almost all kill? He had the potential to do so, he just couldn't because he went second. Whereas if you go first and lose your last game, it simply means you weren't good enough. Perhaps if Alive was first in line, he would have gotten the all kill.

legatus legionis

Netherlands559 Posts

February 10 2011 08:47 GMT

#47

This is new to me but from what I'm understanding, since the team league format is a best of 7, there are only 4 games to be won, before you win the matchup.
Because then I understand what people are saying with the almost all kill, and it can never be an all kill etc. However at the same time I don't. If your buddy gets knocked out and you're behind 0-1, they still have the same player in right, so that person can then make it 4-1 for an all kill?

I think that's actually a very important distinction to be made. If someone gets 3 kills but he can never have made an all kill, then obviously that is not almost an all kill, because the all kill isn't possible. If you do give it the label of an almost all kill, you will get so many almost all kills that it is gonna take away from the prestige and the specialness about it. And it also gives a much fairer representation of the how the match has been played out, since those restrictions give you some inside.

I might be mixing it up now but looking over the overview again. alive should not be credited with a banner of an almost all kill, since there was no 4th match for him to win. I feel the almost all kill and 3 kill should be split up under seperate headers, because especially with the addition of the banner, it creates some confusion and mixes things up, also you wouldn't have to like rank them because the almost all kills are more valued than 3 kills. And how is ZeNEXHyeJun not qualified for an almost all kill? He took the series 3-0 before being eliminated.

I apologize if I'm mixing things up but those seem like nice things to me to keep it clear and fair.

Umbrella

Taiwan936 Posts

February 10 2011 08:56 GMT

#48

On February 10 2011 17:29 jeeneeus wrote:

Show nested quote +

Well no, an almost all kill just means the player almost got an all kill, but he failed in the last set. If the team already won a game before, then it's impossible to get an all kill since the most the player can get is a 3-win-streak.

Vehemus

United States586 Posts

February 10 2011 22:44 GMT

#49

Why make the topic if you don't update the OP