I'm still unsure whether I'll join the MFO this time (I'm 56 now, the body and mind are no longer in condition needed to play to that intensity) but I also have no opinion either way. I do like the idea of claiming a personalised item from the vanquished though; nothing big, just a momento.
MFO Summer 2020 Signups and Running Thread
- Thread starter PhineasB
- Start date
- Mar 14, 2020
- 1,923
- 2,638
- 113
Hi All. I was backpacking the last few days so just coming back to internet. It's a good discussion and was interesting to read through it at once when I got back.
Coincidentially, as a result of the forum change, I thought about proposing a rule change for this year's MFO. But I decided not to propose a change amidst change, so thanks to @ResTTe for raising!
I feel very much like @Pb_pal on this:
But I also think the number of items and mandatory participation in claiming are outdated to the current realities of our forum and an unnecessary barrier, respectively.
So, with full credit to @Pb_pal, I propose the following change to the claiming rule:
- Top three in each category can claim 1 item from lower scoring entrants in their category.
- Claimed items are the top-5 scoring items only, although parties can negotiate among themselves around other items (e.g., 0 durability eth War Travelers).
- Forum members can enter as "No Claiming" instead of posting link to their trading profile. This means they do not claim if in top 3 and their items cannot be claimed by top 3.
- If a top 3 member would like an item from a "No Claiming" participant, post that interest, and the community will see if someone has a version of that item to fill the gap (the roll may or may not be as good, of course).
I will join @Pb_pal in pitching in if the last bullet comes up:
Let's give it until Wednesday, August 19 in case there are strong objections or further discussion on tweaks or improvements to the proposal above. And, of course, as noted, we may abandon this altogether depending on how things shake out in the sign-ups:
Coincidentially, as a result of the forum change, I thought about proposing a rule change for this year's MFO. But I decided not to propose a change amidst change, so thanks to @ResTTe for raising!
I reduced the number of items to claim when I took over hosting, which didn't raise an eyebrow. So based on the general consensus so far that further update on this piece is warranted, I'm going to propose a new approach, unless there are objections. . . .
Oh, thanks @jjscudUltimately its up to the host to decide (or decide how to decide
I feel very much like @Pb_pal on this:But I also think the number of items and mandatory participation in claiming are outdated to the current realities of our forum and an unnecessary barrier, respectively.
So, with full credit to @Pb_pal, I propose the following change to the claiming rule:
- Top three in each category can claim 1 item from lower scoring entrants in their category.
- Claimed items are the top-5 scoring items only, although parties can negotiate among themselves around other items (e.g., 0 durability eth War Travelers
).- Forum members can enter as "No Claiming" instead of posting link to their trading profile. This means they do not claim if in top 3 and their items cannot be claimed by top 3.
- If a top 3 member would like an item from a "No Claiming" participant, post that interest, and the community will see if someone has a version of that item to fill the gap (the roll may or may not be as good, of course).
I will join @Pb_pal in pitching in if the last bullet comes up:
After multiple 99ers, I have lots of items sitting around that will never get used and am happy to donate an item to a top-3 finisher.
Let's give it until Wednesday, August 19 in case there are strong objections or further discussion on tweaks or improvements to the proposal above. And, of course, as noted, we may abandon this altogether depending on how things shake out in the sign-ups:
Last edited:
zemaj
Active member
- Jan 7, 2011
- 613
- 200
- 43
Ok, so I may be the only person with strong feelings pro to this, but here we go:
There are a few things that make the MFO particularly special, and it is reflected in the rules; Every other mf tourney is limited to 20hr sets, makes sense, makes it far more competitive when your entrants don't always have equal free time, because we have learned time-management. Once per year we have one memorial to the days when we would in folly gleefully spend 72hrs solid doing Baal runs (he has the single best drop odds!). A tribute to the herculean if often misguided feats of our youth, if you will.
Another special rule for the MFO is the item-claim. In memory of the days when we were the most heathen greedy lot that wanted to rob you after beating you... and how far we have come, that such an option is used as a joke, when exercised at all.
A tradition I think worth holding to.
Furthermore, it's pretty much a sportsmanship gaurentee. If you can't abide the thought that you MIGHT have to give up a single item MAYBE, then this isn't the tourney for you. There will be one more geared to that shortly... several, most likely. In the meantime, once per year we get to have one tourney that is explicitly more focused on community than lootz, and demands a serious social contract from you... is it really that hard? If it is, fine... I don't think less of you for playing the way you perfer to every day, why do we have to change the single event that doesn't pander to your preferred playstyle?
EDIT:
hopefully it's obvious from context, but 'you' when used as an address above is not specific to an single individual, more a general indicator for 'you whom may feel differently'.
There are a few things that make the MFO particularly special, and it is reflected in the rules; Every other mf tourney is limited to 20hr sets, makes sense, makes it far more competitive when your entrants don't always have equal free time, because we have learned time-management. Once per year we have one memorial to the days when we would in folly gleefully spend 72hrs solid doing Baal runs (he has the single best drop odds!
). A tribute to the herculean if often misguided feats of our youth, if you will.Another special rule for the MFO is the item-claim. In memory of the days when we were the most heathen greedy lot that wanted to rob you after beating you... and how far we have come, that such an option is used as a joke, when exercised at all.
A tradition I think worth holding to.
Furthermore, it's pretty much a sportsmanship gaurentee. If you can't abide the thought that you MIGHT have to give up a single item MAYBE, then this isn't the tourney for you. There will be one more geared to that shortly... several, most likely. In the meantime, once per year we get to have one tourney that is explicitly more focused on community than lootz, and demands a serious social contract from you... is it really that hard? If it is, fine... I don't think less of you for playing the way you perfer to every day, why do we have to change the single event that doesn't pander to your preferred playstyle?
EDIT:
hopefully it's obvious from context, but 'you' when used as an address above is not specific to an single individual, more a general indicator for 'you whom may feel differently'.
ResTTe
Well-known member
- Jul 5, 2019
- 208
- 304
- 63
To me it looks like those golden years when there was all that competition and stuff are long gone and they will never come back. Most people here won't participate because of various reasons, which makes me feel like we should fight for every single person. I also feel that we should make competitions as encouraging as they can be, cause it will result in more people joining and therefore make them more fun. I know that making things more popular/casual/mainstream is lame, but i don't think that changing this 1 particular rule that wasn't used for a long time now, will hurt the MFO that much. The whole community is a little bit more mainstream now and, what's the most important, it is way smaller nowadays. It's more like "Do we really need it" rather than "Remove it".
Would be actually pretty nice to make some prize for the winner. Some item that goes from 1 winner to the next one. Like mentioned worn war travs. That would be pretty funny.
Would be actually pretty nice to make some prize for the winner. Some item that goes from 1 winner to the next one. Like mentioned worn war travs. That would be pretty funny.
Last edited:
- Jan 3, 2019
- 1,480
- 1,593
- 93
I think phineas's revisions should work great for this year right? But my expectation is that there will be little overall interest in claiming, in which case it might make sense to drop it next year. But whatever you all think. I definitely think restte has a great point in that with such a small community we should be doing everything we can (as long as we feel like it's not a significant compromise on quality) to keep participation as high as possible. And lol I love the idea of a trophy item passed from winner to winner. I do get the whole "keep MFO intact as our primary relic of the old days" attitude, but we dont have another MF tournament that's nearly as big or as regular as this one.
zemaj
Active member
- Jan 7, 2011
- 613
- 200
- 43
Hold up... after re-read I would like to point out there are exactly TWO people who have any issue with the rules as they are, and only one that feels strongly enough to post more than a statement of dissent.
If not having one person participate will be enough to drastically alter long standing rules, then perhaps it's time I put my time towards more personal projects, and stop focusing on a community tradition that can be changed and cast aside so easy....
If not having one person participate will be enough to drastically alter long standing rules, then perhaps it's time I put my time towards more personal projects, and stop focusing on a community tradition that can be changed and cast aside so easy....
Kinkara
Well-known member
- Mar 16, 2020
- 287
- 445
- 63
I'm having some trouble following this. Are you playing because the rules and traditions are kept? As stated above, jjscud and Phineas have made changes before. So, if you participated in those previous editions, then rule changes have never been a problem.
Frankly I understand both side, but in short:
- From my perspective this whole discussion is rather theoretical (almost pointless) because SPFers nowadays just don't have a mindset that would make them claim items. I feel 95% play self-found and are more about following and encouraging each other's progress -- taking items away from others doesn't correspond to that whatsoever.
- If it's only theoretical, personally I see no harm in keeping the tradition. Also I wouldn't be pissed if someone claimed an item from me. For example my only grailer left is Tyrael's Might. Should I find it and somebody claims it, obviously I would reserve the right to call that person is a complete idiot -- but I would likely not use it on any character, and I'd consider my grail complete nonetheless.
- That being said, if this rule actually deters people from participating (I understand only @ResTTe thinking about not participating because of it), what's the problem with amending it as @Pb_pal and @PhineasB suggested? Or rather decided as per @PhineasB's post -- there's also a tradition that tournament hosts formulate the rules of the tournaments which they host. This tradition should definitely be followed and in this case settled the matter from where I'm standing.
zemaj
Active member
- Jan 7, 2011
- 613
- 200
- 43
Yeah, pretty much... all the targets in the MFO are not my typical (with the exception of alvl85, obviously), and as such, participating detracts from my personal projects usually. I still participate in MFO pretty much BECAUSE it is the one big special mf event that retains all of its tradition. If it becomes just another mf event, nothing special but a name, I likely will stop competing, as it will, like 99% of other tourneys, just detract from bigger goals.
And as to your nitpick about previous changes, I've had about enough changes. I disliked those, and I directly oppose this one. It is, as mentioned, as far removed from what it was in inception that any further 'small changes' and it may as well be 'The Super-Special Mid-Summer Fun-Run', because I don't care what you call it, it won't be the MFO anymore
Last edited:
Nagisa
Active member
- Aug 10, 2020
- 37
- 120
- 33
Hmm. I'm honestly not really sure what this tradition talk is about. I feel the spirit of the MFO was always about the bashing of faces into walls for 10 days, showing off your skills and resolve while hoping to get luckier than your friends when the dust settled. I feel that is our tradition, and I'm happy to see it continuing long after I quit playing.
Item claiming has always (?) been a part of the rules, but I doubt anyone ever joined thinking about the nice things they could poach. I don't really consider it part of the tradition at all, and I believe players who placed highly rarely if ever took anything of value to less fortunate competitors.
I'm not sure if it was suggested yet, but perhaps you could make it so only mutually agreeable items could be claimed. I feel that was something that always happened regardless, but I'm sure it would make people feel safer about their high quality finds without having write out the rule completely.
I do enjoy the prospect of stealing my 500th Mav's bow from frozzzen when he inevitably joins and loses after all.
Also, I managed to forget my password after just a week. This is how you know you're getting too old for this.
Item claiming has always (?) been a part of the rules, but I doubt anyone ever joined thinking about the nice things they could poach. I don't really consider it part of the tradition at all, and I believe players who placed highly rarely if ever took anything of value to less fortunate competitors.
I'm not sure if it was suggested yet, but perhaps you could make it so only mutually agreeable items could be claimed. I feel that was something that always happened regardless, but I'm sure it would make people feel safer about their high quality finds without having write out the rule completely.
I do enjoy the prospect of stealing my 500th Mav's bow from frozzzen when he inevitably joins and loses after all.
Also, I managed to forget my password after just a week. This is how you know you're getting too old for this.
ResTTe
Well-known member
- Jul 5, 2019
- 208
- 304
- 63
@Helvete said that he never participates in tournaments that involve trading. I also got messages from other players mentioning that rule.
I personally don't like trading. I think it doesn't fit single player at all. It's even weird to me that it was made a part of that competition. I know you allowed trading long ago and it was quite normal, cause you wanted to have somewhat bnet experience in single player and i kinda get that. Doesn't mean it has to be that way forever.
I don't have a problem with some new player getting the top position and claiming some random useful item i got. Don't know what i should do when i get for example eth fathom and somebody wants it. Do i even have some room for discussion with such person? It's kinda weird that you are a winner and a looser at the same time because of RNG xD
As i said, D2 community as it was no longer exists. There is basically 0 competition which means that MFO already isn't MFO you remember tbh. That depends on your memories of course.
@zemaj Also, maybe it isn't worth it to participate in MFO, if you have to abandon your personal goals just to run some lvl 85 Areas? ^^ Furthermore, do you really think that changing that 1 specific rule would change the MFO that much? I have the same feelings about it as @Nagisa. MFO is just a tournament in which you play hard without limitations. All other tournaments are totally different, right?
I personally don't like trading. I think it doesn't fit single player at all. It's even weird to me that it was made a part of that competition. I know you allowed trading long ago and it was quite normal, cause you wanted to have somewhat bnet experience in single player and i kinda get that. Doesn't mean it has to be that way forever.
I don't have a problem with some new player getting the top position and claiming some random useful item i got. Don't know what i should do when i get for example eth fathom and somebody wants it. Do i even have some room for discussion with such person? It's kinda weird that you are a winner and a looser at the same time because of RNG xD
As i said, D2 community as it was no longer exists. There is basically 0 competition which means that MFO already isn't MFO you remember tbh. That depends on your memories of course.
@zemaj Also, maybe it isn't worth it to participate in MFO, if you have to abandon your personal goals just to run some lvl 85 Areas? ^^ Furthermore, do you really think that changing that 1 specific rule would change the MFO that much? I have the same feelings about it as @Nagisa. MFO is just a tournament in which you play hard without limitations. All other tournaments are totally different, right?
zemaj
Active member
- Jan 7, 2011
- 613
- 200
- 43
@ResTTe
but it's important enough for you to change it when only one other person has said as much as a peep about it? Why should everyone change to fit your preference? Wouldn't be easier to change YOUR preference than to inconvenience EVERYONE? Obviously not to you... you feel you should be able to push your opinion on everyone else, apparently.
I'm done with this discussion. I've made my point and I will hold further opinion on this matter until such time as @PhineasB has made an official post on how this will be handled this year.
EDIT:
actually, I'll make one more allowment/concession: if ANYONE besides @Helvete & @ResTTe really wants to join, but hasn't/won't because of this one rule everyone else has accepted, please, post in this thread so we can all know that it isn't just one person with an axe to grind wanting to bend things to thier preferences.
but it's important enough for you to change it when only one other person has said as much as a peep about it? Why should everyone change to fit your preference? Wouldn't be easier to change YOUR preference than to inconvenience EVERYONE? Obviously not to you... you feel you should be able to push your opinion on everyone else, apparently.
I'm done with this discussion. I've made my point and I will hold further opinion on this matter until such time as @PhineasB has made an official post on how this will be handled this year.
EDIT:
actually, I'll make one more allowment/concession: if ANYONE besides @Helvete & @ResTTe really wants to join, but hasn't/won't because of this one rule everyone else has accepted, please, post in this thread so we can all know that it isn't just one person with an axe to grind wanting to bend things to thier preferences.
Last edited:
ResTTe
Well-known member
- Jul 5, 2019
- 208
- 304
- 63
@zemaj No it's not that important to me and i just wanted to share my opinion, which happened to be strong. As many mentioned, it's still up to the host if the rules are changed or not. It doesn't change the fact that i just don't get it and can say it out loud here, right? I totally don't understand what you said... I have no force here, so i don't think i inconvinience anybody. Unless i can't share my opinion on some topics, cause someone will have a problem with that. The only person that was openly agaist what i said was you. Every other person here doesn't really care about it that much, at least that's what i observed, so i have no idea why you said it's a problem to everybody. It clearly is a problem to you and you have that upper hand, cause the rules were like they are for years and of course it means that you can't change them... As i said before, if the rules are that important to others and they don't want them to be changed because of tradition or other reasons, they would say it right away and the conversation would be over. It apparently isn't...
I will probably still participate in the MFO regardless of the rules, but i wanted to adress a few things and make my point. Didn't think it would be such a problem to somebody.
I will probably still participate in the MFO regardless of the rules, but i wanted to adress a few things and make my point. Didn't think it would be such a problem to somebody.
Last edited:
zemaj
Active member
- Jan 7, 2011
- 613
- 200
- 43
So it's not really an issue for you, won't influence your choice to participate or not, but you just wanted to see if you could change one thing you don't like for no particular reason other than just to do so since you don't like it, though not enough to influence or affect you....
I think we just reached the logical end of this debate.
I think we just reached the logical end of this debate.
ResTTe
Well-known member
- Jul 5, 2019
- 208
- 304
- 63
Yeah, of course i wanted to push my opinion on everybody here, cause i can't stand other opinions and i always cry about everything. That's so obvious.
I totally didn't want to create a debate about some topic that i don't really agree with and i think it can be adapted to modern reality of the community. Maybe i used some strong words in some places, cause i am younger than most of you and i use different language and i had some break from the forum, because of summer and i forgot that you should keep your language formal here. It all doesn't affect points i made though.
I totally didn't want to create a debate about some topic that i don't really agree with and i think it can be adapted to modern reality of the community. Maybe i used some strong words in some places, cause i am younger than most of you and i use different language and i had some break from the forum, because of summer and i forgot that you should keep your language formal here. It all doesn't affect points i made though.
Helvete
Well-known member
- Mar 13, 2020
- 294
- 640
- 93
Oh, I could easily live with handing off some items, and I don't mind others trading at all. My real excuse for not participating is that I know I won't have the time or energy to give it my best shot, even being out of a job for the moment. But I like to see others find good stuff and be competitive about it nonetheless, so I always pay close attention.
I'm all for keeping language formal too =)
I'm all for keeping language formal too =)
hackedagainanda
Well-known member
- Jun 4, 2015
- 334
- 453
- 63
Maybe if I can run pindle either until my mouse breaks or I level from 95>96! Beauvior the Blizz sorc enters the fray. I have no opinion on the rules so do what you will.
-------------------
Baal
-------------------
Vildecor [1.14d SC FAM]
Friiser [1.14d SC FAM]
-------------------
Pindle+
-------------------
Kstil3227 [1.14d HC FAM]
jjscud [1.13c FAM]
CaseyJones [1.14d SC FAM]
Hackedagainanda[1.14d SC FAM]
-------------------
Level 85 Areas
-------------------
Trim [1.14d SC FAM]
Swamigoon [1.14b SC vanilla]
ffs [1.14b SC FAM]
Albatross[1.14d SC FAM]
QueenEm [1.14B SC FAM]
art_vandelay [1.14d SC FAM]
Luhkoh [1.14d SC FAM]
Nagisa [1.14d SC FAM]
LiquidClear [1.13d SC FAM]
Pb_pal [1.13d HC FAM]
-------------------
Teams
-------------------
--------------------
Available for teams
--------------------
Baal
Vildecor
Pindle
Kstil3227
CaseyJones
A85
Luhkoh
LiquidClear
Pb_pal
-------------------
Baal
-------------------
Vildecor [1.14d SC FAM]
Friiser [1.14d SC FAM]
-------------------
Pindle+
-------------------
Kstil3227 [1.14d HC FAM]
jjscud [1.13c FAM]
CaseyJones [1.14d SC FAM]
Hackedagainanda[1.14d SC FAM]
-------------------
Level 85 Areas
-------------------
Trim [1.14d SC FAM]
Swamigoon [1.14b SC vanilla]
ffs [1.14b SC FAM]
Albatross[1.14d SC FAM]
QueenEm [1.14B SC FAM]
art_vandelay [1.14d SC FAM]
Luhkoh [1.14d SC FAM]
Nagisa [1.14d SC FAM]
LiquidClear [1.13d SC FAM]
Pb_pal [1.13d HC FAM]
-------------------
Teams
-------------------
--------------------
Available for teams
--------------------
Baal
Vildecor
Pindle
Kstil3227
CaseyJones
A85
Luhkoh
LiquidClear
Pb_pal
Kinkara
Well-known member
- Mar 16, 2020
- 287
- 445
- 63
At first glance it seems to me that you're talking past each other, so I want to clarify both restte's and zemaj's stances as to prevent animosities from raising.
1. Restte proposes that the "item claim" rule is deterring people from joining and that changing it could revert this situation.
2. zemaj thinks that changing the rules any further will make the competition lose it's special quality which makes it unique compared to other MF tournaments.
I don't see both possitions as mutually exclusive. They will both happen at the same time by changing the same rule. So it seems clear that there must be things to lose and to gain from removing said rule. But there are still two ways to move forward: remove it or not. Now, I don't know how to weight the outcomes as to decide if they are in zero-sum contest.
EDIT: I don't know if I'm being clear, so I may change it if I can think of a better way to put my point across.
1. Restte proposes that the "item claim" rule is deterring people from joining and that changing it could revert this situation.
2. zemaj thinks that changing the rules any further will make the competition lose it's special quality which makes it unique compared to other MF tournaments.
I don't see both possitions as mutually exclusive. They will both happen at the same time by changing the same rule. So it seems clear that there must be things to lose and to gain from removing said rule. But there are still two ways to move forward: remove it or not. Now, I don't know how to weight the outcomes as to decide if they are in zero-sum contest.
EDIT: I don't know if I'm being clear, so I may change it if I can think of a better way to put my point across.
Last edited:
Trim
Well-known member
- Oct 28, 2007
- 2,692
- 271
- 83
Oh, I feel you on this for sure. It looks like the trend of me being scheduled to work for 50+ hours each week will persist throughout the tourney and interfere with my ability to play for at least 8 out of 10 days. If I were to take this at all seriously and try to devote anything more than 20 hours, I'd pull out this instant. But this is something I'm doing strictly for fun and to be a part of a community I hadn't been around in some time. Hang with some dudes & dudettes, see what comes of it all! [Not trying to convince you to join up; we all gotta do our own thang!]
I'm honestly surprised to see someone adamantly defend the item-claiming rules as strongly (and aggressively -- my interpretation, ofc) as zemaj has. No sarcasm and no cheap shots intended in any direction, the message behind the arguments is kind of refreshing in a way. Someone with a perspective that might not be commonly shared these days, but one who remembers a certain facet from the days of old and vehemently wishes to stick to a rule based on past experiences. I can't begrudge in the slightest, and, despite my unspoken assumption that they were being too careful or conservative of their overview, it totally gives credence to Phineas' early concerns of removing the rule outright. I happily stand corrected!
I can absolutely get behind the idea of this one tournament exemplifying an ideal of pushing oneself to the max and being highly competitive with the rest of the community, and to some degree I have held myself to such standards in at least one previous MFO. But the underlying reason I've joined any SPF community event is just to enjoy myself and see what happens, much like how Nagisa described above. The ability to claim items from others has always been a trivial side effect of this tournament, an element that I have never considered engaging with myself given the opportunity. zemaj may be afraid that the MFO could turn into a less meaningful fun-run by removing any item claiming, but to me the fun factor is exactly what the MFO has been about throughout the years even with that rule in place. Keeping or removing claims wouldn't change my outlook whatsoever. My simplistic take is that item claims are no longer part of the current SPF zeitgeist at large, and even if in the end all players choose not to partake in claims the rule sets an early tone that's more discouraging than it is encouraging, especially to newer / fresh-start members. In my eyes, removing item claims doesn't change the ideals of what this tournament has stood for across all these years so long as we all recognize and respect why this has been a beloved event. BUT. zemaj isn't wrong in their way of thinking, either. Different strokes is all.
My stance is probably pretty clear, and my opinions are based entirely upon the way I "feel" about things which doesn't provide much weight to push a needle in any direction. Not that I wish to be that much of an influencer on this topic, anyway -- I don't have much of a dog in either fight. No matter the outcome, I'm here (hopefully!) to be an overall positive member of the community, that's all!
I will say it's too bad this discussion ended up occurring during sign-ups and not prior when the rules might have been thoroughly discussed and adjusted with plenty of fair warning (no blame toward ResTTe; if I wasn't already accustomed to these established rules, in a fit of devil's advocate I might have put it up for discussion myself). Puts Phineas is a tough spot, one where it seems like there's no easy answer to appease everyone. As someone who wholly agrees that the rules are determined by the host, I don't envy your position, dawg. But I thank you for being our champion regardless.
Last edited:
Google