Where did the Survival Games Go?

[bob_brickman99]

No, it's not what you are thinking. The servers are still up.

What I mean by this is that the "Survival" Games are turning into the "PVP" games.

No longer does it require a significant amount of skill and strategy to succeed in the Survival Games, but now there is less actual surviving and more fighting. Gone are the days when a player needed to scavenge the ground, looking for food and, if he was really lucky, some armour or a weapon. Now, all a player needs to do is run into a house and he will nearly always come out with a weapon, decent armour and enough food to survive the full 30 minutes.

More and more maps are being created, which is good. However, these maps are containing more and more Tier 2 chests. The most recent map released by TeamElite (SG:Inertia - which looks amazing btw) has more Tier 2 chests than Tier 1 - and this is the same with many others. Another thing I have noticed is that the arenas are becoming smaller and smaller. Solar Frost used to be the only map that went for 5 minutes - but now there are more games that don't last - in fact, most games don't even get a refill!

Back in the days of 1.2.5, MCSGv1, there used to be mobs in the games, which made it much more difficult to survive at night. Now, the most dangerous entity at night (except for a player) is an unexpected gravel trap on SG4. Most maps don't have the caliber of survival that we used to have

So how do we fix this? I don't really know. I just feel that we need to add back the Survival aspect of Survival Games. What do you guys think? Less Tier 2s? Rarer armour? Less chests? Re-add mobs? All of the above? Post your thoughts below - you might even completely disagree...

 

[Beardy]

Well, if you want to win efficiently, you still have to play it passive. Full on aggro style doesn't help too much. Those people who have the god ratios know how to play it safe and no when they're outmatched. Instead they run and hide, hence they survive.

 

[P3num6ra]

This thread has no evidence to cite. I nearly have extremely long games and winning games can be quite a difficult task depending on your way of getting wins.

I don't know how you know there is more Tier 2's than Tier 1's in SG: Inertia, either. The map isn't even out yet if I recall.

Also, the main aspect of the game wasn't always survival. It could be called Hunger Games, making it more "survivally" type. The name of the game itself does not immediately create an assumption that the game will be typically about that sense of gameplay. This server has been about PvP for as long as anyone can remember.

 

[Electrix]

I agree. Tier 2s have been entirely abused. On Par 72, you could probably get stacked no matter where you went. What happened to the fun on TSG3? Why is Hungry Hills so underplayed? Why did SG5 get removed? It's because the tryhards like their tier 2s, and it's making this server more of just an FFA map than an actual survival challenge.

 

[Vanicle | Vanessa]

I played on SG: Inertia in the Deception Games and I was actually very surprised at the amount of tier 2s. I assumed that this was just for the DG specifically and that when it was added to the servers, it would be retiered. I guess not judging by what you stated in the thread.

I agree with a lot of the things you've said in your thread. I hate how some maps just place tier 2s in houses or not-so-secret areas that everyone flocks to because everyone has the exact same chest routes.

In the past, I would have recommended retiering the maps more often. However, one specific example that comes to mind for me is when Avaracia was retiered. I had an awesome chest route on that map and now I absolutely hate it because I have no idea where anything is. Not sure if this is just a rare example or if there would be a similar trend if other maps were retiered.

Another suggestion is to redirect the focus in future maps. I'd love to see mapmakers focusing on different terrain and chokepoints that can be utilized for PvP rather than secret areas to place double tier 2s and simply the overall aesthetics of the map. I think the amount of chests in maps is generally okay, but definitely less tier 2s.

 

[Yannick]

I have not read all the comments.. but if you are a god at pvp doesn't mean you'll win the game. All the top players are good at surviving and have their strategies. Everyone thinks its all about pvp. But even if you are horrible.. its the surviving part that gets you a win.

 

[bob_brickman99]

I don't know how you know there is more Tier 2's than Tier 1's in SG: Inertia, either. The map isn't even out yet if I recall.

http://www.mcgamer.net/threads/sg-inertia.179627/
He states that there are around "158 tier 2's and around 141 tier 1's". There's your evidence.
I didn't say that it used to be a survival gametype - I just stated that the survival aspect is being lost.

I do agree with most of the points about still needing to be able to have some sort of survival instinct. However, most good players do have the same strategy.
1. Run to spawn and get loot
2. Run and get route chests
3. Kill off any player who comes near me
4. Go to spawn near refill
5. Kill most players
6. Get to deathmatch

The better are you are at PVP, the higher chance you have at winning. This is the same with any SG version, even back on the very first game. I remember when seeing a full iron person made me run in the other direction - but now I can face them with a stone sword alone (depending on the player). Being good at PVP doesn't guarantee a win, but it gives you a massive advantage. The aspect of surviving in the games has been replaced by most people trying to be better at PVP. (Maybe this is what causes people to team, hack and rage).

Just a thought, thanks for the comments