She’s me
Personal take on the awards considering it’s been done for 2 years now, there’s just no reason for people to nominate and it kinda sucks? There’s not really a fix but I’d personally like if people decided to nominate more. Like even if there was more than 50 nominations for a single category or something but there’s still one obvious winner or what not, at least there were contested nominations
1 Like
my hot take is that the restriction on nominating for like, three days after a game ends, really sucks and needs to go
2 Likes
it unquestionably cuts down nominations and for what
2 Likes
yeah sure it’s gone now
9 Likes
gone, but not forgotten
2 Likes
I dunno I forgot about it already
2 Likes
there was a restriction like that? (this isnt a joke btw I literally didn’t know lmao)
1 Like
Yeah
It’s blocked me from making noms in the past and then they slip my mind
2 Likes
I do agree with this btw
I want more on the fly noms
Even if they’re not deserved, I still want them to be in contention
5 Likes
I mean, I kinda disagree. If there can only be one winner, then that winner is the best, and lowering your bar for nominating won’t change who the winner is.
I think the solution isn’t to nominate more, but to instead improve the play on-site such that players will do more things that are nomination-worthy. All that lowering the bar will do is add more mediocre plays to the voting board, and make voting for the best a little bit more annoying.
If only one or two players are nominated for a category, that points to a flaw in play that should be addressed, not a flaw in the nominators who should be nominating more.
I don’t think it matters if only one player is nominated, or one hundred, or the entire playerbase of MU. There will be one winner, and that winner will (presumably) be the player most-suited for that award. Adding more vanity nominations will just obscure who that player is.
I’d rather have an uncontested but deserving player to win, than to have competition that never stood a chance in the first place just to give the illusion of competition.
2 Likes
the problem isnt that we want better winners
the problem is just that we wanna recognize more people in the noms phase
3 Likes
And I disagree that nominating more will help with that, as it will just make the nominations feel more samey and boring. I feel like the way to go is to improve play across the site, rather than to lower the bar for nominating.
awards are competitive
if i get an award that “had to go to someone”, it’s not fun
if i have to fight tooth and nail with my plays against equal or far better players to try and gain an award or make this years best play which fits into a nomination category, and it gets recognized, its really fun
if im one of twenty mediocre nominations and get the reward, its not fun either
winning with no competition isnt fun
winning against other, mediocre contestants, isn’t fun either
winning against good contestants, who each had good players, and all around are surrounded by a competitive awards atmosphere rather then a person getting something because they fit the bill best, is really fun
the only way we can make awards fun is to be better contestants, no flashy lights, presentation, or whatnot can make it have any value
4 Likes
3 Likes
That’s not the issue, it actually adds some competition during the revealing and stuff and it shows people who play well that other think the same, the winner could be as obvious as ever but at least they’re not guaranteed from the start
Plus, it often kills things until the end of the year when things are remembered and people decide to nominate the rare thing or two, some games across the year could’ve been amazing but then suddenly well forgotten
3 Likes
It either adds a superficial level of competition to the awards, by allowing for otherwise mediocre play to be nominated alongside players who actually stand a chance to win, or it makes being nominated, being recognised for good play, not mean as much as what counts as “good play” has been lowered enough to capture a much broader range of play, possibly to the point where not making any mistakes but also not doing anything notable would be considered eorthy of a nomination.
I prefer to have our nominees to have earned that through their own merits, even if that means a boring and uncontested slot. If anything, an uncontested slot should be an easy incentive to work towards that slot, as the competition is naturally slim.
That’s not an issue though? Mediocre play being nominated wouldn’t be a problem since it needs a nomination and a second to go through anyway, you aren’t going to nominate a slanker for their play of randomly shooting a scum because that’s just mediocre and not a team player and stuff in a team based game. What I’m saying wouldn’t remove the good plays, it just encourages those good plays to actually be nominated
I nominate Jake for the Most Contrarian Player award
1 Like