419 replies to this topic

[Sangue]

Tournaments = awesome idea and super fun.

Obviously the current system could use a few improvements. I love being able to check my current ranking on the website though - really cool to get an idea where I stand (currently 361, weehoo .

I have only two (and a half) suggestions for the future.

1. Use the old matchmaking system for players opted in and participating in a tournament. Otherwise not necessarily the best players win, as good players will face good players and bad players will play bad players if ELO works as intended - thus a bad player has the same chances to win as a good player.

2. I would crown the winners based on average match score (rather than accumulated points). And set a minimum amount of matches to be played (say twenty). I'm not sure how that score is calculated (and I think it's good if it's not clear, as that way people can't come up with cheats so easily), but it usually seems pretty accurate as to which players had the biggest impact on a match. That way one can win dominating in these twenty matches, but players who want to continue to play more can do so. There should then be an opt out option on the site once a player is happy with their average score. So every extra match played could potentially increase the score further, but at the same time also decrease it (currently not the case).

3. I think a tiered tournament system could be an interesting idea. So day 1 (or week 1 or whatever) all players who want to participate would start in the tournament. Then after that time only the top 50% of players would remain in the tournament, the rest would automatically drop out. After day 2, repeat again (only top 50% of players remain). This way the matches would get more and more intense as the tournament goes on.

My 2 c-bills

[Cache]

Sorry if this has been stated previously, but I don't have the time available to read this entire thread.

Bryan Ekman, on 23 February 2013 - 08:59 AM, said:

The difference in play time between 1st and 2nd is 61 matches, 49.1% more games played, or 360 minutes or 6 hours if you only had one mech to use. But only 15 points separate the two positions. This means 2nd place is far more efficient or a technically better player than 1st.

I think this does illustrate a bit of a problem with the scoring. Even with the small percentage of points "games played" is worth, it still is rewarding players for quantity over quality. With the other ways to earn points, where you still have to play a lot of games to be competitive, it even becomes a bit of a redundant reward. I think quantity of quality games should be the goal in this type of tournament setting.

[Utnapishtim]

i absolutely love this game, and i think tourneys with rewards are a great idea, but i simply don't have the time to play 60 matches a day. i understand this tournament helped the Elo stats, but in the future lets base it on match score or something less... effortless (for someone with no responsibilities/job/school) because i simply don't have the time to make it to the top (where i see a few serial base cappers in the lights list)

[Elizander]

I normally don't get many games in, but the tournament ranking thing amused me enough to get a bunch of games going and the bonus to my hero/founders mechs allowed me to play around 29 games in 2 days. That's already huge for me because I normally just play several matches in a day that I choose to play.

Of course the quality of my internet also dictates which days I can play along with if I'm busy or not! Thankfully it wasn't so bad this weekend though I still had 2-4 matches where I lagged out so bad that I died not knowing what happened. 512kbps unlimited connection ftw (only $10/month)

[WolvesX]

Tournament more like Torment?

-> No not really.

But its more endurance based than skill based.

[Relic1701]

Thontor, on 24 February 2013 - 09:11 AM, said:

the first 'x' amount would have the same problem... at least taking the best matches lowers the influence of lucky and unlucky streaks

But having the 'best' would promote players 'working' the system, but despite having good or bad streaks, a good team player still shows.

Edited by Relic1701, 24 February 2013 - 12:23 PM.

[BARBAR0SSA]

Also how about showing how the result is calculated, I've been assuming doing the most damage and getting the most kills is how.

Also having a rating for MORE skilled weapons would be cool. LRM spamming is rather bland I'd say if you go into a PUG.

Also maybe side things as well eg. Most headshot kills, most surgical(taking off arms and legs) etc.

And yes I agree. your BEST 50 matches should count, not all.

Edited by shad0w4life, 24 February 2013 - 10:23 AM.

[hammerreborn]

shad0w4life, on 24 February 2013 - 10:10 AM, said:

Also how about showing how the result is calculated, I've been assuming doing the most damage and getting the most kills is how.

Also having a rating for MORE skilled weapons would be cool. LRM spamming is rather bland I'd say.

Also maybe side things as well eg. Most headshot kills, most surgical(taking off arms and legs) etc.

And yes I agree. your BEST 50 matches should count, not all.

I prefer every mech being a lrm15 spamming stalker than the top 50 light mechs being 3Ls

[Kell Commander]

This tournament was a good first try. I was pleased since you really had nothing to go on before this. It is too bad though that this is more affected by time played and less about player skill.

[Druire]

Sangue, on 24 February 2013 - 09:05 AM, said:

Tournaments = awesome idea and super fun.

....I have only two (and a half) suggestions for the future.

....
2. I would crown the winners based on average match score (rather than accumulated points). And set a minimum amount of matches to be played (say twenty). I'm not sure how that score is calculated (and I think it's good if it's not clear, as that way people can't come up with cheats so easily), but it usually seems pretty accurate as to which players had the biggest impact on a match.
My 2 c-bills

+1

Or you could just count the 25 best and the 10 worst matches of a player or something like that..
Anyway I appreciate that at least there is a kind of tournament....even though community warfare would be much more awesome

LG Druire

[KKillian]

It seems all the system needs is a detrimental factor based on deaths, team damage, and loss. All of these do not exist as far as I can tell.

[Irvine]

Min/Max everywhere

[WolvesX]

http://mwomercs.com/...-for-top-50-25/

How about a RED Banner for top 50 / 25? Would be great =)

[Aym]

Tournament implies a set number of games needed to win. A tournament implies losses hurt. This is not a "Tournament." The "leader board" showcased people that played for 40+ hours for this event. I hope it helped your metrics.

[Fastidious]

The difference between RHoD and PGI tournaments is striking. In all my years of playing games competitively I've never seen a game community come up with a tournament such as this; only a game developer would put in playing a lot as one of the major factors. I wouldn't be surprised if people were sharing their accounts (both by sharing account information and sharing physical computers/internet). Players on large voice servers are sync dropping, so it's not purely solo either. I could list numerous other problems but suffice to say if this is how PGI tournaments are going to be I don't care to see another. I wouldn't even call this a tournament at all, it's just an event. Tournaments specify a fair, controlled environment to compete in and the exact rules are listed in detail before the start. This makes a mockery of competition and tournaments.

Edited by Fastidious, 24 February 2013 - 11:46 AM.

[WolvesX]

Maybe a green one for all those who participated?

So everyone gets a reward.

1 2 3 -> Winner
4-25/50 -> Dedication
50< Participation

[GoManGo]

WolvesX, on 24 February 2013 - 11:39 AM, said:

Maybe a green one for all those who participated?

So everyone gets a reward.

1 2 3 -> Winner
4-25/50 -> Dedication
50< Participation

OK COOL ILL GO WITH THAT.Now i just want to ask one question why did i get dropped for exleast 50 + games during the tournament? Or was it 50+ game sever crashes? Or how many got disconnected during this tounament? The only reason i ask is i never had this issue before this OPT IN? It raises the possability some players were crashing games to win.

[Flagrant]

Most fun weekend ever. I'm not in the running for anything but every match has been fun. The only time I got steamrolled early was right before I went to bed when I started noticing more bad players team up with me (solo chargers in assault matches, LRM atlases that don't move at all, no focus firing, etc).

Please continue creating tournaments.

[Atma Erebus]

Can you win this "tournament" simply by playing non stop? 452 points, 220 wins, 225 losses - currently first place in Heavy. Assuming even 5 minutes per match, that's 37 hours of play to get there. This pilot has about 50 more games played than second place and judging by his average score (1 point per game) and the time it would take to play 450 games, I can image his (their) plan goes something like this:

1. Charge the enemy, getting in a hit on as many Mechs as possible. Die quickly.
2. Quit and repeat with another Mech. Collect points for damage done and assists from the previous match while charging to another death.
3. .......
4. Win tournament

That's how I would do it if I had 72 hours to spare (or 4 friends with 15 hours each and my account password).

It's been said before, but how hard is it to rank by average score with a X game minimum? Or total score in your last X games played? Or any system that doesn't eliminate people with families and/or jobs?

Most people don't define best as "the person with the most time to waste on a repetitive task".

[KKillian]

Please make sure Lord Azurescens stays properly hydrated, He's chasein the dragon hard and if we lose em I blame PGI! I'm pretty sure the other guy is playing in shifts with a roommate as his skill level seems to fluctuate... On the other hand refer to the above.

Edited by KKillian, 24 February 2013 - 12:35 PM.