419 replies to this topic

[Wizard Steve]

Not interested.

[DeaconW]

Atma Erebus, on 24 February 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:

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

This^^. PGI could have been more honest with us and said, "Hey guys and gals, we need a lot of solo play to seed the ELO properly so we are going to give <insert random bling here> to the top X players in each category by the following formula". Calling it a "tournament" is a joke IMO.

[Duromon]

Would like to see some kind of knock out tournament in the future. Maybe when we have more game modes or arena type map for free for all. But the overall feel of this 'tournament' is just who can sleep the least. I dedicated most of my Saturday and managed 35/15. Played some of my best games in 4SP but the best I did was 170th. I just want to try for top 25 tonight but playing 200+ games in a weekend isn't really fun for anyone. Its nice to see conquest games full of founders. Assault really shouldn't be allowed in this tournament given the little time it takes to charge a base without even being in combat. Every conquest game I have played so far this weekend had amazing battles even on Alpine. Hopefully this tournament brings stability to ELO and matchmaking.

[PhoenixFire55]

Obviousely this tournament has nothing to do with skill. Its all about the amount of games you played...

[Lord Banshee]

I seriously hope the people with skill chasing the people who thrash game after game do not get penalized in any way for what they need to do. I want to play the skilled in fair battle and the setup forces the skilled into play they normally would not.
How can you call this a tournament when you reduce the best of the best to Leroy-Jenkins-class pugs? Seriously, something's wrong.

And for God's sake no participation prizes. A real tournament makes striving to attain the best a key goal. A real tour... oh... yeah.

[matux]

Snailio said last night (being about 8 hours ago now) he had been playing for 31 hours non stop and now at last leg of this, he is still at the top.

If this is how tournaments are going to run in the future you're not going to see me in them at all purely because i do have other things to do on the weekend.

[Andrew Waltfeld]

Well, This was there first try, and they even admitted going in it was more of a systems test than anything. No Biggie, no need to get ******** over it.

However if I may make a suggestion. Next time how about only polling the top 10(15, 25 ect) scores per player over the timeline, and using that be the deciding factor instead of using all scores. This way every player at minimum only has to play 10 games to get ranked. If a player plays more than the 10 matches then only the top ten scores are kept in the average. This would still create plenty of incentive to play lots of games, as more matches would give you more chances at getting good scores. At the same time a person would'nt have to play for 70 hour straight if they could just get in a good few hours of rock solid scores.

Seems win-win to me

[EvilBart]

Does anyone know what these guys drink instead of coffee to play ~500 matches in a row ?

[Dikaiosyne26]

I like the idea of having a cut off of games, but not at something like 10 games. People can get very lucky/ unlucky for a sample of 10. I'd like to see it at something more like 50 games, just to use a number of the top of my head. I'm sure that someone could find more statistically significant number, but at like 10 minutes a match (being generous), that's 8 hours of gameplay, which is manageable over a weekend when most people will have the time. Sure some people will be crazy and still do the 40 hour marathon, but at a point you'll have some diminishing returns.

Also that way, someone couldn't just ride a wave of mediocrity to the top.

[toxx1790]

Considering this tourney as a test of the tournament infrastructure and scoring systems: 10/10

The winner being effectively determined by who plays the most: 0/10

Hopefully PGI has some better ideas going forward for this type of thing.

Anything that rewards the person who can play the most is soul-crushing and boring. Reminds me of the early WoW PVP ranks -- although WoW was worse with the decay when you didn't play. Hopefully we won't see that kind of decay mechanic introduced into MWO.

[Andrew Waltfeld]

yea, 10 was arbitrary hence the (15,25 ect) part. I'd compromise between our two numbers at 25 games played perhaps? 25 stellar scores would definatly take some serious skill, and would help block out the luck factor a bit. But really in these sort of events, luck will always play a big factor. Lets face it, there will always be a top 1-5% player base in close contention with each other, beyond that it will just come down to being in the right matches at the right time to pull max scores.

Edited by Andrew Waltfeld, 24 February 2013 - 02:14 PM.

[Ulysses St Cyr]

Tournament: great idea, needs a little work on implementation/scoring.

Much of this has already been said by other players, but my own views and experiences of the tournament are as follows:
i) Despite what was said by Garth near the beginning of this thread, there is way too much score weighting towards number of matches played. I know of at least one of the top players (and I suspect several others) who have been getting friends to play their account while they have caught some sleep, and several people that I know (and probably a lot that I don't) just gave up because it soon became obvious that, unless you could manage to play for close on 72 hours straight, you weren't going to win anything at all.
ii) Things started great on Friday evening and through most of Saturday, with PUG teams actually following tactical orders, covering each others' backs, and generally behaving like teams (which is quite unusual for PUGs). However, as time went by and people started to figure out how best to tweak the scoring system, more and more matches became a case of "run in, spot and shoot as much as you can, die, log out, move to alternate mech and new match". This left the rest of the team at a disadvantage which was hard to compensate for. Not a major issue, but something to consider for future.
iii) My suggestions for the next tournament would be to consider either having a set number of rounds within the tourney period (eg your first 50 or 100 matches only will count), or to count only the best (20?) matches that they play during the time. Perhaps taking an average of their match score for each round (to several decimal places, to avoid multiple ties)?
iv) Increase the number of prizes - it's great to be able to get a prize, but when there are a grand total of 15 on offer between over 5000 entrants, that is a disincentive. It would have been nice to see, for example, a "Merit" banner for achieving the top 100 in any category.

Those are the things that spring to mind without too much in-depth analysis, and I hope that the devs consider these points. As I said at the top, however, the tournament was a great idea, and kudos for it, guys - please don't think that I am ungrateful! But it will need a little tweaking before the next repeat in order to avoid the intense frustration which has affected almost every person that I have talked to about this

~S~

Lt Col Ulysses St Cyr
3rd Regiment XO
1st HeadHunters of Davion RCT

[coRpSE]

Ghost Bear, on 22 February 2013 - 01:07 PM, said:

games played is a bad way to keep track , it means whoever plays the most will win

That's why I stopped. This is not a tournament of skill, but more of who the most time to waste. That's why after I got up in the top 5 I stopped on Friday/Saturday morning and that was enough for me. Back to group playing.

[DAoC]

coRpSE, on 24 February 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

That's why I stopped. This is not a tournament of skill, but more of who the most time to waste. That's why after I got up in the top 5 I stopped on Friday/Saturday morning and that was enough for me. Back to group playing.

This. There are people in the top 25 who lost more games then they won...

[DeaconW]

Ulysses St Cyr, on 24 February 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

... more and more matches became a case of "run in, spot and shoot as much as you can, die, log out, move to alternate mech and new match". This left the rest of the team at a disadvantage which was hard to compensate for.

You say this like it's not PGI intended game design. Every choice they make points more and more to this being the preferred type of gameplay they want. Welcome to MechCallofDutyOnline...

[DAoC]

Just played a low number of games because not more time this weekend. 18 wins, 2 losses with my lights and only position 511...
I think the number of games played is way to important.

Edited by DAoC, 24 February 2013 - 03:30 PM.

[KKillian]

Only 3 of us in the top 20 heavies with a 2:1 W/L.... Jus sayin.

[DAoC]

KKillian, on 24 February 2013 - 03:36 PM, said:

Only 3 of us in the top 20 heavies with a 2:1 W/L.... Jus sayin.

I got 9:1 W/L ^^ Dont wanna win but this system seems to suääh need some rework.

[RussianWolf]

Yeah, I'd call something like this an Iron Man challenge as it is totally based on playing the most games you can. Saying that the weight of games played is the lowest is irrelevant as it is obviously a points based contest and the way to get more points is to play more games.

I think Brian pointed it out himself that the second place player (at that time) was likely the better player, but since he had about 50 fewer games the other guy had accumulated more points. So the winner of the tournament may not be the best player, but just an okay player with more time to play.

Can't wait to see what other contest/tournaments come around, but ones like this definitely favor those without a life.

I'd like to see some elimination type tournaments. Three losses and you are out of the pool. But those are best for FFA type play.

[Little Nemo]

This should have been broken down into segments. It's pushing it to ask people to sacrifice sleep to win something that is most matches played.