419 replies to this topic

[Psychobunny]

Dunno if anyone suggested this in previous posts, but maby next time, give us a minimum of like 100 games, and those 100 games will be deciding factor of how far you reached in the tournament.
might work better when ppl habben to be very busy when the tournament hits, and fair.

[ciller]

PGI I DONT UNDERSTAND!!!!!!!


How did Za Warudo get more points then me!??? Especially in that last hour!!!??!? He got something like 24 point in the last 4 refreshes, a total of something near 12 more points then I did that last hour.

I was keeping him at bay untill the last and I just don't get how he gets such freakish amount of points per refresh!!! WHAT WAS I DOING WRONG???

Please give me some information PGI. I'd like to know what I did so wrong that 88 more wins couldn't put me over the top.. I hope I don't sound like I am complaining. I'm just confused and sad. Yet happy at getting 2nd!




STANDINGS MEDIUM PILOTS

Rank Name Score Wins Losses
1 Za Warudo 607 233 138
2 ciller 599 311 221


He made up a 50 point lead in the last 12 hours. Good on you Za Warudo, you must be the most amazing pilot ever even if it boggles my mind how you beat me. CONGRATS!!! You definitely deserve it man.

Edited by ciller, 25 February 2013 - 04:37 AM.

[Shredhead]

ciller, on 25 February 2013 - 04:34 AM, said:

PGI I DONT UNDERSTAND!!!!!!!


How did Za Warudo get more points then me!??? Especially in that last hour!!!??!? He got something like 24 point in the last 4 refreshes, a total of something near 12 more points then I did that last hour.

I was keeping him at bay untill the last and I just don't get how he gets such freakish amount of points per refresh!!! WHAT WAS I DOING WRONG???

Please give me some information PGI. I'd like to know what I did so wrong that 88 more wins couldn't put me over the top.. I hope I don't sound like I am complaining. I'm just confused and sad. Yet happy at getting 2nd!




STANDINGS MEDIUM PILOTS

Rank Name Score Wins Losses
1 Za Warudo 607 233 138
2 ciller 599 311 221


He made up a 50 point lead in the last 12 hours. Good on you Za Warudo, you must be the most amazing pilot ever even if it boggles my mind how you beat me. CONGRATS!!! You definitely deserve it man.

Well, you are just a bad player, averaging 1.13 points per match, while he averaged 1.64 points per match. At least in this case it was quality over quantity.
Guys, if you want to know where you really stand (by skill, not spamming matches), visit and contribute to my thread http://mwomercs.com/...e-really-stand/
This way we can maybe make a skill based leaderboard based on the tournament data.

[ciller]

Shredhead, on 25 February 2013 - 04:42 AM, said:

Well, you are just a bad player, averaging 1.13 points per match, while he averaged 1.64 points per match. At least in this case it was quality over quantity.
Guys, if you want to know where you really stand (by skill, not spamming matches), visit and contribute to my thread http://mwomercs.com/...e-really-stand/
This way we can maybe make a skill based leaderboard based on the tournament data.

I am just a bad player? Apparently you are just a rude jerk.

Like honestly, aside from the horrendous blow outs because of the horrible teams I was sometimes on I always had tons of kills and assists. There was a large chunk of the last day that I was playing in a bit of a sleep deprived stupor but still. Bad player? Seriously? Where do you get off saying this?
Perhaps it was the fact that when my team lost, I usually went out first and fast (even though i remember zombie'ing it up as the last mech on the team quite often...

Whatever, I still dont get it and I refute your claims that I am a bad pilot.

[DeaconW]

Teralitha, on 24 February 2013 - 09:29 PM, said:

Basically, the players who won this tourney did one, some, or all of these things...

1. Playing non stop the entire time.
2. Figured what weapon builds did the most damage and just played those exclusively.
(LRMS, SRMS)
3. Made sure to hit every enemy mech once, even at the risk of getting blasted by the whole enemy team, just to rack up assists and spotting points, with such assists not even really helping the team...
4. Dying as quickly as possible once accomplishing #3. to proceed to the next match.
5. Played all weight classes an equal amount.
6. ECM

In short, a solo games played/stats tourney is a complete fail.

Yep, that's an MWO "Hero" according to PGI...

[Shredhead]

ciller, on 25 February 2013 - 04:51 AM, said:

I am just a bad player? Apparently you are just a rude jerk.

Like honestly, aside from the horrendous blow outs because of the horrible teams I was sometimes on I always had tons of kills and assists. There was a large chunk of the last day that I was playing in a bit of a sleep deprived stupor but still. Bad player? Seriously? Where do you get off saying this?
Perhaps it was the fact that when my team lost, I usually went out first and fast (even though i remember zombie'ing it up as the last mech on the team quite often...

Whatever, I still dont get it and I refute your claims that I am a bad pilot.

Rude? the numbers are there and prove my claim. At an average of let's say 7 minutes per match you "played" 62 hours in a 72 hours tournament. You either shared your account or played most of this time in a dozy state. Don't expect any respect for that. Nuff said.

[ciller]

Shredhead, on 25 February 2013 - 05:11 AM, said:

Rude? the numbers are there and prove my claim. At an average of let's say 7 minutes per match you "played" 62 hours in a 72 hours tournament. You either shared your account or played most of this time in a dozy state. Don't expect any respect for that. Nuff said.

I increased my KDR from 3.33 to 3.49, also my win ratio is better then yours. Calling me a bad player I could easily find stats to prove you are such as well.
Do you know what a bad player is compared to a good one? Does a bad player have a 3 or higher kdr? Or a winning record? Come on man, give me a break.
I admit, I had some pretty bad runs the last day, couldn't get in a good team for the life of me and yes I was in a horrible stupor from sleep deprivation.

I don't care about your respect, I care that you are calling me bad when I am obviously not.

Edited by ciller, 25 February 2013 - 05:32 AM.

[mekabuser]

i played 61 games and cracked the top 500... WHich for me is more than fine..
Mind you, that 61 games is quite a lot for a normal , rational adult. . Thats two nights in a row after the wife goes to bed for 3 hours or so a night, interspersed with games during the day.
Thats also , with a negative w/l record..

Total number of games should have no factor at all in the future tourneys... Anything other than a rational min. and I think pgi is negligent..

people are gonna play crazy but pgi should have absolutely no hand in that. .

I also know the formula was kinda spelled out, but something that was a little clearer concerning total number of games in the equation would have been helpful. I probably didnt even have to play half the games i did for my ranking, though i would have anyways..

[Ari Dian]

Here are the 4 pics of the data from the scoreboard. All look the same, all say "# of matches > all". Even though its not always the person with the most matches on top, it shows clear enough the trend that are related with score and matches played.

Light
Medium
Heavy
Assault

Give me more data, and i will make better analysis . With what is given here this is the best i can do.

[Shredhead]

ciller, on 25 February 2013 - 05:32 AM, said:

I increased my KDR from 3.33 to 3.49, also my win ratio is better then yours. Calling me a bad player I could easily find stats to prove you are such as well.
Do you know what a bad player is compared to a good one? Does a bad player have a 3 or higher kdr? Or a winning record? Come on man, give me a break.
I admit, I had some pretty bad runs the last day, couldn't get in a good team for the life of me and yes I was in a horrible stupor from sleep deprivation.

I don't care about your respect, I care that you are calling me bad when I am obviously not.

Well, maybe you are not bad-bad, but compared to the number one in the list, you simply are worse. I don't give a darn about W/L, because that's pure luck in a singleplayer tournament. Some are luckier with what kind of teammates they get than others, and that's all. In my eyes W/L shouldn't even be in the metrics, as well as the number of games played.
Maybe you would have played better, and more concentrated in a tournament with better metrics and a cap for games total. Also, the ingame matchscore doesn't care about if you win or lose, so if you lose and be in the top ranks for that game, you can still have a better matchscore than the top player from the enemy team.
As a summary, you might be a good player, but you decided to not give your best in this tournament and instead just spammed the launch button and played a whole lot of games at the minimum of your ability level due to being short of sleep etc.
P.S.: In a medium you are usually not able to carry your team to victory alone like an assault or even a light could do. That makes W/L even less of a factor.

[ciller]

Shredhead, on 25 February 2013 - 05:54 AM, said:

Well, maybe you are not bad-bad, but compared to the number one in the list, you simply are worse. I don't give a darn about W/L, because that's pure luck in a singleplayer tournament. Some are luckier with what kind of teammates they get than others, and that's all. In my eyes W/L shouldn't even be in the metrics, as well as the number of games played.
Maybe you would have played better, and more concentrated in a tournament with better metrics and a cap for games total. Also, the ingame matchscore doesn't care about if you win or lose, so if you lose and be in the top ranks for that game, you can still have a better matchscore than the top player from the enemy team.
As a summary, you might be a good player, but you decided to not give your best in this tournament and instead just spammed the launch button and played a whole lot of games at the minimum of your ability level due to being short of sleep etc.
P.S.: In a medium you are usually not able to carry your team to victory alone like an assault or even a light could do. That makes W/L even less of a factor.

I played in a style that I thought would lead to me being at the top of the charts. I am (almost) at the top of the charts.

When the next tournament comes we shall see if I am at the top again, no matter its rules. I will be if only to prove you wrong.

[Ari Dian]

ciller, on 25 February 2013 - 04:51 AM, said:

I am just a bad player? Apparently you are just a rude jerk.

Like honestly, aside from the horrendous blow outs because of the horrible teams I was sometimes on I always had tons of kills and assists. There was a large chunk of the last day that I was playing in a bit of a sleep deprived stupor but still. Bad player? Seriously? Where do you get off saying this?
Perhaps it was the fact that when my team lost, I usually went out first and fast (even though i remember zombie'ing it up as the last mech on the team quite often...

Whatever, I still dont get it and I refute your claims that I am a bad pilot.

He didnt mean it in a rude way. Just in a mathematical correct way.
Za Warudo had: 371 matches with a W/L ratio of 1.69 and an average of 1.64 points per match.
You had 532 matches with a W/L ratio of 1.41 and an average of 1.13 points per match.

Sadly you are the unlucky person who didnt went first with the most matches played .
And even though the W/L ratio is not this big in difference, the points per match is. For some reasons (some we dont know as we dont have the data), he got way (WAY) more points than you per match. Nearly 50% more.

But i still would love to know how you were able to pull out 532 in 3 days. Maybe, if you dropped the matches after you died, this is the reason why he got more points when staying till the end? If you didnt drop i have no idea how you could have done this many matches (imo). Or he just had more assists or damage per match. Without inside info how the score is calculated its hard to tell.

[Ari Dian]

mekabuser, on 25 February 2013 - 05:50 AM, said:

i played 61 games and cracked the top 500... WHich for me is more than fine..
Mind you, that 61 games is quite a lot for a normal , rational adult. . Thats two nights in a row after the wife goes to bed for 3 hours or so a night, interspersed with games during the day.
Thats also , with a negative w/l record..

Total number of games should have no factor at all in the future tourneys... Anything other than a rational min. and I think pgi is negligent..

people are gonna play crazy but pgi should have absolutely no hand in that. .

I also know the formula was kinda spelled out, but something that was a little clearer concerning total number of games in the equation would have been helpful. I probably didnt even have to play half the games i did for my ranking, though i would have anyways..

A normal ELO system would solve all these stupid problems. Elo is not related to the number of matches you did. Just a pure factor how good you are. BUT you cant use an ELO system in 3 days. Its a long time value that will regulate itself over some time. Month or year.

But keeping this in mind i would have prefer a pure elo system over this one every time. The end result would have been nearly the same. Just a little bit shifted in the top player bracets.

But you can never ever make a pure adding up system and think this give some good results .

[Bfvmg]

Hell Mel, on 22 February 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

I'd rather have a no-lifer tourney than a tourney in which people can pad scores in ten matches by sync dropping with a large number of other people.

It seems to me that there is no good way to do a random queue solo Tourney.

I have been seeing this SYNCH dropping QQ going on, and I am here to tell you that it doesn't work.

We tried to do it for several hours, about 10 of us synch dropping. 9 out of 10 times we ended up on different teams, or different maps instances. 1 out of 10, we were same team same map.
However, chatting on TS while gripping about lack of teamwork, lack of pilot skill, etc was a lot of fun.

Overall, I had a great time during this tourney, but I agree that it was a grind fest. What I am seeing is that the top players may be the best over the long haul with a LOT of freaking matches, but may not be the best individually as most of us beat them in matches all the time. (Granted, they killed us too sometimes, so meh...it may be a wash).

As for the grind fest, you figure if a match takes an average of 5-6 minutes, then approx 10 matches per hour (etc) after the first 24 hours, the leaders of the boards had OVER 250 matches...in 24 hours. That's a grind fest. And, people were simply doing what they could, then exiting when they got killed and starting a new match with a different mech. I know I saw the overall winner doing that several times (And yes, I did it too-at one time had 2 mechs in a match and starting third with a new mech)


More Please!

Edited by Bfvmg, 25 February 2013 - 06:34 AM.

[Roland]

The number of games played by some of the folks on the board is hillarious.

The guy at the head of the Heavy leader board played 531 games.

The entire event was only 62 hours long... So he was playing around 8.5 games an hour, for the entire duration of the tournament. So, on average, only taking 7 minutes per game, with zero downtime between matches.

That makes me laugh my *** off.

[RussianWolf]

Played exactly 100 matches (though the last 9 were kinda rushed and I did a sorta suicide run on a couple), all in Assaults (was grinding for xp in my atlases, Mastered now).

Ranked 161 after all was over, 107 pts and 54/46. K/D went up by .03.

guess I did okay.

Wife is mad at me for playing as much as I did.

Edited by RussianWolf, 25 February 2013 - 06:47 AM.

[DocBach]

Yeah, the guys on top are just a bunch of no talent hacks (that consistently cleaved the entire enemy team in two). Buncha losers whose scores have no correlation at all to their actual abilities.

Thats why the people with the MOST drops got the highest scores....

OH WAIT

Edited by DocBach, 25 February 2013 - 06:48 AM.

[Ari Dian]

DocBach, on 25 February 2013 - 06:48 AM, said:

Yeah, the guys on top are just a bunch of no talent hacks (that consistently cleaved the entire enemy team in two). Buncha losers whose scores have no correlation at all to their actual abilities.

Thats why the people with the MOST drops got the highest scores....

OH WAIT

No. It wasnt the person with the highest number of drops that won. But it were these with the highest number of drops that share the top places. As you can easy see on my pics i posted earlier.

The trend are the matches played for each weight class. And i REALLY doubt there was anyone with close the number of matches in the lower places as well.
I really dont belive there is ANYONE with 300+ matches after place 25 in any of the 4 weight classes. Maybe in the assault one. This one has still some high peaks. But basicly the trend is easy. more matches, higher score. It were only these who did the most matches that were fighting for the top places. And not these that have the highest score/match. Only in the medium class is really the person with the highest score/match. On heavy its even the end of the data (place 15-25) that have the highest score/match.

[DocBach]

The person in the place above me had much less drops, the person below me had much more.

I know people in my gaming group who had 300+ matches, and were in various places below the leader boards. I know people also had much less than 300 matches, and were placed higher than the other guy.

Edited by DocBach, 25 February 2013 - 07:13 AM.

[DeathofSelf]

WAY too dependent on the number of games played.

Edit: This should have been called the "I played the most matches" tournament.

Edited by DeathofSelf, 25 February 2013 - 07:37 AM.