55 replies to this topic

[DirePhoenix]

Anton Shiningstar, on 28 April 2013 - 02:30 PM, said:

LOL Less than 280 points is separating 132 place from 10th in heavies.

Yet another reason we need to have the total number of participants in each category. Otherwise knowing what place we've come in is useless unless we know how many people we were competing against.

Right now, unless you're the top player (or any player that gets a reward), whatever you place doesn't matter. You can't even tell what your standing is amongst the crowd. 132nd place might be great or it might be horrible. Is it 132nd out of 135? or 132nd out of 8000?

[White Bear 84]

TexAss, on 28 April 2013 - 12:42 PM, said:

How the hell can someone do over 1200 damage in 5 games? With a heavy on top of that.

This would mean do to 8 kills (surviving and winning match) + at least 600 damage with no team damage.

In such a small time-frame I call bullcrap.

I have been able to get 900 damage on my jager using 2 gauss and 2 medlas - its rare but it can happen. In the match in question, got 2 kills and 6 assists, thats 2x20 (40), 6x10 (60). Assuming no damage to team members - 60 = 160 + 20 for win and 20 for survive = 200

Thus after five matches = 1000

So where do those 200 extra points come from? Well if you have 8 (WINS)x 20 = 160 so 160+60+20+20 = 260

= 1300.

So basically you need five matches where you kill EVERY mech OR get over 900 damage AND no team damage

That said, some of these scores are generally unrealistic in your 'regular' matches, so the scoring for the tournament still needs tweaking.

I dont really have much expectation for top spots this week, but am happy reaching 20th in the heavies - 950 is still a pretty rockin score!!

Edited by White Bear 84, 28 April 2013 - 05:28 PM.

[TexAce]

What if they would keep the same formula for scoring but record all matches done in the timeframe and devide it with the number of matches played? With ten being the minimum.
This would give a nice median of your overall performance.

I think its better than the x games played approach.

Edited by TexAss, 28 April 2013 - 05:32 PM.

[TexAce]

I knew this can't be ligitimate.

Just watched a twitch where a team was clearly sync dropping and letting a jenner finish everybody and slowly strip of armor of afk mechs. Ending with 1150 damage done, 5 kills and 3 assists.

Won't tell his name but he ended up FIRST on leaderboard in the light class.

This is playing the system and should be punished.

With this seen no one can tell me getting such a high match score 5 times in a day works legitimately. What a bullcrap.

Edited by TexAss, 28 April 2013 - 05:49 PM.

[White Bear 84]

Yeh it is easy to break the system doing this - get a bunch of friends to drop on the other team too then just strip them.. ..not sure how PGI would overcome this though??

[FrDrake]

TexAss, on 28 April 2013 - 05:41 PM, said:

I knew this can't be ligitimate.

Just watched a twitch where a team was clearly sync dropping and letting a jenner finish everybody and slowly strip of armor of afk mechs. Ending with 1150 damage done, 5 kills and 3 assists.

Won't tell his name but he ended up FIRST on leaderboard in the light class.

This is playing the system and should be punished.

With this seen no one can tell me getting such a high match score 5 times in a day works legitimately. What a bullcrap.

Send an email please to support with the names of those involved so they can look into it. The leaders being so far ahead so quickly has discouraged alot of people from participating.

[Anton Shiningstar]

DirePhoenix, on 28 April 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

Yet another reason we need to have the total number of participants in each category. Otherwise knowing what place we've come in is useless unless we know how many people we were competing against.

Right now, unless you're the top player (or any player that gets a reward), whatever you place doesn't matter. You can't even tell what your standing is amongst the crowd. 132nd place might be great or it might be horrible. Is it 132nd out of 135? or 132nd out of 8000?

Numbers are down cause I am 1,236 in assaults and I only played 3 matches(When my Jager was crashed to desktop). I heard there were over 3,000 assault players in the first Tournament. As far as I was told.

[Anton Shiningstar]

TexAss, on 28 April 2013 - 05:30 PM, said:

What if they would keep the same formula for scoring but record all matches done in the timeframe and devide it with the number of matches played? With ten being the minimum.
This would give a nice median of your overall performance.

I think its better than the x games played approach.

Should be ten matches period. Not ten best. Judging performance on 10 lucky matches is not a true example of a players skill. How many matches did someone have to play to get 10 1,200+ point matches? AND if matches are being rigged as Tex is claiming... How is that fair to the participants playing by the rules?

[Livewyr]

Like taking a car with a horri-bent wheel and shoving it in drive..

[Felix Reynolds]

Overall is great to have a tourney for all weight classes with a really solid scoring formula, only feedback on that is that I'd love to see a future tourney score each weight class more towards it's role than just as a strictly 'who can shoot up the most mechs' affair.

As to the overall tournament structure, I cannot stress how much I feel having a hard cap limit on how many games were counted towards your score would help immensely, for several reasons. Firstly, it would allow everyone with a modicum of free time to sink into the game (and if you're opting in to tournaments that should be you) to fully compete on a reasonably level playing field with regards to 'time invested', and secondly, it would change the current balance of 'need skill + a huge amount of time to grind to place' to one almost entirely skill based.

I've written up more in a Suggestion thread HERE, and would highly appreciate any and all thoughts or feedback to the idea.

[Devil Fox]

At present I don't feel this is even worth my time... I can play for a few hour's a day, get some great scores... but I don't HAVE 16+ hours to sit there for 5 perfect games outta the 100-150 per day! It then begs the question why would your casual gamer even try this tournament when the scoring system overstates kill's then large damage, promoting a certain style of gameplay. Or that the amount of effort required to even compete is just unobtainable?

I wake up to the scoreboards already set in stone with a 1000+ score in the first few hours of a day... so it's no wonder I don't bother, I don't have a good down-time because pug's just become a sad joke due to 4man stomping season. Without equal teams (which weight based matchmaking might actually fix in pug games), there is no enjoyment from attempting to run in this tournament, because good games are too rare, and because the leaderboard players also had over 10+hour's to just game away that perfect score leaving the casual gamer after a day of work or study, at the bottom of the food-chain feeling nothing worthwhile investing time into the challenge.

Need a tighter scoring system and hard-caps on the number of games playable... you get bad games, bad luck. Luck of the Irish, as it'll take skill to score well in any scenario such that win or lose shouldn't count so much in a scoring system either. Quite frankly though solo tourney's ain't a good healthy option for a team based FPS style simulator... because it's open to grieving and abuse (as seen), and doesn't promote the core mechanics of the game, teamwork, co-ordination... but you can't have either without some solid in-game VOIP.

[Dukarriope]

After attempting the tourney for a few hours I'm at #52, which I suppose isn't too bad. But at the same time, I know my score is absolutely skewed downward because I have consistently faced teams that have a much higher average level of ability.

I can't possibly be showing my highest possible score when the match rapidly devolves into 4 vs 1.

If you truly want to do a tournament like this, it should probably have elo disabled. Only weight class matching should be active, rather than having elo skew results for players with extremely high/low ratings. Players should have random skills so that players who are consistently capable will show their colors more. Elo is instead preventing the capable from shining, because in an environment like MWO's, a super-high-elo player, teamed with 6 poor players, and one decent, is disadvantaged against 8 average players.

Edited by Dukarriope, 01 May 2013 - 06:05 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Apostal, on 01 May 2013 - 05:55 AM, said:

At present I don't feel this is even worth my time... I can play for a few hour's a day, get some great scores... but I don't HAVE 16+ hours to sit there for 5 perfect games outta the 100-150 per day! It then begs the question why would your casual gamer even try this tournament when the scoring system overstates kill's then large damage, promoting a certain style of gameplay. Or that the amount of effort required to even compete is just unobtainable?

I wake up to the scoreboards already set in stone with a 1000+ score in the first few hours of a day... so it's no wonder I don't bother, I don't have a good down-time because pug's just become a sad joke due to 4man stomping season. Without equal teams (which weight based matchmaking might actually fix in pug games), there is no enjoyment from attempting to run in this tournament, because good games are too rare, and because the leaderboard players also had over 10+hour's to just game away that perfect score leaving the casual gamer after a day of work or study, at the bottom of the food-chain feeling nothing worthwhile investing time into the challenge.

Need a tighter scoring system and hard-caps on the number of games playable... you get bad games, bad luck. Luck of the Irish, as it'll take skill to score well in any scenario such that win or lose shouldn't count so much in a scoring system either. Quite frankly though solo tourney's ain't a good healthy option for a team based FPS style simulator... because it's open to grieving and abuse (as seen), and doesn't promote the core mechanics of the game, teamwork, co-ordination... but you can't have either without some solid in-game VOIP.

I think the best advice is in this post here. IF someone kills 7 opponents but loses to a cap he is penalized on the scoreboard cause his team could not stop the last opponent! If I am being judged on MY ability I should not be penalized because the team lost! Lone Wolf tournaments should not have W/L as a indicator of personal ability.

[Inyc]

The cherry picking system is flawed. It punishes you for having a good team in a team game... and that's just bananas.

The system should average out the score of your WINS across the duration of the tournament, and that's your final score.

It should also be able to determine the difference between a "light assist" where all you do is rake med lasers across every one and "heavy assists" where you destroy a component, core a target, etc... Like 20 points for a kill, 15 for a heavy assist, 10 for a light assist. Or, you know, since it's a team game... 15 for a kill, 13 for a heavy assist, 10 for an assist.

[Leiska]

TexAss, on 28 April 2013 - 05:41 PM, said:

I knew this can't be ligitimate.

Just watched a twitch where a team was clearly sync dropping and letting a jenner finish everybody and slowly strip of armor of afk mechs. Ending with 1150 damage done, 5 kills and 3 assists.

Won't tell his name but he ended up FIRST on leaderboard in the light class.

This is playing the system and should be punished.

With this seen no one can tell me getting such a high match score 5 times in a day works legitimately. What a bullcrap.

I saw that one as well. I'll give another hint: It's the day 1 result.

[Purplefluffybunny]

DirePhoenix, on 28 April 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

Yet another reason we need to have the total number of participants in each category. Otherwise knowing what place we've come in is useless unless we know how many people we were competing against.

Right now, unless you're the top player (or any player that gets a reward), whatever you place doesn't matter. You can't even tell what your standing is amongst the crowd. 132nd place might be great or it might be horrible. Is it 132nd out of 135? or 132nd out of 8000?

Check the thread in the tournament section titled 'So ,how many?', or something like that. Basically I bottomed out my score for three of the brackets. I present below the 'running total' for the number of people registered. Please note that you cannot just add up all of the values as many players played several weight categories and are included in each of the respective brackets. By just adding up the numbers you are counting people twice, thrice and even four times.

You can use some probabilistic techniques and methods on these numbers to make a comment on the total number of players that took part in the tournament. 5500-6000 total participating in said tournament has been banded about as one range but that is just a guesstimate with little work behind it. That said it closer to the actual number than 8000.


Light Running Total: 2488 Registered

Medium Running Total: 2939 Registered

Heavy Running Total: 4011 Registered

Assault Total: 3968 Registered

You could, if you want, use the same methods to pass comment on the total number of players active this week. Personally, in terms of a month by month and week by week trend, I would say the number of active players is dropping but went up last week with this tournament relative to the previous week.

Although I would expect player numbers in game to drop this week, the carefully timed patch may counter this somewhat. Although PGI will most likely be silent on the numbers of active players there are other ways to judge how many are in game.

If I get the time I will try to run a few accounts, each located within a different position with respects to the ELO rankings. As I have a good idea of how ELO is calculated and the precise metrics being used, I should be able to generate a reasonably acceptable figure for the total number of active players.

Of course, the more people that help collect data the more accurate I can make that number.