918 replies to this topic

[Eglar]

Deathlike, on 20 May 2014 - 11:22 AM, said:

Well, not my team.
Even with respect to the actual match in question, they played "within the rules", which by logic is fine by me. There's nothing actually written in the rules to "force an engagement" or "camp"... simply have more kills than the other team to win.
If the rules were more refined by design, this would not be needed. Even in the playoffs on sports teams, where all these silly details like ties in US Football are defined, JUST IN CASE these situations come up. I ignore the minutia, until it actually affects my team.

And that's exactly why their call was a good call. It might have been "ok" with you but obviously It wasn't "ok" with "us", commentators, spectators and the hosts. I don't need to remind you that host(IGP/PGI) made the final call and reserves all rights to do so.

Here, I am referring especially to this situation and we are talking about this situation with the Match HoL vs SwK, because the entire issue was caused by the game-play displayed at the match. You're simply evading the issue at hand by generalizing and saying "not my team", and then putting it onto "they shouldn't have dealt with the situation in a reasonable manner?"

So this:

Deathlike, on 20 May 2014 - 11:10 AM, said:

If the rule to decide the tiebreaker is "amount of damage", that would be something. I would hate it, but understand it.

A better (possibly more clever rule) is to determine the # of arties/airstrikes that were dropped by each team, and determine the winner by the one that DROPPED THE FEWEST. That would make things interesting.

is also an invalid proposal because it would obviously put the brawlers with their limited range into disadvantage? Simply because I can shoot across the map, hoping to do 1 damage with my ACs, according to Nicolas's logic.

Edited by Eglar, 20 May 2014 - 11:50 AM.

[Ngamok]

Sir Trent Howell, on 20 May 2014 - 10:10 AM, said:

Neither Swords or Lords are responsible for any sort of criticism for the way the game was played. This is the result of poor map design. Any map that allows a game to be played in the manner it was is a poor map. It is indicative of a map designed to limit the number of locations an engagement can occur thus limiting the tactics and approaches to the map. The issue was magnified 10 times over before the advent of private servers, but obviously can still occur.

It requires a complete reworking of the way maps are designed. Don't place limitations on engagements and use varied (rather than extreme) terrain to allow for multiple tactical doctrines to work.

While I agree on the map design for a Skirmish Game Mode, they just need to have further expanded rule set for the next tournament with everything they've learned from this one. We also need to remind them if they forget it as well otherwise we'll just have more of the same again.

[Sir Trent Howell]

Adiuvo, on 20 May 2014 - 10:34 AM, said:

The point I'm trying to make is that new teams can rise out of the woodwork and they can be competitively successful. This self-defeatist attitude is what causes you to lose and so long as you'll have it you'll never reach the 'top.' MWO is just a game but if you're putting the amount of time that competitive play requires into something, try your best.

I'm not sure if that's true. The only "new" teams are going to be teams comprised of older veteran players. There just isn't any new talent coming into the game. There won't be any new top tier teams or teams surging into the top tier. I was a stalker a bit: P33p3rs has been playing for a year, Sun Cobra for 8 months so they're not relatively new.

[Deathlike]

Eglar, on 20 May 2014 - 11:39 AM, said:

And that's exactly why their call was a good call. It might have been "ok" with you but obviously It wasn't "ok" with "us", commentators, spectators and the hosts. I don't need to remind you that host(IGP/PGI) made the final call and reserves all rights to do so.

Just understand that Assault "invalidates" a few options. Yes, I get that capping a base is a valid tactic, but brawling in its current state gets invalidated often by the meta. That has a lot more to do with balancing so in the current situation which is Lords and SwL are considered upper tier groups, that it devolves into "one type of build to rule all" (not always, but most of the time).

Quote

Here, I am referring especially to this situation and we are talking about this situation with the Match HoL vs SwK, because the entire issue was caused by the game-play displayed at the match. You're simply evading the issue at hand by generalizing and saying "not my team", and then putting it onto "they shouldn't have dealt with the situation in a reasonable manner?"

When I said my team I was specifically referring to my team's match draw performance. You're taking what isn't intentional (what our team did vs the Smoke Adders) vs what SwL did vs Lords. They are not in the same boat, yet they produced the same results.

Quote

So this:

is also an invalid proposal because it would obviously put the brawlers with their limited range into disadvantage? Simply because I can shoot across the map, hoping to do 1 damage with my ACs, according to Nicolas's logic.

Did you read the latter suggestion, where arty/airstrikes counts would be used to decide the match (lowest usage wins)? It would have to be programmed into the game, but it would be a far fairer option than "most damage".

The simple reasoning is that those that commit solely to arty should be penalize IF they aren't producing kills. While it is possible to create ties AND have the same # of arties used, the likelihood that the # of arties+airstrikes used by both sides are relatively the same... AND it allows for a potential winning condition late game. As much as there is "minimal" strategy to use airstrikes+arties, you have to win effectively with them or stop spamming them... allowing some semblance of choice in the decisive result of a match.

Edited by Deathlike, 20 May 2014 - 12:46 PM.

[Adiuvo]

Sir Trent Howell, on 20 May 2014 - 12:27 PM, said:

I'm not sure if that's true. The only "new" teams are going to be teams comprised of older veteran players. There just isn't any new talent coming into the game. There won't be any new top tier teams or teams surging into the top tier. I was a stalker a bit: P33p3rs has been playing for a year, Sun Cobra for 8 months so they're not relatively new.

They registered then but both of them have said they only really started playing around the times I gave.

Edited by Adiuvo, 20 May 2014 - 12:47 PM.

[Mystere]

Deathlike, on 20 May 2014 - 12:43 PM, said:

Did you read the latter suggestion, where arty/airstrikes counts would be used to decide the match (lowest usage wins)? It would have to be programmed into the game, but it would be a far fairer option than "most damage".

The simple reasoning is that those that commit solely to arty should be penalize IF they aren't producing kills. While it is possible to create ties AND have the same # of arties used, the likelihood that the # of arties+airstrikes used by both sides are relatively the same... AND it allows for a potential winning condition late game. As much as there is "minimal" strategy to use airstrikes+arties, you have to win effectively with them or stop spamming them... allowing some semblance of choice in the decisive result of a match.

With all due respect, I think that would be silly. Why restrict tie resolution only to artillery?

Why not instead select the winner based on who produced the most damage over the potential damage attempted (i.e. Damage Done / Potential Damage of all Shots Fired)? The simple reasoning is that those who shoot a lot should be penalized if they aren't producing kills. You have to win effectively with your shots or stop spamming them ... allowing some semblance of choice in the decisive result of a match.

[Thorqemada]

Yeah, the guys who were commenting the matches live made a great job and doubled the quality of the matches.

Thx!

[Deathlike]

Mystere, on 20 May 2014 - 01:29 PM, said:

With all due respect, I think that would be silly. Why restrict tie resolution only to artillery?

Why not instead select the winner based on who produced the most damage over the potential damage attempted (i.e. Damage Done / Potential Damage of all Shots Fired)? The simple reasoning is that those who shoot a lot should be penalized if they aren't producing kills. You have to win effectively with your shots or stop spamming them ... allowing some semblance of choice in the decisive result of a match.

My point is that if you're committing to arty. you better make it count. If it isn't enough obvious complaining about the use of arty/airstrikes all over the place... wait until CW where arties and airstrikes REALLY dictate whether you win or lose a match.

If you're going arty, why can't you win with it if you're using it all the way? You don't deserve to win if you've committed all the arty+airstrikes on the field, yet manage to get the same # of kills as the enemy force.

Edited by Deathlike, 20 May 2014 - 01:43 PM.

[Martis Gradivus]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 20 May 2014 - 10:12 AM, said:

PGI once again say Skirmish, but if you don't engage, we will switch to Assault. And by switching to Assault they are basically forcing the close-range team to fight at a disadvantage.

Once again, you can decide not to engage. but there is a consequence.

This is what is known to parents as a threat.

If switching to assault hurt both teams equally, that would be one thing. But it would not, the brawling team was going to be at a disadvantage. So they just went for it, instead of getting punished.

So you're saying that SWK would not have been smart enough to change their drop deck to better match the new game style? SWK are not idiots or homers, they have drop decks ready to go at any time. They could have countered with a different setup.

[Harathan]

Martis Gradivus, on 20 May 2014 - 02:19 PM, said:

So you're saying that SWK would not have been smart enough to change their drop deck to better match the new game style? SWK are not idiots or homers, they have drop decks ready to go at any time. They could have countered with a different setup.

Why couldn't HoL have switched to a different set up? Why did it have to be SwK in the brawlers?

[Flyby215]

Deathlike, on 20 May 2014 - 11:03 AM, said:

A rematch on the same parameters could actually lead to a point where one side doesn't have enough players to field because of other obligations. Remember that not everyone has that kind of flexibility and that they have already committed to the match and its resolution. There's a breaking point that exists that makes the scenario problematic.

You can't just keep redropping for hours and expect EVERYONE to continue at that pace.

What if that was the point? What if SwK made sure that everyone would be available into the late hours of the night, forcing HoL into a position where they either attack, or end up short players in the later hours of the night? There was nothing in the rules against this! Until PGI decided to change the rules mid-tournament.

Most people would probably get pretty angry at that strategy, but so what, it's play to win, not play to make everyone happy.

Consider this: you find $1 on the ground, and buy a lottery ticket. That lottery ticket wins you $5,000. You go to a Casino and place a $5,000 bet and win $1 million dollars. You invest you $1 million into the stock market which tanks, and you walk away with nothing. - How much did you lose?

Some people will argue that you lost nothing, because the $1 you started with was merely found on the ground. Others would argue you lost $1 million dollars because you had that in your pocket just before investing it in bad stocks. Some would say it was worthwhile pushing their luck, others would have quit while they were ahead, others would have gone half and half... but everyone's threshold is different.

Now the tournament: where are players'/veiwers' thresholds? Camping until HoL players have to go to bed is very lame (SwK would never have done that, this is just for argument) but not against the rules! If "winning" is the goal, then this is a valid, however unpopular, tactic. Then the rules were changed - in clear favour of one team over the other.

I have a problem with this. A lot of people's threshold for annoyance with the game is just before the meta - whatever it is. When 3L's dominated people enjoyed the game until running into several Raven 3L's. During SRM-aggedon people enjoyed the game until they ran into several splatcats. Right now people enjoy the game, until they run into several PPC/AC jumpers. There's the annoyance threshold... yet the rules were not changed to exclude that tactic.

Apparently people can be annoyed at both tactics, and PGI will choose which tactic to allow and which to disallow... while the tournament is ongoing.

I don't know what the answer should have been, but I'm very upset over how PGI handled that last match-up.

Edited by Flyby215, 20 May 2014 - 03:10 PM.

[Adiuvo]

Harathan, on 20 May 2014 - 02:45 PM, said:

Why couldn't HoL have switched to a different set up? Why did it have to be SwK in the brawlers?

We weren't the ones sitting in tunnel...

There also is nothing that beats a team of AC40 Jagers in tunnel given the tonnage limits. Even *without tonnage limits I doubt anything could due to arty.

Flyby215, on 20 May 2014 - 03:05 PM, said:

Now the tournament: where are players'/veiwers' thresholds? Camping until HoL players have to go to bed is very lame (SwK would never have done that, this is just for argument) but not against the rules! If "winning" is the goal, then this is a valid, however unpopular, tactic. Then the rules were changed - in clear favour of one team over the other.

What rule change was there? It wasn't the possibility of the match going to assault that caused them to switch decks. It was the side switch. Do you really considering changing sides anything worth complaining about? That is the most conventional thing to do in like any FPS tournament in the event of a draw.

Edited by Adiuvo, 20 May 2014 - 07:34 PM.

[Votanin FleshRender]

So much for the counter to the counter argument.... someone comes up with a counter to poptarting, and the rules get changed. Must be nice, makes me glad I'm an extremely causal player because if I was in this, I'd be damn upset.

[Harathan]

Adiuvo, on 20 May 2014 - 04:12 PM, said:

We weren't the ones sitting in tunnel...

No, you were the ones sitting outside the tunnel waiting for them to come out. What's your point?

Seriously, what's your point? That you shouldn't have to change your deck because... you're so elite? Because... poptarting is less cheese than AC40 builds in a tunnel? Do you even have a legitimate point or are you just posting for the sake of it?

I'll ask again, because nobody has given the question a decent answer yet. Why were one team forced to change their builds instead of, or as well as, the other?

Martis Gradivus, on 20 May 2014 - 02:19 PM, said:

SWK are not idiots or homers, they have drop decks ready to go at any time. They could have countered with a different setup.

So could HoL. Why are they apparently getting special treatment in this discussion?

Edited by Harathan, 20 May 2014 - 06:20 PM.

[Wildstreak]

Cimarb, on 19 May 2014 - 05:42 PM, said:

The whole problem with that is third-party communication software. If they don't have a delay on the spectate, what is to stop a dead person from giving info over teamspeak? If they add a 2 or so minute delay, that may be enough, but it has to be significant to prevent vital information from being communicated to the rest of the team. Same reason there is a 5-minute delay on the current tournament.

Ah, true dammit.
Hmmm, maybe Spectator puts you in a building/fixed point with no tags marking who is who.

[Wispsy]

Harathan, on 20 May 2014 - 06:17 PM, said:

I'll ask again, because nobody has given the question a decent answer yet. Why were one team forced to change their builds instead of, or as well as, the other?




So could HoL. Why are they apparently getting special treatment in this discussion?

So you think it is unfair that the teams had to swap spawns after a draw?

[Eglar]

Flyby215, on 20 May 2014 - 03:05 PM, said:

What if that was the point? What if SwK made sure that everyone would be available into the late hours of the night, forcing HoL into a position where they either attack, or end up short players in the later hours of the night? There was nothing in the rules against this! Until PGI decided to change the rules mid-tournament.

Most people would probably get pretty angry at that strategy, but so what, it's play to win, not play to make everyone happy.

I'll tell you how it could have been done:

SWK sets up a lobby, HoL sets up a lobby both want to invite the other party and play based on their own advantageous starting position- there is no game at all. No tournament at all. We'd just force the other teams Player to drop offline first.

Have a team set up a game and disconnect at the beginning of each match, repeat again and again. Hoping for the other team to go offline over how stupid the entire scenario is.

But according to you "no intervention needed, it's a valid strategy".

Obviously this "strategy" was not working as intended and against the spirit of this tournament, and therefore has been deemed invalid by Crew/PGI Niko.

And your arguement: SwK tried to win the match outside the actual gameplay by forcing players to go offline. Tournament Host/Judge (PGI/Crew) said "f*ck this, we don't want you to play this way and we'll do something if you keep it up." What's wrong with that?

Personally, I hope that it sets an example on how not to play and preventing other teams from doing the same play.

Deathlike, on 20 May 2014 - 12:43 PM, said:

Just understand that Assault "invalidates" a few options. Yes, I get that capping a base is a valid tactic, but brawling in its current state gets invalidated often by the meta. That has a lot more to do with balancing so in the current situation which is Lords and SwL are considered upper tier groups, that it devolves into "one type of build to rule all" (not always, but most of the time).
When I said my team I was specifically referring to my team's match draw performance. You're taking what isn't intentional (what our team did vs the Smoke Adders) vs what SwK did vs Lords. They are not in the same boat, yet they produced the same results.

Did you read the latter suggestion, where arty/airstrikes counts would be used to decide the match (lowest usage wins)? It would have to be programmed into the game, but it would be a far fairer option than "most damage".
The simple reasoning is that those that commit solely to arty should be penalize IF they aren't producing kills. While it is possible to create ties AND have the same # of arties used, the likelihood that the # of arties+airstrikes used by both sides are relatively the same... AND it allows for a potential winning condition late game. As much as there is "minimal" strategy to use airstrikes+arties, you have to win effectively with them or stop spamming them... allowing some semblance of choice in the decisive result of a match.

And once the intention behind SwK's gameplay was seen, it was dealt with. Again, how is this a bad thing?

Edited by Eglar, 20 May 2014 - 07:10 PM.

[Roland]

Iqfish, on 16 May 2014 - 07:27 AM, said:

some of these groups are not meta players.

They are going to get destroyed.

Welcome to competition.

[Imminent]

Adiuvo, on 20 May 2014 - 04:12 PM, said:

What rule change was there? It wasn't the possibility of the match going to assault that caused them to switch decks. It was the side switch. Do you really considering changing sides anything worth complaining about? That is the most conventional thing to do in like any FPS tournament in the event of a draw.

It was the possibility of Assault that made us switch for the 2nd. We didn't see the need to waste another 20 minutes, since we didn't think you would walk into that cave. The sides made no difference, we could still get into the cave from the low side, even if you guys rushed the cave, it would still be pop-tart mechs vs AC40 Jagers.

[Harathan]

Wispsy, on 20 May 2014 - 06:32 PM, said:

So you think it is unfair that the teams had to swap spawns after a draw?

No, I think it was unfair that only one side was singled out when both were up to their eyeballs in cheese.