918 replies to this topic

[Dan Nashe]

My $0.02.

One, this is a Beta Tournament. Changing rules midstream is unfortunate, but that is kind of the point of a beta tournament - what is wrong, what can we try to fix it, will it work.

Second: The defense is usually in a better position than the offense at this kind of level at this speed. (E.g., interior lines with a dense force concentrated near the center of gravity are more likely to beat one side of a pincer, than actually be disadvantaged by a pincer on most maps. On some maps, some sides are just better than others. Or some decks simply can't play certain maps (hi alpine). It's tough to balance because you can't just give one side 13 mechs and say "if the time runs you lose" because the defensive advantage is relatively slight on some maps.

I have been in plenty of 12 mans where we ran the clock out. You get the bad side on alpine? The other side gets the better position on Crimson Straight? River City in a light drop deck? It takes two teams to run the clock out. So if the time runs out, it's because both teams have decided that the other has a position that cannot be assaulted in a tactically advantageous way. When the defense is the stronger position, why should anyone attack. [See: assault on many maps].

Recognizing when and where to attack is a core leadership skill. And it just so happens that in this game sometimes the answer is never. The only fix is to change the rules after a drop runs out and hope for a situation where it doesn't happen again. Repeating the exact same drop isn't likely to resolve anything. Neither team is at fault. It's been determined that on that map both teams are equally hesitant in the positions they started in.

And yeah, artillery strike.
It's a problem.

[Imperius]

Should have banned jump jets and cave camping after that 20 min crapfest. Then it would have been more fair as in it forced both teams to change thier tune.

[Eglar]

Harathan, on 20 May 2014 - 07:08 PM, said:

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

Are you referring to SwK's intention to force a draw? If you want to see it as an punishment for SWK, feel free.
I'd quote this again and again:

Antonius Rex, on 20 May 2014 - 02:11 AM, said:

Lastly, I want to apologize to everyone watching our 1st game for the lack of action. I am sure that couldn't have been much fun to watch. But we wanted to make a point and highlight a number of major design and rules flaws that were so very obvious from the second the tourney info was released. For what it is worth, we wanted to see what IGP would do under the circumstances. In theory, as HoL had no interest in coming into the tunnel to fight us in a brawl, we could have continued to use the same strategy over and over again until either one team just called it quits and went to bed, or midnight rolled around and the first bracket of the tournament would technically be over with no clear winner.

Also if you want to put it the other way: Changing to assault or even better conquest invalidates both strategies:

SwK can't camp cave, HoL can't camp ship.
It forces both sides to do something different - and actively engage in combat.

Edited by Eglar, 20 May 2014 - 07:42 PM.

[Malcolm Vordermark]

Skirmish probably needs to be left out of future tournaments. But I don't blame either team for their play given the rule set.

[Adiuvo]

Harathan, on 20 May 2014 - 07:08 PM, said:

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

Oh god you're one of those people.

Imminent, on 20 May 2014 - 06:59 PM, said:

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.

Eh... if you guys tried that again and we had the tower side I think we would have been able to pick a few Jagers off as they walked into tunnel. I'm assuming you guys were using this build. While it's quite easy to get into tunnel safely from tower side thanks to the mining town hill the other spawn has a longer distance to walk along with a more open route. Our Victors typically move around 78kph.

We definitely wouldn't have gotten all of them, but whoever would be at the tail would be liable to getting picked and then it'd just be a wait again.

[Harathan]

All going to be irrelevant if they don't fix whatever they broke with missiles. If we keep going at this rate, the only weapons that will work at all will be TAG.

[Vassago Rain]

DanNashe, on 20 May 2014 - 07:11 PM, said:

My $0.02.

One, this is a Beta Tournament. Changing rules midstream is unfortunate, but that is kind of the point of a beta tournament - what is wrong, what can we try to fix it, will it work.

Second: The defense is usually in a better position than the offense at this kind of level at this speed. (E.g., interior lines with a dense force concentrated near the center of gravity are more likely to beat one side of a pincer, than actually be disadvantaged by a pincer on most maps. On some maps, some sides are just better than others. Or some decks simply can't play certain maps (hi alpine). It's tough to balance because you can't just give one side 13 mechs and say "if the time runs you lose" because the defensive advantage is relatively slight on some maps.

I have been in plenty of 12 mans where we ran the clock out. You get the bad side on alpine? The other side gets the better position on Crimson Straight? River City in a light drop deck? It takes two teams to run the clock out. So if the time runs out, it's because both teams have decided that the other has a position that cannot be assaulted in a tactically advantageous way. When the defense is the stronger position, why should anyone attack. [See: assault on many maps].

Recognizing when and where to attack is a core leadership skill. And it just so happens that in this game sometimes the answer is never. The only fix is to change the rules after a drop runs out and hope for a situation where it doesn't happen again. Repeating the exact same drop isn't likely to resolve anything. Neither team is at fault. It's been determined that on that map both teams are equally hesitant in the positions they started in.

And yeah, artillery strike.
It's a problem.

There's actually no such thing as a beta tournament, and even little kids who are setting up something for other little kids who want to play warhammer 40k know that you don't do single elimination. You do swiss.

[kiriage]

Theres plenty of instances were even national based sporting events have been subjected to rule changes mid season when it becomes apparent actions are required to be taken for the betterment of the sport/event. What was done here really is nothing different to that and on a much smaller scale, despite the personal investment of the teams involved. I cant really think of many sports events where there doesnt exist a spirit or ideal the event is conducted under. Its not uncommon for instances where gameplay in an event /sport can detrimentally affect it for spectators and players alike and contravene the spirit of the event without technically breaking any governing rules. It is just common sense that when teams wont moderate their own actions (and Im not having a go at either team here..its not like its never happened before) that the organiser of an event would undertake further governance to ensure it's continued viability regardless of how it affected either team. Whenever this happens people get a little butthurt, which is to be expected..the downside of ..well its mid tournament so we should do nothing..attitude is so large it should be blindingly obvious. And whilst hiding behind a rock is somewhat akin to hiding in a tunnel, only one method leaves you unable to contest the majority of the battlefield, which is kinda against what its all about TBH.

[Deathlike]

Eglar, on 20 May 2014 - 06:51 PM, said:

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

Let me be clear.

The decision to make the drop change from Skirmish to Assault is fine. Also, the decision to swap spawns is fine.

I don't care necessarily that SwK's intend is to force a draw.. it is PGI's RESPONSIBILITY to make sure the rules prevent this from occurring IN THE FIRST PLACE.

HOWEVER, it should have never gotten to that point due to the rules being incomplete AND that said rules were created on the fly. It can cause massive distrust because those making the decisions vs those that are affected. You don't EVER want referees deciding a big game, because nothing good comes from that. You want those rules SPELLED OUT AND CLARIFIED TO ALL, and deviations from it is a bad thing. Only in the dire of circumstances where a rule needs to be addressed SHOULD BE ADDRESSED after the incident... NOT DURING. Otherwise, it doesn't play well if the decisions made lend to favoritism, bias, or whatever external circumstances there may be.

[Eglar]

Deathlike, on 20 May 2014 - 10:59 PM, said:

Let me be clear.

The decision to make the drop change from Skirmish to Assault is fine. Also, the decision to swap spawns is fine.

I don't care necessarily that SwK's intend is to force a draw.. it is PGI's RESPONSIBILITY to make sure the rules prevent this from occurring IN THE FIRST PLACE.

HOWEVER, it should have never gotten to that point due to the rules being incomplete AND that said rules were created on the fly. It can cause massive distrust because those making the decisions vs those that are affected. You don't EVER want referees deciding a big game, because nothing good comes from that.

No one argued that the Rules PGI has put up were flawed; they said that they did it for the first time, that they are intending to set up further tournaments in the future and that they will use this tournament to see "how things go". Personally, I am quiet happy that they did such an attempt at all.

Deathlike, on 20 May 2014 - 10:59 PM, said:

You want those rules SPELLED OUT AND CLARIFIED TO ALL, and deviations from it is a bad thing. Only in the dire of circumstances where a rule needs to be addressed SHOULD BE ADDRESSED after the incident... NOT DURING. Otherwise, it doesn't play well if the decisions made lend to favoritism, bias, or whatever external circumstances there may be.

This all doesn't change the fact how things were wrapped up in a in fair and given the conditions professional manner. Everyone who claims that those "changes to rules" were made lend to favoritism, bias is in my opinion trolling.

Edited by Eglar, 21 May 2014 - 12:03 AM.

[Thorqemada]

The Quarter Finals will be Assault in River City.........ok, the Pros can show the underhive how they play that one !!!

[Sarlic]

Adiuvo, on 20 May 2014 - 07:43 PM, said:

Oh god you're one of those people.

Eh... if you guys tried that again and we had the tower side I think we would have been able to pick a few Jagers off as they walked into tunnel. I'm assuming you guys were using this build. While it's quite easy to get into tunnel safely from tower side thanks to the mining town hill the other spawn has a longer distance to walk along with a more open route. Our Victors typically move around 78kph.

We definitely wouldn't have gotten all of them, but whoever would be at the tail would be liable to getting picked and then it'd just be a wait again.

These AC40 jagers are so disgusting and fake.

Edited by Sarlic, 21 May 2014 - 12:10 AM.

[MadMaxMKII]

most boring tournament ever seen in esports...yawn

Edited by MadMaxMKII, 21 May 2014 - 04:04 AM.

[Imminent]

Adiuvo, on 20 May 2014 - 07:43 PM, said:

Eh... if you guys tried that again and we had the tower side I think we would have been able to pick a few Jagers off as they walked into tunnel. I'm assuming you guys were using this build. While it's quite easy to get into tunnel safely from tower side thanks to the mining town hill the other spawn has a longer distance to walk along with a more open route. Our Victors typically move around 78kph.

We definitely wouldn't have gotten all of them, but whoever would be at the tail would be liable to getting picked and then it'd just be a wait again.

I brought up this same concern, however that scenario was apparently tested and supposedly the Jagers can make it to the cave before being damaged, you would have had to commit the lights to drop the tail Jager; but the lights would have been running into several AC40 Jagers .

Maybe you guys could have gotten some good leg shots/arty on the tail Jager and lights finished it? It will never be known

-cheers

Edited by Imminent, 21 May 2014 - 04:51 AM.

[kiriage]

Deathlike, on 20 May 2014 - 10:59 PM, said:

it is PGI's RESPONSIBILITY to make sure the rules prevent this from occurring IN THE FIRST PLACE.

It sure is, they shoulda/coulda done a better job..but you're never going to write enough rules to prevent every possibility, and I'm pretty sure you'll find pretty much every sporting event ever, has different rule sets than when it started out..for a reason, and you know, I mean big events, with a lot of people whose job it is to get it right..still getting it wrong..so maybe a little slack cutting for something less grandiose like this event wouldn't be such a bad thing hey.

HOWEVER, it should have never gotten to that point due to the rules being incomplete AND that said rules were created on the fly.

True but given things are as they are, there was always going to be a point, maybe not that one..then the question become what to do about it.

It can cause massive distrust because those making the decisions vs those that are affected. You don't EVER want referees deciding a big game, because nothing good comes from that.

Unless the outcome is a better match.


You want those rules SPELLED OUT AND CLARIFIED TO ALL, and deviations from it is a bad thing.

Thats a nice starting point..but the problem arose in fact that nobody did deviate from the rules and it was still a bad thing.

Only in the dire of circumstances where a rule needs to be addressed SHOULD BE ADDRESSED after the incident... NOT DURING.

Im thinking with the view to further matches being played out in this tournament it was indeed a dire circumstance, I was also of the belief it was addressed after the incident..being the initial match..I can only hope you dont mean the entire tournament as i will assume you can understand how it all may have progressed had no action been taken at that time.

Otherwise, it doesn't play well if the decisions made lend to favoritism, bias, or whatever external circumstances there may be.

I will assume you mean unintended bias here. Changes to rules mid season affects some teams more than others, this is not a news flash..it happens in sports everywhere..this event is not a groundbreaker in this department. The result is teams deal with it and move on even when many millions of dollars are at stake (the whining increases proportionally to the $s invested).
I can understand people being upset at what happened, I get that..but expecting a small games developer to have every angle sewn up watertight and all that in the first event they've run like this..really? I mean... really?!!?? You're kidding right. Go and spend some time researching all the major sports and see how much money they've sunk into things and tell me if they got it right first go? Sometime a little perspective goes a long way..

point of fact: I suck at post formatting so..

Edited by kiriage, 21 May 2014 - 04:43 AM.

[Imminent]

I am kind of shocked that a lot of people so accepting for IGP/PGI to screw it up. It doesn't matter if it's the first or a beta, do it right the first time. You really need a beta for a tournament? It's a tournament; how hard is that to pull off properly? A great deal of us have invested hundreds of dollars into this game and lots of time nurturing the comp scene... I don't think it's asking much for them to try a little; put a fraction of the effort in; like the comp teams do...

It literally would have taken ONE person an hour of time, research, and one email to Magician, Antonious Rex, or Saace(Remnant invitational?) past tourney/league controllers to do it properly. It reeks of lazy, and for that I have no acceptance for...

I am not a public IGP/PGI basher; but this Tourney really annoyed me, to no end...

[kiriage]

Imminent, on 21 May 2014 - 04:48 AM, said:

I am kind of shocked that a lot of people so accepting for IGP/PGI to screw it up. It doesn't matter if it's the first or a beta, do it right the first time. You really need a beta for a tournament? It's a tournament; how hard is that to pull off properly? A great deal of us have invested hundreds of dollars into this game and lots of time nurturing the comp scene... I don't think it's asking much for them to try a little; put a fraction of the effort in; like the comp teams do...

It literally would have taken ONE person an hour of time, research, and one email to Magician, Antonious Rex, or Saace(Remnant invitational?) past tourney/league controllers to do it properly. It reeks of lazy, and for that I have no acceptance for...

I am not a public IGP/PGI basher; but this Tourney really annoyed me, to no end...

Believing that this was going to be done right first time is like believing competitive players wont try to get every advantage out of a rule set even if it means contravening the spirit of play.

Screw ups happen..Id rather see steps taken to prevent them happening again than spend overly long obsessing over the mistake.

I can well understand why competitive players that have sunk many hours and any amount of money into this game might feel that this tournament should have had a little more effort put into it.

I would love to see these players group together and post a combined comprehensive piece about what makes a tournament great, where this one went right and what the next one should include that this one didn't, I would truly be interested in reading that. Such a thing might go a long way to ensuring future tournaments are more palatable for everyone.

No disrespect was intended in the typing of this.

[Zolaz]

You may not know this, but PGI doesnt like doing this stuff called work. If it is possible to delay, obfuscate or pretend it didnt happen while smiling to your face, that is what PGI will do. Dont expect your worst employee to be your best or for that employee to transform into Super Dude because you wish it was so.

PGI is exactly what it is. A subpar company that is over its head. Anyone can see it in EVERYTHING that they attempt to do. If that is something you want to invest your money in, be my guest. Buy all the 500 dollar mechs you want.

I just wonder who made the game we are playing and why is that team not still pumping out code?

[Harathan]

Adiuvo, on 20 May 2014 - 07:43 PM, said:

Oh god you're one of those people.

Could be worse. I could be like you.

[Rippthrough]

Imminent, on 21 May 2014 - 04:34 AM, said:

I brought up this same concern, however that scenario was apparently tested and supposedly the Jagers can make it to the cave before being damaged, you would have had to commit the lights to drop the tail Jager; but the lights would have been running into several AC40 Jagers .

Maybe you guys could have gotten some good leg shots/arty on the tail Jager and lights finished it? It will never be known

-cheers

There's a pretty good firing line on the archway from pretty much just outside the spawn for a jump sniper, admittedly, it'd take a few lucky/crack shots at the same time on the trailing mech to take a leg and/or kill it, but the last mech or two would definately take a bit of a battering.