918 replies to this topic

[Harathan]

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

Yes, with the threat that if they didn't engage, it would switch to assault for the 3rd match.

Let me ask you this, your parents tell you to clean your room. You don't.

Then they tell you "Clean your room, or you're grounded".

Well you can decide not to clean your room, but there is a consequence.

What do you do?

Same deal here.

PGI says Skirmish. Teams don't engage.

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.

This.

After that first round where nobody engaged, both teams should have been disqualified. Hell, if you do that in a PUG drop you can be reported for it, why should it be different in a tournament setting? No second chances. Maybe that would upset the apple cart enough for PGI to actually get their finger out and properly balance what clearly needs balancing.

[Eglar]

Appogee, on 20 May 2014 - 10:17 AM, said:

I don't need your gratuitous advice about how to avoid strikes. What I'd like is for tournaments to reward players who demonstrate the greatest Mechwarrioring skill ... not those who have the greatest skill at placing Strikes and inflating their damage with 40K gifts from the heavens.

This isn't supposed to be WoT.
Apparently, the direct correlation between this tournament and matches dominated by Strikes was too hard for you to grasp.

I'd start with your lack of understanding for the strikes mechanic itself and how they bring more dynamic into the gameplay, how it makes HoL "the kings of Jump-sniping" not yet quiet the tournament winners yet. Ultimately how it is not necessarily a bad thing to have strikes and how you can still demonstrate your mechwarrior skills with strikes enabled.

But I guess I was expecting too much from you.

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

Yes, with the threat that if they didn't engage, it would switch to assault for the 3rd match.

Let me ask you this, your parents tell you to clean your room. You don't.

Then they tell you "Clean your room, or you're grounded".

Well you can decide not to clean your room, but there is a consequence.

What do you do?

Same deal here.

PGI says Skirmish. Teams don't engage.

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.

What I originally meant is: They would have lost the cave brawl in the second drop, even with 10 AC 40 Jags. Tunnel Camping is not an option if you spawn as Team1.

I am not saying that what IGP did was justified, or that what SWK did was wrong (even though being pressured by many people on the twitch chat for being lame). They were pointing out a mayor flaw in the tournament gameplay it has been addressed swiftly - not wrong in my opinion.
What if every team started doing that from now on? Also, mind you that disqualification from tournament is a change of rule.

Edited by Eglar, 20 May 2014 - 10:47 AM.

[Adiuvo]

Addressing the people who are saying that SJR and HoL are impossible to beat...

House of Lords is a relatively new team. Yeah we have a few old DV8 people on our rosters but against SwK we only fielded three of them - Wispsy, Trevelyas, and BananaNutMuffins. The rest all used to be in various units, ranging from cReddit to Comstar Irregulars to unaffiliated. We even have two people who are relatively new to the game, P33p3rs and Sun Cobra. P33p3rs has only been playing for around 5 months and Sun Cobra has only been playing for 3.

We're not unbeatable, and neither is SJR. We were, at one point, the underdog team. Yeah we always knew we were good but we frequently had to deal with the very teams we're 12-0'ing now saying that we're pubstars, trash, never play comp, etc.. Then we broke their faces and now nobody says those things anymore.

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.

[Appogee]

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

Addressing the people who are saying that SJR and HoL are impossible to beat...

As far as I can tell, the only people who said that was PGI, when they set up the brackets.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Eglar, on 20 May 2014 - 10:33 AM, said:

I'd start with your lack of understanding for the strikes mechanic itself and how they bring more dynamic into the gameplay, how it makes HoL "the kings of Jump-sniping" not yet quiet the tournament winners yet. Ultimately how it is not necessarily a bad thing to have strikes and how you can still demonstrate your mechwarrior skills with strikes enabled.

But I guess I was expecting too much from you.


What I originally meant is: They would have lost the cave brawl in the second drop, even with 10 AC 40 Jags. Tunnel Camping is not an option if you spawn as Team1.

I am not saying that what IGP did was justified, or that what SWK did was wrong (even though being pressured by many people on the twitch chat for being lame). They were pointing out a mayor flaw in the tournament gameplay it has been addressed swiftly - not wrong in my opinion.
What if every team started doing that from now on? Also, mind you that disqualification from tournament is a change of rule.

Disqualification isn't a change of rule. If neither team engages and no one wins, there is no winner. Thus no one advances.

My conversation really has nothing to do with SWK or any other team. This is about the game itself, and the utter stupidity.

And for reference, the gameplay flaw was not addressed, they were threatened and changed their tactic due to the threat.

[Appogee]

"Immovable objects cave-camping" meets "irresistible force jump-snipers"...

Perhaps the rule should have been "if the match is a draw, then no-one advances".

I feel that one of the teams would have blinked, eventually.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Appogee, on 20 May 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:

"Immovable objects cave-camping" meets "irresistible force jump-snipers"...

Perhaps the rule should have been "if the match is a draw, then no-one advances".

I feel that one of the teams would have blinked, eventually.

If moving forward means you have to win, and a tie means no one won, it means no one advances. No other rule needs to be in place.

[Eglar]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 20 May 2014 - 10:51 AM, said:

Disqualification isn't a change of rule. If neither team engages and no one wins, there is no winner. Thus no one advances.

It is:
What happens in case of a tie?
A: Given the bracket game mode requirements and the nature of tournament play, we don't anticipate tied games. However, if two teams tie, they will play a rematch immediately following their tied game, with the same match parameters.

So in your scenario our teams should still re-play the same thing over and over again? Isn't that game(tournament) breaking? And now you're telling me that dealing with the situation is what? wrong?

[Deathlike]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 20 May 2014 - 10:58 AM, said:

If moving forward means you have to win, and a tie means no one won, it means no one advances. No other rule needs to be in place.

Well, that would make the brackets/results kind of awkward.

I mean, the other opponents in the same bracket get a free pass... especially if there were concerted trolling efforts to screw stuff up.

[HUBA]

It's really great and fun to watch Specially the spectator tool makes it.

Some issues you may already fix for the next matches are:
- hide the player name overlay more often. The names are at the mots time not readable and very distracting. The best use of this feature would be on a very high perspective so you can give a overview of the battlefield and also highlight the positions of the players. In close range and in brawls it's IMO not helping to see what's going on.
- less player perspective. In a fast mech we can see nothing, the stream makes it blurry
- more games. there is to much free time between the matches and a BO1 its to quick over some times. Try to cluster the matches and maybe make a BO3 for the last rounds.

In general more contrast to separate the mech from background would help a lot (also for the player perspective) and a better way to display the damage of the mechs. Maybe an icon like this :|||: 3 big bars for torso and 4 small bars for arms and legs. maybe 4 dots (.:.) on the top representing rear torso and head.

[Eglar]

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

Addressing the people who are saying that SJR and HoL are impossible to beat...

House of Lords is a relatively new team. Yeah we have a few old DV8 people on our rosters but against SwK we only fielded three of them - Wispsy, Trevelyas, and BananaNutMuffins. The rest all used to be in various units, ranging from cReddit to Comstar Irregulars to unaffiliated. We even have two people who are relatively new to the game, P33p3rs and Sun Cobra. P33p3rs has only been playing for around 5 months and Sun Cobra has only been playing for 3.

We're not unbeatable, and neither is SJR. We were, at one point, the underdog team. Yeah we always knew we were good but we frequently had to deal with the very teams we're 12-0'ing now saying that we're pubstars, trash, never play comp, etc.. Then we broke their faces and now nobody says those things anymore.

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.

no...wait..don't make them think we are not...

Edited by Eglar, 20 May 2014 - 11:05 AM.

[Deathlike]

Eglar, on 20 May 2014 - 11:00 AM, said:

It is:
What happens in case of a tie?
A: Given the bracket game mode requirements and the nature of tournament play, we don't anticipate tied games. However, if two teams tie, they will play a rematch immediately following their tied game, with the same match parameters.

So in your scenario our teams should still re-play the same thing over and over again? Isn't that game(tournament) breaking? And now you're telling me that dealing with the situation is what? wrong?

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.

Edited by Deathlike, 20 May 2014 - 11:04 AM.

[Eglar]

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.

It is, but if all teams in the tournament did that, wouldn't it be troublesome? Don't tell me you can't see the obvious flaw in that rule and the the merit of dealing with the situation.

[Deathlike]

Eglar, on 20 May 2014 - 11:09 AM, said:

It is, but if all teams in the tournament did that, wouldn't it be troublesome? Don't tell me you can't see the obvious flaw in that rule and the the merit of dealing with the situation.

I don't think most people are intentionally trying to screw with the rule. My point is, the situation can dictate the circumstances (or was it the other way around).

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.

The game would have to report the # used at the end of match screen, but that would at least inform everyone of said result.

Edited by Deathlike, 20 May 2014 - 11:11 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Sorry, end result is, you can't change the parameters in such a way to hurt one team more than the other.

At that point you are basically choosing an outcome.

Anything you are going to do has to affect both teams equally.

[Adiuvo]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 20 May 2014 - 11:12 AM, said:

Sorry, end result is, you can't change the parameters in such a way to hurt one team more than the other.

At that point you are basically choosing an outcome.

Anything you are going to do has to affect both teams equally.

Your entire thing here hinges on that changing to assault would hurt the brawling team more. In Forest Colony it really doesn't.

You also entirely free to switch up your drop decks if you so wished.

Edited by Adiuvo, 20 May 2014 - 11:15 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Adiuvo, on 20 May 2014 - 11:15 AM, said:

Your entire thing here hinges on that changing to assault would hurt the brawling team more. In Forest Colony it really doesn't.

I disagree.

Brawling team goes into the cave. Poptart team is outside the cave.

You cannot cap the base from inside the cave.

You can cap the base from outside the cave.

End result, the change invalidates the brawling team's plan and forces them to leave the cave or be capped.

[Eglar]

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

I don't think most people are intentionally trying to screw with the rule.

But they were, it was obvious and also later admitted. So here it is again: Why was the call Crew/Niko made wrong?

Spoiler

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.

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

[Adiuvo]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 20 May 2014 - 11:16 AM, said:

I disagree.

Brawling team goes into the cave. Poptart team is outside the cave.

You cannot cap the base from inside the cave.

You can cap the base from outside the cave.

End result, the change invalidates the brawling team's plan and forces them to leave the cave or be capped.

Cave isn't the only thing a brawler team can do on that map.

[Deathlike]

Eglar, on 20 May 2014 - 11:17 AM, said:

But they were, it was obvious and also later admitted. So here it is again: Why was the call Crew/Niko made wrong?

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.