67 replies to this topic

[Biaxialrain]

I don't think people are hating on the players.

I think most agree the game needs better balance.

If you take away a player's ability to effectively use their favorite mechs and/or weapons then that player won't play.

Simple.

[Biaxialrain]

Why no 3/3/3/3 in the tournaments?

Would'nt that better balance and promote the game?

Edited by Biaxialrain, 02 June 2014 - 07:11 AM.

[Demuder]

I have nothing against the players that participated in the tournament. Especially them, they had no choice, since the effectiveness of certain variants and loadouts is something they have no power over. They had to choose what worked best and they did. I have nothing against players that use meta, be it jump-PPC-AC5s or wolfpacks. All they do is make my game boring, but it's PGI that drives them there.

It's funny how PGI is creaming in their pants believing they can turn MWO into an e-sport, yet at the same time make all the choices that drive it to being a stale run-jump-and-shoot deal. The tournament was nothing other than spread out deathballs throwing strikes on cooldown and jumping to alpha anything that moved. No scouting, no tactical movement, lights circle-deathing, etc etc. The couple of teams that tried a different approach.... well, we all saw what happened.

Kudos to everyone that played. The game mechanics however made for a completely boring jumpfest and woflpacking lights. Damn, even Starcraft which is broken down to the second for effective tactics offers more variety of play.

[RussianWolf]

Demuder, on 02 June 2014 - 07:30 AM, said:

I have nothing against the players that participated in the tournament. Especially them, they had no choice, since the effectiveness of certain variants and loadouts is something they have no power over. They had to choose what worked best and they did. I have nothing against players that use meta, be it jump-PPC-AC5s or wolfpacks. All they do is make my game boring, but it's PGI that drives them there.

It's funny how PGI is creaming in their pants believing they can turn MWO into an e-sport, yet at the same time make all the choices that drive it to being a stale run-jump-and-shoot deal. The tournament was nothing other than spread out deathballs throwing strikes on cooldown and jumping to alpha anything that moved. No scouting, no tactical movement, lights circle-deathing, etc etc. The couple of teams that tried a different approach.... well, we all saw what happened.

Kudos to everyone that played. The game mechanics however made for a completely boring jumpfest and woflpacking lights. Damn, even Starcraft which is broken down to the second for effective tactics offers more variety of play.

well, to be honest... things that get too tactical rarely make good e-sports. Tactics tend to be slow, brawls are fast and exciting. Spectators are needed for a sport to be popular. I don't see many 80k+ seat ping-pong stadiums after all. So the spectators need to be entertained. Chess doesn't have a huge spectator base either.

[Demuder]

RussianWolf, on 02 June 2014 - 08:43 AM, said:

well, to be honest... things that get too tactical rarely make good e-sports. Tactics tend to be slow, brawls are fast and exciting. Spectators are needed for a sport to be popular. I don't see many 80k+ seat ping-pong stadiums after all. So the spectators need to be entertained. Chess doesn't have a huge spectator base either.

Well, for argument's sake, an 80k ping pong stadium would be impractical, the tables are just too small. That doesn't mean people don't watch it by the hundred thousands on TV where it's zoomed. Try tennis if rackets and balls is your thing :-)

Also, chess, you'd be surprised of how many people disseminate and study the game after it's been played. Granted, watching it real time is for very passionate affissionados.

I agree that spectators need to be entertained. That was my whole point. I did not find the way the matches on the tournament entertaining at all. Maybe that's just personal taste, but it seemed to me that if you took out the team and player names, 29 of the 31 matches played exactly the same, you wouldn't be able to tell one encounter from the other. It was the same thing, over and over again. I won't go into the spectating tools, I suppose that they are a work in progress.

Edited by Demuder, 02 June 2014 - 02:59 PM.

[RussianWolf]

Demuder, on 02 June 2014 - 02:59 PM, said:

Well, for argument's sake, an 80k ping pong stadium would be impractical, the tables are just too small. That doesn't mean people don't watch it by the hundred thousands on TV where it's zoomed. Try tennis if rackets and balls is your thing :-)

Also, chess, you'd be surprised of how many people disseminate and study the game after it's been played. Granted, watching it real time is for very passionate affissionados.

I agree that spectators need to be entertained. That was my whole point. I did not find the way the matches on the tournament entertaining at all. Maybe that's just personal taste, but it seemed to me that if you took out the team and player names, 29 of the 31 matches played exactly the same, you wouldn't be able to tell one encounter from the other. It was the same thing, over and over again. I won't go into the spectating tools, I suppose that they are a work in progress.

And yet Nascar is always the same.... Left turn, what do they do next.... Oh look, another left turn. Yet it has huge fans (mostly for the Jeff Gordon crashes).

Repetitive isn't really the problem. Once you get to a Solaris VII type arena, especially with a free-for-all mode (16-24 mechs with no team) and have some form of wagering allowed, then fans start developing and following "their" driver. Teams can happen too but takes longer to build up in most instances.

[GreyGriffin]

There are definitely sports, like Nascar (yes, it's a sport) and tennis, for instance, that become much more exciting and interesting once you understand what's going on. When you stop and think and realize how hard it is to pass someone when you are literally at your car's redline, or understand that those tennis champs are hitting it corner to corner because there is so much spin on the ball that that is literally the only place they can make it go and stay in bounds, it actually develops some tension and drama. I don't watch either sport myself, but I understand what makes them appealing.

When you watch a dozen 'mechs not-stare at each other for 19 minutes and then the team that takes the courageous stance and rushes out loses by getting one kill in the final seconds... it's not quite the same thing.

[Lyoto Machida]

Don't hate the player, hate the game. Never forget that it was PGI that set up this ruleset, not the poptarters or LRM boaters.

Demuder, on 02 June 2014 - 02:59 PM, said:

Well, for argument's sake, an 80k ping pong stadium would be impractical, the tables are just too small. That doesn't mean people don't watch it by the hundred thousands on TV where it's zoomed. Try tennis if rackets and balls is your thing :-)

Also, chess, you'd be surprised of how many people disseminate and study the game after it's been played. Granted, watching it real time is for very passionate affissionados.

I agree that spectators need to be entertained. That was my whole point. I did not find the way the matches on the tournament entertaining at all. Maybe that's just personal taste, but it seemed to me that if you took out the team and player names, 29 of the 31 matches played exactly the same, you wouldn't be able to tell one encounter from the other. It was the same thing, over and over again. I won't go into the spectating tools, I suppose that they are a work in progress.

RussianWolf, on 03 June 2014 - 05:29 AM, said:

And yet Nascar is always the same.... Left turn, what do they do next.... Oh look, another left turn. Yet it has huge fans (mostly for the Jeff Gordon crashes).

Repetitive isn't really the problem. Once you get to a Solaris VII type arena, especially with a free-for-all mode (16-24 mechs with no team) and have some form of wagering allowed, then fans start developing and following "their" driver. Teams can happen too but takes longer to build up in most instances.

GreyGriffin, on 04 June 2014 - 04:10 PM, said:

There are definitely sports, like Nascar (yes, it's a sport) and tennis, for instance, that become much more exciting and interesting once you understand what's going on. When you stop and think and realize how hard it is to pass someone when you are literally at your car's redline, or understand that those tennis champs are hitting it corner to corner because there is so much spin on the ball that that is literally the only place they can make it go and stay in bounds, it actually develops some tension and drama. I don't watch either sport myself, but I understand what makes them appealing.

When you watch a dozen 'mechs not-stare at each other for 19 minutes and then the team that takes the courageous stance and rushes out loses by getting one kill in the final seconds... it's not quite the same thing.

I thought watching NASCAR was about drinking and partying?

If sports were based purely on excitement, combat sports like boxing, Muay Thai and MMA would have the biggest followings (in my book, anyways). Nothing more exciting to me than watching someone get knocked into unconsciousness or having to tap because their knee ligaments are about to get shredded. It's really hard now for me to sit and watch the other sports I used to follow.

Not everyone likes violence, I guess (but they'll watch the NFL instead...go figure).

Oh, and before anyone mentions how dangerous/brutal combat sports are...just know that equestrian and cheerleading have high rates of catastrophic injuries as well. People die/get paralyzed in those sports (not sure cheerleading is a sport) but its not a big deal for whatever reason.