10 replies to this topic

[ImagineDwagons]

The idea is to reduce grinding factor in Leaderboard events by introducing limited number of attempts that can be scored. The same approach is used in Athletics jumping, throwing and some other sports. For instance, the player has 20 attempts which means that you can play up to 20 matches but only best 10 in terms of your score will be counted.

Advantages of such limitation:
1. Everyone is in more or less equal conditions regardless playing time that you can afford during weekend.
2. Finally you can sleep, devote some time to your family, friends, feed your dog, etc.

Please, vote and leave your opinion.

[John80sk]

I would like to see it be an average across all games played with a minimum of 10-20 games played. Would promote less YOLO charging.

Would also severely reduce the benefit of powergaming, while at the same time not screwing over players who had a few bad games.

[Modo44]

You do know that most of the top players got there almost immediately, right? Kaffeangst played literally 20 matches, and is still in 9th place for the Clan assaults. However, for everyone not as gifted and with less practice, getting 10 really good matches will actually take more than a short session. All this would do, is prevent anyone not as dedicated from getting anywhere near the top spots.

[Myke Pantera]

Since i currently rank 110th with 1656 points in the IS medium bracket with less then 20 matches played in a not even mastered CDA-2A and without a*strikes, i would like to say 'yes', but the truth is: These events are there to not only be fun to the players, but also to keep them busy, the servers full and maybe even generate some money for PGI, which is a win-win for everyone really. So i have to say no.

I'll accept that winning these tourneys is for either exceptionally good players or players willing to invest many hours. I am neither, but enjoy it anyway.

Edited by Myke Pantera, 18 August 2014 - 06:37 AM.

[Vimeous]

In a MWO Olympics that would work - all playing at once, similar conditions - probably off-line at a LAN event.

Over an on-line weekend?
Time-zone camping, off-peak mixed-ELO clashes, on-peak tight ELO, non-participants throwing matches with 'famous'/'infamous' players ...
I'd be interested to know how you'd choose when the eligible matches start - are players allowed practise matches in the pug queue? can you pause and restart participation between matches? would it be like premium time - press go and that's it?

However I like the idea it might encourage players to tackle ALL of the classes being contested ... though how you stop the top 20 players taking all the mullah I've no idea!

[PanzerSmurf]

No ty, with the current way, the few matches that I play exteremely well are all added up, giving me a chance to compete with veterans.

What you suggest gives me no such chance and promotes a passive like play style, while atm risk and reward pays off, your suggestion would make risking myself on a flanking action a bad idea, as if I can caught before I can do my damage, i'll ruin my score.

And as it stands, 1 out of 5 games go as I wanted while attempting this. So with a unlimited amount of tries I can get up a proper score, without i'll simply do badly.

This while being gimped vs long term players as well as my resources are limited.

This suggestion would only benefit experienced veterans and promotes passive play and I'm already getting tired of having 4 teammates every game hanging back with LRMs doing as good as nothing, some games you basically already see 0 mech too mech combat and it's nothing more then a sniping match to begin with. And if I wanted a CoD:MW like game experience, I'd have installed CoD:MW, I'm here too see mech combat.

Both your motivation are invalid as well.

1. Those who have been playing the game for a long period will have a distinct advantage, better engines / weapon setups, more weight classes to compete in (if I only have 1 class, I have less overall chance too win something then someone with 2 or more with this system). With your suggestion I cannot counter this with dedication, the only actual option I have too compete with the above. There is no way you can call this equal conditions.

2. Since when is this the games responsibility ? It's your own. If you think a competition in a game is more important then your family, time to see a shrink. It has nothing to do with the game itself. I play this game a lot, but guess what, when my dog needs a walk, I waste no time, rush the enemy, put some damage in, die and go walk my dog.

This simply feels like a personal solution too maximize your own chances of winning, not make a fair and equal competition in which even new players stand a chance. The more I think about it, the more I am actually disgusted with the suggestion.

Edited by PanzerSmurf, 20 August 2014 - 05:55 AM.

[Myke Pantera]

PanzerSmurf, on 20 August 2014 - 05:38 AM, said:

*snap*

2. Since when is this the games responsibility ? It's your own. If you think a competition in a game is more important then your family, time to see a shrink. It has nothing to do with the game itself. I play this game a lot, but guess what, when my dog needs a walk, I waste no time, rush the enemy, put some damage in, die and go walk my dog.

*snap*

Lol, PanzerSmurf! Thanks for making me laugh ^^ While i agree on what you are saying, you make it sound like you are comparing the time and effort needed to keep ones pregnant wife happy with the needs of a dog But since EvgenS used 'Feeding a dog' as reason for not having time to play this game, i'll let it slip this time just kidding ^^

[Barkem Squirrel]

Let me stress that is a major improvement over what we had for the first tournament last year. Also the previous tournaments this year have used the same scoring formula. If we change the scoring, then the previous tournaments we really can not compare past performances to any future tournament.

If I would make any changes it would be closer to the match scores that we receive in game, but with more points for assists and kills. The lights with NARC and TAG have been great assets over the weekend and should have been rewarded with points. Then limiting the number of times you could use one specific mech for each category.

• best of 20 wins or matches
  
• Or best of 30 wins or matches
  
• limit each mech to 20 or 30 matches with in each category.

Lets look at the scoring.

600 damage is 40 pts
win 20 pts
4 kills 80 pts
6 assists 60 pts
200pts

Having over 200 points for 10 games might put you on the leader boards.

I am happy with a match score of 140 points.

Win 20 pts
2 kills 40 pts
5 assits 50 pts
450 damage 30 pts
140 pts

I had only 3 matches over 200 points, 15 matches over 150 points, and 21 matches over 140 points out of 56 games over the weekend. I only played in the 5m and 3f stalkers, the 1s battlemaster and the Jagger A. For wins I had 34 out of 56 games. My lowest score for a loss was 12 points and a win was 53 points. My highest score for a loss was 141 points (2 kills, 5 assists and 697 damage)

My scores over 200 points:
5 kills, 6 assists, a win and 893 damage 239 points
5 kills, 6 assists, a win and 942 damage 242 points
3 kills, 9 assists, a win and 557 damage 207 points.


My positions
IS Heavy 173 Barkem Squirrel 1,557
IS Assault 114 Barkem Squirrel 1,829



Hats off to everyone on the leader boards, for all those great matches some of us see once in a while.

Edited by Barkem Squirrel, 20 August 2014 - 07:01 AM.

[Eglar]

Wouldn't mind either way. One can say that there is more room for "luck" with lesser games. The powergaming part is only true if you keep on playing to maintain your score.

I started late on Saturday 8pm PST and had Top 15 in clan mediums (1900+) after my first 9 games and 2300+ after 19 games.

Here's my "powergaming record" and to be honest, I've had similar experiences in all other previous tournaments. So it's my opinion that it would not really matter.

Edited by Eglar, 20 August 2014 - 11:41 AM.

[Karpundir]

I think a true test of a player's "consistency" in skill should be recognized. To have 300 bad matches to get 10 good ones is not the right way to be recognized as a "TOP" player.

It certainly would be interesting to see how the leaderboard would look if it was your 10 best of 50 or 100 matches. I know that means less overall matches played, which is not what the devs want, but I think more people would participate when they know it is does not require a grindfest for an entire day or weekend.

[Roland]

It would be fine to not limit it, but it'd be best to take the AVERAGE from all matches played... rather than just the 10 best.