67 replies to this topic

[John80sk]

Great write up Od, which pretty much captures the way I think most people feel about these tournaments.

Odwalla, on 20 August 2014 - 03:25 PM, said:

Time Investment

This is one issue that I really don't have a good solution to. But essentially whoever has more time to play during these tournament weekends has the best chance of winning. So since this tournament was extended through a Monday instead of ending on the standard Sunday, it means people who were seriously attempting to win had to play an entire day extra to avoid losing their ranks.

What about making it an average of all your games that weekend? Obviously with a minimum amount of games (20 or so) played to prevent folks from lucking out a few matches and then sitting on it.

[Duymon]

The current tourney doesn't work as there's too much random factor built in by having 11 randoms on your team plus the 12 people who may or may not be good on the opposing side.

A real tourney would involve 1 on 1's on a ladder in an arena-like environment, but we know that will never happen.

[Thorqemada]

PGI can still make a Solaris-Expansion after Clans getting old...

[Cion]

Ph30nix, on 20 August 2014 - 04:27 PM, said:

scroll up a few posts, if you go by 6-7 minutes per match its about 17 hours

I went with 12 minutes a match. Between "searching" and "waiting for everyone to connect" and assuming a match lasts more than 7 minutes (the LRM standoff he talked about).

Anywho, it is a LOT of time anyways, that's what I was pointing out

[Agent 0 Fortune]

Great analysis and congratulations. I intentionally skipped this tournament n because I knew I could only play 4 hours that weakened, and because I wasn't playing in the tournament, I decided not to play at all to avoid the tournament play-style.

Although I may be a-typical I'm sure there a are just s many who opted in knowing it would be difficult to complete 10 games, just to roll the dice.

Edited by Agent 0 Fortune, 20 August 2014 - 05:12 PM.

[GRiPSViGiL]

Nice job. Good bit of transparency here and back's up what I have always said about how these things work and how you can climb the ladder.

However, please stop using the term "kill stealing". You rightly point out the game is 12v12 team environment yet use that term. It is fun to use in a ribbing sort of way playing in the group queue with unit mates but there is no friking such thing as kill stealing in MWO. I understand some players will wait till a target is red and ripe but that is not kill stealing that is something different altogether. Most people are focusing as best they can. When do you take ownership of a kill? Do you have to target it first or do the first bit of damage to it for it to be rightfully yours? Is it "kill stealing" if they got the kill even if they were focusing the target about the same time you did? or did you "kill steal" them? See how silly this is?

Make up a new term for the guy who tries to deliberately vulture kills....hey "Vulture" sounds good.

[Odwalla]

GRiPSViGiL, on 20 August 2014 - 07:33 PM, said:

Nice job. Good bit of transparency here and back's up what I have always said about how these things work and how you can climb the ladder.

However, please stop using the term "kill stealing". You rightly point out the game is 12v12 team environment yet use that term. It is fun to use in a ribbing sort of way playing in the group queue with unit mates but there is no friking such thing as kill stealing in MWO. I understand some players will wait till a target is red and ripe but that is not kill stealing that is something different altogether. Most people are focusing as best they can. When do you take ownership of a kill? Do you have to target it first or do the first bit of damage to it for it to be rightfully yours? Is it "kill stealing" if they got the kill even if they were focusing the target about the same time you did? or did you "kill steal" them? See how silly this is?

Make up a new term for the guy who tries to deliberately vulture kills....hey "Vulture" sounds good.

Thanks!

So, I get what you're saying. But here's what I consider to be a kill steal: If I did 90% of the damage to a mech and get him to internals and cherry red, then a single LRM5 hits it and it dies, that's a kill steal. The general idea is that one person does all the work to prep a target for the kill and someone who did very little secures it.

Now, under ANY other context in this game (especially competitive drops, mind you), idgaf who gets the kill. What matters is that the target goes down as fast as possible and we win the match. That's it. I never care about who gets the kill.

But in the context of this tournament where your points PRIMARILY come from whoever gets the kill, it does matter. If you're seriously trying to get a high rank in the ladder, YOU NEED TO GET THE KILLS. So that's what I mean. And that is my main complaint in the OP. Because I think the formula they use puts so much weight on the killing blow that it doesn't make any sense. That's not how this game is played in any other context.

I hope that makes sense. You may just be making a semantic argument though, in which case, I think "kill steal" is appropriate because people understand what I mean. As long as my premise is understood, there's no need to argue semantics.

[GRiPSViGiL]

Odwalla, on 20 August 2014 - 08:15 PM, said:

Thanks!

So, I get what you're saying. But here's what I consider to be a kill steal: If I did 90% of the damage to a mech and get him to internals and cherry red, then a single LRM5 hits it and it dies, that's a kill steal. The general idea is that one person does all the work to prep a target for the kill and someone who did very little secures it.

Now, under ANY other context in this game (especially competitive drops, mind you), idgaf who gets the kill. What matters is that the target goes down as fast as possible and we win the match. That's it. I never care about who gets the kill.

But in the context of this tournament where your points PRIMARILY come from whoever gets the kill, it does matter. If you're seriously trying to get a high rank in the ladder, YOU NEED TO GET THE KILLS. So that's what I mean. And that is my main complaint in the OP. Because I think the formula they use puts so much weight on the killing blow that it doesn't make any sense. That's not how this game is played in any other context.

I hope that makes sense. You may just be making a semantic argument though, in which case, I think "kill steal" is appropriate because people understand what I mean. As long as my premise is understood, there's no need to argue semantics.

You got me it is a bit of a semantic argument but you are not the first nor will you be the last top level player to use the term "kill stealing" tournament or no tournament. I just expect the top level people to not be so petty. We get our kills regardless if some chump want to try and poach a kill here or there.

Edited by GRiPSViGiL, 20 August 2014 - 08:21 PM.

[Zfailboat]

Solution is simple - calculate the amount of damage each player does to the target.

The person with the most damage gets the "Kill" on the mech
The person with the last shots gets a "Finisher" point on the mech
Everyone else gets "Assist"

Make different point values for all 3.

[Aresye]

GRiPSViGiL, on 20 August 2014 - 08:20 PM, said:

You got me it is a bit of a semantic argument but you are not the first nor will you be the last top level player to use the term "kill stealing" tournament or no tournament. I just expect the top level people to not be so petty. We get our kills regardless if some chump want to try and poach a kill here or there.

I'm sure many players will agree, but I'd say if you're aim is spot on with a decent build, it takes, "on average," between 100-300 damage per kill, depending on the tonnage of the enemy mechs.

It's all about the effort put in. Yes, this is a team game, but nobody enjoys doing all the work for a terrible team only to have the team mooch off their success.

It gets more personal with the leaderboard tournaments, when not only do you have to put out a ton of damage, but you also need those kill points, and it gets worse the higher up the ladder you go, where you're looking at needing 280+ point games,

[meteorol]

Quote

This is especially frustrating when a hand full of maps favor ranged and LRM builds so much that if you get narced or stuck under a UAV, you're literally dead within seconds without the ability to even return fire on the targets that are killing you

I got narced by a suicide anansi right at the beginning of the match yesterday... on caustic.
So frustrating This map has like two rocks that are steep enough to cover you from lrms if you are narced. Needles to say, i died within 10 seconds. Didn't even see an enemy mech besides the anansi

Getting narced while not hugging those very very limited rocks on caustic is a death sentence. You might aswell press alt+f4 once it happens.

Edited by meteorol, 20 August 2014 - 09:11 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Awesome writeup. As anyone who trolls the forums knows I'm a wonk for metrics and data like this. That's a huge sample size you got, more than big enough to shake out any anecdotal data and 'flatten any odd bumps' in the results.

Some other recommendations I might put in:

Only record scores from matches where you win.

Subtract friendly fire damage directly from the score that match generates - this is a huge drawback not just for friendly fire but LRM indirect fire in general. LRMing someone getting face-humped by a teammate can do a lot of FF damage.

Fun off match score. That's probably the easiest and more reliable method of tracking scores.

Subtract total matches from your total score - let people "opt out" when they feel they've hit their peak.

Continue to make it from 'top 10 matches' though, so again there's no strong motivation to keep going.

The problem with match veto is that many maps (Terra Therma and Alpine, as well as River City Nights) will never be in rotation. Hate to say it but some maps are supposed to be hard by their nature.

A much MUCH better solution IMO is to add more small cover to Alpine and Terra Therma, similar to what Tourmaline provides. The ability to close on someone under cover keeps brawling in the game. Without that though I wouldn't object to map veto; otherwise you are absolutely correct that long range sniper builds work just fine up close. Short range brawler builds don't work at range. Brawler builds are not significantly stronger than sniper builds in straight killing so end of the day there's no real benefit to running a brawler build, aside form it being generally more fun to play.

This is an example of PGI nerfing FUN. Because all game developers often just get this urge to punish people out of this sense that overcoming even arbitrary and pointless adversity carries a sense of accomplishment. It's not a PGI thing but a common game design mistake.

It's not true, has never been true. Overcoming legitimate, pointed challenges like other players in a relatively even environment feels accomplished. Dropping on Alpine with SRMs just feels like a stupid waste of time. The cold hard truth is the best response to that if you were honest with yourself is to disconnect and reconnect, because odds are good that the match won't be fun for you. Being totally screwed not by a mistake in judgement but just bad luck of the draw isn't fun, nor challenging. Or, of course, you could just always run a long range build. That, again, is an example of poor choices.

Anyway, great data and great observations. Thank you very much for taking the time Odwalla to put this up and share it. Forums are generally a sea of pointless poo-flinging over semantics and pointless dreams of things that will never be. Threads like this are like solid gold that way. Due props.

[DaisuSaikoro Nagasawa]

Congrats and I absolutely applaud you effort.

I hope PGI pays attention.

[pulupulu]

I'm surprised OP didn't mention arty and/or airstrike.

The tourney definitely significantly increased the usage of those two.

Anyway, congrat, I hope somehow the tourney price is worth a little for 150+ matches of toxic team play.

I wonder if PGI deliberately chose the formula for their data collection. Can't say I trust their math.

[Gas Guzzler]

Nice write-up, mimics my experience in tournaments although I rarely get to spend that much time. I especially enjoyed the LRM section and I'm shocked no LRM Champions have came in here to defend their honor after what you said about LRMs.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Gas Guzzler, on 20 August 2014 - 11:19 PM, said:

Nice write-up, mimics my experience in tournaments although I rarely get to spend that much time. I especially enjoyed the LRM section and I'm shocked no LRM Champions have came in here to defend their honor after what you said about LRMs.

They have school in the morning.

[Crunk Prime]

I got up to 70th place in my DDC before I called it quits on saturday night because every time I cracked a mech open, mass amounts of friendly LRMs would fly in and finish the mech off while I was reloading or cooling off.

And if I stepped around the wrong corner Id get tag/narc'd and LRM'd to death in seconds. It wasnt fun to play in any way whatsoever.

[William Mountbank]

Odwalla, on 20 August 2014 - 03:25 PM, said:

...Big bunch of awesome...

I like how you get sub-400 damage matches the way I get over-400 damage matches... :'(

[El Bandito]

First off, grats for the #1 placement. Mediums suffer a lot vs. LRMs, especially the brawlers, so I understand your frustration. Here is my own take on the tourney and IS XL mechs clearly got the short end of the stick.
http://mwomercs.com/...59#entry3650659

Now to your comments regarding LRMs...

Odwalla, on 20 August 2014 - 03:25 PM, said:

LRMs and Why They Suck I don't think I have ever hated LRMs more than I do after this tournament. The frustration I get from seeing LRMs in a match is two fold. 1. When the enemy team has a lot of LRMs that usually means teammates will become very passive. A few will get bored and charge into their death until the enemy team has a substantial lead in kills and proceed to roll the rest of my team. This is especially frustrating when a hand full of maps favor ranged and LRM builds so much that if you get narced or stuck under a UAV, you're literally dead within seconds without the ability to even return fire on the targets that are killing you. It's very reminiscent of stun-lock rogues in vanilla World of Warcraft.

I agree that LRM impulse need to be toned down by at least half. The shake is ridiculous especially from THOSE CLAN MECHS, cause they can shake you with LRMs even under 50 meters. That's pure bullshit right there.
Everyone in the tournament had to weather the LRM storm because due to their spread nature they do more damage, hence better potential scores, but that does not make them efficient killers, as I explained below. As for UAV and NARC, yes it was frustrating, but it also opened my eyes to new way of playing. Now when I see an enemy Light zoom by, I MOVE (as in moving like a bat out of hell to the next closest cover) because there is a high chance I am NARCed or a UAV/Strike is up. Many people did not change their tactics in the tourney in time and paid for it. Also, when I was playing with the leaderboard guys, they actually did not **** around and commanded their PUG team to out-maneuvre the enemy team before the LRM boats had the chance to shoot them full of holes. The tactics dictate the flow, not the weapons.

Also, there are only 2 out of 13 maps that are openly LRM friendly. The rest at either neutral or down right unfriendly. Chance plays its part.

Odwalla, on 20 August 2014 - 03:25 PM, said:

When my team has a lot of LRMs that means I'm going to lose kills to mechs that are leaching off my targets. It's usually assault LRM boats who sit in the back and just fire all their missiles at targets that I am tanking and trying to open up. The amount of kills that I've had stolen to friendly LRMs was maddening. I actually stopped targeting mechs if my team was LRM heavy and have even shielded legged enemy mechs from my friendly LRMs to make sure I could secure the kill.

As a LRM boat pilot that got placed in the 36th of Assault bracket I disagree with this part. LRM platform is NOT an effective kill stealer. I often did 3x the damage of the next best guy only to have the kills taken by DF mechs cause they simply focused the weakened section. Especially those leg kills. Show me a guy who got to #1 on the ladder in this tourney using LRM boat, as opposed to mixed or DF load. I bet not many or none.

Many friendly mechs also used me to weaken the enemy and once the HP goes around 20%, they just simply stops targetting and steal the kill.

**** move, guys.

Odwalla, on 20 August 2014 - 03:25 PM, said:

I'm not sure how this can be improved on for future tournaments. I personally would love a rework of indirect fire weapons in general. But honestly, probably the easiest solution would be to not put so much weight on kills.

If PGI stops putting too much weight on kills, then I can guarantee you that LRM boats will be placed even higher on the board due to the sheer amount of damage they can bring to the game. It is only by placing kill value so high that DF mech pilots manage to score better. I had multiple 1400+ damage games which meant crap cause unfortunately I got the kills stolen.

Gas Guzzler, on 20 August 2014 - 11:19 PM, said:

Nice write-up, mimics my experience in tournaments although I rarely get to spend that much time. I especially enjoyed the LRM section and I'm shocked no LRM Champions have came in here to defend their honor after what you said about LRMs.

That's cause I was sleeping. Duh.

Edited by El Bandito, 21 August 2014 - 06:29 AM.

[Triordinant]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 August 2014 - 03:39 PM, said:

I thought Joe fought the Grey Coats over at Antietam.........?

Don't you mean Red Coats at Bunker Hill?