67 replies to this topic

[El Bandito]

Triordinant, on 21 August 2014 - 01:43 AM, said:

Don't you mean Red Coats at Bunker Hill?

Nah, he fought the French and the Indians at the plains of Abraham.

Edited by El Bandito, 21 August 2014 - 02:05 AM.

[Honiara]

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.

This is so true, I stopped playing the tournament at around 8pm on Sunday night (BST) and I was 8th, then on Monday I like many others had to go to work, and as this tournaments runs through to middnight US time (which is around 6am on the Tuesday morning in the UK) I was unable to play for a significant amount of time near to the closing time of this event, I ended up 18th. This is some what like bidding early on Ebay, the person who bits (plays) last gives their opponents less time to beat their score.

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

1. Kill focus encourages greedy play. I get that this is a solo tournament, but we still have to play it in a 12v12 environment. So it encourages kill stealing. I actually had to stop targeting mechs that were almost dead so my team wouldn't steal it from me. That's the mindset you have to have when playing in the tournament and it's toxic

I started to do this, I stopped targeting enemy mechs as I was doing all the work, then someone in a LRM boat would get the kill.


I did not document my games, but this tournament was so much about luck, I played cose to 100 games during this tournament, all on a GFR-1N and I must have had half of thoses games that i got score in the region of 800 damange, but the kills kept getting stolen, then on the end of round screen, I can see my score as 800 dmg / 1 kill / 9 assists, and then people with 100 dmg / 4 kills / 8 assists.

With the above score I would have got around 190 points, but someone with the 100 / 4 / 8 would get 195 points, now which person was the better player? because if you look at the tournament score it would be the player with the 100 / 4 / 8. We all know that a player with 800/4/8 is the better player. (I assure you that the vast majority of the damage I do is either CT or both Legs.

So the calculation is wrong, again as per Odwalla I don't know what the correct scoring should be, but how it is now between the best players is pure luck.

To win the tournament you need the following:
A team of 12, where you are really good, and the other 11 on your team are not
The oposition team that has 12 bad players
A mech that has decent range to get the 'assists'
Team mates that are not kill stealing
The oposition to push on you 1 at a time, so you can kill and move the the next, a death blob cannot give you a good score.

I had a few games that would have given me a 240+ score and they were in the region of 1000 dmg / 5 kills / 7 assists, and if I had been lucky enough to get 10 of these then I would have been up the top with Odwalla, or anyone with that luck could do it (Sorry Odwalla not trying to take anything away from you as I know you are a good player, but I believe you got more luck than some)

Bottom line some changes need to be made as the current tournament, as fun as it was, is far too much about luck.

[Kensaisama]

Aresye, on 20 August 2014 - 04:29 PM, said:

Yup. Pretty much the same experience I had, although I think I played less matches overall.

One match I had a Raven literally shadowing me. Wherever I moved, he moved along right beside and/or behind me. The best part? He didn't help me at all with the targets I was facing. I'd be up in their face taking damage, dealing damage, and here goes Raven guy just circling around not firing a single shot. That is, until I finally got my opponent down to internals, in which case the Raven would literally bee line straight at my target (sometimes getting in between me and them), and take the kill. He did this 4 more times. I don't think I've ever been so tempted to just straight up TK someone than that moment.

End result?
Raven: 5 kills, 0 assists, 150 damage.
Me: 2 kills, 9 assists, 1400 damage.

This is the main reason I do not participate in the tournaments. I played enough to get the free mechbay, after that I logged off for the rest of the weekend until the ********** had ended.

[AlmightyAeng]

El Bandito, on 21 August 2014 - 02:04 AM, said:

Nah, he fought the French and the Indians at the plains of Abraham.

Huh...Joe...passing through time...ever the soldier on the field...

Oh my god...

Joe is Wolverine! But he never seems to pilot one...

[Nicholas Carlyle]

The tournaments are stupid. They've been stupid since they were first started. And they will always be stupid because PGI is running them.

If it took this post for you to realize it, you are an idiot.

[Jman5]

Quote

So how can this be fixed? Simple (sort of), allow players to veto maps in the same way that SC2 players can. If I want to SRM brawl, let me veto Alpine so I have an actual chance of accomplishing something in a match. If I'm in an energy boat, let me veto Terra Therma. I'm fine with maps giving a slight edge to certain play styles or builds, but to the extent that some maps favor ranged engagements, it's practically impossible to have a good match with a short range mech/build.

YES, YES, YES!

Practically every multiplayer game in the last 15 years has had a map veto option. There is no good reason to force people to play a map other than to force them to be miserable. This is basic multiplayer design 101.

I would be happy with just a 1-map veto option.

[DarthPeanut]

Congrats again on the #1.

Really glad you posted this and all the data. Hopefully PGI will take it all in and make some adjustment to the tournament. I liked the idea of the tournament events in general. They are a change of pace and let you see how you stack up against others. They do need some adjustments though.

Like you, I think they should tweak the scoring. Maybe make a change so that scoring punishes TK harshly and adds negative points for FF dmg. Also change the point weighting of kills slightly so they are still important but not so heavily weighted that people only focused on the kills alone.

Duration I believe needs to be slightly shorter but not shortened so much it does not give everyone ample time to play a reasonable number of matches.

Not helping the issue of FF and TK's, as well as the sheer mass of LRMs, was the Marik Challenge mech bay event going simultaneously. As we saw similar the previous weekend to this with the Steiner Challenge mech bay event. Double events like that is just compounding the problem.

On the LRM issue, there was a insanely stupid amount of Atlas, Stalker, Orion, etc LRM boats almost every match I was in all weekend. Honestly I do not mind some LRM play but literally having the bulk of your weight in a match lay backing just off of the spawn raining LRMs was about the lamest ****! It was an all to common theme this weekend and it sucked. I do run an LRM medium troll build occasionally, but at least I do it aggressively. I have no problem pushing up to get my own locks with a tag, hitting with lasers throughout as much as I can, and fighting with the forward position. It is risk reward thing but the only way I will use them.

Edited by DarthPeanut, 21 August 2014 - 08:34 AM.

[KinsonRavenlock]

I'm not entirely sure if there is a better system, one thing I do know though is 150matches is somewhere between 25-30 hrs at higher elo.
Which realistically to get no.1 in a tournament that was almost 4 days long is only 6-7 hrs a day on average.
I've never understood the argument that things are unfair because the person with more time has an advantage....
That's pretty much how life works, you get more out of something by putting in more time, also consider anyone at the top puts in a lot of time at this game regardless.
Having to play 150 games to win a tournament I would argue takes as much 'luck' out of the equation as possible regardless of which system the tourney ends up using.

[Gallowglas]

I cannot possibly agree more than I do with the OP. You summed up my frustration with the tournament formula nicely. Furthermore, the problem is compounded when you're running a slower mech and can't get to a mech fast enough to finish it off when it runs away from you. I had plenty of matches that *would* have been banner rounds except that the nearly-cored mech would run away last second and someone else would snipe the kill. All of that would have been fine if the leaderboard weren't weighted so heavily in favor of raw kills.

IMHO, the end-of-round scoreboard would be infinitely superior to use as a measuring stick if you're looking for something quick and dirty.

[Lostdragon]

Good post and analysis. I tried to participate in the tournament but found myself frustrated by the same things you did. I realized I didn't want to spend 30 hours of my weekend playing MWO just to try to place in a tournament that rewards first place with the equivalent of about $8 and bragging rights.

[Sprouticus]

KinsonRavenlock, on 21 August 2014 - 08:46 AM, said:

I'm not entirely sure if there is a better system, one thing I do know though is 150matches is somewhere between 25-30 hrs at higher elo.
Which realistically to get no.1 in a tournament that was almost 4 days long is only 6-7 hrs a day on average.
I've never understood the argument that things are unfair because the person with more time has an advantage....
That's pretty much how life works, you get more out of something by putting in more time, also consider anyone at the top puts in a lot of time at this game regardless.
Having to play 150 games to win a tournament I would argue takes as much 'luck' out of the equation as possible regardless of which system the tourney ends up using.

I am fine with it being time intensive. I just won't play in the tourney (not that I would rank anyway, just saying).

Also, saying that it is not luck based because you have to play a lot is just silly. If everything boils down to the killshot, then yes, there is a serious element of random chance to the tourney since you are playing with 11 other people. (unless you sit back and alpha when the mech internals are open...in which case you are suborning the point of the game.

[Sprouticus]

I like a lot of the suggestions to fix the issue. My compilation/additions:

1) Award X number of points for a win. That way in theory you could still get a high score in a loss, but getting the win becomes paramount.

2) I like the idea presented to have Finisher/Kill/Assit (where finisher gets the last shot, kill did the most dmg, assist did some dmg)

3) Bump the requirement for an assist to 5 or 10% of dmg done. No more 1 point assists.

4) Subtract FF dmg from damage total. Subtract team kills from kill total

5) Subtract points based upon total number of games played from score (and allow out out). Not sure what would be fair, but some balance would be good. (ex: After 30 games it 9is -1 to score per 2 games played). Diminishing returns will address the issue.

NOTE: You would have to be careful about this. Smart players might try to game the system by doing their games at the start or end or during low population times to ensure they use them 'wisely'

Do those 5 things and I MIGHT play in a tourney. It is still a crap shoot at heart due to teammates, but at least it is not an endurance crap shoot.

[MischiefSC]

El Bandito, on 21 August 2014 - 02:04 AM, said:

Nah, he fought the French and the Indians at the plains of Abraham.

No, you're way off. Why do you think he is so jazzed on fighting unwinnable fights?

It was the Persians, at Thermopolyae!

[Davegt27]

sorry I did not read all the posts but here is an idea
we all respect someone that can hit what they are aiming at

how about the score be partially based on percentage of hits with the weapons used during the tournaments

oh congrats on 1st place nice to see a #1 speak up


Davegt27

[Angel of Annihilation]

Pretty much perfect evaluation.

[Mister Blastman]

Jman5, on 21 August 2014 - 06:57 AM, said:

YES, YES, YES!

Practically every multiplayer game in the last 15 years has had a map veto option. There is no good reason to force people to play a map other than to force them to be miserable. This is basic multiplayer design 101.

I would be happy with just a 1-map veto option.

Back in the day we could do stuff like... pick the server we want to join from a browser. Oh, wait. You can still do that in other games.

[Apnu]

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

If I get in my SRM brawler, I'm actually rolling the dice for having a ****** game simply because of the maps alone. Where if I take my AC5+PPC Shadowhawk, it really doesn't matter what map I get, I know I'll be able to get some work done and have a chance at a good game. This is part of the reason why the sniper meta has been so strong for so long and why before private lobbys letting teams know what maps will be played, competitive play was 99% jump snipers. They are good on every map.

I've noticed this myself in the game. I like playing medium brawlers too (HBKs all the way baby!) But I switched to mid and long range weapons. Mostly PPCs, LLs, ERLLs, LRMs. My stats improved dramatically as did my survivability in any given match. Right now, with the maps and the map rotation plus the state of the weapons, it favors long and mid range combat. So, like you, I adjusted my builds and weapon choices to reflect a "do good on any map"

I think its because the maps themselves favor certain weapon systems. Get on a urban map, RC, FC Day/Night, Crimson, and ACs and SRMs rule. Go to an open map, Caustic, Alpine, and LRMs, GRs and ERPPCs rule. Few maps level the playing field.

So now when I'm "boating" LRMs I'm packing secondary weapon systems that can allow me to be useful if I land on Crimson and my team lives in the tunnel like the Underminer. My HBK-4J packs LRMs, TAG and 4 MLs. Is that what I want to play all the time? No. But can I have a reasonable expectation of being useful to my team and maybe winning? Yes. But on the next map, say Caustic, I've got the long reach of the LRMs.

I'm finding balanced mechs work better than powergamer boats.

[Apnu]

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

Conclusion

So that pretty much sums up my experience with the tournament. And though I had some fun and I was glad that I took the time to record all my matches, it was overall a huge time investment and frustrating experience. Something that I hope can be improved upon in future tournaments. Unfortunately, this will be my last attempt at one of these tournaments. So good games to everyone who participated and congratulations to all the winners.

This pretty much sums up the game in general. I know people who are bored. They've played and mastered every mech, bought every module and have a massed over 100k in GXP that's unspent and have many millions of c-bills an not much to spend it on. They're on every day, for 3, 4, 5 hours a day. That's crazy to me! I'm lucky if I can muster 4 total hours in a week to actually play the game. A good hour of that time is tinkering around in the mechlab tuning my build. I just can't commit that kind of time to this game. I have a life, a job, a family, RL friends.

All of this suggests that PGI weights the "competitive" players as more valuable than the rest of us in the underhive.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

All it suggests is PGI weights money in the short term, over the long term earning and viability of the game.

The lack of maps proves this.

[Haji1096]

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

Believe it or not, my number 1 best game, was a lose. Unfortunately, it was a match I didn't stream but you can see it recorded in my spreadsheet. It was an 8 kill, 1 assist, 1323 damage match that I lost in a 2xPPC 3xSSRM2 Griffin-1N.

I believe you because I was on the enemy team in a Battlemaster. You lost that match because you ran out of time. Had it gone on, it is likely that you would killed the last four of us. I was critical RT and CT with only medium pulse lasers left, the two kit foxes were also critical CT. The last mech was Dire Wolf who wasn't fast enough to catch you.

I was unable to articulate to my team mates on how to position themselves to force you into the Dire Wolf. That part of the game was frustrating, but overall it was one of the most entertaining matches I played that weekend.

Edited by Haji1096, 21 August 2014 - 04:51 PM.