67 replies to this topic

[Sir Crazy]

I could not agree more with Odwalla.

While everyone agrees that the current point system is toxic to team play, very few people are willing to come up with viable solutions. I really like this suggestion posted earlier:

Zfailboat, on 20 August 2014 - 08:52 PM, said:

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.

I would also suggest that winning a match multiplies the total score by 2. That way getting 4 kills on a winning match would be equal to getting 8 kills on a losing match. The downside to this though is that people may leave a match early if they feel they are going to lose.

If we can come up with a viable scoring system maybe PGI will use it.

[Clit Beastwood]

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.

I think the point is to force people to use more well rounded builds (well rounded for MWO, mind you). Can you imagine how loadouts would shift if people only elected to play cold maps? It would even further exacerbate the fld/ttk issues. I see enough "walking guns" in drops, dead, whining about the lack of team support. I don't want PGI to do anything to encourage *more* of it. I'd support map veto'ing in "arcade" mode, where there are no cbill or XP earnings, but new guys can go there to learn how heat management works. At the same time, I'd want a "real" or "hardcore" mode - there's no veto (and no 3pv!). Not that I see many using 3pv, but its a matter of principle at this point

[hargneux]

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.

You're too nice. I would have rewarded the first killsteal with a few salvos to the legs.

[Reno Blade]

Very nice post. Thank you!

As the mechbay challenge was at the same time, I just did a few games in my Raven 2ERLL and got some good scores for the games, but I had not even 10 games in one class and I don't like to play more than 3h per day to grind stuff.
I never liked these weekends as it is no fun to play solo when you can meet people who are not doing the same.
Where you could get stomped by premades before, you "only" get stomped by clan mechs now (for the Marik challenge).

[Mirkk Defwode]

I actually agree with you that the emphasis on kills is just incorrect for this game. I think using a general score system akin to what Red Orchestra 2 does demonstrating your level of participation would be more beneficial to having players naturally look to work as a team.

But that'd also need tweaks to how scoring is done. Not to mention Kills+Assists should be tracked over just kills or assists.

[Budor]

Aresye' said:

(sometimes getting in between me and them)

Suddenly collateral damage, those raven legs are known for their oversized hitboxes.

[Void Angel]

Very good analysis. I wholeheartedly agree about the passivity generated by LRMs - that happens outside of tournaments too, of course. The cause seems to me to be that punishments (damage, etc.) at all ranges are instantaneous, but the rewards for closing to short range are deferred. With short-range combat being more team-dependent, this sets up a vicious cycle that is literally conditioning people to duck and hide whenever any long-range fire comes in. Combine the Tournament with the fact that often the LRM boat is sitting in the back playing Whack-a-Square over two ridgelines (so you can't shoot him back) brings it out and makes things ugly.

I think the only way to tone down the madness is to make a real difference in the effectiveness of short-range and long-range weapon systems within their intended ranges. Right now it's a game of rock-paper-shotgun, with longrange sniper weapons being clearly more useful overall.

PS: a map veto option raises the spectre of players building only for a given map type - say, cold maps - and refusing to drop into hot ones. This makes overall balance more tricky, because of the difference in weapon performance - we're already balancing heat v. range v. punch damage v. damage per second v. tonnage v. space v. weight v. projectile speed/beam duration. Adding "v. map" in there might well be more trouble than it's worth. It might not, either, but it isn't a trivial solution that's simple to effectively implement - regardless of how many match/map format games in the last 15 years have allegedly had it. =)

Budor, on 21 August 2014 - 04:04 PM, said:

Suddenly collateral damage, those raven legs are known for their oversized hitboxes.

Which defeats the purpose of that round of tournament play. The Raven probably knows this, and has probably been shot by teammates already - but is still playing VultureSwooper Online.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

I've long promoted a few specific changes:

1 - Tournament-only queue. It stops the tournament from screwing over the non-participating players, and I think it'd make the actual tournament results far more interesting.

The existence of a true solo queue is a minor step in this direction, given that tourney play is solo-only, but it still isn't sufficient, especially since most new players will be dropping alone in their Trial mechs, which are huge targets in a tourney environment.

2 - Match Score or some other, less kill-focused point system. I actually think that base XP (before counting mech, premium, first win, etc. bonuses) would make for a decent indicator. Score by the average XP over the first 25 matches during the tournament.

3 - More interesting prizes. MC is a great prize, I'm not denying it, but having a bit more personalization to the prize support would be nice. Let's say there's a scaling MC award for the top 10 in a given category. What if the top three in each category also got a little something extra on top, like a pattern, or a premium color, or a cockpit item? Maybe even throw in a small bonus to everyone who passes some minimum score threshold (say, 2000 points using the current system, as an example).