350 replies to this topic

[Jody Von Jedi]

Saobh, on 29 October 2014 - 10:22 AM, said:

Well we could kind of guess it by posting our lowest score chassis. Here are mine :
- Firestarter : 402 (106 points)
- Jenner : 451 (86 points)
- Shadowhawk : 477 (87 points)
- Stalker : 403 (131 points)

not a low enough score to get an idea of the number of people participating but was surprised of this one :
- Stormcrow : 773 (632 points)

So it seems some chassis got a lot more love then others indeed.

I only played 2 chassis:

QKD - 36 (1381 points)
TBT - 15 (1832 points)

Jody

[Deathlike]

Winners should have gotten their MC rewards if you hadn't checked...

[Gorgo7]

Grats to the winners!

[ShinobiHunter]

Aliisa White, on 28 October 2014 - 02:07 PM, said:

dragon does not need a buff.
just optimized quirks.
whole lot of fantastic battles and carried almost all of them.
because my TEAM played well. gave me the chance to play the dragon at its best role.
it truly cant save bad teams. not its job. but thats not the mechs fault.
assaults took damage when it was needed, gave us flankers/harrassers the chance to hit the attackers hard where it hurts them but sprintet between everything to take some shots and give the assaults some time to fall back.
should have done a video from last epic battle... almost perfection.

I think a lot of "bad" mechs fall under this description. They aren't meta and they can't carry a game, but if you play them to their strengths and have a decent team they can be awesome.

[Project_Mercy]

ShinobiHunter, on 29 October 2014 - 02:17 PM, said:

I think a lot of "bad" mechs fall under this description. They aren't meta and they can't carry a game, but if you play them to their strengths and have a decent team they can be awesome.

Good players can make crappy mechs perform well. But if you put those same players in really good mechs, they'd be doing a lot better. That's why they're good players.

That isn't to say it validates that mech though that someone can do well in it. This style of tournament is especially frought with issues in comparison, because the whole tournament is based on outliers. It's about being in a position that your team is bad enough that you can do well in it and they don't poach from you, but that they're good enough to not hold you back while you still win the match; and the other team is bad enough to allow that.

This is why at the end of similar systems in sports you have a final elimination step. Otherwise, just because Texas A&M beat up some Division 5 football team 119-3 doesn't mean they're the best division 1 team that year.

Edit: I'm not complaining that the weekend was a failure or anything, so dont' take this as a negative. I'm glad PGI is taking the time to provide these opportunities, even if they aren't for everyone. I just think using the results make any decisions on something is frought with pitfalls.

Edited by Wraeththix Constantine, 29 October 2014 - 02:43 PM.

[ShinobiHunter]

Wraeththix Constantine, on 29 October 2014 - 02:40 PM, said:

Good players can make crappy mechs perform well. But if you put those same players in really good mechs, they'd be doing a lot better. That's why they're good players.

That isn't to say it validates that mech though that someone can do well in it. This style of tournament is especially frought with issues in comparison, because the whole tournament is based on outliers. It's about being in a position that your team is bad enough that you can do well in it and they don't poach from you, but that they're good enough to not hold you back while you still win the match; and the other team is bad enough to allow that.

This is why at the end of similar systems in sports you have a final elimination step. Otherwise, just because Texas A&M beat up some Division 5 football team 119-3 doesn't mean they're the best division 1 team that year.

Edit: I'm not complaining that the weekend was a failure or anything, so dont' take this as a negative. I'm glad PGI is taking the time to provide these opportunities, even if they aren't for everyone. I just think using the results make any decisions on something is frought with pitfalls.

I agree about the tournament. I honestly was more interested in the lower scorers in each category. I know there are a few players that are fantastic in lousy mechs and will put up a high score, but there are few that can. So the top score is meaningless to balance.

My point was just that a lot of mechs get written off as bad, because they don't do what people want them to. They can shine in the right conditions though.

[kosmos1214]

well my kintaro was 143 at 147 points and my highlander was 211 at 94 points

[NocturnalBeast]

It would have been better if PGI had found a way to make arty and air strikes not count towards your score.

[Arctur]

https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing

Some free stats..

[Tarogato]

Ed Steele, on 29 October 2014 - 04:30 PM, said:

It would have been better if PGI had found a way to make arty and air strikes not count towards your score.

I agree. I know some people refuse to use them and I definitely feel pushed/forced to use them in order to be competitive in Score Farming Online. If you're not bringing one, you're gimping yourself, and that's a slight problem...

BUT... I see where PGI is going with this. Think of how many C-Bills (and maybe MC) are dropped on tournament weekends when everybody is popping their strikes every game. It's kinda good for them, actually.