50 replies to this topic

[rageagainstthedyingofthelight]

Seeing as how every one got a huge kick out of where they placed in the chassis tourney, how cool would it be if there was a "30 day" leader board that showed the best players in each chassis, and where you ranked?

[Shadow Magnet]

Actually, I would even like to see such kind of statistics broken down to the chassis variants. At least for IS mechs, they make a huge difference.

[Blakkstar]

Be even cooler if it was a permanent feature of the Solaris 7 arena. Month long leaderboards over various game modes or categories (team, 1v1, King of the Hill, weight class, chassis, etc) with matches to crown Solaris Champions at the end.

[Mercules]

rageagainstthedyingofthelight, on 27 October 2014 - 07:18 AM, said:

Seeing as how every one got a huge kick out of where they placed in the chassis tourney, how cool would it be if there was a "30 day" leader board that showed the best players in each chassis, and where you ranked?

A lot of people played like absolute jerks this weekend, all for the sake of "leader board". "Oh I get more for a kill, well I'll just step in front of you at the last second and shoot them."

[rageagainstthedyingofthelight]

I attribute a lot of that to the MC reward and the solo queue only tourney

[Duke Nedo]

http://mwomercs.com/...ard-suggestion/

[Torgun]

rageagainstthedyingofthelight, on 27 October 2014 - 07:45 AM, said:

I attribute a lot of that to the MC reward and the solo queue only tourney

I seriously doubt people would go full "retart" a whole weekend for $8. It's much more about "look at me, I'm the best" (at gaming the scoring system). The leaderboards bring out the worst in players, I'd much rather never have them again.

Edited by Torgun, 27 October 2014 - 07:52 AM.

[Elizander]

I would categorize the leader boards under matches played for the casualnoobsheep like myself.

There should be the hardcore board where any number of matches count and maybe a smaller leaderboard where players have to play 50 matches or less to qualify (maybe a bit more but it does break down to 12.5 matches per weekend which is supercasual). The moment you go over 50 matches you're in the bigboy no-sleep territory. Numbers can be changed, of course.

And for crying out loud add a Guild/Unit leaderboard which takes into account top (x) solo drops from that unit and combine it with top (y) 4 man 1/1/1/1 drops to get the guild/unit score. Allows everyone to participate and doesn't require 12 people which a lot probably can't field.

Edited by Elizander, 27 October 2014 - 07:53 AM.

[KamikazeRat]

unless they change the metric, i say no, actually...HELL NO to leaderboard. this weekend, even players who i recognize as being good players to be lined up with or against, turned into raging kill-stealing jerks...

even if they change the metric, you will have people stepping over each other trying to achieve whatever the new metric awards the most...award assists, no one wants to get a kill so you have a bunch of mechs trying to do 5 points of damage to every mech. award spotting and you have 24 mechs playing laser-tag, award wins and you get dueling base-rushes on assault matches.

all the worst behavior is brought out by this leaderboard. don't get me wrong, i had some fun matches this weekend, but only when people played like they always do. Putting one up constantly? no thanks.

Edited by KamikazeRat, 27 October 2014 - 08:09 AM.

[Elizander]

KamikazeRat, on 27 October 2014 - 08:08 AM, said:

unless they change the metric, i say no, actually...HELL NO to leaderboard.

I agree though that the current event metrics are lacking and need to be more in like with role warfare.

Maybe a separate ranking for new cadets.

Edited by Elizander, 27 October 2014 - 08:25 AM.

[KamikazeRat]

Elizander, on 27 October 2014 - 08:24 AM, said:

I agree though that the current event metrics are lacking and need to be more in like with role warfare.

Maybe a separate ranking for new cadets.

no, separate rankings won't help...the metric needs to be a natural extension of how you should play the game...not how you game the system. which is why i say win/loss needs to be the primary metric if anything.

people play for 3 reasons, 1. to win, 2. to grind Cbills/XP, 3. to have fun

you can't put a metric to #3, so you have to do #1, or #2 or some mix of the two. otherwise the phsycology of a leaderboard will change their behavior to suit what the new metric rewards. if you somehow reward standing there doing nothing, people will do that to get a sticky-star they can put in their forum signature.

Edited by KamikazeRat, 27 October 2014 - 08:35 AM.

[Eddrick]

I'm a little shocked how graceful the people near the top have been. I haven't seen anyone try and use their ranking as a means to invalidate someone elses post/comment.

For that reason. I say, "why not?" People around here don't seem to take the stats of others very seriously, anyway.

[Kavoh]

KamikazeRat, on 27 October 2014 - 08:34 AM, said:

no, separate rankings won't help...the metric needs to be a natural extension of how you should play the game...not how you game the system. which is why i say win/loss needs to be the primary metric if anything.

people play for 3 reasons, 1. to win, 2. to grind Cbills/XP, 3. to have fun

you can't put a metric to #3, so you have to do #1, or #2 or some mix of the two. otherwise the phsycology of a leaderboard will change their behavior to suit what the new metric rewards. if you somehow reward standing there doing nothing, people will do that to get a sticky-star they can put in their forum signature.

Pretty much this ^

The meta will switch from winning/teamwork to being point vultures (like tourney weekends) with no looking back the moment a leaderboard was put in. This was argued to the death in the "show ELO" threads that popped up weeks ago. Even if it was chassis based, each chassis would fall even farther into one specific "meta-build" that would be dominant for farming ladder position and dilute the game even more. These tournaments are good enough.

Oh and before "LoL/CoD/X does it! It works!" pops up again, they are completely different games and styles.

Eddrick, on 27 October 2014 - 08:39 AM, said:

I'm a little shocked how graceful the people near the top have been. I haven't seen anyone try and use their ranking as a means to invalidate someone elses post/comment.

For that reason. I say, "why not?" People around here don't seem to take the stats of others very seriously, anyway.

These are opt in tourneys where people become absolute kill vultures. It's hard to use it to push weight around when half the people opt in to one but not the other. A static leaderboard like people are asking for is something completely different. If you can "hold" your position for more than 3 days (notice the same peolpe almost never maintain the same positions over multiple tourneys?) than you will see exactly what you say people don't seem to do.

Edited by Kavoh, 27 October 2014 - 08:46 AM.

[Jman5]

The problem is not the leaderboard or the MC. The problem is that the formula they use demands that you play selfishly. Assists can get you to about an 1800 score, but they weighted kills to be twice as valuable. So you need to aggressively claim kills no matter the cost.

I'm really hoping that PGI diminishes the role of kill-shot to be on par with assists and instead focus on rewarding the guy who gets the "most damage kill" because it doesn't require last second kill shot.

[AntiCitizenJuan]

As long as they change how scoring is, because the Tourny scoring is ********

[DaZur]

Mercules, on 27 October 2014 - 07:40 AM, said:

A lot of people played like absolute jerks this weekend, all for the sake of "leader board". "Oh I get more for a kill, well I'll just step in front of you at the last second and shoot them."

If I received a mild electrical shock for every teammate I raked my lasers across while they hopped in front of me to snarf a kill this weekend... I'd be sitting here a drooling vegetable...



Don't...even... I'm not drooling.

[RussianWolf]

It need to be in but in a completely different format.

1)open ended. Meaning no set time frame. (this prevents the "oh, I gotta do this to get on before the end", It just becomes another part of the game).
2) Needs to have a 24hr reset. (only your matches from the last 24 hours count for the leaderboard)
3) It needs to be an average of ALL matches, not your 10 best. Have a bad match, it should hurt you.
4)no rewards, just bragging rights.

[Mercules]

RussianWolf, on 27 October 2014 - 09:41 AM, said:

4)no rewards, just bragging rights.

Which will be enough for some people to be total jerks.

Allow me to explain behaviour I saw this weekend. I stripped an Atlas of weapons. I left it a stick but it's CT was untouched. Basically I blew off it's weapons and moved on. However, multiple mechs on my side, most of them severely damaged chased the poor Atlas around trying to finish it. There were like 4 of them, including the Atlas left and like 5 of us. Guess what happened....

So let's allow multiple mecs who have weapons finish us off while we try to burn through the heaviest CT in the game on a mech that is now no threat.... Brilliant!


Yes, I've seen such behavior on non-tournament days... but typically only a player or two, not everyone but me.

[Bhael Fire]

I support the idea of a persistent leader board with each chassis. I am bummed out that I didn't have time to participate as much as I'd like to have this weekend. It would be nice if this same leader board was just always active.

[Bishop Steiner]

NO.

Too much sausage and eppen already thanks.