I apologize for the length of this post. I do not post on the forums often, if really ever, because usually someone has said what I want to say in the way I want to say it. While I realize that many of these points will have been made before, and I’ve tried to minimize explanation of my views where that is true, these tournaments are an enormous source of frustration for me lately. While the particular issues I have with the way they operate may be something in common with others, I feel as though my
reasons for having these issues differs.
Let me tell a brief tale. The first leader board tournament in which I participated was Medium vs. the World. Being that I suck at mediums and had few, I played heavies. I placed 26
th in heavies. I was ecstatic. Had I had more time, I might have been able to get a few more key matches to make the top 15. This weekend I find myself beyond frustrated with the tournament. I have played 33 qualifying matches and am just above 200. My skill is the same as it used to be, if not better, and yet I cannot secure a reasonable place in the rankings.
I do not say that because I cannot accept that there are those who are more skilled than me. That I can accept without qualm, knowing that I played my best and that there were others who were far, far better. What bothers me is that this tournament has
nothing to do with skill anymore.
One player was entering matches and talking in general about how he doesn’t want to kill anyone. He lamented when he did. I wonder why that is.
I know of people who drop in groups of 2-3 hoping to catch small spots in large, organized groups. They do this knowing that the odds of winning will be greater, as will their ability to sneak in and tap as many mechs as possible for assists.
I know of people who have literally spent this entire weekend doing
nothing but playing MWO. Some of them have well over the 100 qualifying matches that would earn their max c-bill rewards.
Attempts by the few to cheat the system do not necessarily mean the system must be dismantled as broken and rebuilt. Usually. When all of the people I speak of above are in the top 15 of the leader boards, it should send a very, very clear message. I doubt that many of the other top players don't somehow fit into those categories. The tournaments now are won only by gaming the system, not by playing as intended.
The simple fact is that players who can spend their entire weekend spamming matches not only get the c-bill rewards, but by virtue of playing more matches have a better chance of hitting the top 15. They are not punished, except in the case of a tie, for just spamming matches. I work nights on weekends, I do not have that luxury. Should I--and the countless others who no doubt have similar work situations--be stripped of a fair chance at the MC prizes, to say nothing of the full c-bill rewards, simply for not having jobs that are conducive to playing MWO all weekend?
That’s to say nothing of the scoring. Simply put, most matches I’ve played involve everyone tapping as many mechs as possible and then nobody pushing. Rather than promote teamwork, the scoring formula has promoted cowardice. In the old style scoring, being alive at the end of a match mattered. Now, one need only score hits on as many mechs as possible, break down as much damage as he can before he dies, and then hope to win. Doing so could easily reward the player 270 points for a match while having, essentially, contributed
nothing to the team.
Rather than spend more time and words discussing weaknesses, I propose the following ideas on ways to make the tournaments more even.
1) Run fewer leader board tournaments for longer. Do a 5 day tournament once a month. Or a one week tournament every six weeks. That way people who aren’t able to play as much on weekends can do so other times.
2) Go back to the old scoring formula, or some variation thereof. I do not know that counting losses again would be useful, but it might help. I have played some very, very strong matches (6 kills, 4 assists, 1000 damage in one case) that ended up a loss which came down to me and one other. Rewarding for staying alive prevents kamikaze. Rather than reward heavily for kills, reward evenly for kills and assists. Perhaps even go back to spotting assists counting. Who ranks highest shouldn’t just be who can hit the most mechs, it should be who contributes the most to his team.
Who plays the best.
3) Find a way to reduce match-spamming. Regardless of the duration of a tournament, penalize people for playing tons of matches and hoping that a few in there bring them to the top. As-is, a tie would be decided by this, but it has no influence otherwise. Someone who ranks 2
rd by playing a mere 20 matches total would be somehow considered worse than someone who places 1
st by playing many, many matches. That isn’t a show of skill, that’s a show of free time.
As a suggestion, why not allow up to 100 matches
total (not just those that qualify, in the case that only wins count toward your score) before beginning to penalize players by reduced points. As an example, I play 100 matches and have a total score of 2500. I play my 101
st match and score 260 points, but because its over 100 I lose, say, 10 points. Now it’s a 250 point match. My ranking wouldn't improve. Scale the penalty at various tiers. Someone who plays 200 matches loses 20 points per match for matches 200-299. You lose 30 points per match for 300-399. And so on. Perhaps install a hard cap at, say, 500 matches total.
The idea of doing this, versus just cutting off at 100, is to allow people to still have exceptional matches that can positively impact points. If my overall score is 2500 and in my 201
st game I score 310 points, I still get 290 to my total score. Thus, my ranking improves. But also, it doesn’t improve as much as if I had played fewer. This way, people can still make it to the top by playing lots of games, but they will hit an upper limit. It rewards
skill, not spamming.
Hell, worst case scenario, only count the first 100 matches for leader boards and the rest only count for c-bills. Institute a hard limit. Again, not just the matches that qualify, but total matches. I have 2200 points after 33 matches. 100 matches is plenty to make sure you got a representative sample of your best matches. I am willing to bet many of the people in the top 15 wouldn't appear in the next tournament if this were instituted. (If any of you out there are going to rage on me about how you totally played less than 100 total matches and are #1, great, then you should have NO PROBLEM with a hard limit like this. Let them institute it and then
prove me wrong.)
4) Do not allow group queues to count in leader board challenges. I’m sure one could make great arguments both ways on this, but I think it is unfair to those who cannot group with others to play. Since this is ranked, the playing field should be totally level. People who can group have an advantage.
These are just a few suggestions. There are, no doubt, problems with them. Nonetheless, I do not believe in pointing out flaws without at least suggesting a fix. There is something wrong here, and while we may not all agree
how wrong or
what is wrong, I think we can at least agree that it is not as it should be.
I will end by saying that there are times, in the buildup to CW, that I get bored with this game. Leader board challenges like this weekend's used to excite me. They gave me a reason to play. They give me a reason, both leading up to them and during them, to push myself to play the best I possibly can. And not just as a giant metallic Rambo, hoping to gun down the entire enemy team in a blaze of glory, but by participating actively in that team to push us, and myself, to success.
At least, that's what they used to be. Now they're about as fair as an election would have been in the USSR. Come to think of it, the military strategy required to do well in these tournaments is about the same as the USSR, as well.
Edited by akakiwu490, 16 November 2014 - 04:34 AM.
14
)
