154 replies to this topic

[Captain Stiffy]

Russ please positively explain why you would make survival a requirement for the tournament. I am trying to find some positive justification for it and I can't.

[Brody319]

Because the Victor is a tier 1 mech, and we can't have those filthy casual peasants earning such a glorious mech!

[mogs01gt]

Captain Stiffy, on 24 November 2014 - 09:56 AM, said:

Russ please positively explain why you would make survival a requirement for the tournament. I am trying to find some positive justification for it and I can't.

To teach players how to play to win, to play for their teammates and not play for cbills. It's pretty obvious.

[CDLord HHGD]

mogs01gt, on 24 November 2014 - 09:59 AM, said:

To teach players how to play to win, to play for their teammates and not play for cbills. It's pretty obvious.

This ^.

Brody319, on 24 November 2014 - 09:58 AM, said:

Because the Victor is a tier 1 mech, and we can't have those filthy casual peasants earning such a glorious mech!

But this is funnier.

[AlphaToaster]

I think it was because as we get different challenges, PGI is trying to offer a variety of different win conditions for different styles of play.

The last tournament rewarded points even on death, so it makes sense for this one to have survival be a requirement.

A player could barrel into the other team and tag 7 players before dying, and still score a qualifying point.

Almost the exact opposite with the victor challenge.

[Farix]

mogs01gt, on 24 November 2014 - 09:59 AM, said:

To teach players how to play to win, to play for their teammates and not play for cbills. It's pretty obvious.

Then the "kill one mech" should have been removed as a condition. I got lots of assists, did lots of damage, AND survived plenty of match, but rarely got a kill in those match. The only way I could get a kill was to be hyper aggressive, and we know that generally leads you to being dead most of the time. However, based on the "rules" contributing in those matches where I survived, did lots of damage, and won, this somehow makes me a terrible player because I couldn't get a kill.

[mogs01gt]

Farix, on 24 November 2014 - 10:04 AM, said:

Then the "kill one mech" should have been removed as a condition. I got lots of assists, did lots of damage, AND survived plenty of match, but rarely got a kill in those match. The only way I could get a kill was to be hyper aggressive, and we know that generally leads you to being dead most of the time. However, based on the "rules" contributing in those matches where I survived, did lots of damage, and won, this somehow makes me a terrible player because I couldn't get a kill.

That was the point. You had to make a decision, do I go in for the kill and risk getting killed or do I sit back and hope to get a lucky red CT kill. I myself played support mechs because assists and kills are easy, getting a team win and surviving is hard.

Im starting to see that most forum members/players missed the entire point of the challenge!

Edited by mogs01gt, 24 November 2014 - 10:08 AM.

[Ph30nix]

over all i didnt care about the conditions but i will say was frustrating having games where i did extremely well and was playing in a way that benefited my team, we win and i didn't get credit because either i died or i didn't get the killing shot on anyone.

like i said overall it wasn't a huge deal but it did cause a few cussing fits and GTA online finally won out and i said screw it lol.

Will say a murder spree helps you forget about bad matches pretty well lol.

[Dont Brawl With This Atlas]

mmm i sold the victor as soon as i got it for much needed c bills

[Farix]

mogs01gt, on 24 November 2014 - 10:07 AM, said:

That was the point. You had to make a decision, do I go in for the kill and risk getting killed or do I sit back and hope to get a lucky red CT kill. I myself played support mechs because assists and kills are easy, getting a team win and surviving is hard.

Im starting to see that most forum members/players missed the entire point of the challenge!

Oh, so repeatedly having kills stolen out from under me makes ME the bad player. STFU.

[Elizander]

Farix, on 24 November 2014 - 10:04 AM, said:

Then the "kill one mech" should have been removed as a condition. I got lots of assists, did lots of damage, AND survived plenty of match, but rarely got a kill in those match. The only way I could get a kill was to be hyper aggressive, and we know that generally leads you to being dead most of the time. However, based on the "rules" contributing in those matches where I survived, did lots of damage, and won, this somehow makes me a terrible player because I couldn't get a kill.

Most of the time I did not worry about my kill point until after the first 6-7 enemy mechs have died. If I got it before that, good, but I didn't stress about it until we were about to close out the round. This let me deal damage, get assists and conserve my armor for when there are less enemy mechs (meaning less incoming damage due to FF). It was pretty easy to rush in and go ham on one mech to get kill (with an alpha of 30-35 damage only) before backing off. Just had to make sure I was in a position to go in on the offensive after the halfway mark.

Getting a kill was never a problem. My problem was mostly figuring out how to contribute enough to get my team to win without dying. If I don't contribute enough (especially in matches where MM puts more lower ELO players on my team)) we lose, if I get too aggressive I die. It was hard to balance especially without knowing if the people I'm playing with are good or bad (you will sometimes get players who cannot hit the broad side of a powered down Awesome or players who rush out into the open to embrace the LRM storm with open arms).

[Ph30nix]

mogs01gt, on 24 November 2014 - 10:07 AM, said:

That was the point. You had to make a decision, do I go in for the kill and risk getting killed or do I sit back and hope to get a lucky red CT kill. I myself played support mechs because assists and kills are easy, getting a team win and surviving is hard.

Im starting to see that most forum members/players missed the entire point of the challenge!

the over all point was to encourage team work and sticking together, but in the end any well balanced match will have ALOT of people dying, So if people were having good matches then in the end MAYBE 2-4 people would actually have a qualifying match.

the tourney did actually end up hurting people who played their roles and worked with their team (brawlers the worst). It wasnt horrible but i hope they never use these requirements again.

I would like to see them finally use that nice in game end of round Score for the challenges/tourneys since it seems to be pretty good at giving good scores to those who play well/play their role and not scoring well those people who just try to abuse things (still not perfect but better then some of the point models they use)

[mogs01gt]

Farix, on 24 November 2014 - 10:12 AM, said:

Oh, so repeatedly having kills stolen out from under me makes ME the bad player. STFU.

Pretty much. If you cant secure a kill, its the person who couldnt aim fault. I had zero issues getting kills in my KTO or CDA. Its called patience. Learn some...


Nice language.....

Ph30nix, on 24 November 2014 - 10:14 AM, said:

the over all point was to encourage team work and sticking together, but in the end any well balanced match will have ALOT of people dying, So if people were having good matches then in the end MAYBE 2-4 people would actually have a qualifying match.

Correct,,,that is why it was called a challenge..It was time to step up and play better.

Edited by mogs01gt, 24 November 2014 - 10:19 AM.

[Mystere]

Here is some food for thought that applies quite well:

"I want you to remember that no ******* ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb ******* die for his country." - General George S. Patton, Jr.

[AlphaToaster]

Mystere, on 24 November 2014 - 10:21 AM, said:

Here is some food for thought that applies quite well:

"I want you to remember that no ******* ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb ******* die for his country." - General George S. Patton, Jr.

What about that guy from Independence Day? He flew his plane up into the enemy space ship and blew it up. His death directly contributed to winning the war.

In the military, there's a lot of conditioning that goes into preparing soldiers to follows orders that will lead to their deaths. And they are honored for it after that sacrifice is made.

WWII would have gone a lot different if everyone on the beach in Normandy was trying to get a Victor.

Edited by AlphaToaster, 24 November 2014 - 10:28 AM.

[Commodore Perspicuous]

MWO has had enough freebie "challenges" where just playing normally over the weekend will allow the average player to easily meet the requirements. It's nice when a challenge is actually challenging enough to make you change your style of play.

[Sprouticus]

Elizander, on 24 November 2014 - 10:13 AM, said:

Most of the time I did not worry about my kill point until after the first 6-7 enemy mechs have died. If I got it before that, good, but I didn't stress about it until we were about to close out the round. This let me deal damage, get assists and conserve my armor for when there are less enemy mechs (meaning less incoming damage due to FF). It was pretty easy to rush in and go ham on one mech to get kill (with an alpha of 30-35 damage only) before backing off. Just had to make sure I was in a position to go in on the offensive after the halfway mark.

Getting a kill was never a problem. My problem was mostly figuring out how to contribute enough to get my team to win without dying. If I don't contribute enough (especially in matches where MM puts more lower ELO players on my team)) we lose, if I get too aggressive I die. It was hard to balance especially without knowing if the people I'm playing with are good or bad (you will sometimes get players who cannot hit the broad side of a powered down Awesome or players who rush out into the open to embrace the LRM storm with open arms).

^ This

Gaming the challenge boiled down too either getting kills early with LRM's or getting kills late in the mop up. If you were not gaming the challenge....well I dont know what to tell you. Every single challenge/competition has rules that people can use to their advantage. It is the nature of such events. You can choose not to 'play the game' as it were, but you are leaving yourself at a disadvantage. Brawlers got LOTS of kills this weekend, but only if they were patient.



The real question at hand is for any event.....does gaming the challenge ENCOURAGE team play (and fun), or DISCOURAGE it (and thus reduce fun).


this one discouraged it a little (kill stealing, some passive play), but I really feel like it encouraged more than it discouraged. Rash overly aggressive play was discouraged. Playing SMART (not timid) was encouraged. Staying alive was encouraged. Winning was encouraged. I honestly thought the entire weekend would be people peeking around corners and brawling would be highly discouraged. That really wasn't the case. At least no for me.

[Mystere]

AlphaToaster, on 24 November 2014 - 10:25 AM, said:

What about that guy from Independence Day? He flew his plane up into the enemy space ship and blew it up. His death directly contributed to winning the war.

Given a choice between a work of fiction and a real legendary general, I'd tend to believe the latter.

AlphaToaster, on 24 November 2014 - 10:25 AM, said:

In the military, there's a lot of conditioning that goes into preparing soldiers to follows orders that will lead to their deaths. And they are honored for it after that sacrifice is made.

WWII would have gone a lot different if everyone on the beach in Normandy was trying to get a Victor.

They were rightfully honored for their sacrifice. But that is a different matter altogether.

So tell me then, whose real life death directly and immediately ended a war (for their side)?

[Captain Stiffy]

I admit that it's fair to say lore-wise that you should want to live but not only is this not the normal meta of the game it's not even remotely necessary as there is normally no bonus for it. These tournaments that completely reconfigure the game every weekend are a huge pain in the ass and are not fun.

[Bishop Steiner]

with no rnr, rewards, or consequences, survival is secondary