4
Pjwned, on 19 January 2015 - 05:18 AM, said:
As an addendum to the thread...
I ended up grinding out the 30 points for the challenge (which I surprised myself by doing) and I will admit it was actually not nearly as bad as the Victor challenge due to not needing to survive in addition to winning and getting a kill + assist. It took me just under 50 games over several hours, and while I would prefer that future tournaments not require as many points for the grand prize, I'm not going to lie and say it was such a gigantic crappy hassle because it really wasn't; I do wonder if choosing to do it at the last minute actually helped the overall match quality though because it did seem like other people were having a crappy time after playing for quite a while.
I still don't like the killing blow requirement because it encourages crappy player behavior (in my opinion) more than it should and I still think there are other more sensible challenge criteria to use, but...
If you were one of the people who said "it's not going to be nearly as bad as the Victor challenge" here's your chance to say "I told you so" because, in my experience at least, it really was not as bad despite me thinking it would be, which is why I kept on playing I guess.
I ended up grinding out the 30 points for the challenge (which I surprised myself by doing) and I will admit it was actually not nearly as bad as the Victor challenge due to not needing to survive in addition to winning and getting a kill + assist. It took me just under 50 games over several hours, and while I would prefer that future tournaments not require as many points for the grand prize, I'm not going to lie and say it was such a gigantic crappy hassle because it really wasn't; I do wonder if choosing to do it at the last minute actually helped the overall match quality though because it did seem like other people were having a crappy time after playing for quite a while.
I still don't like the killing blow requirement because it encourages crappy player behavior (in my opinion) more than it should and I still think there are other more sensible challenge criteria to use, but...
If you were one of the people who said "it's not going to be nearly as bad as the Victor challenge" here's your chance to say "I told you so" because, in my experience at least, it really was not as bad despite me thinking it would be, which is why I kept on playing I guess.
https://mwomercs.com/tournaments
Stupid challenge criteria that ruins matches said:
In order to score 1 point you must meet all three of the following criteria in a match:Get 1 or more Kill, get 1 or more Assist, and Win the match via either the Primary or Secondary objectives.
Requiring a kill in a match to get a tournament point always leads to absolutely ATROCIOUS match quality, be it sniping kills to the detriment of the rest of the team (usually by abandoning a position to get a killing shot on a lone enemy mech 700m away) or killing teammates to have a higher chance of securing an enemy kill or not targeting the enemy on radar or other such nonsense.
I'm also going to link my previous thread about the Victor challenge where I say basically the same thing I'm saying here, and I would encourage you to read this post if you check out that thread and as a bonus you can read this conversation in another thread about the same issue.
Tournament page said:
You may recall the "To The Victors..." event we ran back in November. The survival criteria made it one of our most challenging events yet, and there was a clear shift in tactics over that weekend as a response.
It's time for another hard-fought challenge. You won't need to survive the match to get a point in this one, but victory is still a key component.
It's time for another hard-fought challenge. You won't need to survive the match to get a point in this one, but victory is still a key component.
The survival criteria was actually fine because it gave people more of a reason to go for the primary objective, the problem was (and still is) that requiring a killing blow took away any focus on those objectives (and then some) due to the limited nature of killing blows meaning you need to tunnel vision a kill to the exclusion of all else if you want a tournament point, which you need 30 of this time rather than just 20 to finish it.
It really says something (negative) when even if you completely stomp the enemy team horribly (say 12-0 or 12-1 or whatever) you still won't get credit for the challenge unless you land a killing blow, which you frequently just need good luck for considering how often mechs get focus fired in this game, and if 1 person gets more than 1 kill then that just screwed a teammate out of getting a tournament point, or if some jackass on the enemy team deliberately overheats or goes out of bounds then there's another person that got screwed. Build variety also becomes a problem because if you can't deal high amounts of damage in quick bursts then you're not very likely to get a killing blow unless you solo a lone mech way off in the distance.
If there absolutely must be a combat focused requirement then make an alternative goal of something like 5, 6, or 7 assists in a match and maybe some minimum amount of damage dealt or something, because otherwise requiring a kill for credit is what consistently ruins matches. Another option would be to just add the "kill most damage dealt" reward as an alternative for tournament credit so that it would still largely retain the theme of the challenge while making matches much less of a killstealing fuckfest.
Edited by Pjwned, 19 January 2015 - 05:22 AM.
