13 replies to this topic

[Big Tin Man]

In an attempt to keep it constructive...

My overall feeling is that this was a good idea, but it needs refinement to help a couple sticking points.

1. Disconnect counter. Yes, it's bugged on PGI's end, but it was a very good idea to fight bad player behavior. I would like to see this exist in other events as well as a negative to your score total. I know there are other ways players will misbehave, but keep reading.

2. CW scoring system. The score multiplier for mechs left at the end of match needs to be addressed. Insane bias for the winning side, especially in a stomp. See also a certain Red Dog Clan's antics.

3. The RNG gods hate all of us. Yes, we have no control over the map selection, so we have a 1/9 chance of getting the map we need. To compromise, what about making a dual win condition for prizes? i.e. Tier 1 prize at all maps @ 300 points on each maps, or 3500 total points and Tier 2 prize @ 400 points on each map, or 4500 points total? This would further discourage bad behavior as EVERY map has the potential to count toward the prize, even though it is more difficult to get those super high scores. This goes double for CW, where the time investment is much higher.

4. Prizes are rock solid, and the challenge is very challenging. Seeing colors as prizes is awesome, mechs need more color. Hell, it even got me back into the CW queue for a while.

5. Not sure that the extra leaderboard prizes adds anything other than creating issues. The people at the top of the leaderboards are going to run full meta regardless, it's just adding fuel to the bad behavior. Maybe lesser prizes for the top 50 or 100?

P.S. A whole weekend without Terra Therma, Alpine Peaks, and Frozen City was quite nice.

Edited by Big Tin Man, 21 September 2015 - 08:31 AM.

[Antares102]

They should have done:
For single/group queue you need to complete 8 out of 10 maps to qualify for Tier 1/2.
For CW you need to complete 5 out of 6 maps to qualify for Tier 1/2.

[El Bandito]

The T1 prize requirement should have been much lower to appease the casuals and the newbies. Score-wise, and map count-wise.

Edited by El Bandito, 21 September 2015 - 08:47 AM.

[Escef]

Yeah, I think this event has probably been a huge learning experience for PGI. It would be nice to see them give us an AAR (After Action Report) on it with some Lessons Learned at the end.

[Big Tin Man]

Antares102, on 21 September 2015 - 08:42 AM, said:

They should have done:
For single/group queue you need to complete 8 out of 10 maps to qualify for Tier 1/2.
For CW you need to complete 5 out of 6 maps to qualify for Tier 1/2.

This would still lead to people disconnecting or going AFK on maps they don't need. It only lowers the frustration a tiny bit when you get crimson strait for the 5,000th time, but you've only played canyon twice.

El Bandito, on 21 September 2015 - 08:45 AM, said:

The T1 prize requirement should have been much lower to appease the casuals and the newbies. Score-wise, and map count-wise.

I like the idea of a big prize pack from time to time, not just lots of little tiers. It's a change of pace as we've had both styles, but I could get behind a Tier 0--3 days of active PT prize to encourage people to play for this kind of 'big reward' event. Even if they don't get there, the additional cbills and xp from PT always helps.

[Antares102]

Big Tin Man, on 21 September 2015 - 08:59 AM, said:

This would still lead to people disconnecting or going AFK on maps they don't need.

Since you get through the challange much faster, the drop out rate would be minimal.
Do a statistical calulation on how many games you have to play based on chance to get a 100% (9 out of 9) result compared to 80% (8 out of 10). You average number of games required will drop by an order of magnitude.

[crashlogic]

Big Tin Man, on 21 September 2015 - 08:29 AM, said:

I
P.S. A whole weekend without Terra Therma, Alpine Peaks, and Frozen City was quite nice.

my three favorite maps

[Revis Volek]

op...


Is Running full meta adding fuel for bad behavior?

Please elaborate, I dont get what running META has to do with BAD BEHAVIOR.


Are you saying everyone who runs meta builds also has bad behavior in game? Whats your definition of BAD BEHAVIOR?

[Mawai]

Here is some constructive feedback ...

1) The DC counter is useless since it only takes slightly longer to suicide. e.g. Rush the enemy die and hope for the map you want. Never mind the fact that it is bugged, wasn't tested before trying to use it and doesn't work anyway.

The feedback is that you can NOT design a tournament with victory conditions which require you to punish the players in order to get them to play the match. Does anyone else find something fundamentally wrong with that design philosophy? The tournament should be designed to get them to PLAY every match because they want to ... not to force them to play matches which they might find useless.

2) Use of a random element in tournament design is BAD. Random map selection means that some folks will see every map they need in 18 matches ... and someone else could spend a month waiting for the last map even though the tournament is only 6 days. That is what RANDOM MEANS. Please understand that when designing a tournament.

In this tournament, to complete both tiers in the public queue assuming that you make the match score in about 1/2 of your games would take an AVERAGE of 151 matches. It could take as little as 18 if you get the score in every match and are incredibly lucky with the maps ... or thousands of games if you are unlucky with either the maps or the scores.

This element has NOTHING to do with player skill. It has nothing to do with your ability at MWO (except in terms of getting some arbitrary match score). It has everything to do with LUCK. Please design lotteries around luck ... design tournaments around skill.

3) The formula for the match score is pretty easy to determine with enough data points. The match score is made up of at least 50% damage done. For many folks this bias in the match score will influence the choice of mechs. Light and mediums will do less damage in many cases on average (though I have seen some amazing damage at times for ACH, FS9 and even JR7 and others) which results in average match scores and thus tournament qualification values that are less for certain weight classes than others. Please try to design tournaments that allow a wider range of mech choice to be successful.

[Moomtazz]

I haven't been playing much but I am a sucker for warhorns, so I figured I'd jump into CW solo. My one and only CW match consisted of my team getting rolled. I finished with 4 kills and 1700+ damage which was only 268 points....not enough for the Tier 2 rewards. Actually did more damage than all but two of the winning team.

Obviously the point bonus for winning would push it over 300 but I didn't like my chances of lucking into the winning side enough to do any more CW drops.

[Deathpactt]

Its just ********, be lucky to complete the event.

[GernMiester]

Random map rotation in an event that you MUST get a score of xxx on each one is well just stupid.

I want another mech game to come out so I can dump MWO forever but its all the mech i got so I mech away less and less every day.

[Big Tin Man]

DarthRevis, on 21 September 2015 - 10:31 AM, said:

op...

Is Running full meta adding fuel for bad behavior?

Please elaborate, I dont get what running META has to do with BAD BEHAVIOR.

Are you saying everyone who runs meta builds also has bad behavior in game? Whats your definition of BAD BEHAVIOR?

Whoops, rereading that, I realize I wrote that very poorly. I was intending to use "meta" as a word to imply the desire to do better by using specific mech builds only.

No, meta isn't necessarily a bad thing. I do it from time to time as well, and pretty much exclusively when I run in CW. Absolutely guilty here.

Bad Behavior in this event has been a slew of instant disconnects, instant overheating suicides, leroy jenkins suicides, and afk from the start. General try-hard/underhive rage that is mostly in solo queue. Stuff that is blatantly against the ToS.

My comment was intended to mean that the top folks on the leaderboard will still likely be the players from comp scene that typically run meta and would do very well regardless of the event or even the rewards. The bad behaving try-hards/underhive who switch to meta builds, get wrecked, and then start pulling this kind of crap because they think they can lift themselves up to the top by doing this for 4 days straight are the problem as I see it.

This competition puts even the bottom of the underhive in a position, where with enough luck, time and perseverance, they can achieve a high match score against the rest of the underhive and get to the top. The try-hard crowd sees the leaderboard as a chance to prove themselves, but they do it at the expense of acting like little children. The top spots will still mostly be filled by the same typical faces from the comp crowd regardless, but it makes for a worse experience for the rest of us.

Edited by Big Tin Man, 21 September 2015 - 12:11 PM.

[MoonUnitBeta]

I wonder if PGI would be willing to look into scheduling the server to choose maps during the course of these events.

Every 15 minutes, the forced map changes to the next one. Such as:
12:00 - River City
12:15 - Forest Colony
12:30 - Caustic Valley
. . .
14:30 - River City
14:45 - Forest Colony
etc.
This way, people playing can expect the map.If they miss the map they need, they will know when they should launch again.

This could also be a little sample to show people what it would like if people were told what map they are going to drop on.
But, then again you have the meta munchers dropping in sniper builds and other builds accordingly. But maybe that might encourage some creative gameplay/battlefield problem solving for builds that aren't optimized for the map.


Alternatively,
To increase the frequency of being able to drop on the map you need, and an attempt to reduce meta builds, they can stagger maps over the same timetable, and since there's a 50/50 chance to get the map, the schedule time is increased as well. Such as:

12:00 – River City, Tourmaline Desert
12:30 – Viridian Bog, Crimson Straight
13:00 – Forest Colony, HPG Manifold
13:30 – Mining Collective, Caustic Valley
14:00 – Frozen City, Canyon Network
(repeat)
14:30 – River City, Tourmaline Desert
15:00 – Viridian Bog, Crimson Straight
... etc.

With this time table, you could easily get your challenge done within a day or two.
If PGI is able to increase their client stability, they can then implement the disconnection disqualificaiton.

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 21 September 2015 - 01:52 PM.