MechWarrior: Living Legends

Community Activities => MWLL Battlegrounds: Server discussions => Topic started by: SquareSphere on June 13, 2011, 10:04:00 PM

Title: Survey for LMS Tournement Intrest
Post by: SquareSphere on June 13, 2011, 10:04:00 PM
So I've been playing around with the idea of the 12thVR hosting a Solaris style Tournament in the following format.

1 or 2 group of 16 (all "sponsored" pilots, limit 2 or 3 player per "stable/unit" depending on turn out)  Top 4-6 players (depends on turnout) to move on to the Champions Round

 +

1 or 2 groups of 16 for all unaffiliated pilots [Grand Melee], top 8-10 players move on to the Champions Round.

Alternatively,  it would be the top 8 from each group bracket.

Haven't thought about a cbill limit but i'm thinking 85-90k per player

The reason the sponsored bracket is harder is the simple fact that "Stablemates" will naturally help each other and could be using Voice com to coordinate.  The harder qualification into the next round is a means to try and level the playing field for the champions round.  Now this may not be needed and we'd go with equal rounds qualifying berths (i mean unaffiliated players could make friends and be partners for the tourney)

Just wanted to kick the idea around.  Now the one caveat would be that at least the final round would be hosted on the 12thVR server (in California) just so our Pac players could finally get in a event where their ping shouldn't be too bad.

Comments and inputs would be helpful :D
Title: Re: Survey for LMS Tournement Intrest
Post by: ~SJ~ Lobo on June 13, 2011, 10:05:26 PM
Your best bet is just do it. These temperature check threads never work out how you want. Plus it's YOUR tourney it's best if you make the rules with the least amount of wannabe admins adding their 2 cents. (speaking from experience on each one of these points)
Title: Re: Survey for LMS Tournement Intrest
Post by: Gouty on June 14, 2011, 10:57:22 AM
*Dips Toe*

Temperature seems good, I'm up for helping or participating, I'll mention it to fellow CJW's.

I think 85k is a pretty good amount, should see a nice mix of assets on the field
Title: Re: Survey for LMS Tournement Intrest
Post by: doorknob on June 14, 2011, 11:54:01 AM
I'd love to see this. Heck, I'll drop in one of the grand melee rounds and do my reporting from inside the cockpit.
Title: Re: Survey for LMS Tournement Intrest
Post by: Draekros on June 14, 2011, 12:07:18 PM
I'm sure I'll be up for it as well.  8)
Of course it'll depend on the timing of the tournament, I may have to rearrange my schedule.  ;)
Title: Re: Survey for LMS Tournement Intrest
Post by: thEClaw on June 14, 2011, 12:12:32 PM
That sounds like a nice idea. I would decrease the size of the groups, though, because with too many players there is much luck involved (by either running two rounds with the same players, starting with 16, then the top 8 get to play again or just set it to 12 or something like that).
Title: Re: Survey for LMS Tournement Intrest
Post by: Ghiest on June 14, 2011, 12:17:33 PM
Depends on the amount wanting to play really.  I'd say groups of 8 is pretty good if you have to have more than 4 groups then you could do it Olympic style, first four in the group go onto another group to compete against winners winners then final group group of 8 as the final group. 32 people  4 top people move on per group.  Personally I think 16 is a touch too big (especially to admin).  But of course your tourney :), although I'm crap at the game I'm up for it (as long as it's not a 2am gmt start time :P).
Title: Re: Survey for LMS Tournement Intrest
Post by: nordwars on June 14, 2011, 12:42:08 PM
California server? ouch (probably ~250 ping from Europe). But hey it's your tournament and it wouldn't stop me playing.

Unfortunately the fact that you want APAC players to be involved means it may be at an interesting time of the morning, which might stop me playing!

But, APAC players deserve some fun so go for it. It's a great idea for a tourney anyway.

Just one thought... why have a cbill limit? Force the players to make a tough choice.
Title: Re: Survey for LMS Tournement Intrest
Post by: SquareSphere on June 14, 2011, 09:01:11 PM
thanks for the feed back guys.  the 85 limit is to make it medium heavy focused which emphasis speed and good maneuvering.  Really the thing i want to see is how people deal with SSRM vulture without straight out classing it :D

I will probably end up dropping the group size to 12 with top 4 advancing.
Title: Re: Survey for LMS Tournement Intrest
Post by: thEClaw on June 14, 2011, 11:20:15 PM
Really the thing i want to see is how people deal with SSRM vulture without straight out classing it :D
Then don't call it "Tournament" of any kind. The ideal "Tournament" in my opinion would be at 200k cbills for everybody. Whoever wants a Novacat, may buy one. Whoever thinks he can win with an Owens C, my go with it. If there are tanks in the game, somebody on the field will be able to counter them.
Additionally a server with less than the maximum amount of players should partially prohibit camping of any kind. Too many players and even the best pilot will probably be shot in the back from 900m away while he is fighting against three enemies at the same time.
Title: Re: Survey for LMS Tournement Intrest
Post by: ~SJ~ Blhurr on June 15, 2011, 03:01:38 PM
As long as no one thinks this tournament is a measure of any sort of skill.  Random chance will play a significant part in any LMS tournament standings imo.  At least with regular SA if you get gang banged in one mech it doesn't spell the end of you and you are still free to employ what you may think is a superior strategy over the duration of the tournament and successive mechs.  The real measure of skill with SA is the mech progression a pilot selects and the overall strategy he employs rather than any one single combat encounter against greater odds which is what LMS will boil down to imo.

LMS is like a poker tournament where every participant has to go ALL IN on every hand they play and you get eliminated if you lose.  That would remove most of the intricacy of what makes poker a game of more than random chance.
Title: Re: Survey for LMS Tournement Intrest
Post by: nordwars on June 15, 2011, 06:28:15 PM
Obviously there would be multiple rounds to each match? After 5 or even 3 rounds, the bad luck factor has been mitigated somewhat.
Title: Re: Survey for LMS Tournement Intrest
Post by: SquareSphere on June 15, 2011, 09:35:05 PM
well see that's the thing, i don't consider getting ganged up on "bad luck" it's how SA worked in the books.  Stable mates routine helped each other and ganged up on others.  Just like in pro car or bike racing.

Which is why I originally had the sponsored brackets being hard to get through, but they had the benefit of being grouped with their stablemates.
Title: Re: Survey for LMS Tournement Intrest
Post by: ~SJ~ Blhurr on June 15, 2011, 09:56:22 PM
Ahhh this is team based.  I had a similar idea on the SJ forums.  Sort of like the Tour de France where the whole team works towards one person winning.  If that's what you were thinking then I think it has great potential.
Title: Re: Survey for LMS Tournement Intrest
Post by: nordwars on June 16, 2011, 12:54:40 AM
That would be interesting, but I don't think that was exactly what SS was talking about, as there were supposed to be more non-affiliated players making it to the championship round.

I think someone was actually considering non-affiliated players for once! Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic...
Title: Re: Survey for LMS Tournement Intrest
Post by: thEClaw on June 16, 2011, 09:20:56 AM
Ok...it doesn't sound like a nice idea anymore to me. First the "i want to see people get f****d by Vultures rather than having a good and fun match", then this mention about teamwork, effectively nullifying the chances of any player who is not member of a clan.

But i'd still like to see this kind of event, maybe somebody will record the games. And hopefully it won't be "It's all about camping!" edition 378. I would not put that past the "affiliated" players, even in this kind of game.
Title: Re: Survey for LMS Tournement Intrest
Post by: MerfMerf on June 16, 2011, 10:36:13 AM
Ok...it doesn't sound like a nice idea anymore to me. First the "i want to see people get f****d by Vultures rather than having a good and fun match", then this mention about teamwork, effectively nullifying the chances of any player who is not member of a clan.

Because it is impossible to cooperate unless you share a letter combination in your nicknames?
How would you stop cooperation? Part of the game mode is spontaneous cooperation to begin with (Example: two injured pilots notice a fresh armoured opponent joining the fray and switch their focus to him/her). Try to forbid voice comms? How to achieve this? Judges spectating and trying to spot cooperation is about the only way I see a restriction on cooperation being enforced, and this is no easy task. What counts as prohibited cooperation? Clear cases would be two pilots following each other, moving together as a fire team and putting others down until only they remain, but there are many less clear cases. Two affiliated players see each other and both notice the other is full green. They decide not to engage each other (say they do this without using voice chat, and without seeing the names since these sometimes require you to put some fire on your target). Spectating judge however will see both unit tagged players look at each other and then go their separate way to pick on people already engaged in fights. How to judge this?

The complications in judging individual situations alone, this kind of LMS game is bound to have action happening on multiple locations at once. How would one go about keeping tabs on it all as a spectating judge? Many judges?

Al in all this is a can of worms that may end up rather nasty to manage. Now, I would probably not be overly interested in this (Purely personal. Current LMS is just not really my cup of tea as they say) but I will give the recommendation to find any way possible to cut down on manual management for this or you run the risk of getting yourself bogged down in management and disputes which are not fun for most involved.

And hopefully it won't be "It's all about camping!" edition 378. I would not put that past the "affiliated" players, even in this kind of game.

This is not making sense to me. "even in this kind of game"? This suggests that LMS games by nature would be less prone to camping, while  I find they are more prone to camping then the other game modes. Why are affiliated players put in quotation? Does it mean they are not really affiliated with anything? Or is this a reference to some group that appear affiliated but in reality are not? How is is affiliation, "affiliation" or non-affiliation a factor in the camping discussion? The nature of LMS style game is that it is always preferable to join an existing fight midway then to slug it out with someone with fresh armour values. This is true regardless of participants affiliation/"affiliation"/non-affiliation.

/Merf - Yay more competitions, but would most likely sit this one out.
Title: Re: Survey for LMS Tournement Intrest
Post by: ELH_KillThemALL on June 16, 2011, 12:35:10 PM
+100 MerfMerf
My Bad English prevents me from saying the same thing. But if I knew the language perfectly, I would not have told better.
Title: Re: Survey for LMS Tournement Intrest
Post by: thEClaw on June 16, 2011, 01:26:40 PM
Ok...it doesn't sound like a nice idea anymore to me. First the "i want to see people get f****d by Vultures rather than having a good and fun match", then this mention about teamwork, effectively nullifying the chances of any player who is not member of a clan.

Because it is impossible to cooperate unless you share a letter combination in your nicknames? [...]
Come on, you know what i mean. If not, then i assure you, your points are perfectly valid and make the game what it is. I like it that way.

This is not making sense to me. "even in this kind of game"? This suggests that LMS games by nature would be less prone to camping, while  I find they are more prone to camping then the other game modes.
The nature of the game-mode does not support camping in the way other game-modes do. If somebody tries to camp and steal kills from a distance (maybe that's technically no camping), then he will probably get shot by others pretty fast. Team-up 101, as you just tried to tell me.
Since i have seen clans prefer camping in other games (it probably is the safest way to victory) and we were talking about intentional teaming up in this game (not temporal alliances), this game would support the real camping, all the way through - despite of small arenas and lots of opponents.
So "even in this kind of game" we could see a lot of camping (and successful camping, too), very much unlike the usual LMS-game. That's what i fear.

The nature of LMS style game is that it is always preferable to join an existing fight midway then to slug it out with someone with fresh armour values.
Of course you are right. But there always have to be at least two people who start the fighting. I would say the odds are pretty good that you have to finish off one opponent one on one before being able to intervene in other fights like that (we are talking about LMS here) - at least that's what happens to me most of the time.

Why are affiliated players put in quotation? Does it mean they are not really affiliated with anything? Or is this a reference to some group that appear affiliated but in reality are not? How is is affiliation, "affiliation" or non-affiliation a factor in the camping discussion? [...] This is true regardless of participants affiliation/"affiliation"/non-affiliation.
Both of your guesses are off, i may have stretched the abilities of the average quotation mark there. The reason for this is, that "affiliated" once meant something different to me than it does now. Obviously i should not have expected anybody else to understand that. So if you ever see me using quotation marks in places that seemingly don't make sense, just forget about them.
Title: Re: Survey for LMS Tournement Intrest
Post by: xDeityx on June 16, 2011, 05:25:33 PM
I'm with Merf.  I don't see LMS as a competitive game mode.  It's a lot more fun informally with 5-6 guys you know and with whom you can talk trash on TS.

The problem is that the most logically successful strategy (hide in a corner) is also the most boring.  It's equivalent to TSA where the best strategy is to sit in your base so you have shorter repairs and the enemy has to run across the entire map to repair.

What I'd really like to see is a TC tournament.  Even the 5v5 TSA game mode can degenerate into two groups camping on top of a hill on opposite sides of the map with the longest range weapons they can possibly field.  TC is the only truly competitive game mode we currently have available, but nobody wants to play it competitively.  I think it would be an awesome 7v7 or 10v10 game mode, if not 15v15 even.

/Merf Do it!
Title: Re: Survey for LMS Tournement Intrest
Post by: SquareSphere on June 16, 2011, 06:16:59 PM
So let me ask this,  would SA be a more competitive platform since it allows for more leveling out of the camping/paired tactics?
Title: Re: Survey for LMS Tournement Intrest
Post by: ~SJ~ Blhurr on June 16, 2011, 06:42:50 PM
Moreso than LMS imo if you are going the solo arena route.
Title: Re: Survey for LMS Tournement Intrest
Post by: Cygma on June 16, 2011, 10:40:55 PM
Since i have seen clans prefer camping in other games
I'm getting a bit tired of those broad generalizations. A part of the players in public games camp - some are in a unit, some are not.
Title: Re: Survey for LMS Tournement Intrest
Post by: thEClaw on June 16, 2011, 11:59:47 PM
Since i have seen clans prefer camping in other games
I'm getting a bit tired of those broad generalizations. A part of the players in public games camp - some are in a unit, some are not.
Sorry, this was not meant as a generalization. Many videos i saw showed an awful amount of camping (no public matches), most public games don't. Observation, nothing more. Since every player sticks to successful and familiar tactics, there is obviously a tendency here that carries on throughout every game. No way you will find camping as much among public gamers as among affiliated players.
That's more the observation of a distribution than a generalization.
Title: Re: Survey for LMS Tournement Intrest
Post by: Draekros on June 17, 2011, 02:04:56 AM
Um it's just basic strategy. Fight the enemy on your terms where you have an advantage (like terrain for instance). Too many times you see someone rush out to engage an enemy in the open, only to get raped by missiles or that unit's team mates that you couldn't see behind that hill/rock. League matches are completely different to pub games. You only have 1 life so you've got to make it count. It's all about getting into position to rain metal death upon your enemies! Hopefully without falling prey to an ambush yourself.  8)

I haven't watched any vids for SA or LMS yet, so don't know what camping is like in those games, I haven't seen campers myself in the SA matches I've played. It doesn't really pay to camp in SA anyway, you'll be stuck in an Owens B/C, whilst everyone else is in Scats or Bushys or higher. As for LMS, some will no doubt try and avoid combat, but others will actively seek out other players to try and take them down. If you can get the first hits in you might be in a good position to take them out with minimal damage. Esp. if your alpha strike rips them a new orifice in their LT/RT, strips off their main weapon arm, or blows through their BT if they are running away to avoid you, etc.  ;)

Note: I have yet to play LMS due to the only servers running it at the moment seem to be in Europe. I get > 300ms pings on them.  :(

Oh and can you still use the repair/rearm facilities in LMS? I would suggest disabling them (if not already disabled by default) so ammo-centric 'Mechs, like the SSRM Vulture, cannot rearm after it's emptied all it's missiles (which takes a while anyway). Probably should turn on No Eject as well. So you choose your 'Mech/Tank and that's it (just like in a League game).  :)
Title: Re: Survey for LMS Tournement Intrest
Post by: ~SJ~MausGMR on June 17, 2011, 03:11:31 AM
Since i have seen clans prefer camping in other games
I'm getting a bit tired of those broad generalizations. A part of the players in public games camp - some are in a unit, some are not.
Sorry, this was not meant as a generalization. Many videos i saw showed an awful amount of camping (no public matches), most public games don't. Observation, nothing more. Since every player sticks to successful and familiar tactics, there is obviously a tendency here that carries on throughout every game. No way you will find camping as much among public gamers as among affiliated players.
That's more the observation of a distribution than a generalization.

Define "camping", because a lot of people use it very loosely these days, and often incorrectly.
Title: Re: Survey for LMS Tournement Intrest
Post by: thEClaw on June 17, 2011, 08:15:25 AM
Oh and can you still use the repair/rearm facilities in LMS? I would suggest disabling them (if not already disabled by default) so ammo-centric 'Mechs, like the SSRM Vulture, cannot rearm after it's emptied all it's missiles (which takes a while anyway). Probably should turn on No Eject as well. So you choose your 'Mech/Tank and that's it (just like in a League game).  :)
You can and it is a necessity to at least rearm sometimes. Since the game is about surviving until the end of the round, every player who gets into a fight early would most likely not win the round (so there would be a huge amount of luck involved). With the ammunition some 'Mechs bring along, you can only kill two enemies. With ten players on a server you might get into trouble.
I think the game would change if there were no means of repairing or rearming your 'Mech. Some assets would be completely useless all of a sudden (Shadowcat A and C come to my mind), except for when you are playing with less than five players on a server. Maybe everybody would try to use 'Mechs using energy based weapons.
Also, you don't earn money in LMS. So your ability to repair and rearm is quite limited. If you buy a huge 'Mech, there might not be any money left for any of that.

@ MausGMR:
My basic definition of camping once was "somebody stays in one spot for a prolonged amount of time and waits for an opportunity to drop by". It probably has changed since i play MWLL, even moving targets can be accused of camping by me now. So maybe i should not use the word "camping", but instead talk about "slow, boring, frustrating, play-it-safe style of playing the game".
One example of a proper camper (in my opinion) would be somebody who jumps onto the edge of the map in Hels Gate and fires Arrows at the battling players in the center of the map for the whole round, effectively stealing kills without being in any kind of danger. (I wonder, why this came to my mind first...)

I am not sure about it. I just like to have a good fight. If i die in the progress, i smile and want to start another battle. Anybody using long-range weaponry and shooting me in the back does not earn that smile, he pisses me off very fast. I know that guy might be the superior player, but if that's the case, i don't really want to get as good as he is. I play for fun, not because i have to paint the walls with screenshots of my "20-0"-kill-ratio.
Title: Re: Survey for LMS Tournement Intrest
Post by: Gouty on June 17, 2011, 11:18:42 AM
@ thEClaw: I think you are adverse to kill poaching/stealing rather than camping?  And I certianly can understand frustration at a player who is waiting for 2 people to battle it out, damage themselves and then finishing them both off with only a few hits, but this happens at any range (e.g. someone running/jumping in with a Scat) And happens lot in LMS due to the nature of the scoring system.

I am not sure about it. I just like to have a good fight. If i die in the progress, i smile and want to start another battle. Anybody using long-range weaponry and shooting me in the back does not earn that smile, he pisses me off very fast. I know that guy might be the superior player, but if that's the case, i don't really want to get as good as he is. I play for fun, not because i have to paint the walls with screenshots of my "20-0"-kill-ratio.

I don't know if you have played TF2, but is this not just like saying "why don't we all play as heavy?" or that snipers and engineers are cheap tactics, or in rock/paper/scissors that you should always use scissors!? (ok I admit that last one is a bit ridicuous)

Part of the beauty of the game is how different assets are effective in different situations.  This is another element of luck in LMS, you don't know what everyone else has chosen until you see them in the arena.  Different strokes for different folks, you obviously enjoy balancing the throttle and lining up your targets in a good ol' circle of death, other people enjoy finding a good spot, hoping they lock on in time, or hoping they get the shot from a small window of opportunity.  Others enjoy getting some GECM, BAP, and MASC, sneaking up on snipers using cover and hitting them up close!

Edit: removed tardspeak, or at least tried
Title: Re: Survey for LMS Tournement Intrest
Post by: ~SJ~ Blhurr on June 17, 2011, 01:57:50 PM
Mr.Claw.  You really ought to expand your game beyond just brawling.  MWLL is more than two dogs getting into a furbrawl.  There is a lot of cat and mouse and stalking can be just as much fun as the kill.  The exact thing that pisses you off, someone sniping at you while you are focused on a 1v1 with the enemy, is exactly what makes the game multi-dimensional and interesting for many of us.  Deciding when and where to battle should be at least 50% of what you do in the cockpit.  I encourage, nay implore, you to don the spirit of your avatar and play a couple rounds as the stalking cat instead of the brawling dog and see if you don't come to enjoy it.  It's a different mantle to wear and may just restructure how you think about the game.

btw this is coming from someone who loves to brawl and who struggles with the stalking game.
Title: Re: Survey for LMS Tournement Intrest
Post by: nordwars on June 17, 2011, 01:59:36 PM
I see your point.... but Garfield is a lazy shit, definitely not a stalking cat  ;D

mmm lasagna
Title: Re: Survey for LMS Tournement Intrest
Post by: xDeityx on June 17, 2011, 05:35:27 PM
I eat my toast butter side up.  Anyone who eats their toast butter side down is a moron.
Title: Re: Survey for LMS Tournement Intrest
Post by: =KoS= Tripod on June 17, 2011, 08:35:01 PM
That is true though, so I hope you weren't using it as a metaphor