59 replies to this topic

[Dew]

I personally don't like MA on Facility or Eco 'cause the ring-around-the-rosy fuzzy bunny is stupid. OPINIONS.

[Hyginos]

I was thinking about the the whole 'playing two halves and adding the scores' thing. It was mentioned that, at some point in the second game, a team may have no incentive to continue playing even when winning if the base has dropped below a certain score or a certain number of kills are scored.

 

What if, at the end of the season, you ranked teams not by wins/losses but by total match points? It may defeat the purpose of having two halves to a degree, but it may also alleviate the concern above.

[Elite_is_salty]

I was thinking about the the whole 'playing two halves and adding the scores' thing. It was mentioned that, at some point in the second game, a team may have no incentive to continue playing even when winning if the base has dropped below a certain score or a certain number of kills are scored.

 

What if, at the end of the season, you ranked teams not by wins/losses but by total match points? It may defeat the purpose of having two halves to a degree, but it may also alleviate the concern above.

 

That's really not a good idea :(

[Elite_is_salty]

As counter suggested, teams play 1 SG and 1 MA. If each team won a match, they play a 20 kills TDM to determine the winner.

[Amidatelion]

I was thinking about the the whole 'playing two halves and adding the scores' thing. It was mentioned that, at some point in the second game, a team may have no incentive to continue playing even when winning if the base has dropped below a certain score or a certain number of kills are scored.

 

What if, at the end of the season, you ranked teams not by wins/losses but by total match points? It may defeat the purpose of having two halves to a degree, but it may also alleviate the concern above.

 

Another good option! Combine with this:

 

 

 

e) Plot the entire season out ahead of time. Run it as a double round-robin system with each team getting map pick once and count total number of wins. If you feel the need for playoffs, use the top 4-6. Give the season a hard (oh who the fuzz am I kidding, this is going to be soft as hell) deadline for ending and leave it up to the teams to sort out their matches. Any matches not organized by the end of the season are dropped. If you can't organize 18~ matches over 4 months, that's your problem.

 

 

To eliminate the need for halves and I can see myself withdrawing the reservation about time.

[Elite_is_salty]

And so with that, everyone will get to enjoy their favorite mode.

[Nept]

I was thinking about the the whole 'playing two halves and adding the scores' thing. It was mentioned that, at some point in the second game, a team may have no incentive to continue playing even when winning if the base has dropped below a certain score or a certain number of kills are scored.

 

What if, at the end of the season, you ranked teams not by wins/losses but by total match points? It may defeat the purpose of having two halves to a degree, but it may also alleviate the concern above.

 

It's unlikely that we'd implement this idea as it would encourage stomps.  Should a stronger team ease up on the weaker one?  No, not with this format, as they'd run the risk of losing the regular season. 

 

As I mentioned elsewhere, score differential sorts teams with the same win/loss record.  IMO, that's all the incentive that's required (alongside, perhaps, some maturity).

[TheButtSatisfier]

If I had a preference, I'd say TDM. Just about everyone likes it, it's quick, and it avoids many of the issues that we've identified in siege. If the devs make siege a more enjoyable experience then let's consider it for season 4. We've done our science experiment by holding a siege cup, we have a lot of feedback to sort through, and I'm hesitant to support a game mode that some players are threatening to boycott season 3 over when we're trying to make Hawken more popular. I have no issue with boycotting in principle because that's a player's choice and I frankly don't give a damn - it doesn't affect me - but I'm concerned about how boycotting could affect the player base or community at large.

 

That said, if the game mode for season 3 is siege then I'll support it. So long as we aren't playing co-op bot destruction then I'll be satisfied.

Edited by TheButtSatisfier, 01 June 2015 - 04:00 PM.

[comic_sans]

Not siege.  It's too long, 3 games is obv too much, but the points combo is frustrating to me as well.  I'd try MA since I wasn't around for it and is also touted as the one with the most options, but TDM is always a good time, if a bit stompy.

[ArchMech]

dont do it, hawken should've died when it had the chance

[LEmental]

I would straight up quit TPG if this were implemented. The spawns are bad when there's a triple cap on circle maps. You can manipulate the spawns and enforce greater map control by only capping two and watching the third for people leaving and kill them as necessary.

Yes, and manipulating them sucks.  It sucks that there is no threat for a tripple cap.  It sucks that RNG has an affect on the match.  And it sucks that the score is so close (even in a stomp).

 

It's unlikely that we'd implement this idea as it would encourage stomps.  Should a stronger team ease up on the weaker one?  No, not with this format, as they'd run the risk of losing the regular season. 

 

As I mentioned elsewhere, score differential sorts teams with the same win/loss record.  IMO, that's all the incentive that's required (alongside, perhaps, some maturity).

 

In a competitive format it's rather rude to not play your best in every match.

Edited by LEmental, 02 June 2015 - 02:07 AM.

[Nept]

While you may hold that opinion, I do not.  Running up scores isn't inherently polite or respectful.

 

 

[Massive_Assailant_Stingray]

Running up scores isn't inherently polite or respectful.

 

Why?

 

 

Yes, and manipulating them sucks.  It sucks that there is no threat for a tripple cap.  It sucks that RNG has an affect on the match.  And it sucks that the score is so close (even in a stomp).

 

Hmm, yes it does suck. Someone should make a post addressing these types of concerns about map structure. Maybe a dev would state how they feel about those points.

Edited by Massive_Assailant_Stingray, 02 June 2015 - 04:44 AM.

[Nept]

Why?

 

Whether something is considered polite or respectful depends upon a) the actor's intent, and b) the receiver's understanding.  In other words, it's contingent upon cultural norms - and even within a culture, you're likely to see individual variations.

 

Taking this fact into account, we can see that LEmental's statement - that it's rude not to play your best within a competitive format - is untenable.  Why?  Simple: It doesn't take into account actor and receiver attitudes.  Her statement doesn't consider the (very real) possibility that others don't share her perspective.

 

Now let's look at my statement: "Running up scores isn't inherently polite or respectful".  This statement is far more defensible because its claims are more modest.  The fact is that running up scores isn't inherently polite or respectful because it's simply an action.  Whether it's deemed polite or respectful depends upon both the intentions of the actor and the understanding of the receiver.  If Omniscient obliterates an opponent, we cannot assume that our actions will be considered respectful simply because we believe them to be; our opponent's perception is every bit as important.

 

Now, there's an additional consideration when deciding whether to run up scores: morale.  In my experience, very few teams appreciate being routed - even if they think themselves advocates of LEmental's merciless respect.  It is disappointing to be dramatically outscored by an opponent.  And it's not even particularly educational beyond the obvious "we're severely outclassed" message.  In the absence of proper scaffolding, large skill differentials between instructor and student - or between opponents - inhibit learning.  If I'm teaching martial arts, for example, my students won't learn much if I simply beat them up for an hour and a half every Wednesday and Friday.  If Omniscient's playing a significantly weaker team in Siege, our opponents won't learn much if we lock them into their base for the entire match.  Add to these elements the fact that strong teams can surreptitiously ease their effort, and the best option seems quite clear to me.

[Massive_Assailant_Stingray]

Fair enough.

 

I do think the way to play it sits on a fine line between not trying, and "try harding". (not that I'd accuse omni of the prior.) Either one bothers me in PUGs, only the prior bothers me in matches.

 

I think LEmental finds not playing to your fullest as an insult to anyone who seeks the challenge to improve themselves. To an extent I agree. Though I also agree (and this probably isn't a very popular opinion in many competitive communities) that sometimes the skill differential is too great for either party to really gain anything out of a no holds barred match.

[Nept]

*Edited OP with the following announcement:

 

We've selected Missile Assault (MA) as our Season 3 gametype.  There wasn't an especially clear winner within our poll, where Siege, TDM, and "Indifferent" gathered roughly the same number of votes, and Missile Assault collected an additional 6 or 7.  MA worked well during Season 2, though, and provides the following benefits:

• Emphasizes map strategy and team coordination
• Small-group tactics still present, but not as complex as 6v6 TDM
• Shooting skills de-emphasized.  Still present and important, of course.
• Score disparities tend to be lower - especially on triangular maps.  Can be better for morale.
• Provides weaker TDM teams their best shot at beating stronger teams - especially if the stronger team isn't properly controlling spawns on triangular maps.
• Punishes overly-passive play
• Multi-point gametypes are typically well-balanced and difficult for designers to get wrong.
• Match length is limited by the missiles constantly chipping away at base health.
• Good map selection.

Put simply, Missile Assault is a well-balanced, competitive gametype that offers weaker teams their best shot against stronger opponents.  It's also strategically familiar to most TPG teams.  If you're upset over our gametype decision, don't worry: TPG will be hosting Siege and TDM Cups throughout our competitive Season.

Edited by Nept, 06 June 2015 - 03:52 PM.

[ThirdEyE]

If you're upset over our gametype decision, don't worry: TPG will be hosting Siege and TDM Cups throughout our competitive Season.

Cool, hopefully these will keep things fresh and fun for everybody.  Will also provide more testing on the modes!

[Amidatelion]

Praise jebus

[Nept]

Praise jebus

 

You're welcome.

[Elite_is_salty]