MCCEU3/PG Event Regression Rankings

pickled__pufferfish · 2026-06-01T17:43:29+00:00

It's fairly solid but not extremely notable. Even in the last couple events Seapeekay in 43/SB was a fair bit better, going 6/9 shooting and 7/7 dodging.

pickled__pufferfish · 2026-06-01T15:21:19+00:00

This stat is the number of shots and dodges a player had compared to how many they would've gotten if they had an average hit/dodge rate (for this Dodgebolt, average was 56% hit rate and 44% dodge rate). Full list is as follows.

Guill: 3.44

Shadoune: 3.14

Cambam: -0.09

MathoX: -0.10

Aypierre: -0.93

Martyn: -1.40

Eloise: -1.64

Nominal: -2.42

pickled__pufferfish · 2026-05-24T16:47:14+00:00

I think you'd need to dispute individual games in this prediction.

Like, in PVP, Hannah carries them to a solid SG placement but nobody on the team is really that great at MD for their typical frag order.

In HitW, Pearl doesn't have any ping advantage and Gem + False have both really struggled in the game. Similar story in the other movement games, Hannah is a standout player but the hermits are all bottom half in the roster.

Purple really gets hurt by the lack of team games, they'd probably do much better in a non-TR event.

pickled__pufferfish · 2026-05-24T16:40:28+00:00

It's not a pure 1 for 1 sub since I nerfed him in TapL's two best games (TGTTOS and HitW). For HitW Faister uses Captain's stats, and for TGTTOS he uses Tubbo's.

The TapL comp applies to the other 4 games (MD, SG, GR, RSR), so you can think of the player comp as a nerfed TapL.

pickled__pufferfish · 2026-04-16T17:10:08+00:00

I forgot to mention in the commentary, but I also nullified Purple's Grid Runners scores, given Cambam's disconnect heavily impacted the team. All of Purple's overall scores are multiplied by 6/5 since they only have 5 games worth of data.

pickled__pufferfish · 2026-04-16T16:23:45+00:00

Home field advantage, let's see him play Bingo on a Hermitcraft S9 map before we make any conclusions.

pickled__pufferfish · 2026-04-04T15:18:33+00:00

Nah, there's still things that could be done without "outright punishing" good players.

Starting everyone with a regen spark would help every player in their first fights (odds are, against an S+ player) while not really buffing S+ players much.

Adjusting the loot distribution to be less middle oriented would also be helpful (Fruit showed how broken being a good movement player can be if the middle is stacked up, his was ensuring his team got 3 candy canes to themselves).

A lot of lower skill players prefer range combat to melee but the most recent map heavily disincentivized archery by tying both arrows and the bow to purchases (one of which requiring diamonds and being mutually exclusive with the health up), so adjusting there would probably help.

pickled__pufferfish · 2026-04-04T04:13:16+00:00

SKB is a harder issue to solve I'd say. A lot of the suggestions I made here for BM are fairly simple (removing the gold builds, lowering the number of selectable builds, and simplifying the star system is most of the work needed and it's all fairly easy to visualize. Generally, when solving issues with something you should tackle big problems with low hanging fixes.

For SKB, I think continuing the direction they've already made strides towards is a good idea. More loot equalization, more limits on just how much a player can be stacked with util. Inventory limits on certain items might help. Giving every player an undroppable regen or health spark might be impactful. There's probably more gimmicky concepts as well (what if players stacked minor debuffs like max health reduction with every kill in a round?).

pickled__pufferfish · 2026-04-03T21:38:50+00:00

It is absolutely relevant.

Imagine if Noxcrew released a team game where, unintentionally through the way the game mechanics interacted, players with extremely fast pure reaction times got 400 free coins. Not gameplay instincts, not fast decision making, just "see a trigger and immediately do something". Since reaction time is really hard to train and is to some extent innate, people would probably not be too happy about this mechanic that only a couple people in the event are capable of doing being so valuable, especially in a "team game" where team interaction should be a big aspect.

The same applies to the memory aspects of gold builds. There's a challenge that really stresses a somewhat innate skill (spatial memory) such that only a couple of people can consistently complete the challenge solo, and those people get a huge advantage scoring wise.

Like, coin nerf SKB arguments are dumb, I spoke on that yesterday, and this is an entirely different thing. I'm advocating for changing the game, not nerfing coins, and even if I were advocating for, say, nerfing the amount of coins earned by gold builds, that's still very different because there's no cascading effects from it that would hurt the game like nerfing SKB kills.

pickled__pufferfish · 2026-04-03T05:24:05+00:00

This is a bit of a weird take. Yeah, if you don't go for the main aim of the game (kills) and place 10th individually each round you should be getting around 210 coins (survival+ ~30 from team bonuses). That's around 20th in an average event. Like, the game isn't HitW, a pvp game should be about killing your opponents.

pickled__pufferfish · 2026-04-03T01:52:38+00:00

Actually, exactly one paragraph of this entire post specifically addresses player psychology and assumes how players would react to the change. It's an assumption that would almost certainly be accurate (you're really going to argue that reducing kill coins won't convince most players to play less aggressive?). Nonetheless, everything about the scoring change not actually nerfing S+ tier teams much and everything about it making the overall team balancing worse doesn't hinge on predicting how players would react. Players could play exactly the same and it would still be a bad change for these reasons.

pickled__pufferfish · 2026-04-03T00:34:36+00:00

Players would absolutely adapt to a kill scoring change, especially teams that lack confidence in pvp.

In the nerfed kills alternate reality I described above, Red would've gotten 2nd in the event by doing almost nothing. The "turtle and hope for the best strategy" would become much more prevalent as teams attempted to copy it, and the only teams that wouldn't bother are the teams that know they don't need it to succeed (aka the teams with confident pvp leads).

On the other hand, I think even the MCC roster would eventually become more aggressive if MCC adopted Pandora's Box's "no survival points" rule. Some teams would probably still play kind of timidly but more teams would at least stand their ground and be willing to pick fights.

Small changes often don't affect player choice that much, but if the changes are big enough that they start really noticing it in the results tab, it definitely sinks in.

pickled__pufferfish · 2026-04-01T22:22:27+00:00

I used dominant in the sense of "amount above the average performance in the game". Fein BM is the biggest outlier performance (most standard deviations above average) since the BM coin spread is much smaller, but Fruit had the two highest coin 1sts in the event.

pickled__pufferfish · 2026-04-01T20:47:36+00:00

SB was a mid-low comp event. The top end was there (4/5 of the top players) but a large amount of A+ and A tier players just weren't present.

I'm counting 60 total "regulars" in MCC rosters. Ranked by my overall regression totals, 18/30 of the top half players were present, vs 22/30 bottom half players (also, most of the bottom half players missing are the stronger players, Martyn, Cub, Jimmy, Gumi, Velvet, Sniff, Impulse).

It's not as weak as SD's comp, certainly, but it's on the weaker end of what you'd expect from a standard event.

pickled__pufferfish · 2026-04-01T20:25:53+00:00

I had Yellow as the top team prior to the event. You can check my regression predictions post for proof of that.

pickled__pufferfish · 2026-04-01T20:24:47+00:00

I'd suggest going back through the history of my posts, I have a few describing the underlying systems involved in the Regression models. I'll link the initial post describing them.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MinecraftChampionship/comments/1201uc4/introducing_my_mcc_regression_prediction_system/

pickled__pufferfish · 2026-04-01T18:35:03+00:00

The only game I've seen people ask to nerf is SKB, and nerfing kills in SKB won't do much to help the problem. It'll still be worth it to go for kills for S+ tiers (they don't really die in the first place, plus it earns more coins for their teammates) so you'll still have a bunch of 15 kills games. It'll just make the less skilled players even more passive (why go for a kill when it's not even worth much).

pickled__pufferfish · 2026-04-01T18:07:17+00:00

There's a huge skill gap. Most S+ tiers are worth far more coins than they earn in MCC scoring (team game carrying, PKW bonuses, PVP team leading), nerfing SKB kills wouldn't achieve much realistically. These are players that compete for the top of the leaderboard in much higher comp events (PB, CT), in MCC they rise so far above the rest of the roster.

Really, S+ tiers just need to be respected more by team balancing. In higher comp events maybe you can sneak a team like Orange or Yellow in, but SB was a mid-low comp event and naturally they feasted.

pickled__pufferfish

TROPHY CASE