Nightfire, on 15 March 2013 - 09:12 AM, said:
Alright, Let's do this then.
No, this is a directly and attributable statement. It is completely and easily provable. Your disgust of anyone who plays primarily pre-made is documented on these forums in many places.
Okay. Do so. I've stood up for the benefits premade teams bring to the game repeatedly and in a ton of places. My contempt for people who purposefully pugstompped back pre-Elo though I don't disguise but as I said then and say now they gave a bad reputation to premade teams. So show me where I've trashed on people who play primarily premades. Click on my name, then profile, then my content. You'll want to look at January/February, that's when most the premade vs pug stuff came up. You'll see where I've said, universally, that premades are great - their problem was a small group of jackasses giving everyone a bad name.
Quote
You're good at strawman attacks aren't you? No, I have NEVER said that when I lose it is only because of and solely attributable to a terrible team. I will clarify what I did say however, just so you can try and get your head around it.
When my team loses AND it happens that we have a good number of players on our team (3-4) that played bad enough to allow us to question if they were matched our pre-made skill level fairly then MY enjoyment suffers. This is because I feel we did not present a fair representation of our skill because several of our team were not up to the task. Our opponents usually are, but in those cases we were let down and we notice. It happens and I will admit I probably give those matches more weight than they represent but they do impact my enjoyment on the whole.
You're winning over 50%. Most of the time your team is doing great. Sometimes the other team does better. That doesn't meant that Elo is failing - it means it's doing exactly what it's supposed to do. Even good players make mistakes. There you go with the attempts to belittle or insult me again. The whole gist of your complaint, by the way, is that you're being placed alongside people who 'were not up to the task'. In post 63 you refer to a teammate as a 'moron' and all your responses are effectively saying that when you lose it's because your team was bad and that's what's frustrating you. Don't get mad at me for pointing out exactly what your point of contention is. It's the point you're trying to argue - that you're upset at losing because your team is getting dropped with what you feel are incompetent people. Or is there some other issue with the matchmaker you're debating? Because that's what you've said over 5 posts.
Quote
Actually, in another post I do put forward my reasoning but it is all anecdotal. What "evidence" would you like? Screenshots of matches with the losing team having 3-4 people who have a total of less than 100 damage? There are plenty of those about already; I don't need to add to those. Are you trying to tell me that watching a Raven spot, shoot at, then run directly at a Catapult A1 with 6xSRM6's is something other than my diagnosis as a bad pilot?
I'm putting forward my experiences, my observations and a theory that fits the evidence I have. I am also doing so without dismissing other peoples experiences.
What I find amusing about this theory of mine that you are so ready to dismiss as only having "unsupported anecdotal evidence" is that there are others conveying the same experience. You also dismiss my position knowing full well the only "evidence" you will accept validating my position is Elo ratings of these pilots which is not available to us. As such, in your opinion, theories that explain a portion of the user bases experiences are not permitted to be formed unless they adhere to your world view of "the pug stompers are now whining that they are losing" narrative.
People are whining about the loss of pugstomping, I didn't say you were one. They're upset that Elo is pushing them towards an 50/50 win/loss rate and they want to be able to beat less skilled players otherwise they don't feel motivated to get better.
The evidence I'm asking for is win/loss rate. If you're still winning more than 50% then what's the issue? Again, good players make mistakes sometimes. Those mistakes are no big deal in less competitive games but at high Elo they are killer - you can be certain someone is waiting, ready and able, to exploit them. If, however, you're still winning over 50% then your Elo is still climbing and you'll be placed with (and against) better and better people until you either rise to the Golden Ninja Elite or you level off at the point where you've maximized effort vs reward.
Quote
Firstly you have no idea of what hours I play (or the number of players available), how long we wait for matches or how much the Matchmaker will lax the parameters to beat the 2 minute time limit. If they are "pug-stompers" paying their dues, why do I not see specific players that play like this more often as they fall down the Elo scale? Your reasoning has holes.
I chose to address this point out of order because it is quite telling. I don't believe Elo isn't dropping me with "boobs" (your word) to try and force me to lose. That would require sentience and an ego, it is also telling about why you think I am contributing to this thread. What I DO think the Matchmaker is doing is on occasion it runs so short on time trying to fill the last 4 places that it grabs whoever it can with too wide a net.
So your argument is that you'd rather it timeout than drop you with someone with a low Elo on your team? What about when it does the opposite - drops the low Elo people on the other team? Statistically you'll see as much of one as the other.
Once again I'm going to say that the issue isn't so much wide Elo ranking as relative coordination. Sometimes you drop with people who may be good but are having a bad day or just don't coordinate. You're also going to get those ex-pugstompers who are not that good but had inflated Elo on your team. People who used teams to push their Elo higher than it should be by exploiting less skilled opponents. Elo requires dozens of games to make a significant change. A lot of those people are still in the upper tiers, if they're at a 40 wins for 60 losses rate they'll have to play about 400 games to drop significantly in Elo to get out of the competitive team tiers. If they're losing more than they're winning they're probably not playing a lot.
The evidence I wanted was your win/loss rate. Approximately even. I'll say it again - if you're winning more than you're losing still then the problem will fix itself BECAUSE of Elo.
Quote
No, what I am experiencing is vastly different from what a majority of players on the forums report. Here on the forums there are others who have experienced play similar to mine. That both makes me not alone and corroborates a possible flaw in the Matchmaker. Additionally, this is an experience that many I talk to on the Teamspeak servers report having from time to time. Just because they don't read or post here doesn't make their experience less valid.
Confirmation bias. You're associating with people who share your opinion. Look at the forum poll itself. What you're doing is reporting an issue that's different both from what your win/loss rate says (if you're over 50%) and player consensus.
Quote
Again, you think the problem is something to do with constant matches or me not finding a settled point. Try and understand this:
- My experience isn't your experience!
- People other than myself have this experience!
- This IS a problem and when this happens, it is NOT working as intended!
- Can you not admit that there might just possibly be an issue with the Matchmaker that doesn't affect you? Or are you saying that if there are no problems on your end then everything must be working as intended?
I don't play solo. I really don't like disorganised play.
I've never said or implied that I'm consistently dropping with worse people. What I am saying is that there are a low but significant number of matches that we lose because of bad matchmaking and that the numbers of matches are significant enough to frustrate myself and a number of other players such that we play far less.
I understand those points completely. What's ironic is that you don't seem to be doing so. If you played more the issue would to some degree solve itself - Elo works on aggregate data. The more you play the better it will do at placing you with comparable people.
Sometimes the other team just does better. When they do, even skilled people on your side will get crushed. From what you are describing it is not only possible but statistically likely that the issue isn't bad people on your side but not enough bad people on the other side.
Final point, not going to debate with you repeatedly because, well, not sure it's going to be productive.
Are you winning more than 50%? If yes, then what's your issue? Not enough more? That when you lose it's because your other teammates were not good enough?
Really?
3
