597 replies to this topic

[Bilbo]

FrDrake, on 07 June 2013 - 09:15 AM, said:

It's not about the credibility of the argument itself, it's about the credibility of the argument for a particular Elo tier. LRMs OP in the sub 1200 bracket may be true, while in the 1800+ bracket LRMs may be fine. That's the distinction, not to dismiss the sub 1200 guy, because his argument is fine, FOR his bracket.

Unless the damage numbers somehow morph between the different Elo brackets, I'd argue that his observations hold merit across all of them. That they don't see the same use across all Elo brackets would say more to me about the weapons that are more widely used than the LRMs.

[Galen Crayn]

In times you can fake the ELO it is a joke to compare the levels. If you have a clan and 2 accounts you can make 8 kills a match and with the other account you play normal. No. This Number means nothing. And how many times do you try a mech that sucks and woosh, is your ranking down. Senseless to compare.

[FrDrake]

Livewyr, on 07 June 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

What would you do when confronted with a player who thinks that PPCs are too powerful and has a lower (public) Elo score?
or
One who thinks that Gauss Rifles are too powerful, but also has a lower (public) Elo score?

What exactly would you do?

The same thing I wish PGI would do, take it for what it's worth, see if there's a trend among that bracket, see what kind of an impact to the other brackets that would have and then make (OR NOT MAKE) a change based on my findings.

[Arete]

Public stats, no thanks. Private so I can see it, yes please. I trust that pgi takes a quick look at the elo of those discussing matters so they know who to take note of. For public discussions public elo isn't needed.

[FrDrake]

Bilbo, on 07 June 2013 - 09:23 AM, said:

Unless the damage numbers somehow morph between the different Elo brackets, I'd argue that his observations hold merit across all of them. That they don't see the same use across all Elo brackets would say more to me about the weapons that are more widely used than the LRMs.

In the case of LRMs the damage numbers do morph across brackets. A person at the 1200 bracket can get 800 dmg per match using LRMs and a player at the 1800 bracket scrapes by with 400. Same weapon but higher level players are better at mitigating the damage. This makes the same weapon have a different impact across brackets, that is why I and others feel what bracket a person is in is relevant in the discussion of balance/gameplay mechanics.

[Livewyr]

xDeityx, on 07 June 2013 - 09:15 AM, said:

Because if they excel at it, they have insights as to why it is broken.

Those of us who refuse to use it, also have insights as to why it's broken. (And our Elo's would likely suffer from refusal to use what we know is broken.) That doesn't make a good case for using Elo.

xDeityx, on 07 June 2013 - 09:15 AM, said:

Yes, an argument from a less informed person is less valid by its very nature. Balancing games is hard. What you're saying would be ridiculous if applied to any other genre. For example if an engineer and a layperson are talking about how to fix an engine, it would be ridiculous to take the statements of the layperson at the same value as the engineer. Yes, it's possible that the layperson could get completely lucky and make a suggestion from ignorance that happened to be as valid as something the engineer said, but it is extremely unlikely.

And the feeble argument would be evident in its very nature.. and therefore just as easily picked apart.. without the need for numbers. Public numbers just provides a go-to defense strategy for an elitist player being challenged by the 'tryhard' rather than defending their own stance. (Much like modern politics.)

xDeityx, on 07 June 2013 - 09:15 AM, said:

I understand you are emotional about this topic but there's no need for the theatrics. Let's stick to discussing this like adults with unobnoxious font sizes. I'm not disrespecting you by cussing at you and suggesting that you are too stupid to see my point unless the font is huge, please return that same respect to me.

I'm not emotional about the topic (the verdict wouldn't negatively effect me either way), I'm definitely frustrated that certain people seem to think it would be helpful when it isn't actually, and not really harmful, which is would be, terribly.

My capitals 'outburst' is directed at those who think 'we' resist it because we're criers or afraid of something- not necessarily at you.

xDeityx, on 07 June 2013 - 09:15 AM, said:

I think that knowing why a player is saying what he is saying is actually very useful. It helps guide informed discussion and separate fallacies that low-tier players have (for example LRMs are thought to be OP because they have poor awareness of cover) from the reality of the game that the top players are playing.

How exactly would you exercise that?

(I would address your example by making it clear that LRMs are not OP because a player has a,b, and c to use against them, and can do x,y, and z to mitigate/deny them. That does not require their Elo score.)

[Bilbo]

FrDrake, on 07 June 2013 - 09:26 AM, said:

In the case of LRMs the damage numbers do morph across brackets. A person at the 1200 bracket can get 800 dmg per match using LRMs and a player at the 1800 bracket scrapes by with 400. Same weapon but higher level players are better at mitigating the damage. This makes the same weapon have a different impact across brackets, that is why I and others feel what bracket a person is in is relevant in the discussion of balance/gameplay mechanics.

At higher Elo levels you don't need 800 damage from your LRMs, the damage load should be spread nicely across the team anyway.

[FrDrake]

Livewyr, on 07 June 2013 - 09:33 AM, said:

How exactly would you exercise that?

(I would address your example by making it clear that LRMs are not OP because a player has a,b, and c to use against them, and can do x,y, and z to mitigate/deny them. That does not require their Elo score.)

So instead of looking to see if there are merits at a particular Elo bracket for X argument, you're going to essentially tell them to L2Play?

[FrDrake]

Bilbo, on 07 June 2013 - 09:34 AM, said:

At higher Elo levels you don't need 800 damage from your LRMs, the damage load should be spread nicely across the team anyway.

It's true, in my bracket there are very few "breakaway" players, most often 50-60% of the team all hit in the 400-600 range. But that doesn't mean that a particular weapon system may not be overpowered at a different bracket. Right now the players have no way of telling (and some are perfectly ok with this while others aren't, hence this discussion).

[Livewyr]

FrDrake, on 07 June 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

So instead of looking to see if there are merits at a particular Elo bracket for X argument, you're going to essentially tell them to L2Play?

Well, since you can't balance the whole game by one bracket, and you can't balance each bracket individually, then I guess "yes, I would teach them how to deal with the LRMs."

(There is a difference between telling someone L2P, and actually advising them on how to go about it... the latter is actually a lot of what forums were intended to be IMO...teaching.)

[Ransack]

I stopped reading at

Quote

Making Our Elo Ratings Public Would Help This Community Grow, And Help Us Better Conduct Balance Discussion

I'm sorry all a public ELO would do is allow people to continually stroke their epeens. Hell they do it now with it invisible.

I cannot get behind that idea.

[FrDrake]

Livewyr, on 07 June 2013 - 09:36 AM, said:

Assuming you are not an immature troll that would use their Elo scores to tell them they're not worthy in so many words-

What would you do with bracket information? Tell PGI?

Yes, there are dedicated forum goers who compile information every day, missile splash damage was brought to surface by players, rear armor problems were brought to surface by long and detailed posts by forum goers. The forums would mine the data and someone would post a spreadsheet that got his wife angry at him detailing brackets and usages.

[xDeityx]

Livewyr, on 07 June 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

Deity, don't try and convince me that public Elo would be used strictly for understanding a person's perspective. (That is the best case scenario, and at best, it does nothing.) I've called out the BS that was at least once before.

And again, I will cite WoT forums, WoW forums, and just about any forums including public stats and competition.

I would argue that those forums are what they are from the size of the community, not the openness of the statistics.

Understanding a player's perspective does not do nothing. It allows less skilled players to know what people who are better at the game are saying (I'm not a top player but I am still very interested in the opinions of the top players) while at the same time allowing more skilled players to separate the signal from the noise. I.e. if the goal of a thread is to discuss LRM balance then all of the low-tier folks coming in to say how effective LRMs really are and posting screenshots as evidence aren't helping to actually move the discussion forward.

Livewyr, on 07 June 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:

Actually: Better yet, I pose this question to you in an attempt to understand.

What would you do when confronted with a player who thinks that PPCs are too powerful and has a lower (public) Elo score?
or
One who thinks that Gauss Rifles are too powerful, but also has a lower (public) Elo score?

What exactly would you do?

I'm honestly not sure, I'd need more details about the situation (sorry, not trying to dodge the question). What I wouldn't do though is take one look at their Elo rating and skip over their post. Arguments with merit will still have merit with public Elo ratings.

I would never dismiss a post due to an Elo rating because I understand that sometimes people can have a very deep understanding of the nuances of the game without having the mechanical skill to excel at the game. For example I might be fantastic at understanding the relationships between the different units in StarCraft 2 and know exactly when to expand and which units to build to counter my opponent, but my actions per minute might not be up to par and thus hurt my rating score. In MWO I'm sure there are people with terrible aim or terrible framerates even that have a deep understanding of the game and the assets.

[Livewyr]

FrDrake, on 07 June 2013 - 09:40 AM, said:

Yes, there are dedicated forum goers who compile information every day, missile splash damage was brought to surface by players, rear armor problems were brought to surface by long and detailed posts by forum goers. The forums would mine the data and someone would post a spreadsheet that got his wife angry at him detailing brackets and usages.

They do that already for bugs- without public Elo.

Balance is a different animal. (Balance, all too often, is a matter of opinion.)

[FrDrake]

Livewyr, on 07 June 2013 - 09:39 AM, said:

Well, since you can't balance the whole game by one bracket, and you can't balance each bracket individually, then I guess "yes, I would teach them how to deal with the LRMs."

(There is a difference between telling someone L2P, and actually advising them on how to go about it... the latter is actually a lot of what forums were intended to be IMO...teaching.)

Yes, now you're finally getting to where I think you'll see where I'm coming from.

When someone posts "LRMs are OP"

If they have an Elo of 2200 it's probably true they already know all your tips about taking cover and are just somehow bad at dodging LRMs, or there might be a legitimate problem.

If they have an Elo of 1000 it's much more likely they just need to hear your tips and then make some gameplay adjustments, it's also possible there is a legitimate problem, but they probably should try your tips first and see if that helps them out.

That's what the OP is trying to say in his elitist way. By seeing what Elo a poster is you get a better basis from where they are coming from in terms of the type of problem they are having.

[FrDrake]

Livewyr, on 07 June 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

They do that already for bugs- without public Elo.

Balance is a different animal. (Balance, all too often, is a matter of opinion.)

Yes, and I wish they would take more player feedback balanced by tiers for their balancing passes, and not make balancing changes for all brackets based on the KICKING and YELLING from one particular tier.

It is opinionated, and doesn't having the most information as to where the opinion is coming from make the most sense?

[S p a n i a r d]

The OP's points are all completely true (at least for me).

But i think that's just half of the picture. Making ELO public will also
have a negative effect as some players have mentioned.

If the issue is gameplay balance, then just make it such that PGI
(and other groups involved with balancing, i.e. internal testers)
can see a specific player's ELO, No need to make it completely public

[Livewyr]

xDeityx, on 07 June 2013 - 09:41 AM, said:

I would argue that those forums are what they are from the size of the community, not the openness of the statistics.

Understanding a player's perspective does not do nothing. It allows less skilled players to know what people who are better at the game are saying

Which would be a bad thing if the "betters" are better because of maxing the current system. (Cue the now very troubled, formerly 'awesome' poptarts having their Elo's crater because their crutch snapped.)

Elo says they're good, they're not actually...

xDeityx, on 07 June 2013 - 09:41 AM, said:

while at the same time allowing more skilled players to separate the signal from the noise.

it allows them to see the signal as they want to see it.
I've learned to see the signal from the noise based on the evidence and construction of the argument, I don't need to make judgement calls (signal or noise) with a public number.
I don't want to give the elitists a weapon.

Metaphor:
Elo is a stick of dynamite.
Currently it is locked away in a safe.
Some people who want it, would use it to mine rocks from quarries in order to build.
Some people who want it, would use it to blow up their neighbor's house.

Unfortunately, the former is a much smaller population, and (IMO) it just doesn't warrant handing out dynamite to everyone.
EDIT: Another unfortunate item: The Former, even with the dynamite, wouldn't actually be allowed to use it to mine rocks from quarries, they could still only tell the miners what to do, and hope.

(Sadly, The latter could easily go to town on their neighborhood, however.)

xDeityx, on 07 June 2013 - 09:41 AM, said:

I'm honestly not sure, I'd need more details about the situation (sorry, not trying to dodge the question). What I wouldn't do though is take one look at their Elo rating and skip over their post. Arguments with merit will still have merit with public Elo ratings.

I would never dismiss a post due to an Elo rating because I understand that sometimes people can have a very deep understanding of the nuances of the game without having the mechanical skill to excel at the game. For example I might be fantastic at understanding the relationships between the different units in StarCraft 2 and know exactly when to expand and which units to build to counter my opponent, but my actions per minute might not be up to par and thus hurt my rating score. In MWO I'm sure there are people with terrible aim or terrible framerates even that have a deep understanding of the game and the assets.

^^^^
I share this. (I tend to think I'd use the information for 'good')
The problem is, reality of forum life is- most don't. It just creates a (more) toxic environment.

Edited by Livewyr, 07 June 2013 - 10:00 AM.

[Ozric]

FrDrake, on 07 June 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

Yes, now you're finally getting to where I think you'll see where I'm coming from.

When someone posts "LRMs are OP"

If they have an Elo of 2200 it's probably true they already know all your tips about taking cover and are just somehow bad at dodging LRMs, or there might be a legitimate problem.

If they have an Elo of 1000 it's much more likely they just need to hear your tips and then make some gameplay adjustments, it's also possible there is a legitimate problem, but they probably should try your tips first and see if that helps them out.

That's what the OP is trying to say in his elitist way. By seeing what Elo a poster is you get a better basis from where they are coming from in terms of the type of problem they are having.

I understand your point, but I do not agree with it. There is no guarantee at all that somebody with a higher Elo than somebody else would therefore also have a greater understanding of the game. There are a myriad of ways that Elo can be inflated (or indeed, tanked) and even then stats alone can not tell you about the player.

[Livewyr]

FrDrake, on 07 June 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

Yes, now you're finally getting to where I think you'll see where I'm coming from.

When someone posts "LRMs are OP"

If they have an Elo of 2200 it's probably true they already know all your tips about taking cover and are just somehow bad at dodging LRMs, or there might be a legitimate problem.

If they have an Elo of 1000 it's much more likely they just need to hear your tips and then make some gameplay adjustments, it's also possible there is a legitimate problem, but they probably should try your tips first and see if that helps them out.

That's what the OP is trying to say in his elitist way. By seeing what Elo a poster is you get a better basis from where they are coming from in terms of the type of problem they are having.

FrDrake, on 07 June 2013 - 09:49 AM, said:

Yes, and I wish they would take more player feedback balanced by tiers for their balancing passes, and not make balancing changes for all brackets based on the KICKING and YELLING from one particular tier.

It is opinionated, and doesn't having the most information as to where the opinion is coming from make the most sense?

(Above post to Diety also addresses this, just so you know I'm not ignoring you.)