597 replies to this topic

[jakucha]

It would make the forum and game community worse, which is the opposite of what we should do.

[One Medic Army]

I'll say no, for a new reason.
If something was hypothetically to be overpowered, those that used it would see their Elo value increase.
This wouldn't mean they got better, or were more skilled, it just means they were using tactics or loadouts that allowed them to play against and beat more highly skilled players.
Now when said hypothetically overpowered thing inevitably gets nerfed, those people claim it was their unique and awesome skills giving them said wins, and use their Elo to back up their statements, even though their Elo was boosted by the same overpowered tactics/loadouts.

Or in other words it wouldn't add to balance discussions, it would only detract from them. The only party that can truly get a handle on the interaction between Elo and balance is PGI where they can see that, hypothetically, mediums have the lowest Elo on average, or that PPCs are more predominant at high Elo levels, or several other metrics that could provide balance insight.

Edited by One Medic Army, 06 June 2013 - 12:34 PM.

[Bilbo]

PEEFsmash, on 06 June 2013 - 12:28 PM, said:

I suggested that when it comes to discussing balance at the top competitive 8 man level, we should be looking for suggestions from players who actually play at the top competitive 8 man level. Is this really a controversial thing to say? Should the input from a low-Elo player who doesn't even play 8 mans be taken just as seriously? If these two opinions are equal on the topic of weapon balance at the top competitive 8 man level, then we will never accomplish anything with our discussion.

You believe that PGI doesn't have that data themselves. I can assure you that they can tell who is playing together, how often the win or lose, and what they used to get it done. If you can't argue the merits, no reason to give you club to beat someone over the head with instead.

[OneEyed Jack]

PEEFsmash, on 06 June 2013 - 12:28 PM, said:

I suggested that when it comes to discussing balance at the top competitive 8 man level, we should be looking for suggestions from players who actually play at the top competitive 8 man level. Is this really a controversial thing to say? Should the input from a low-Elo player who doesn't even play 8 mans be taken just as seriously? If these two opinions are equal on the topic of weapon balance at the top competitive 8 man level, then we will never accomplish anything with our discussion.

Since all the systems in the game operate the same, regardless of Elo, then there is no specific discussion of "balance at the top competitive 8 man level."

As I said, knowing how to work the system and knowing how to improve it are not the same thing. Nor does skill mean that personal biases have more relevance. There's absolutely no indication that just because someone may be at the top of the game, they are automatically more interested in creating a fair and balanced game.

[xDeityx]

jakucha, on 06 June 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

It would make the forum and game community worse, which is the opposite of what we should do.

A bunch of people are making these statements yet we have the two most popular games in the world as examples otherwise. In WoW arenas your matchmaking rating is public. In LoL there are two separate queues, ranked and unranked games. Your Elo rating for ranked games is public, your rating for unranked games is hidden to everyone including you. Neither game has suffered for it.

Can anyone give an example of an otherwise popular game that was ruined by the OP's suggestion? Because all I see is groundless fear mongering and baseless assumptions so far.

[Mister Blastman]

Raso, on 06 June 2013 - 12:29 PM, said:

Yes, lets create a glorious master race of elite pros who know everything who can dictate what balance adjustments the unskilled masses should be behind and who can skill shame other players into conceding defeat in an argument on the merit that you are better than them. Why not? It makes about as much sense as anything else PGI does.

There are certain things I guarantee you that the top players will figure out/do with weapons/mechs/items that the average or below average player will not figure out how to do on their own or even after reading about it.

This is called a skill-gap and for some it is just insurmountable no matter how hard they try. I've been playing Mechwarrior since 1996 and have witnessed this firsthand. The best of the best have always stood out on their own plateau and "club" if you'll call it that. Some are jerks about it while others are accessible and human.

No matter which camp they fall in, though, they have much greater insight into the mechanics of how things work due to them learning how to use/abuse them to get where they are at. So they are definitely qualified to discuss these things.

[OneEyed Jack]

xDeityx, on 06 June 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

Can anyone give an example of an otherwise popular game that was ruined by the OP's suggestion? Because all I see is groundless fear mongering and baseless assumptions so far.

I don't go on the boards of either of those games, so I couldn't comment on the state of said boards or how much ranking is flaunted as "proof of knowledge." Personally, I'd like to know my score and have no fear of public Elo. But the assumption that high Elo should give a player's opinion more weight, regardless of knowledge or intentions, is absurd.

Mister Blastman, on 06 June 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

No matter which camp they fall in, though, they have much greater insight into the mechanics of how things work due to them learning how to use/abuse them to get where they are at. So they are definitely qualified to discuss these things.

They know how they do work. That's different from knowing how they should work to create a fair and balanced game. While one person can know both, the former does not automatically lead to the latter.

Edited by OneEyed Jack, 06 June 2013 - 12:44 PM.

[Kaldor]

Bilbo, on 06 June 2013 - 12:24 PM, said:

A persons ELO rating has little to no bearing on their understanding of game mechanics, nor their ability to discuss them rationally. As the OP has already suggested, he and others will use it to discount and outright ignore others observations and opinions. Bad idea is very bad.

This....

Public stat systems like ELO are bad. Just what the internet needs, more [REDACTED] measuring...

The good players already know who the good players are. You dont need a number to know that. Example, I played DAOC for 9 years. On my server, I knew who the good players were by reputation, not by some fake [REDACTED] number.

Edited by Destined, 10 June 2013 - 02:50 PM.
Circumventing the language filter.

[Innocent]

Mister Blastman, on 06 June 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

No matter which camp they fall in, though, they have much greater insight into the mechanics of how things work due to them learning how to use/abuse them to get where they are at. So they are definitely qualified to discuss these things.

So you are saying that only the best players are qualified to discuss game mechanics. That is the point in not making rankings public. You want to justify ignoring the vast majority of the players in favor of a minority that may just be trying to protect their prefered playstyle.

[Mister Blastman]

OneEyed Jack, on 06 June 2013 - 12:41 PM, said:

They know how they do work. That's different from knowing how they should work to create a fair and balanced game. While one person can know both, the former does not automatically lead to the latter.

Right. It is just an opinion like anyone else's around here. The difference is they can base their opinion on reality rather than fantasy.

[InRev]

xDeityx, on 06 June 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

A bunch of people are making these statements yet we have the two most popular games in the world as examples otherwise. In WoW arenas your matchmaking rating is public. In LoL there are two separate queues, ranked and unranked games. Your Elo rating for ranked games is public, your rating for unranked games is hidden to everyone including you. Neither game has suffered for it.

Wait, what? You just mentioned two games that are famous for their toxic, trollish communities. In fact, LoL's community is so bad, the devs had had to implement measures specifically to curb the abusive behavior.

Oh, and like I said, WoT's community is awful.

[Screech]

Why not just have everyone post a picture of their junk and put it next to their name. Would accomplish the same thing.

[Mister Blastman]

Innocent, on 06 June 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

So you are saying that only the best players are qualified to discuss game mechanics. That is the point in not making rankings public. You want to justify ignoring the vast majority of the players in favor of a minority that may just be trying to protect their prefered playstyle.

I never said that. You're putting words into my mouth. What I said is they have deeper insight into mechanics that other people might not have.

Beyond that, however, as you intelligently point out, they do have a conflict of interest in protecting their playstyle as well. This is very true. Some of the top players might lean a certain way due to knowing how it might help/hurt them.

But, by knowing their ELO, when looking at their opinion it can help everyone weigh it in a different light.

[Hammerfinn]

Mister Blastman, on 06 June 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

Right. It is just an opinion like anyone else's around here. The difference is they can base their opinion on reality rather than fantasy.

Reality versus fantasy? Your high-ELO 8-mans are reality, and the massive majority of us puggers are living in a fantasy world?

I would actually argue the exact opposite, and elitism of this sort is exactly why we DON'T need some e-peen number.

I would be fine with some sort of match-making tier being public (the good ol' Bronze, Siver, Gold, etc.) but without a specific number visible.

All that truly detailed or specific public stats would do is allow players to jerk themselves off over top of "worse" players. We already have enough of this.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

MWO Armory, no thanks.

[Deathlike]

ELO doesn't provide ANY context of how good a player is. Yes, bigger number means better, but it tells you ZERO about what mechs they pilot nor if they play primarily premades or solo pug.

The worst part is that ELO is only limited to WEIGHT CLASSES. How you do accurately translate skills that are useful in the Assault class for ones in the Light class? You don't, outside of being able to shoot.

There's so many holes in the ELO argument that it would require a facepalm.

[Blackadder]

I have no issue with making rankings public, they just need to set it up so that it shows solo play, 4 man and 8 man teams. Just showing a generic rating does not really take into account the current system.

Beyond that, its just a matter of making sure that people who do not have the best elo are still listened to if they can speak in coherent sentences. Most top tier players i have found, are only interested in having the game keep them top tier, and tend to ignore things that need to be done for the health of the game.

[Ratnix]

xDeityx, on 06 June 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

Can anyone give an example of an otherwise popular game that was ruined by the OP's suggestion? Because all I see is groundless fear mongering and baseless assumptions so far.

Key words in your question being "Popular Game".

MWO is far from a popular game and has nowhere near the numbers of players that either WoW or LoL have.

If MWO had the same numbers of players as either of those two games having public ELO numbers would be less of an issue.

You are also ignoring that WoW has much more to the game itself besides the battle arena or whatever it is. The game can sustain itself without that even in the game.

LoL, as you pointed out, has a portion of it's matches that has no public ELO ratings that allow people who don't care about it to play in and not have to worry about the elitism.

MWO has none of this.

[Rebas Kradd]

PEEFsmash, on 06 June 2013 - 12:28 PM, said:

I suggested that when it comes to discussing balance at the top competitive 8 man level, we should be looking for suggestions from players who actually play at the top competitive 8 man level. Is this really a controversial thing to say? Should the input from a low-Elo player who doesn't even play 8 mans be taken just as seriously?

You're assuming three things: One, that all top-level ELO players are strong players with a good understanding of the game, as opposed to 13-year-old metagame abusers; two, that low-level players have no valid opinion on ANYTHING; and three, that there's no foreseeable way for public ELO to lead to system-gaming. All three assumptions are screamingly tenuous.

[FrDrake]

PEEF, blastman, I'm with you. I'm not looking to prove anything to anyone else or hold anything over anyone else, I think it's useful for balance and gameplay discussions as well.

I don't trust PGI to check the source of the volume of QQ that comes in on the boards, which is where I think the other posters have things wrong. PGI just looks at the volume and throws around changes based on QQ flooding whether needed or not.

I used to participate on the LoL forums years ago and the average age of that community is what makes it bad, not the public stats.