597 replies to this topic

[Villz]

Cognitive dissonance: That's why all these fools don't want a public stat made of ELO. Because in their world its never their fault for their team losing. Its because they had bad team mates. But removing the iron curtain of ELO would force them to face the facts that they are indeed terrible and all those "noobs" they were complaining about are actually just as bad as they are. So casual kings who like to live in make believe land where they aren't terrible can maintain this dillusion. Thats why your always going to have resistance to public ELO. So now i can't have a metric to determine how my progress changes over the course of patches and my play time and to see how i improve over because a bunch of tards want to live a dillusional fantasy.

No wonder all the good units are quitting MWO.

EDIT: Dillusions of grandure: It's always amusing to watch egocentric people justify the avoidance of "elitisim" as an excuse also. Believing that the entire player base should conform to their preference. So instead of the goal being placed on actually improving their own game play the preferred outcome is that entire stats should be ommited from the game all together. That's the best part. I remember the same baddies crying about public stats also.

[Villz]

Gaan Cathal, on 07 June 2013 - 10:33 PM, said:

You...do have that metric. It's your W/L ratio. Your W/L ratio is right there, and is the basis for ELO ranking, the latter being your W/L in a chassis type compared to an arbitrary yardstick. W/L ratio is purer data and ergo more useful.

Note: The above is true irrespective of the rest of the thread and the public or private nature of ELO, on which I am not commenting.

Every game that has a matchmaker based on skill that is aimed at being a competitive platform has public ELO in way 1 or another. WoW has arena ratings public, Starcraft has ladder points, League of Legends have an umbrella ELO system in form of divisions. You name it any game with a ELO match maker makes the information public in 1 form or another. W/L ratio is not a "purer" stat. If i play at oceanic times when all the euro's and american's aren't on i could have a 10:1 W/L because they are all terrible. Where as if i played peak US times it would be closer to 3:1. Your arguement is flawed.

Edited by Villz, 07 June 2013 - 10:40 PM.

[Hammerfinn]

Villz, on 07 June 2013 - 10:34 PM, said:

Cognitive dissonance: That's why all these fools don't want a public stat made of ELO. Because in their world its never their fault for their team losing. Its because they had bad team mates. But removing the iron curtain of ELO would force them to face the facts that they are indeed terrible and all those "noobs" they were complaining about are actually just as bad as they are. So casual kings who like to live in make believe land where they aren't terrible can maintain this dillusion. Thats why your always going to have resistance to public ELO. So now i can't have a metric to determine how my progress changes over the course of patches and my play time and to see how i improve over because a bunch of tards want to live a dillusional fantasy.

No wonder all the good units are quitting MWO.

EDIT: Dillusions of grandure: It's always amusing to watch egocentric people justify the avoidance of "elitisim" as an excuse also. Believing that the entire player base should conform to their preference. So instead of the goal being placed on actually improving their own game play the preferred outcome is that entire stats should be ommited from the game all together. That's the best part. I remember the same baddies crying about public stats also.

I read: I want to be able to scoff at player are "worse" than me. Your arrogant attitude and the implied elitism of nearly every person who is in support of public Elo simply make me more married to an invisible ranking.

You seem to think that some areas of the world are inherently worse, and I can only imagine what sort of bigotry you would bring if you could see the stats of every player.

They have said they will bring in leaderboards of some sort. They, not us, arte examining the Elo and figuring out what needs to happen based on feedback and gameplay.

I still maintain that the only vailid reasons to make this kind of stat public basically break down to two areas:
1. curiosity
2. elitism of some flavor
My main problem with this is that it's not worth enabling the elitists to allow the curious people to see what's happening.

The people who need to know Elo for balancing purposes--PGI--Already know the Elo. Anyone else is simply intellectually intrigued or trying to establish an abusive class system. Based on your rhetoric, I place you in the second category, though many people who argue the same point are only in the first.

I do not blame curious people; I think that they are too hopeful for proper conduct from elitist ********.

In short: since PGI already has this information, the only thing that making it public would do is either satisfy curiosity or enable epeen magnification. Curiosity is not worth the possible cost.

[Aslena]

I would vote for this and I prolly suxzors lol

[Sephlock]

Villz, on 07 June 2013 - 10:34 PM, said:

No wonder all the good units are quitting MWO.

If that is the case, then the overall skill level will drop, making them the new "best"!

[Gaan Cathal]

Villz, on 07 June 2013 - 10:38 PM, said:

W/L ratio is not a "purer" stat. If i play at oceanic times when all the euro's and american's aren't on i could have a 10:1 W/L because they are all terrible. Where as if i played peak US times it would be closer to 3:1. Your arguement is flawed.

Because your ELO is based on your W/L Ratio you would have a better ELO after a month of playing against your hypothetical Oceanic playerbase than against your hypothetical EU or US playerbases.

When I say W/L Ratio is a purer stat, I'm speaking mathematically. W/L Ratio is purer than ELO because it is the raw data value on which ELO is based. ELO is calculated from W/L Ratio. That makes W/L Ratio purer. We're talking mathematical definitions here. Raw data is purer than secondary derivations.

All ELO is is a number representing how your W/L Ratio in a given weight class compares with the spectrum of other W/L Ratios in said weight class. It's a comparative of W/L Ratio. If you actually want to know if you're improving, W/L Ratio will tell you. If you want to know how big your Epeen is compared with the average then you need ELO.

[One Medic Army]

Dear god, is this still going?

Yes, the game needs some metric by which people can judge their improvement.
No, the metric does not need to be Elo, though it can be based on Elo. I'd be glad if it wasn't pure Elo.

Hopefully when CW comes (or if, depending on local cynicism levels) there will be some way to measure the achievements of either your group, or yourself compared to the others in your house.

Edited by One Medic Army, 08 June 2013 - 12:54 AM.

[Villz]

Gaan Cathal, on 08 June 2013 - 12:45 AM, said:

Much as that whole line of argument is seriously stupid ("You're a noob!" "Your an *******!" "Yeah? Well...shut up!" "No U!") I think it's worth pointing out that of course he's "read some post". That's what he's responding to. These are game forums, he's talking in posts about a game. No-one gives a **** if he feeds the homeless or ****** on money in front of them in RL because it's totally irrelevant. His post is what he's said here on the subject, and that's what they're responding to.

It's a stupid I-h8s-u-moar circle jerk of course, but that's sadly irrelevant.



Based on team ELO-based Win/Loss expectations. If the Matchmaker is working, your awesome *** would be put with the worst of those Oceanic bads against their "elite" players of average skill in order to level the playing field. Thus your games with Oceanic terribads should have the same 50% W:L expectation as your games against the United States Master Race players, who will find their better pilots forced to slum on your team and carry you through matches. The point is, if you are expected to loose and do, your ELO does not adjust. That should end up correlating approximately with your actual results, unless you are actually the best player in Oceania, able to be put on a team with 7 Bondi Beach Bimbos who're playing with a controller and still able to best a team of 8 Averagers all on your own. Then your ELO will not move because obviously the MM will expect you to win all your games, since your personal ELO will be higher than everyone else involved combined. That does rely on that being the case, however. If you are in the unique situation of being the only competent player of this computergame in Oceania then yes, you're right on the ELO shift. You're also a 1-individual demographic and thus statistically irrelevant. Also, you shouldn't need a numerical ELO to support your Epeen at that point, it should be self-evidently *****-slapping the Great Barrier Reef into submission.

The arguement should be the only thing in discussion but alas that wasnt the case

also

on your point of the ELO system workings that arguement would only be relevant in the case of isolated regions. however cross pollination occurs when good NA players play in oceanic times and "farm" the "good" oceanic players. suck points out of that player base... same thing happened in WoW a good case example

[Gaan Cathal]

Villz, on 08 June 2013 - 01:09 AM, said:

on your point of the ELO system workings that arguement would only be relevant in the case of isolated regions. however cross pollination occurs when good NA players play in oceanic times and "farm" the "good" oceanic players. suck points out of that player base... same thing happened in WoW a good case example

Oh, it certainly happens - but it affects both W/L ratio and ELO. Anything that affects ELO also affects W/L-R and vica versa. W/L-R is a perfectly adequate track of personal improvement as a result, since whilst circumstances can spoof it, said circumstances will also spoof ELO. The key difference is that ELO is a more suitable measure of Epeen than W/L-R because it has that normalisation-against-population element.

Note: I'm not saying that using it as an Epeen metric is inherently bad. I don't much care about my Epeen in MWO but I used to Eve, and was rather protective of it there. But it -is- a better Epeen metric than personal development metric, and W/L-R is perfectly adequate for the latter. Whether or not a public Epeen metric is needed/wanted is a different argument entirely.

[Villz]

Gaan Cathal, on 08 June 2013 - 01:15 AM, said:

Oh, it certainly happens - but it affects both W/L ratio and ELO. Anything that affects ELO also affects W/L-R and vica versa. W/L-R is a perfectly adequate track of personal improvement as a result, since whilst circumstances can spoof it, said circumstances will also spoof ELO. The key difference is that ELO is a more suitable measure of Epeen than W/L-R because it has that normalisation-against-population element.

Note: I'm not saying that using it as an Epeen metric is inherently bad. I don't much care about my Epeen in MWO but I used to Eve, and was rather protective of it there. But it -is- a better Epeen metric than personal development metric, and W/L-R is perfectly adequate for the latter. Whether or not a public Epeen metric is needed/wanted is a different argument entirely.

W/L is not in anyway a direct relation to ELO

if u won 25% of your game but those 25% where all MUCH higher ELO than u. you could maintain a steady ELO rating aslong as your losses where to teams equal to or greater than u so its not in anyway relational sry your wrong

[Gaan Cathal]

Villz, on 08 June 2013 - 01:17 AM, said:

W/L is not in anyway a direct relation to ELO

if u won 25% of your game but those 25% where all MUCH higher ELO than u. you could maintain a steady ELO rating aslong as your losses where to teams equal to or greater than u so its not in anyway relational sry your wrong

That's assuming you get a split of 25% of your games the MM expects you to loose, but you win. And 75% of your games the MM expects you to loose and you do, or the MM expects you to win and you do.

More to the point, that you loose no matches the MM expects you to win, but win a significant number of the ones it expects you to loose. If the matchmaker is placing you in matches correctly, that would be a seriously anomalous situation, and/or a lot of dumb luck. Or the MM is failing to place you correctly (probably due to a playerbase slightly smaller than the average southern-states family).

[Nimura Nekogami]

i would like to know it too but i would be happy as it works like the stats screen.

i could see if i getting better or not.
i doesnt have to be like an icon for maximum e-pe...is.

but for a little feedback it would be nice.

[Sephlock]

Soy, on 08 June 2013 - 12:41 AM, said:

If you are a noob I want to hear from you in regards to issues like player retention, cadet bonus, the early grind.

If you are a pro I want to hear from you in regards to issues like top-end ELO matchmaking, competitive weapon balance and group composition, etc.

And us poor schmucks in the middle just get ignored . I weep.

Anyway, part of what they're saying seems to be that they don't like the environment that public ELO would result in- and that that would hurt retention and/or turn the community into the LoL community (or something like it).



At least, that's the message I'm getting.

[Gaan Cathal]

I am getting a ridiculous amount of use out of this image today.

On a slightly more ontopic note, Sephlock more or less has it. Personally I think it's a moot point because any e-sports aspirations MWO had sailed a long, long time ago, and thus there is a limited capacity for a LoL-like toxic community to develop with ELO visible. Or, at any rate for it not to get significantly worse than it already is. We have a silly number of people on the forums unduly proud of being able to win MWO matches given the state of the game.

[Soy]

Of course, this game is not competitive at all. This has long been established.

Maybe if PGI put a slight bit of focus on the competitive scene, people would be more interested in it. They must have a huuuuuuge pile of carrots waiting in CW, or we're pretty ******.

Edited by Soy, 08 June 2013 - 02:10 AM.

[Zerberus]

Zin, on 07 June 2013 - 10:29 PM, said:

In my opinion better be to do following things:

1) allow people to see their own ELO at player profile - as default visible only to yourself

2) add option to make it visible to everyone else on forums

The issue is that even this will cause elitist BS.

1) As soon as players themselves can see it but nobody else, people will scream "liar, your Elo is never as high as you claim" 24/7 as soon as they disagree with someone`s opinion

2) If you even have the option of making it visible, elitist `tards will see invisible Elos as "He`s hiding his score = it must be low = he must suck and not have a valid opinion."

it`s still a lose/lose situation for the forums.

[Wispsy]

Whyfighter, on 08 June 2013 - 12:05 AM, said:

There is so much wrong with these posts I don't even know.


You can't stop two or three teammates from making bad decisions, skill or no, bub. I must be doing something wrong since I clearly haven't reached even the long shadow of your pillar of aptitude.



Good lord, you have to let me get lower on my knees so I can suckle that sweet, sweet nectar from your golden digital dong. By consuming your fluids I shall become stronger, more asinine, less "dillusional". What is that, by the way? A magical pickle?

Actually in quite a few cases you can stop them and even if you cannot then they can still be used to your advantage. You are the one constant in all of your games, people who are better at the game usually rise and players who are worse tend to fall. Blame your teams all you like but if you were better or looked for your advantage in the situation instead of just cursing the gods for giving you ******* then you would probably play better and raise your Elo more. So yes, you are doing something wrong, you have completely the wrong attitude towards the situation and this will cause you to fail far more often then he does.

[Pando]

xDeityx, on 06 June 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

I agree. More transparency will lead to better decision-making.

From another thread relating to this topic:

Great e-book.

[Soy]

We really need CW so I can issue a trial of posession for all the stuff noobs acquire, forget ELO/MM.

[Zerberus]

Soy, on 08 June 2013 - 05:35 AM, said:

We really need CW so I can issue a trial of posession for all the stuff noobs acquire, forget ELO/MM.

Why take their stuff, I want their SOUL!