597 replies to this topic

[Soy]

"Hey kid... nice trial jenner, think I'll take it..."

*yoink*

"Oh, is this your planet... it'd be a shame if... someone TOOK IT..."

Edited by Soy, 08 June 2013 - 05:42 AM.

[Just wanna play]

xDeityx, on 06 June 2013 - 12:08 PM, said:

This would actually curb the elitism, or at least shine a light on whether it is justified or not. There are far more players who act like they are elite than there are players who are actually elite.

If someone is acting elite because they are in the top .01% of Elo ratings then what's wrong with that? They ARE elite, and I'd like to know what they have to say about the state of the game because they have a better understanding of it than 99.99% of the players out there.

because the higher your elo the lower your team mates causing your previously high elo to drop back down then causing you to eventually get a higher elo again which slowly drops again and so overall elo is not a realistic way to judge skill level imo, it will cause people who just use some cheap *** build to be able to brag about their sill and instead of people judging based on what we actually see i game and how good their knowledge is we will just assume the person knows what they are talking about

[TB Freelancer]

The reason its hidden is precisely why most are trying to gain access to it.....

....so they can figure out how to manipulate it to their advantage.

[Livewyr]

Villz, on 08 June 2013 - 05:25 AM, said:

[DELETED CONTENT]

I don't think you were even trying to make sense.

Wispsy, on 08 June 2013 - 05:30 AM, said:

We do not, which is why I said often and not always. He does though.

Granted. (Admittedly, I saw the style of his post and prematurely lumped him in with the rest of the "Betters are more important and should have more say" crowd.)

Incidentally.. you're the only one (supporter) who hasn't come outright to say something like "We betters deserve more say" or "Baddies are just scared."
But I still find the logical outcome of your argument symbolic at best. (Players knowing other players' brackets in order to make a better case to PGI regarding balance.. is going to be no more effective than all the good cases pushed thus far.)
It WILL however turn the forums into a cesspool- Just look at this thread.

Edited by Destined, 10 June 2013 - 04:55 PM.
Quote Clean Up

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Livewyr, on 08 June 2013 - 05:50 AM, said:

It WILL however turn the forums into a cesspool- Just look at this thread.

Just look at any thread in the game balance sub forum, the cesspool has been here since Open Beta.
It appears the removal of GD was not enough of a demonstration of just how bad these forums already are.

And in case it has not been covered enough, i have no affiliation with DV8. I know some of it's members through playing against them, and several of them are very good players.

And for the record as stated in an earlier post, i don't agree with Peef and his reasoning's, but i believe either elo, or bracket information should be published, for better dissection of how the game is played at various levels.
And balancing should be done from the top tiers (whoever that may be) downwards, because it's the min/max metaplayers who will push game mechanics to their furthest broken levels.
Balancing from the bottom up is never going to work in any shape or form, or we end up with Machine Gun and Flamer buffs, as opposed to PPC changes and pulse laser reworks.

And as i have said in previous threads, Mechwarrior/Battletech can't be balanced, because it's core structure is unbalanced with power creep the further you move through it.
What can happen is that every major weapon system is viable in some form or another and that may require moving away from TT implementations.


And yes PGI has that data, but it hardly looks like they are using it in the appropriate way else, the game would not have hit the stupendous stupidity we have seen over the past 12 months.

Edited by DV McKenna, 08 June 2013 - 06:38 AM.

[InRev]

Let's give people who use terms such as "noob", "baddie" and "********" more ammunition to be immature pingas.

That's a great idea.

[Livewyr]

DV McKenna, on 08 June 2013 - 06:37 AM, said:

Just look at any thread in the game balance sub forum, the cesspool has been here since Open Beta.
It appears the removal of GD was not enough of a demonstration of just how bad these forums already are.

So giving the immature elitist another bit of ammo.. would *not* be a good thing.

DV McKenna, on 08 June 2013 - 06:37 AM, said:

And in case it has not been covered enough, i have no affiliation with DV8. I know some of it's members through playing against them, and several of them are very good players.

Indeed, my apologies for the assumption.

DV McKenna, on 08 June 2013 - 06:37 AM, said:

And for the record as stated in an earlier post, i don't agree with Peef and his reasoning's, but i believe either elo, or bracket information should be published, for better dissection of how the game is played at various levels.

1: The horrid side effect: "That's no moon, that's an e-peen."
2: What good would the player base "dissecting" how the game is played, if PGI makes the changes- and doesn't do it now even when THEY have the information?

DV McKenna, on 08 June 2013 - 06:37 AM, said:

And balancing should be done from the top tiers (whoever that may be) downwards, because it's the min/max metaplayers who will push game mechanics to their furthest broken levels.
Balancing from the bottom up is never going to work in any shape or form, or we end up with Machine Gun and Flamer buffs, as opposed to PPC changes and pulse laser reworks.

1: Balancing needs to be objective: Numbers balance (for loadouts) and Effort Balance (effort to do versus effort to counter- for mechanics)
2: Having a high Elo doesn't make you good. (Reference the formerly "awesome" poptarts with high Elos that are now cratering because they aren't actually that good.. and next are the PPC boats.. who really aren't that good.
Public Numbers are a horrid idea while the game is in such wild flux. (And a Bad idea all around.)

DV McKenna, on 08 June 2013 - 06:37 AM, said:

And as i have said in previous threads, Mechwarrior/Battletech can't be balanced, because it's core structure is unbalanced with power creep the further you move through it.
What can happen is that every major weapon system is viable in some form or another and that may require moving away from TT implementations.

A sad reality, some weapons/systems are just going to have to receive meta advantages. (MGs doing crit damge, SHS raising heat cap while DHS raises heat Diss)

DV McKenna, on 08 June 2013 - 06:37 AM, said:

And yes PGI has that data, but it hardly looks like they are using it in the appropriate way else, the game would not have hit the stupendous stupidity we have seen over the past 12 months.

And the knowledgeable player-base, who has been making good and balanced arguments since CBT, would continue to get the same treatment.

Bottom line:
Even if Elo's or their Brackets were made public, the players would have no more or less influence on PGI's balancing decisions than we do now.
We would however have huge E-peen problems.. (just look at the "you scurrd boi" posts..)

[Oderint dum Metuant]

The problem you have overlooked, is that at the current time we have a million threads of X,Y,Z is overpowered, that all end the same way, yes it is, no it's not nobody uses x,y,z......because the game plays differently at varying stages of elo.

At least by bracket, we can obtain the trending meta's at each bracket intersection, so ok LRM's might be a problem at bronze level, but they are seeing less usage at silver and none at gold.

Why is that?

Quote

[color=#959595]2: What good would the player base "dissecting" how the game is played, if PGI makes the changes- and doesn't do it now even when THEY have the information?[/color]

The problem here, is the playerbase has for a long time been making the claims with the slightest bit of information, it's only recently the UI actually gave us the data needed, and this will be expanded in UI 2.0.

At some stage, PGI will have to wake up and actually take notice of the maths put infront of them, like blizzard do, like riot do, like any developer worth their salt does.
Their best information will come from the community, it's about time they took notice and communicated in threads that are actually worth while, instead of responding to the calling x,y,z developer out threads....

The game is full of epeen with or without publication, nothing will change that.

It's a law of the internet (and the varying personalities any online game has)

[Lord of All]

ELO rating is designed for single match play, It is nothing more than a stop gap for the matchmaking system. In random team play it is a red herring.

[Livewyr]

DV McKenna, on 08 June 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

The problem you have overlooked, is that at the current time we have a million threads of X,Y,Z is overpowered, that all end the same way, yes it is, no it's not nobody uses x,y,z......because the game plays differently at varying stages of elo.

At least by bracket, we can obtain the trending meta's at each bracket intersection, so ok LRM's might be a problem at bronze level, but they are seeing less usage at silver and none at gold.

Why is that?

I have not overlooked the problem. I know it's a problem. What I'm saying is that US being able to do what PGI can already do isn't going to change anything, It's NOT a solution... They're not doing it now, why would they do it if we had the info?

We can already identify an argument made a "lower levels of play" by the way it is presented, or the situation in which it is presented. (Can't hit, can't get away from etc..) We've been making arguments against that since the beginning.. US having the numbers PGI already does, won't change anything.

DV McKenna, on 08 June 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

The problem here, is the playerbase has for a long time been making the claims with the slightest bit of information, it's only recently the UI actually gave us the data needed, and this will be expanded in UI 2.0.

At some stage, PGI will have to wake up and actually take notice of the maths put infront of them, like blizzard do, like riot do, like any developer worth their salt does.
Their best information will come from the community, it's about time they took notice and communicated in threads that are actually worth while, instead of responding to the calling x,y,z developer out threads....

PGI does need to step up and start making use of the data (or at least demonstrate better that they are) that doesn't mean "hand US the data."

(To cite an earlier metaphor:
Public Elo is a stick of dynamite.
PGI has the power to use the Dynamite to mine stone for construction.
Players only truly have the power to use it on each other..)

DV McKenna, on 08 June 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

The game is full of epeen with or without publication, nothing will change that.

It's a law of the internet (and the varying personalities any online game has)

Nothing will change that- internet will always be a little flame war.. that does NOT mean "it's okay to pointlessly throw gasoline on the fire."

[Just wanna play]

DV McKenna, on 08 June 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

The problem you have overlooked, is that at the current time we have a million threads of X,Y,Z is overpowered, that all end the same way, yes it is, no it's not nobody uses x,y,z......because the game plays differently at varying stages of elo.

At least by bracket, we can obtain the trending meta's at each bracket intersection, so ok LRM's might be a problem at bronze level, but they are seeing less usage at silver and none at gold.

Why is that?



The problem here, is the playerbase has for a long time been making the claims with the slightest bit of information, it's only recently the UI actually gave us the data needed, and this will be expanded in UI 2.0.

At some stage, PGI will have to wake up and actually take notice of the maths put infront of them, like blizzard do, like riot do, like any developer worth their salt does.
Their best information will come from the community, it's about time they took notice and communicated in threads that are actually worth while, instead of responding to the calling x,y,z developer out threads....

The game is full of epeen with or without publication, nothing will change that.

It's a law of the internet (and the varying personalities any online game has)

well when you are at "gold elo" the rest of your team is often times "bronze" because of the way matchmaking puts the teams together, so its really because when you are bronze your team is actually good enough to let you get locks and such while at gold you are the only one smart enough to provide locks

that and many "high elo" players are actually mediocre users of lrms, they need to learn to be more aggressive in a lot of cases

Edited by Just wanna play, 08 June 2013 - 09:25 AM.

[M0rpHeu5]

I agree, i'd like to see there i stand.

[Odins Fist]

Wow, this thread is still going..?? The fact remains that this idea about ELO is just awful, it's such a bad idea for MWO at this point of development that it isn't even amuzing to watch people argue over it anymore. ELO being made public with the current level of development of MWO would be a nightmare, there couldn't be a worse time to suggest this than now.

For the issue that making ELO public is supposed to help, there will be unitended consequences (plural) that are negative, and would spawn a whole new breed of mutated trolls that would roam about with reckless abandon, attempting to wave their shriveled little genitalia around like it's supposed to be impressive, when it actually is the exact opposite.

You want to know why?? Their are too many variables to this. NOT one player here is qualified over another that has been in MWO for more than 2 months because MWO changes, and nobody here has access to what will happen next, the DEVs tell us what will happen next, and if they can't fix an issue for some unkown reason we see the player base exploit these issues to bolster their gameplay performance for some sort of advantage.. You want to know how I know this..?? I will explain that too.

When people complained about the LRM apocalypse happening I saw a lot of players say "Learn to Play/Adapt/find cover", and quit crying, and a lot of those people were would be considered top tier/high ELO players, when ECM was being argued about I saw the exact same thing "Learn to Play/Adapt" ( I was one of those, and I didn't run any ECM for a long time ), but again I saw the same people saying the same "Learn to Play" comments.. Then came the PPCs and poptarting, and yet the same groups fo people using this opportuntiy to bolster their performance ingame would say "Learn to Play/Adapt".

If the issue here is that higher ELO players should be listened to over people that have only been around for 3 months, then it is quite obvious how bad of an idea this is.

Does anyone really think the people that latched on to every issue of the month, then used it to improve their gameplay performance is going to recommend things that are "NOT" to "THEIR" advantage, or be unbiased, then you obviously don't know the player base in MWO since closed beta.

I have a friend that has run every single (perceived) cheese boat, or used every weapon/loadout config that was addressed by a patch/hotfix, and he would give the excuse "I'm doing this so they (DEVs) see how cheap it is and they will fix it", then after he relied on it for a couple of weeks or months, the DEVs would announce that the issue was getting patched/hotfixed, and my friend would go ape about it saying "why the F are they going to patch this out, there's nothing wrong with it".
Remember having to lead lights by 2 mech lengths, yep he ran lights, and cried when it was addressed, remember LRMs, yep he did that and cried then too, remember SRMs, remember poptarting, those are just the most obvious. The really funny thing is that he never POSTED about how originally bad he thought they would be, he just ran them, and then exploited whatever (percieved) advantage he thought they gave him (or actually did), until they were addressed, then he would cry about it being changed/nerfed in the forums.. Weird, he didn't say it was bad here, only came in when I told him they were changing it to cry, and I saw a lot of that from others as well.

I don't see any of the people that told the rest of the community, that consistantly told others to "Learn to Play" as being any kind of resource for the influence of MWO development..
Their entire excuse was "everyone else is doing it, if you can't beat them, join them", then they would tell other people to do the same, and you want these people having any influence whatsoever..?? WOW

Nobody here has access to what DEVs have access to in terms of knowing "exactly" what's broken, they don't seem to know all of the time either, and some people want the players that will obviously have "BIASED" opinions having more influence, or thinking that they should have more influence?? No, that would lead to all kinds of awful.
That's incredibly lame, and if people can't see the obvious potential for disaster, and slowing of development, then they are a complete loss, and display really awful 2 dimensional thinking.

As it stands now making ELO public, then looking to the higher/highest ELO players for suggestions is a joke with the current level of development of MWO.

In the future (3 months after relase) I see no issues with making ELO public, but as it stands now, it is an awful Idea.
I don't have any problem with ELO being public right now, I have an issue with the problems it "WILL" cause.

We do "NOT" need something else slowing down the development of MWO.

Edited by Odins Fist, 08 June 2013 - 09:45 AM.

[Chavette]

Odins Fist, on 08 June 2013 - 09:41 AM, said:

Wow, this thread is still going..?? The fact remains that this idea about ELO is just awful, it's such a bad idea for MWO at this point of development that it isn't even amuzing to watch people argue over it anymore. ELO being made public with the current level of development of MWO would be a nightmare, there couldn't be a worse time to suggest this than now.

Is there anything worse than the current nightmare?

Wait I think I know, its the next patch, and then the next...

[PEEFsmash]

Niko Snow, on 09 June 2013 - 03:02 PM, said:

Making ELO ratings public would also prevent us from benefiting from a great deal of meta-game telemetry as players would be striving to change their ELO stats rather than playing as they otherwise naturally would.

If players are striving to win games, and Elo is a function of winning games...isn't every player already as a result striving to improve their Elo score? Sure, some players say they don't play to win but play for fun (whatever that means) but those people won't start caring about Elo rating all the sudden...If anything, you would get more people playing the game more seriously and for longer periods of time, probably increasing sales along the way.

[Just wanna play]

PEEFsmash, on 09 June 2013 - 03:08 PM, said:

If players are striving to win games, and Elo is a function of winning games...isn't every player already as a result striving to improve their Elo score? Sure, some players say they don't play to win but play for fun (whatever that means) but those people won't start caring about Elo rating all the sudden...If anything, you would get more people playing the game more seriously and for longer periods of time, probably increasing sales along the way.

well playing for fun mainly means not always trying your hardest and sometimes just goofing off, i know a guy who just runs flamers and/or mgs for the heck of it and there are certain builds that aren't very viable but are extremely fun to play, and i personally often play more for earning c-bills then actually wining

For example those that are likely to play for fun would dislike base caps because they just want to fight it out and not care about winning

[Kell Commander]

I have suggested this in a past topic and very good arguments were made that reversed my opinion. The main one being the if ELO becomes public, players will find out how it works. When they find out how it works, the will take advantage of the system, basically removing everything ELO is intended to do. Keep it private. Only way to prevent people from breaking the system.

[Lord of All]

Kell Commander, on 09 June 2013 - 03:13 PM, said:

...Only way to prevent people from GAMING the system.

Fixed.

[Deathlike]

Niko Snow, on 09 June 2013 - 03:02 PM, said:

Making ELO ratings public would also prevent us from benefiting from a great deal of meta-game telemetry as players would be striving to change their ELO stats rather than playing as they otherwise naturally would.

That doesn't help me at all as a player. If at the very least the info was delayed a month, it would take a while to abuse.

Not making it public is fine (for the purposes of this thread and its contents, it is a bad idea). As a player, I have to know if I'm getting better. I'm pretty sure I'm only staying more or less the same...

[FupDup]

The assumption being made here is that just because somebody is in the "l33t competitive" elo tier that they'll want to use their knowledge/experience to help balance the game. This is false. There are some people at the top who in fact want to keep the game as-is or make it worse; you can identify them by their rally cry "Learn 2 Adapt." Being experienced in game mechanics means nothing if you use that experience for trollish/negative ends. And yes, there are also people at the bottom who don't want to make the game better, either.

It's not about what tier of elo they're in, it's about their tier as a human being...which can't be measured by numbers. You can only measure it by listening to their posts over time and figuring out their personalities.