597 replies to this topic

[xDeityx]

BlackWidow, on 10 June 2013 - 10:46 AM, said:

I assume LoL means Laugh out Loud. WoW's PVP has *NEVER!* been balance. EVER. And NEVER will.

In case you missed that....NEVER. You obviously never played or only played a class that was OP compared to the rest and therefor you winning = balanced.

The fact that both World of Warcraft and League of Legends have thriving competitive scenes with orders of magnitude more players than MWO is the point I was trying to convey. I didn't mean to infer that either games were perfectly balanced, because that is an almost impossible task, but both games certainly have a better balance between their assets than MWO does. In that regard it's not even close.

Don't get tied up too much in the examples. They are there to refute the point that public Elo ratings will be the downfall of the game.

Livewyr, on 10 June 2013 - 10:44 AM, said:

HOW exactly does making everyone's Elo public go about this process?
PGI can already see the Elo's of bad players posting.. what good is it going to do for US to see them?
What the hell is PGI going to do with public Elos?

(NOBODY CAN SEEM TO ANSWER THAT ********* QUESTION.)

(They probably just don't want to because the answer is "THE SAME DAMNED THING THEY'RE DOING NOW" better known as "NO IMPROVEMENT.")

------------------------------------------
EDIT: If someone can give me a REAL reason. (One other than "It'll help players see who shouldn't be posting, or paid attention to- or something in that category." I'll agree with this.)

I believe I answered your questions in my last post. I added bold this time for emphasis.

xDeityx, on 10 June 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

Public Elo ratings won't help PGI balance the game. Nothing short of a staff overhaul will help PGI balance the game though. What public Elo ratings will do is to help the community tell PGI how to balance the game by raising the level of discourse.

PGI is bad when it comes to balance. They don't have the ability to do it. This is evident by looking at the state of the game from patch to patch.

[Demosthones]

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.

I do not know about you op, but I play enough 8mans to know who the good players and merc groups are. If I come across one of thier posts, I read it. Maybe I take away something useful, maybe not. But I do not need some elo rating to tell me if a post has merit or not. Really man... you sound like an elitist. Do you really need a high elo to back up a point? Can you use your brain to make a coherent thought and then express it?

I do want to see what my elo is, but I do not believe that it should be public.

[I3lackI2ogue]

All a public ELO system would accomplish is creating a serfdom of "1337s" and "noobs" which would destroy the community or at the very least make the community as acidic as League of Legends, or World of Warcraft, which is the very opposite of what the desired ( read: positive ) change in community would be.

[Soy]

I think getting rid of General Discussion did more to fracture the community and create acidic attitudes on the forums than anything so far.

Remember, public ELO has never actually happened.

Edited by Soy, 10 June 2013 - 11:12 AM.

[Livewyr]

xDeityx, on 10 June 2013 - 11:05 AM, said:

I believe I answered your questions in my last post. I added bold this time for emphasis.

"Public Elo ratings won't help PGI balance the game. Nothing short of a staff overhaul will help PGI balance the game though. What public Elo ratings will do is to help the community tell PGI how to balance the game by raising the level of discourse.

PGI is bad when it comes to balance. They don't have the ability to do it. This is evident by looking at the state of the game from patch to patch."

--------------------------------------
Well.. if by adding to discourse you mean:
"Look at your Elo.. you have no idea what you're talking about, talk again when you're up here with us." Said in so many different ways in so many words...

Then Sure.. it will add to discourse.

Frankly.. not worth it.

-------------------------------
We already identify people who don't know what they're talking about when they say things like:
LRM10 cored my atlas in one shot! (Recently seen)
Add licenses to drive mechs! (Also recently seen)

And the various stupid posts like that. Otherwise I've seen reasonably put posts that create (true) discourse.. and we don't have Elo.

----------------------------------

Also, check out the level of discourse in the 3pv, ECM, and ECM statement feedback thread.. plenty of good arguments in there, good points, from obviously knowledgeable players.
Did squat.

Edited by Livewyr, 10 June 2013 - 11:13 AM.

[C E Dwyer]

This debate has as usual devolved into elitist bull shine.

Where the top 20% seems to think that people like me the bottom 20% shouldn't have a voice in where this games goes,they pull the strings and we have to put up with.

Last I heard this game was a technocracy.

The developers chose where this game is going, not the players, no matter how we vent and complain about this and that.

Let me give all those that fit into this catagory the very bottom line.

Piranah and IGP need the 80% more than they need the top 20%

Without us its garanteed that you HAVN'T got a game to play, if they don't make enough money, they stop developement, they shut shop are gone..

We are the more valuble, we don't get any enjoyment our wallets/purses close, and there is not enough money..

Why else do you think they have gone back on no third party view play..its boarderline now, if enough money is comming in to keep it afloat long term.

They make choices like this because they need more cash..they figure they'll gain more than they lose.

The vocal majority will be heard

[Milt]

what i want more than a public elo is no elo at all. id rather have my *** handed to me and learn than to keep on playing wearing these artificial rose colored glasses

[M e g a M a n X]

ForumWarrior Online!

[Soy]

Cathy, on 10 June 2013 - 11:16 AM, said:

This debate has as usual devolved into elitist bull shine.

Where the top 20% seems to think that people like me the bottom 20% shouldn't have a voice in where this games goes,they pull the strings and we have to put up with.

Last I heard this game was a technocracy.

The developers chose where this game is going, not the players, no matter how we vent and complain about this and that.

Let me give all those that fit into this catagory the very bottom line.

Piranah and IGP need the 80% more than they need the top 20%

Without us its garanteed that you HAVN'T got a game to play, if they don't make enough money, they stop developement, they shut shop are gone..

We are the more valuble, we don't get any enjoyment our wallets/purses close, and there is not enough money..

Why else do you think they have gone back on no third party view play..its boarderline now, if enough money is comming in to keep it afloat long term.

They make choices like this because they need more cash..they figure they'll gain more than they lose.

The vocal majority will be heard

What a compelling argument from the plebs.

Elitists, what say you?

Quote

****** noob.

Well that settles it.

[xDeityx]

Demosthones, on 10 June 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

I do not know about you op, but I play enough 8mans to know who the good players and merc groups are. If I come across one of thier posts, I read it. Maybe I take away something useful, maybe not. But I do not need some elo rating to tell me if a post has merit or not. Really man... you sound like an elitist. Do you really need a high elo to back up a point? Can you use your brain to make a coherent thought and then express it?

I do want to see what my elo is, but I do not believe that it should be public.

You are totally missing his point with the above statement I bolded. Take a step back for a second and calm down, and realize this has nothing to do with merit. We can (kind of) tell the merit of a post from the message in the post.

This is about perspective.

For example, let's look at a hypothetical situation with LRMs. LRMs are really strong against noobs who don't know how to take cover. Then LRMs get weaker as your opponents get better. But what if an extremely good but relatively unknown player comes in and drops his opinion into the thread that LRMs are actually *very* powerful if you know how to use them. His opinion is assumed to be coming from a bad player and won't garner much interest. But what if he's right? What if LRMs are insane when used in a specific way that requires lots of coordination and timing? In a private Elo rating environment, that player gets ridiculed because the conventional wisdom is that LRMs are fine if you know how to use cover. In a public Elo rating environment, people pause for a second before dismissing him. Who is this 2,000-Elo-rating player claiming that LRMs are really good? Why is he saying that? Simply because of a number next to his name, people are open to his ideas all of the sudden.

The reverse situation where people dismiss a player with a good comment because of a low number is something that intelligent people worth having a discussion with will avoid because the same logic doesn't hold true. If you have a high Elo rating it means that you have some understanding of the game. But if you have a low Elo rating that doesn't necessarily mean that you don't have some understanding of the game, because you could have horrible FPS or really bad aiming skills.

Please read this passage from David Sirlin's Playing to Win e-book. I linked it earlier in the thread but I think it is very important to understand this point.

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

From David Sirlin's Playing to Win e-book:

"The best players are usually doing somewhat weird things that most players don’t understand. I picture a bell curve of “valuations” that players have about their game. What I mean is that there is a large number of players in the middle of that curve who share common beliefs about what is good and effective, and what is not. They represent the “conventional wisdom” about the game. But there are a few players at the extreme end of the bell curve who have different views on what is good. In their world, some of the commonly known tactics don’t work on elite players, so they are worthless. Some moves or tactics are seen as worthless to most, but the elite player has a very specialized or refined use of them that makes them highly effective. Basically, because these players are on a higher level of understanding about the game—either with an explicit, logical analysis or through inexplicable intuition—they see the game through different eyes and see different relative values. Sometimes the conventional wisdom is just wrong about a game, and only the best players are able to step out of the mold and not be bogged down by how the masses incorrectly think the game should be played. And these elite players very often cannot explain in full, logical, step-by-step detail exactly why they value one thing so much more than another. I think the mental process for arriving at these valuations and the process for fully explaining them to others are very different things. You are better off watching what the masters do than asking them why they do it."

[Milt]

what makes a game addictive? a happy fun time with a 50/50 win loss? or a i need to work on this, i need to get better at this, i need to get this type of game? elo or no elo = same question

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Possibly my favorite passage

Quote

Introducing...the Scrub

The derogatory term “scrub” means several different things. One definition is someone (especially a game player) who is not good at something (especially a game). By this definition, we all start out as scrubs, and there is certainly no shame in that. I mean the term differently, though. A scrub is a player who is handicapped by self-imposed rules that the game knows nothing about. A scrub does not play to win.

Now, everyone begins as a poor player—it takes time to learn a game to get to a point where you know what you’re doing. There is the mistaken notion, though, that by merely continuing to play or “learn” the game, one can become a top player. In reality, the “scrub” has many more mental obstacles to overcome than anything actually going on during the game. The scrub has lost the game even before it starts. He’s lost the game even before deciding which game to play. His problem? He does not play to win.

The scrub would take great issue with this statement for he usually believes that he is playing to win, but he is bound up by an intricate construct of fictitious rules that prevents him from ever truly competing

Edited by DV McKenna, 10 June 2013 - 11:28 AM.

[xDeityx]

Livewyr, on 10 June 2013 - 11:12 AM, said:

Well.. if by adding to discourse you mean:
"Look at your Elo.. you have no idea what you're talking about, talk again when you're up here with us." Said in so many different ways in so many words...

Then Sure.. it will add to discourse.

Frankly.. not worth it.

This totally depends on the context. Is the person making a valid point and people are saying to him "talk to us again when your Elo is higher?" Then those people are just shooting themselves in the foot. Not everyone behaves this way.

Are they saying "come talk to us when your Elo is higher" to a person making an invalid point that obviously stems from his perspective as an unskilled player? Good! They can also explain why to him and do a little teaching in the process.

Livewyr, on 10 June 2013 - 11:12 AM, said:

We already identify people who don't know what they're talking about when they say things like:
LRM10 cored my atlas in one shot! (Recently seen)
Add licenses to drive mechs! (Also recently seen)

And the various stupid posts like that. Otherwise I've seen reasonably put posts that create (true) discourse.. and we don't have Elo.

I don't see that those examples you gave are immediately dismissable (the first one at least; I don't understand the second). What if someone did get an Atlas cored in one shot by LRM10s? If that person's Elo is really high I would want to investigate that further because I could trust that person not to be confused by the game mechanics. If that person's Elo is very low, I could probably save time and just assume that they didn't see their own blood red torso.

Livewyr, on 10 June 2013 - 11:12 AM, said:

Also, check out the level of discourse in the 3pv, ECM, and ECM statement feedback thread.. plenty of good arguments in there, good points, from obviously knowledgeable players.
Did squat.

I don't think that's a reason to give up though. I think if we had public Elos back when ECM was first rolled out it would have been much harder for PGI to ignore all the top-level players saying what a bad implementation the hard-counter was. You could probably have seen that the people defending ECM weren't that skilled if they didn't understand how broken it was in that metagame.

Edit: Soy, you are really de-railing this thread and making it more about your attitude than discussing a topic that doesn't have to be so divisive. We all love blowing up stompy robots on this forum, let's go from there...

Edited by xDeityx, 10 June 2013 - 11:31 AM.

[Livewyr]

Chavette, on 10 June 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

You're missing the point. A bad mannered troll thats about to be moderated would still be a bad mannered troll thats about to get moderated with a badge on the stat page.

Don't bring that elitist garbage here, the best players are more of scholars, instead of closed minded ramblers with egos that are rampant here.

That elitist garbage is already here.
And yes, the elitists are scholarly types among themselves trust me, I'm aware- I was one.
That is, until someone raises a point (well cited and thought out point) that disagrees with the elitist group think.
First Salvo is "Shut up noob, come talk to us when you know what you're talking about."
Saw that in WoT all the time before I left..hell I did some of it...

[xDeityx]

DV McKenna, on 10 June 2013 - 11:27 AM, said:

Possibly my favorite passage

I think this is from the first article of Sirlin's I ever read. It definitely changed my outlook on gaming.

[I3lackI2ogue]

Livewyr, on 10 June 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

That elitist garbage is already here.
And yes, the elitists are scholarly types among themselves trust me, I'm aware- I was one.
That is, until someone raises a point (well cited and thought out point) that disagrees with the elitist group think.
First Salvo is "Shut up noob, come talk to us when you know what you're talking about."
Saw that in WoT all the time before I left..hell I did some of it...

all of my feels, all of them ....

thanks for fighting the good fight for us plebians Livewyr

[RiceyFighter]

I am inpartial

[M e g a M a n X]

xDeityx, on 10 June 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

You are totally missing his point with the above statement I bolded. Take a step back for a second and calm down, and realize this has nothing to do with merit. We can (kind of) tell the merit of a post from the message in the post.

This is about perspective.

For example, let's look at a hypothetical situation with LRMs. LRMs are really strong against noobs who don't know how to take cover. Then LRMs get weaker as your opponents get better. But what if an extremely good but relatively unknown player comes in and drops his opinion into the thread that LRMs are actually *very* powerful if you know how to use them. His opinion is assumed to be coming from a bad player and won't garner much interest. But what if he's right? What if LRMs are insane when used in a specific way that requires lots of coordination and timing? In a private Elo rating environment, that player gets ridiculed because the conventional wisdom is that LRMs are fine if you know how to use cover. In a public Elo rating environment, people pause for a second before dismissing him. Who is this 2,000-Elo-rating player claiming that LRMs are really good? Why is he saying that? Simply because of a number next to his name, people are open to his ideas all of the sudden.

The reverse situation where people dismiss a player with a good comment because of a low number is something that intelligent people worth having a discussion with will avoid because the same logic doesn't hold true. If you have a high Elo rating it means that you have some understanding of the game. But if you have a low Elo rating that doesn't necessarily mean that you don't have some understanding of the game, because you could have horrible FPS or really bad aiming skills.

Please read this passage from David Sirlin's Playing to Win e-book. I linked it earlier in the thread but I think it is very important to understand this point.

[color=#959595]From David Sirlin's [/color]Playing to Win e-book[color=#959595]:[/color]

[color=#959595]"The best players are usually doing somewhat weird things that most players don’t understand. I picture a bell curve of “valuations” that players have about their game. What I mean is that there is a large number of players in the middle of that curve who share common beliefs about what is good and effective, and what is not. They represent the “conventional wisdom” about the game. But there are a few players at the extreme end of the bell curve who have different views on what is good. In their world, some of the commonly known tactics don’t work on elite players, so they are worthless. Some moves or tactics are seen as worthless to most, but the elite player has a very specialized or refined use of them that makes them highly effective. Basically, because these players are on a higher level of understanding about the game—either with an explicit, logical analysis or through inexplicable intuition—they see the game through different eyes and see different relative values. Sometimes the conventional wisdom is just wrong about a game, and only the best players are able to step out of the mold and not be bogged down by how the masses incorrectly think the game should be played. And these elite players very often cannot explain in full, logical, step-by-step detail exactly why they value one thing so much more than another. I think the mental process for arriving at these valuations and the process for fully explaining them to others are very different things. You are better off watching what the masters do than asking them why they do it.[/color][color=#959595]"[/color]

So abiding by David Sirlin's Playing to Win Ebook Scenario

Superb Elite player extremely high ELO (Koreanese? Whoever) : I. Hate. Jump. Sniping. Now. Better.
Before. Umm.. Ahh..

(According to David Sirlin's they can't explain in full logical, step-by-step detail)

Major Player Base : We hate poptarting! It's not fun when we play against a team of only Poptart Highlanders! nerf it!

PGI: According to David Sirlin we should follow the Top player who cant explain, he has high ELO anyway and since according to David Sirlin they are naturally like that


I think PGI will never do something like this. Approving someone's opinion without concise explanation just
because he's high ELO? over the raging majority?

You always need to explain yourself for any discussion to bear fruit. So you still have to explain and provide
detailed info to support you opinion. And for my final point..

You do not even need public ELO in that ideal scenario. Top players will naturally stand out because they
should be able to express themselves (they should!) due to sheer amount of experience.

The problem is top as i've said in my earlier posts, most top players just bash inferior players around
in the forum.

Public ELO will not automatically solve balance discussion ("hail top player you have high ELO so we'll
just shut up. PGI obey the top player). You still need discussion. Which when done properly, puts public ELO out of the equation. It is not even needed in that situation,

Edited by M e g a M a n X, 10 June 2013 - 11:45 AM.

[Stoicblitzer]

RiceyFighter, on 10 June 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

I am inpartial

wat

[Livewyr]

xDeityx, on 10 June 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:

This totally depends on the context. Is the person making a valid point and people are saying to him "talk to us again when your Elo is higher?" Then those people are just shooting themselves in the foot. Not everyone behaves this way.

Are they saying "come talk to us when your Elo is higher" to a person making an invalid point that obviously stems from his perspective as an unskilled player? Good! They can also explain why to him and do a little teaching in the process.

There are good people out there, I like to think I'm one of them. (I remember doing a lot of firefighting in the forums and sitting in the TS the night MWO went OB..spreading experience and telling people how to work around things..)

I also refused to group up with more 4 players for the first week of OB until MM Phase 1 came in, so as NOT to be a part of the 8man newbie trollstomper squads.. often resulting in my facing them as a pug.. and getting stomped.

However the amount of venom and epeen on the internet is staggering, and at an educated guess (this *IS* the internet) I'd say the venom and epeen far outweigh the helpful people.

If there's 3 college professors outside your door, but right beside them are 300 teenage vandals/thugs.. do you really want to open the door if you don't have to?

xDeityx, on 10 June 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:

I don't see that those examples you gave are immediately dismissable (the first one at least; I don't understand the second). What if someone did get an Atlas cored in one shot by LRM10s? If that person's Elo is really high I would want to investigate that further because I could trust that person not to be confused by the game mechanics. If that person's Elo is very low, I could probably save time and just assume that they didn't see their own blood red torso.

1: An experienced person would investigate getting cored by an LRM10 further, before making a forum post about it.
2: He was demanding (essentially brackets like we already have) in a misspelled, non-formatted ragepost about pilots doing newbie things.

xDeityx, on 10 June 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:

I don't think that's a reason to give up though. I think if we had public Elos back when ECM was first rolled out it would have been much harder for PGI to ignore all the top-level players saying what a bad implementation the hard-counter was. You could probably have seen that the people defending ECM weren't that skilled if they didn't understand how broken it was in that metagame.

If we'd actually gotten to talk about it, perhaps. But I refer to the first point.

Chavette, on 10 June 2013 - 11:33 AM, said:

Name the time and I'll join

I don't have specific times I play.. but if I see you on TS3 (NA server) when I get on there I'll link up.

Soy, on 10 June 2013 - 11:33 AM, said:

Livewyr, you're the one that would only send texts in TS, don't look at me bro, I'm down to talk about anything. Obvsly.

You do not talk to me like that with my mohawk. But if you feel like grouping, I'm game, I will crush those puny warriors with my hand.

Btw you should've seen one guys PM earlier, he was livid. I seriously think I cut into his work productivity today, that's probably only thing I feel bad about regarding this thread.

FLAME ON

ps - get on ******* comstar na and lets all kill people together WHILE we post our responses and not talk about it over voice. that'd be tight

I send texts if the person is in Lobby (no voice) or is in a group already so they can respond at leisure and not be interrupted.
And yes, I would imagine your posts do gather some angry attention.