597 replies to this topic

[Hellcat420]

public elo will do none of the things you say and only create more elitism

[Livewyr]

I am a competitive player. (Former A Co, MLP from the NASA in WoT for people who know what that translates to.)

And personally, I think that releasing stats on players was one of the worst things that happened to ideas.
(Don't get me wrong.. it was a lot of fun having better stats than just about anyone you argued with.. and using that to dismiss them...but it wasn't good for the community.)

I think personal private stats is enough, and I wouldn't mind a personal private Elo rating to see and compare with friends.. but to make them public is a stupid idea.

[Rasako]

Svalfangr, on 06 June 2013 - 11:59 AM, said:

No the last thing this forum needs is more elitism.

this is the best way to put it, all it would do if they revealed Elo scores is give people more reason to be ******** to one another and completely disregard other players' opinions based on elo

[Padic]

I have no interest in having visible Elo, but I wouldn't mind if players were visibly grouped into, say, three to five "tiers" (a la SC2's league system).

It would mitigate the elitism a little bit (I think), and still give the benefit of being able to see "roughly" how effective what I am doing is on the grander scale.

I mean, I guess even if it was hidden from other players, I'd like to know if I'm better with my custom built Centurion (I think I am) or with my cookie-cutter CTF-3D (which puts up good numbers, but I think against inferior opponents). Elo matchmaking obscures straight stat-comparison because of course my numbers are going to be worse if I'm playing against better players. If I had a load of time, I could just play each mech a ton more until I was sure I was playing them at the appropriate Elo-level, but that seems like a lot of tedious grinding for the sake of experiment.

[Rasako]

Deathlike, on 06 June 2013 - 02:08 PM, said:

See, the irony that despite PGI having this info.. they don't truly know how to interpret it. In fact, this is the source of all jokes when it comes to balance.

I'm pretty sure elo scores have nothing/very little to do with game balance

Edited by Rasako, 06 June 2013 - 02:18 PM.

[Rasako]

Padic, on 06 June 2013 - 02:16 PM, said:

I have no interest in having visible Elo, but I wouldn't mind if players were visibly grouped into, say, three to five "tiers" (a la SC2's league system).

It would mitigate the elitism a little bit (I think), and still give the benefit of being able to see "roughly" how effective what I am doing is on the grander scale.

I mean, I guess even if it was hidden from other players, I'd like to know if I'm better with my custom built Centurion (I think I am) or with my cookie-cutter CTF-3D (which puts up good numbers, but I think against inferior opponents). Elo matchmaking obscures straight stat-comparison because of course my numbers are going to be worse if I'm playing against better players. If I had a load of time, I could just play each mech a ton more until I was sure I was playing them at the appropriate Elo-level, but that seems like a lot of tedious grinding for the sake of experiment.

the league system is a horrendous idea and starcraft 2's playerbase has been screaming that since its implementation

[Padic]

Rasako, on 06 June 2013 - 02:20 PM, said:

the league system is a horrendous idea and starcraft 2's playerbase has been screaming that since its implementation

Huh, I never heard much, but I haven't been following SC closely in a while. What don't people like? Aside from "playing really well but always being stuck in X league".

[OneEyed Jack]

PEEFsmash, on 06 June 2013 - 02:06 PM, said:

You really know nothing about the competitive community do you. Koreanese, who is uncontestably one of the best players in this game, and probably the single best jumpsniper said in an interview recently that he hates jumpsniping and thinks it is stale, and wished brawling was better. It is also the consensus of the competitive community that pulse lasers are probably underpowered, flamers and MGs are underpowered, certain underused mech chassis should be buffed etc. We are not at all like this image you have painted of us. We want all weapons to have their place.

What is really needed here is a "statement" from active members of the competitive community so people outside of the community can better understand where we are coming from so this "boogeymanning" will be put to rest.

Whether or not you specifically, or Koreanese, feel a certain way or the other has no bearing beyond your own personal opinion and does not determine the motivations of others. Furthermore, even the motivations behind why you may or may not want certain things is not a provable point. Perhaps the reason some competitive players didn't like jump sniping is because they felt it closed the skill gap, and they didn't want "their turf" infringed on. I'm not saying it did or didn't, and I don't know what anyone's motivations are, but neither do you. And to suggest that every top competitive, power-gaming player is in it for the good of the game and only wants everything nice and fairly balanced is either naive or deliberately obtuse.

[Riogar Daylighter]

If my memory serves me right this isn't the first time this thread has popped up. Also it is ending the same way the others did. One side arguing to make it public stating thier well "thought out" reasons ignoring all the negative reasons while exhibiting some sort of arrogance with thier assumption that thier ELO scores are the highest not realizing the possibility that they are not that high. Which in turn would make thier opinion and suggestions worthless by thier own theory that ELO score dictates wisdom.

To be quite honest if some number dictated on how important my feedback is I wouldn't play the damn game. World is bad enough to get through with arrogant idiots. I don't want to deal with them in my leisure time too.

[Hexenhammer]

InRev, on 06 June 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

Look at the WoT forums. Unicum this, W/L ratio that.

The amount of abuse people take because of public performance stats is astounding and makes for a very toxic experience.

Xeno Phalcon, on 06 June 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

I can see it now: ELO 9000 ONLY CORP RECRUITING!

YOUR ELO IS TOO LOW **** OF MY THREAD NOOB!

MY ELO IS HIGHER THEN YOURS, CLEARLY I WIN THIS DISCUSSION!

YOU'VE BEEN PLAYING HOW LONG WITH THAT ELO? LOL YOU MUST SUCK BAD!

no.

\

World of Warcraft.

Can I join your guild?

What's your Gear score?

749.

Sorry we only accept 750.

Been there, seen that. No thanks.

Edited by Hexenhammer, 06 June 2013 - 03:44 PM.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Chavette, on 06 June 2013 - 02:21 PM, said:

The last thing is a collective of ignorant people forcing their needs on everyone.


Good luck talking sense into these people peef, they get offended the second someone suggests they play better than them, and this is probably for the same reason they don't want a public ladder.

Thanks for a providing a perfect example of why Elo should not be public.

[TheMadPoet]

PEEFsmash, on 06 June 2013 - 12:14 PM, said:

If someone is genuinely an elite player, then their opinion on issues regarding the top level of play should absolutely be relevant. The anonymity makes the truly elite players input just one of 100 posts, the other 99 by people who aren't qualified to speak on issues as they relate to competitive 8 man balance because they don't play them or are bad at them. On the other side of the coin, high level players probably aren't the right people to be speaking about how to make a game more accessible and enjoyable for newer or casual players.

See? This is a prime example why they shouldn't be public. You think a high elo score means their opinion matters more than someone with a lower elo score. That is wrong. What if the person with the "super elite" elo ranking always drops with friends, and always uses the FOTM cheese builds, while someone with a lower elo score only PUGs and uses mechs like the Awesome or Dragon or other less-than-win mechs? Their opinion is of no value? They automatically don't know how to play as well or pilot as well? Ugh!

[Caviel]

Padic, on 06 June 2013 - 02:16 PM, said:

I have no interest in having visible Elo, but I wouldn't mind if players were visibly grouped into, say, three to five "tiers" (a la SC2's league system).

It would mitigate the elitism a little bit (I think), and still give the benefit of being able to see "roughly" how effective what I am doing is on the grander scale.

Not really, an arbitrarily selected weight of measure would be abused in just the same way. "You aren't Tier 1" and "You aren't 1800+ Elo" are basically synonymous.

[Chavette]

Kaeb Odellas, on 06 June 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

Thanks for a providing a perfect example of why Elo should not be public.

I personally don't believe in elo myself, thats why I wrote some ladder system. I understand elo would bring elo boosting, e-peen metrics and other garbage, so some SC2 styled leauge/bracket system would be much softer and forgiving, plus there wouldn't be a point to be the top10, as even in the highest bracket there would be a thousand or more players, with no order between them.

[Deathlike]

Rasako, on 06 June 2013 - 02:18 PM, said:

I'm pretty sure elo scores have nothing/very little to do with game balance

It doesn't, but PGI has made decisions based on "analysis" that doesn't seem to make sense at all. Heck, even the stats they put out doesn't have enough context to make an informed decision.

Same can be applied here. ELO isn't being used here to discuss balance... it's being used to say "MY IDEAS ARE RIGHT CAUSE MY ELO IS HIGH".

[Padic]

Another problem with visible Elo is that the more visible it is, the more people will "play to protect their score". If I've usually got a ~2500 Heavy Mech Elo, but I go on a big win streak and hit 2650, I might just ... stop playing my heavy mechs. I fear that I can't maintain that level of play, and I don't want to have to watch that neat number go down.

My understanding is that this is a known phenomenon in chess.

Why introduce a number that makes you NOT want to play the game?

[PEEFsmash]

Padic, on 06 June 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

Another problem with visible Elo is that the more visible it is, the more people will "play to protect their score". If I've usually got a ~2500 Heavy Mech Elo, but I go on a big win streak and hit 2650, I might just ... stop playing my heavy mechs. I fear that I can't maintain that level of play, and I don't want to have to watch that neat number go down.

My understanding is that this is a known phenomenon in chess.

Why introduce a number that makes you NOT want to play the game?

This is a non issue, because Elo decays over time (or at least, good Elo metrics do). The thrust is the exact opposite of what you are suggesting.

[Deathlike]

PEEFsmash, on 06 June 2013 - 02:33 PM, said:

This is a non issue, because Elo decays over time (or at least, good Elo metrics do). The thrust is the exact opposite of what you are suggesting.

AFAIK, ELO ratings does not decay in this game. If you don't use a mech in a particular weight class for a while, ELO stays the same. This has been stated before in the ELO discussion days.

The only thing that has been stated to decay are "faction points". However, since we have no CW, there is nothing to discuss with respect to decay.

Edited by Deathlike, 06 June 2013 - 02:36 PM.

[Caviel]

Chavette, on 06 June 2013 - 02:21 PM, said:

Good luck talking sense into these people peef, they get offended the second someone suggests they play better than them, and this is probably for the same reason they don't want a public ladder.

That frustrating feeling of futility you have that lead to this post, that people won't listen to you? Same thing the lower bracket/Elo/score players would feel as their ideas are summarily dismissed based on their ranking alone.

[Volthorne]

IceSerpent, on 06 June 2013 - 01:21 PM, said:

Just out of curiosity, whom would you trust?

I'm not a fanboi, but the only acceptable response here is: the Developers.

I honestly do not trust a single other person than myself and the Devs on these forums (well, okay, maybe also my fellow Windbourne if they bother to post) for the simple reason that people, as a general rule, are a-holes.

Caviel, on 06 June 2013 - 02:36 PM, said:

That frustrating feeling of futility you have that lead to this post, that people won't listen to you? Same thing the lower bracket/Elo/score players would feel as their ideas are summarily dismissed based on their ranking alone.

The difference is that Chavette put himself there voluntarily because he always posts like a {Richard Cameron}. Low-ELO players would have no choice but to stay low-ELO because they can't get borked mechanics fixed.

Edited by Volthorne, 06 June 2013 - 02:46 PM.