597 replies to this topic

[Und3rSc0re]

Alright so i think i am high elo or one of the better players in mwo. I actually would like a public elo system. Now, I read somewhere that pgi did not want mwo to be a competitive game/esport etc. But when they do get serious with this they are definitely going to need a lobby system. Then what they need to do is release a public elo system. Why? So when some of the top players come into the forums to start a thread on why something needs to be changed due to not being balanced in a competitive environment it will actually gather other top competitive players for good opinions and support if it needs change. Now in other esports the games are balanced from the top down meaning it is usually balanced around high elo players. Now sometimes low elo players will complain about something, if the game company nerfs what the low elo players believe needs to be nerfed it could completely kill it in high elo competition since it will usually make it under powered etc.

Now sure a high elo player can come on the forums to want a nerf to something but it does not mean high elo players will always support another high elo player unless it is what the majority agree on for change, if they are borderline troll top player they will usually be ignored completely after a few posts.

Now i think poptarting needed a nerf. Now after pgi does buffs to srms and gets missiles aligned, with maybe some ballistic buffs and better netcode if ppcs are still king of the meta then it will need a nerf. Else what is going to happen is pgi nerfs ppc, pgi buffs missiles etc. Now ppcs are trash and no one plays them anymore, and people are crying for ppc buffs on the forums see what i mean? Ok i need to say Clan weapons are going to need to be balanced now along with IS weapons even if they are not in the game or they will come out unbalanced and IS weapons may need to be rebalanced again.

Edited by Und3rSc0re, 07 June 2013 - 08:11 AM.

[Haruspex Pariah]

As for publicly listed Elo allowing players to discuss the game according to their skill bracket...I still think that the specific number should not be public. Maybe create bands or leagues (bronze, silver, gold) so that players have a general idea of where they are. If a player in a certain tier is talking about an issue other players in the same tier can quickly corroborate or refute the point.

For myself, I'm content to just roll out in a mech and fire missiles that hit sometimes but I know there are others who take it more seriously and put time and effort into getting good. All this talk about jumpsniping and boating literally went over my head; I had nothing to say in such a discussion but I could have joined in and nobody would know if I had the experience to back it up. Verifying what level a player is at can help streamline discussion I feel.

There is one caveat; according to wikipedia the Elo system suffers from "sitting" that is a player who stops playing can technically retain a high rank indefinitely. I don't know if PGI have modified the formula to account for this.

[Takony]

My 2 cents on this:

1) To OP: PGI already has the option proposed by you [filter forum opinions by ELO rating] available to them. Don't know of course whether they use it or not.
2) ELO, whatever ratings public: as suggested by some, I would do it in brackets, rather than numerical values, like some other companies do on ladder/leaderboard games. Which leads to:
3) No use, until we have "ranked" and "unranked" games/matches (if such distinction will ever be made in this game), that is until CW. So like if I just want to troll and test new builds, I could go to unranked matches, and when I want to b competitive, I go ranked matches.
4) Elitism on forums: the silent majority [do they even read forums?] wouldn't be affected by it too much, and forum warriors, well, they should be prepared for the sh1tstorm anyways

On a side note: balancing should be made around the setups/builds used by top "ranked" players/teams, if PGI wants to turn MWO into an e-sport anytime.
Example: LRMs might be deadly in the kindergarten, but not a single LRM launcher is to be found in the builds which are posted in a helpful thread showcasing the "comp" builds, because LRMs were bad even when they were "good".

TL;DR: when CW comes, introduce ranked and unranked matches, and make the ranked results/ratings public. This gives both bragging rights to good ranked players, an the opportunity to play 9 flamer hunchbacks as well, i.e. just play without even considering stats or anything remotely affecting epeens for players feeling the need to play casually.

[p00k]

i say make elo public. let us see once and for all just how good PGI's matchmaker is. which is precisely the reason elo will never be public

same reason they took away online player count. transparency will only embarrass PGI so they hide as much as possible

Edited by p00k, 06 June 2013 - 11:54 PM.

[FunkyFritter]

ELO ratings are good enough to set up decent matches, but in a team game like this they're nowhere near accurate enough to be worth showing.

[1453 R]

So, PEEF...what you're saying is: “I want to be able to ignore the opinions of any player whose ELO score is sufficiently beneath my own, and will paste a justification on this desire by claiming that balance is different for low ELO players and thus their ideas/arguments have no real merit on the game as a whole. Because 4uck scrubs.” Is that about right? Because that's pretty much what it sounds like.

You've put together a cogent, well-reasoned and well-written argument which, nonetheless, stinks terribly of elitism, segregation, and the general oppression/dismissal of anyone whose 1337 #'s are insufficiently 1337 for any given discussion. The notion that scrubby players should talk to other scrubby players (and by implication, only other scrubby players) about scrubby problems because they have no basis for making arguments about anything else is...well, it's insulting, offensive, hurtful, and just plain incorrect. Your argument that high-level players have equally little business weighing in on issues of accessibility is a blatant piece of pandering trying to appease dumb newbies into thinking that you actually value their opinions – despite the fact that your proposal is clearly and inevitably aimed at cutting them out of any future discussions over anything of actual worth.

Stop it. Argue for your public ELO scores if you must, but don't pretend you give the faintest foggiest flip about the folks on the left-hand side of the bell curve.

Let me throw this out there, just as a thing: I am a scrubby player. I'm one of those guys that you, PEEF, claim have no business offering any sort of input into balance issues and should, instead, restrict myself solely to discussions focused around accessibility and entry-level PUG tactics. Because 4uck scrubs; their ship opinions are ship anyways, real MWO players don't want to have to wade through them.

Here's the thing, though: I know why I'm one of those scrubs you're intent on 4ucking. Namely, my aim is ship – I've spent most of my life playing console games and have only recently started really picking up PC gaming outside MMOs or other niche genres, and find that trying to aim consistently and precisely with a mouse is something of a chore. Since my gunnery sucks, I win less fights than I otherwise might – especially as my choice of rides tends towards the fast and agile rather than the slow and stable – and my numbers are thusly low.

Here's my question to you, PEEF: which portion of my lack of gunnery skills is the part that invalidates my brain? I am a highly intelligent individual (yes, I know, I am unable to claim such without sounding like a douchewhale braggart. Nothing I can do about it, just accept the premise on this one for the moment, please?) with trained logical analysis abilities and a long history with MechWarrior. I understand BattleMech customization perfectly well, I know what Piranha's trying to do with any given balance patch (if not why they're doing it. Some of their decisions are weird...), and I am generally able to offer well-reasoned insight into many issues which, according to such a nebulous thing as my ELO score, are well above my station.

As it stands now, the only way for you to dismiss what I write is to read it, even if only in part, and support or dismiss it on its own merits. With a public ELO score, similar to a public post count, you can see a new post in, say, a thread just like this, glance at the player's ELO score, note that it's lower than what you feel the floor for Valid Opinions are for the given issue, and throw the post out altogether...despite the fact that you never even read a word of it. Despite the fact that for all you know, the guy might well have a point, or some insight into the game that you don't, and that his post might well be worth paying serious attention to.

No one should get to dismiss someone else out of hand because of a number next to their name (I'm aware of the irony given my actual name. Ahem: chuckle chuckle). My ELO score does not do my thinking for me. My ELO score does not fight my battles for me. I am not my ******* ELO score. The only thing that should matter whenever I offer an opinion or a piece of feedback is what the opinion or feedback is.

As a writing teacher of mine taught once, about a close relative of this very issue: “Who am I to dare write an article on [subject]? I am what I wrote.”

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

I'm mixed on this ... while I would like to know where my skills stand in the community, i.e.: a percentile-type score, I don't really need to know, and I really don't want the information to be publicly available. It will lead to even more blaming someone else for losses (or wins) rather than asking myself, "what did I contribute to the win (or loss) of my team?"

I don't want anyone to be excluded from a discussion or community because of their stats ... now, if their ideas are stupid or if they're a jerk, that's a different matter, and has nothing to do with skill. I would much rather people listen to each other (or play with each other) because they communicate well-reasoned ideas (or contribute to good team play).

I track my own stats more or less weekly, and am generally happy with my slow but steady improvement. It takes a bit of time and effort for me to analyze those stats and try and figure out where I need to improve, but I'm OK with that.

[Soy]

I only have 1 thing to add to this convo, and didn't really read much of it since it's 12 pages:

bad players are usually really loud, which seems obvs; they're not satisfied but yet feel entitled. I guess you can say the same thing about elitist players, but they sorta has merit worth considering when regarding balance.

If this game was actually played by, you know, masses, then it might make sense to listen to them. And if this game actually had, you know, incentive for competition, it'd probably make sense to listen to the top players.

Right now the game has neither of those appeals.

[Theodor Kling]

I am against it not only for the already mentioned reasons of elitsm, forum balance, the nonperesent connection between skill in killshots and inteligence, but also for the simple reason that the ratimg does not even reflect your skill in the game. This is especially true for light mechs. Even if I could land precise ERPPC hits from a flying jenner ( which I can't ), I wouln't deal as muc hdmg or get as many kills as an Assault pilot with the same aim. So less points.
Even worse: If you use a light as intendet for scouting and ( at least in Conquest) capping, you might never exchange more then a handfull of shots with the enemy, but win the game. While the Heavies and Assaults of both teams slaughter each other in the center of the map, earning lots of points from dmg and kills.
This is especially pronounced when your side looses the brawl and you end up evading and capping for 5 minutes, winnign ..but still get far less then those who died a glorious, but vain death.
Of course this might happen less in competitve 8-man drops..don't know. But in pugs its not uncommon.

Another example would be a team commander, who is realy good at using his team, coordinating targets, scouts, his own position and so on, will probably gain less points then his teammates who don have to worry about enemy movement, target selection and coordination because someone else does it for them, so they can concentrate better on the actuall fight, scoring more/more precise hits, and kills.
This hypthetical commander would have lower elo rating then the rest of his team, but would probably be the most valuable one when it comes to discussing the game, since being aware of everything that goes on is his job ingame.

[scJazz]

ELO Rating for individuals, Groups, Teams, or Matches should never be shown. Ever!

In other words NO ELO at any time. Period. The end!

[Inkarnus]

There is no reason to have elo in sight i know i need for myself long to find a game at some certain timezones
but i dont care what elo i have

i care that ppl dont see there elo to match up for syncdrops

[Livewyr]

Soy, on 07 June 2013 - 01:22 AM, said:

...bad players are usually really loud, which seems obvs; they're not satisfied but yet feel entitled. I guess you can say the same thing about elitist players, but they sorta has merit worth considering when regarding balance....

The italicized part is false, just straight false.

Here's why: I was invited to play with an elitist group once because of skill and recommendations. (Heck, I think you know them very well.) I ran with them for a couple of days, and I did enjoy it somewhat, was a nice break from solo-dropping before elo...(any port in a storm) However,I ended up leaving and never looking back when I saw how disgustingly narrow minded the "competitive players" were (and still are.)

Pretty much goes like this: "If you're not running THIS build, you're garbage." Explain to me why such narrow minded people should have more say in game balance. I think if that was suddenly the disastrous case, and the "competitive" players were listened to (more) regarding balance there would be a few overpowered builds and everything else would fall by the wayside.
That tends to happen when you're got your mind set on what's worth having, and you think you're the only one deserving of a real voice.
-----------------------------------------
No particular group of players deserves any more "voice" than any other group.
Arguments are valid on the argument alone, not the person proposing it.

(Want outside proof? Look at WoW.. and how many players they lost when they turned the game into gear-score and build requirements (advocated by the "competitive" players).. by actually making 1-2 acceptable build for each class and race...Apparently Even their devs admitted it.)

[Cybermech]

so you want people who love the meta game to be able to manipulate their ELO to farm new guys.
nice one


couldn't agree with you more...livewyr

Edited by Cybermech, 07 June 2013 - 04:17 AM.

[Mycrus]

http://mwomercs.com/...mech-tier-list/ <<<< this thread didn't even need public Elo

Edited by Destined, 10 June 2013 - 03:49 PM.
Stop yelling please :)

[NachoFoot]

Elo should be public so players can have a reason to try to improve. Elo can be improved no matter what your history.


Stats like Win/Loss and K/D should not be publicized. Stats usually include results from scrimmages vs clanmates, learning history, and premade vs pug. Public stats ruined World of Tanks.

Edited by NachoFoot, 07 June 2013 - 06:09 AM.

[FrDrake]

It's been said many times so far in this thread (and is true) PGI has access to everyone's Elo and can use that to determine the merits of arguments.

How many of you honestly think that is true, how many of you honestly think when they get feedback they look at which part of the metagame they are affecting by weighting the merits of the arguments. Maybe you guys still have trust left in their processes, but the fact that PLAYERS have over and over identified MAJOR bugs and loopholes in their damage and mechanics systems that they NEVER would have found on their own, makes me thinks we should be putting more power in the hands of the players, and less of the "analysis" in the hands of the devs.

This is the only reason I advocate putting the information out there, because I trust the players to do a better job of data mining it than the devs do.

I would think just talking to some players (which players would do for free) and letting them take a whack at balancing the weapons would get the dev team farther than they've gotten on their own.

[Kraven Kor]

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.

Pretty much this.

Also, just because you have high ELO or are the number 1 player or whatever, does not automatically mean your insights into game design and balance are infallible. I think there is probably a correlation to high ELO and "good ideas" about game balance and design, but it should not be a litmus test for who PGI listens to or whatever.

[Soy]

Livewyr, on 07 June 2013 - 04:11 AM, said:

The italicized part is false, just straight false.

Here's why: I was invited to play with an elitist group once because of skill and recommendations. (Heck, I think you know them very well.) I ran with them for a couple of days, and I did enjoy it somewhat, was a nice break from solo-dropping before elo...(any port in a storm) However,I ended up leaving and never looking back when I saw how disgustingly narrow minded the "competitive players" were (and still are.)

Pretty much goes like this: "If you're not running THIS build, you're garbage." Explain to me why such narrow minded people should have more say in game balance. I think if that was suddenly the disastrous case, and the "competitive" players were listened to (more) regarding balance there would be a few overpowered builds and everything else would fall by the wayside.
That tends to happen when you're got your mind set on what's worth having, and you think you're the only one deserving of a real voice.
-----------------------------------------
No particular group of players deserves any more "voice" than any other group.
Arguments are valid on the argument alone, not the person proposing it.

(Want outside proof? Look at WoW.. and how many players they lost when they turned the game into gear-score and build requirements (advocated by the "competitive" players).. by actually making 1-2 acceptable build for each class and race...Apparently Even their devs admitted it.)

I never said anything about narrow minded people should have more say, I simply said their opinions have a bit more merit when considering something because they usually have more experience and knowledge about the subject at hand...

I'm not responsible for your play experiences and neither is some random elite guy, if something isn't up to snuff for you to enjoy the game, do your own thing, that's how I roll, I dunno about anyone else. I'll tell my crew, straight up, I'm not running something I don't enjoy, and I'm not pidgeonholing my experience into something I dislike for the sake of the greater good unless I want to, and right now with no CW I don't really feel like doing any of that ****, and they can either take it or leave it. So far, it's taken.

[xDeityx]

Livewyr, on 07 June 2013 - 04:11 AM, said:

Pretty much goes like this: "If you're not running THIS build, you're garbage." Explain to me why such narrow minded people should have more say in game balance.

Competitive players say things like what you quoted because they are unfortunately true in this horribly unbalanced game. That is the problem we would like to be solved. Competition thrives on balance. When the entire metagame is poptarting HGN-732s running 3 PPCs and a Gauss that is horrible for competition.

But it was true a couple patches ago that if you weren't running that sniper HGN-732 then you were giving up an advantage for no good reason, which is a garbage thing to do in the competitive scene. This is not the fault of the players, it's the fault of poor development. Competitive players are just calling a spade a spade, but that doesn't mean they want the balance to be in such a bad state...they are just recognizing that it is and doing the best they can to win in an unbalanced game. But it would be much more fun if PGI could get the balance to the point where all of the weapons were of equal usefulness and customizing your 'mech was more about suiting it to your own personal playstyle rather than conforming to a rigid metagame.

When skill metrics are made public, the discourse about the game becomes more informed. If you take a step back and look at almost any analogy you can see that this is obvious. If we are having a discussion about how to improve traffic, the truckers who drive on the roads constantly are going to have better insights than the grandmother who drives 5 minutes to church once a week every Sunday.

[Bilbo]

xDeityx, on 07 June 2013 - 07:34 AM, said:

Competitive players say things like what you quoted because they are unfortunately true in this horribly unbalanced game. That is the problem we would like to be solved. Competition thrives on balance. When the entire metagame is poptarting HGN-732s running 3 PPCs and a Gauss that is horrible for competition.

But it was true a couple patches ago that if you weren't running that sniper HGN-732 then you were giving up an advantage for no good reason, which is a garbage thing to do in the competitive scene. This is not the fault of the players, it's the fault of poor development. Competitive players are just calling a spade a spade, but that doesn't mean they want the balance to be in such a bad state...they are just recognizing that it is and doing the best they can to win in an unbalanced game. But it would be much more fun if PGI could get the balance to the point where all of the weapons were of equal usefulness and customizing your 'mech was more about suiting it to your own personal playstyle rather than conforming to a rigid metagame.

When skill metrics are made public, the discourse about the game becomes more informed. If you take a step back and look at almost any analogy you can see that this is obvious. If we are having a discussion about how to improve traffic, the truckers who drive on the roads constantly are going to have better insights than the grandmother who drives 5 minutes to church once a week every Sunday.

The trucker has a different perspective, not better insight. The trucker may well be a raving lunatic, the fact that he can still drive his truck doesn't mean he has a valid argument. Make your arguments and they'll stand or fall on their merits. They don't need to be given more or less weight based on an abstract number.