597 replies to this topic

[Spades Kincaid]

PEEFsmash, on 07 June 2013 - 11:34 AM, said:

I have read every post here, and now I want to try to show that we are talking past eachother.

The anti-public Elo folks biggest complaints:
#1: "People will have bigger #s than me and wave them at me." This is a non-issue. Let them wave their number, you should only care if you care. If you don't care about that number, then it shouldn't bother you.
#2: "When someone makes a balance suggestion, it should be based on the quality of their argument. They can have a low Elo and still have interesting ideas/relevant discussion. They should not be ignored because they have a number next to their name."

I think that #2 is right in a way, but in another way it is clearly wrong, almost wrong by definition. On one hand, arguments about balance are absolutely only about the quality of the argument. However, if we want this game to be balanced at the highest level, then balance discussions based on player experience of low-level players is not relevant to balancing the game. That sounds harsh, but is the conditional false? Let's put it more concretely, so that my argument isn't strawmanned which I think it has. I'm going to be as explicit as possible:

Premise 1: We wish to balance the game so that it is balanced at the highest level of play. (AKA, all seeming imbalances should be deal-with-able by improving one's play.)
Premise 2: When player feedback comes from the player's own gameplay perspective, these perspectives are very different at different levels.
Premise 3: What might be a solution to a balance issue at a low level is not relevant to top level balance whatsoever.
Therefore: When balancing the game at the highest level, personal testimony from low-level player experience is simply not relevant because none of that experience is of the game at the highest level.

If you disagree with me about this above conclusion, please not explicitly what premise you disagree with.

.....

#1 is brought up as an issue not because of an individual's 'feelings being hurt' so to speak (at least for me). It's not because I care about someone waving their ELO number at me personally. It's because of the very opposite point to what some people have espoused as a benefit:

Better discourse on balancing topics; because you know what ELO skill level the other person is.

vs

A greatly more toxic and -less- meaningful forum environment for constructive discourse. Because people will tend to resort to dismissiveness and bludgeoning based upon ELO score instead of actually addressing a differing viewpoint.

While the first is always possible, the internet in general and game forums specifically, tend to lead to the latter. They bring forward the lowest common denominator. That's my experience and apparently others share it.

To put a broad (made up) visual on it:

Enhanced discourse:
|--|

Forum toxicity and ELO stat-waving -instead- of discourse:
|------------------------------------------------------------|

That's what tends to happen.


As to your premises;

Premise 1: I'd have to disagree with that. This is a topic of what kind of game is PGI trying to make. If they are trying to make an e-sport kind of game out of it, yes you are right. If they are trying to make a broad-appeal type of game, with a competitive element for those who enjoy that, no.

Some things need to be balanced around the highest level of play, to ensure that high-level play is well...competitive and fun. Some need to be balanced around the median mass of players so that the game is fun and doesn't feel broken to them either. If you don't retain a feeling of balance for those players, you lose the broad base which supports the game for those higher teir players to play competitively.

This is a fine line to walk. Sometimes an aspect may become sub-optimal for competitive play because otherwise it destroys the general playerbase's experience. Sometimes vice-versa, lesser skilled players are going to suffer 'growing-pains' over an aspect until/unless they improve.

But in short, your premise only holds true if you believe this game is meant to be for and about high-level competitive play only.

Premises 2 & 3: While I'd agree these two are both true; it means nothing to the topic of making ELO public. The public does not balance the game. This simple point which many have made continues to be ignored by most supporters of public ELO in this thread. The Devs have the ELO info. They can use it to distinguish those two premises if they wish to. Making ELO public does -nothing- to change that.

The whole thing boils down this:

Either you believe the Devs have the information to distinguish and weight the value of player input based upon ELO. And the varying levels of gameplay. -And- they do so. In which case, what is the point? Public ELO is unnecessary. The game is being balanced by the measure you desire.

Or, you believe they have it but aren't properly using it, or choosing to use it at all. So high ELO players feel that their 'more valid and knowledgeable' input on some balancing topics is not being properly valued and instead ignored to listen to the general masses of lesser players' complaints.

If you believe that to be true; Why do you think that's going to change, just because the public also has the information that the Devs -already- have? You've done nothing to change the Devs' viewpoint of player input. Only the other players' views of that input. Which is, quite frankly, meaningless to what balance changes get made.

You're in a catch-22 with this. Because whichever view you have of the Dev's game balancing choices, making ELO public has zero impact on it.

[PEEFsmash]

I should have added an extra premise, which is that PGI considers player feedback important and make changes based on it, which is 100% the case, not only by their own admission but by their actions as well.

If Elo was public (or even just viewable to the people making the posts!) then low-level players would know that many of their problems are problems with their own play and not problems with the game. Right now, everyone thinks they are as good as everyone else because of their win rate being forced to be around 1.0. How many threads do you see where someone says, "I am having a hard time dealing with PPC stalkers, does anyone have some advice to improve my play?" I'd say there is 10 "FIX PPC BOATING NAO!" threads for every 1 genuine self-improvement thread. With Elo known at least to the individual player, maybe they would see that their own play is what needs improvement.

[Hammerfinn]

tenderloving, on 07 June 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

TLDR: ELO is important to the value of feedback, because things that are broken at one level of play may go unnoticed at another level of play.

And since PGI knows our Elo and can make decisions based on it, why would you need it to be public, except for:
1--ego
2--belittlement
3--exclusion
4--curiosity
I'm not claiming that people who want scores public are all egotistical jerks, but the only other reason I can see that ISN'T tied to some sort of elitism is pure curiosity--and I can understand that impulse! However, it would be a bad idea to allow for the elitist ******** to have their way just so you can satisfy your curiosity.

The people who need to know Elo for the context of suggestions already know it, and the issue is moot, unless you want to enable epeen contests. Whether YOU specifically would use them as such doesn't matter--you know lots of people will.

[PanzerMagier]

PlayerA: Ha ha look at all these noobs, they got 1600 elo and they suck so hard
PlayerB: Wtf are you some acc cheater, your elo is 1300 and you got like top score. BS LIES HAX

Another scenario

PlayerA: can I join your clan pls, I'm a solid pilot, play any mech. Been playing since CB.
PlayerB: No you can't noob, your elo is below XYZ, **** loser
Player:A this game sucks.

It's better to not have elo being a public number, just gives all the teenage trash heads more crap to whine about.


TL;DR this is why we can't have nice things.

[Hammerfinn]

PanzerMagier, on 07 June 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:

TL;DR this is why we can't have nice things.

Bwaahaahaa so true....

[DaZur]

You don't make Elo public for the same reason you don't go to a slaughterhouse to see how your hamburgers and hotdogs are made...

Some things are better left unseen.

[Spades Kincaid]

PEEFsmash, on 07 June 2013 - 01:26 PM, said:

I should have added an extra premise, which is that PGI considers player feedback important and make changes based on it, which is 100% the case, not only by their own admission but by their actions as well.

If Elo was public (or even just viewable to the people making the posts!) then low-level players would know that many of their problems are problems with their own play and not problems with the game. Right now, everyone thinks they are as good as everyone else because of their win rate being forced to be around 1.0. How many threads do you see where someone says, "I am having a hard time dealing with PPC stalkers, does anyone have some advice to improve my play?" I'd say there is 10 "FIX PPC BOATING NAO!" threads for every 1 genuine self-improvement thread. With Elo known at least to the individual player, maybe they would see that their own play is what needs improvement.

This is an entirely different point than proposing that public ELO is going to impact what game balancing changes are made.

All I can say to it is that in a perfect world, you would be right. People would request constructive feedback from higher skilled players, and those higher skilled players would give it in a rational, helpful manner.

But, the world isn't so perfect. And players don't often ask for advice as things stand now, as you so accurately point out. I believe, in part, because they lack belief that they will receive constructive feedback and not just 'L2play!'. And also in part, because people are prideful and self-interested. It's easier to complain and believe something is broken than humble yourself to ask for help or advice.

If you honestly believe making ELO public would change any of that, then you have a far more optimistic view of forum behavior than I do. I'd think it admirable, but naïve.

[BananaNutMuffins]

Raso, on 06 June 2013 - 12:29 PM, said:

Yes, lets create a glorious master race of elite pros who know everything who can dictate what balance adjustments the unskilled masses should be behind and who can skill shame other players into conceding defeat in an argument on the merit that you are better than them. Why not? It makes about as much sense as anything else PGI does.

I 100% agree even if he was being sarcastic. I like having a idea of showing ELO numbers especially when talking about game meta and balance. It would definitely help bring this game closer to being ready to go live out of beta thats for sure and QA testing with top teir players instead of randoms from a third party jeez it just sounds too easy. Why didnt PGI think of this sooner?

[Hellspwan]

To my knowledge, in this game player stats are only visible to the player that owns them, not general public knowledge. This is a good thing IMO as it keeps the e-peen stroking to a reasonable minimum. Releasing ELO scores to the general public would be a horrible idea, and would only lead to grief for lower ranked players.

[MuKen]

PEEFsmash, on 07 June 2013 - 01:26 PM, said:

I should have added an extra premise, which is that PGI considers player feedback important and make changes based on it, which is 100% the case, not only by their own admission but by their actions as well.

And as I said, PGI can already see the ELO of the players whose feedback they are considering.

Quote

If Elo was public (or even just viewable to the people making the posts!) then low-level players would know that many of their problems are problems with their own play and not problems with the game. Right now, everyone thinks they are as good as everyone else because of their win rate being forced to be around 1.0. How many threads do you see where someone says, "I am having a hard time dealing with PPC stalkers, does anyone have some advice to improve my play?" I'd say there is 10 "FIX PPC BOATING NAO!" threads for every 1 genuine self-improvement thread. With Elo known at least to the individual player, maybe they would see that their own play is what needs improvement.

You are basically saying that the lower level players problems are not problems and they should stop talking.

Their feedback is useful to a game designer, because as I said (and your OP mentioned and you seem to be neglecting now) the game needs to be balanced and fun at EVERY level of play. Everybody may be right, at their own level of play. If to low level players one weapon is way more effective than others, that IS an issue that should be addressed, because it is making play overly uniform at that bracket.

Their feedback is useful, and the devs know their ELO and know to consider that feedback as feedback concerning the low level play of the game. Putting that up for other posters adds nothing.

Edited by MuKen, 07 June 2013 - 02:08 PM.

[Zerberus]

S p a n i a r d, on 07 June 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

The OP's points are all completely true (at least for me).

But i think that's just half of the picture. Making ELO public will also
have a negative effect as some players have mentioned.

If the issue is gameplay balance, then just make it such that PGI
(and other groups involved with balancing, i.e. internal testers)
can see a specific player's ELO, No need to make it completely public

This assumes that PGI does not already have acces to our Elo scores., which is, with all due respect, a ridiculous assumption.

They posted about how the Elo scores were skewed just a few weeks ago when tehy adjusted EVERYONE`s elo scores, and posted the resulting before tweak an after tweak bell curves.

How exactly are they supposed to have done that without access to our Elo scores? Magic wands? Divine intervention? magical Elo-pixies that come in at night while Garth is sleeping? 0.o

[Skunk Wolf]

No.

ELO Matchmaking is anti-cheat.

That's why.

It's so elegant and beautiful, I laugh out loud at anybody who wishes these statistics to be made public.

Why would Piranha want you to know they are on to you, quietly gathering data, and weighing your matchmaking so that those that seek to ruin other's in-game experiences are kept to themselves?

This way they still put money in the game instead of being banned.

Since ELO matchmaking was deployed, I rarely see a 150KPH ERPPC Spider running around hitting dead center all the time. I wonder why?

It has only made this game better.

/Almost trolling

//Almost.

[Riogar Daylighter]

Zerberus, on 07 June 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:

This assumes that PGI does not already have acces to our Elo scores., which is, with all due respect, a ridiculous assumption.

They posted about how the Elo scores were skewed just a few weeks ago when tehy adjusted EVERYONE`s elo scores, and posted the resulting before tweak an after tweak bell curves.

How exactly are they supposed to have done that without access to our Elo scores? Magic wands? Divine intervention? magical Elo-pixies that come in at night while Garth is sleeping? 0.o

I have one question. Are those ELO-pixies really hot miniature chics or just cartoonish fluff?

[Ozric]

This thread is not really about public Elo is it? It's really just about some people believing themselves to have a better understanding of where the game should be headed than the majority of the playerbase, and those players wanting to have their voices heard above all others.

Public Elo would serve us no better in this regard than the current method of stamping forum authority, checking peoples account activation date (because the longer you've been playing the game the better you understand it, right? ). Indeed, with stats so dependent on external factors such as team mates, it's probably an even less useful gauge of a players knowledge.

If you are one of the top tier players (in a game without tiers) and people are still not listening to you, I would suggest that it is not your skill that is in question. It is either what you say, or how you say it.

[Wispsy]

Banditman, on 06 June 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:

There is really no need for ELO rankings to be made public. None.

Here's the thing: If we accept what PGI tells us, which is, "ELO is successfully matching like skilled players" and we're still seeing problems in pub matches (which we are), then something else is to blame. Let's find the actual problem.

Here's a hint: It's tonnage.

I am not speaking of the eight man queue, it has demons all it's own, but in the four man queue, the vast majority of matches that I play in wind up swinging, in the end, in favor of the team with the higher tonnage. It's not foolproof, sometimes the lighter team does win. However, the majority of pub queue matches swing on tonnage.

That needs to be fixed. In fact, we were told that mechanics were in place to make that happen, but I certainly haven't seen *any* evidence of it.

The vast majority of my games the lighter team always wins. Maybe you are just better at playing the heavier game and fumble more when your team plays the lighter team tactics.

[1453 R]

Come on, PEEF. You have to know that this would do enormously more harm than good.

As MuKen pointed out, you're already dismissing low-ELO players as folks whose only real problems are the fact that they suck - and you were the one who insisted that everyone's opinion matters! In your ideal system, these players do not get to offer input to game balance issues, they get to make self-effacing "I suck, please help me q_q" threads until their ELO improves to the point where they're allowed to have an actual opinion of their own. You may believe otherwise, but the notion of "Balance only matters at the highest levels" is utter garbage and indicative of a player who disdains anyone who does not already play at that level.

If the game is all but broken and unplayable unless you are at the highest levels, then you will never get anyone new to play this game. If you try to insist that balance discussions are only valid when conducted between players of competitive eight-man league drops with 1800+ ELO, then your balance will be horrifically skewed and broken and unbalanced for the mid-range pug drop - which comprises the vast majority of all games. You cannot ignore the needs of the mid-level pug drop, however much you may want to. We're the ones who carry all you l33tz0rz, high-ranked league players around on the backs we're supporting this game on. You need us. You do not get to ignore us or trivialize our problems as "Oh, they wouldn't be having that problem if they didn't suck."

We all have opinions, PEEF. They are as valid as they deserve to be, independently of our ELO numbers. Whether or not you would acknowledge that low-ELO players have as much right to form and offer an opinion as a high-ELO player - and I honestly doubt you would, considering the fact that you're proposing a system whose only function is to give players a free lever with which to flush their opponents' arguments - you know full well that the forum in general would find itself flooded with venom and vitriol as Internet Bad Boyz (abbreviated from here out as IBBs) use their magical new number to beat everyone else upside the head with.


It doesn't matter if, as has been stated before in this thread, someone may have an excellent grasp of the game's mechanics and interactions without the corresponding mechanical skills to fully implement that knowledge. Their ELO is low, so their opinion is ship. You may not think so, FrDrake may not think so (or, as I suspect given the language being used in this thread, you really, actually do), but the thousand neckbeards of the Trollsian Empire will absolutely think so, and anything worthwhile these players have to say will be buried under dozens "L2P NOOB" and "Y U TALKIN, **** ELO?!" responses.

Whether or not those posts are valid and warranted or not doesn't really matter - if nine out of ten responses a thoughtful, insightful, well-reasoned player with fat fingers gets are "L2P NOOB", they will eventually cease offering their thoughts and insights altogether. Why should they bother when they get nothing but grief for doing so?

[Noesis]

Firstly the moral of the Fox and the Pears from Aesops fable is about cognitive dissonance not envy. The fox in fact makes an excuse it resigning to the situation so he can best move on from the situation but he does not actually end up despising the pears.

-----

As to the subject of opening player stats up for use: API system

If access to the players data can be isolated and controlled by the player by defining what he wants to release and to whom, defining which data is relevant for different use then various third party applications, database based programs or spreadsheets could be used to analyse various stats about players and collated for larger use when combining pilot data for say a unit.

The important thing here is that the player controls what access to information is provided in the process to maintain appropriate release of applicable data as they like. Of course units may then request various data to assist them, but the data is still held in the players control as a choice and is not by default open to public scrutiny.

This kind of information could of course be very useful for strategical planning for a unit or for various third party tools to interpret the data for various uses that the pilot can then ustilise at their discretion.

PGI have previously hinted to the potential future provision of an API system but of course would require some development and resources to achieve. The overall benefits to the community as a service the incentive to invest in such provision.

[Jman5]

As someone who spent a lot of time over on the Starcraft 2 forum where rankings and stats were largely public, I can tell you this wont solve anything. You wont end arguments, or get the balance changes you wanted simply because your ranking/stats are public.

What will happen is excuses will emerge to handwave your success and explain away their failure.

• "You don't have to be a grand master to see imbalance"

• "The game should be balanced at all levels"

• "Sorry, I prefer to lone wolf so my Elo is lower"

• "This is my alt account"

• "If I wanted to reach the top I'd play cheesy builds." (implying you only got where you are because you're cheap)
  
• It's not my fault. I'm in Elo Hell and my teammates are terrible.

etc...

Look, at the end of the day the only people you and I have to convince are PGI developers. I don't need to win some internet argument with some nobody from Nebraska to convince Paul Inouye that small pulse lasers should be adjusted. Fortunately for me, if they want to check my gaming credentials, they have complete access to them.

[Thomas Covenant]

shintakie, on 19 April 2013 - 03:56 PM, said:

Thomas Covenant: Would you please reconsider not showing ELO score or go in more depth why you choose not too? I feel it's atleast as valuable as Kill-to-Death ratio(if not more). I would like to see it, even if it was private just to me.
A: For a variety of reasons we have chosen not to make this visible. It’s not something players can directly control, it’s used by an internal matchmaking service, and it can be gamed or manipulated to create artificial matchmaking scenarios.

Ask the Devs 36^

Perhaps we could get leader boards for different categories of play. This might be better.

[Jestun]

They added public stats to Planetside 2 since I stopped playing.

The forums now have far too much "your opinion is invalid because your kdr sux lololololol" posts.