597 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 09 June 2013 - 05:05 PM, said:

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.

Good luck with that. When posts about MGs being bad are ignored en mass and one off the wall posts about MG that seems oddball (and repeats many of the points made about MGs) and yet gets noticed by PGI, it insults my intelligence on a serious level.

[FupDup]

Deathlike, on 09 June 2013 - 05:22 PM, said:

Good luck with that. When posts about MGs being bad are ignored en mass and one off the wall posts about MG that seems oddball (and repeats many of the points made about MGs) and yet gets noticed by PGI, it insults my intelligence on a serious level.

Yup, a man can dream that the devs would eventually notice which posters are "credible" and which ones are douchenozzles and then listen to those good posters. A man can dream...

Edited by FupDup, 09 June 2013 - 05:25 PM.

[PEEFsmash]

This has been explained countless times. No matter how good of a poster someone is, if they post their personal experience, it isn't relevant to high level balance because they are not experiencing the game at a high level. They can write up the most beautiful piece about how they can't possibly hit a circle-strafing light, provide their personal data about how they always get beat by them, etc. But none of this is at all relevant to balance at the high levels where lights that circle strafe get dominated with proper counter-strafe techniques.

Also, just because a player has a high Elo, that doesn't mean they have good or right or true opinions, but at least they are candidates for providing input for high-level balance changes.

Does this mean I am making the input of low-level players worthless to balance? No, they can still make plenty of good posts about data for low level play, or just raw statistical data or analysis, but their personal experience of "I have been having so much trouble with this technique" just isn't relevant to balance at the highest level because they cannot aim or cannot position themselves correctly. This is simply a fact. Players who cannot aim or position themselves can not ask for buffs or nerfs BASED ON THEIR OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE when really what needs buffed is their own player skill, which will solve many of their issues.

Low-level personal experience posts should be something like "I am having trouble with X, how can I improve?" Not, "I am having trouble with X so X should be nerfed/buffed." Posts like the second should only be made by people who play at the high level that this game should be balanced at, are well argued, and consider the objections by other high level players. It cannot possibly be invalidated by some low-level player saying "but they are too hard to hit! There's nothing you can do to defeat lights!" That low-level players experience is relevant to discussing player experiences, but is not relevant to balancing the game.

Edited by PEEFsmash, 09 June 2013 - 05:40 PM.

[FupDup]

PEEFsmash, on 09 June 2013 - 05:36 PM, said:

This has been explained countless times. No matter how good of a poster someone is, if they post their personal experience, it isn't relevant to high level balance because they are not experiencing the game at a high level. They can write up the most beautiful piece about how they can't possibly hit a circle-strafing light, provide their personal data about how they always get beat by them, etc. But none of this is at all relevant to balance at the high levels where lights that circle strafe get dominated with proper counter-strafe techniques.

Also, just because a player has a high Elo, that doesn't mean they have good or right or true opinions, but at least they are candidates for providing input for high-level balance changes.

Does this mean I am making the input of low-level players worthless to balance? No, they can still make plenty of good posts about data for low level play, or just raw statistical data or analysis, but their personal experience of "I have been having so much trouble with this technique" just isn't relevant to balance at the highest level because they cannot aim or cannot position themselves correctly. This is simply a fact. Players who cannot aim or position themselves can not ask for buffs or nerfs BASED ON THEIR OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE when really what needs buffed is their own player skill, which will solve many of their issues.

Low-level personal experience posts should be something like "I am having trouble with X, how can I improve?" Not, "I am having trouble with X so X should be nerfed/buffed." Posts like the second should only be made by people who play at the high level that this game should be balanced at, are well argued, and consider the objections by other high level players. It cannot possibly be invalidated by some low-level player saying "but they are too hard to hit! There's nothing you can do to defeat lights!" That low-level players experience is relevant to discussing player experiences, but is not relevant to balancing the game.

Here's the thing:

A "good" person that is a bad player is able to learn how things "really are" when somebody takes the time to objectively explain the situation (and/or they just play the game a little bit longer) because that's a big part of what constitutes being a good poster/person (knowing when they're wrong and taking advice). [If they don't listen, then they are counted as a bad person who is also bad at the game]. Over time, a good poster that is a bad player can "evolve" to being good in both categories through the help of others and/or their own trial + error. In other words, they have the potential to reach this "perfection point."

A "bad" person can never become/evolve good outside of skill alone because it's hardwired into their brains to be a douchenozzle. There is no potential for improvement in personality for this type of person.



TL;DR: Skill can improve, personality cannot.

Edited by FupDup, 09 June 2013 - 05:58 PM.

[PEEFsmash]

FupDup, on 09 June 2013 - 05:50 PM, said:

Here's the thing:

A "good" person that is a bad player is able to learn how things "really are" when somebody takes the time to objectively explain the situation (and/or they just play the game a little bit longer) because that's a big part of what constitutes being a good poster/person (knowing when they're wrong and taking advice). Over time, a good poster that is a bad player can "evolve" to being good in both categories through the help of others and/or their own trial + error. In other words, they have the potential to reach this "perfection point."

This is true. Good people can learn to become better. However, with private Elo, good people that are bad players are tricked into thinking they are good people that are good players, because everyone's win ratio is being boosted to 1.0. So, they think that their personal experience is as relevant as anyone elses when it isn't.

With public Elo your points would be even more relevant. Good people who were bad players would know that they need to work on their own play instead of complaining, and they could ask for advice so that they could improve and make their own personal experience relevant to balance at the highest levels.

The biggest problem is that not only do we not know who's experience is relevant, but not even the poster him/herself knows!

[CHWarpath]

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

No the last thing this forum needs is more elitism.

This community is already skilless as it is. Elo is exactly what this game needs so we can get some good players in here, and balance the game properly. All of you LRM, SRM boaters and people who make bad builders can be on your way. You ruin games, not take them to the next level.

[Victor Morson]

I continue to call for moderation here: Don't display the specific ELO numbers or people will figure out how to game them on purpose.

However, people would benefit from having perspective. The person who said tons of pugs think they are awesome because they win the majority of PUGs they are in, without realizing they are actually fairly low ELO, is staggering.

Thus, I think it should just put you in a bracket. Pure and simple. Start you in the Rookie or Regular bracket, and every so many ELO points (hidden to the user, again) they bump you up a bracket, or down a bracket. It'd be an easy way to gauge ELO without revealing all the calculations behind it.

[PEEFsmash]

I guess I've never posted my support of the league idea, but I am entirely in support of it, even in place of making Elo public.

Doing it by leagues (Bronze, Silver, Gold, etc) would get the same point across. It doesn't have to necessarily be a particular Elo value. We could get all the benefits of knowing where someone's personal experience is coming from, just without any potential for gaming the system (although, I'm not entirely convinced that is a real worry...it is enough of a potential worry to justify complaint).

It would also provide a great incentive to become better and improve one's own skill, while at the same time give people a solid measure of progress and standing. There are very few things in gaming more satisfying than seeing your new, improved league flash before your eyes on the Starcraft 2 ladder, even if it is just moving from Bronze to Silver.

Edited by PEEFsmash, 09 June 2013 - 09:07 PM.

[KharnZor]

Lots of words in this here thread. Some make sense and others don't.
I don't know about you guys but I'm here to smash internet robots so how about you all shut the hells up and get in there.

Edited by KharnZor, 09 June 2013 - 10:06 PM.

[Spades Kincaid]

CHWarpath, on 09 June 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

This community is already skilless as it is. Elo is exactly what this game needs so we can get some good players in here, and balance the game properly. All of you LRM, SRM boaters and people who make bad builders can be on your way. You ruin games, not take them to the next level.

Hmmm. What exactly does boating LRM's or SRM's do to make someone a bad player and ruin the game? (As opposed to boating anything else)

[PEEFsmash]

Volthorne, on 09 June 2013 - 10:42 PM, said:

So explain to me how making ELO scores public would "fix" this mysterious "boosted" win ratio. Preferably in a way a 6-y.o. could understand, because I just don't see the logic there. Also, in theory, wouldn't the best players and the worst players ALSO have a 1:1 because they're fighting other players at similar scores? If they're not then something has gone wrong.

I can already look at my W/LR and see my average % of winning or losing a game. Why do I need another number stuck next to my name saying "here's how big my e-peen is, come judge me over it"? I'll demonstrate this effect right now: my KDR is 0.66. You get no other data than that particular number. What first comes to your mind?

Your KDR is .66. If you aren't playing lights that is very low. If you are a scout/tag spider or something crazy like that then its not too bad.

The tip top players will have win-rates higher than 50, and the bottom-scrapers will have win-rates lower because, there are too few of them and there aren't good matches because they can so often carry matches (or carry them down, as it were).

Once the scene gets big enough and gets more skilled, there won't be anyone with winrates into the upper 70s and 80s like there are now (some have winrates even higher, but not post-Elo). But right now, the best players are just leagues better than the average player. Its a problem with the skill of the community (read, rather low).

Edited by PEEFsmash, 09 June 2013 - 11:22 PM.

[PEEFsmash]

Neverfar, on 09 June 2013 - 11:22 PM, said:

You already have enough data to make that determination. You demonstrated that a public Elo is unnecessary.

No, KDR doesn't necessarily mean much. Losing all the time does. I have no idea what he does with his KDR of .66, but it is low. It is completely possible that he makes up for it with badass scouting, support, or something else. If his winrate was .66 (post Elo) then I'm sorry, but that is just straight up bad, and could only be misleading me if all he does is team with people who are first timers playing trial mechs or something.

If he is solo or group pugging with non-trial mech users and a winrate of .66, that means they are trying to match him against the worst opponents they can find, but still failing to get him wins. A player of this skill level needs to work on his own play, improve his own aim and positioning, etc, before he starts telling PGI and everyone else what weapons need to be nerfed and buffed. Weapons/mechs seem good and bad to him largely as a function of his own deficiencies in play.

Edited by PEEFsmash, 09 June 2013 - 11:32 PM.

[EddieDaHead]

more e-peen stroking, for the inter-webs leets,...??? no frelling thank you....

[PEEFsmash]

Neverfar, on 09 June 2013 - 11:50 PM, said:

Funny thing about all of this and what you claim: I used to do a LOT of base capping in my lights when bloat boating and poptarting were at their height. I did it again and again, often just out of irritation of "hoo boy, another poptart highlander. Forget that guy" and ditching him for the cap square.

Sometimes it could cause a split of their team as they chased me. One on one I often took out anyone who went after me. If they sent more than one, that means their front was weak and my team often won. If no one came for me, we won by cap.

In other words, my Elo would be high. And according to you, I'd deserve special praise and attention and exclusive forum subsection access.

Right?

If you win most of your games, you are getting matched up against people who are also good, so your player experience input would be relevant to high-level balance.

There is nothing wrong with capping. It is a legitimate win-condition.

PS: You don't deserve special praise or subsection access. Your input would enjoy relevance to high level balance.

Edited by PEEFsmash, 09 June 2013 - 11:55 PM.

[Vercinaigh]

PEEFsmash, on 06 June 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:

I wanted to take a short break from discussing token balance changes and talk about something broader.

I believe that Elo ratings should be made public, and here is why.

Starting Point 1: Right now, very few players are of publicly-known skill-level. Players in the top clans or players who have done well on the leaderboards are known by some, but in general, nobody knows much about eachother.

Starting Point 2: There is a vast variety of players in this game, from very low-level players with no real videogaming background to the tippity top players with heavy competitive gaming backgrounds.

Starting Point 3: Balance discussions on the forums and elsewhere are being conducted with a random mix of low, mid, and top level players.

Starting Point 4 (the most important one!): The game is entirely different for low level, mid level, and top level players. What might be an extremely good technique at low levels (such as lights circle strafing heavies/assaults for example) becomes a somewhat risky maneuver at the mid level, and becomes utter suicide instant death at the top level. The game is entirely different at the various levels, and this leads to players at lower levels believing that they are all good players because they win half of their matches, they do well with whatever builds they are using, but because Elo is private, they don't know that they are playing primarily against lower-quality opponents (or getting paired with higher-quality teammates), and the main problems they face are due to their own poor mechanics (like bad aim or movement control). Players of different levels are playing different games, in a sense.

Conclusion: The input that players give in the forums is a horrid mishmash of tons of different players at different levels each arguing back and forth about certain balance changes that will affect them all differently. In discussions like these, EVERYONE MIGHT BE RIGHT, RELATIVE TO THEIR OWN LEVEL OF PLAY! So we get things like "I have just as much fun in my jump-jet light as I ever have! Doesn't really bother me" at the same time as "I am now unable to excecute extremely important maneuvers such as pinpointing certain components on my ascent in my jump-jet light because of screen/reticle shake." The former statement I have seen come from several low level players, and the latter statement is the consensus of all of the top light pilots I have spoken to. Each may be right, but they are really living in different worlds, and are each reporting from a play level with each its own issues.

Solution: Make Elo public. If player Elo is public, as players (and as developers) people will be able to look at someone's input and take it for what it really is. If we are trying to fix poptarting issues, we can see what is bothering low-level players, what is bothering top-level players, and see if there is a simple solution that helps both. (Hint: It's buff SRM damage!) The forums make it seem as if there is genuine disagreement among all players, and everything is a mess, but I do not believe this to be the case. In talking to many other top competitive unit members, the screen shake is a universally bad or at least unnecessary addition. However, it remains very popular among low and mid level players. I do not mean to generalize and say "only bad players want jumpjet shake," but there seems to be a strong divide between what seems imbalanced among low and mid level players, and what seems imbalanced to top level players. The reason isn't because of elitism or attending the "Church of Skill" but it is because there is such a vast difference between what happens in low elo pug games, and what happens in competitive tournament 8 man games. What is good and bad is genuinely different at different levels.

Public Elo would let us understand each person's opinion as it is. If we are wanting to make the game more accessable to new players or more enjoyable for low level casual players, then when someone with low Elo posts something in the balance forums with, people could better use that information to cater to that crowd. When there is an issue at the top competitive level, we would know exactly who has a high Elo and is qualified to speak on the subject. High elo players talking about Low elo issues helps nobody, and makes low-level players feel like their input doesn't matter. On the other hand, Low elo players under the illusion that they are good because of their 1.1 win ratio should not be clogging discussion of balance at the highest competitive 8 man level, because their win ratio is a function of playing against other lower level opponents.

Leaving things as they are right now will make balance discussions continue to be counterproductive, with nobody knowing where their opinion is most relevant, and choosing to simply insert it everywhere. Issues like "Jumpjet shake" and "Heat containment" are far different issues at different levels, and sometimes call for different or creative solutions. Throwing everyone into a pile and letting them go at it, each person not recognizing the perspective of the other (and most players not even able to know where their own perspective lies!) is leading to the awful forum debates that reduce to little more than attacks on fellow players (which I am myself guilty of!) Please, PGI or whoever is in control of this sort of thing, make Elo public.

EDIT: Another fantastic discussion on this topic: http://mwomercs.com/...o-game-balance/

Here here, and maybe then we can finally show people who actually knows what they are on about instead of everyone assuming they know everything, not that these delirious people would be swayed by this...but maybe at least PGI would know who to pay attention to and for what reasons.....

[Oderint dum Metuant]

This is an excellent post if you have as yet not read it Neverfar (from the keyboard it appears)
http://mwomercs.com/...o-game-balance/

Quote

I am saying this is a bad idea, largely due to the delusion that I magically "know what I am on about" because I win more matches. It could just be gaming/abusing mechanics which need work

Congratulations, you've just the rest of the conversation of what happens at higher tiers of play.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Neverfar, on 10 June 2013 - 02:01 AM, said:

Not sure I follow.

This stuff happens at lower tiers of play too. The preoccupation with "what are our special e-athletes doing and how do they feel" is almost cult-like at times, like the guy who was posting (in a different and now buried thread I might get in trouble for mentioning) his sincere wish that a champion winner would show up in his thread just so he knows where his opinion should lie.

It's said a lot by griefers and jerks across the internet, but I will say it here anyway: this is a game. It should be entertaining, fun, and ultimately enjoyed by as many people as reasonably possible with enough depth to keep people coming back.

If the only focus is the people with the most free time, fancy peripherals, and "my game is a second/third job" attitude, the game is poorer for it in my opinion.

The dismissive and outright hostile attitude that the self-declared elite have had for everyone else here, from my opening visits and posts here during the introduction of the Highlander and the following poptart metagame, have only convinced me further that the "elite" will push to reinforce their status and care very little for the rest of the game.

So this high-Elo-as-Light-whether-I-earned-it-the-right-way-or-not person's answer to all of this is no.

It's quite simple, in any game that has any PVP competition, the biggest balance problems come from the so called elite, they are the min/max players who push the boundaries and in some circumstances your statement of gaming and abusing mechanics is correct.
What the top players do filters down through the ranks, it's evident in Starcraft and League of Legends, arguably the biggest pvp competitive environments given the size and scale of the tournaments, and it's no different here, this is the reason it occurs at low tiers of play.

But putting someone in a low tier abusing said mechanic vs high tier doing the same, will still only result in one outcome, the high tier player's victory, because there is doing something..and understanding why and how your doing something.
Taking away poptarting won't stop the elite players, you just push them into the next min/max scenario, just as happened before with LRM's, SSRM's,SRM's, and going way back 100+kph swaybacks.

If you want a game that is fun for the low tier players, you balance from the top tiers downwards.

And that does not mean you listen to the high tier players all the time, but you need to A) know who the top tier are, watch them.
Looking at stats is one thing, but only tells you half the picture you've actually got to observe the play between the top tier teams.

(and before you say but that's not what peef is asking for!!!, i'll refer you to my earlier post that said i did not agree entirely with the OP, but in parts i do)

Edited by DV McKenna, 10 June 2013 - 02:10 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

I think you've misunderstood, i did not say this had to be the biggest pvp competitive scene, but it is a pure pvp competitive scene, it's the only option for playing the game.

When that is the only option, the only balance option is a top down approach, because it's the top where you will find the most broken, most abusing mechanics being fostered.

Their forums may be dysfunctional, but their forums are not the game. The forums and what happens to them of of no importance to the future and success of the game.
Because that's what matters, that there is a game to play in 12/24/36 months time.

I play for a competitive team, we win 95% of our competitive games, some other units will tell you we're top tier, we're not here to belittle the little guy playing for fun, im not here to argue semantics with you.
Im here because we have a common interest in the Mechwarrior universe which can be as simple as having played the previous games, and it's a game that offers what could be an amazing pvp environment.

But even i understand for that to happen balance must occur from the most broken aspect of the game environment, and that is top tier,bracket,elo whatever you want to call it.
And that will require player input in one form or another, even more so with a small time development house.

Edited by DV McKenna, 10 June 2013 - 02:33 AM.

[Livewyr]

Niko.. I curse you. This thread was where it should be for more than 24 hours... DEAD then you posted in it.

-----------------------------------------
People need to read.
-Not ONE player has explained to me how public Elos are going to help PGI balance the game, when they can ALREADY see them. I'm waiting for an answer.
-Not ONE player has explained to me how public Elos would account for the people who abuse the broken systems (poptarts and PPC boats). How would those who are not ACTUALLY good, get separated from those who are ACTUALLY good? (for purposes of "more say.") No one has explained that one to me. (The solution we'd have to use, we've been using.. without Elo.)

So please.. answer those questions. Then we can move onto the "Elo sucks, you're a baddy" side of things.
(And in another thread.. I've already seen it- some guy didn't post his stats on request and for that it was assumed he was a baddie and therefore didn't have a voice. Incidentally.. I came to a similar conclusion regarding his skill..without the stats...just through his post.)


(Edited for grammar/continuity of sentence issue)

Edited by Livewyr, 10 June 2013 - 04:10 AM.

[Soy]

Quick question, Live.

Did the concept of regulating sports institutions as they establish themselves culturally and institutionally, give rise to a more competitive scene, as well as providing a foundation for the casual scene to emulate and foster participation for the development of skilled individuals to trickle upwards into the upper eschelons of their sport?

Yes or no.

Pick your sport, go ahead.

Hehe.

Edited by Soy, 10 June 2013 - 04:56 AM.