24 replies to this topic

[Sasha Volkova]

So this is going to be long, and I mean, very long.
So sit back and have a cup of coffee or a snack ready.
Some of the things might sound harsh but bear in mind I was trying to be nice, so if you get offended by anything, please just leave me a PM and I will look into correcting that part.

Lets get it going and start it off with a big blow; my personal opinion.

Honestly I dont see why we need ELO.

There thats done.

Now for the sake of arguments I will try to make the rest as pleasent as I possibly can, while still trying to point out my reasons to why I dont think we need ELO.

So lets get started, shall we?

First off, so many games out there have no ELO implemented, previous succesful games such as Mechwarrior 4, Counter Strike, Halflife, Quake, Unreal, Battlefield, Call of Duty and many many more.
(Please dont hate on me for mentioning CoD xD - fact is we have alot of people from that game who are playing this game so we simply cant ignore them anymore.)

So why do we need ELO in this game?
More specifically, why do we need ELO in Mechwarrior Online?

Well to get to the root of this we would need to look at everything from the beginning.
You see, ELO is a thing that has been trashed/praised from the beginning and as such it has effectively split the game into three sides;
- The people who love it.
- The people who hate it.
- The people who dont care about its existance and just want to play the game.

This results in alot of needless arguments about who is right and wrong.
I get that.
I guess one could say that I am starting a debate about this very needless thing myself at the moment.
One would not be wrong in that either I suppose.
However I feel that ELO is something that has been overlooked and just placed for no real reason and as a result, in my honest opinion, things are just ruined for any sort of interesting games.

This may sound harsh and a bit onesided...
But the fact that we are kept in check by ELO, since we are all weighted and placed in wierd situations where a good player is set up with a clueless player to balance him out against perhabs two average players just doesnt make sense to me.

Sure I get the original idea and sure this sounds good on paper.
I mean honestly it sounds bloody amazing on paper!
But this does not make the game more amusing for the clueless player nor does it make it any more fun for the good player.
I get that it might make it fun for the two average players if they kill the clueless player and get to feel good after that, but I doubt they find it fun when the good player takes them both for a spin at the same time, and honestly who would?

So at the end of the day, what we get is that this at best creates a constant 50/50 situation, in which noone is truely happy or unhappy about the game.

This seems stable right?
This makes sense on paper, right?
I mean 50/50 would mean that noone has a reason to leave the game, since they are not directly unhappy with it, and since they lose only half of their games they also win half of them.
Leaving them split between being happy(when they win) and being unhappy(when they lose).

Sadly though what this does is creating a situation in which we are incapable of improving.

I say this very loosely because we can of course improve but seeing as we will only end up in more difficult situations as a result of ¨tryharding¨ we will effectively still have a solid 50/50 W/L ratio as we will just have more clueless people weighing us down as a result of us becomming better.

Then again should we decide to say F@ck everything and go: ¨I dont care about my ELO I just want to have fun¨ then ELO is actually STILL going to get in your way and try to mess with your games.

Why?

Well, because though you might want to have fun and play for giggles and whatnot, you will still, quite often to be honest, be paired up with a good player since you will just become the stone that is supposed to weigh him down.

What this effectively does, is creating a situation in which you get the impression that he is ¨tryharding¨ and he in turn gets the impression that you are a ¨N00b¨ who cares about nothing.
As a result from this, what happens next is going to be a very frustrating experience for both of you, since you want to play the game differently and as such end up destroying the game for eachother while playing it the way you want to.

I am aware that we can argue about who is right, the ¨tryhard¨ or the ¨N00b¨, from now and until judgement day, but that wont give us anything we can use and the discussion will likely never end, since neither side will give up and admit to being at fault for destroying the game for the other person - nor should they since they just want different things out of the game - and thats okay!
I mean none of you are wrong, but you are not right either, you just want different things.

Now I am not trying to start a war between the two sides here, so please refrain from that or I will have to ask a MOD to keep an eye on this thread as I intend it to be an open discussion about ELO.
A discussion I personally feel has never taken place.

(If you are still reading, then dont worry you are now halfway through this massive wall of text, so keep going! I BELIEVE IN YOU!)

So moving back to ELO.

What is the alternative to having ELO in this game?
Well actually there is only really two alternatives.
Remove ELO completely.
Or
Remove ELO from solo que and keep it in full premades. We would of couse also still need to match smaller premades with other premades to create some sort of balance in PUG matches since WOIP is such a big advantage but that should not be a problem as I know coding it is not super complex either.

Now now everyone.
This might seem rash.
But remember, ELO was not here to begin with and frankly the game was alot more random before it was implemented.
I know everyone who remember the games before ELO will likely agree with me when I say that you never knew what was going to happen when you pressed launch.
This actually made it fun! Though sometimes of couse also a bit chaotic.
And sure we had games that were massive slaughters.
But we also had games that were evenly matched.
(Just like atm, meaning ELO did nothing to change the generel experience for the average player - like they want you to believe it did.)
However we also had games that were against iconic people from the community, since everyone could face off against everyone.
This made it more... I guess ¨personal¨ when you fought.
Besides in the original Mechwarrior universe you sometimes met people who were better than you and sometimes they were ¨famous¨.
And as a result you got in trouble.
It is shown in every single book, story, the lore and even the fluff PGI makes for new mechs when they announce them.

Besides, in my opinion, if we are going to discard the whole aspect of skills or personal development of them, then we might aswell change the name of this game into ¨Big internet robot battlez¨ since what we end up with is not Mechwarrior, but just a fancy robot game cleverly disguised as Mechwarrior, in which everyone has nothing to aspire to and nothing to gain or lose since we are all artificially kept at a 50/50 W/L ratio at the end of the day, even if we chop off our heads and run around like clueless chickens.

Now I know the above is big mouthful, honestly I know its not that simple as to just say "Remove ELO have good games GG everyone is happy!"
I know it is not like that.
I also know that this is gonna be easy to get wrong, so try to stay with me, okay?

Imagine any form of tabletop game you have ever played, be that BattleTech(The thing Mechwarrior is based on), Warhammer/Warhammer 40k, Lord of the Rings, etc etc.

Did these games, often held in basements or stores, have any sort of rankings that forced you to meet specific people based on a constantly changing number that judged their skill and always tried to make you meet a balanced opponent?

No.

These games were often played by people who issued a challenge either through knowing eachother or from simply being at the same event and wanting to play the game.
Those very same two people playing that game were often on different skill levels compared to eachother.
But like everything else in life, skill is not everything.
Luck is always a factor that many people forget.
Luck could make the best player win.
Luck could also make the best player lose.
Luck could do anything really, but because the games were random and had no set limits or boundaries, they were always interesting and fun.
And even when loosing many people took it lightly and ended it with a handshake and a laugh.(aka GG)

Why did they do that?
Why did they not rage, get mad, call the other one for a cheater/n00b/etc?
Why?

Because they had fun playing the game and because they had no number or stat they needed to keep at a certain level.
They just had fun playing the game they loved to play and because of that they could have a good attitude even when losing simply because they lost NOTHING when losing.
That is why sportsmanship existed in those games.
That is why sportsmanship does NOT exist in MWO atm.
Because humans are greedy and we dont want to lose something that we have.
This is another reason to why I think ELO should be removed from the game.
Then again I would prefer stats to be removed aswell, since they are further inflating ego's that we can avoid if we dont have the stats to care about. Like say my K/D ratio is positive, but I always fear if it should become negative because...
(this is for another discussion I am sorry about being derailed there, just ignore that last part.)

Now dont get me wrong about this whole ELO thing.
I am neither an elitist snob nor a clueless n00b (no harm meant to either side really, I am just trying to make things as clear as glass)
I consider myself an average gamer who has fun in this game by blowing up random mechs.
But what fun is there in this game if the matchmaker is constantly trying to make me win one game only to force me to lose the next one, by trying to hold me in place in a specific point bracket while also doing that to everyone else?

How can I ever dream to become better or fear becoming worse if the ELO gods are going to keep me in my spot of a 50/50 W/L ratio even if I start running insanity wolf builds?
Or try running CoD style in this game?
Or decide to join a specific corp in order to be competetive?
Or try to improve my win chances by learning new things?

All of the things I ¨could do¨ in this game are being stopped and kept in check by an all powerful system that we call ELO which stops me from going anywhere no matter how hard I try - be that down or up.

What most people dont understand is that ELO was designed for games such as chess.
A game that had one person facing one other person.
It was never designed or intented to be used in a multiplayer scenario.
It can however be effectivly used in premade games since the ELO of a premade is somewhat consistent.
But in a PUG scenario?
Please no.
There are too many variables that are not taken into consideration.
Too many things that are simply brushed aside based on the fact that they are too complex to take into the equation for every single match.
In the end PUG matches with ELO is a constant 50/50 ELO hell in which noone goes anywhere.

Currently we can even infalte our ELO at will though we have no visible ELO.
"How?" you might ask.
It is quite simple really.

If you go into a premade and lose on purpose then your ELO decreases since the game will think you were unable to win even with the clear advantage of being premade, you can take this a step further by continuesly doing this on purpose for a few matches and as a result your ELO will drastically drop making your PUG matchmaker think you are the underdog, and due to that team you up with a much better player, resulting in two good players facing two average players.
Of couse this will quickly even out again as you play a few matches. THANKS ELO!

On the other side you can also go premade and try to win as much as possible, this will make your ELO rise, perhabs above what you are even at yourself, in turn making you team up with even more clueless people when PUGGING since the matchmaker will to try to drag you back down into the 50/50 range you are supposed to be in according to ELO. THANKS AGAIN ELO.

As a result this creates a very frustrating experience for everyone involved, an experience in which actual skills, development or lack of them, means absolutely nothing since you will always be artificially winning 50% of your games.

So here is the conclusion, my thoughts on the matter aswell as a TL:DR I suppose.
Here goes:

- I believe ELO is ruining the game by giving us no reason to improve or fear our skills declining.

- I also believe that ELO is sucking the meaning out of the game.

- Lastly I believe ELO is going to be a hindrance when CW(community warfare) finally arrives, simply by making any effort to become better utterly useless seeing as ELO will try to force us to maintain a 50/50 W/L ratio no matter what.

Well that was all I had to say, and I know it was alot, so if you read all this, I thank you for your time and I hope you enjoyed the read.
Now please if you have anything to add/comment on of if you just want to leave your own 2 cents, then by all means go ahead.
This thread is made for the purpose of wenting our thoughts and ideas about ELO and weather it should be changed or completely removed from the game.

So until we meet again Mechwarriors, stay cold, sharp and cunning.
Peace.


Edit 1: added a poll to the topic.

Edited by 0okami, 06 August 2013 - 01:32 PM.

[Seelenlos]

(i've been logged of, this is the second version i write ...)

Hi,

nice post:

I am with you on all of it.

2 Things you mentioned but didn't explained well:

First:

How should newbies and noobs learn, if there is no challenge?

And in a 50/50 team the learn from the average and not the good and best! And the most bad thing, they learn the WRONG thing like going in a herd like sheep, and calling it glory !

(I call most of them in game now sheep, and to be serious they are more dumb than sheep. In a sheep herd, when the shepherd and the dogs give commands, the sheep react fast. The sheep in this game also are angry at you, who are trying to saving their idiotic digital life).

ELO make the noobs not to learn, or learn the WORST things from the average player.


Second:

ELO ist like this saying:
A US-President said: a poor man and a Millionaire both have a half-million dollars.

It won't help the Millionaire find another one, and the poor still dies without a dime.

Regards

[Modo44]

ELO is needed, but the starting level should be below the median, not on/above it like it seems to be now.

[Seelenlos]

Modo44, on 11 August 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:

ELO is needed, but the starting level should be below the median, not on/above it like it seems to be now.

And why is ELO needed?

If you never get better or worse because of 50/50?
So any explanations on you idea?

[Modo44]

ELO is what prevents all matches from being silly stomps, in all games where it is used. What it needs in MWO is tweaking, not removing.

[Seelenlos]

Modo44, on 11 August 2013 - 09:49 AM, said:

ELO is what prevents all matches from being silly stomps, in all games where it is used. What it needs in MWO is tweaking, not removing.

Then you don't want "MECHWARRIOR" but some other kind of "Counter-Strike" but not so hard also use some ELO to soften things.

They fun on BT was that even with best equipments and Mechs you could loose VERY BADLY and HARD because of randomness and the luck factor.

I remember one game, I was new to a group and had the Atlas and the first dice in game i became a Headshot by a newbee.

A "random" team destroyed us by their guerilla tactics. There was no ELO that times to soften thing for us!

This way all runs to a direction (in mass) hoping not to die or to catch the kill shut when the goods have done the job.

Smartness and thinking beforehand is what make the original MW.

You see 4 of your group are running left without reason, rest is going to ship, then you see them in tunnel, you know now, oh an amush the good guy to help us, so now timing is of importance, you lurk around to see if enemy is going back and then all ambush BY FEELING and you have a nice day and at end all say "vgg" "vgg".

Had that 5 times before ELO.

Now after ELO:
The same dead sentenced go (one of the lance is even not there but with the others), you say get ready, go in and guess what! Rest is history.

That are things you as newbie learn if you are against this force or lucky and get in a random game with some of the BWC.
With ELO you will NEVER ever have a chance to see a game with BWC so you will never learn.

Now you argumentation against that?

[Sasha Volkova]

Modo44, on 11 August 2013 - 09:49 AM, said:

ELO is what prevents all matches from being silly stomps, in all games where it is used. What it needs in MWO is tweaking, not removing.

I understand what you are trying to say here, I really do, but what you seem to be forgetting is that though ELO in some ways prevents silly stomps, it also creates a never ending circle of stomps - the only difference now is that when you get stomped, ELO is likely to make your next match a stomp in your favor in order to move you up by the amount you lost by being stomped in the match before.

The above is a very extreme example but none the less it is what is happening at the moment due to ELO being in the game.

In other words, you can honestly go in with the worst mech you can build and still expect to win roughly 50% of your games, because though your ELO may decrease, the system is made to give you a ¨fun¨ experience by making you win roughly 50% of your games.
This in turn takes all matters of skill out of the game completely.

You can honestly be the best player out there for all I know, but you could be very unlucky with your initial matches and end up in the lower parts of the point brackets - in turn making you experience the worst of the worst this community has to offer.
Now being low in points, aka having a low ELO, you are less likely to pull yourself up again since your matches will be filled with a 50/50 chance of losing and winning in turn making everything all about luck.

Is this how MWO should be?
A game where skill has no influence at all since the better you get, the heavier your ¨stone¨ around your angle gets.
(stone in this case represents the player of lower skill that you get paired up with to even out your ELO and give the other team a better chance against you)

And please dont try to tell me that you can carry 11 random people to victory... Everyone including PGI themselves know that carrying 11 ppl on your back is impossible.
This is also why I believe that ELO should by all means not be in this game.
If nothing else then it should only apply to 12v12.
ELO is simply too inaccurate for larger PUG battles.

As stated before I do believe ELO is needed in 12v12 as ELO actually works there - based on the fact that a 12 man team will most likely consist of the same 12 players (with a few extra substitutes just in case) and that said 12 man team will have the same skill lvl in all their matches (they can improve or make mistakes etc etc but the ELO will adapt to that since its the same people playing all the time) and this results in a situation where ELO actually works as intended.

But forcing ELO into an equation that already has so many uncontrollable variables as a PUG match has, is simply nothing short of stupid.

I am sorry for sounding harsh there, I honestly tried for 10 minutes to come up with a more subtle approach, but I am unable to explain it better than the above...

It is beyond my understanding why anyone would ever see ELO as a good thing in a PUG match since all ELO does in that situation is make everything mean absolutely nothing.
You can turn off your screen and start firring your weapons in random directions and still have a fair chance of winning that match.
That is how bad ELO currently is.
Its harsh, its extreme, but its the truth.
ELO is ruining PUG matches more than it is helping.
And I really dont understand why so few are aware of it at the moment, but its something I am hoping to change with this thread.

[Appogee]

The way the matchmaker is using Elo is ruining my PUG life.

I cycle between games where I stomp, because I've dropped with a competent team, and games where I get stomped because I've dropped with noobs.

My W/L cycles up and down like a sine wave.

[Blue Footed Booby]

Appogee, on 12 August 2013 - 11:34 AM, said:

The way the matchmaker is using Elo is ruining my PUG life.

I cycle between games where I stomp, because I've dropped with a competent team, and games where I get stomped because I've dropped with noobs.

My W/L cycles up and down like a sine wave.

That sounds like a problem with how it uses high elo players to balance low elo teams, so you get a good player and two terrible ones against three average players, and one on three typically isn't doable.

[Mackman]

You guys are confused about how Elo works.

Elo does not try to give you a 50-50 win ratio.

Elo tries to give you even matches, all the time, with the result being that you will likely win 50% of your matches, because they're even.

You're so against stats and inflating ego? Then why do you even care that you can't make visible progress? But since "making progress" is such a big deal to you, there's a really easy fix for that: Global leaderboards and/or a League System similar to that used by League of Legends (which, by the way, has been using Elo very successfully for 3+ years).

Many of your "problems" are incredibly easily solved:

-Playing with different people all the time? Have different Elo's for premades and PUGs.

-Want to play hardcore sometimes, but casually at other times? Have a ranked/unranked mode (this will also help with the premade problem)

-Want a way to measure your skill? Leaderboards/visible Elo/League System

Now you do have one valid complaint: That PGI currently uses crappy players to "weigh down" good players. In essence, their current Elo makes one crappy player and one good player equivalent to two average players. That's just a stupid way to do matchmaking of any kind, and PGI has stated that they're going to be fixing it.

Matthew Craig, on 07 August 2013 - 11:10 AM, said:

Technically the match maker will consider it a 'good' game if both teams were matched by having 1 high elo and 1 low elo player on both teams just as much as putting 2 average players on both teams.

The match maker can only work within the ranges given to it though and currently the ranges can be too large i.e. the matchmaker can drag in a high elo player to balance out a few low elo players, when we start to reduce the range what we should see is that the match maker will wait longer to create a 'good' game i.e it will have to wait for a player with a more average elo to show up (as the high elo player will be out of range). In the extreme case the match maker will simply give up and say it couldn't find a good game, this can potentially be seen as a good thing as you didn't want to play that game anyhow.

As mentioned we'll be monitoring carefully and we suspect we can tighten the ranges without having a dramatic impact on average wait times and failed matches, we can also adjust the timeout up from 2 minutes to compensate. Hopefully that answers your question.

Bottom line is, most of your "problems" either aren't problems, or are easily solved. And the fact is, Elo will get better and better as more people begin playing. Once the player base gets large enough, matchmaking will be largely perfect.

Good players will play with and against good players, resulting in challenging and rewarding matches.

Average players will play with and against average players: Those that get better will win more, resulting in them facing better opponents (and having better teammates) as their skill increases.

And bad players will play with and against bad players, meaning that even the worst player will still be able to enjoy himself and improve without being destroyed 60 seconds into every match by a jump-jetting sniper.

Games should not have a required level of skill to enjoy the game.

Skill is its own reward, not being able to rofl-stomp noobs.

Elo's purpose is basically summed up in those two statements, and I hope we can all agree with both of them.

[Seelenlos]

Mackman, on 12 August 2013 - 07:24 PM, said:

Elo's purpose is basically summed up in those two statements, and I hope we can all agree with both of them.

Hmmmm, NO!

Can't you see you error? Or do I have an error?

You are trying to put a somehow 3D shooter in schemata, where it can not exist.
How can a bad ecm-scouter be good in a good team? The ELO won't make him understand that he HAS to equip a TAG, Beagle and maybe NARC and not to go near enemy.
How will that player will ever learn to play so, when he has not been stomped for 50 time to learn "Oh, I am a scout!".

Every time such noob come in and plays a game cause the others have destroyed the enemy or he is the killer because of others damage, he thinks he is the king, the reality is, he has done nothing for his team, and ELO also honored him.

So you are putting a statistical equation in a game where all is based on median numbers.

Let me make a real life example:
The Iraq war you are still in somehow: The things would have seen a little different if there were also an ELO or a median there.

To American luck there is no ELO there and to Iraqi unluck there is also no ELO there... but both have to play the game!

And the winner is, guess what ...

[Mackman]

Seelenlos, on 13 August 2013 - 08:24 AM, said:

Hmmmm, NO!

Can't you see you error? Or do I have an error?

You are trying to put a somehow 3D shooter in schemata, where it can not exist.
How can a bad ecm-scouter be good in a good team? The ELO won't make him understand that he HAS to equip a TAG, Beagle and maybe NARC and not to go near enemy.
How will that player will ever learn to play so, when he has not been stomped for 50 time to learn "Oh, I am a scout!".

Every time such noob come in and plays a game cause the others have destroyed the enemy or he is the killer because of others damage, he thinks he is the king, the reality is, he has done nothing for his team, and ELO also honored him.

So you are putting a statistical equation in a game where all is based on median numbers.

Let me make a real life example:
The Iraq war you are still in somehow: The things would have seen a little different if there were also an ELO or a median there.

To American luck there is no ELO there and to Iraqi unluck there is also no ELO there... but both have to play the game!

And the winner is, guess what ...

lolololol. Do you really think that someone dying over and over again is an ideal way to learn? It's not.

When a noob is pitted directly against a pro, he dies way too quickly to learn anything from it.

But if he's pitted against other noobs, then he's going to live. He's going to play the game. And eventually, he's going to learn that he has more success if he plays this way, and less success if he plays that way. And as he learns and wins more, he'll be put with people who are doing the exact same thing.The learning process is natural and gradual, and it's fun, because games are supposed to be fun.

You still want to argue? Take a team of 10-year-olds who want to learn how to play soccer, and without having them practice at all, put them in a full-fledged game with pro's. Now: How much do you think they're going to be learning? Do you think they're going to be learning a lot about how to play soccer?

Of course, since you implied that you think games should have a skill-cap for people to have fun at them, then I really don't think you have anything useful to add to this conversation. Begone, troll.

Edited by Mackman, 13 August 2013 - 10:20 AM.

[Seelenlos]

Mackman, on 13 August 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

lolololol. Do you really think that someone dying over and over again is an ideal way to learn? It's not.

Take a team of 10-year-olds who want to learn how to play soccer, and without having them practice at all, put them in a full-fledged game with pro's.

Begone, troll.

That's why Permadeath games are getting interesting again these days! Dying and dying till you get better .... but YES, I am a troll...

Ever seen a boy always being overplayed by his father as a gatekeeper, till that day he catches that ball... YES, I am the troll...

Don't know what you do, how old you are, and what achievements you've done in you life, but your argumentation sounds like a boy, played only at home computer games, so hardly defending a "nonsense brain construct = ELO" he really doesn't understand... sort of fanatic thinking...

Sorry, for the part of freedom I am on, I die better with randoms than a with a "nonsense brain construct", I am forced to accept !

So that way, I am a FREE troll ! (for the records, you've gone off topic first!)

Edited by Seelenlos, 13 August 2013 - 11:10 AM.

[Mackman]

Seelenlos, on 13 August 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

That's why Permadeath games are getting interesting again these days! Dying and dying till you get better .... but YES, I am a troll...

Ever seen a boy always being overplayed by his father as a gatekeeper, till that day he catches that ball... YES, I am the troll...

Don't know what you do, how old you are, and what achievements you've done in you life, but your argumentation sounds like a boy, played only at home computer games, so hardly defending a "nonsense brain construct = ELO" he really doesn't understand... sort of fanatic thinking...

Sorry, for the part of freedom I am on, I die better with randoms than a with a "nonsense brain construct", I am forced to accept !

So that way, I am a FREE troll ! (for the records, you've gone off topic first!)

He gets better with his dad, because his dad is teaching him, not because his dad is genuinely trying to beat him. If his dad wasn't trying to teach him, most boys would just give up and do something else.

But that doesn't really matter: You haven't answered any of my arguments, you just think that people should have a terrible time in a game that they're learning, until they somehow earn their fun by, what, taking their lumps?

If you want an "interesting" game, then you should want a game where you don't just stomp noobs, right? You should want a challenging game where you're playing people of your own skill level, people that you can win or lose against by a narrow margin. Only a matchmaking system like Elo can consistently provide that, and anything else is just trash.

Edited by Mackman, 13 August 2013 - 11:33 AM.

[Seelenlos]

Mackman, on 13 August 2013 - 11:30 AM, said:

But that doesn't really matter: You haven't answered any of my arguments, you just think that

[color=#959595]Bottom line is, most of your "problems" either aren't problems, or are easily solved. And the fact is, Elo will get better and better as more people begin playing. Once the player base gets large enough, matchmaking will be largely perfect.[/color]
[color=#959595]Good players will play with [/color]
[color=#959595]Average players will play with [/color]
[color=#959595]And bad plyers will play with [/color]

Games should not have a required level of skill to enjoy the game.
Skill is its own reward, not being able to rofl-stomp noobs.

Yes, I think having at first a bad time makes you invest more time in RTFM and game mechanics.
And with XPs you can get your Mechs the same fast as others, you still have not guts to play good, if you didn't played good with the standard buyed Mech.

All you are telling in your arguments are more hopes than facts. That ELO works in a strategic game doesn't mean it work in a 3D shooter.
You assume that because it had worked somewhere else the results are same... our moaning you are ignoring, because YOU have a good experience since ELO, meaning you are not that good, because since ELO you are getting better, you "understand"!

ALL games ever had a level of learning, or you Mechwarrior is you first game EVER !?! Absolute NONSENSE argument.

AND THIS IS THE ANSWER:
Skill is its own reward
Then it need no "Helping Hand"= ELO to soften the things for it....

Sorry, you are assuming without real statistic datas, that ELO is getting better, if you haven't wrote it, monitoring it and rechecking it.

It means you are defending programmers, who themselves wouldn't put their hands in their own fire!
This is more dangerous to communities than any wrong coded ELOs !

rechecking our opinions would be good but we even haven't the option as there is no "Opt in/out" for ELO to see the results.

Therefor I see my position of artificial changing in game mechanics hardened, as you and PGI do not showing facts or let see inside the code and results.

I am done with argumentation and ELO.

No regards

[BookWyrm]

Just for kicks I started an alt account and played a few games on it. Yes, the game needs ELO. I think the system just needs more tweaking and balance. Without ELO this game would not attract new players. It would be like my first 10-15 hours of playing Dota 2.

Edited by BookWyrm, 13 August 2013 - 02:45 PM.

[Mackman]

Seelenlos, on 13 August 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

All you are telling in your arguments are more hopes than facts. That ELO works in a strategic game doesn't mean it work in a 3D shooter.
You assume that because it had worked somewhere else the results are same... our moaning you are ignoring, because YOU have a good experience since ELO, meaning you are not that good, because since ELO you are getting better, you "understand"!

Ah, there's the ad hominem. "You like Elo, you must be bad!" Good one, dude. You're argumentative skills are on par with that of a 3rd grader.

Quote

ALL games ever had a level of learning, or you Mechwarrior is you first game EVER !?! Absolute NONSENSE argument.

AND THIS IS THE ANSWER:
Skill is its own reward
Then it need no "Helping Hand"= ELO to soften the things for it....

It's really simple. If everyone is lumped together, that means lower-level players are going to die really early on. I remember my first time playing the game: I hadn't even learned how to maneuver properly within the first several games, because I kept dying so fast. And as they slowly get better, they'll slowly start living longer. And as they slowly start living longer, they'll slowly start learning new skills. But it's going to take a loooong time, because they're facing people so far beyond them in skill. Even observing, they'll see a new maneuver and they won't think "hey, that's pretty cool, I'll do that next game!" They'll think "HOLY CRAP WHAT WAS THAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND."

Now let's take a look at how it would work if bad/new players played exclusively with players at their own skill level.

They'd be learning together. Nobody would know how to aim super well, or maneuver super well, so everyone would live a whole hell of a lot longer, giving them a whole lot longer to learn in-game. And when they're spectating someone who's just a little bit better than they are, they will be able to learn from them, instead of wondering what just happened.

And as they get better at the game, they'll start playing people who are better, thus renewing the whole glorious cycle of "play with people as good as you are ->learn by playing and watching people slightly better than you->becoming better at the game->play with people as good as you are..."

That is exactly what Elo is designed to do. And if it can work for League of Legends, it can work for here (your failed attempt at argument notwithstanding). As the population grows, with more people added to each skill "tier", so will the matchmaking become more precise (that's just math, dude, it's not hard).

Edited by Mackman, 13 August 2013 - 02:49 PM.

[Sasha Volkova]

BookWyrm, on 13 August 2013 - 02:41 PM, said:

Just for kicks I started an alt account and played a few games on it. Yes, the game needs ELO. I think the system just needs more tweaking and balance. Without ELO this game would not attract new players. It would be like my first 10-15 hours of playing Dota 2.

If you played seriously on the alt then you did it wrong.
You need to plummet on the alt, plummet to the lvl of average and there you will see what the average player sees.
I made and alt and made it drop like a stone, I saw what they endure...
Now I feel bad when playing on my main account since the higher ELO is so much more pleasent compared to the pits.

[Seelenlos]

Mackman, on 13 August 2013 - 02:48 PM, said:

Ah, there's the ad hominem. "You like Elo, you must be bad!" Good one, dude. You're argumentative skills are on par with that of a 3rd grader.

Igit,

I don't like that at all, you're like my mother, putting words for my mouth I never thought or spoked.

I think I am more focused on matter than you.

What I told was: You experience since ELO good, I experience since ELO bad.
So for a logical approach it means > full logical > either you are noob or me > Personal logical > If ELO was good for me even with noobs there and now it is bad because of Average AND if it was worse for you before and now good after then you can't play good and need average or better players to do the job for you !

Nothing personal, like you.

And: GIVE ME FACTS ! GIVE ME my ELO square! Why does PGI do not show it then? Because it is CRAP !
And as a programmer, I wouldn't show my customer the results, if I know I am so wrong, they might not pay the bill !

Simple logic.

So don't quote me anymore, I am done with that.
If it changes to my will, then PGI would see money, else there are more games on the run, I would be glad to let another one behind with kids like you in it.

[Mackman]

Seelenlos, on 14 August 2013 - 04:22 AM, said:

Igit,

I don't like that at all, you're like my mother, putting words for my mouth I never thought or spoked.

I think I am more focused on matter than you.

What I told was: You experience since ELO good, I experience since ELO bad.
So for a logical approach it means > full logical > either you are noob or me > Personal logical > If ELO was good for me even with noobs there and now it is bad because of Average AND if it was worse for you before and now good after then you can't play good and need average or better players to do the job for you !

Nothing personal, like you.

And: GIVE ME FACTS ! GIVE ME my ELO square! Why does PGI do not show it then? Because it is CRAP !
And as a programmer, I wouldn't show my customer the results, if I know I am so wrong, they might not pay the bill !

Simple logic.

So don't quote me anymore, I am done with that.
If it changes to my will, then PGI would see money, else there are more games on the run, I would be glad to let another one behind with kids like you in it.

This isn't how arguing works, dude: I've taken your points, and I've explained why you're wrong, but you have yet to do anything of the sort.

Why am I wrong about how Elo works? Why am I wrong about how it provides a better experience for all levels of play? Take my arguments, and explain why they're wrong. That's how arguing works.

Because it sounds like your point is simply that you want the ability to beat up noobs in your games. That's what it sounds like: You just want new players to have to suffer, before they can get better.

And if that's true, then you're just a bad person, and none of your arguments are going to make any sense to someone trying to a make an enjoyable game that's fun for people of all skill levels.