361 replies to this topic

[WulfNine]

Like others have said... Stats if they must exist should exist in private. They should used to better ones self and set goals in game for performance. If they are made public they will only server to cause Elitism and Division among comrades.

[Alcatraz968]

Stats are helpful in the scenes they might push you to do better if there low. But they also let people target you based on it. I Think private stats would be best.

[Scarlett Avignon]

WulfNine, on 13 June 2012 - 05:28 AM, said:

Like others have said... Stats if they must exist should exist in private. They should used to better ones self and set goals in game for performance. If they are made public they will only server to cause Elitism and Division among comrades.

I'm in a WoT clan which is very good. We occasionally rib each other about stats, but we all understand that they are recorded in a silly way and matter little.

Maybe you should stop playing with twelve year olds.

[CookieMonster]

have we all forgotten that this is only a game? who really gives a fuzzy rat's a$s about stats. The only reason they are there is for a measure against others. Your stat (whichever one it is) is lower and you get all butt-hurt and make excuses..yours is higher and you get a Napoleon complex and this gives you the 'right' to say to someone else they arent "good enough" for you. I think both are indications of some kind of deficiency in ones self esteem and self worth. Neither of which is going to be solved playing a GAAAAMME.

whats more important to you. your stats, or having fun with the crew you are gaming with. I think we've got enough going on in our lives that THIS should be so irrelevant and inconsequential as to avoid these kind of discussions from ever coming up.

lol, but i guess I'm wrong..7 replies came into this thread as I was typing this..lol

just my opinion folks. flame away.

BTW, anyone out there wants to game for gamings sake, PM me. the guys I run with arent ever going to degrade/begrudge you because of your stats. and I guarantee when it comes time to drop into a 12-v-12 or whatever, you'll be taken just like anyone else would be. be sure to bring your laugh and the tasty beverage of your choice :-)

[Tobruk]

Pun Pundit, on 13 June 2012 - 03:03 AM, said:

And you won no matches where teammates decided to start a flame war with each other regarding stats, right? Let me quote wikipedia for you:

I said "quite a few matches" not "no matches"
If youre going to quote me then have the decency to quote me correctly rather than twisting my words in order to take pathetic cheap shots at my character. WoT like MWO is a team game, If you have several fools on your team bickering over stats rather than concentrating on the match then it doesnt bode well for your teams chances. Would have thought that was obvious yet you try to misconstrue my comments as self serving bias.

The majority of people play games like MWO to chill out and have a bit of fun after a hard day's grind at work or school. Last thing were interested in is having to listen to is the blathering of **** retentive nerds obsessed with stats. I actually feel kind of sad for some people here. If game statistics are so important to you people then I'd suggest it's time you got out into the real world and started accomplishing something actually worthwile rather than wasting your time trying to compensate for your lack of achievement through video games.

[SideSt3p]

I don't care. And ultimately, I have pretty much no say since PGI can do what they want with the game and I'll play it anyway!

[perfectblue]

There are a few alternatives.

1. Quit worrying about stats and realize its just a game, have fun.
2. Get better at the game to make up for poor stats.

[WulfNine]

Franklen Avignon, on 13 June 2012 - 05:31 AM, said:

I'm in a WoT clan which is very good. We occasionally rib each other about stats, but we all understand that they are recorded in a silly way and matter little.

Maybe you should stop playing with twelve year olds.

I am also in a good WoT clan, we don't rib each other about stats and generally have a great time playing. My comment was simply my opinion on how no good comes from the publicizing of stats. Many people don't understand how to read stats properly and thus infer things incorrectly.

[mekabuser]

we had stats in mw4 and it was good. We had stats in battlefield and it was good. I am looking forward to stats in mwo not just w/l , that doesnt tell you nothing, k/d accuracy, number of perks what not. I have been looking forward to seeing just who IS a good player. Especially with so many pilots.
If you think lack ofstats is gonna change masengil style players then you are mistaken.
I would dare say MOST of us over 30 yrs old want stats.

[Clay Pigeon]

Stats should be private. Maybe make it so you can show 1 stat off, that you select. I'm not sure if anyone is familiar with pro tags from smnc/mnc, but I like the idea of those.

[Mr Peabody]

Tobruk, on 13 June 2012 - 01:38 AM, said:

Absolutely correct! Perfect example is my Win/Loss for my Tiger II and T-34 in World of tanks which is hovering around 45% for both tanks (My overall Win/loss is about 52%) If the stats are to be believed then Im a poor player on those vehicles. Catch is Ive earned the "Ace Tanker" mastery badge for both these tanks which means my average scores put me in the top 1% of people playing them.

In WoT the ace mastery badge means that in a *single game* you earned xp which put you in the top 1% of the xp range for that tank. So, you had one good game. Sorry.

[McBrahman]

FaustianQ, on 13 June 2012 - 05:19 AM, said:

My brain wanted to explode on reading the first page and the circle jerk of bad player justification. I keep hoping that some game will eventually have people that understand math or isn't full of those who'd deny an entire field of science legitimacy through their "superior, non-mathematical deductive reasoning".

Yes, I so do want stats, because if there are none, then how will I ever improve my game?

You missed the point. The math is easy and no doubt: it is rigth. The average from 4 and 6 is 5. But (and thats the point) what does it tells you? And as you can see in here it tells you what you want it to. Its more a religious thing than an scientific. And i am sure that no respectable scientist will juge a complex thing like "skill" (how ever to define) by a hand full of numbers.

The number 12.56% wont help you to get better. But the insight that you should fire short rounds instead of full clips will.

[hornet331]

Franklen Avignon, on 13 June 2012 - 05:20 AM, said:

Considering wargaming.net has modeled the internals of the tanks based on real-life schematics they have access to and PRI has to model critical hits based on the internals of mechs that have never existed (and sometimes don't even make physical sense) I think you'll find critical hits in MWO to be quite random.

Also, regarding your comment about 30° shell turns:
Shells ricochet. It happens. Sometimes, they ricochet in weird directions. It blows my mind that people can't grasp this concept. Personally, after years of physics studies and years of shooting guns, I find that wargaming's physics simulator for the shells is all at once amazing and well-done. Talk to a real tanker who has shot at a live target (or find an article written by one.) They will tell you about some of the strangest bounce, penetration, and damage stories you will ever hear.

I am not talking about bounces or ricochets.. I am talking about when the shell decides to again fly out of the gun in a 30° angle.. if you play wot you know the aim reticle, and the shot can go everything there... even sometimes outside of it.. and when you miss a tank that is 3m wide and fully inside the aiming circle at 150m with a projectile that goes 900m/s there is something wrong.
Also there penetration/damage mechanics are bonkers beyond belive... tankers eating shells, the infamous IS4 steel jaw driver eating 152mm shells for breakfast, the introduction of "spaced" armor where 20mm+90mm is enough to stop shells with 270mm penetration power etc. etc.
Hell even WG them self said the chose fully randomization to keep the gap between good and bad players as small as possible to give the bad players also sometimes some sort of gratification.

I am glad that, by the looks, MWO will be nothing like that, you shot where you aim, you will deal damage as long as you hit, even if it is minimal and everyone can contribute to the game. A jenner softening up a atlas only by a few shots can be the deciding factor in a game and not like wot where a T5 light tank can do nothing against a IS4/Maus whatever and is just one shot food.. which is another cool thing in MWO that even light mechs can take more then one hit (if its not the legs or the cockpit )

[BlindProphet]

ElKobold, on 13 June 2012 - 04:33 AM, said:

Platoon stats? Rrrright


I do agree with most of your points though.

I was speaking to overall win/loss rate, not win loss rate on a particular tank (that was actually kind of mentioned as a other thing to look into not just the overall win/loss rate).

[mekabuser]

WulfNine, on 13 June 2012 - 05:28 AM, said:

Like others have said... Stats if they must exist should exist in private. They should used to better ones self and set goals in game for performance. If they are made public they will only server to cause Elitism and Division among comrades.

and how do private stats help you improve when you cant compare your data against the masses?

[Karl Streiger]

The win ratio of WoT was broken from the very beginning.
Why? Easy - you start to play a game - start a new tank and every time you have to relearn this tank - when did you fealt comfortable with this tank? Did you ever - did you keep it or did you follow the rush? Did you played platoon? Did you play Clan?

This were all things that had influence. I have increased my to win ratio simply by driving tier 4 and tier 3 german TDs...killing newbies.
did this tell anything about how bad or good i was in a tier 6 russian heavy tank? I think not

[Scarlett Avignon]

Nothing against the people arguing for no stats on this thread, but you are all arguing for your side for the wrong reasons.

Saying that people get picked on for poor stats is the same reasoning process as soccer moms saying kids should play scoreless games.

You're arguing that because they stats make you feel bad, they shouldn't be there. Even worse, each of you are, essentially, saying the same line, "Personally, I don't care, but some people will be trolled by others for poor stats." If you don't care, then just don't care. Either learn to live with the stats the way they are, flaws and all, or just grow up and learn to ignore the trolls.

I know this won't ever be seen they way it's supposed to by the people who need the message most, but at least I tried.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me. Heck, I love debate, which is why I get on the forums. However, when you use illogical arguments to try to hammer your desires into others, I can't stand it, and it's not constructive.

[BlindProphet]

Tobruk, on 13 June 2012 - 05:34 AM, said:

The majority of people play games like MWO to chill out and have a bit of fun after a hard day's grind at work or school. Last thing were interested in is having to listen to is the blathering of **** retentive nerds obsessed with stats. I actually feel kind of sad for some people here. If game statistics are so important to you people then I'd suggest it's time you got out into the real world and started accomplishing something actually worthwile rather than wasting your time trying to compensate for your lack of achievement through video games.

Just going to point out some of us who are '**** retentive nerds obsessed with stats' actually are quite accomplished in real life. Some of us find statistics, theory crafting, and other such activities quite enjoyable. Perhaps it is you who should get out into the world and do something worthwhile instead of spending time on the forums bashing us for enjoying/caring/wanting something that you do not. Just a thought.

[GotitN4U]

I have never been a big fan of win/lost stats due to they can be padded in many ways.If you really want to see how well a player is the Dev need add this option to win/lost stats.

They need to show the win/lost ratio if the player was solo/team then you can get a true sense on the type of player they are and not being carried by there team.

[Scarlett Avignon]

hornet331, on 13 June 2012 - 05:40 AM, said:

I am not talking about bounces or ricochets.. I am talking about when the shell decides to again fly out of the gun in a 30° angle.. if you play wot you know the aim reticle, and the shot can go everything there... even sometimes outside of it.. and when you miss a tank that is 3m wide and fully inside the aiming circle at 150m with a projectile that goes 900m/s there is something wrong.
Also there penetration/damage mechanics are bonkers beyond belive... tankers eating shells, the infamous IS4 steel jaw driver eating 152mm shells for breakfast, the introduction of "spaced" armor where 20mm+90mm is enough to stop shells with 270mm penetration power etc. etc.
Hell even WG them self said the chose fully randomization to keep the gap between good and bad players as small as possible to give the bad players also sometimes some sort of gratification.

I am glad that, by the looks, MWO will be nothing like that, you shot where you aim, you will deal damage as long as you hit, even if it is minimal and everyone can contribute to the game. A jenner softening up a atlas only by a few shots can be the deciding factor in a game and not like wot where a T5 light tank can do nothing against a IS4/Maus whatever and is just one shot food.. which is another cool thing in MWO that even light mechs can take more then one hit (if its not the legs or the cockpit )

Anyone acquainted with ballistics will tell you that bullets never, ever travel in a straight line. I've heard the "out of the reticle" claim many times and I've personally never, ever seen it happen. I've fired hundreds of thousands of shots in that game and never once has it 'gone out of the reticle." I've had it do some funky stuff. I've had it travel through the empty 1% of a 99% filled reticle, but it's always been inside. Personally, I think the claims are a combination of people wanting to cover up bad shots they have taken and a lack of understanding of the perception differences between the gun's angle and the out-of-tank viewing angle.

Personally, I'm a huge fan of the "Cone of Accuracy" in WoT. It means that no one will be able to place shots with 100% precision, and cuts down on sniping (easily the biggest benefit from it that people always ignore,) making the game playable. However, it's just tweaked enough that it doesn't hurt a good player's accuracy too much, and still allows for a reasonable amount of focused targeting.

I'm wary of PRI's "convergence," frankly. From the videos we've all seen, it seems that weapons are spot-on accurate, however, they claim they system isn't in place yet, so I'll wait and see. I'm hoping that convergence is going to end up being a system very close to what WoT has in place.

Edited by Franklen Avignon, 13 June 2012 - 05:58 AM.