65 replies to this topic

[Ryvucz]

Ghogiel, on 24 December 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

Nine out of twelve =/= Twelve out of twelve.




ggclose

Spiders and hit detection.

GG N3wb, GG.

[Ghogiel]

Tell me more about how SDRs are OP scrub

[Ryvucz]

Ghogiel, on 24 December 2013 - 06:29 PM, said:

Tell me more about how SDRs are OP scrub

I apologize if I offended you.

But they do have a hit detection issue still.

[Ghogiel]

Ryvucz, on 24 December 2013 - 11:22 PM, said:

I apologize if I offended you.

But they do have a hit detection issue still.

And so do atlases.

now tell me more about how SDRs are OP

[Ryvucz]

Ghogiel, on 25 December 2013 - 06:07 AM, said:

And so do atlases.

now tell me more about how SDRs are OP

Those Spiders carried your team.

Small size versus an Atlas they can get into blind spots easily.

But hey, if it makes you feel better, I'm just bad at this game and I feel bad.

GGClose?

[Eglar]

Not sure you would like to fight people far outside of your elo bracket.
But than again.. YES
ditch ELO and let people be able to solo drop again.
ditch ELO and re-introduce the tournaments.

[Eglar]

Ryvucz, on 25 December 2013 - 01:24 PM, said:

Those Spiders carried your team.

Small size versus an Atlas they can get into blind spots easily.

But hey, if it makes you feel better, I'm just bad at this game and I feel bad.

GGClose?

Weight Difference: 810 to 585 spider fail.



Weight Difference: CBA. This happens if you remove team up with lower ELO and drop.

[Screech]

Ryvucz, on 22 December 2013 - 10:23 PM, said:

So both of you are cool being in out tonned odds as above?

If the lighter team is then compensated by having a similar advantage to Elo, hell yes. I would take it every time.

[Ryvucz]

Screech, on 26 December 2013 - 10:21 AM, said:

If the lighter team is then compensated by having a similar advantage to Elo, hell yes. I would take it every time.

Even though ELO is nothing more than Win/Loss?

It's not even skill based.

You can have 11 kills and still lose a match to lower your ELO.

[Ghogiel]

Ryvucz, on 26 December 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

Even though ELO is nothing more than Win/Loss?

It's not even skill based.

You can have 11 kills and still lose a match to lower your ELO.

All the other statistical variables average out over time only your personal influence on a matches outcome becomes highlighted when tracking W/L over a long period of time. So yeah it is skill based.

[Ryvucz]

Ghogiel, on 26 December 2013 - 02:57 PM, said:

All the other statistical variables average out over time only your personal influence on a matches outcome becomes highlighted when tracking W/L over a long period of time. So yeah it is skill based.

So uh, if I group up with three others and we're all running Spiders with ECM and a capture module only playing assault and base capping and just keep winning.

That's uh, pretty skill based eh?

[Steven Dixon]

Ryvucz, on 26 December 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

Even though ELO is nothing more than Win/Loss?

It's not even skill based.

You can have 11 kills and still lose a match to lower your ELO.

But how exactly do you judge skill? Elo is a fairly decent measurement actually. Its a reasonable assumption that a more skilled player will tend to win more on average. And you will keep wining more on average until you are teamed up with people of equivalent skill where you will win only half of the time. Of course there will be anomalies (you can always get teamed up with a 'fail team' this is why averages are important to determine Elo). This can be skewed by doing things like consistently teaming up with skilled players, but then if you are teamed up you are more effective anyways which accomplishes the same thing and when you start soloing you will start to lose more so you Elo will drop.

In the long run a highly skilled player will have a high Elo while a poorly skilled player will have a low Elo, its not perfect but its not terrible either. Arpad Elo was a pretty smart guy after all. Its true that the Elo system was created for solo games but it is still very effective if you play enough games. After all while it is completely possible to lose a game even if you get 11 kills, but if you are consistently losing matches while getting 11 kills then you really need to look at what you are doing.

I'm not saying that weight doesn't matter, but I would take an elite player in a light mech any day of the week over a newbie in an assault, no question. I do hope they make weights more balanced, essentially Elo is #1 then out of similar Elo they will then try their hardest to match weights. But we will have to see if they ever do, its possible that doing this would create very long wait times to find a match.

Edited by Steven Dixon, 26 December 2013 - 04:45 PM.

[Ryvucz]

Steven Dixon, on 26 December 2013 - 04:42 PM, said:

But how exactly do you judge skill? Elo is a fairly decent measurement actually. Its a reasonable assumption that a more skilled player will tend to win more on average. And you will keep wining more on average until you are teamed up with people of equivalent skill where you will win only half of the time. Of course there will be anomalies (you can always get teamed up with a 'fail team' this is why averages are important to determine Elo). This can be skewed by doing things like consistently teaming up with skilled players, but then if you are teamed up you are more effective anyways which accomplishes the same thing and when you start soloing you will start to lose more so you Elo will drop. In the long run a highly skilled player will have a high Elo while a poorly skilled player will have a low Elo, its not perfect but its not terrible either. Arpad Elo was a pretty smart guy after all.

I'm not saying that weight doesn't matter, but I would take an elite player in a light mech any day of the week over a newbie in an assault, no question. I do hope they make weights more balanced, essentially Elo is #1 then out of similar Elo they will then try their hardest to match weights. But we will have to see if they ever do, its possible that doing this would create very long wait times to find a match.

But uh, what if that "elite" player got his/her ELO up just by base capping in assault, no matter how many kills/deaths/assists on each side?

That really doesn't seem like skill to me.

Looking at it from a "ERMERGHARD P2W" standpoint would be one team entirely set up with artillery just happened to catch team after team with their pants down resulting in win after win.

Is that really skill? I mean, rreeaallllyy skill?

Anyone can call planetary bombardment and win.

But in this case, the Death Star had more skill than those on Alderaan, as they were matched by ELO.

[Ghogiel]

Ryvucz, on 26 December 2013 - 03:53 PM, said:

So uh, if I group up with three others and we're all running Spiders with ECM and a capture module only playing assault and base capping and just keep winning.

That's uh, pretty skill based eh?

tell me more about how OP SDRs are


It's still tracking your individual influence on a matches outcome. Besides thinking that SDRs are OP, do you also think that it would be easy to win high Elo games capping in 4 SDRs.

Let's see your SDR W/L stats and then we can see if you theory stands up.

[Ryvucz]

Ghogiel, on 26 December 2013 - 04:54 PM, said:

tell me more about how OP SDRs are


It's still tracking your individual influence on a matches outcome. Besides thinking that SDRs are OP, do you also think that it would be easy to win high Elo games capping in 4 SDRs.

Let's see your SDR W/L stats and then we can see if you theory stands up.

Someone dun lied to you thar.

[Steven Dixon]

Ryvucz, on 26 December 2013 - 04:46 PM, said:

But uh, what if that "elite" player got his/her ELO up just by base capping in assault, no matter how many kills/deaths/assists on each side?

That really doesn't seem like skill to me.

Looking at it from a "ERMERGHARD P2W" standpoint would be one team entirely set up with artillery just happened to catch team after team with their pants down resulting in win after win.

Is that really skill? I mean, rreeaallllyy skill?

Anyone can call planetary bombardment and win.

But in this case, the Death Star had more skill than those on Alderaan, as they were matched by ELO.

If a player can win consistently against high Elo players with doing nothing but capping then I would consider them quite skilled and I would want them on my team and I wouldn't want to be paired against them .

[Ryvucz]

Steven Dixon, on 26 December 2013 - 04:58 PM, said:

If a player can win consistently against high Elo players with doing nothing but capping then I would consider them quite skilled and I would want them on my team and I wouldn't want to be paired against them .

Well okay then.

[NRP]

I don't think tonnage by itself matters much. Pilot skill is a much, much more important factor. An expert Light pilot can devastate a mediocre Assault pilot any day. In fact, in my experience a "light" team usually wins out over a heavier team, especially if the lights start wolf packing.

Still, I see a lot of people moaning after a loss that it was due to "being horribly out-tonned". In reality, I think there is someting with the matchmaking algorithm as it relates to "overall' ELO matching that results in huge individual skill gaps even though each team's overall ELO appears to be similar. All it takes is for one team to lose two or three mechs before the firepower gap is simply too much to overcome. Then things just snowball out of control from there. Has nothing to do with being out-tonned IMO.

[Ryvucz]

NRP, on 26 December 2013 - 05:09 PM, said:

I don't think tonnage by itself matters much. Pilot skill is a much, much more important factor. An expert Light pilot can devastate a mediocre Assault pilot any day. In fact, in my experience a "light" team usually wins out over a heavier team, especially if the lights start wolf packing.

Still, I see a lot of people moaning after a loss that it was due to "being horribly out-tonned". In reality, I think there is someting with the matchmaking algorithm as it relates to "overall' ELO matching that results in huge individual skill gaps even though each team's overall ELO appears to be similar. All it takes is for one team to lose two or three mechs before the firepower gap is simply too much to overcome. Then things just snowball out of control from there. Has nothing to do with being out-tonned IMO.

Let's take a look at it this way, both teams are matched by ELO, which claim they are the same, fair enough.

ELO does not care about tonnage, and one side has more firepower and armor at their disposal.

Not very fair regardless of skill, is my point.

In closed Beta (yes I went there), it was purely mech vs mech matching (albeit more difficult to do now) we had the best matched games, there wasn't steam rolling until 4 man queued up or people did 8 man sync drops.

Then ELO was introduced, and there is rarely a good, close match, it's just steam rolling, one side or the other.

[Ghogiel]

Ryvucz, on 26 December 2013 - 05:22 PM, said:

Let's take a look at it this way, both teams are matched by ELO, which claim they are the same, fair enough.

ELO does not care about tonnage, and one side has more firepower and armor at their disposal.

Not very fair regardless of skill, is my point.

In closed Beta (yes I went there), it was purely mech vs mech matching (albeit more difficult to do now) we had the best matched games, there wasn't steam rolling until 4 man queued up or people did 8 man sync drops.

Then ELO was introduced, and there is rarely a good, close match, it's just steam rolling, one side or the other.

I had KDRs of 8-9 and W/L of I can't even remember back in closed beta. And never even need to sync at any time in closed beta as the split queue didn't even happen until 2 weeks into open beta lol.