633 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

RichAC, on 23 January 2014 - 05:08 PM, said:

just reposting since both Ghogiel and Mischief ignored the full statement.

I can see ELO used for 1v1 sports only. People can't blame their teams.

But I only trust methods used by people that rate athletes for a living. And no individual player in a team game is rated based only on a team win or loss. Its absolutely absurd.

Sabermetrics is basically tweaking how they use stats.

I'm sorry we's all stupid Mischief, but refer to my signature. Thats all most of us care about and we want to be matched up accordingly.

Sabermetrics is derived from Society for American Baseball Research, generally called SABR. It is the specific, dedicated research into baseball. The metrics it derives, being derived specifically from baseball, don't really apply to anything else. There isn't an RBI equiv in MW:O.

More importantly it's not designed to rank players based on their ability to win games but on their specific performance in specific metrics. Someone can be a 'bad player' but be great at one metric.

Sabermetrics does not accurately predict winning teams though. Even its greatest proponents would say that. It is great at identifying under-valued players for example or identifying specific strengths and weaknesses in players.

If the only score you care about at the end of the game is the one on the scoreboard, that's great. Good for you. Vegas gets rich off people like you. So do advertising companies.

None of which is relevant to the absolute fact that the most trustworthy and reliable method of tracking the odds of a player winning a given match is based on how often they win or lose matches against players of a set skill range. We can talk about how to tweak how that system values those wins and losses, what factors contributing to that win or loss are relevant.

That doesn't change the nature of the underlying system though. Damage/kills/assists/spots/tag/whatever, they mean absolutely nothing about how legitimately valuable a player is to his team. There are plenty of kill-stealing twits who sprint off and hide as soon as games go south who keep a stellar KDR. They're a burden not a benefit. I can rake in the damage with my 2xLB10x, 4XSSRM Jag. Tons of component destruction and generally a very high match score. It doesn't help my teams win games much though, not nearly like my D-DC does.

So. To sum up. Elo is and should be the basis of the matchmaker if we want an accurate matchmaking for predicting wins/losses. The scoreboard at the end of the match is there to make people like you feel good. It has no representation what so ever about any players long term value for winning games.

[RichAC]

Roadkill, on 23 January 2014 - 05:33 PM, said:

How's that cheating? I just know how the system works, so I use it to my advantage. Or are you saying that we should just use random builds, because using the knowledge of how to build a superior Mech is cheating?

And you still have it wrong - win/loss != Elo. Elo is derived from your wins and losses, but it is unrelated to your win/loss ratio.

People are more concerned with damage and kill/death ratio because they mistakenly believe that those numbers mean they are better players. If it takes you more than 200 damage to destroy an Atlas, you're actually bad at the game. You apparently can't aim. But people still go for the big numbers because it makes them feel special.

Which is fine with me, actually. I like putting up big damage numbers and getting lots of kills, too. I actually wish they'd track Assists because I'm usually pretty good at that. But it doesn't mean that damage and kill/death ratio are valid indicators of skill.

I'd love to see something akin to Sabremetrics implemented for MWO. I actually agree with you on all of that! The only thing I've been arguing against is this mistaken belief that somehow Elo doesn't work. It works extremely well... it's just that a lot of people don't really understand what it does, so they form a mistaken belief in their heads, and then they think it's not working when the results don't match that mistaken belief.

So yeah, let's do Sabremetrics. There's got to be some way to create a KVOR or WARP for MWO. And I'm not being sarcastic at all when I say I think that would be totally cool.

Unfortunately, I'm not an MIT-trained statistician, so I can't come up with it by myself.

You basically said you want to know your personal elo rating, so you can "game" it... is the word you used. no further comment dude....shame on you.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Sug, on 23 January 2014 - 05:37 PM, said:

Stats don't tell the whole story.

It explains my story, and that's all I care about atm. When I claim to be the average joe of MWO, a perfect representation of your "casual" player the game NEEDS to survive, those stats back up my claim. When I claim the matchmaker is suddenly way off all of a sudden to the point the game is no longer fun anymore for the common player, my claim is sound based on being a player who is a perfect example of even matches. Some good some bad. I'm claiming now the majority are bad and it's not due to luck. I appreciate it when you listen, but only PGI has to. They're the ones who screwed up the system in the first place, and the ones with the power to fix it unless the root of the problem stems from lack of player base. Then we're all screwed and I'm justified in jumping ship before it gets even worse.

I'm off to enjoy other games with friends. You guys take care.

Edited by lockwoodx, 23 January 2014 - 05:44 PM.

[RichAC]

MischiefSC, on 23 January 2014 - 05:38 PM, said:

Sabermetrics is derived from Society for American Baseball Research, generally called SABR. It is the specific, dedicated research into baseball. The metrics it derives, being derived specifically from baseball, don't really apply to anything else. There isn't an RBI equiv in MW:O.

More importantly it's not designed to rank players based on their ability to win games but on their specific performance in specific metrics. Someone can be a 'bad player' but be great at one metric.

Sabermetrics does not accurately predict winning teams though. Even its greatest proponents would say that. It is great at identifying under-valued players for example or identifying specific strengths and weaknesses in players.

If the only score you care about at the end of the game is the one on the scoreboard, that's great. Good for you. Vegas gets rich off people like you. So do advertising companies.

None of which is relevant to the absolute fact that the most trustworthy and reliable method of tracking the odds of a player winning a given match is based on how often they win or lose matches against players of a set skill range. We can talk about how to tweak how that system values those wins and losses, what factors contributing to that win or loss are relevant.

That doesn't change the nature of the underlying system though. Damage/kills/assists/spots/tag/whatever, they mean absolutely nothing about how legitimately valuable a player is to his team. There are plenty of kill-stealing twits who sprint off and hide as soon as games go south who keep a stellar KDR. They're a burden not a benefit. I can rake in the damage with my 2xLB10x, 4XSSRM Jag. Tons of component destruction and generally a very high match score. It doesn't help my teams win games much though, not nearly like my D-DC does.

So. To sum up. Elo is and should be the basis of the matchmaker if we want an accurate matchmaking for predicting wins/losses. The scoreboard at the end of the match is there to make people like you feel good. It has no representation what so ever about any players long term value for winning games.

The only reason sabermetrics can't be applied to MWO, is because its for value replacement. Meaning, yes, replacing a player on a team, that is not good enough on particular statistic with a player that is for the good of the team.

Rather then the old school way of doing things by going just on raw individual basic stats alone. I provided links explaining this. The example they give is batting avg, doesn't nescessarilly mean runs batted in.
But yesin a random team game like MWO yes it doesn't fit. WHich I already stated if you actually read my posts.

What i'm saying though, is it is still all based on STATS buddy. Same way Lebron gets paid, and the same way players in MWO get paid their cbills.

To not be ranked accordingly, is PGI undermining its own core game. Its undermining what people are even playing the game for and what PGI has based the game around. Like many have said, give more incentives to win, if you want people to care about winning. Right now they care about their dmg and cbills. You could kill two birds with one stone. We already have skirmish mode for those who don't like to do anything else but fight, we have the ability to pick different game modes..... so it shoudln't be a problem.

TO rank people based on something that they are not even playing for, mainly because its a random team, could be detrimental to the playerbase.

Edited by RichAC, 23 January 2014 - 05:52 PM.

[Ghogiel]

Roadkill, on 23 January 2014 - 05:08 PM, said:

My guess is that Paul screwed up his explanation of how Elo works. In a proper Elo system, if the 1350 player lost their rating would drop by 20 (50 * 0.41) to 1330 and the 1410 player's rating would increase by 20 (50 * 0.41) to 1430. It was predicted, so the change is less than if an upset occurred, but the Elo ratings still change.

In the first example of the team with 1350.
If they lose according to PGIs formula the score changes to 1320.5.
If they win it goes up to 1379.5. Which is rounded to 1380 like the example.

If the team with 1410 won a round that its was predicted to win with only a 0.41prob. Their new elo rating would be 1439.5.
If that team with 1410 loses with that probability it would be 1380.5 which is rounded up to 1381.. like the example in the post says.

edit: actually I think you might be right about the changes not being right according to the explanation given, According to the explanation the win flag should also change to 0 instead of 1 if the player lost. So yeah something is a bit weird there...

Edited by Ghogiel, 23 January 2014 - 06:28 PM.

[MischiefSC]

RichAC, on 23 January 2014 - 05:30 PM, said:

Your wrong. link the documentation. The rating system was made by gaimtheory. ELO is only used for duels. Meaning 1v1. In the team games they use another system which is unkown, and not soley based on wins/losses.

Yes some people just like to sound smart. Some people also believe the more complicated it is, the more true it has to be. Its an inferiority complex for most lol Just because a forumula was made by an MIT guy, doesn't mean its practical.

Stats certainly matter when it comes to pro athletic sports. I don't know how you can deny this. Lebron james isn't getting paid alot of money because he has a higher ELO or how often his team wins. Hes getting paid based off his stats. Thats why players get traded all the time.

Hes getting paid for the same reasons people get paid Cbills in MWO. And that is how people should be ranked and matched. That is what people are playing for.

They should be ranked by how PGI designed and based their core game! Its common sense and PGI's ELO system is contradicting itself, and even us commonfolk can see that. PGI should be a leader not a follower if they want to be successful in this dying industry.

Here's a link to QLs FFA ranks, not just duels. Notice how it says 'Elo' and it's an Elo score metric? Here's another link to a report on the most recent breakdown of ranks, which uses Glicko - an Elo system.

Lebron James is paid to help win games by the way. If he's not contributing to wins then he's traded.

By the way, you don't get paid off Elo. All Elo does is match you to an appropriate team based on how often you help win games. Which is what it should do. It should not match you based on damage or kills or anything like that since, as we've gone over before....

those are absolutely, utterly irrelevant in the scope of how likely you are to help your team win a match. They are unreliable and easy to game. That you find complex math suspect really says so much more than I can about the the direction you're coming at this from.

If PGI made a matchmaker based on score/damage/kills and the like they would be absolute fools and the laughing stock of the industry so hopefully they're not wanting to take the lead there. Talk about setting yourself up for failure, design a system that promotes and strongly rewards kill-stealing, hiding and powering down to avoid being killed, raining LRMs as much as you can then dropping the game and starting another because damage is more important than winning... essentially creating a matchmaker and ranking system designed to be gamed, cheated and abused.

I'm going to have to just pass on further debate on this Rich and just let you get the last word because, flat out, you're wrong and don't want to come to grips with that. I've made my point about as well as I can with you and beating my head against a wall isn't going to make 1+1=2 any more correct and finding new ways to explain that to you when your gut feeling is that 1+1 should equal 3 isn't getting us anywhere.

Best of luck to you in future endeavors.

[RichAC]

MischiefSC, on 23 January 2014 - 06:00 PM, said:

Here's a link to QLs FFA ranks, not just duels. Notice how it says 'Elo' and it's an Elo score metric? Here's another link to a report on the most recent breakdown of ranks, which uses Glicko - an Elo system.

Lebron James is paid to help win games by the way. If he's not contributing to wins then he's traded.

By the way, you don't get paid off Elo. All Elo does is match you to an appropriate team based on how often you help win games. Which is what it should do. It should not match you based on damage or kills or anything like that since, as we've gone over before....

those are absolutely, utterly irrelevant in the scope of how likely you are to help your team win a match. They are unreliable and easy to game. That you find complex math suspect really says so much more than I can about the the direction you're coming at this from.

If PGI made a matchmaker based on score/damage/kills and the like they would be absolute fools and the laughing stock of the industry so hopefully they're not wanting to take the lead there. Talk about setting yourself up for failure, design a system that promotes and strongly rewards kill-stealing, hiding and powering down to avoid being killed, raining LRMs as much as you can then dropping the game and starting another because damage is more important than winning... essentially creating a matchmaker and ranking system designed to be gamed, cheated and abused.

I'm going to have to just pass on further debate on this Rich and just let you get the last word because, flat out, you're wrong and don't want to come to grips with that. I've made my point about as well as I can with you and beating my head against a wall isn't going to make 1+1=2 any more correct and finding new ways to explain that to you when your gut feeling is that 1+1 should equal 3 isn't getting us anywhere.

Best of luck to you in future endeavors.

1. QL ranks, is a 3rd party site that has nothing to do with quakelive. Your second link looks fake...haha I just hope I didn't get a virus for clicking on it...derrp. Its also to do with ql ranks, which is a highly criticized community run site and has nothing to do with the quakelive devs.

If you've played quakelive clan arena for example, like I have, You will find you may still get tiered down (since you can see your own tier level but not your rating) even when winning a match. This happens when you got severely outscored by the rest of the server, or more specifically were ranked last place on your team, even though your team won.

2. Lebron James was not traded to Miami by Cleveland because he didn't help win games...haha He went to get more money.

I'll say again, he gets paid for the same reasons people get cbills in MWO.

3. I never said you get paid off of ELO. THATS THE WHOLE POINT!!!! Why base a ranking system, off something noone plays for. They play for cbills. PGI has already valued a players worth by cbills, and their current ranking system contradicts that. Why?

Its dissapointing you don't think people should be matched, by their match score. Or that their cbill worth, is not their worth to a team. Maybe your right, many have argued that PGI's point system does not give incentives to win matches. Maybe PGI needs to tweak the point system, like many players have been asking for a long time. Give more incentives for winning matches and more points to other stats instead of just damage done. But this how PGI has made the game to this point, and people are playing accordingly. SO that is how they are going to judge the matchmaker and ranking system.

PGI needs to go do some soul searching right now, and realize undermining their own game will not have a good outcome. They need to be a leader in this industry. As I have said, no other fps game, that I know of besides quakelive even has a rating system, let alone a matchmaker. They are already pretty impressive imo. The matchmaker is not even that bad, its just misdirected.

The reason why pc gaming is not a billion dollar industry like athletic sports, is because it is not treated like one. There is no difference with a game on the computer, compared to one played physically in the parks. The competitiveness, sportsmanship and team organizing is the same.

What industry? lol PC gaming is dying, most people who are not delusional understand this. Most of the reasons why lay with the gaming communities themselves. PGI has nothing to lose at this point imo.

They added skirmish mode, so now they have the freedom to tweak the other game modes and to make teamplay and winning worth more. And to rank people accordingly to how they already defined their own game, and the community will thank and love them for it and they will retain more players.

What you call an unescessary risk I call common sense. Your not using 1+1 you want to use some crazy algorithm noone can understand. I'm the one using 1+1 here.

Edited by RichAC, 23 January 2014 - 06:46 PM.

[Ghogiel]

RichAC, on 23 January 2014 - 06:35 PM, said:

PC gaming is dying, most people who are not delusional understand this. They have nothing to lose. What industry? lol

lel
http://software.inte...-be-a-developer

http://www.dualshock...-and-handhelds/


http://www.xbitlabs....s_Year_JPR.html


And so on..

[RichAC]

Ghogiel, on 23 January 2014 - 06:43 PM, said:

lel
http://software.inte...-be-a-developer

http://www.dualshock...-and-handhelds/


http://www.xbitlabs....s_Year_JPR.html


And so on..

haha, I knew that was coming.

I can post just as many sites claiming the opposite, but I'm not even gonna go there....

My proof is in the playerbases online of the games I play. MWO being one of them.

BF3 was another, which means BF4 must have nobody. Did you not learn anything from Enron. What do inflated sales even mean if people use them as coasters and are not returning customers. I like to play online. Are those the bogus sources you use to pitch to other companies.

The fact EA sports abandoned the pc years ago, the fact the only sports game they make for the pc is soccer. The fact FPS games are now more popular on consoles, or that cross platform games are released on consoles sometimes 6 months before the bugged pc version is realsed. The fact I don't know anybody in real life including family who games on pc anymore, when almost everybody when I was a kid did. And the fact everything is f2p nowadays. Whether on release, or eventually afterwards, and the fact PGI's playerbase is big compared to most pc games online, is evident to me. LoL and WoW don't prove otherwise.

All I'm saying is PGI based the game around cbills, and that is based around match score. And that is how people are going to judge how the matchmaker is affecting them. I've been wasting my time defending the MM and telling people to post their W/L ratios. Because that is not why people are playing this game.

The problem of not enough incentives to win matches has come up again and again, and maybe its time to address that issue, and give more points for things besides damage, and then rank people accordingly to how PGI bases their own game and already values players.

Edited by RichAC, 23 January 2014 - 07:07 PM.

[Ghogiel]

RichAC, on 23 January 2014 - 06:59 PM, said:

I can post just as many sites claiming the opposite, but I'm not even gonna go there....

cool story bro

[RichAC]

Ghogiel, on 23 January 2014 - 07:00 PM, said:

cool story bro

Your the one who linked all the cool stories lol.

I guess you think MWO proves otherwise? Just get your resume ready bro. or did you already lose your game developer job? ohhh sorry that happened....but thats what happens in a thriving industry bro....

PGI needs to rank people based on why they play the game...undermining their own game will drive more people away......refer to my sig.

Edited by RichAC, 23 January 2014 - 07:13 PM.

[Ghogiel]

RichAC, on 23 January 2014 - 07:09 PM, said:

Your the one who posted all the cool stories lol.

I guess you think MWO proves otherwise. Just get your resume ready bro.

cool story bro

[Roland]

Rich thinks that computers are powered by magic and elves. He is perhaps not the best authority on things relating to the tech industry.

[RichAC]

Roland, on 23 January 2014 - 07:12 PM, said:

Rich thinks that computers are powered by magic and elves. He is perhaps not the best authority on things relating to the tech industry.

haha i'm not the out of work game developer who thinks the industry is thriving.

MY point is that its ridiculous for PGI to rank people base on random team wins, and then be surprised about all the complaints.

Especially Since people are only playing for cbills and match score, because PGI gives no incentives for actually winning. And because its supposed to be random teams in the first place.

Most complaint threads, no matter the subject, boil down to this same root issue, and its about time they addressed it. Especially since we now have skirmish mode, there is no reason not to fix the scoring system to reward teamplay some more, and not base the game solely off of damage done. They can kill two birds with one stone.

I love this game and have no issues. NO other fps game even has a matchmaker. I just don't want to see any more people quit, and I would also like to see people playing assault and conquest like the devs intended.

Edited by RichAC, 23 January 2014 - 07:29 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Roland, on 23 January 2014 - 05:30 PM, said:

Yes. Why do you keep saying this? Is something I said making you think that I think otherwise?

I mean, in the section you just quoted there, I point out that because of exactly that, both systems are effectively poor choices for this game... because you don't have to limit yourself to only that one value.

Since you aren't trying to make a system which provides generalized ratings for ANY game, you can actually take into account for things specific to THIS game.

Absolutely - but the things it takes into account will still be win/loss driven (what mech you drive, opponent/allies, map, mode, etc).

If you attempt to include something like damage you're effectively skewing your results by something that the player can game independently of what actually drives winning.

Also it's a lot of work. Tons and tons of work when you drill down much at all. Right now I'd rather those resources go into SRMs.

I think we'd see a lot of improvement even with the population we have with gaussian distribution, split pug/premade Elo and match to range (even with variance) and not high/low to target. The rest of those factors (chassis, gamemode, etc) can be added in a little at a time and over time to balance effectively. With a matchmaker you really do need to make changes like that (finer elements) with a light hand and you need to carefully review what you add to ensure it's not directly gameable. You can't 'game' what chassis you drive to get a higher Elo for example but you can game damage to do maximum average damage over your matches regardless of how useful that damage was.

[RichAC]

MischiefSC, on 23 January 2014 - 07:25 PM, said:

Absolutely - but the things it takes into account will still be win/loss driven (what mech you drive, opponent/allies, map, mode, etc).

If you attempt to include something like damage you're effectively skewing your results by something that the player can game independently of what actually drives winning.

Also it's a lot of work. Tons and tons of work when you drill down much at all. Right now I'd rather those resources go into SRMs.

I think we'd see a lot of improvement even with the population we have with gaussian distribution, split pug/premade Elo and match to range (even with variance) and not high/low to target. The rest of those factors (chassis, gamemode, etc) can be added in a little at a time and over time to balance effectively. With a matchmaker you really do need to make changes like that (finer elements) with a light hand and you need to carefully review what you add to ensure it's not directly gameable. You can't 'game' what chassis you drive to get a higher Elo for example but you can game damage to do maximum average damage over your matches regardless of how useful that damage was.

The same can be said for affecting your chance to win...no difference.

The work is already done. Its called match score, the only thing that matters besides winning. Use them both.

But to exclude from the ranking calculations, how people judge skill themselves, for w/e reasons, will only hurt the game and is PGI undermining their own system they've already laid out for people.

I've wondered time and time again why we don't get more cbills for winning matches, and today I find out they rank people based on wins? Very contradicting. And when people are only looking at match score, they might still feel mismatched even if they win, and apparenlty rightly so...

Edited by RichAC, 23 January 2014 - 07:37 PM.

[Sug]

MischiefSC, on 23 January 2014 - 06:00 PM, said:

Lebron James is paid to help win games by the way. If he's not contributing to wins then he's traded.

On a static team. Oh look Elo is working.

RichAC, on 23 January 2014 - 06:35 PM, said:

What industry? lol PC gaming is dying, most people who are not delusional understand this. Most of the reasons why lay with the gaming communities themselves.

**** i can find articles from 1996 that say pc gaming is dying. Its not dying its just changing as what we define as pc's change.

And it doesn't even matter since in the end its all gonna merge together. Pc, console. They'll be the same thing in less than ten years.

Hell, when xbox came out you could build one out of computer parts.

Edited by Sug, 24 January 2014 - 10:23 AM.

[RichAC]

Sug, on 23 January 2014 - 08:00 PM, said:

**** i can find articles from 1996 that say pc gaming is dying. Its not dying its just changing as what we define as pc's change.

And it doesn't even matter since in the end its all gonna merge together. Pc, console. They'll be the same thing in less than ten years.

Hell, when xbox came out You could bulid pne out of compuetr pats

**** have you heardcof amds mantle platfoem??

I only say its dying, because sports games, which i've always played have not been made for pc for a long time. Starting with baseball in 2005 which EA Sports had the rights to, and then tiger woods and madden in 2008. The first pc game I ever played was golf in 1986, now they only make a golf game based on PGA and new graphics tech for consoles....

Also fps games never have big playerbases anymore, including bf3, which i always thought had a measley playerbase when trying to find conquest servers. I imagine bf4 has nobody in comparison. I don't care how many copies they claim they sold, they might as well be enron for all I care. I only judge the playerbase in my area. North America.

I consider MWO to have a low playerbase too.

Also I don't think f2p is a new way of cashing in, i think its a sign of a desperate industry. Thats why WoW is one of the few rpgs that doesn't need to go f2p, its still popular unlike most other MMOs. Most games now, are either f2p to begin with, or they end up going f2p after a while of failing subscriptions or merging servers after dying playerbases.

I was never a fan of strategy games, so SC2 and LoL or Dota don't do anything for me even though they are the most popular. I also I don't think anything should be based on inflated sales stats, only online playerbases. Which i was I do consider these three games truly popular.

Also Pc Sales in general have been doing down and so have their stocks. But Hey Microsoft stocks went up today, maybe there is hope...lol

The only real debate, is why? Some blame consoles, some blame android phones. I blame hackers and viruses so I'm in the minority lol

But hey, what do I know.

PS: Your right they will be the same thing in the future. Which is something else that has been said since the 90s. I just watching a story about a famous President of a cable company that dedicated his life to this for 20 years and it crushed him. I can't remember his name right now, But it will happen eventually. Things will get better when cheating in pc games becomes a crime under the law... Might sound like Orwell stuff, but its true. And it will happen when the consoles get just as infested as computers, which is also inevitable. And it will affect everything in technology

Edited by RichAC, 23 January 2014 - 08:59 PM.

[Bhael Fire]

RichAC, on 23 January 2014 - 08:48 PM, said:

Also I don't think f2p is a new way of cashing in, i think its a sign of a desperate industry. Thats why WoW is one of the few rpgs that doesn't need to go f2p, its still popular unlike most other MMOs. Most games now, are either f2p to begin with, or they end up going f2p after a while of failing subscriptions or merging servers after dying playerbases.

The F2P model is only a sign of desperation when the game starts out as subscription-based then concedes to the more versatile pricing model of F2P. Many do not survive the transition because it's perceived as a sign of weakness to switch pricing models.

But I can assure you (as a game dev that works on a popular F2P MMO) the free to play model is very much alive and not suffering at all.

As for WoW, that's a big "nope" on popularity. Yes, it used to reign supreme in the MMO market...but it's not retaining the new players. So what you have is an extremely successful — yet aging — MMO stubbornly riding the game into the ground because they know if they go F2P now, it will be the coup de grace that puts it down permanently.

That's largely why Blizzard started HearthStone.

[Nightfire]

RichAC, on 23 January 2014 - 08:48 PM, said:

I only say its dying, because sports games, which i've always played have not been made for pc for a long time. Starting with baseball in 2005 which EA Sports had the rights to, and then tiger woods and madden in 2008. The first pc game I ever played was golf in 1986, now they only make a golf game based on PGA and new graphics tech for consoles....

And thank god we are rid of them! This junk can stay on the console! Personally I use the console for Fight games, it's a better fit for them controller wise and socially. It's a poor argument to say that games made for the only viable platform at the time have moved to a better suited platform that wasn't around when the game genre began.

Uh huh ... PC Gaming is dead. Sure.

Quote

Also fps games never have big playerbases anymore, including bf3, which i always thought had a measley playerbase when trying to find conquest servers. I imagine bf4 has nobody in comparison. I don't care how many copies they claim they sold, they might as well be enron for all I care. I only judge the playerbase in my area. North America.

• No idea where you are in North America ... I could and still can find a good game of BF3 on Texas servers. BTW, I live in Australia so that's a bit of a long haul for me and no, I didn't have to go to NA to get a game. I played there as a middle ground with some American friends.
  
• So the new shiny BF4 comes out and you can't find a good BF3 server so PC gaming is dead and BF4 is a deserted wasteland? Not from my experience, plays a little differently to BF3 but I've never had trouble finding a server. Damn, I even have local servers in my state ... haven't seen those since BF2! Face it, the majority of players left the old version (BF3) and went to the new version (BF4).

Quote

I consider MWO to have a low playerbase too.

Unfortunately I'd have to agree with you there.

Quote

Also I don't think f2p is a new way of cashing in, i think its a sign of a desperate industry. Thats why WoW is one of the few rpgs that doesn't need to go f2p, its still popular unlike most other MMOs. Most games now, are either f2p to begin with, or they end up going f2p after a while of failing subscriptions or merging servers after dying playerbases.

• Blizzard may surprise you. They are already dabbling in F2P. Who knows where that will go?
  
• World of Warcraft is hemorrhaging players, down to 7.6 Million (from 12+ million in Wrath). From Blizzard's own last 10-K Annual Report: "A further decrease in the overall subscription base of World of Warcraft could substantially harm our operating results. If consumer demand for World of Warcraft games continue to decline and we do not introduce new MMORPG products or add other sources of revenue, our financial condition could suffer. Additionally, if new technologies are developed that replace MMORPGs, consumer preferences trend away from MMORPGs or new business models emerge that offer online subscriptions for free or at a substantial discount to current MMORPG subscription fees, our revenue and profitability may decline." So much for World of Warcraft going strong ...
  
• Warframe seems to be doing well as a games designed to be F2P from the outset. Seems not all F2P games are failing IPs.

Quote

I was never a fan of strategy games, so SC2 and LoL or Dota don't do anything for me even though they are the most popular. I also I don't think anything should be based on inflated sales stats, only online playerbases. Which i was I do consider these three games truly popular.

I'm not sure about the most popular but they are definitely popular. I'll be honest, I'm a FPS man myself and I'm far from seeing gaming dying ton the PC. (Additionally, FPS gaming on the console is a JOKE! and a bad one at that!). With Elite: Dangerous and Star Citizen just around the corner ... the future is looking very rosy on the PC.

Quote

Also Pc Sales in general have been doing down and so have their stocks. But Hey Microsoft stocks went up today, maybe there is hope...lol

and the stats I saw showed that PC gaming is in a recovering upward trend. Hmmm, Steam OS looks nice!

Quote

The only real debate, is why? Some blame consoles, some blame android phones. I blame hackers and viruses so I'm in the minority lol

But hey, what do I know.

Very little obviously.
I've been hearing that PC gaming is dying for nigh 30 years now. Granted there have been slumps but I can easily see the signs of developers returning to the PC. Maps in BF too large for Consoles to handle. Space Sims making their return. PC optimized games rather than clunky Console ports!

The only real debate is, why have this debate?

Quote

PS: Your right they will be the same thing in the future. Which is something else that has been said since the 90s. I just watching a story about a famous President of a cable company that dedicated his life to this for 20 years and it crushed him. I can't remember his name right now, But it will happen eventually. Things will get better when cheating in pc games becomes a crime under the law... Might sound like Orwell stuff, but its true. And it will happen when the consoles get just as infested as computers, which is also inevitable. And it will affect everything in technology

You're not only Orwellian ... you're downright depressing!

Edited by Nightfire, 23 January 2014 - 10:05 PM.