633 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

RichAC, on 27 January 2014 - 04:20 PM, said:

Your offensive to this game, sorry you didn't get the RPG you wanted.

But the only reason this game is going to fail, is not because of anyhting PGI has done, its just the blatent disprect and resentment from the community. Sort of like how hackers and nerds resent society.

Not treating this game with the same respect as a professional sport, ends up selfishly ruining the game for others. Its sad most of you don't realize this, but it is not surprising at all. "its just a game" is what people like you would say. As if that is an excuse for anything less then honorable.

These pro gamers, the few that actually make a living out of it, are just as extraordinary as a professional athlete. Its just something you don't understand. You would probably play with one of these guys and think they were cheating. Its sometimes impossible to believe how good they are without watching them on camera or knowing they are being monitored at a LAN event on a provided pc. They are the type of guys that are better then the most blatent aim bot, because they are able to adapt their strategies and beat bots. Thats the main thing that seperates them from us. Not so much their inhuman aim, but their ability to adapt to another player and expose his weaknesses. They truly are on another level, and just like pro athletes are probably less then 1% of the population.

I compare it to shooting guns, but why would you bring soldiers into this conversation?

I really hope that people who have no sense of sportsmanship or any sports sense at all, are not influencing the development of this multiplayer.

I respect the game for what it is, a game. If I ever start thinking of myself as an Athlete cause I click a mouse better than some folk, I would have to lose respect for myself. Perspective is everything.

And don't confuse disagreement with disrespect. Thinking this game could or even should be treated as a sport is just silly to me. Also I have not confused MW:O with RPG gaming. The 2 have barely a thing in common. Though if you are on a team you do try to fill a role the team needs. But that is a different meaning of role.

A pro gamer or pro athlete is no more extraordinary han the factory worker that goes to work every day and for 8-12 hours a day. If you thing they are then your idea of respectable and mine are never going to meet, Cause I don't see how an athlete is more respectable than a factory worker who works everyday. Now if that Athlete gives back to the community, his family and friends then that is respectable. Shooting 45% from the 3 point line? You think that has meaning? Or worth?

[Grits N Gravy]

MischiefSC, on 24 January 2014 - 08:10 PM, said:

Let me help you with that. The answer is, depending on the players skill, probably 200 to 500 matches.

This is a gross overestimate. After 50 Matches your Elo is correct with a 95% level of confidence and a 14% margin of error. After 200 matches the margin of error drops to 7%, at 500 4%. The system is still very workable with even low sample sets. Again this is the power of the central limit theorem.

[RichAC]

Joseph Mallan, on 28 January 2014 - 05:47 AM, said:

I respect the game for what it is, a game. If I ever start thinking of myself as an Athlete cause I click a mouse better than some folk, I would have to lose respect for myself. Perspective is everything.

And don't confuse disagreement with disrespect. Thinking this game could or even should be treated as a sport is just silly to me. Also I have not confused MW:O with RPG gaming. The 2 have barely a thing in common. Though if you are on a team you do try to fill a role the team needs. But that is a different meaning of role.

A pro gamer or pro athlete is no more extraordinary han the factory worker that goes to work every day and for 8-12 hours a day. If you thing they are then your idea of respectable and mine are never going to meet, Cause I don't see how an athlete is more respectable than a factory worker who works everyday. Now if that Athlete gives back to the community, his family and friends then that is respectable. Shooting 45% from the 3 point line? You think that has meaning? Or worth?

I'm not comparing video gamers to factory workers or soldiers. what is wrong with you? I'm comparing them to athletes and other sports or professional games.

You saying this game is less respectable then them, is blatent disrespect. You are never going to be satisfied, and with a community of people who feel like you, the game will never have sportsmanship and will always be unpopular. NO matter what PGI does.

Sorry you didn't get the RPG you wanted, but thats no reason to sync drop, use macros, nerf every meta build, and encrouage PGI to sabotage their own game with misguided and misdirected development that discourage fairplay and the spirit of competition, simply because you resent it.

Edited by RichAC, 28 January 2014 - 11:54 AM.

[Abivard]

Actually even in chess where Elo was designed, it takes at least 30 games to find an Elo, so with an extra 23 people screwing with the Elo, you think only 10 to 20 more games are needed to set Elo?

Would you like to buy a bridge?

[Abivard]

Like I said before, the poor sports hate being called poor sports, so they claim this is not a sport, but they haven't the slightest clue what sports is, or they wouldn't say that .

Athletic sports is not the only kind of sport.
For example, Chess is a sport.

[RichAC]

Nightfire, on 28 January 2014 - 02:53 AM, said:

You know, in a vain hope that you might actually have some point, I watched the documentary you provided. You know, the one that at no point comes close to saying anything I stated I did was anything remotely bad for the professional gaming industry and supported many of the arguments I've made about needing an audience and creating a market (Take particular note of what Gene Simmons says!).

I ask you now, politely, to retract this libelous statement.

Maybe your a good guy, but that fact you detest sports games on pc, have no sports sense or sense of sportsmanship, since you don' realize winning is not as important as damage and kills in a random team game, makes you suspect. The fact you don't think video games should be as respected as pro athletic sports is all I need to know. The fact you ran a tournament is only deplorable.

That documentary was showing about how even the people that run tournaments don't really respect the players or the game. Which is one main reason why e-sports never got enough support and popularity. Angel Munoz is like Intel saying the future is parallel processing and promising hardware based on it, but never coming through and actually undermining its development in the industry over money.

Sort of like what sore loser posters or those who would rather play RPGs , or resent the fact this is an arcade arena shooter, or are upset MWO is not based on canon enough, do to this game!

Quote

After watching the video that you have offered up as supporting evidence, I would be seriously worried about the people who you quote to support your argument. Their moral credibility seems to be sorely lacking.

That is what the people who run tournaments are like. Maybe you are the exception. But from your comments on this thread that go against any spirit of competition and sportsmanship, I have to assume your just part of the problem. Just the typical status quo.

Angel Munoz, might be a crook, but doesn't mean what he said isn't true, and they're are many people who feel the same way which is how hes able to make money in the first place.

But when a game is disrespected by the people who are in charge or by players themselves, it will never gain respect from anybody else. That is the point of that documentary and my point to most of this community.

How about the quote from the first quake pros saying "we were playing for frags". They didn't say we were playing to win. Winning just comes with the territory.

Edited by RichAC, 28 January 2014 - 12:11 PM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Chess[is a two-player strategy board game played on a chessboard[, a checkered gameboard with 64 squares arranged in an eight-by-eight grid. It is one of the world's most popular games, played by millions of people worldwide at home, in parks, clubs[], online, by correspondence, and in ]tournaments
]Some people seem to invent their own meanings for words. Unfortunately this can cause confusion when others assume the normal meaning.[/color]

Edited by Nik Van Rhijn, 28 January 2014 - 12:07 PM.

[RichAC]

Abivard, on 28 January 2014 - 11:54 AM, said:

Like I said before, the poor sports hate being called poor sports, so they claim this is not a sport, but they haven't the slightest clue what sports is, or they wouldn't say that .

Athletic sports is not the only kind of sport.
For example, Chess is a sport.

i would call chess a professional competitive game, but not a pro sport, only because it requires no coordination.

But the minds on these geniuses of strategy in chess is amazing. Some Video game players are just as amazing imo, and theres no reason why it should not be just as respected.

They are all just games after all.

Edited by RichAC, 28 January 2014 - 12:15 PM.

[Abivard]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 28 January 2014 - 12:04 PM, said:

Chess[is a two-player strategy board game played on a chessboard[, a checkered gameboard with 64 squares arranged in an eight-by-eight grid. It is one of the world's most popular games, played by millions of people worldwide at home, in parks, clubs[], online, by correspondence, and in ]tournaments
]Some people seem to invent their own meanings for words. Unfortunately this can cause confusion when others assume the normal meaning.[/color]

Say, you seem to have left this part out of your quote from Wiki about chess, it is a chapeter title on the article you qouted but did not link.

Birth of a sport (1850–1945)


http://en.wikipedia....E2.80.931945.29
I will provide the link, it does not frighting me that others may read.

[Joseph Mallan]

RichAC, on 28 January 2014 - 11:50 AM, said:

I'm not comparing video gamers to factory workers or soldiers. what is wrong with you? I'm comparing them to athletes and other sports or professional games.

You saying this game is less respectable then them, is blatent disrespect. You are never going to be satisfied, and with a community of people who feel like you, the game will never have sportsmanship and will always be unpopular. NO matter what PGI does.

Sorry you didn't get the RPG you wanted, but thats no reason to sync drop, use macros, nerf every meta build, and encrouage PGI to sabotage their own game with misguided and misdirected development that discourage fairplay and the spirit of competition, simply because you resent it.

So your saying I am being disrespectful to the game I play and been a part of since 1986? To the Community That I am a prolific member of? So I therefore am disrespecting even myself? Athletes don't deserve any more respect that I do, or you do. They do a job... technically they play a game for money! Lots of Money. I believe it was Al Kaline who was once offered $600,000 to continue to play for the Tigers. He refused. His reason? "I'm not worth that much money." I respect a player like him!

This game is and its players, have my respect as players of an IP I have been involved in for 30 years now. But likening myself, to an Athlete cause I click a mouse pretty good? That is presuming to much.

I don't sync drop
I stalk Meta builds (even if I don't think there is anything wrong with you/anyone using em.)
I wouldn't think I have suggested anything that hasn't been part of a 30 year tradition. But hey bad ideas come from everyone so No harm no foul.

I did not expect this to be any more an RPG than TT is. Which is next to none!

I respect those who show respect. disagreeing with you is not a sign of disrespect, How I present my disagreement can be though. In which case I have disrespected you once. And shown you respect at least 6 times. Sounds fir considering I'm only human.

[Abivard]

@Joespeh

But you do disrespect this game, you have posted many times that you have no respect for others in this game, you say you care less if you win or lose, etc.....

[Joseph Mallan]

Abivard, on 28 January 2014 - 11:54 AM, said:

Like I said before, the poor sports hate being called poor sports, so they claim this is not a sport, but they haven't the slightest clue what sports is, or they wouldn't say that .

Athletic sports is not the only kind of sport.
For example, Chess is a sport.

Since 1967... hundreds of years before that (6th century)... IIRC it was also known as the GAME of Kings. I could be wrong though.

[RichAC]

Abivard, on 28 January 2014 - 12:16 PM, said:

Say, you seem to have left this part out of your quote from Wiki about chess, it is a chapeter title on the article you qouted but did not link.

Birth of a sport (1850–1945)


http://en.wikipedia....E2.80.931945.29
I will provide the link, it does not frighting me that others may read.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the first sports were the Olympics in Ancient Greece. And they also had board games back then like backgammon. Cards etc... but were not considered sports. Or that were not comeptitive like poker.

I guess maybe this is what Joseph was getting at, but They had more to do with actual traits that would help you on the battlefield in actual combat. BUt only because they were the first sports with nothing else to compare these abilities to.

Things like muscle memory, something required for MWO, but not for Chess.

They both require sportsmanship, because unlike War, they should be fair and balanced. But nothing in Chess is going to help with combat tactics I guess maybe this is what Joseph Malan was comparing. I actually haven't brought this up until now maybe because of his constant reference to soldiers. But most of us have evolved past thinking liike that a 1000 years ago. Since we now have other sports to compare to, instead of war.

Now most people just automatically assume, that hand eye coordination, muscle memory, reflexes, strength, dexterity, and endurance are part of what we call sports. Not necessarily war.

Intelligence = strategy, but is not considered tactics. Intelligence is also required in every sport, but coordination is not required in every game. Kind of ironic how the first e-sport on tv is a "strategy" game haha. But that is because tactics alone is boring and less challenging. And even LoL requires good coordination.

Edited by RichAC, 28 January 2014 - 12:58 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Abivard, on 28 January 2014 - 12:24 PM, said:

@Joespeh

But you do disrespect this game, you have posted many times that you have no respect for others in this game, you say you care less if you win or lose, etc.....

You call that disrespect? I play to win, every match, But I accept my failure with dignity. It does not **** me of to lose to a team that played better then we did. Thus I don't care if I win or lose. I played the game the best I could. Its an Old saying You should have heard of it.

It doesn't matter whether you win or lose.
Its how you play the game.

[RichAC]

Joseph Mallan, on 28 January 2014 - 12:28 PM, said:

You call that disrespect? I play to win, every match, But I accept my failure with dignity. It does not **** me of to lose to a team that played better then we did. Thus I don't care if I win or lose. I played the game the best I could. Its an Old saying You should have heard of it.

It doesn't matter whether you win or lose.
Its how you play the game.

You come off as an RPG player that resents this game isn't true to canon, imo.

More people should be buying 500 dollar gold mechs. PGI is doing a good job.

This is the only FPS game with a matchmaker, and the only free FPS thats not P2W. They deserve more respect then most developers in the industry.

Saying the game is not as respectable as a pro athletic sport, means to you its worth less, and shouldn't be treated with respect. I don't know how you don't understand that. Your encouraging people to do those things whether you do or not with statements like those.


If your against sports then your against fair and balanced competitive matches. Try to grasp this.

I'm glad you play to win, but since you do, doesn't it really frustrate you how most of the players are against you trying to win? Because I play to win also and thats how I feel most of the time.

IMO, a core problem of this game is PGI does not reward players for winning enough. Posters have claimed its because of cbill farmers. But i'm not sure I believe that. I think it has more to do with this community who wanted skirmish. Now they got their skirmish and i get shamed for capping even more then before now.

Why are players still playing any if they are going to get upset about me capping bases? It makes sense, one must just assume they are sore losers, or don't feel MWO should be played like that and its a form of sabatoge and resentment.

Many players want to always compare this game to war, which is ironic because thats how sports were born. Strategy may not be tactics/coordination, so not considered a sport, but strategy still makes a more entertaining game and includes more players and should be included in every sport.

EA should be giving a ton of money for winning , so more people will play to win and people who don't have the greatest aim can still have a sense of worth in conquest and assault. They should also add match score to the ELO equation instead of basing the ELO only off of something that nobody cares as much about.

Especially since its a random team game, which anyone with common sports sense understands.

Edited by RichAC, 28 January 2014 - 12:59 PM.

[Abivard]

RichAC, on 28 January 2014 - 12:25 PM, said:

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the first sports were the Olympics in Ancient Greece. And they also had board games back then like backgammon. Cards etc... but were not considered sports. Or that were not comeptitive like poker.

I guess maybe this is what Joseph was getting at, but They had more to do with actual traits that would help you on the battlefield in actual combat. BUt only because they were the first sports with nothing else to compare these abilities to.

Things like muscle memory, something required for MWO, but not for Chess.

They both require sportsmanship, because unlike War, they should be fair and balanced. But nothing in Chess is going to help with combat tactics I guess maybe this is what Joseph Malan was comparing. I actually haven't brought this up until now maybe because of his constant reference to soldiers. But most of us have evolved past thinking liike that a 1000 years ago. Since we now have other sports to compare to, instead of war.

Now most people just automatically assume, that hand eye coordination, muscle memory, reflexes, strength, dexterity, and endurance are part of what we call sports. Not necessarily war.

Intelligence = strategy, but is not considered tactics. Intelligence is also required in every sport, but coordination is not required in every game. Kind of ironic how the first e-sport on tv is a "strategy" game haha. But that is because tactics alone is boring and less challenging. And even LoL requires good coordination.

LoL you and your straw arguments.

Because chess was not a sport in the first Olympics it can not ever be a sport?

Sports did not exist before the Olympics?

They had Cards before the Olympics but it wasn't a sport because no one competed? what? was there only solitaire card games?
OH, but wait cards only seem to date to around 9th century AD in china, reaching Europe around the 14th century, greece is in Europe, greeks started the Olympics, bet you did not know that hunh Rich?

Chess has no relation to war.... wow what a brilliant insight, you must not play chess or know much about war.

Intelligence = strategy, but is not considered tactics??? what goobly **** is that?

Strategy and tactics are two different things, that can be used/applied stupidly or intelligently. You do not seem to know what they are let alone how they may relate.

You don't even seem to know where you stand on the issues you are posting on, so it is not a surprise you do not understand anyone else's position on an issue.

[RichAC]

Abivard, on 28 January 2014 - 02:03 PM, said:

LoL you and your straw arguments.

Because chess was not a sport in the first Olympics it can not ever be a sport?

Sports did not exist before the Olympics?

They had Cards before the Olympics but it wasn't a sport because no one competed? what? was there only solitaire card games?
OH, but wait cards only seem to date to around 9th century AD in china, reaching Europe around the 14th century, greece is in Europe, greeks started the Olympics, bet you did not know that hunh Rich?

Chess has no relation to war.... wow what a brilliant insight, you must not play chess or know much about war.

Intelligence = strategy, but is not considered tactics??? what goobly **** is that?

Strategy and tactics are two different things, that can be used/applied stupidly or intelligently. You do not seem to know what they are let alone how they may relate.

You don't even seem to know where you stand on the issues you are posting on, so it is not a surprise you do not understand anyone else's position on an issue.

I'm the straw guy. and Your the one who posted a link claiming chess was the first sport in history? hahaha

I didn't say chess has no relation to war, I said strategy does not equal tactics. Its a shame i removed my original signature before you were educated on the difference between tactics and strategy. Dam it says up to 4 lines on sig, but it reall is only 2. "tactics are the actual means used to gain an objective, while strategy is the overall campaign plan, which may involve complex operational patterns, activity, and decision-making that lead to tactical execution."

Chess does not have the physical attributes needed for fighting or combat, like hand eye coordination, reflexes and muscle memory.

Every good sport has alot of strategy involved, but not every game requires those physical tactical attributes. And thats something the ancient Greeks understood.

Edited by RichAC, 28 January 2014 - 03:05 PM.

[Grits N Gravy]

Abivard, on 28 January 2014 - 11:50 AM, said:

Actually even in chess where Elo was designed, it takes at least 30 games to find an Elo, so with an extra 23 people screwing with the Elo, you think only 10 to 20 more games are needed to set Elo?

Would you like to buy a bridge?

The margin of error and confidence level have nothing to do with Elo as a system. The reason why chess (FIDE) uses a sample size of 30 games to give someone their Elo rating is that it gives a reasonable margin of error and confidence level. It has nothing to do with the mechanics of Elo and is just an arbitrary number. Another chess federation for example, the USCF, for example uses 25 games.

Given the same Elo spread, 0-2800, We can say that after 30 games, we can predict your Elo score with a 18% margin of error with a confidence level of 95% percent in both chess and MWO. The determinant factors of margin of error and confidence level are population (number of Elo numbers) and sample size (number of games played). The larger the sample, the lower our margin of error becomes. Thus, at 30 games our margin of error is 18%, at 50 games 13.72%, at 90 games 10.14% and at 100 games 9.6%, all with a confidence level of 95%

As long as there always 23 other people in your match the number of participants doesn't matter. The law of large numbers tells us overtime all people will be effected equally by the ups and downs of good and bad teams. Thus comparing your Elo score to another player's is still a valid way of predicting outcomes of matches.

Would you like to buy a book on statistics?

Edited by Grits N Gravy, 28 January 2014 - 04:43 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Grits N Gravy, on 28 January 2014 - 10:00 AM, said:

This is a gross overestimate. After 50 Matches your Elo is correct with a 95% level of confidence and a 14% margin of error. After 200 matches the margin of error drops to 7%, at 500 4%. The system is still very workable with even low sample sets. Again this is the power of the central limit theorem.

Different per weight class.

Introduction of premade + pug Elo mixing high to low in the same match - result being that even at a mid-range Elo you may be on a team with a much higher Elo than your own, causing your Elo to swing dramatically early on. 3 or 4 games out of 10 or even 20 matches with a 50 point swing because of who you were dropped with. This makes the k-factor adjustment less reliable in smaller samples.

Concentration of Elo in a logical distribution, not Gaussian, means that there's a larger number of high Elo players who are going to skew averaged Elo in matches 1,000 points below their own which will skew rewards on an indeterminate percentage of games. Same issue as above.

Combine this with having dramatically different performance in the same weight class across different mechs but sharing an Elo score. I can play in a Tbolt and run 50 matches at a 0.9 win/loss, then hop in my Orion and go 110 games at 1.74 win/loss.

Good players with consistent performance should seat in 50-100 games. Average players will struggle to represent their full ~8% in each match and could take considerably longer to seat correctly.

At 200 to 500 matches, regardless of your mech and how often you play what weight class you're going to be well seated across whatever you drop in and however you drop and no matter how good (or how average) you are.

Edited by MischiefSC, 28 January 2014 - 05:12 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Shooting 45% from the 3 point line? You think that has meaning? Or worth?

Thats just something people with low ELO and 0.75 KDR say to comfort themselves at night while theyre crying in their beds.

Doing 1000 damage and getting 6+ kills makes me a MECHWARRIOR GOD and for the 10 seconds the score screen appears im worshipped and revered by all. RAWR.

Edited by Khobai, 28 January 2014 - 05:21 PM.