633 replies to this topic

[IceSerpent]

RichAC, on 08 February 2014 - 08:31 PM, said:

IF thats not your issue, whats the difference whether they are in cw or not?

The difference is whether a group of 5 friends can participate in CW in some way without being separated or not. Private matches being completely separate from CW have no bearing on this matter one way or another.

Quote

They are excluding themselves by playing a private match.

They are not playing a private match, they are not playing anything yet - it's a group of brand new players checking out MWO. You want them to either play together and not participate in CW or play separately and participate. I am curious why you want them to make such a choice, what's wrong with allowing participation of that particular group?

[RichAC]

IceSerpent, on 08 February 2014 - 08:52 PM, said:

The difference is whether a group of 5 friends can participate in CW in some way without being separated or not. Private matches being completely separate from CW have no bearing on this matter one way or another.

Oh good we are finally breaking this down in size...... So what your saying is, its not about just "playing with friends" Its about getting rewards for your faction?

Quote

They are not playing a private match, they are not playing anything yet - it's a group of brand new players checking out MWO. You want them to either play together and not participate in CW or play separately and participate. I am curious why you want them to make such a choice, what's wrong with allowing participation of that particular group?

I see what you are saying now, it would be nice...but..


I've already explained how its about fair and competitive matches. People already complain how a 4 man premade can imbalance a match. It will not be any different because its CW. In fact it would be more detrimental to only have fair play in cw. maybe not that there is cw, they can have unranked public matches where you can qeue however you want and NOT GET REWARDED FOR IT.

Beause its hard to even match them up by ELO as it is in non CW... This whole thread boils down to how, the top lvl players with the highest ELO's have to be included, and it only takes one or two of them to dominate a match. now you want them to be able to form groups greater then 4 players and you expect people to feel thats fair? Especially for faction wars, which I hope will be taken more seriously?

I've already explained how there will not be enough teams of equal amounts to match up with, whether you want to believe it or not. The proof speaks for itself...The patch lateset addressing ELO speaks for itself...

If they want to form a faction team, they can make a 12 man premade just like 12 mans are now, otherwise they will most likely be syncdropping for CW like the lamers they are.

Because what you are confirming right now, is what I've been saying all along, it has nothing to do with "playing with friends", its about getting easy rewards and bonuses. Which, imo, undermines the spirit of fair competition, and the game will generally be less popular for it...

Edited by RichAC, 08 February 2014 - 09:28 PM.

[Nightfire]

Inability to argue the point:
RichAC, you jump from point to point and morph your opponents arguments into strawmen so often that I'm going to have to address each individual argument in separate posts. I'll get to your arguing style later.

RichAC, on 04 February 2014 - 01:06 PM, said:

There is no question if you are using 3rd party software or hardware for options not part of the game or described in the game manual or tutorials or official forum threads, your a cheater.

Claim based on nothing more than pure belief and zeal.

RichAC, on 04 February 2014 - 06:29 PM, said:

Oh i just clicked on the spoiler "Players CAN use keybinding macros and gaming hardware which require user input to trigger during a match and do not otherwise fully automate gameplay."
Its like PGI is keeping this hidden. I think they should add a macro option and program to the game itself for everyone to use like rpgs do, just like keybindings.........but I guess macros are legal.

Shown to be wrong. Instead of taking responsibility for incorrect assumption (and assertion of said assumption on others and the resulting false allegations of cheating levied) blames PGI for not making this more obvious and trying to hide it. Note, no apology is ever issued.

RichAC, on 05 February 2014 - 11:33 AM, said:

Your still missing the fact not everybody knows about this. If there was an in-game option, and a tutorial for it, like in some mmo's, that would be more fair.
Because most people don't have mice with advanced capabilites. They do tell you how to keybind for the buttons though.

• RichAC now begins to set up an argument based on dissemination of knowledge. It is now an unfair advantage that more people (ie: RichAC) don't know about macros and most people don't have mice capable of use with macros. (translation, RichAC didn't know this and therefore projection of his position onto the majority is valid).
  
• RichAC conflates support for an inbuilt language parser with macro support (directly supplied and supported by example company) with support for products that PGI doesn't manufacture, doesn't directly support and doesn't make any profit from.

Deflection of blame and conflation of products.

IceSerpent, on 05 February 2014 - 02:26 PM, said:

Probably. On the other hand, if PGI didn't introduce game mechanics that benefit from macros (i.e. ghost heat and gauss rifle charging), it would be even better.
Even if anybody and their dog had macro-capable mouse, the details wouldn't be in any game because of sheer number of such devices on the market. It's simply impractical to include a tutorial on seting up macros for every single input device available.

Reasoned statement if lacking the basic profit motive.

RichAC, on 08 February 2014 - 05:43 PM, said:

Why do you use macros in any game? because your too spastic and uncoordinated to hit more then one button hahah.

Avoidance of argument. Instead of addressing the issue that PGI creates mechanics that advantage the use of macros, RichAC uses an implied insult to avoid addressing the point.

Note: I'll come back to this in a later post about threat narrative construction. The point to remember here is in this statement RichAC collects a group (macro users) he disapproves of and attributes to all members of this group an attribute that makes them lesser. In this particular case the attribute is "spastic". Part of his ongoing efforts to demonize the "others".

RichAC, on 08 February 2014 - 05:43 PM, said:

are you serious? How bout game i currently play called RIFT. They have a game option for macros in wow...., why are you even trolling me dude..

RichAC deliberatly conflates how one game (Rifts) provides support for their own, built in and supplied, language interpreter with macro support with PGI's failure to support external 3rd party products supplied and supported by said 3rd party.
Really, who is trolling who here?

RichAC, on 08 February 2014 - 05:43 PM, said:

http://www.wowwiki.com/Making_a_macro The reason they add these options into the game itself. Is because like you said, they advertise "gaming" hardware with it. So it would be politically incorrect in their industry to not condone it. And they couldn't stop people if they tried. So to make it fair to everyone, and to educate everyone how to do it, its an actual option inside the game. Because contrary to what you believe, very few people would be using them otherwise with an unfair advantage.

Conflation again of built in and supplied, language interpreter with macro support with macro support with PGI's failure to support external 3rd party products supplied and supported by said 3rd party. The supplied page (I looked myself) doesn't make any mention of hardware though it should be mentioned that through SteelSeries, Blizzard does make, distribute and support their own hardware. (WoW Mouse)
Again, the concept of supply and ownership is either lost or completely ignored by RichAC.

In short RichAC, you shift your position and redirect accountability (and attribute malice where it doesn't exist). Your positions have been:

• Macros are cheating.
  
• Macros aren't cheating but it's unfair to use them. PGI doesn't show everyone how to use them (despite not directly supporting them). Did it ever occur to you that PGI used spoilers to make a long post smaller allowing people to more easily skip over sections that they were not interested in? Or is it still malice on the part of PGI?
  
• Other games show you how to use macros (even though those games do directly support macros) so why shouldn't PGI show you how to use other manufacturers products?
  
• Then allude to hardware supported directly by an MMO and state it being equivalent to this case when said hardware is directly supplied by the same company (via 3rd party manufacturer) expressly for use with that MMO?

You argue in bad faith. You use strawmans and conflate cases to be equivalent when they are not. This will come up again in your bad faith arguments on private matches. (You can't change multiple variables and then claim any deviation of behavior is based on the variable you choose. That is a bad faith argument and poor reasoning.)

Note: Language Interpreters are incredibly difficult things to get working well even though they have a simple command line interface. MMOs (such as WoW and Rifts) both run off of command line instructions with GUI interfaces to activate predefined commands. The macro support in this case is just access to (and in some cases an extension of) the underlying engine for the basic functioning of the game. MWO does NOT run off a simple command line engine and as such a language interpreter (as difficult and complex as they are to get right) would have to be created and embedded purely so RichAC wouldn't have to use a 3rd party product that the Devs are quite happy for him to use. This thought has either not occurred to RichAC or it has and (even worse) he has dismissed the effort involved for functionality already provided by 3rd party apps/products as minor in his sense of "fairness".

RichAC, on 08 February 2014 - 05:43 PM, said:

Your a confused individual and I need to stop replying to your trolls.

You really need to understand what a troll is. You have been far more trolling than anyone in this thread. I don't believe you are a troll however, I believe something more fundamental.

[IceSerpent]

RichAC, on 08 February 2014 - 09:20 PM, said:

I see what you are saying now, it would be nice...but..


I've already explained how its about fair and competitive matches. People already complain how a 4 man premade can imbalance a match. It will not be any different because its CW. In fact it would be more detrimental to only have fair play in cw. maybe not that there is cw, they can have unranked public matches where you can qeue however you want and NOT GET REWARDED FOR IT.

Rich, you keep fixating on rewards for some reason. Rewards don't matter, the game mode does. We will have two distinct, completely separate games. One is CW that involves conquering planets and presumably some sort of global strategy associated with it. The other is private matches that won't include all that stuff. You are saying that group of certain size (i.e. 5 in my example) should not be allowed to play CW game, but group of certain larger size (12) should be. Note that the debate is not about which queue those groups should go to or who they should be matched against, I am merely asking why you want to completely deny CW participation to that smaller group.

Quote

I've already explained how there will not be enough teams of equal amounts to match up with, whether you want to believe it or not. The proof speaks for itself...The patch lateset addressing ELO speaks for itself...

No, you neither explained it, nor provided any proof. Speaking of which, please post how you came to a conclusion that player base is not big enough - include your target number of players that you deem to be "big enough", how you calculated that number, and how you got current number of players to compare that to.

[Sandpit]

Nightfire, on 09 February 2014 - 02:18 AM, said:

Troll ownage

[RichAC]

IceSerpent, on 09 February 2014 - 12:02 PM, said:

Rich, you keep fixating on rewards for some reason. Rewards don't matter, the game mode does. We will have two distinct, completely separate games. One is CW that involves conquering planets and presumably some sort of global strategy associated with it. The other is private matches that won't include all that stuff. You are saying that group of certain size (i.e. 5 in my example) should not be allowed to play CW game, but group of certain larger size (12) should be. Note that the debate is not about which queue those groups should go to or who they should be matched against, I am merely asking why you want to completely deny CW participation to that smaller group.

[

Why would you care if a private match is CW or not? Planets sure sound like a reward to me man And I believe they will have even more rewards then that.

And of course its about who they are matching against! This thread is about ELO!

Yes many feel a private premade of 4 people, against a team of totally random players is unfair. More then that would be even more uneven. Because there is not enough premades of the same number to match up with. I sound like a parrot talking to a wall!

Keeping it to only two team sizes makes it much easier for PGI to match up teams. But hey if PGI wants to try to let people make any amount of team they want? go for it. There will just be more complaining and ragequitting.

CW will be an even more serious mode, which is why I think it should be totally random, or a full team premade.


What you are doing, is CONFIRMING, its not just about "playing with friends"....

Maybe i'm just too competitive, I don't know.

Quote

No, you neither explained it, nor provided any proof. Speaking of which, please post how you came to a conclusion that player base is not big enough - include your target number of players that you deem to be "big enough", how you calculated that number, and how you got current number of players to compare that t

The patch notes and the latest ELO change where they had to widen the ELO gap because too many people were having long search times, is proof enough for me my friend.

Queuing for a 12 man myself, and failing the queue over and over, or seeing the same team over and over.... is proof enough for me.

The fact this thread was made and people feel matches are very uncompetitive, is proof enough for me.

This all spells, very small playerbase....and to make matches even more uncompetitive, will make it even smaller.

Edited by RichAC, 11 February 2014 - 04:47 PM.

[RichAC]

Nightfire, on 09 February 2014 - 02:18 AM, said:

Inability to argue the point:
RichAC, you jump from point to point and morph your opponents arguments into strawmen so often that I'm going to have to address each individual argument in separate posts. I'll get to your arguing style later.


Claim based on nothing more than pure belief and zeal.



Shown to be wrong. Instead of taking responsibility for incorrect assumption (and assertion of said assumption on others and the resulting false allegations of cheating levied) blames PGI for not making this more obvious and trying to hide it. Note, no apology is ever issued.

• RichAC now begins to set up an argument based on dissemination of knowledge. It is now an unfair advantage that more people (ie: RichAC) don't know about macros and most people don't have mice capable of use with macros. (translation, RichAC didn't know this and therefore projection of his position onto the majority is valid).
  
• RichAC conflates support for an inbuilt language parser with macro support (directly supplied and supported by example company) with support for products that PGI doesn't manufacture, doesn't directly support and doesn't make any profit from.

Deflection of blame and conflation of products.

















Reasoned statement if lacking the basic profit motive.



Avoidance of argument. Instead of addressing the issue that PGI creates mechanics that advantage the use of macros, RichAC uses an implied insult to avoid addressing the point.

Note: I'll come back to this in a later post about threat narrative construction. The point to remember here is in this statement RichAC collects a group (macro users) he disapproves of and attributes to all members of this group an attribute that makes them lesser. In this particular case the attribute is "spastic". Part of his ongoing efforts to demonize the "others".

haha take a breath guy.

I already admitted I was wrong about how PGI does not consider macros cheating. After iceserpent linked me the code of conduct, and i clicked on the hidden spoiler link i never noticed before....lmao Almost like PGI was ashamed they had to add it

Scroll up and learn to read please. You are doing exactly what you are trying to accuse me of....

I talk about the sync droppers and macro users in general, I never try to discredit anyone personally. If you are not for fair play, fine....thats made clear now. If you have no ideas how to make the game better....move on. If i'm a troll, your in another league of trolls.

Quote

RichAC deliberatly conflates how one game (Rifts) provides support for their own, built in and supplied, language interpreter with macro support with PGI's failure to support external 3rd party products supplied and supported by said 3rd party.

Really, who is trolling who here?



Conflation again of built in and supplied, language interpreter with macro support with macro support with PGI's failure to support external 3rd party products supplied and supported by said 3rd party. The supplied page (I looked myself) doesn't make any mention of hardware though it should be mentioned that through SteelSeries, Blizzard does make, distribute and support their own hardware. (WoW Mouse)
Again, the concept of supply and ownership is either lost or completely ignored by RichAC.

In short RichAC, you shift your position and redirect accountability (and attribute malice where it doesn't exist). Your positions have been:

• Macros are cheating.
  
• Macros aren't cheating but it's unfair to use them. PGI doesn't show everyone how to use them (despite not directly supporting them). Did it ever occur to you that PGI used spoilers to make a long post smaller allowing people to more easily skip over sections that they were not interested in? Or is it still malice on the part of PGI?
  
• Other games show you how to use macros (even though those games do directly support macros) so why shouldn't PGI show you how to use other manufacturers products?
  
• Then allude to hardware supported directly by an MMO and state it being equivalent to this case when said hardware is directly supplied by the same company (via 3rd party manufacturer) expressly for use with that MMO?

You argue in bad faith. You use strawmans and conflate cases to be equivalent when they are not. This will come up again in your bad faith arguments on private matches. (You can't change multiple variables and then claim any deviation of behavior is based on the variable you choose. That is a bad faith argument and poor reasoning.)












Note: Language Interpreters are incredibly difficult things to get working well even though they have a simple command line interface. MMOs (such as WoW and Rifts) both run off of command line instructions with GUI interfaces to activate predefined commands. The macro support in this case is just access to (and in some cases an extension of) the underlying engine for the basic functioning of the game. MWO does NOT run off a simple command line engine and as such a language interpreter (as difficult and complex as they are to get right) would have to be created and embedded purely so RichAC wouldn't have to use a 3rd party product that the Devs are quite happy for him to use. This thought has either not occurred to RichAC or it has and (even worse) he has dismissed the effort involved for functionality already provided by 3rd party apps/products as minor in his sense of "fairness".



You really need to understand what a troll is. You have been far more trolling than anyone in this thread. I don't believe you are a troll however, I believe something more fundamental.

I was explaining how other games, like rift, add a macro option right in the game menu, to make things more fair for the majority of people who don't own macro devices.... whic iceserpent didn't know existed. You don't have to own any special hardware to use them.

Contrary to what people like you and iceserpent believe.....most people don't own this special hardware, or even know how to use them properly if they do...

The fact you would troll me about this or be against it, is suspicious.

Edited by RichAC, 11 February 2014 - 04:55 PM.

[Nick Makiaveli]

RichAC, on 11 February 2014 - 04:21 PM, said:

Why would you care if a private match is CW or not? Planets sure sound like a reward to me man And I believe they will have even more rewards then that.

Exactly why they shouldn't be a part of CW. Otherwise PGI would have to examine every single private CW match to make sure one side wasn't letting the other win.

Same reason why private matches shouldn't earn XP/C-bills. Why? Everyone loads up expensive Assault mechs, then line up and take turns legging each other (won't take long because you strip all the leg armor off). No engine damage = more Salvage. Then it's your turn to blow us up....rinse repeat.

[RichAC]

Nick Makiaveli, on 11 February 2014 - 04:31 PM, said:

Exactly why they shouldn't be a part of CW. Otherwise PGI would have to examine every single private CW match to make sure one side wasn't letting the other win.

Same reason why private matches shouldn't earn XP/C-bills. Why? Everyone loads up expensive Assault mechs, then line up and take turns legging each other (won't take long because you strip all the leg armor off). No engine damage = more Salvage. Then it's your turn to blow us up....rinse repeat.

Should be common sense to most people, and I totally agree.

Iceserpent now changed from private matches, though, ....to meaning any size premade in CW. I don't know why he thinks thats what private means. And that doesn't mean to me, its "only about playing with friends"....

The problems with that should be just as obvious.

Edited by RichAC, 11 February 2014 - 05:03 PM.

[Nightfire]

RichAC, on 11 February 2014 - 04:26 PM, said:

haha take a breath guy.

I already admitted I was wrong about how PGI does not consider macros cheating. After iceserpent linked me the code of conduct, and i clicked on the hidden spoiler link i never noticed before....lmao Almost like PGI was ashamed they had to add it

Scroll up and learn to read please. You are doing exactly what you are trying to accuse me of....

Me? Scroll up and learn to read? You admitted that macro's aren't cheating and I missed that? Why, how fooli ... wait a minute

Nightfire, on 09 February 2014 - 02:18 AM, said:

Shown to be wrong. Instead of taking responsibility for incorrect assumption (and assertion of said assumption on others and the resulting false allegations of cheating levied) blames PGI for not making this more obvious and trying to hide it. Note, no apology is ever issued.

... [your position of]

• Macros aren't cheating but it's unfair to use them. PGI doesn't show everyone how to use them (despite not directly supporting them). Did it ever occur to you that PGI used spoilers to make a long post smaller allowing people to more easily skip over sections that they were not interested in? Or is it still malice on the part of PGI?

Hey! I actually did acknowledge that! Wow! I must have gone back in time and corrected what I really said to make you look foolish!


That or, wait for this, I'm not the one who needs to learn how to read!?

Point to note for the audience for when I get time to do my post on RichAC and his construction of threat narratives to further his arguments in place of actual facts: This is called redirection. He has quoted part of what I've said out of context, attributed to it a meaning other than what I was arguing (this is also a Straw man fallacy for those counting the fallacies used) and then attempts to portray himself as the innocent, misunderstood victim. The victimhood is the important part here!

Note for those waiting on the post regarding RichAC's arguing style: Note he has used the redirection to completely avoid addressing the issue of my claim that he never takes responsibility for his arguments. He shifted blame for not knowing about PGI's position on macros onto PGI hiding this information in a spoiler. He never issued an apology to those he accused of cheating for using macros. He also never backed his claim for calling me "scum of the earth" or apologised for it. Instead he redirects the argument by responding to something completely different from the intent and adding victimhood.

RichAC, on 11 February 2014 - 04:26 PM, said:

I talk about the sync droppers and macro users in general, I never try to discredit anyone personally.

Seriously!? You can honestly say that about your behaviour in this thread without any sarcasm or irony!? You have thrown many accusations about and I can think of multiple quotes for three people up you have libeled off the top of my head! I particularly thought the slur against Joseph's family was way out of line!

RichAC, on 11 February 2014 - 04:26 PM, said:

If you are not for fair play, fine....thats made clear now.

This, spectators, is a dual attack. Though there is no basis for this claim he has made it as fact. This is a shaming tactic designed to silence and pull me into line (How can I argue against him? If argues for fair play and I am against his positions, I MUST be against fair play!) and an attack on my character. There is nothing supporting this claim other than pure malice. Oh! Also add in a touch of splitting.

RichAC, on 11 February 2014 - 04:26 PM, said:

If you have no ideas how to make the game better....move on.

Well, let's see.

• I do have my own ideas and I have mentioned them in the past.
  
• I am actually enjoying breaking down the tactics and poor behaviour of verbal(? written?) bullies such as yourself who have more venom than substance. Perhaps you will learn from this and be constructive, perhaps you will give up after I shine the light upon your behaviour for too long or perhaps the mods will finally see what you are actually doing once I break it down enough and ban you. Any of these outcomes are good for me.
  
• Move on? Well since you haven't, you aren't a mod, I haven't actually said anything untrue and I am arguing the points you set forward, I believe I have my right to free speech. Make me!

RichAC, on 11 February 2014 - 04:26 PM, said:

If i'm a troll, your in another league of trolls.

You're right about one thing, I am in another league but that is about as much truth as you managed in that statement.

As I said before; I don't think you are a troll, you're much more frightening! I think you actually believe the world is against you!

RichAC, on 11 February 2014 - 04:26 PM, said:

I was explaining how other games, like rift, add a macro option right in the game menu, to make things more fair for the majority of people who don't own macro devices.... whic iceserpent didn't know existed. You don't have to own any special hardware to use them.

That might be what you think you were arguing but I broke it down for you before and I will do so again. Those game are built on engines that run on command lines. That RUN on macros! It is as core to how they function as drawing pixels on the screen! They do NOT add macro functions, they allow players to access macro functions that already exist! The effort involved in allowing players to access something that is already there is minimal!

This function simply (to my knowledge. Any Dev feel free to correct me, have you actually built in LUA language interpreter that you don't allow us access to!?) doesn't exist in the Cryengine. It was never designed for MMos. So given that, your argument is that because 3rd party devices exist that allow macro functions, PGI should either ban them all outright or invest heavily in creating a complex macro support system because to do otherwise is ... unfair?

Your fairness argument amounts to ... I want PGI to spend a very large amount of money and resources so I don't have to spend a comparatively (note this word, it is important) small amount of money on a 3rd party product that they already have no objection to and gives you the functionality you desire.

RichAC, on 11 February 2014 - 04:26 PM, said:

Contrary to what people like you and iceserpent believe

Welcome to the club Ice Serpent! Jospeh and I welcome you!

RichAC, on 11 February 2014 - 04:26 PM, said:

.....most people don't own this special hardware, or even know how to use them properly if they do...

But they are free to purchase said hardware if they wish and they are free to learn. Some software that performs the functions you argue for is even free! It just isn't in game. If you are inclined to explore those avenues, you will. If not, you won't. That may be unfair to you but it is the reality of life.

Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

But you have demonstrated yourself a Marxist early on.

RichAC, on 11 February 2014 - 04:26 PM, said:

The fact you would troll me about this or be against it, is suspicious.

Again spectators, note the shaming tactic here. It implies, rather than directly states, that his position is the correct and only position and that my opposition to his points must therefore be trolling. The omitted points are that I cannot be arguing against him because he is deceitful, argues in bad faith, is outright wrong on some points or that I even have a difference of opinion. The last part, the claim of suspicion, is to lead to you an inference of nefarious intent on my part.

Edit: I forgot to actually address RichAC's last point!
I am not against (but since I'm not actively promoting it, you'll claim I'm against you) PGI implementing some macro system if they wish to. I just don't see the need or value in such a macro system greater than the many other issues that plague this game. Additionally, the only real need for such a system that gives significant advantages in performance is driven largely by the poor mechanics PGI themselves implemented (ie: Ghost Heat).

• Hit registration, which is a fundamental core mechanic of this game, is still broken in many areas!
  
• The lack of systems like Repair and Rearm that helped drain the economy, balance weapon systems and removed a large portion of the need for clunky and poor mechanisms such as ghost heat.
  
• Poor and hap hazard weapon balancing that also seems to be used as a means to promote the viability of the latest hero mech for sale.
  
• The inability to drop with more than 4 friends that was promised to be returned to us over a year ago.

All of these are points far more worthy of attention than macros especially when, in my opinion, the free market already provides alternative options for implementing them.

Coming soon (when I can muster the effort): RichAC's construction of a threat narrative!

Edited by Nightfire, 12 February 2014 - 01:35 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

RichAC, on 11 February 2014 - 04:21 PM, said:

[

Why would you care if a private match is CW or not? Planets sure sound like a reward to me man And I believe they will have even more rewards then that.

And of course its about who they are matching against! This thread is about ELO!

Yes many feel a private premade of 4 people, against a team of totally random players is unfair. More then that would be even more uneven. Because there is not enough premades of the same number to match up with. I sound like a parrot talking to a wall!

Keeping it to only two team sizes makes it much easier for PGI to match up teams. But hey if PGI wants to try to let people make any amount of team they want? go for it. There will just be more complaining and ragequitting.

CW will be an even more serious mode, which is why I think it should be totally random, or a full team premade.


What you are doing, is CONFIRMING, its not just about "playing with friends"....

Maybe i'm just too competitive, I don't know.






The patch notes and the latest ELO change where they had to widen the ELO gap because too many people were having long search times, is proof enough for me my friend.

Queuing for a 12 man myself, and failing the queue over and over, or seeing the same team over and over.... is proof enough for me.

The fact this thread was made and people feel matches are very uncompetitive, is proof enough for me.

This all spells, very small playerbase....and to make matches even more uncompetitive, will make it even smaller.

I don't think private matches would fall under the Community Warfare umbrella.

Community

Private

The words are almost mutually exclusive.

Private matchs would (to me) be Murphy's Law v DHB Cause we wanna see who is better. Where Community Warfare would allow The Law to fight DHB to try to capture thier PPC factory. Which would have a broader effect on the CW side of the game. DHB could be contracted to House Kurita, and our winning the PPC factory could affect the cost of PPCs in House Kurita. As an example as we don't have a full listing of what CW will contain.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 12 February 2014 - 03:15 AM.

[Willard Phule]

Not sure how any of this has anything to do with Elo.

Perhaps you should start a separate string about macros and such.

Dunno.

GG Close, I guess.

[RichAC]

Nightfire, on 11 February 2014 - 09:23 PM, said:

Me? Scroll up and learn to read? You admitted that macro's aren't cheating and I missed that? Why, how fooli ... wait a minute

[/list]Hey! I actually did acknowledge that! Wow! I must have gone back in time and corrected what I really said to make you look foolish!


That or, wait for this, I'm not the one who needs to learn how to read!?

Point to note for the audience for when I get time to do my post on RichAC and his construction of threat narratives to further his arguments in place of actual facts: This is called redirection. He has quoted part of what I've said out of context, attributed to it a meaning other than what I was arguing (this is also a Straw man fallacy for those counting the fallacies used) and then attempts to portray himself as the innocent, misunderstood victim. The victimhood is the important part here!

Note for those waiting on the post regarding RichAC's arguing style: Note he has used the redirection to completely avoid addressing the issue of my claim that he never takes responsibility for his arguments. He shifted blame for not knowing about PGI's position on macros onto PGI hiding this information in a spoiler. He never issued an apology to those he accused of cheating for using macros. He also never backed his claim for calling me "scum of the earth" or apologised for it. Instead he redirects the argument by responding to something completely different from the intent and adding victimhood.



Seriously!? You can honestly say that about your behaviour in this thread without any sarcasm or irony!? You have thrown many accusations about and I can think of multiple quotes for three people up you have libeled off the top of my head! I particularly thought the slur against Joseph's family was way out of line!



This, spectators, is a dual attack. Though there is no basis for this claim he has made it as fact. This is a shaming tactic designed to silence and pull me into line (How can I argue against him? If argues for fair play and I am against his positions, I MUST be against fair play!) and an attack on my character. There is nothing supporting this claim other than pure malice. Oh! Also add in a touch of splitting.



Well, let's see.

• I do have my own ideas and I have mentioned them in the past.
  
• I am actually enjoying breaking down the tactics and poor behaviour of verbal(? written?) bullies such as yourself who have more venom than substance. Perhaps you will learn from this and be constructive, perhaps you will give up after I shine the light upon your behaviour for too long or perhaps the mods will finally see what you are actually doing once I break it down enough and ban you. Any of these outcomes are good for me.
  
• Move on? Well since you haven't, you aren't a mod, I haven't actually said anything untrue and I am arguing the points you set forward, I believe I have my right to free speech. Make me!

You're right about one thing, I am in another league but that is about as much truth as you managed in that statement.








As I said before; I don't think you are a troll, you're much more frightening! I think you actually believe the world is against you!



That might be what you think you were arguing but I broke it down for you before and I will do so again. Those game are built on engines that run on command lines. That RUN on macros! It is as core to how they function as drawing pixels on the screen! They do NOT add macro functions, they allow players to access macro functions that already exist! The effort involved in allowing players to access something that is already there is minimal!

This function simply (to my knowledge. Any Dev feel free to correct me, have you actually built in LUA language interpreter that you don't allow us access to!?) doesn't exist in the Cryengine. It was never designed for MMos. So given that, your argument is that because 3rd party devices exist that allow macro functions, PGI should either ban them all outright or invest heavily in creating a complex macro support system because to do otherwise is ... unfair?

Your fairness argument amounts to ... I want PGI to spend a very large amount of money and resources so I don't have to spend a comparatively (note this word, it is important) small amount of money on a 3rd party product that they already have no objection to and gives you the functionality you desire.



Welcome to the club Ice Serpent! Jospeh and I welcome you!



But they are free to purchase said hardware if they wish and they are free to learn. Some software that performs the functions you argue for is even free! It just isn't in game. If you are inclined to explore those avenues, you will. If not, you won't. That may be unfair to you but it is the reality of life.

Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

But you have demonstrated yourself a Marxist early on.



Again spectators, note the shaming tactic here. It implies, rather than directly states, that his position is the correct and only position and that my opposition to his points must therefore be trolling. The omitted points are that I cannot be arguing against him because he is deceitful, argues in bad faith, is outright wrong on some points or that I even have a difference of opinion. The last part, the claim of suspicion, is to lead to you an inference of nefarious intent on my part.

Edit: I forgot to actually address RichAC's last point!
I am not against (but since I'm not actively promoting it, you'll claim I'm against you) PGI implementing some macro system if they wish to. I just don't see the need or value in such a macro system greater than the many other issues that plague this game. Additionally, the only real need for such a system that gives significant advantages in performance is driven largely by the poor mechanics PGI themselves implemented (ie: Ghost Heat).

• Hit registration, which is a fundamental core mechanic of this game, is still broken in many areas!
  
• The lack of systems like Repair and Rearm that helped drain the economy, balance weapon systems and removed a large portion of the need for clunky and poor mechanisms such as ghost heat.
  
• Poor and hap hazard weapon balancing that also seems to be used as a means to promote the viability of the latest hero mech for sale.
  
• The inability to drop with more than 4 friends that was promised to be returned to us over a year ago.

All of these are points far more worthy of attention than macros especially when, in my opinion, the free market already provides alternative options for implementing them.











Coming soon (when I can muster the effort): RichAC's construction of a threat narrative!

ummm......all I can say to this is Therapy..

What I thought most sad about your previous reply, is that you thought the macro options in games like WoW and Rift still have to do with hardware. They don't bud. Noone needs a special mouse or kb to use macros in mmo's that have them as a game option. That's the point.

You can say your not against it all you want, but it seems i touched a nerve and your replies imply otherwise...

Also syncdropping ruins the game.....yep I said it again. And private matches might not help with it, because its not just about playing with friends. and more about undermining the ELO and matchmaker for easy rewards, which Iceserpent keeps confirming. This isn't the only game that has been ruined by that same method of queuing.

I hope community leagues and 3rd party competitions develop around private matches, which would be seperate from the CW, but i'm sure many will still be syncdropping for cbills. Which is always the excuse for not rewarding wins more, or not caring about capping bases, etc....

It all boils down to a community, and its not all PGI's fault, like the community in LoL that is very vocal in discouraging smurfers as an example.

Joseph Mallan, on 12 February 2014 - 03:14 AM, said:

I don't think private matches would fall under the Community Warfare umbrella.

Community

Private

The words are almost mutually exclusive.

Private matchs would (to me) be Murphy's Law v DHB Cause we wanna see who is better. Where Community Warfare would allow The Law to fight DHB to try to capture thier PPC factory. Which would have a broader effect on the CW side of the game. DHB could be contracted to House Kurita, and our winning the PPC factory could affect the cost of PPCs in House Kurita. As an example as we don't have a full listing of what CW will contain.

Also just to add, for an ELO to be accurate you have to play with the broad range of players in the game. Otherwise your stats are just padded and invalid.

Edited by RichAC, 12 February 2014 - 08:37 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

RichAC, on 12 February 2014 - 08:24 AM, said:

Also just to add, for an ELO to be accurate you have to play with the broad range of players in the game. Otherwise your stats are just padded and invalid.

That is an interesting point!It would be kinda interesting to put that to the test. I know playing as a Lawman I see a higher caliber player than when I pure PUG. That is of course depending on which Lawmen join and leave our 4 man. Some guys raise the score so much I have no business dropping with them, except to be given a view of how the other half battles!

[RichAC]

Joseph Mallan, on 12 February 2014 - 08:35 AM, said:

That is an interesting point!It would be kinda interesting to put that to the test. I know playing as a Lawman I see a higher caliber player than when I pure PUG. That is of course depending on which Lawmen join and leave our 4 man. Some guys raise the score so much I have no business dropping with them, except to be given a view of how the other half battles!

Nothing to test really, I'm sure these genius mathematicians will confer. If all you do is play casually with friends on a private server....you wouldn't have a true ELO, and The ELO to me has always been like that saying, you are who your friends are...

The reason some matches still feel out of your league, is the ELO gap for a bracket is wide to make sure all players get in a match, and sometimes all it takes is a couple great players to dominate. Same thing happens to me alot, but it seems to go up and down, and there still enough players my lvl to get some good matches. For what we got I think the MM does a great job. Especially considering no other fps game I ever played even had one...

Edited by RichAC, 12 February 2014 - 09:09 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

RichAC, on 12 February 2014 - 08:41 AM, said:

Nothing to test really, I'm sure these genius mathematicians will confer.

The reason for matches to still be uncompetitive, is the ELO gap for a bracket is wide to make sure all players get in a match, since the playerbase is not that big.

I disagree. Joe has the the most experience of my Alts as he was first. Playing with the Law has my Elo inflated, so I have a bunch of losses to gather to drop from a 58% (down from a 63% start point) win loss to a 50%... Somewhere between 700-900 to become Average. So Elo is going to stack the deck abit against me which affects the whole team. Add to that a 4 man and the affetct it has on Elo averages and You know why stomps will happen always.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 12 February 2014 - 08:52 AM.

[RichAC]

Joseph Mallan, on 12 February 2014 - 08:50 AM, said:

I disagree. Joe has the the most experience of my Alts as he was first. Playing with the Law has my Elo inflated, so I have a bunch of losses to gather to drop from a 58% (down from a 63% start point) win loss to a 50%... Somewhere between 700-900 to become Average. So Elo is going to stack the deck abit against me which affects the whole team. Add to that a 4 man and the affetct it has on Elo averages and You know why stomps will happen always.

I don't know what you mean by Joe or playing with the law...lol

But if you look at the scoreboard. Most stomps i see are because of a couple guys who dominated. Or, I agree, a lance that did. Meaning 2 or 3 guys who killed most of the players with high dmg, while the rest of the their team got avg or low scores. Now being able to hang with these guys naturally makes your ELO higher and your are probably still a better player then the lower brackets.

But issue probably still is, imo, that there is not enough to fill a server with people at their lvl, or enough lances, or lances with that lvl ELO. I know you don't think video gamers can attain the same skill gap over the avg player, like pro athletes do to the avg baller, but they do. In any game, no matter how easy you think it is. And just like the pro baller, they are very small percentage, but can dominate a court.

The bigger the playerbase pool, the easier it is for any matchmaker. This doesn't have to be tested...its common sense.

Now how big a playerbase has to be for a small ELO gap of the top players to always get matches in their own bracket, Or how small that gap has to be? Thats a different story, and I will leave that up to the mathematicians. I think PGI is doing a decent job for what they have.

But I agree if all we are going on is wins and losses alone, or not able to match lance elo to lance elo....its harder to match competitively.

Competitve meaning not only winning, but decent individual scores.

That being said Stomps will always happen, Even with a very close ELO on both teams, and nothing can be perfect. Its just a natural thing and part of competition. Humans also have streaks and slumps. I realy don't have a problem at my lvl, I'm an avg gamer and I think the MM is doing a good job. But there may be some people who are never able to get a decent score, even though their w/l ratio is close to even. And thats why I think more then win/loss should be calculated.

Edited by RichAC, 12 February 2014 - 09:58 AM.

[IceSerpent]

Joseph Mallan, on 12 February 2014 - 08:35 AM, said:

That is an interesting point!It would be kinda interesting to put that to the test. I know playing as a Lawman I see a higher caliber player than when I pure PUG. That is of course depending on which Lawmen join and leave our 4 man. Some guys raise the score so much I have no business dropping with them, except to be given a view of how the other half battles!

Joseph, it's not really a point at all - just Rich trolling (surprise, surprise). Elo doesn't go up when you're expected to win and indeed win, nor does it go down when you're expected to lose and indeed lose, so you can play against vastly superior (or vastly inferior) team all day long and it won't mess up your rating in any way. The only requirement for Elo to be accurate is that rating variance within the team has to be minimal, i.e. small enough to consider all members to be roughly equal skill-wise. If that's not the case, your wins and losses start to depend on your luck in getting teammates instead of your own skill and that invalidates the rating.

[Willard Phule]

IceSerpent, on 12 February 2014 - 09:32 AM, said:

Joseph, it's not really a point at all - just Rich trolling (surprise, surprise). Elo doesn't go up when you're expected to win and indeed win, nor does it go down when you're expected to lose and indeed lose....

*coughsputtercough*

But...but...

Look, I know there's gotta be a couple of random D20 rolls in there...and then they consult the Magic 8 Ball....and bounce the results against a fortune cookie left over from lunch......

[RichAC]

IceSerpent, on 12 February 2014 - 09:32 AM, said:

Joseph, it's not really a point at all - just Rich trolling (surprise, surprise). Elo doesn't go up when you're expected to win and indeed win, nor does it go down when you're expected to lose and indeed lose, so you can play against vastly superior (or vastly inferior) team all day long and it won't mess up your rating in any way. The only requirement for Elo to be accurate is that rating variance within the team has to be minimal, i.e. small enough to consider all members to be roughly equal skill-wise. If that's not the case, your wins and losses start to depend on your luck in getting teammates instead of your own skill and that invalidates the rating.

What your not understanding is playing with a small private playerbase is not an accurate ELO with the rest of the community.

Whats so hard to understand about that? To get rewards you should be ranked for fair play. Yes REWARDS. planets, cbills, faction bonus, w/e etc etc...

But yes you are correct, its a small community and they have to include everyone, and the fact that the individual rating system in a random team based game is based only on wins alone, yes "luck" has alot to do with it.

Now you can say a rating system is diff then a ranking system blah blah blah, but if you are only playing with the same people over and over again, your ELO is also going to reflect that.

There is nothing wrong if you want to play with friends or hold your own private competitions. But most people would like public ranked matches to be more competitive and that means rating/ranking by ELO or some rating system. And people should not be able to, in a sense, basically pad their stats or rig matches, whether that is most peoples intention or not, and get the same rewards.

Its just a common sense of sportsmanship.

Maybe i'm wasting my time and I'm wrong to assume that PGI doesn't already understand this. But when I read your posts, I have to reply just in case some are thinking about it.

Edited by RichAC, 12 February 2014 - 10:12 AM.