633 replies to this topic

[Abivard]

Maybe they quit, maybe they are not playing when you are, But it isn't because they are out of your Elo range!

[Nick Makiaveli]

[

IceSerpent, on 12 February 2014 - 06:32 PM, said:

Elo can work here just fine, but doesn't at the moment. I am assuming that by "works just fine" you mean "produces accurate skill ratings and forces MM to match players evenly".

Pretty much yes.


[

IceSerpent, on 12 February 2014 - 06:32 PM, said:

Properly implemented Elo would work and be better. Properly implemented Elo plus BV scheme of some sort would also work and be even better than just Elo alone. Better for everybody - always having equally skilled opponents means more intense and fun matches, that in turn means that game is more fun and attracts more players, and that makes the game more sustainable. Looks like a win-win scenario to me.

Sounds good, if enough people are online for it to make good matches. What if there aren't? Would prefer no matches over what we have now?

Should the players who have been waiting the longest be "served" first? Thus it grabs the first 12 players, then tries to match them.

Setting up some algorithm to make the best matches out of the whole pool could leave some people in the cold, the higher or lower they are the worse off they would be.

Also, you want exciting matches, there are 3 ways a match can go, you wipe them out, they wipe you out, or it's a close match. 2 out of three sound fun to me. (The last two for the record). If you are closely matched, or dominated, then you get a hard fought match, if you have a good team. If you are pugging, well they all suck as far as I am concerned.

Abivard, on 15 February 2014 - 01:47 PM, said:

If it was true, yes there would be a million plus accounts, but it is not true, and there are only 500,000 some accounts.

Also, forum logons are steady at about 250 registered users and 900 guests. have been for over a year.

I don't believe a forum account was automatic in the early days. Also, perhaps the only accounts that show are the ones who have logged in....

Also, many people don't use the forums, especially people who have played WoW and are forumphobic now.

[IceSerpent]

Nick Makiaveli, on 16 February 2014 - 01:47 PM, said:

Sounds good, if enough people are online for it to make good matches. What if there aren't? Would prefer no matches over what we have now?

Would prefer to wait for as long as it takes to get an even match. That being said, I am not against an "unranked match" option with no Elo matchmaking at all (and no Elo changes based on outcome) for folks who prefer quantity over quality.

Quote

Should the players who have been waiting the longest be "served" first? Thus it grabs the first 12 players, then tries to match them.

Players that have Elo rating MM is currently looking for and have been waiting the longest should be served first, not players who have been waiting the longest overall. I.e. let's say MM needs a player with 2000 Elo. There are two such players waiting - player A has been in the queue for 3 mins and player B for 1 min. In this case MM should take player A. In the same scenario, but with player A having 1500 Elo MM should pick player B.

Quote

Setting up some algorithm to make the best matches out of the whole pool could leave some people in the cold, the higher or lower they are the worse off they would be.

Yeah, it's lonely at the top. It should be player's choice though - you either select even matches only and wait for as long as necessary, or you roll the dice in order to get a quick match that may be "unfair" in a whole lot of ways.

Quote

Also, you want exciting matches, there are 3 ways a match can go, you wipe them out, they wipe you out, or it's a close match. 2 out of three sound fun to me. (The last two for the record). If you are closely matched, or dominated, then you get a hard fought match, if you have a good team. If you are pugging, well they all suck as far as I am concerned.

I want to have other 23 players in the match to have skill roughly equal to mine. If my team screws up and gets outplayed (stomped), well so be it - can't win them all. As long as that steamroll is not a result of apparently huge difference in skill (as in "obvious to the casual observer"), I'd be a happy camper.

Quote

I don't believe a forum account was automatic in the early days. Also, perhaps the only accounts that show are the ones who have logged in....

Also, many people don't use the forums, especially people who have played WoW and are forumphobic now.

It was "reserve your pilot name" deal from the very beginning, not to mention that you view your stats on the website using the same credentials. I never heard of a way to create an account in-game and not have it show up on the site.

[RichAC]

Nightfire, on 13 February 2014 - 08:30 PM, said:

Ah yes, yes you did. This point came from you complaining about the unfairness that not everyone can have macro executing hardware and as such PGI should create a Language Interpreter for the express purpose of making macros available in game. Just to refresh your memory on what you said:

I couldn't resist and have to reply, but you have a problem with this? ya and?

Quote

Note: Your argument! Your point! Your hangup!


The point of the quote that you, according to your own words, "I guess I misunderstood" is that you compare 2 completely different classes of mechanisms for implementing macros as if they are equivalent. This is called conflation and in this case is a logical error. The simplicity of purchasing an already existing 3rd party product (or using Free 3rd Party Software) is in no way equivalent to the creation, inclusion, testing and tuning such a complex addition as a language interpreter. Everyone else managed to understand that I was addressing the issue of conflation in this point, you seem to somehow think it is a hangup about hardware

everyone else? lol language interpreter? you sound like a computer nerd, which explains alot. I bring up the fact other games have this an option, and your the one talking about other things bud.....

Quote

As a side point, free software addressed your point of not everyone being able to afford said devices so your argument changed to in game support being the only acceptable solution.

The argument was also that many people don't know about them, or know how to use them.... not only that they don't own the hardware. Some that do don't know how to use them properly. And many don't even know what a macro is unless reading this thread. You can't blame people for not googling for the hidden knowedge.

When they are an actual game option, they become common and the community becomes well informed.

Quote

Yeah, reading comprehension is not your strong suit is it?

I'm starting to wonder about yours....

Quote

I'm pretty sure (I wouldn't consider myself a mathematics genius but I do have a little </sarcasm> experience with statistics) that said math geniuses will tell you that applying Elo to a static team allows you to treat that team as a single entity, as such it is easier for the single entity of "team" to find their place since they also reduce the number of other random elements that affect their performance (Lone Wolf team members). It is actually part of what you, yourself were arguing earlier. Would you care for a quote?

Noone is talking about static team.....*."rant...conflation..*.rant...reading comprehension...*rant...big wodrds trying to sound smart"...lol

The OP of this thread already made that point and I agree ELO is only good for static teams, not individual ratings on random teams. Common sports sense.

We are talking about how private matches deserve no rewards or bogus ELO ratings, and how there is not enough teams to properly even match up 4 mans, let alone premades of any size.

Quote

No, they should have rewards. They are playing the game as intended, they should get the rewards as intended. What should be absent here is Elo, not rewards. Still hung up about people exploiting private matches? How badly do you really think it can be exploited? Seriously now, think about it. How many more C-Bills can they really earn without PGI noticing in their metrics than if they were dropping in random, public games? You display to me that you are obsession wrapped in paranoia.

Spoken like someone with no sense of sportsmanship. So you don't think a macro is easy to implement into the game, but you think PGI can monitor everyones private matches? And then ban people for padding games? How would faction wars work out, if people are picking who they play against?

Quote

Spare me the shaming and silencing language. It doesn't work because I see it for what it is.

You define what it "sportsman" like in your head, according to your definition and statement any "sportsman" would agree with you. I disagree with you therefore the implication is I am not a sportsman. As such, this is something I should be ashamed of. No, your definitions are warped and have already been shown to be yours and yours alone.

You are definitely not a sportsman. And actually, according to other threads, supposedly PGI already agrees that private matches should not have rewards.... Its dishonest.

Quote

Here is a fun exercise for you:

Action does not betray motivation
Motivation is not evidenced by action

Try remembering this when addressing peoples mental or moral states. Both of our judicial systems are built on this principle after all.

Your the one playing psycologist bud.... yet you don't understand human nature... lol keep trolling me against fair play...Its amusing.

Quote

If you want to discuss why the industry is where it is, I can but you won't like where I go with it.

• You're welcome, I just hope you learned something
  
• sync dropping won't be a problem in CW since you will make the team yourself.
  
• Make up your mind, is the community thriving or dying?
  
• Government and National Security are nuanced and complex issues
  
• Hackers have always been good. Crackers are bad.
  
• Oh promises!

• The industry is where it is because of computer nerds with no sense of sportsmanship and malicious hackers who resent society, period.
  
• like 12 mans aren't a problem already? how would cw be any different? They will try to syncdrop in public cw's...
  
• your the one confused...no comment
  
• Eventually more and more people will realize, that the internet is in its barbarian age and run like the wild wild west, and they will be begging for the NSA who is the least of their worries. They should be more worried about criminals and cops, friends, family, and neighbors, all who can employ the same abilities.
  
• Whether malicious or not, the arrogance, and poor sportsmanship, which is common among computer nerds who feel they are superior beings due to a inferiority complex, hurt they were never picked for sports and outcasts in highschool and feel some false sense of entitlement, becomes a self fulfilling prophecy due to selfishness and is not good for gaming.

Edited by RichAC, 18 February 2014 - 05:32 AM.

[RichAC]

IceSerpent, on 16 February 2014 - 05:22 PM, said:

Would prefer to wait for as long as it takes to get an even match. That being said, I am not against an "unranked match" option with no Elo matchmaking at all (and no Elo changes based on outcome) for folks who prefer quantity over quality.

which is what the private match option that PGI plans to implent is.

The problem for you becomes, you want to play in CW. Which is faction wars....which will provide bonuses and rewards....which means it needs to be ranked and even numbered to be fair to everyone.

Edited by RichAC, 18 February 2014 - 05:14 AM.

[IceSerpent]

RichAC, on 18 February 2014 - 05:11 AM, said:

which is what the private match option that PGI plans to implent is.

The problem for you becomes, you want to play in CW. Which is faction wars....which will provide bonuses and rewards....which means it needs to be ranked and even numbered to be fair to everyone.

Rich, you really really need to stop for a moment and try to comprehend what you are replying to prior to posting. If I am saying that I am willing to wait for MM to find a good match, how do you figure that private matches are "an option"? You don't need to wait for MM to do anything for a private match - those are simply scheduled between teams, and MM is not involved at all. It should be fairly obvious that me and Nick were talking about ranked matches in CW and unranked match option driven by MM (i.e. not scheduled), shouldn't it?

Edited by IceSerpent, 18 February 2014 - 08:07 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

RichAC, on 18 February 2014 - 05:11 AM, said:

which is what the private match option that PGI plans to implent is.

The problem for you becomes, you want to play in CW. Which is faction wars....which will provide bonuses and rewards....which means it needs to be ranked and even numbered to be fair to everyone.

I'm sorry why would it need to be Ranked? At the time of this game's intended timeline House Liao is on the verge of Collapse. House Kurita is reeling from Smoke Jaguar and Ghost Bear incussions. House Steiner is OK... Mostly cause they start the invasion with 2 houses resources to pick from. House Marik is making a good profit, but since they are suppling the Star League and the fighting Great Houses OH yeah and WoB is skimming supplies off the top for their future Borg Regiments...

Community Warfare should be Interesting.... In the 'Chinese Curse' sense of the word interesting!

[Nightfire]

Oh good! I was just getting a little bored!

So here we go!

Nightfire, on 13 February 2014 - 08:30 PM, said:

Ah yes, yes you did. This point came from you complaining about the unfairness that not everyone can have macro executing hardware and as such PGI should create a Language Interpreter for the express purpose of making macros available in game.

RichAC, on 18 February 2014 - 04:52 AM, said:

I couldn't resist and have to reply, but you have a problem with this? ya and?

I knew you couldn't. I know your type.
I have a problem with you trying to re-frame arguments and straw-manning everyone. Just to be clear, you accused me of being hung up on hardware. I demonstrated through your own quotes that it is indeed you who is hung up about hardware. Do I have a problem with you blaming everyone but yourself for your inability to maintain a coherent argument? Why yes, I do.

RichAC, on 18 February 2014 - 04:52 AM, said:

everyone else? lol language interpreter? you sound like a computer nerd, which explains alot.

Ok, notes for the audience:
This is another shaming tactic and othering tactic all in one. He is establishing me as a class of lesser "others" known as a "computer nerd". This is intended to shame me into silence and permit RichAC to dismiss my argument without addressing it because it comes from a "lesser". What he doesn't realise is that by holding "computer nerds" in such utter and obvious contempt he has revealed why he fights a losing battle so hard. He has no comprehension of the position he is putting forward or what we are telling him. Ah! The arrogance that reveals itself through ignorance.

RichAC, on 18 February 2014 - 04:52 AM, said:

I bring up the fact other games have this an option, and your the one talking about other things bud.....

Yeah, you do keep bringing this up but you fail to grasp any argument put forward by anyone else. Let me use a (very) simple analogy for you.
Your argument is akin to saying there are vehicles that tow massive loads so why can't the devs just get this Ferrari to tow this 800 ton trailer? That way everyone can tow an 800 ton trailer if they want to!
Now despite everyone telling you a Ferrari just can't tow an 800 ton trailer because it was never designed to and those vehicles that do tow 800 ton trailers can because they were designed from the outset to work that way is something that you rage against. You cling to what other vehicles do and say that if it can be done there, the devs can just but a tow ball on the back of this Ferrari and all will be fine!

You ignore other people's arguments and explanations as to why it is not a simple task because, quite simply (and now by your own admission), you don't understand! Either educate yourself or quit arguing the point because you just run yourself and everyone else in circular arguments.

RichAC, on 18 February 2014 - 04:52 AM, said:

The argument was also that many people don't know about them, or know how to use them.... not only that they don't own the hardware. Some that do don't know how to use them properly. And many don't even know what a macro is unless reading this thread. You can't blame people for not googling for the hidden knowedge.

It isn't hidden knowledge. It might have been for you but then, you aren't a "computer nerd" so the concept of macros is obviously hard. Those that want this information will be able to find it. If you can't Google these things, you should turn of your computer now and sell it, games are too hard for you!

RichAC, on 18 February 2014 - 04:52 AM, said:

When they are an actual game option, they become common and the community becomes well informed.

Nope, some might be better informed but most won't. You still avoid the point of macros only being advantageous because of the clunky, poor mechanics PGI threw in that really had no effect.

Nightfire, on 13 February 2014 - 08:30 PM, said:

Yeah, reading comprehension is not your strong suit is it?

RichAC, on 18 February 2014 - 04:52 AM, said:

I'm starting to wonder about yours....

Hey, this was your admission of misunderstanding an obvious point that many others grasped easily just so you could straw-man it. If you're going to argue with someone that will hold your own words against you, you better debate honestly. Otherwise you get situations like this where I call you on your own admissions.

RichAC, on 18 February 2014 - 04:52 AM, said:

Noone is talking about static team.....*."rant...conflation..*.rant...reading comprehension...*rant...big wodrds trying to sound smart"...lol

Yeah, I know ... Math is hard too, huh? Don't worry your head about it, it really does make sense to those of us that understand numbers.
Suffice to say, teams don't affect Elo in the way you think it does.
Oh! As for the big words, at least I can spell those "words"! I guess spelling is just a nerd thing, right? Don't worry about it.

RichAC, on 18 February 2014 - 04:52 AM, said:

The OP of this thread already made that point and I agree ELO is only good for static teams, not individual ratings on random teams.

Yeah, I've said that. Well, something similar. I've even agreed with you on occasion about it but since I don't agree 100% with you, you'll still count me as against you.

'RichAC': "Common sports sense."

You really need to stop saying that. It's obvious you have no idea what that really is and you only use it as shaming language. It's just a veiled insult, it'd be more honest if you just used one.

'RichAC': We are talking about how private matches deserve no rewards or bogus ELO ratings, and how there is not enough teams to properly even match up 4 mans, let alone premades of any size."

• Private Matches
  
  • They should have rewards. Why play the game if you don't get anything for doing so? It has such a limited appeal otherwise.
    
  • Agreed, Elo should be absent in self made matches.
• Agreed, I also believe the MWO population is low and diminishing. Has been for a long time.
  
• Yeah, you seem to have a real obsession with the pre-made boogie man.

'RichAC': Spoken like someone with no sense of sportsmanship."

More shaming language. Again, you have no real concept of what sportsmanship is or you'd be arguing in good faith. Your use of shaming tactics, fabrication, logical fallacies and redirection is evidence enough of this. Quit using that line because I'll just hold a mirror up to your posts (with quotes if need be) and to your complete and utter lack of it each time.


'RichAC': "So you don't think a macro is easy to implement into the game, but you think PGI can monitor everyones private matches? And then ban people for padding games? How would faction wars work out, if people are picking who they play against?"

• Actually, I think it would be quite difficult to implement internal macros for MWO. As I have previously stated. Again, your reading comprehension is terrible.
  
• I know PGI keeps stats on every match played and has systems in place to analyse them. I don't think, PGI has openly stated this.
  
• If PGI wanted to ban people for exploiting, I am sure they could and would.
  
• CW: Quite simple really. People would pick the planet they wanted to go after, if it was already claimed they would have to fight those who already "own" it. There is no Elo involved. The attackers pick their team, the defenders pick theirs. It isn't a difficult concept really. If Elo matchmaking was forced into that scenario, it is my prediction MWO would fail overnight.

'RichAC': "You are definitely not a sportsman."

Shaming language again. you have yet to back this claim with any unsportsmanlike conduct on my part. Pro Tip: Sportsmanship is evidenced in conduct! You, on the other hand, have such a large body of bad conduct in this thread alone that I consider your accusations mere projection. Good job!

'RichAC': "And actually, according to other threads, supposedly PGI already agrees that private matches should not have rewards.... Its dishonest."

Link? and I actually disagree with the dishonest part, perhaps you can explain this without projection (assuming people will do what you would do) or how you feel? Dishonest is a bold claim and one I assert you make without basis other than your own theories.

'RichAC': Your the one playing psycologist bud.... yet you don't understand human nature... lol keep trolling me against fair play...Its amusing."

I'm not playing anything, simply applying what I have learned from people who behave like you in the past. I know enough about human nature to know you'd be back, didn't I?

'RichAC': "The industry is where it is because of computer nerds with no sense of sportsmanship and malicious hackers who resent society, period."

Just because a documentary said some things doesn't mean it's valid for you to project that and your hatred of hackers around every corner on to everyone in the industry so you can act with an air of arrogant superiority. I believe you have issues.

'RichAC': "like 12 mans aren't a problem already? how would cw be any different? They will try to syncdrop in public cw's..."

12 mans are a problem for many reasons that I have already explained. They will continue to be for as long as PGI stops groups being able to drop in more than 4 man groups. Getting 12 people on for 1 or a small series of matches at a predetermined time for a significant enough reward won't be. That's how it will function. And as I said earlier, when you challenge another corp for a planet there is no Elo involved so there is no sync dropping. Pick your best 12 and let's go.

'RichAC': "your the one confused...no comment"

you say the community is dying, then say it's thriving and then say it's dying again and say I'm confused. I get that you were sarcastic, what strikes me as odd is that you don't have the mental capacity to spot the same in my comment.

'RichAC: "Eventually more and more people will realize, that the internet is in its barbarian age and run like the wild wild west, and they will be begging for the NSA who is the least of their worries. They should be more worried about criminals and cops, friends, family, and neighbors, all who can employ the same abilities."

and yet, I'm not. Somehow I'm concerned about any large, organised body that can enforce their will upon a populace without any means of oversight or limitation. The prospect of big government that you allude to is just the doorway to putting yellow stars on the chests of people to identify those that offend they that get to decide the morals of society.

'RichAC': "Whether malicious or not, the arrogance, and poor sportsmanship, which is common among computer nerds who feel they are superior beings due to a inferiority complex, hurt they were never picked for sports and outcasts in highschool and feel some false sense of entitlement, becomes a self fulfilling prophecy due to selfishness and is not good for gaming."

Hmm, Insult, shaming, othering, projection, projection and shaming, projection and then shaming once more.
So this is how you lay claim to the bastion and pastime of the inferior others that you would now like to go away? Paraphrased, your entire argument to me is "I don't understand how you make these games but make them for me, my way and then shut up and go away because you spoil them for me when you play them also". I see something very ugly underneath your assertions.

[Joseph Mallan]

Funny thing is I have My Anton Shiningstar Alt that is purely a PUG alt. I have a winning record and Positive KDR... Sounds like Elo has been working well.

Do I get stomped? You bet I do!
Do I get to stomp? You bet I do!
Do I have close games that make me sweat? Yup.

Elo working as intended. from my experience.

[IceSerpent]

Joseph Mallan, on 18 February 2014 - 08:29 AM, said:

Funny thing is I have My Anton Shiningstar Alt that is purely a PUG alt. I have a winning record and Positive KDR... Sounds like Elo has been working well.

Elo working as intended. from my experience.

How did you get from "winning record and Positive KDR" to "Elo working as intended"? I kind of get a feeling that you forgot to type a few paragraphs of text inbetween.

Unless you're trying to say that purpose of Elo is to ensure that everyone gets positive KDR?

[Navy Sixes]

K, just a few things that need to be pointed out...

RussianWolf, on 22 January 2014 - 01:54 PM, said:

1) it isn't taking into account the way you win - Cap rush win is a win even if a shot is never fired.

You are better than every single player on a team that lets your team cap rush without firing a shot. If you're letting a team cap rush without firing a shot, they are better than every single player on yours. Full stop.

RussianWolf, on 22 January 2014 - 01:54 PM, said:

2) it isn't taking into account the quality of the win - did your team destroy 12 mechs to their 1?

You don't advance in ELO from every win. You only advance from victories that the matchmaker predicted you would lose. You only go down in ELO from defeats that the matchmaker predicted you would win. Most of those big stomps are pretty much what the matchmaker thought was going to happen. So no one is probably getting anything for these one-sided routes. It's when you turn the route around that you advance. Carry harder.

RussianWolf, on 22 January 2014 - 01:54 PM, said:

3) doesn't take into account individual success - If I die in the first 2 seconds and my team goes on to win, I still get credit for the win. And if I rack up 9 kills and 1500 damage but can't carry us to the win, its still a loss.

If your individual success doesn't result in a win, no one cares. I mean, you can pat yourself on the back and know that you're growing as a player, but a win's a win and a loss is a loss.

MWO is a team game. It rewards teamwork. PUGs are just as much a team as a premade. Quit blaming them and start working with them, or just get it over with and join a group.

Edited for clarity and grammar

Edited by Tycho von Gagern, 18 February 2014 - 12:42 PM.

[Davers]

RichAC, on 28 January 2014 - 12:29 PM, said:

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.


If your against sports then your against fair and balanced competitive matches.

1. While Joe might be far more interested in certain aspects of canon than I am, MW:O was originally 'sold' to us using canon. The whole '1 day=1day' and the (abstract) promise of being able to interact with major story lines from BT.

2. 500 dollar mechs are for people that want 500 dollar mechs. They are a vanity item. What would have happened if the IP had not been renewed by Microsoft? Would the $110 Overlord (and Sabre) packages been worth their purchase if they only got to use them for a year? If the IP doesn't get renewed 3 years from now, will the $500 mech purchase have been worth it?

3. Pretty sure this is not the only FPS with a matchmaker. But PGI has done an exemplary job of keeping it F2P instead of P2W. Hopefully this will continue.

4. Fair and balanced competitive matches is not the sole domain of sports. Not to mention, when you have single players on the Yankees that cost as much as whole infields of other teams, it's hard to see sports as always being 'fair and balanced'. In fact in most tournaments or leagues there is a great imbalance. When I was fencing actively, I would be in tournaments with high school freshmen who were new to the sport as well as regional champions.

[Joseph Mallan]

IceSerpent, on 18 February 2014 - 08:52 AM, said:

How did you get from "winning record and Positive KDR" to "Elo working as intended"? I kind of get a feeling that you forgot to type a few paragraphs of text inbetween.

Unless you're trying to say that purpose of Elo is to ensure that everyone gets positive KDR?

Elo On an account that is purely PUG, Elo has kept me at a place where I win or lose at a slightly higher than 50%. Hence the winning record and Positive Elo. I have 2 other accounts that I used Artificial Limitations on on the playstyle, and those accounts have a less than Winning record and below average KDR.

[Saiphas Cain]

Having played WoT, WT, and WoWP I've seen some good and bad win rates but never has anything even come close to my loss rate in MWO. Whatever Wargaming and Gaijin are doing are working a hell of a lot better than whatever PGI is trying to do. The only way to get a 37% win rate in those games would be shooting my teammates in the face every match until they kill me, yet in MWO here I am. The question I have is how they can be so terrible at figuring out what they're doing wrong and write a matchmaker that actually does what they claim it should. I don't expect to compete with clanners who have been playing since alpha but if my team had a few of them occasionally instead of just the enemy I have to think my win rate would start creeping up.I play mostly light mechs which shouldn't have the huge impact that assault mechs do on a match because they don't carry twin AC/20's and the like so if I'm not impacting the match much, who did the other team get opposite me that IS impacting the match that much and why does the other team keep getting those guys?

[Willard Phule]

Joseph Mallan, on 18 February 2014 - 12:02 PM, said:

Elo On an account that is purely PUG, Elo has kept me at a place where I win or lose at a slightly higher than 50%. Hence the winning record and Positive Elo. I have 2 other accounts that I used Artificial Limitations on on the playstyle, and those accounts have a less than Winning record and below average KDR.

Not starting a fight with you, man, but even what you're saying here kind of adds credibility to some of the things being said on the forums that are generally considered "absurd."

Lots of people claim that "the matchmaker is putting me on crappy teams on purpose" or "the matchmaker is out to get me"....you know, you've seen that kind of stuff. And, even though I agree that for the most point, that is complete manure....if the matchmaker is keeping you at a 50%, it might just be true.

STOP. Breathe. In, out, in, out. Calm down and hear me out before you beat me over the head with the idiot stick.

Ok. So, your "PUG Alt" login is kept at about a 50%, more or less. Odds are, from the beginning, it's been that way...right? Win 2, lose 2, win 3, lose 2, win 2, lose 3, etc. Simple math.

But, what about guys that have been around for quite some time...closed or open beta....have dropped with groups occasionally...whatever explains their positive win ratio? At some point, they did something hinky with the matchmaker and Elo and random dice rolls or whatever.

IF you had a positive win ratio AND the matchmaker is doing it's solid best to keep you at a 50%...wouldn't logic dictate that it's going to shove you on the team it's predicting to lose more often than the winning one to try to get you at the same win/loss its been programmed to put everyone at?

Ok, flame away. I'm ready for it.

[RichAC]

Davers, on 18 February 2014 - 09:24 AM, said:

1. While Joe might be far more interested in certain aspects of canon than I am, MW:O was originally 'sold' to us using canon. The whole '1 day=1day' and the (abstract) promise of being able to interact with major story lines from BT.

I don't know what you mean 1 day=1day or abstract promise. I saw the agme on gamespot, and thought it was a cool different looking arena shooter.

2. 500 dollar mechs are for people that want 500 dollar mechs. They are a vanity item. What would have happened if the IP had not been renewed by Microsoft? Would the $110 Overlord (and Sabre) packages been worth their purchase if they only got to use them for a year? If the IP doesn't get renewed 3 years from now, will the $500 mech purchase have been worth it?

I agree. But the Russ Bullock post showed that they are covered and paid years ahead of time. I'm not sure of the exact year, but i urge you to check for your self.

3. Pretty sure this is not the only FPS with a matchmaker. But PGI has done an exemplary job of keeping it F2P instead of P2W. Hopefully this will continue.

I can't name one dude, and i've played many of the years.

4. Fair and balanced competitive matches is not the sole domain of sports. Not to mention, when you have single players on the Yankees that cost as much as whole infields of other teams, it's hard to see sports as always being 'fair and balanced'. In fact in most tournaments or leagues there is a great imbalance. When I was fencing actively, I would be in tournaments with high school freshmen who were new to the sport as well as regional champions.

While that may be true, I hope its not an excuse for encouraging imbalances in this game. The fact you fencing highschool freshman, is the symptom of an unpopular sport. Which is one of the reasons for the many complaints about the MM in this game imo. Baseball might not have salary caps, but other sports like basketball and football do. Even though nothing is perfect, we should still strive for fair and balanced play.

[Willard Phule]

Not to mention that Fencing, like Chess, is again a 1 on 1 sport.

Everyone keeps making references to these 1 person sports that have defined rules of what you can and can't do and then compare them to MW:O. It doesn't equate.

Even better are the sports analogies. Keep in mind that we have a LOT of children playing MW:O ( anyone remember Sarah?). Using sports analogies are the same as saying that a PeeWee Baseball player can be compared to one in the Pros. (which, oddly enough, according to PGI's Elo system....is about right).

All good. Keep feeding the troll. I'm sure somewhere, sometime, it'll get addressed...and, as always, it'll be broken in different ways after they fix it.

[RichAC]

Nightfire, on 18 February 2014 - 08:23 AM, said:

Oh good! I was just getting a little bored!

So here we go!




I knew you couldn't. I know your type.
I have a problem with you trying to re-frame arguments and straw-manning everyone. Just to be clear, you accused me of being hung up on hardware. I demonstrated through your own quotes that it is indeed you who is hung up about hardware. Do I have a problem with you blaming everyone but yourself for your inability to maintain a coherent argument? Why yes, I do.

I quoted you talking about how blizzard has the macro opion in their game to try and sell their own brand of mouse, which is ridiculous for obvious reasons. These MMO's do it to make the game more fair. This is the reason your trolling me, because you are against such things.

Ok, notes for the audience:
This is another shaming tactic and othering tactic all in one. He is establishing me as a class of lesser "others" known as a "computer nerd". This is intended to shame me into silence and permit RichAC to dismiss my argument without addressing it because it comes from a "lesser". What he doesn't realise is that by holding "computer nerds" in such utter and obvious contempt he has revealed why he fights a losing battle so hard. He has no comprehension of the position he is putting forward or what we are telling him. Ah! The arrogance that reveals itself through ignorance.

Your definitely a computer nerd when you start talking about programming languages in this conversation...The fact is its an option in other games.

Yeah, you do keep bringing this up but you fail to grasp any argument put forward by anyone else. Let me use a (very) simple analogy for you.
Your argument is akin to saying there are vehicles that tow massive loads so why can't the devs just get this Ferrari to tow this 800 ton trailer? That way everyone can tow an 800 ton trailer if they want to!
Now despite everyone telling you a Ferrari just can't tow an 800 ton trailer because it was never designed to and those vehicles that do tow 800 ton trailers can because they were designed from the outset to work that way is something that you rage against. You cling to what other vehicles do and say that if it can be done there, the devs can just but a tow ball on the back of this Ferrari and all will be fine!

You ignore other people's arguments and explanations as to why it is not a simple task because, quite simply (and now by your own admission), you don't understand! Either educate yourself or quit arguing the point because you just run yourself and everyone else in circular arguments.

Why are you trying so hard to explain why macros should not be a game option? Its very suspicious. The fact still is its an option in many games. I also find it strange you think its a simple task for PGI to monitor everyones private matches to ban stat padders. Which is something thats totally impractical and ridiculous, and unescessary if private matches are not rewarded in the first place. At least your agree the ELO would be invalid.

It isn't hidden knowledge. It might have been for you but then, you aren't a "computer nerd" so the concept of macros is obviously hard. Those that want this information will be able to find it. If you can't Google these things, you should turn of your computer now and sell it, games are too hard for you!

Exactly my point, and i'm frustrated thats all most online communities are becoming. I want more people to play games besides computer nerds, like it was in the 90s. First of all you have to know what they are before you google them. When they are a game option it becomes common in the community and the community becomes well informed.

Nope, some might be better informed but most won't. You still avoid the point of macros only being advantageous because of the clunky, poor mechanics PGI threw in that really had no effect.

It has absolutely nothing to do with PGI's game. Macros can be advantageous in any game, which is a fact you keep ignoring. ITs common sense. Even less so in MWO because there are less buttons needed to use, but still advantageous regardless....

Hey, this was your admission of misunderstanding an obvious point that many others grasped easily just so you could straw-man it. If you're going to argue with someone that will hold your own words against you, you better debate honestly. Otherwise you get situations like this where I call you on your own admissions.

I was being sarcastic, about you talking about macros are in wow because they want to sell their special mouse....lmao. Which was a totally out of touch clueless reply...

Yeah, I know ... Math is hard too, huh? Don't worry your head about it, it really does make sense to those of us that understand numbers.
Suffice to say, teams don't affect Elo in the way you think it does.
Oh! As for the big words, at least I can spell those "words"! I guess spelling is just a nerd thing, right? Don't worry about it.

I don't know what you mean by "teams". Private matches, not only should not get ELO rated, they should not get rewarded either.

Yeah, I've said that. Well, something similar. I've even agreed with you on occasion about it but since I don't agree 100% with you, you'll still count me as against you.

'RichAC': "Common sports sense."

You really need to stop saying that. It's obvious you have no idea what that really is and you only use it as shaming language. It's just a veiled insult, it'd be more honest if you just used one.

'RichAC': We are talking about how private matches deserve no rewards or bogus ELO ratings, and how there is not enough teams to properly even match up 4 mans, let alone premades of any size."

• Private Matches
  
  • They should have rewards. Why play the game if you don't get anything for doing so? It has such a limited appeal otherwise.
    
  • Agreed, Elo should be absent in self made matches.
• Agreed, I also believe the MWO population is low and diminishing. Has been for a long time.
  
• Yeah, you seem to have a real obsession with the pre-made boogie man.

'RichAC': Spoken like someone with no sense of sportsmanship."






More shaming language. Again, you have no real concept of what sportsmanship is or you'd be arguing in good faith. Your use of shaming tactics, fabrication, logical fallacies and redirection is evidence enough of this. Quit using that line because I'll just hold a mirror up to your posts (with quotes if need be) and to your complete and utter lack of it each time.

I love how you already know what my reply is going to be. If you think private matches should be rewarded the same as people playing against random teams or in pug matches, you have no sportsmanship.

To ask why people would play if they don't get anything out of it, only confirms as iceserpent did, that people are not syncdropping to simply "play with friends" like anybody who plays sports in the park does. Kids in the playground are not "getting anything out of it" aduls in playing in softball leagues are "not getting anything out of it.

But what could happen with private matches, is units can hold their own inhouse little tournaments, or match up against other units on opposing factions to skirmish(and no i dont' mean the game mode) I can even foresee 3rd party websites with their own stats building up around it. BUT, they should not get any cbills for it at all, for cbills they have to go play CW or a public match!

This will keep other game modes still populated and so the game doesn't become "privately owned" I for one will prefer a ranked and rated match, because I think PGI's MM does a decent job.

'RichAC': "So you don't think a macro is easy to implement into the game, but you think PGI can monitor everyones private matches? And then ban people for padding games? How would faction wars work out, if people are picking who they play against?"

• Actually, I think it would be quite difficult to implement internal macros for MWO. As I have previously stated. Again, your reading comprehension is terrible.
  
• I know PGI keeps stats on every match played and has systems in place to analyse them. I don't think, PGI has openly stated this.
  
• If PGI wanted to ban people for exploiting, I am sure they could and would.
  
• CW: Quite simple really. People would pick the planet they wanted to go after, if it was already claimed they would have to fight those who already "own" it. There is no Elo involved. The attackers pick their team, the defenders pick theirs. It isn't a difficult concept really. If Elo matchmaking was forced into that scenario, it is my prediction MWO would fail overnight.

'RichAC': "You are definitely not a sportsman."







Shaming language again. you have yet to back this claim with any unsportsmanlike conduct on my part. Pro Tip: Sportsmanship is evidenced in conduct! You, on the other hand, have such a large body of bad conduct in this thread alone that I consider your accusations mere projection. Good job!

Saying private matches should be rewarded the same as people playing on 12 man teams or in pugs, is unsportlike for obvious reasons to the "audience" if not YOU...lol

Totally going bazerk over a suggestiong for a macro option in game, is extremely selfish!

Making ME the subject of your posts, instead of the OP topic or fair play in general, shows you don't care about such things.


'RichAC': "And actually, according to other threads, supposedly PGI already agrees that private matches should not have rewards.... Its dishonest."

Link? and I actually disagree with the dishonest part, perhaps you can explain this without projection (assuming people will do what you would do) or how you feel? Dishonest is a bold claim and one I assert you make without basis other than your own theories.

I'm not going to link heresay from another poster, but it should be obvious why its dishonest. You play psycologist yet dont' understand human nature. You think its ok because PGI can monitor for cheaters. But what you don't understand is even if not intentional point farming or stat padding, it throws the whole system off. An ELO rating is based upon who you play with and against. And if you only play with the same people, your rating is inaccurate according to the rest of the community.

Also I'm sure PGi wants a reason for people to still play the actualy core game mode.


I'm not playing anything, simply applying what I have learned from people who behave like you in the past. I know enough about human nature to know you'd be back, didn't I?

More like a hoping troll, well International Internet safety day almost took my pc out, but I figure why let you hackers silence me? I love pc gaming too much.

'RichAC': "The industry is where it is because of computer nerds with no sense of sportsmanship and malicious hackers who resent society, period."

Just because a documentary said some things doesn't mean it's valid for you to project that and your hatred of hackers around every corner on to everyone in the industry so you can act with an air of arrogant superiority. I believe you have issues.

The documentary had nothing to do with hackers or cheaters... I guess you didn't even watch it.>> But Societies hatred of hackers is growing, not just mine...

'RichAC': "like 12 mans aren't a problem already? how would cw be any different? They will try to syncdrop in public cw's..."

12 mans are a problem for many reasons that I have already explained. They will continue to be for as long as PGI stops groups being able to drop in more than 4 man groups. Getting 12 people on for 1 or a small series of matches at a predetermined time for a significant enough reward won't be. That's how it will function. And as I said earlier, when you challenge another corp for a planet there is no Elo involved so there is no sync dropping. Pick your best 12 and let's go.

So once again, confirming its all about rewards. And i can guarantee its not about getting enough people online, when most of the unit teamspeak servers sometimes sync drop with dozens. The fact is the community is very sore loserish and not very competitive. It would be hard for PGI to match up teams of any size, when the search times are long as it is for some people in a random match! What is hard to understand about that? And contrary to what you might believe, there will still be that dominating 8 man team, scaring the rest of the carebears from playing other 8 teams or w/e size regardless.....just like 12 mans...so that would truly be wasted development.

you say the community is dying, then say it's thriving and then say it's dying again and say I'm confused. I get that you were sarcastic, what strikes me as odd is that you don't have the mental capacity to spot the same in my comment.

I think you paint your own reality dude....You didn't even watch the documentary I posted, and I doubt you even actually read my posts... Your just here to troll me for some other mysterious perosnal reasons lol.

'RichAC: "Eventually more and more people will realize, that the internet is in its barbarian age and run like the wild wild west, and they will be begging for the NSA who is the least of their worries. They should be more worried about criminals and cops, friends, family, and neighbors, all who can employ the same abilities."

and yet, I'm not. Somehow I'm concerned about any large, organised body that can enforce their will upon a populace without any means of oversight or limitation. The prospect of big government that you allude to is just the doorway to putting yellow stars on the chests of people to identify those that offend they that get to decide the morals of society.

Your talking about Russia, not the USA. All these what ifs, what could be, what might be, whats possible, is all just nonsense and more fear mongering....worse then what people think of our Gov't and Media. THe truth is the NSA did not hack target, Obama and Michelle have been hacked just like Merkel, and the NSA is not Ddos'n gaming companies or selling cheats. I'm talking about general online family communities, like pc gaming and help sites, which are a dying breed. The internet is not the safe learning experience or fun it was in the 90s dude. And that I don't blame the Gov't for that....Thank goodness most americans understand this and over 60% of us are still support the NSA. (now the FBI, thats a diff story lol)

'RichAC': "Whether malicious or not, the arrogance, and poor sportsmanship, which is common among computer nerds who feel they are superior beings due to a inferiority complex, hurt they were never picked for sports and outcasts in highschool and feel some false sense of entitlement, becomes a self fulfilling prophecy due to selfishness and is not good for gaming."

Hmm, Insult, shaming, othering, projection, projection and shaming, projection and then shaming once more.
So this is how you lay claim to the bastion and pastime of the inferior others that you would now like to go away? Paraphrased, your entire argument to me is "I don't understand how you make these games but make them for me, my way and then shut up and go away because you spoil them for me when you play them also". I see something very ugly underneath your assertions.

I speak about fair play, you speak vehemently against such measures. I think the "audience" can tell the difference.

Edited by RichAC, 19 February 2014 - 08:46 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Willard Phule, on 19 February 2014 - 04:17 AM, said:

Not starting a fight with you, man, but even what you're saying here kind of adds credibility to some of the things being said on the forums that are generally considered "absurd."

Lots of people claim that "the matchmaker is putting me on crappy teams on purpose" or "the matchmaker is out to get me"....you know, you've seen that kind of stuff. And, even though I agree that for the most point, that is complete manure....if the matchmaker is keeping you at a 50%, it might just be true.

STOP. Breathe. In, out, in, out. Calm down and hear me out before you beat me over the head with the idiot stick.

Ok. So, your "PUG Alt" login is kept at about a 50%, more or less. Odds are, from the beginning, it's been that way...right? Win 2, lose 2, win 3, lose 2, win 2, lose 3, etc. Simple math.

But, what about guys that have been around for quite some time...closed or open beta....have dropped with groups occasionally...whatever explains their positive win ratio? At some point, they did something hinky with the matchmaker and Elo and random dice rolls or whatever.

IF you had a positive win ratio AND the matchmaker is doing it's solid best to keep you at a 50%...wouldn't logic dictate that it's going to shove you on the team it's predicting to lose more often than the winning one to try to get you at the same win/loss its been programmed to put everyone at?

Ok, flame away. I'm ready for it.

No Flamer... we are discussing things like civil adults.
...
...
...
Right?
Sure I have. I have seem the What the Hel was that matches. I've also been in the "I AM A GOD AMONGST ANTS!" matches. I've had them in about even doses... Don't feel that way sometimes, but my scores seem to prove balance more than disprove... I also notice(read: feel) I lose a higher percentage of matches as Joe than as Anton... Why do I feel that? I have almost 800 more wins than Losses as Joe, thanks to being on a Premade team. So when I drop PUG or with the Law It seems that my opponents are normally better than I think I am. Are they? I don't know, but my W/L percentage has dropped from around 64% down to 58% and my K/D has also lost 0.05 points. Taking that into account, it does feel as though the match maker is out to get me. I take it in stride though. If the MM is, then it is only cause it has a job to do and that is place me where I supposedly belong.

My Alt W/L is still around 58%, but it is getting pretty hard to maintain it. I can't just rely on my Jager40, and I have been through 4-5 different Stalker builds Never a PPC on it though(... Well maybe two at most).

The difference between myself and some of the more vocal detractors. I am Ok if the game wants tries to balance at 50/50. Like everything else in life, I take it as a challenge, and keep trying to stay ahead of the curve.

Willard Phule, on 19 February 2014 - 08:26 AM, said:

Not to mention that Fencing, like Chess, is again a 1 on 1 sport.

Everyone keeps making references to these 1 person sports that have defined rules of what you can and can't do and then compare them to MW:O. It doesn't equate.

Even better are the sports analogies. Keep in mind that we have a LOT of children playing MW:O ( anyone remember Sarah?). Using sports analogies are the same as saying that a PeeWee Baseball player can be compared to one in the Pros. (which, oddly enough, according to PGI's Elo system....is about right).

All good. Keep feeding the troll. I'm sure somewhere, sometime, it'll get addressed...and, as always, it'll be broken in different ways after they fix it.

They CAN be compared Will, but they will not be seen as equals.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 19 February 2014 - 09:38 AM.

[RichAC]

Willard Phule, on 19 February 2014 - 08:26 AM, said:

Not to mention that Fencing, like Chess, is again a 1 on 1 sport.

Everyone keeps making references to these 1 person sports that have defined rules of what you can and can't do and then compare them to MW:O. It doesn't equate.

Even better are the sports analogies. Keep in mind that we have a LOT of children playing MW:O ( anyone remember Sarah?). Using sports analogies are the same as saying that a PeeWee Baseball player can be compared to one in the Pros. (which, oddly enough, according to PGI's Elo system....is about right).

All good. Keep feeding the troll. I'm sure somewhere, sometime, it'll get addressed...and, as always, it'll be broken in different ways after they fix it.

I agree Willard it doesn't equate.

Also, keep in mind, Joseph doesn't believe a skill gap in video games can be just as wide as in athletic sports....even though, of course it can. Which I'm sure is obvious to the Devs as well when they look at player metrics. Which is the point of me comparing video games to sports. There is no difference as you explain.

Man, just look at the "what is your K/D ratio thread", and some of these guys have posted like 90% win ratios which blows my mind, obviously their K/D is also out of this world. But, thats just proof that sometimes it only takes one or two top level players to make all the difference in a match. A premade even more so...as can be seen on the scoreboard often.

The problem is, those guys need to play against somebody, which is why PGI had to widen the skill gap even more recently. I just hope the same thing doesn't happen in MWO, which has happened in other games, which is that less and less people suck it up playing with them, till it gets worse and worse, and the top players are the only ones left, because PGI tried to do the moral thing and include them in matches.

I don't know what the solution to that is, and it might just be a sign of the times....and the type of people that are left in pc gaming communities in general nowadays are not competitive enough....so there is not enough players for the MM to work better.. Maybe make 4v4 matches? I just don't know, but this is the reason some feel the way they do, and nothing will fix this except more players or a more competitive community.

Edited by RichAC, 19 February 2014 - 09:17 AM.