92 replies to this topic

[Almond Brown]

wanderer, on 12 May 2014 - 08:32 AM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...old-adjustment/

They had to broaden the ELO threshold due to overly long wait times- ie, not enough players.

Gotta love those #'s. You do realize they try and base this stuff on a Global audience right?

Not just what "some players" want their wait times to be only when they play.

[Superslicks]

quote: Yes and no. Elo has been giving people a 50/50 chance of winning. But, it does not exactly mean the matches are fair and balanced.

We need more ways to rate a player on TEAM PREFORMACE for a scoring system to work with the way the game currently is Team Based. A Free-for-all mode would help the game in a lot of ways.<p class="ipsLikeBar right clearfix" id="rep_post_3368374">

• 
  
• Like This
  
• Unlike

Isn’t, being ready for anything part of being a good gamer?
...............................................................................................................
How the hell is losing 7 matches in a row a 50 50 chance
regards
superslicks

[Khobai]

The problem with ELO is it doesnt work in 12v12.

For ELO to work, a player has to be able to significantly impact his or her teams chance of winning.

In 8v8, one person could consistently carry their team and influence their teams ability to win.

In 12v12, one person cant really make a difference, theres just too many enemy mechs on the other team for one person to kill. So ELO breaks down in 12v12 and simply stops working.

[Almond Brown]

RG Notch, on 12 May 2014 - 08:50 AM, said:

Well obviously just look at the player counter.... what they removed the player counter..... I'm sure they removed it because the player numbers were too high.

Oh my, this place is indeed singularly precious. If they turned it back on and it said 9.5 million, everyone would simply call BS anyways. So with no way for PGI to Win. Why would anyone expect them play at all.

Results of a Community at work...

[RG Notch]

Almond Brown, on 12 May 2014 - 10:05 AM, said:

Oh my, this place is indeed singularly precious. If they turned it back on and it said 9.5 million, everyone would simply call BS anyways. So with no way for PGI to Win. Why would anyone expect them play at all.

Results of a Community at work...

This doesn't answer why it was removed, but again logic be damned when white knighting.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

I don't know whether ELO works or not. Or what the population is.

What I do know is I play games where the opposing team has a bunch of new players who know nothing about the game.

And I play games against ultimate FLD, strikes everywhere, face crushing teams.

Which leads me to believe it's a bad system if it is working..

There should be consistency, not a constant bouncing up and down between scrubs and pros.

There are some nights where I log off because I hate the meta game. And there are nights where I'm bored out of my skull killing people who shoot LRMs at under 180m.

And the VERY rare night, where I have a bunch of well fought games...but unfortunately all those night's do is reinforce how crappy the gameplay is most of the time and makes me wish we had a proper system in place.

There is no linear progression to this game at all.

Edited by Nicholas Carlyle, 12 May 2014 - 10:11 AM.

[Sug]

They should drop the number of players back down to 8v8 or even 4v4 on the small maps. Would make it faster and easier to find players with similar Elo's.

12v12 is too much of a *********** for random pugs.

Edited by Sug, 12 May 2014 - 10:13 AM.

[Aaron45]

Sug, on 12 May 2014 - 10:12 AM, said:

They should drop the number of players back down to 8v8 or even 4v4 on the small maps. Would make it faster and easier to find players with similar Elo's.

Again: Elo doesnt looks for individual Elo Points.... Instead it compares the total Team Elo Poitns with the other team.. That what it does

[Agent of Change]

Almond Brown, on 12 May 2014 - 10:05 AM, said:

Oh my, this place is indeed singularly precious. If they turned it back on and it said 9.5 million, everyone would simply call BS anyways. So with no way for PGI to Win. Why would anyone expect them play at all.

Results of a Community at work...

If this is the truth, and I believe it would be. It is only because this is what PGI has made of the most active, dedicated, and vocal players. PGI has no claim or reasonable expectation that we should believe any thing they tell us at face value without repeated and varied reinforcement from a third party.

After the Mixed messages, bad and often non-existent communication, the missed deadlines, and the out right reversals they have made PGI has 0 credibility beyond what they can prove with hard data and then prove to us that that hard data isn't more wishful thinking or yet more smoke being blown up our asses.

A large sect of the most faithful have little faith in the future of the game and less in the developers as they have failed time and time again to come close to what the had said they set out to do. Many of us are still here because that last scrap or hope remains that MWO will succeed in spite of its ongoing issues.

Edited by Agent of Change, 12 May 2014 - 10:15 AM.

[Gallowglas]

RG Notch, on 12 May 2014 - 08:50 AM, said:

Well obviously just look at the player counter.... what they removed the player counter..... I'm sure they removed it because the player numbers were too high.

Ok, I'm not a PGI apologist, but I really wish people would stop posting this. Blizzard removed their server counters well before that game hit its peak. Why? Because it serves no real purpose but feed angst about the game "dying" from people who cherry pick their statistics.

I may not defend a lot of things PGi has done, but removing the player counter was absolutely the right call. I'd rather not see people constantly using false correlations and horribly misused statistics to fuel their angst fests. Let's focus on what's broken rather than meaningless numbers.

And for what tradeoff? What would that magic number possibly add to your game experience? All that would happen if the number were large is people would claim it was artificially inflated.

Edited by Gallowglas, 12 May 2014 - 10:19 AM.

[RG Notch]

Gallowglas, on 12 May 2014 - 10:16 AM, said:

Ok, I'm not a PGI apologist, but I really wish people would stop posting this. Blizzard removed their server counters well before that game hit its peak. Why? Because it serves no real purpose but feed angst about the game "dying" from people who cherry pick their statistics. I may not defend a lot of things PGi has done, but removing the player counter was absolutely the right call. I'd rather not see people constantly using false correlations and horribly misused statistics to fuel their angst fests. And for what tradeoff? What would that magic number possibly add to your game experience? All that would happen if the number were large is people would claim it was artificially inflated.

Once again, so other games that have a player counter are doing it wrong? Or is it that their numbers aren't easily misused or falsely correlated? The trade off is not having people accuse you of hiding bad numbers, unless you are hiding bad numbers. I note no one uses PGI's original excuse, that it was using up band width.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Gallowglas, on 12 May 2014 - 10:16 AM, said:

Stuff

If you were PGI, and the numbers were good, wouldn't you just make a twitter post or something to shut everyone up?

I mean if the game is growing....why not celebrate it?

[Gallowglas]

RG Notch, on 12 May 2014 - 10:21 AM, said:

Once again, so other games that have a player counter are doing it wrong? Or is it that their numbers aren't easily misused or falsely correlated? The trade off is not having people accuse you of hiding bad numbers, unless you are hiding bad numbers. I note no one uses PGI's original excuse, that it was using up band width.

When Blizzard had server numbers in the thousands for each server, every single downtick was interpreted as the end of the world. Other very successful games have made similar decisions for similar reasons. You see the angst about numbers in every game where numbers are presented from amateur statisticians.

Look, I'm not saying the game is robust. I don't know. Anecdotally I haven't seen much difference in diversity, but who can tell with ELO in place? Does it really matter in the end if none of us has control over how many people play?

[Aaron45]

Gallowglas, on 12 May 2014 - 10:16 AM, said:

Ok, I'm not a PGI apologist, but I really wish people would stop posting this. Blizzard removed their server counters well before that game hit its peak. Why? Because it serves no real purpose but feed angst about the game "dying" from people who cherry pick their statistics.

I may not defend a lot of things PGi has done, but removing the player counter was absolutely the right call. I'd rather not see people constantly using false correlations and horribly misused statistics to fuel their angst fests. Let's focus on what's broken rather than meaningless numbers.

And for what tradeoff? What would that magic number possibly add to your game experience? All that would happen if the number were large is people would claim it was artificially inflated.

Ok lets screw the counter.... I ll tell you my experience with my friends list. I have more than 50 ppl on my list.. A year ago i could easly meet 10 + ppl on evenings... Now most ppl lost interrest in this game or are just tired of getting dissapointed again and again and iam happy if i catch a few ppl online when iam on. ... With the current system where bambis get thrown into cold water, i cant imagine many of them continue to play this game while they get frustrated.

Edited by Aaron45, 12 May 2014 - 10:27 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Gallowglas, on 12 May 2014 - 10:24 AM, said:

When Blizzard had server numbers in the thousands for each server, every single downtick was interpreted as the end of the world. Other very successful games have made similar decisions for similar reasons. You see the angst about numbers in every game where numbers are presented from amateur statisticians.

Look, I'm not saying the game is robust. I don't know. Anecdotally I haven't seen much difference in diversity, but who can tell with ELO in place? Does it really matter in the end if none of us has control over how many people play?

End of the world by who exactly? WoW is the most successful MMO ever and single handedly changed the gaming industry.

And the numbers were huge and celebrated constantly up until the game reached it's apex.

Blizzard made SURE we knew the game was healthy.

PGI does not do that, which is why every time they release a new mech package, everyone screams money grab.

[Gallowglas]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 12 May 2014 - 10:24 AM, said:

If you were PGI, and the numbers were good, wouldn't you just make a twitter post or something to shut everyone up?

I mean if the game is growing....why not celebrate it?

They've done this sort of thing before and nobody believed them. I don't personally know one way or the other, so don't interpret this as a defense that all is well. The truth is that none of us know and the fact they removed the counter isn't proof of anything other than they believed it wasn't productive to have it in game. Plenty of other games have made similar decisions. Sure, some games include it. That doesn't mean the ones who don't are in imminent threat of failure. It doesn't mean they aren't either.

Nicholas Carlyle, on 12 May 2014 - 10:26 AM, said:

End of the world by who exactly? WoW is the most successful MMO ever and single handedly changed the gaming industry.

And the numbers were huge and celebrated constantly up until the game reached it's apex.

Blizzard made SURE we knew the game was healthy.

PGI does not do that, which is why every time they release a new mech package, everyone screams money grab.

I'd be happy to link some posts from doomsayers going back for YEARS for WoW.

[Aaron45]

Gallowglas, on 12 May 2014 - 10:27 AM, said:

They've done this sort of thing before and nobody believed them. I don't personally know one way or the other, so don't interpret this as a defense that all is well. The truth is that none of us know and the fact they removed the counter isn't proof of anything other than they believed it wasn't productive to have it in game. Plenty of other games have made similar decisions. Sure, some games include it. That doesn't mean the ones who don't are in imminent threat of failure. It doesn't mean they aren't either.



I'd be happy to link some posts from doomsayers going back for YEARS for WoW.

Do you have the feeeling that the community is gowing? Lets forget the counter for a sec

[Deathlike]

Gallowglas, on 12 May 2014 - 10:27 AM, said:

I'd be happy to link some posts from doomsayers going back for YEARS for WoW.

Well, with WoW, they have at least an order of magnitude of players online at any given time. Hard to say the same for this game.

[RG Notch]

Gallowglas, on 12 May 2014 - 10:24 AM, said:

When Blizzard had server numbers in the thousands for each server, every single downtick was interpreted as the end of the world. Other very successful games have made similar decisions for similar reasons. You see the angst about numbers in every game where numbers are presented from amateur statisticians.

Look, I'm not saying the game is robust. I don't know. Anecdotally I haven't seen much difference in diversity, but who can tell with ELO in place? Does it really matter in the end if none of us has control over how many people play?

Just a note, isn't WoW on the decline? Isn't that the reason they removed the counter, I don't know when they removed them as I never played. If so it just goes to show that games with declining population hide those numbers.
I simply can't find any reason a game with a healthy population would hide those numbers. I can certainly see why a game without a healthy population would.

[Gallowglas]

Aaron45, on 12 May 2014 - 10:25 AM, said:

Ok lets screw the counter.... I ll tell you my experience with my friends list. I have more than 50 ppl on my list.. A year ago i could easly meet 10 + ppl on evenings... Now most ppl lost interrest in this game or are just tired of getting dissapointed again and again and iam happy if i catch a few ppl online when iam on. ... With the current system where bambis get thrown into cold water, i cant imagine many of them continue to play this game while they get frustrated.

Sure, I think there's some strong evidence that we've lost players. That's been my experience too. However, that's been my experience in WoW as well. I'm not directly comparing the two of course. Far from it. However, what we don't know is the number of new players versus players lost.

What this comes down to is I hate people using false correlations and anecdotal and sometimes very flawed "evidence" to support these sorts of discussions. It really doesn't serve any purpose and in many ways detracts from the problems we have legitimate reason to complain about and maybe can make enough noise to fix.

Aaron45, on 12 May 2014 - 10:28 AM, said:

Do you have the feeeling that the community is gowing? Lets forget the counter for a sec

I have no idea. Nobody does. That's really my point. I'm not trying to prop PGI up. I just think the argument about numbers is a flawed one.

RG Notch, on 12 May 2014 - 10:29 AM, said:

Just a note, isn't WoW on the decline? Isn't that the reason they removed the counter, I don't know when they removed them as I never played. If so it just goes to show that games with declining population hide those numbers.
I simply can't find any reason a game with a healthy population would hide those numbers. I can certainly see why a game without a healthy population would.

No, they removed the counter well before the numbers peaked.