I Zeratul I, on 18 August 2015 - 12:19 PM, said:
#1 Forum discussions are not currently ruled by logic, facts or insight. When people spam this section with multiple threads claiming arctic cheetahs are overpowered, unstoppable, killing machines that need nerfing. And they refuse to provide screenshots, video clips or other evidence to support these claims. That isn't logical, factual nor insightfu. Those types of emotional appeals based posts are the typical standard here. Posters here typically say a million things in this section without ever making any attempt to substantiate or provide evidence for anything they say. They randomly say locusts, pretty baby, awesomes, trebuchets, spiders, mist lynx's are DOA. They randomly say timberwolves, arctic cheetahs and other mechs are OP. These typical DOA/OP discussions are never logical, factual or insightful because no one ever has the ELO data to substantiate whether any of the things they're saying is true.
I would say if you support logic and facts you should support publicly available tier listings. The data that would provide would make DOA/OP and other discussions more factual and provide more metrics and stats for those discussions. The fact that you support the opposite of what would make discussions here more rational could be considered evidence that you are against intelligent and reasonable discussions being had on this forum, and you oppose people having the information they need to be accurate on topics like DOA/OP/pinpoint/ghost heat and other common themes.
I believe what Obadaiah's saying, and other proponents of private ELO/PSR, is that once you make that number public,
nobody except T1s is allowed to have an opinion anymore. It doesn't matter if a well-reasoned, thoughtful idea/notion/opinion/negation, backed up with data, math, and in-game evidence is posted...if the poster of that evidence is a T3. A T3 player cannot possibly have anything useful to say, no matter how useful what he said actually was. If he had anything useful to say, he'd be T1.
T4 and below can basically just forget the forum exists, because anything they say will be immediately discarded via "what the f*** do you know, you T4 scrub. GTFO,
real MWO players are talking."
I'll say it now - I'm almost certainly T3, possibly T4. Mostly because my old-man hands can't keep up with the Monster-fueled lightning reflexes and cybernetic precision of modern teenage PC gamers. It sure as shootin' doesn't mean I don't have a brain in my head to think with. If you think that T3 rating means I no longer deserve the ability to give voice to my thoughts on the forums, as most players in favor of a public ELO/PSR system do...well, screw you too.
I Zeratul I, on 18 August 2015 - 12:19 PM, said:
#2 There are plenty of casual clans in this game who are centered more around being social than competitive. That aspect of circumstances isn't likely to change overnight on public ELO metrics as not everyone is interested in or cares about being a competitive gamer. Competitive gamers represent only a tiny fraction of this game's demographics. Most people play the game just to play the game and have fun with their friends. That's not going to change because of some silly numbers -- despite what you might think.
No, casual units aren't going to care about PSR ratings. It'll liely become a selling point - 'All PSR welcome!'
The problem I have is that the majority of casual units I've seen are Beer Cheese Friday casual units - not so much casual as in "let's play together, do what we can to win with our odd fits, and try and build a group of buddies", but "Let's get
completely blasted, play MWO in a bunch of hot pink Locusts with flamers and AC2s, and howl with laughter when we get a three-high Locust stack on top of a Dire Wolf."
Anyone looking for the former description, rather than a BCF unit, generally has to try and find a competitive unit with a 'training' arm - and those are going to care very much about PSR ratings. Steady and demonstrable improvement in PSR, if not an initially high PSR rating.
Besides - why should we give players a tool of discrimination at all, even if we don't expect all players to use it that way?
I Zeratul I, on 18 August 2015 - 12:19 PM, said:
#3 Shaming of new players could skyrocket, or it could make it easier for experienced players to identify and help new players. There's no real reason to assume the negative outcome is more probable than the positive one. Assuming a negative outcome is a form of cherry picking where you select the outcome you personally like the most, without bothering to substantiate your claims with evidence. So you see by saying that new player shaming will skyrocket your arguing on the same level as those who claim "arctic cheetaths are op". You're making emotional and subjective judgements that are wholly arbitrary and non-falsifiable in the form of an appeal to consequentialism. Appeals to consequentialism are not logical, nor are they a form of reason.
...okay. Sophistry aside, have you
seen these forums? The
overwhelming negativity, bitterness, and salt-mining that goes on here is plenty of evidence that giving players a Piranha-approved stick with which to beat their fellows is going to result in trouble. People
already try to ad-hominem other players by attacking their probable skill levels in the game; those arguments are currently easily dismissed because no public skill indicator exists. Give a public indication of skill, or of relative newness to the game, and you'll see a tremendous upsurge in bitter nastiness because these forums are thronged with
bitter nasty people.
You can throw Logic 101 at it as much as you like, but you're forgetting that empirical observation is as much a part of making arguments as is raw logical structure. And it is empirically provable that the majority of people in this forum should not be trusted with the public, provable knowledge that some players are not as good as other players.
11
