284 replies to this topic

[NoiseCrypt]

Wil McCullough, on 24 November 2016 - 03:08 AM, said:

if you check his stats per weight class, he performs pretty much consistently across all weight classes.last i checked, kdk3 was an assault.

Pretty much consistently across all weight classes ? so the 150 avg match score from the light board is what ?
Which funnily enough is the only class not having one or more crutch mechs... for all we know his heavy stats are from Night Gyrs, assault stats are from Kodiaks and the medium stats are from Huncback IICs. Good job doing 200>damage on avarage in the top tier meta mechs... if that is the case...

All mech stats or puppycock...

[Snazzy Dragon]

NoiseCrypt, on 24 November 2016 - 05:05 AM, said:

Pretty much consistently across all weight classes ? so the 150 avg match score from the light board is what ?
Which funnily enough is the only class not having one or more crutch mechs... for all we know his heavy stats are from Night Gyrs, assault stats are from Kodiaks and the medium stats are from Huncback IICs. Good job doing 200>damage on avarage in the top tier meta mechs... if that is the case...

All mech stats or puppycock...

I don't own night gyrs. I hate hbk IICs, not my style. I have under 40 games in my kdk 3 compared to many more for everything else.

I don't play bottom tier mechs aside from adder orion and highlander IIC and sometimes the dragon. Most of my mechs are mid or high tier.

Edited by Snazzy Dragon, 24 November 2016 - 05:13 AM.

[Appogee]

Leaderboard stats generally tell the story for those who are actually trying to achieve good stats.

If I wanted to get good stats on the Leaderboard I'd only ever play three fully mastered Mechs - KDK-3, HBK-IIC and JR7-IIC - and I'd only ever drop in Group Queue, where I can count on competent team mates to not act like potatoes.

But that's not where I mostly drop. I'm mostly in the PUG queue, trying to level 5hit Mechs despite being dropped with unending lances of potatoes who can't manage even 200 damage in a match. Noone can get good Leaderboard stats when two-thirds of their team does so little damage and dies in 5 minutes.

Today's W/L ratio has been 0.27 over the course of 11 matches. I am top scoring in most matches, but stats-wise it would look "average" because there's generally not enough time for me to do any better before my team derps into oblivion.

I'm not claiming to be a Proton. I definitely can't carry two lances of potatoes. My point is: unlevelled Mechs + unbalanced matchmaking + PUG queue = bad stats, which are not necessarily indicative of a pilot's skills.

Edited by Appogee, 24 November 2016 - 05:28 AM.

[NoiseCrypt]

Snazzy Dragon, on 24 November 2016 - 05:11 AM, said:

I don't own night gyrs. I hate hbk IICs, not my style. I have under 40 games in my kdk 3 compared to many more for everything else.

I don't play bottom tier mechs aside from adder orion and highlander IIC and sometimes the dragon. Most of my mechs are mid or high tier.

all excuses and no stats.... i call poppycock...

Edited by NoiseCrypt, 24 November 2016 - 06:39 AM.

[Wil McCullough]

NoiseCrypt, on 24 November 2016 - 05:05 AM, said:

Pretty much consistently across all weight classes ? so the 150 avg match score from the light board is what ?
Which funnily enough is the only class not having one or more crutch mechs... for all we know his heavy stats are from Night Gyrs, assault stats are from Kodiaks and the medium stats are from Huncback IICs. Good job doing 200>damage on avarage in the top tier meta mechs... if that is the case...

All mech stats or puppycock...

you salty cos he has a slightly better kdr than you or something? if you look at his stats, you can obviously see he pulls his own weight in his matches. he's definitely no proton level carry, but he does alright.

you also don't need a top tier mech to average more than 200 damage a round.

you've got to rein in the ad hominem/strawman arguments bruh.

[Snazzy Dragon]

Wil McCullough, on 24 November 2016 - 05:55 AM, said:

you salty cos he has a slightly better kdr than you or something? if you look at his stats, you can obviously see he pulls his own weight in his matches. he's definitely no proton level carry, but he does alright.

you also don't need a top tier mech to average more than 200 damage a round.

you've got to rein in the ad hominem/strawman arguments bruh.

I wish kills most damage dealt per match was a tracked stat because that's a big part of the story, too. Sometimes you do only 250-300 but that's because you backstabbed potatoes all game

Edited by Snazzy Dragon, 24 November 2016 - 06:51 AM.

[Bombast]

How many times are you going to change the title of this thread and the contents of your posts so it doesn't make you look like a hypocrite?

[Snazzy Dragon]

Bombast, on 24 November 2016 - 06:07 AM, said:

How many times are you going to change the title of this thread and the contents of your posts so it doesn't make you look like a hypocrite?

the point is to clarify and acknowledge valid points people have made

Edited by Snazzy Dragon, 24 November 2016 - 06:10 AM.

[NoiseCrypt]

Wil McCullough, on 24 November 2016 - 05:55 AM, said:

you salty cos he has a slightly better kdr than you or something? if you look at his stats, you can obviously see he pulls his own weight in his matches. he's definitely no proton level carry, but he does alright.

At what point am i being salty? I'm simply calling him out for for posting BS requirements to other people. which he apparently cant adhere to himself.

Wil McCullough, on 24 November 2016 - 05:55 AM, said:

you also don't need a top tier mech to average more than 200 damage a round.

I never said that one did. I'm just saying that avg match score could be inflated because of him using an über tier performer mech. Nothing more nothing less.

Wil McCullough, on 24 November 2016 - 05:55 AM, said:

you've got to rein in the ad hominem/strawman arguments bruh.

Did you find those terms via google or just copy paste them from another users reply ?
Could you please clarify what "hominems" i have comitted and what my "strawman" is ? (and please done say facts=strawman...)

Snazzy Dragon, on 24 November 2016 - 06:04 AM, said:

I wish kills most damage dealt per match was a tracked stat because that's a big part of the story, too. Sometimes you do only 25-300 but that's because you backstabbed potatoes all game

yes yes more excuses... right now you are actually arguing the case of the people you where bashing in the OP.
Poppycock

Edited by NoiseCrypt, 24 November 2016 - 06:40 AM.

[Mech Croissant]

Chados, on 24 November 2016 - 04:49 AM, said:

and the Executioner has so much locked gear that it can't pack anything like decent firepower. You ought to be able to carry two uAC10, credible secondaries, and four tons of ammo on a 95 ton mech! I can get more dakka on a 60-ton Rifleman. Not to mention that it's YUGE and if you try to make it a giant Awesome with more than two PPCs the heat alarm will be ringing the entire match when you're not shut down.

I love my Executioners, especially the one with 3 Lpl's and 9 serl. Lpl's for long and mid range and the small er-lasers for short range. It rocks a**!

[Zergling]

Appogee, on 24 November 2016 - 05:22 AM, said:

Leaderboard stats generally tell the story for those who are actually trying to achieve good stats.

If I wanted to get good stats on the Leaderboard I'd only ever play three fully mastered Mechs - KDK-3, HBK-IIC and JR7-IIC - and I'd only ever drop in Group Queue, where I can count on competent team mates to not act like potatoes.

But that's not where I mostly drop. I'm mostly in the PUG queue, trying to level 5hit Mechs despite being dropped with unending lances of potatoes who can't manage even 200 damage in a match. Noone can get good Leaderboard stats when two-thirds of their team does so little damage and dies in 5 minutes.

Today's W/L ratio has been 0.27 over the course of 11 matches. I am top scoring in most matches, but stats-wise it would look "average" because there's generally not enough time for me to do any better before my team derps into oblivion.

I'm not claiming to be a Proton. I definitely can't carry two lances of potatoes. My point is: unlevelled Mechs + unbalanced matchmaking + PUG queue = bad stats, which are not necessarily indicative of a pilot's skills.

Sorry, but you're wrong about that.

This month the only mechs I've been playing are those I've been leveling; my Steam Heavy pack mechs (Tbolt 9SE and Timby C) and Clan Hero mechs (the Kit Fox, Adder, Nova, Stormcrow, Timby and Warhawk).

I exclusively play the solo pug queue and I'm not using meta builds, yet I still have decent stats.

My overall leaderboard stats for this month: 1.3 W/L, 1.69 K/D, 285 average MS
Lights = 1.52 W/L, 1.44 K/D, 280 average MS
Mediums = 1.17 W/L, 1.60 K/D, 275 average MS
Heavies = 1.10 W/L, 1.76 K/D, 279 average MS
Assaults = 1.88 W/L, 2.73 K/D, 338 average MS


Basically, a decent player will produce decent stats even when leveling bad mechs in the solo queue.
When they are playing good mechs, they will just score even better.

Edited by Zergling, 24 November 2016 - 04:08 PM.

[Appogee]

Zergling, on 24 November 2016 - 04:07 PM, said:

Basically, a decent player will produce decent stats even when leveling bad mechs in the solo queue.
When they are playing good mechs, they will just score even better.

Look at your win:loss rates... as much as 1.88 for Assaults.

Do you really think your stats would be as good if you were losing more matches than you won? Or do you instead believe that you're so good a player that you're single-handedly carry games and make your win:loss positive?

When RNGesus frowns, and you get dropped with team after losing team where two entire lances of your team cannot do 200 damage - often much less - then you cannot consistently get good match scores. Unless perhaps you're in a KDK-3, and not levelling a c54p Mech like the PNT-10P.

Edited by Appogee, 24 November 2016 - 04:16 PM.

[Deathlike]

Appogee, on 24 November 2016 - 04:16 PM, said:

Look at your win:loss rates... as much as 1.88 for Assaults.

Do you really think your stats would be as good if you were losing more matches than you won? Or do you instead believe that you're so good a player that you're single-handedly carry games and make your win:loss positive?

When RNGesus frowns, and you get dropped with team after losing team where two entire lances of your team cannot do 200 damage - often much less - then you cannot consistently get good match scores. Unless perhaps you're in a KDK-3, and not levelling a c54p Mech like the PNT-10P.

That is why group queue play is more deterministic.

If you have a good group of players that work together... well, magic happens. If you have too many casual players... well, you'll get whatever you get. If you put a bunch of unicorns together... someone's gonna get gored.... accidentally even.

[Zergling]

Appogee, on 24 November 2016 - 04:16 PM, said:

Look at your win:loss rates... as much as 1.88 for Assaults.

Do you really think your stats would be as good if you were losing more matches than you won? Or do you instead believe that you're so good a player that you're single-handedly carry games and make your win:loss positive?

When RNGesus frowns, and you get dropped with team after losing team where two entire lances of your team cannot do 200 damage - often much less - then you cannot consistently get good match scores. Unless perhaps you're in a KDK-3, and not levelling a c54p Mech like the PNT-10P.

That is 23 battles in my Warhawk Nanuq; the W/L is higher than my norm for Warhawks, but not absurdly so.

Here are all my stats in Warhawks:




There is some error in my stats with the Warhawk Prime; the 8 wins plus 6 losses equals 14 battles, versus the 17 it says. This error is probably due to me playing a few battles in the Trial version long ago, and for whatever reason those battles didn't record correctly (I think they were in Faction Play).

Anyway, that is 8 + 7 + 15 wins for 30 total wins, and 8 + 6+ 4 losses for 18 total losses, for a 1.67 W/L overall in my Warhawks, combined with a 2.18 K/D and 497 damage/battle.


And here's my Summoner stats:


Combined, that is 58 battles, 36 wins, 22 losses (1.64 W/L, 62.07% W/R), 64 kills, 27 deaths (2.37 K/D), 523 damage/battle.

Admittedly, those Summoners were being run with the dual ER PPC build with loyalty torso hardpoints, which makes that mech rather overpowered.


But I will freely admit I can't maintain such high W/L in all my mechs; I am barely managing more than 1.0 in my Timbies afterall.
But in most other mechs, I can maintain good W/L with good other stats.

I can even maintain good kill and damage stats when my teams are losing; on the first day of playing my loyalty Summoners (and when I was still experimenting with other builds than the dual ER PPC meta build) I only won 6 battles to 13 losses, but still maintained 425 damage/battle.

Another day I was playing my Stormcrow Lacerator; I only won 1 battle to 6 losses, but maintained 390 damage/battle.


In other words, a decent player will be able to still maintain decent performance even when the matchmaker is shafting them with bad teams.
Their performance will drop, but not by a huge amount, and over a large number of battles that negate the randomness of the matchmaker, they will produce a positive W/L in line with their K/D and Damage/Battle stats, unless they are doing something wrong, like being a damage farmer or not adequately supporting their teams.

Hell, I'm up to 52 battles with a 1.0 W/L in my Timby C and Warrant now, and with that number of battles I really can't blame the matchmaker for my failure to produce a better W/L; there must be something I'm doing wrong when I play those mechs.


So to answer your questions:

Yes, I expect to still produce decent stats even when the matchmaker is giving me bad teams.
If I'm doing badly when the matchmaker is giving me bad teams, or if I'm unable to produce a good W/L when I'm playing at a decent level over a large number of battles, then it is likely my own fault.

And yes: If I'm producing good damage and K/D along with correctly supporting my teams, then I expect to produce high W/L.

And yes, I can do that even with 'crap' mechs.

Edited by Zergling, 24 November 2016 - 07:54 PM.

[Wil McCullough]

NoiseCrypt, on 24 November 2016 - 06:38 AM, said:

At what point am i being salty? I'm simply calling him out for for posting BS requirements to other people. which he apparently cant adhere to himself.

this is exactly what an ad hominem is. you're attacking the person, not his argument.

Quote

I never said that one did. I'm just saying that avg match score could be inflated because of him using an über tier performer mech. Nothing more nothing less.

exactly what a strawman is. he averages alright stats. in order to "prove" your ad hominem argument, you're using a strawman to support it, which is that his stats are artificially inflated by using uber tier performers.

if you were actually planning on debating the argument, you would be debating how reasonable it is to expect a player to deal 200 damage a round. not whether the OP's stats measure up to his own expectations of others, or how his stats are inflated.

until you can grasp what i'm talking about, i suggest you get off the soapbox with your "s/s or it didn't happen" and let the grown ups speak.

[Duke Nedo]

Zergling, on 24 November 2016 - 07:51 PM, said:

Yes, I expect to still produce decent stats even when the matchmaker is giving me bad teams.
If I'm doing badly when the matchmaker is giving me bad teams, or if I'm unable to produce a good W/L when I'm playing at a decent level over a large number of battles, then it is likely my own fault.

And yes: If I'm producing good damage and K/D along with correctly supporting my teams, then I expect to produce high W/L.

And yes, I can do that even with 'crap' mechs.

If you're a decent player you can do that while you are lower tier and in the process of climbing because you're not expected to carry the team. When you have maxed out your XP-bar in Tier 1 you will probably see that you are often balanced versus someone on the opposite team that is also capped at max T1 XP. Since there is a PSR cap, that person can be really really good, much better than any of us, and he is not unlikely in a KDK-3 bringing his best game. If you're not as good as that dude and you're on top of that in an unskilled Vindicator you have put your team at a serious disadvantage...

At least that is my experience. In prime time it's OK to bring fun-mechs and fool around, there are enough capped out T1 players to dilute my poor performance and carry me along, but at times when fewer are playing it can be a pain if I need to skill some bad mechs while the other team has one or a few capped players bringing their best game and their best mechs.Then you really have no choice but to get into the boring meta-mechs that you may not feel like playing at all...

[xSleeZyx]

Only games i realy dislike is games such as this, where only 3-4 players carry their own weight.
And i'm pretty bad with heavies, lights is more my thing usualy. But i've been lvling my hellbringers due the loyalty variant. Biggest reason i like lights more is due i play so agressive most of the times. And i find heavies pretty bad at that, one missplaced poke and ur toast. Lights doesnt rly have that issue (in t3 mind you)

[NoiseCrypt]

Wil McCullough, on 25 November 2016 - 12:27 AM, said:

this is exactly what an ad hominem is. you're attacking the person, not his argument.

Asking for facts to prove OPs fallacy of his statement; that "If you didn't pull +200 damage, then you didn't pull your own weight" is not ad-hominem. Neither is "you suck at using clever latin words".

Wil McCullough, on 25 November 2016 - 12:27 AM, said:

exactly what a strawman is. he averages alright stats. in order to "prove" your ad hominem argument, you're using a strawman to support it, which is that his stats are artificially inflated by using uber tier performers.

if you were actually planning on debating the argument, you would be debating how reasonable it is to expect a player to deal 200 damage a round. not whether the OP's stats measure up to his own expectations of others, or how his stats are inflated.

No. The only strawman here is you trying to hide behind argumentative definitions which you clearly don't understand, and apparently hope that no one else understands either...

Wil McCullough, on 25 November 2016 - 12:27 AM, said:

until you can grasp what i'm talking about, i suggest you get off the soapbox with your "s/s or it didn't happen" and let the grown ups speak.

Very mature and grown up. You adult well

[Zergling]

Duke Nedo, on 25 November 2016 - 01:04 AM, said:

If you're a decent player you can do that while you are lower tier and in the process of climbing because you're not expected to carry the team. When you have maxed out your XP-bar in Tier 1 you will probably see that you are often balanced versus someone on the opposite team that is also capped at max T1 XP. Since there is a PSR cap, that person can be really really good, much better than any of us, and he is not unlikely in a KDK-3 bringing his best game. If you're not as good as that dude and you're on top of that in an unskilled Vindicator you have put your team at a serious disadvantage...

At least that is my experience. In prime time it's OK to bring fun-mechs and fool around, there are enough capped out T1 players to dilute my poor performance and carry me along, but at times when fewer are playing it can be a pain if I need to skill some bad mechs while the other team has one or a few capped players bringing their best game and their best mechs.Then you really have no choice but to get into the boring meta-mechs that you may not feel like playing at all...

As far as I can tell, there isn't any attempt to balance teams by PSR; I suspect PSR is just a way to bracket players, not balance teams.

[Wil McCullough]

NoiseCrypt, on 25 November 2016 - 02:27 AM, said:

Asking for facts to prove OPs fallacy of his statement; that "If you didn't pull +200 damage, then you didn't pull your own weight" is not ad-hominem. Neither is "you suck at using clever latin words".

no, you numpty.

whether the OP is able or unable to carry his own weight by his own standards has no bearing on whether the benchmark he came up with is fair or not.

there's no fallacy here other than an ad hominem one. please find out what ad hominem means. if the word is too advanced for you, ask your parents to explain it.

Quote

No. The only strawman here is you trying to hide behind argumentative definitions which you clearly don't understand, and apparently hope that no one else understands either...

all that posturing and still no attempt to participate in the actual point brought up by the OP.

Quote

Very mature and grown up. You adult well

thank you.

now if you have nothing to add other than your "s/s or it didn't happen" rhetoric, once again i'll ask you to keep quiet unless you'd like me to keep demolishing your ridiculous arguments.