88 replies to this topic

[Kasumi Sumika]

No,

It will just make become more elitist people will say "Your stats is sux compare to mine so all of your argument and opinion is invalid"

[Davegt27]

Quote

Before PSR rank was visible on the forums, things were much worse.

People in tier 5 would claim to be in tier 1, they would make up whatever fairytales and stories they wanted.

Tier rank being visible, while not perfect, improved that aspect of things.

It definitely shut up a lot of people and cut down on the amount of bs posted on the forums.

I agree that total number of games played wouldn't be perfect.

But could it improve things to help separate those who actively play the game from those who haven't played recently enough to know what they're talking about? Yes, it probably could.

That makes it worth pursuing.

I don't seem to remember this

I have this many
Wins / Losses 7,886 / 8,218

[RestosIII]

Davegt27, on 21 December 2016 - 09:41 PM, said:

I have this many
Wins / Losses 7,886 / 8,218

[197mmCannon]

I don't look very often but I'm probably terrible on the leaderboards. I still feel like I have something to say for game balance.

[NighthawK1337]

Personally I wouldn't mind number of matches being shown but I think W/L ratio would be a better indicator. Like the other said you can have a thousand matches but still be a potato.

[Lukoi Banacek]

197mmCannon, on 21 December 2016 - 10:29 PM, said:

I don't look very often but I'm probably terrible on the leaderboards. I still feel like I have something to say for game balance.

And rightly so, but in the end credibility springs from some tried and true sources: experience, performance etc.

Arguing that it doesn't (not you, but as others have implied) is pretty delusional.

Someone who has played in the NFL has more credibility than someone who has not, when discussing pro-football. Doesn't mean both don't have valid opinions. But credence will be lent to the one with more experience/demonstrated performance etc. Nothing unfair or unreasonable about that approach.

Edited by Lukoi Banacek, 21 December 2016 - 11:49 PM.

[Clownwarlord]

I played 9003 matches.

Cool i broke 9k recently wonder how long till 10k maybe i buy myself something. Like a tshirt.

[Lukoi Banacek]

15,647.

Time for bed.

[Curccu]

Number of games or active years doesn't mean anything, tier means something little but not much as it is just a XP bar.

I know players who have played this game since closed or early open beta and they are still... well potatoes.

[Wil McCullough]

I Zeratul I, on 21 December 2016 - 08:48 PM, said:

Before PSR rank was visible on the forums, things were much worse.

People in tier 5 would claim to be in tier 1, they would make up whatever fairytales and stories they wanted.

Tier rank being visible, while not perfect, improved that aspect of things.

It definitely shut up a lot of people and cut down on the amount of bs posted on the forums.

I agree that total number of games played wouldn't be perfect.

But could it improve things to help separate those who actively play the game from those who haven't played recently enough to know what they're talking about? Yes, it probably could.

That makes it worth pursuing.

Davegt27, on 21 December 2016 - 09:41 PM, said:

I don't seem to remember this

i remember it all right.

if some random guy with low post count brings up balance issues and spouts off about "lurms op" or something else ridiculous, i make an effort to search for the pilot's name in the leaderboards.

it's quite funny how they all go from "i average 700 damage a match. trust me when i say XXX" to instantly shutting their traps when you post their stats up.

you'll be surprised how much puffery people try to get away with when they don't think you'll be able to catch them.

[TLBFestus]

I Zeratul I, on 21 December 2016 - 08:48 PM, said:

Before PSR rank was visible on the forums, things were much worse.

People in tier 5 would claim to be in tier 1, they would make up whatever fairytales and stories they wanted.

Tier rank being visible, while not perfect, improved that aspect of things.

It definitely shut up a lot of people and cut down on the amount of bs posted on the forums.

I agree that total number of games played wouldn't be perfect.

But could it improve things to help separate those who actively play the game from those who haven't played recently enough to know what they're talking about? Yes, it probably could.

That makes it worth pursuing.

To this day I still think that showing PSR is a stupid idea, hence it's why mine has never been shown.

Show me a post that proves PSR is a valid measure of a players skill or knowledge and maybe then I'd say it carries some weight. Reaching tier 1 eventually is almost inevitable, although I have been in my tier for quite awhile now simply because the number of games I play dropped dramatically these days.

There's a difference between talent and knowledge of a game, just look at the numerous examples in sports where a mediocre player turns out to be a superior coach in a game, and vice versa.

If you are placing your faith in PSR as a measure of a players knowledge you are mistaken.

[Davegt27]

I remember people giving that guy with the death star a hard time
don't see people being called out for being scrubs

I think everyone should have a voice even newbs

I was so mad I took my first screen shot and came over to the forums to complain



how could a targeting error kill me I said

someone posted that's the pilots name

"oh" I said

[GrimRiver]

I play mostly on the weekends, so it's (4731) for me.

But for events I make an exception.

[JediPanther]

Lazy Asz idea. Just go to stats page and use basic match to add all the numbers. Can't add? Use a calculator. Is 10,733 matches* good enough to show I have experience playing the game for you? It's pretty dam hard to name a mech I haven't used excluding the heroes and champion mechs I haven't wasted money on because it would be too redundant with the mech variants I already own. Also trial mechs are free so I should re add those random eight mechs with matches played but I don't really care to look up those stats. Four trials from is and four from clans so the number is more around 10,733-11,000.

Try playing a game for four plus years. As for the * all I did was go to my stats page for mech stats and matches played and then I did a lot of adding, you know something most people learn to do by 5th grade.

[blood4blood]

3,507 games in Current on this account. 4,101 Archived on this account. 13 this season.
692 games in Current on alt account #1. 1047 in Archived. 0 this season.
329 games in Current on alt account #2. 0 in Archived (it actually says -1/-1 for W/L). 0 this season.

= 9676 MWO matches for me total.

I see no reason not to share that info, nor do I see it as saying much of anything except I played more during beta (Archived stats) and play very little right now. I'd much rather see damage given: damage received stats added to the existing stats, like the old Zone stats page had. I found that to be much more useful in judging my own performance during any given game.

[1453 R]

I Zeratul I, on 21 December 2016 - 08:48 PM, said:

Before PSR rank was visible on the forums, things were much worse.

People in tier 5 would claim to be in tier 1, they would make up whatever fairytales and stories they wanted.

Tier rank being visible, while not perfect, improved that aspect of things.

It definitely shut up a lot of people and cut down on the amount of bs posted on the forums.

I agree that total number of games played wouldn't be perfect.

But could it improve things to help separate those who actively play the game from those who haven't played recently enough to know what they're talking about? Yes, it probably could.

That makes it worth pursuing.

How about we just nominate twelve people from the top performing teams in the World Tournament, and set things up so that only those twelve people are able to post on the forums. Everyone else gets to STFU because we're all blind braindead nublings compared to the cream of the ultracomp crop.

.
..
...
...seriously, just stop it. Tier shaming is bad enough. Now you want it to be "you need to be T1 and also have played at least 500 matches with a better than 2/1 WLR and a better than 5/1 KDR in the last 30 days before your opinion is valid!"? No thanks. Tristan has the right of it - in-game skill and an insightful, analytical mind are neither mutually contradictory nor mutually dependent. Some people who only rarely play because they're tired of the game's schitt and can't muster the will to play more than a few matches at a time will still keep up on the forums and contribute to discussions in an attempt to try and steer the game in a direction which would let them get excited about MWO again and play it more.

Stop trying to shut players up with elitism, bias, and tier shaming instead of logic. This is a discussion board - if you're being out-discussed, you may want to investigate why instead of simply bellowing "STFU SCRUB! I > U!"

[Andi Nagasia]

MadIrish, on 21 December 2016 - 04:14 PM, said:

It would be nice if the a members profile avatar showed how many matches they've played since tracking started. Because frankly when I look at the people arguing against things it seems like each person against good ideas show far fewer matches played then those saying yes these are good suggestions. I mean often these nay sayers have less then 200 matches in the past to Seasons when the average is over 1000 and the most prolific players have over 2000 matches.

This would help lend credibility to any comments a player might make. I could care less about how many posts they've made I want to know how much stick time they have with the game.

using any form of (Stats) to try to disprove someones arguments is a bad idea,
much like using a persons Tier or the amount of posts they have to disprove them,
-
if you cant disprove them with facts on your side, then there is a chance they have a valid concern,
even if we dont like that it could be a valid concern, that doesnt mean its not a Valid concern,
Counter facts & merits, with other facts and merits, not the other persons stats,

[Kylere]

What people actually say has greater value than the number of times they have jerked it.

[razenWing]

Lukoi Banacek, on 21 December 2016 - 11:42 PM, said:

And rightly so, but in the end credibility springs from some tried and true sources: experience, performance etc.

Arguing that it doesn't (not you, but as others have implied) is pretty delusional.

Someone who has played in the NFL has more credibility than someone who has not, when discussing pro-football. Doesn't mean both don't have valid opinions. But credence will be lent to the one with more experience/demonstrated performance etc. Nothing unfair or unreasonable about that approach.

No. Best coaches are often not ex-players. Best analysts are often not ex-players. Ex-players have added values in that they can provide their point of view, but they are far from being the "correct" opinion.

In similar context, proton is far better player than mdm or bandit. But if I am going to ask for advice, I go to mdm or bandit instead of proton. Play good =/= good game knowledge. Without a doubt, there are good players WITH good knowledge. Peyton Manning was both a great player AND the most cerebral player on the field. From all accounts, Tom Brady is dumb as a brick without Belichick, but hey... heck of a player.

In any case, let's just for one second forget about this ego thread where everyone is trying to prove their credentials. And focus on why there are values ultimately in learning from perspective of "newbs." For one, these "newbs" are the ones holding the game together. At the end of the day, fresh blood is what keeps a game going for years. Not 500 regulars that might have 10 million games under their belt. At some point, you want to make the experience attractive for more noobs to join. Great balance team knows the boundary to set expectations to both. Bad balance team listens only to "pros" and kill their game.

Case in point? Starcraft II. At release 6 years ago, there were hypes everywhere about how this game is the chosen one for strategy games for years to come. They had pros carrying over from SC1 and a throng of newbs to support the game. Pros were like big shot celebrity figures with everyone on their nuts. So Blizzard balance team listen to them exclusively. Features were introduced that were cumbersome for beginners, but were there to showcase skills of the pros.

6 years later, not only are major Starcraft II leagues folding one by one, the newbs are gone, and the pros are not playing anymore. You know what the most popular game feature now? Co-op PVE. Too much topside balance, nobody cares for pro-esque features. The game got killed by their best players.

That's why you always balance so that the MOST people will benefit. And those people are often players with lowest experience. Balance must not just be ways to appease old players, but features to attract new ones. THAT's sustainability, and that's what will keep games alive.

On a side note, if you are damn good, you can adapt. That's why you are a pro. If a pro is going to whine and quit over some newb friendly balance, BUT the newb friendly balance brings 10 more newbs? I say that's damn worth it.

[Vxheous]

1453 R, on 22 December 2016 - 11:03 AM, said:

How about we just nominate twelve people from the top performing teams in the World Tournament, and set things up so that only those twelve people are able to post on the forums. Everyone else gets to STFU because we're all blind braindead nublings compared to the cream of the ultracomp crop.

.
..
...
...seriously, just stop it. Tier shaming is bad enough. Now you want it to be "you need to be T1 and also have played at least 500 matches with a better than 2/1 WLR and a better than 5/1 KDR in the last 30 days before your opinion is valid!"? No thanks. Tristan has the right of it - in-game skill and an insightful, analytical mind are neither mutually contradictory nor mutually dependent. Some people who only rarely play because they're tired of the game's schitt and can't muster the will to play more than a few matches at a time will still keep up on the forums and contribute to discussions in an attempt to try and steer the game in a direction which would let them get excited about MWO again and play it more.

Stop trying to shut players up with elitism, bias, and tier shaming instead of logic. This is a discussion board - if you're being out-discussed, you may want to investigate why instead of simply bellowing "STFU SCRUB! I > U!"

If you think about it, a 2.0 WLR means you are winning 66.666666% of of your games....it's not really that big of a deal, and yet many people have trouble getting even to that.

Andi Nagasia, on 22 December 2016 - 11:03 AM, said:

using any form of (Stats) to try to disprove someones arguments is a bad idea,
much like using a persons Tier or the amount of posts they have to disprove them,
-
if you cant disprove them with facts on your side, then there is a chance they have a valid concern,
even if we dont like that it could be a valid concern, that doesnt mean its not a Valid concern,
Counter facts & merits, with other facts and merits, not the other persons stats,

Often times on the forums, straight facts get ignored while anecdotal evidence gets thrown around like facts. In this case, a players Tier does come into question, much like how someone in T5 might think LRMs are OP (and in T5, they very well might be) while T1 players would often scoff and present why LRMs are a sub-par weapon type in this game.