88 replies to this topic

[El Bandito]

Vxheous Kerensky, on 22 December 2016 - 11:27 AM, said:

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.

It is a pretty big deal. Players above 56% WLR over thousands of matches are considered good players. And in LoL any champion with 56% or above win rate will get a hard look at, for nerfs.

Edited by El Bandito, 22 December 2016 - 07:05 PM.

[1453 R]

Vxheous Kerensky, on 22 December 2016 - 11:27 AM, said:

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.

The Win/Loss ratio of the entire playerbase, as a whole, is either exactly 50% or below 50%. For every twelve players that win a game, twelve other players have to lose a game, and for every twelve players that lose a game there are not necessarily twelve winners.

The game doesn't manufacture bots to absorb losses to players can achieve the 'no big deal' state of winning twice as often as they lose. For every player that wins twice as often as he loses, somebody else loses twice as often as he wins.

Yes, getting a 2/1 WLR is a big deal for some folks. People who never drop without a closely-coordinated 12-man SupahStack Pug Grindah 9000 in group queue may not think so, but Puglandia Rangers who almost never drop anywhere but the wild mosh pits into which few T1s dare to peer would argue that anything above 1/1 WLR is doing pretty good.

So no. To Gehenna with "Give me more arbitrary reasons to ignore anything somebody I don't like says."

[Mystere]

Several years ago, a grad student gave to a group of experts working on a recent volcanic eruption an analysis with a recommendation to evacuate some villages due to the risk of massive mud flow directly hitting them. The experts read and verified the analysis and immediately followed it's recommendation by evacuating the identified villages at greatest risk. Sometime after and because of a storm, massive mud flows did hit those same villages. Thousands of lives were fortunately saved.

A few months later, the same grad student gave a different group of "experts" an analysis of land erosion, deforestation and potential for massive flooding, and ended with a recommendation that a specific town and surrounding areas needed to be prepared (or abandoned) due to the risk of catastrophe. Said group of "experts" quickly determined the grad student did not have their wonderfully-sounding highfalutin degrees and ignored the analysis without even reading it. Not long after, a huge storm generated flash floods that swept through that same risk area. Almost five thousand lives were lost in that town alone.

Said grad student, disgusted/horrified/disillusioned, moved to another country, changed fields and went on to be highly successful in two very different fields.

Be glad MWO is just a video game.

Edited by Mystere, 22 December 2016 - 11:49 AM.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Prosperity Park, on 21 December 2016 - 04:17 PM, said:

Number of matches since when?

The most recent leaderboard stat collection phase?
One of the previous FW map resets?
Since the game exited Beta?
Do my matches played in Closed or Open Beta count?

Exactly. I have about 3300 currently, another 2200 in my archived stats and god knows how many games in Closed Beta. All I know is that the game has changed dramatically over that period.

Also what does number of matches have anything to do with anything. Does the OP think it gives someone credibility or something because I have seen brand new players with fresh eyes on things come up with some very insightful things while seeing veteran's get so entrenched in their views that no matter how logical the argument or how many facts are presented to them, they know they are right even when they are wrong. Match count is kind of meaningless in that regard.

[Roughneck45]

I'd settle for a toggle button to make your own stat page public.

Everybody wins that way.

[Vxheous]

1453 R, on 22 December 2016 - 11:39 AM, said:

The Win/Loss ratio of the entire playerbase, as a whole, is either exactly 50% or below 50%. For every twelve players that win a game, twelve other players have to lose a game, and for every twelve players that lose a game there are not necessarily twelve winners.

The game doesn't manufacture bots to absorb losses to players can achieve the 'no big deal' state of winning twice as often as they lose. For every player that wins twice as often as he loses, somebody else loses twice as often as he wins.

Yes, getting a 2/1 WLR is a big deal for some folks. People who never drop without a closely-coordinated 12-man SupahStack Pug Grindah 9000 in group queue may not think so, but Puglandia Rangers who almost never drop anywhere but the wild mosh pits into which few T1s dare to peer would argue that anything above 1/1 WLR is doing pretty good.

So no. To Gehenna with "Give me more arbitrary reasons to ignore anything somebody I don't like says."

While there's no bots to absorb losses, there are lots of throwaway and super casual accounts that effectively function like bots. Also, most people understand that W/L is often tied to how potato the rest of your team is (especially in solo queue) while KDR also have a degree of luck in landing killing blows. That is why average match score tends to make a better comparison for how well you are doing individually.

Edited by Vxheous Kerensky, 22 December 2016 - 11:57 AM.

[Wiley Coyote]

Mystere, on 22 December 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:

Several years ago, a grad student gave to a group of experts working on a recent volcanic eruption an analysis with a recommendation to evacuate some villages due to the risk of massive mud flow directly hitting them. The experts read and verified the analysis and immediately followed it's recommendation by evacuating the identified villages at greatest risk. Sometime after and because of a storm, massive mud flows did hit those same villages. Thousands of lives were fortunately saved.

A few months later, the same grad student gave a different group of "experts" an analysis of land erosion, deforestation and potential for massive flooding, and ended with a recommendation that a specific town and surrounding areas needed to be prepared (or abandoned) due to the risk of catastrophe. Said group of "experts" quickly determined the grad student did not have their wonderfully-sounding highfalutin degrees and ignored the analysis without even reading it. Not long after, a huge storm generated flash floods that swept through that same risk area. Almost five thousand lives were lost in that town alone.

Said grad student, disgusted/horrified/disillusioned, moved to another country, changed fields and went on to be highly successful in two very different fields.

Be glad MWO is just a video game.

[1453 R]

Vxheous Kerensky, on 22 December 2016 - 11:53 AM, said:

While there's no bots to absorb losses, there are lots of throwaway and super casual accounts that effectively function like bots.

...your answer is literally "farm bads moar".

Yep. This discussion is going to end well.

Initiate Escape Routine Alpha:

[razenWing]

Wiley Coyote, on 22 December 2016 - 11:54 AM, said:

Yea, I am dying to know too. Though I am fairly sure it's fake...

There is not going to be any thousand death mudslide without making the news.

[Mystere]

Wiley Coyote, on 22 December 2016 - 11:54 AM, said:

Real or fake?

razenWing, on 22 December 2016 - 12:00 PM, said:

Yea, I am dying to know too. Though I am fairly sure it's fake...

It's the internet. So take it as you wish. But then again ...

razenWing, on 22 December 2016 - 12:00 PM, said:

There is not going to be any thousand death mudslide without making the news.

Sadly, it looks like your Google fu is not good enough.

Edited by Mystere, 22 December 2016 - 12:10 PM.

[Acehilator]

This game needs detailed public stat pages and an API you can connect community-made software to. WoT is amazing in that regard. But PGI will never learn to take pages (a lot of them) from Wargaming's playbook. Their loss... and thus, our loss

And in regard to that guy with "2:1 KDR is not a big deal". Geez. /facedesk #learnhowmultiplayergameswork

[Vxheous]

Acehilator, on 22 December 2016 - 12:47 PM, said:

And in regard to that guy with "2:1 KDR is not a big deal". Geez. /facedesk #learnhowmultiplayergameswork

I know how multiplayer games work, yet I know far more people that have >2.0W/L than I do 1.0W/L. MWO isn't a closed system, yes, for every 1 person that gets a win, 1 person gets a loss, but again, there are alt accounts/troll accounts that absorb losses, as well as people that might play 10 games and quit with a 0.1 W/L.

[1453 R]

Vxheous Kerensky, on 22 December 2016 - 12:55 PM, said:

I know how multiplayer games work, yet I know far more people that have >2.0W/L than I do 1.0W/L. MWO isn't a closed system, yes, for every 1 person that gets a win, 1 person gets a loss, but again, there are alt accounts/troll accounts that absorb losses, as well as people that might play 10 games and quit with a 0.1 W/L.

THEN THOSE GUYS HAVE A 0.1 WLR.

Yes, MWO is a closed system! For every twelve players that win, twelve players have to lose! Telling people to Farm Bads Harder doesn't change the fundamental math, Vix. The overall WLR of the entirety of the MWO playerbase is 50% or lower. It physically, mathematically cannot be higher than 50%, because for that to happen then occasionally some of the players on a losing 12-man side would have to win even though their team lost.

How often do you win when your team loses?
I get that you drop in group queue and group queue guys see nothing wrong with pounding duo drops all day erry day and scoring WLR and KDR ratios that are almost entirely unsustainable in the Mosh Pit, but that doesn't mean a damn thing to anyone.

Stop being dense. Do the math. The math is easy, and bads DO, in fact, still count.

Edited by 1453 R, 22 December 2016 - 01:08 PM.

[RestosIII]

Acehilator, on 22 December 2016 - 12:47 PM, said:

This game needs detailed public stat pages and an API you can connect community-made software to. WoT is amazing in that regard. But PGI will never learn to take pages (a lot of them) from Wargaming's playbook. Their loss... and thus, our loss

And in regard to that guy with "2:1 KDR is not a big deal". Geez. /facedesk #learnhowmultiplayergameswork

Yes, WoT has an "amazing" system. One that makes any discussion of balance into an e-peen contest. I mean, just look how much the toxicity over there swelled when XVM came out.

[Lyoto Machida]

Vxheous Kerensky, on 22 December 2016 - 11:27 AM, said:

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.



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.

Vxheous Kerensky, on 22 December 2016 - 12:55 PM, said:

I know how multiplayer games work, yet I know far more people that have >2.0W/L than I do 1.0W/L. MWO isn't a closed system, yes, for every 1 person that gets a win, 1 person gets a loss, but again, there are alt accounts/troll accounts that absorb losses, as well as people that might play 10 games and quit with a 0.1 W/L.

So these guys are getting a 2.0 W/L ratio by solo dropping in QP only??? I highly doubt that...

Unless PGI does the sensible thing and split stats between QP/Group/CW, the stats are somewhat meaningless.

[FallingAce]

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,

Most times this is true, however, i did have an exchange on these forums with a person on faction warfare. When i looked up his stats, it turns out he never did a single F.W. drop.(which he admitted) Frankly, it just blew my mind.

[L3mming2]

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,

Well.. if i see anny one claim lights are totaly OP, and that person has no maches played in lights, it is tottaly fair to say that he douse not know what he is talking about... or if his score in lights is verry bad...

[Acehilator]

Vxheous Kerensky, on 22 December 2016 - 12:55 PM, said:

I know how multiplayer games work, yet I know far more people that have >2.0W/L than I do 1.0W/L.

What has that to do with anything? All my friends except one work in IT, so 90% of all workers in the world are IT guys?

Why do I have to rely on Nathan Fillion to sum it up every third post I make?



Just to put it into perspective: 57.08% winrate nets me a place around 28000 on the WoT leaderboard (EU). This in a game with active accounts in the seven digits, and several hundred, if not thousands troll accounts above me (players bashing noobs during their first games on a dedicated account). So a "real" 66,6% is probably somewhere around Top 2000-4000. That's how "common" that is.

/edit: forgot the pic again, omg

Edited by Acehilator, 22 December 2016 - 01:33 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Deathlike, on 21 December 2016 - 04:16 PM, said:

You could just look @ that leaderboard to get an idea.

However, there are some people that amass a lot of matches, but don't really win. It happens a lot around here, and they argue balance w/o using actual reasoning.

There are also those of us with well over 20k matches... but who have been burned out or disenchanted the last 3-6 months... and so have far fewer in recent matches.

(and some lore obsessed grognards also run more than 1 acct, such as one a dedicated Steiner IS acct, one a CGBI Clan Acct..... which can further confuse things)

Further, I suppose it should break down by game mode.... after all... a person with 10k QP matches, but 0 FW matches, may be less qualified to debate the merits of FW.

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.

And of course... then their is the inherent conceit in the OP.... just what are "good" Ideas, that are being so vehemently fought against? Also, what appears to be a "good " idea to say, a Comp Tryhard with casual interest in the IP, versus a Lore Grognard with causal interest in comp play.... can be diametrically different.

Add into it agendas, and bias? For instance, when it came to nerfing Poptarting, quite a few noted "uber comp" players proposed really bad ideas to curb it, and others fought against really good ideas, because it took away their favorite ezmode tactic. Putting a lie to the myth that number of drops, or good twitch reflexes magically imbue inherent mastery of game balance.

And yes, just as many bad ideas were put forth by non competitive players, if not more.

Suffice it to say, what I am intimating is that it will take more than slapping a measuring tape on our swinging cods to add and credibility to one's argument. Personally I prefer meritocracy...aka, weight, or "credibility" is added by well reasoned arguments, facts and details. Any other factor is simply fallacious reasoning.

[Acehilator]

RestosIII, on 22 December 2016 - 01:14 PM, said:

Yes, WoT has an "amazing" system. One that makes any discussion of balance into an e-peen contest. I mean, just look how much the toxicity over there swelled when XVM came out.

Well, pretty much rightfully so. If you can't carry and get good stats in the process with the game mechanics of WoT (mainly armor mechanics, and the spotting system), your voice does not get to be heard in balance matters. Plain and simple. And XVM only made it easier the see the stats in game, they were public all along.