366 replies to this topic

[Mole]

You know I think my stats are probably pretty shameable. I mean I'm not a terribad, but I don't think I'm particularly excellent either. I'm ranked 6,602 on the Jarl's List. This means that there are 6,601 people who are better than me. That also means that there are 46,630 active players this season who are worse than me. This means I am in the top 19% of players this season. Not bad, but not super good either, right? Most of my other seasons have similar scores. That all being said, I have only had my stats brought up and dumped in my face once, and that was when I got in an argument with McGral who has consistently come in in the top 1% of players over the seasons that he has been active. All in all, I don't think anyone is going to throw your stats at you unless you appear as though you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Vxheous]

Mole, on 15 February 2018 - 07:08 AM, said:

You know I think my stats are probably pretty shameable. I mean I'm not a terribad, but I don't think I'm particularly excellent either. I'm ranked 6,602 on the Jarl's List. This means that there are 6,601 people who are better than me. That also means that there are 46,630 active players this season who are worse than me. This means I am in the top 19% of players this season. Not bad, but not super good either, right? Most of my other seasons have similar scores. That all being said, I have only had my stats brought up and dumped in my face once, and that was when I got in an argument with McGral who has consistently come in in the top 1% of players over the seasons that he has been active. All in all, I don't think anyone is going to throw your stats at you unless you appear as though you have no idea what you are talking about.

If what you're saying actually makes sense, and actually fits within the mechanics of the game, no one would actually care what your stats were. It's when those that don't have a good understanding of the game says something ridiculous, then doubles down on it when facts are presented on why that something is ridiculous, that their stats then get brought up, or questioned.

[Xiphias]

Khobai, on 15 February 2018 - 03:14 AM, said:

a real matchmaker doesnt exist in solo q either.

and yes stats are meaningless without a functional matchmaker

without a functional matchmaker theres no way to guarantee every match you played was fair and against opponents of equal skill level.

Straight up incorrect

If anything stats are actually more useful when there is no matchmaker as long as the sample size is large enough because good players will win more (and have higher stats) and bad players will lose more (and have lower stats).

A match maker actually artificially affects stats by trying to make matches even. Take the 1v1 case. If you have two good players and two bad player. In any given match a good player will always beat a bad player and has a 50% chance to beat a good player. A bad player has a 50% chance to beat a bad player.

Without a match maker a good player has a 66% chance of playing a bad player (100% chance to win) and a 33% change of playing a good player (50% chance to win). That means that on average both good players should win 83% of the time. Conversely the bad players should only win 17% of the time.

Now with a matchmaker good/bad players only play each other. That means both good players will only average a 50% win rate which is identical to the 50% win rate the bad players will average.

Lack of a matchmaker makes stats more representative than when there is a matchmaker. This is why it only really makes sense to compare stats inside of the same tier. Averaging 400 MS in T5 is much easier than doing it in T1. If a player is consistently scoring well they will get to T1 and once they get there their performance in that tier can fairly accurately be compared to other T1 players.

Quote

im sorry if the truth offends you.

[Mystere]

Vxheous, on 14 February 2018 - 10:31 PM, said:

14 pages....

Meh! Some people would rather do it in style:

[Mystere]

Vxheous, on 15 February 2018 - 01:32 AM, said:

I addressed that part. You can typically tell if someone is getting carried in group queue because their W/L and K/D might be good, but their average match score will be mediocre to average (below or hovering at 300). Likewise, you might find a player that has ok'ish W/L and K/D (like 1.5-2.0 range for both) but has a really high matchscore (like 400+), due to playing only solo queue.

It is definitely harder to compare stats once they pass a certain point (like >3.0 W/L >3.0 K/D, >375 matchscore), but it is a no-brainer to compare those same stats to someone that's below 1.0 W/L, below 1.0 K/D and below 250 matchscore.

Based solely on stats, how do you detect a highly competent commander who deliberately stays away from danger?

A "support" player?

The "tip of the spear" (i.e. vanguard)?

Edited by Mystere, 15 February 2018 - 08:24 AM.

[Verilligo]

Mystere, on 15 February 2018 - 08:23 AM, said:

Based solely on stats, how do you detect a highly competent commander who deliberately stays away from danger?

A "support" player?

The "tip of the spear" (i.e. vanguard)?

Well I suppose you would use W/L, but "highly competent commander" and "does good damage" are not mutually exclusive traits. Beyond that, you don't necessarily need to use stats, the best drop callers eventually gain a reputation based on their successes. And besides, a lot of the best commanders don't shy away from danger, rather they're in the midst of it because that's the best place to be to accurately gauge a situation. That's why assaults make for crap command mechs compared to mediums and heavies, they don't have the velocity to keep to the front.

"Support" is a loaded term, there is no support archetype outside of applying pressure at range and helping exert map control. Why are we even trying to divide players out into types of play styles in the first place, though?

[MischiefSC]

Dago Red, on 15 February 2018 - 12:42 AM, said:

You're ignoring the option to legitimately not care about win/loss and instead derive your sense of satisfaction from tracking personal progress and be happy with performing better than you have previously. 23 other people have too much say in w/l to get that hung up on it.

Mind you I get that by self selecting to only play with better players you can have both bit frankly try hards tend to be ultra unpleasant to be in comms with and work against any attempt to play this GAME for relaxation. Personally I'd rather play with a perma tier 5 who is a quality conversationalist but you know differing priorities.

Likewise putting effort into refining the playstyle you enjoy is going to be more fun for most people than completely abandoning it to play in a way that nets better results but is inherently less enjoyable to them.

As for lurking you might want to account for the people who are just tired of standing in between people who are living jet engines of suck and others that can't get an erection if the don't see a W in the end screen yelling at each other. Saying they don't chime in because they know we're right is just self felation.

Might get better results if a lot the top wolf pack around here didn't seem to take almost sadist glee in invoking the "he's not wrong he's just an *******" response.

That and assuming anyone who doesn't have the same priorities as you is just lying to themselves is just wow.

So you play the game with absolutely no investment in winning or losing. You don't communicate with your team in any meaningful way and make 0 effort in any form or fashion either in how you design mechs or how you play to win.

I don't believe that for a minute. Which is good; because someone who plays a team based game and doesn't put any effort at all into winning the match would be the most selfish a-hole I can imagine.

By the way, all 23 other people in the match have the exact same impact on winning or losing that you do. It's why the better someone is at the game the better their average w/l is - because they are correspondingly better at doing the things that win matches.

Also as someone who plays regularly with 'try hards' I can count on one hand out of the 50 or so tryhards I've regularly played with the ones who are rude on comms. Almost all of them are nice, helpful and positive. Only times you can expect them to get short with people is when someone is being a selfish dork - or I guess you would call it 'doing their own thing'.

You're on a team of 12, every match, every game. There are 11 other people who impacted by your choices. It's selfish and rude to intentionally derp out. Go play a single player game if you want to do that or expect the people you're negatively impacting to say something; they should say something, it's an obnoxious and selfish thing to play a multiplayer team game and intentionally do stuff that hurts your team.

I do not however believe that people don't actually care if they win or lose. To literally not care at all would take someone pretty far down the sociopath/narcissist scale. It's just a matter of how they deal with trying to get better and if that's something they're willing to do.

[Mole]

MischiefSC, on 15 February 2018 - 09:29 AM, said:

So you play the game with absolutely no investment in winning or losing. You don't communicate with your team in any meaningful way and make 0 effort in any form or fashion either in how you design mechs or how you play to win.

I don't believe that for a minute. Which is good; because someone who plays a team based game and doesn't put any effort at all into winning the match would be the most selfish a-hole I can imagine.

By the way, all 23 other people in the match have the exact same impact on winning or losing that you do. It's why the better someone is at the game the better their average w/l is - because they are correspondingly better at doing the things that win matches.

Also as someone who plays regularly with 'try hards' I can count on one hand out of the 50 or so tryhards I've regularly played with the ones who are rude on comms. Almost all of them are nice, helpful and positive. Only times you can expect them to get short with people is when someone is being a selfish dork - or I guess you would call it 'doing their own thing'.

You're on a team of 12, every match, every game. There are 11 other people who impacted by your choices. It's selfish and rude to intentionally derp out. Go play a single player game if you want to do that or expect the people you're negatively impacting to say something; they should say something, it's an obnoxious and selfish thing to play a multiplayer team game and intentionally do stuff that hurts your team.

I do not however believe that people don't actually care if they win or lose. To literally not care at all would take someone pretty far down the sociopath/narcissist scale. It's just a matter of how they deal with trying to get better and if that's something they're willing to do.

I operate the same way that Dago has just described and your response tells me you just entirely missed his point. Of course you put effort into winning and helping your team. Of course you'd rather win than lose. Of course you take actions that will hopefully steer you and your team toward the preferred outcome.

But you're not always going to win. In fact, you're going to lose a lot. That's just the nature of this game. If you cannot find some way to make peace with the fact that you have lost you are going to become very salty very fast and generally just not have a good time.

Dago and I find our peace by taking joy in our personal performances where, even if we lose, we can at least go "Well, at least I got 700 damage and 5 kills. I did good." Just because I can find satisfaction in defeat and that I am not pre-occupied by padding my WLR stat does not mean that I cannot be a team player.

Edited by Mole, 15 February 2018 - 09:37 AM.

[MischiefSC]

Mystere, on 15 February 2018 - 08:23 AM, said:

Based solely on stats, how do you detect a highly competent commander who deliberately stays away from danger?

A "support" player?

The "tip of the spear" (i.e. vanguard)?

You've hit on the crux of why w/l is the only really useful stat for determining how good someone is at winning.

Winning or losing is a binary. There's no scale in it. The behaviors that drive winning however are a pretty wide scale. That's where statistical averages come in. Helping identify how and why someone wins a lot (or rarely) can also be drilled into by looking at other stats, which is where things like match score, KMDDs, survival rate, etc. are useful. The HOW and the WHY.

Someone with a high w/l but low KDR/match score is probably calling drops consistently (and in an effective way) *or* plays a great squirrel light or otherwise consistently performs behaviors that drive wins for their team without directly leading the damage/kills.

Someone with a high match score, mediocre KDR and average/low W/L is probably running LRMs; they pad damage a lot but are not actually useful for winning matches.

Someone with medium to high match score, high KDR and average to low W/L probably plays sniper roles, using their teams as meat shields to pad their damage stats and gank kills.

You can sort through all that data and create profiles and help people look at ways they can do better - better always being defined as 'increase the odds of your team winning'.

W/L however captures all the stuff you do that wins matches.

[YueFei]

Der Geisterbaer, on 15 February 2018 - 01:43 AM, said:

For whom exactly is that a "problem" and why? The intellectual dishonesty already started at the point where someone's opinion / input is (allegedly) refuted on grounds of this person "being a potato" stat wise. I certainly won't blame anyone for trying to defend against such attacks that have no place in an actual discussion - at least as long as the discussion doesn't revolve around the stats themselves - despite such attempts of defence not accomplishing anything within the mindset of the person who made the attack. The derailed discussion then merely stays derailed ~shrug~

Player-A says: ABC is a great mech/build/tactic to use.
Player-B says: No, it isn't, because of PQR.
Player-A says: Yeah, actually it's amazing, due to DEF.
Player-B says: Uh, your stats indicate you lose more often than you win, so no, it's really not that amazing.
Player-A says: Actually, my stats don't reflect how good I really am, because XYZ.


ORLY?

Things are different if Player-A just says, "This is a fun mech/build/tactic". And if another player points out that it's really not that effective, Player-A just responds with "yes, I know.", and moves on. The problem comes when Player-A chooses that particular hill to die on.

[MischiefSC]

Mole, on 15 February 2018 - 09:36 AM, said:

I operate the same way that Dago has just described and your response tells me you just entirely missed his point. Of course you put effort into winning and helping your team. Of course you'd rather win than lose. Of course you take actions that will hopefully steer you and your team toward the preferred outcome.

But you're not always going to win. In fact, you're going to lose a lot. That's just the nature of this game. If you cannot find some way to make peace with the fact that you have lost you are going to become very salty very fast and generally just not have a good time.

Dago and I find our peace by taking joy in our personal performances where, even if we lose, we can at least go "Well, at least I got 700 damage and 5 kills. I did good." Just because I can find satisfaction in defeat and that I am not pre-occupied by padding my WLR stat does not mean that I cannot be a team player.

Okay so you just proved my point. Of course you care if you win or lose. Of course you want your team to win. You're competitive in context of your team vs other team, you vs your own team and you vs your prior performance. That's a big piece of human psychology and sociology. If someone doesn't have all 3 of those factors going on you've either got someone with a serious chemical imbalance or some potentially dangerous behavioral abnormalities.

The difference is what you're calling 'make piece with'. That's excuses. You could do better. Absolutely you can do better and improve. The absolute demonstrative reality is that if you put the effort in you can significantly impact your teams odds of winning. That can be pulled from both of your stats; Dago has a marked improvement over time, that's great. You're clearly a much better heavy/assault pilot than a light pilot but you carry well in heavies and assaults. I'm the same way.

Everyone does all three of those things; compare team v team, self v team and self v self. The difference is being willing to own those stats, acknowledge they represent your behavior and the impact you have on the people you play with and put the effort into improving.

Saying 'meh, it doesn't matter' is a lie. Of course it matters. Saying 'Well, whatever. I did good enough, I don't need to do anything to improve' is an excuse.

If you're saying 'Well, I did good damage and got good kills but I didn't do X, which would have been better. I know that the team that beat me, their light did X and that seems to have worked really well. I will try to do X' then you're doing option 1. Good on you!

To fail consistently and not improve takes a great deal of effort and denial. I certainly don't see that in either of your stats. However there's people in these arguments with a sub 0.8 w/l over thousands and thousands of games who show up regularly to arguments on the game and say 'No no, LRMs are awesome and sharing armor is a lie!' Those guys? That's hardcore option 2 folks.

What you're describing is what everyone does. Using it as an excuse not to change or improve, that's bad and a lot of people do it. Saying 'Meh, I just don't care' is not true and is also bad. You're a social animal and inherently competitive. Your sense of obligation to your own self worth and others who are impacted by your behavior is a good thing, a very good thing. It's the process that drives you to better yourself. That doesn't make you a 'tryhard'. It makes you a mature human being.

If you think 'tryhard' is an insult you need to really re-consider that.

[denAirwalkerrr]

YueFei, on 15 February 2018 - 09:42 AM, said:

Player-A says: ABC is a great mech/build/tactic to use.
Player-B says: No, it isn't, because of PQR.
Player-A says: Yeah, actually it's amazing, due to DEF.
Player-B says: Uh, your stats indicate you lose more often than you win, so no, it's really not that amazing.
Player-A says: Actually, my stats don't reflect how good I really am, because XYZ.

Player-A says: Remove the ghost heat link entirely, nerf the cooldown of PPCs and Gauss Rifles to at least 8 seconds to 10 seconds, then see how it plays. If this still brings pinpoint hell (I strongly believe it won't) when we can bring back the ghost heat link.
Player-B says: I'll just leave it here~

And this post was born.

[Mole]

MischiefSC, on 15 February 2018 - 09:52 AM, said:

Okay so you just proved my point. Of course you care if you win or lose. Of course you want your team to win. You're competitive in context of your team vs other team, you vs your own team and you vs your prior performance. That's a big piece of human psychology and sociology. If someone doesn't have all 3 of those factors going on you've either got someone with a serious chemical imbalance or some potentially dangerous behavioral abnormalities.

The difference is what you're calling 'make piece with'. That's excuses. You could do better. Absolutely you can do better and improve. The absolute demonstrative reality is that if you put the effort in you can significantly impact your teams odds of winning. That can be pulled from both of your stats; Dago has a marked improvement over time, that's great. You're clearly a much better heavy/assault pilot than a light pilot but you carry well in heavies and assaults. I'm the same way.

Everyone does all three of those things; compare team v team, self v team and self v self. The difference is being willing to own those stats, acknowledge they represent your behavior and the impact you have on the people you play with and put the effort into improving.

Saying 'meh, it doesn't matter' is a lie. Of course it matters. Saying 'Well, whatever. I did good enough, I don't need to do anything to improve' is an excuse.

If you're saying 'Well, I did good damage and got good kills but I didn't do X, which would have been better. I know that the team that beat me, their light did X and that seems to have worked really well. I will try to do X' then you're doing option 1. Good on you!

To fail consistently and not improve takes a great deal of effort and denial. I certainly don't see that in either of your stats. However there's people in these arguments with a sub 0.8 w/l over thousands and thousands of games who show up regularly to arguments on the game and say 'No no, LRMs are awesome and sharing armor is a lie!' Those guys? That's hardcore option 2 folks.

What you're describing is what everyone does. Using it as an excuse not to change or improve, that's bad and a lot of people do it. Saying 'Meh, I just don't care' is not true and is also bad. You're a social animal and inherently competitive. Your sense of obligation to your own self worth and others who are impacted by your behavior is a good thing, a very good thing. It's the process that drives you to better yourself. That doesn't make you a 'tryhard'. It makes you a mature human being.

If you think 'tryhard' is an insult you need to really re-consider that.

Well at this point it seems we hold roughly the same opinion and are just arguing semantics then.

[Der Geisterbaer]

YueFei, on 15 February 2018 - 09:42 AM, said:

Player-A says: ABC is a great mech/build/tactic to use.

Player-B says: No, it isn't, because of PQR.

Player-A says: Yeah, actually it's amazing, due to DEF.

Player-B says: Uh, your stats indicate you lose more often than you win, so no, it's really not that amazing.

Player-A says: Actually, my stats don't reflect how good I really am, because XYZ.

Just look at this thread and count the number of times where the conversation didn't even remotely go the way you're trying to picture it here ... From the very beginning there's this notion that stats actually grant insight into the (intellectual) understanding a person has of this game.

YueFei, on 15 February 2018 - 09:42 AM, said:

ORLY?

So I'd say bad attempt at creating a narrowed example that also verges on the brink of strawmanning the issue (again) ... So Y'ARLY

YueFei, on 15 February 2018 - 09:42 AM, said:

Things are different if Player-A just says, "This is a fun mech/build/tactic".  And if another player points out that it's really not that effective, Player-A just responds with "yes, I know.", and moves on.  The problem comes when Player-A chooses that particular hill to die on.

As I said before: The problem already arises when stat shaming is used as a (pseudo) argument against something that is an largely unrelated opinion / suggestion which occurs more often than a stat reference is actually made in proper context.

So we're dealing with ad hominem territory and thus a fallacy by virtue most of the time. The rest then is typically a waste of time ... or - in my personal case - basis for good entertainment with regards to the regularly shown hypocrisy and unintended irony with some icing on the cake by references to things like Dunning-Kruger that currently is so "hip".

[Nightbird]

Stats are only brought up because the tier by your name is so meaningless. If I can be tier 1, basically everyone can be.

[Dago Red]

MischiefSC, on 15 February 2018 - 09:52 AM, said:

Okay so you just proved my point. Of course you care if you win or lose. Of course you want your team to win. You're competitive in context of your team vs other team, you vs your own team and you vs your prior performance. That's a big piece of human psychology and sociology. If someone doesn't have all 3 of those factors going on you've either got someone with a serious chemical imbalance or some potentially dangerous behavioral abnormalities.

The difference is what you're calling 'make piece with'. That's excuses. You could do better. Absolutely you can do better and improve. The absolute demonstrative reality is that if you put the effort in you can significantly impact your teams odds of winning. That can be pulled from both of your stats; Dago has a marked improvement over time, that's great. You're clearly a much better heavy/assault pilot than a light pilot but you carry well in heavies and assaults. I'm the same way.

Everyone does all three of those things; compare team v team, self v team and self v self. The difference is being willing to own those stats, acknowledge they represent your behavior and the impact you have on the people you play with and put the effort into improving.

Saying 'meh, it doesn't matter' is a lie. Of course it matters. Saying 'Well, whatever. I did good enough, I don't need to do anything to improve' is an excuse.

If you're saying 'Well, I did good damage and got good kills but I didn't do X, which would have been better. I know that the team that beat me, their light did X and that seems to have worked really well. I will try to do X' then you're doing option 1. Good on you!

To fail consistently and not improve takes a great deal of effort and denial. I certainly don't see that in either of your stats. However there's people in these arguments with a sub 0.8 w/l over thousands and thousands of games who show up regularly to arguments on the game and say 'No no, LRMs are awesome and sharing armor is a lie!' Those guys? That's hardcore option 2 folks.

What you're describing is what everyone does. Using it as an excuse not to change or improve, that's bad and a lot of people do it. Saying 'Meh, I just don't care' is not true and is also bad. You're a social animal and inherently competitive. Your sense of obligation to your own self worth and others who are impacted by your behavior is a good thing, a very good thing. It's the process that drives you to better yourself. That doesn't make you a 'tryhard'. It makes you a mature human being.

If you think 'tryhard' is an insult you need to really re-consider that.

Like I think it would do you a world of good to get your chakra's rotated and realigned man. You're clearly a few thousand miles past due.

The key here is that I literally only care about self vs self because that's the only thing I truly have control of in life. That and I'm not willing to compromise on the play style I enjoy if it's currently off meta.(brawl/sassy skirmishing/flanking/tip of the spear when a push is needed)

I only consider someone a tryhard when the win is literally the only thing that matters to them and they will do anything to get it. Whereas I'll take a win because hey fun but am not terribly concerned if It doesn't happen if the gameplay leading to the loss is fun. So a close fought loss>a super stompy win that honestly kind of makes me feel bad for the guys we ran over.

And you and the people you hang with being inherently competitive doesn't mean literally everyone is and that they're defective if they're not.

Edited by Dago Red, 15 February 2018 - 10:29 AM.

[FireStoat]

Addressing the OP's topic solely from the first post (I don't really care for the drivel that followed), I appreciate the fact that PGI does publish our game account stats and makes them public. I'm a mediocre player in Tier 1 that doesn't deserve to be there due to the tier system being an experience bar. I DO make regular efforts to improve my game. In making these efforts, I review the insights of very good players as well as players who spend an enormous amount of time on a specific chassis. RobotC0rpse from his twitch stream with all the time he's spent on a Cyclops comes to mind.

The stats are a tool to promote a reference to honest discussion and insight. It's the same useful tool that Riot Games offers with League of Legends and players of that game that are also seeking to improve. Thus, I do not agree with the OP's view.

[Verilligo]

Der Geisterbaer, on 15 February 2018 - 10:16 AM, said:

From the very beginning there's this notion that stats actually grant insight into the (intellectual) understanding a person has of this game.

As I said before: The problem already arises when stat shaming is used as a (pseudo) argument against something that is an largely unrelated opinion / suggestion which occurs more often than a stat reference is actually made in proper context.

So I take it you completely missed or otherwise ignored all arguments that have been made in this thread about why stats actually do grant insight as to a person's understanding of the game? Because you don't appear to have addressed those arguments directly. If a person's stats indicate they are unable to win a match, survive to the end of a match, deal reasonable damage, or kill enemy players, are you suggesting then that you cannot draw any conclusions about their ability as a player? Or, instead, are you arguing that their personal ability as a player has no impact on the validity of their suggestions with regards to game balance?

[Gas Guzzler]

Nightbird, on 15 February 2018 - 10:22 AM, said:

If I can be tier 1, basically everyone can be.

Lol.

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 15 February 2018 - 11:08 AM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Verilligo, on 15 February 2018 - 10:33 AM, said:

So I take it you completely missed or otherwise ignored all arguments that have been made in this thread about why stats actually do grant insight as to a person's understanding of the game?

No ... I have neither "completely missed" them nor have I "otherwise ignored" such "arguments". The actual issue is that for large parts those "arguments" weren't actually arguments and those that were didn't convince for various reasons.

Verilligo, on 15 February 2018 - 10:33 AM, said:

Because you don't appear to have addressed those arguments directly.

Why would I want to do that exactly? I'm not on a moral high ground or any other obligation of doing something like that. I already admitted to being here mostly because of personal entertainment ... so I can be as "bad" as others or even "worse".
And looking at how this thread has run, what difference would it actually make if I were to point out that - despite what a larger number of people seems to think - this still is just a shooter like game where eye / hand coordination and spatial awareness along with several other aspects make up the picture of how my personal stats at this game come into existance way before my intellectual understanding of

• math and statistics
  
• what the (current) meta is
  
• why that particular meta exists
  
• how anti-meta can look like
  
• how certain changes to particular numbers might or might not change that meta or the overal balance of this game

gains any real importance and still doesn't alter said stats?!

Verilligo, on 15 February 2018 - 10:33 AM, said:

If a person's stats indicate they are unable to win a match, survive to the end of a match, deal reasonable damage, or kill enemy players, are you suggesting then that you cannot draw any conclusions about their ability as a player?

Humor me, what do my stats tell you about my abilities as a ) a player and b ) of me talking about changes to game mechanics and/or balance?

Verilligo, on 15 February 2018 - 10:33 AM, said:

Or, instead, are you arguing that their personal ability as a player has no impact on the validity of their suggestions with regards to game balance?

You're getting closer but still aren't quite there. Hint: Binary thinking is not your friend there.

Edited by Der Geisterbaer, 15 February 2018 - 10:54 AM.