366 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

Zergling, on 12 February 2018 - 10:36 PM, said:

And I find fighting challenging opponents to be 'less boring', so I'll have to disagree with your claim that Tier 2 and up is boring.

I guess it's a matter of perspective. You like a challenge. Others would rather have variety in game play. But in the end, it's how people derive fun from the game.

Zergling, on 12 February 2018 - 10:36 PM, said:

Enjoyment of the game lowers at Tier 1 because Tier 1 players are hit with a large matchmaking penalty that lumps them with lots of bad teammates, as they are then expected to carry teams to victory.
Basically, the matchmaker effectively punishes good players and rewards the bad.

But I thought you liked challenges.

[Bombast]

Koniving, on 13 February 2018 - 08:23 AM, said:

From the old PSR system in which I'd be put in the same matches with Sean Lang and The B33f. Trial mech, no skill tree, before quirks.
That's skill. 2 versus one against an identical build and a custom Jenner. The Jenner's entire amount of damage was done by me by chasing it across the map for a while, so that's all my work (you can rewind to check).

I don't want to be rude, but I think you posted the wrong video if you're trying to demonstrate skill.

[Koniving]

Vxheous, on 13 February 2018 - 08:28 AM, said:

I'm still waiting for Koniving to put together that MRBC team to prove Tier 1's are actually potatoes.

Not sure which way that goes, but you made me smile either way so there's a like.

His own statement is that tier 1 players get put together with completely incompetent team mates... yet they fight top players... whom are also tier one, whom are also put together with completely incompetent team mates... therefore these top players are fighting incompetent players...whom are also top players...but incompetent.... it goes round and round like

"This statement is false."
Lets wait for all the brains to fry trying to wrap around the logic behind that.

Bombast, on 13 February 2018 - 08:32 AM, said:

I don't want to be rude, but I think you posted the wrong video if you're trying to demonstrate skill.

Cicada fights two enemies, destroys two enemies despite being in a really bad position, with multiple overheats, in a really ****** TRIAL mech back when trial mechs were built to be bad and non-meta. One that is a medium mech of the lighter persuasion.

As an assault player.


(Also worth noting; far less potatoes forced into matches together meaning more competent players. And during a time when groups of 4 players or 2 and 2, or 3 and a top end player were in Every. Single. Match.
And I'm solo.)

Edited by Koniving, 13 February 2018 - 08:38 AM.

[Mystere]

MischiefSC, on 12 February 2018 - 10:52 PM, said:

However as a given rule the people who say 'I don't care if I win or lose' are almost universally lying. I get why; it takes the sting out of losing and if you have no interest in or intention to work to get better at the game it's really all you've got.

I really, really doubt however that any measurable number of players go into each match going 'I have absolutely no interest in trying to win, I'm just going to wander around, maybe shoot some stuff. However I'm not going to do anything that's likely to result in winning because this game is awesome to just wander around and shoot randomly in'.

Well, when I have just programmed a new HOTAS configuration, firing solution, and/or have built a new iPad-based control panel, winning is the last thing on my mind. I just want to make sure the entire system actually works well "live".

And no, testing them solely on the Training Grounds is not enough. Shooting at stationary targets is not comparable to shooting targets actively shooting you back.

Edited by Mystere, 13 February 2018 - 10:31 AM.

[Bombast]

Koniving, on 13 February 2018 - 08:36 AM, said:

Cicada fights two enemies, destroys two enemies despite being in a really bad position, with multiple overheats, in a really ****** TRIAL mech back when trial mechs were built to be bad and non-meta. One that is a medium mech of the lighter persuasion.

Oh, that's what you see. What I see is a medium mech that was built decently enough constantly out of position, missing or failing to take half of the shots it should, perpetually shutting itself down from poor shot discipline while being harassed by two mechs that were one or two shots away from death.

Quote

(Also worth noting; far less potatoes forced into matches together meaning more competent players. And during a time when groups of 4 players or 2 and 2, or 3 and a top end player were in Every. Single. Match.
And I'm solo.)

Honestly, watching that video was like watching someone throw a bunch of rocks in a dryer and spinning it to see which rocks break first.

Edited by Bombast, 13 February 2018 - 08:44 AM.

[Koniving]

Bombast, on 13 February 2018 - 08:43 AM, said:

Oh, that's what you see. What I see is a medium mech that was built decently enough constantly out of position, missing or failing to take half of the shots it should, perpetually shutting itself down from poor shot discipline while being harassed by two mechs that were one or two shots away from death.



Honestly, watching that video was like watching someone throw a bunch of rocks in a dryer and spinning it to see which rocks break first.

Okay would you rather watch someone just slaughter everything while commanding an entire army of pugs?

Or two Atlases constantly moving and killing ****?

Skill isn't always about doing the best things at the right time, but being able to get out of a bad situation by the skin of their teeth without any support. Much like someone being in a bad position and yet swinging the victory for their team.

How 'bout this one? 3 and very quickly 2 mechs that just arrive at base fend against 7 enemies.
One of them is in an Awesome with 214 armor to start, XL engine, and boating single heatsinks.
It ends 1 vs 1 in a tie and if not for the time out, it would have been 1 versus 0.. when it started 3 versus 7.

Or XL engine HBK 4G, no quirks, 7 kills, 711 damage, LBX, 2 MGs, 3 SPL. Only real mistake here was I bragged in chat about the XL engine after the 7th kill (and 2 seconds later died by left torso).

Though a good old favorite is this 87 ton Atlas. 1 ton of ammo per weapon, AC/2, AC/5, standard heatsinks, LRM-20, SRM-6.
Conversation in the background beyond my voice is in a completely different (and conquest) match within the same TS. Lordred, the filming party, isn't recording his own voice.

Now if you want perfect positioning...got that too.

But that's just boring as **** to watch so there isn't much point in showing everything being perfect. Entertaining skills to watch are pulling things from being neck-deep in **** and coming out smelling like a rose...or at least something that had a light shower.

I mean its like a constant headshot montage, its boring as **** to watch; so deliberately ******* up and pulling things through a meat grinder is much more entertaining both to play and to watch.

[Koniving]

I mean, the difference is like watching someone play to what MWO considers good..
Hide in a corner, pop-and-squat and kill things.
Koniving: "I'm gonna stand at Theta and wait for somebody to walk by me."
"Dude you got like the whole enemy team coming your way."
"I know. (Wink)."
Live, kill everything...blah.

Versus what I consider to be good.
Read some lore. Don't get slaughtered in the mean time. Beat many players to fight regardless. Force the enemy out of position to fight in more favorable grounds instead of the typical nonsense of campshooter online. Swarm the enemy constantly, no hiding, no camping, no positioning nonsense just endless slaughter and relentless DPS. All while in Viridian Bog. 2 MGs, 2 Streaks, 1 LPL, 1 TAG. 2 kills 4 assists 439 damage and second highest match score in a group battle, recorded after PGI stopped allowing 4 mans into regular matches. Multiple organized groups with tags present.

Oh and don't forget, both are Trebuchets, the "worst mechs in the game" for the time.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Cara Carcass, on 12 February 2018 - 03:21 PM, said:

Special snowflake talk.....

I don't want to ban stat-shaming because it hurts my precious feelings. I want to ban it because it's a non-argument. It's a logical fallacy. It hurts discourse. Having good stats doesn't magically give you better insight into how to improve the game, and having bad stats doesn't mean you can't have good ideas.

[Wil McCullough]

Kaeb Odellas, on 13 February 2018 - 09:23 AM, said:

having bad stats doesn't mean you can't have good ideas.

three arguments against this #statgate nonsense:

argument 1 -

a broken clock is right twice a day.

should broken clocks be used to tell time?

good ideas should be backed by good statistics. which is why tarogato's ideas are widely accepted as good. because the guy does his research. bad players often throw around ideas that have no other objective other than to benefit them. which is why you get a lot of "ideas" like:

1) "nerf lasers because i keep dying to them" or
2) "nerf lurms because they're op" or
3) "remove airstrikes because they give free damage with no tonnage but have a cbill cost which makes it p2w. but let me keep my coolshots which also have all of the above because i rely on them"

it's the same everywhere else. goods don't listen to bads. chefs don't take ideas from home cooks who burn an omelette once a week for 20 years. senators don't take political advice from guys sitting at the local barbershop bitching about the government and nascar (haha) drivers don't take driving ideas from soccer moms who fetch their kids to practice in a minivan.
_

argument 2:

"stat shaming" is telling the other person that this is a discussion that he/she should not be involved in because he/she doesn't have the experience, knowledge and skill required to debate at a level that is required.

then again, the same people who can't tell when they're punching above their weight also can't tell how bad they are. dunning kruger and all that.
__

argument 3:

if someone demonstrates that they're right half the time, we award them with 50% of our attention. that's fair. they're a fair player.

if a bad is only right 3% of the time, then it's also only fair that everyone else award them with only 3% of their attention. can a bad be right half the time or more? sure. but if a bad is right 50% of the time, he wouldn't be a bad in the first place.

you can't have a firm grasp of the topic and be a complete amateur. that's like a language professor who can't spell. it's absurd.

[Dago Red]

Wil McCullough, on 13 February 2018 - 10:03 AM, said:

three arguments against this #statgate nonsense:

argument 1 -

a broken clock is right twice a day.

should broken clocks be used to tell time?

good ideas should be backed by good statistics. which is why tarogato's ideas are widely accepted as good. because the guy does his research. bad players often throw around ideas that have no other objective other than to benefit them. which is why you get a lot of "ideas" like:

1) "nerf lasers because i keep dying to them" or
2) "nerf lurms because they're op" or
3) "remove airstrikes because they give free damage with no tonnage but have a cbill cost which makes it p2w. but let me keep my coolshots which also have all of the above because i rely on them"

it's the same everywhere else. goods don't listen to bads. chefs don't take ideas from home cooks who burn an omelette once a week for 20 years. senators don't take political advice from guys sitting at the local barbershop bitching about the government and nascar (haha) drivers don't take driving ideas from soccer moms who fetch their kids to practice in a minivan.
_

argument 2:

"stat shaming" is telling the other person that this is a discussion that he/she should not be involved in because he/she doesn't have the experience, knowledge and skill required to debate at a level that is required.

then again, the same people who can't tell when they're punching above their weight also can't tell how bad they are. dunning kruger and all that.
__

argument 3:

if someone demonstrates that they're right half the time, we award them with 50% of our attention. that's fair. they're a fair player.

if a bad is only right 3% of the time, then it's also only fair that everyone else award them with only 3% of their attention. can a bad be right half the time or more? sure. but if a bad is right 50% of the time, he wouldn't be a bad in the first place.

you can't have a firm grasp of the topic and be a complete amateur. that's like a language professor who can't spell. it's absurd.

I mean a person can have a firm understanding of the concepts while being garbage to mediocre at execution. See most boxing or MMA coaches who were not former competition level performers themselves.

If the idea is bad it should should be slapped down on those merits not over epeen measurements.

Mind you if their defense of a bad idea is that they consistently do well with it then yeah they should be prepared to have their standard for "well" double checked.

But then hey I'm mediocre so maybe that's what's required to have a balanced view here?

[SHIN BRODAMA]

Kaeb Odellas, on 13 February 2018 - 09:23 AM, said:

I don't want to ban stat-shaming because it hurts my precious feelings. I want to ban it because it's a non-argument. It's a logical fallacy. It hurts discourse. Having good stats doesn't magically give you better insight into how to improve the game, and having bad stats doesn't mean you can't have good ideas.

The fact that some people choose to use stats this way doesn't invalidate their existence. For unit leaders/recruiters, it sure is nice to know if the person applying to join is a potato, or plays the game well. A large dataset going back over multiple seasons helps this analysis quite a bit,.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Wil McCullough, on 13 February 2018 - 10:03 AM, said:

three arguments against this #statgate nonsense:

This will certainly be just as entertaining as the rest of this thread ~smiles~

Wil McCullough, on 13 February 2018 - 10:03 AM, said:

argument 1 -

a broken clock is right twice a day.

should broken clocks be used to tell time?

I'm not quite sure which exact fallacy this actually represents because in its rethorical question nature it actually fits the bill of several ... including false dilemma among others

Wil McCullough, on 13 February 2018 - 10:03 AM, said:

good ideas should be backed by good statistics. which is why tarogato's ideas are widely accepted as good.

Porblem is: "Good game stats" are unrelated to "good ideas" and without actual implementation and test you won't ever be able to actually determine whether or not an idea is truly "good" ...at least not in the sense of "good statistics" that you just proclaimed to be ultima ratio.

Wil McCullough, on 13 February 2018 - 10:03 AM, said:

because the guy does his research. bad players often throw around ideas that have no other objective other than to benefit them.

Research can be done without being a "good player". the "bad players often ... " part plays directly into argumentum ad populum territory and represents just another fallacy. One that ...

Wil McCullough, on 13 February 2018 - 10:03 AM, said:

which is why you get a lot of "ideas" like:

1) "nerf lasers because i keep dying to them" or
2) "nerf lurms because they're op" or
3) "remove airstrikes because they give free damage with no tonnage but have a cbill cost which makes it p2w. but let me keep my coolshots which also have all of the above because i rely on them"

... you just turn into a combination of strawman and false dilemma and attribute them to an anonymous "bad player".

Wil McCullough, on 13 February 2018 - 10:03 AM, said:

it's the same everywhere else. goods don't listen to bads. chefs don't take ideas from home cooks who burn an omelette once a week for 20 years. senators don't take political advice from guys sitting at the local barbershop bitching about the government and nascar (haha) drivers don't take driving ideas from soccer moms who fetch their kids to practice in a minivan.

... and here you're just broadening it into even worse comparisons.

Wil McCullough, on 13 February 2018 - 10:03 AM, said:

argument 2:

"stat shaming" is telling the other person that this is a discussion that he/she should not be involved in because he/she doesn't have the experience, knowledge and skill required to debate at a level that is required.

Which represents a form of ad hominem in conjunction with a certain amount of arrogance that ...

Wil McCullough, on 13 February 2018 - 10:03 AM, said:

then again, the same people who can't tell when they're punching above their weight also can't tell how bad they are. dunning kruger and all that.

... interestingly enough is also part that directly falls in the parts of Dunning-Kruger that you're trying to use as argument. But what's even worse: Just as usual people try to use Dunning-Kruger - a cognitive bias in context of intellectual over- and underestimation of individual and peer group ability - in context with something that actually isn't related to intellectual abilities and of course just as always only part of the described effect is used as a (pseudo) argument against others => Fallacy territory once again.

Wil McCullough, on 13 February 2018 - 10:03 AM, said:

argument 3:

if someone demonstrates that they're right half the time, we award them with 50% of our attention. that's fair. they're a fair player.

if a bad is only right 3% of the time, then it's also only fair that everyone else award them with only 3% of their attention. can a bad be right half the time or more? sure. but if a bad is right 50% of the time, he wouldn't be a bad in the first place.

you can't have a firm grasp of the topic and be a complete amateur. that's like a language professor who can't spell. it's absurd.

On this particular one I'll just let you try to find the fitting fallacy yourself ...

TL;DR: Your "arguments" are actually fallacies of various types and a good reflection of what's typically going on in "discussions" like these. It's not so much about an intellectual exchange of ideas and opinions but rather about the literal exchange of opinions where you "allow" others to attend with their opinion but expect them to leave with yours without questioning.

Edited by Der Geisterbaer, 13 February 2018 - 10:45 AM.

[Kroete]

Wil McCullough, on 13 February 2018 - 10:03 AM, said:

three arguments against this #statgate nonsense:

argument 1 -

a broken clock is right twice a day.

should broken clocks be used to tell time?

good ideas should be backed by good statistics. which is why tarogato's ideas are widely accepted as good. because the guy does his research. bad players often throw around ideas that have no other objective other than to benefit them. which is why you get a lot of "ideas" like:

Balance comes from probabilities and tables, statistics (but not yours) helps you in finding balance.
You can even study this ...

Wil McCullough, on 13 February 2018 - 10:03 AM, said:

argument 2:

"stat shaming" is telling the other person that this is a discussion that he/she should not be involved in because he/she doesn't have the experience, knowledge and skill required to debate at a level that is required.

then again, the same people who can't tell when they're punching above their weight also can't tell how bad they are. dunning kruger and all that.

Someone with less manual skill or eyesight cant have the understanding for some tables, statistics and probabilities?
Experience and knowledge is masured by using a mouse and keyboard?

__

Wil McCullough, on 13 February 2018 - 10:03 AM, said:

argument 3:

if someone demonstrates that they're right half the time, we award them with 50% of our attention. that's fair. they're a fair player.

if a bad is only right 3% of the time, then it's also only fair that everyone else award them with only 3% of their attention. can a bad be right half the time or more? sure. but if a bad is right 50% of the time, he wouldn't be a bad in the first place.

you can't have a firm grasp of the topic and be a complete amateur. that's like a language professor who can't spell. it's absurd.

You cant masure if someone is right if you only hear 3% what he tells.
If we go after your guidelines, we wouldnt drive cars, dont use trains and cant fly and we would still use fire to have light and no computers ...

You sound like someone i have read often in the last weeks:
"Iam allways right and everything else is fakenews!"

Edited by Kroete, 13 February 2018 - 10:48 AM.

[Mystere]

Der Geisterbaer, on 13 February 2018 - 10:43 AM, said:

... interestingly enough is also part that directly falls in the parts of Dunning-Kruger that you're trying to use as argument. But what's even worse: Just as usual people try to use Dunning-Kruger - a cognitive bias in context of intellectual over- and underestimation of individual and peer group ability - in context with something that actually isn't related to intellectual abilities and of course just as always only part of the described effect is used as a (pseudo) argument against others => Fallacy territory once again.

Now that is what I call golden!

[Kaeb Odellas]

SHIN BRODAMA, on 13 February 2018 - 10:24 AM, said:

The fact that some people choose to use stats this way doesn't invalidate their existence. For unit leaders/recruiters, it sure is nice to know if the person applying to join is a potato, or plays the game well. A large dataset going back over multiple seasons helps this analysis quite a bit,.

I'm not arguing in favor of removing stat tracking. I'm arguing in favor of banning "I'm right because my stats are better" type arguments.

[Dee Eight]

When an 'average' player who used to brag about playing the most games per season... is still after months/years of play... capping in a heavy mech and chasing after enemy cappers.. instead of engaging the enemy heavies/assaults (and letting the lights/mediums do the capping).... well... maybe we shouldn't be able to see his leaderboard stats and koniving is correct that its past time for PGI to eliminate that section of the forum. Worse... he used the fact another player was doing the same in a slower heavy mech to excuse his own doing it.

[Scout Derek]

Lighthouse,

Why are you covering up the fact that you tried suggesting longer cool downs for gauss + PPC in exchange for allowing alphas, that got you to where you are now.

as Wingbreaker said, That is not ******* worth it. stop embarrassing yourself, please. play the game, get better at it, and comeback another day when you have some good idea of the meta instead of blurting out dark fantasies that make everyone wince.

Or you know, keep barking up a ****-storm and show PGI that they're right and shouldn't listen to the playerbase. thank you for that man, thanks for showing the dark Knights and jaded ones that they're right, that this place is a vulgar place. I applaud you for this giant and hideous thread that wasn't necessary. keep on it man, I'm sure you're going to make plenty of friends at this rate.

Edited by Scout Derek, 13 February 2018 - 07:20 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Mystere, on 13 February 2018 - 08:36 AM, said:

Well, when I have just programmed a new HOTAS configuration, firing solution, and/or have built a new iPad-based control panel, winning is the last thing on my mind. I just want to make sure the entire system actually works well "live".

And no, testing them solely on the Training Grounds is not enough. Shooting at stationary targets is not comparable to shooting targets actively shooting you back.

So that's every single match? All the time? That's even a majority of your matches?

'This one time in band camp' is not relevant to actual performance. Of course everyone plays to win and of course, given a choice, people would rather win than lose. However different people have different tolerances for effort in things. For example, I work a job that regularly has me putting in long hours. While I enjoy competition I do not have the interest in putting in the effort to play MWO at a comp level. That's okay - however I'm honest about it.

What I do *not* do is say that I'm actually good enough right now at my current level of effort to do great in comp but I just don't because (lame reasons) and that actually all the comp players are not as good as it seems but are, in fact, just *slightly* less skilled than me and all the statistics, data and examples to the contrary are lies.

Because that would be me spouting total and complete bull **** to soothe my ego over a stompy shooty robbit game which is a really magical level of sad.

That's actually the core of Dunning Kruger. There's a difference between 'I don't know and learning that thing isn't something that interests me' and 'I don't know but admitting that scares me so I will aggressively avoid learning enough to have to face that'.

It's the difference between being knowingly, admittedly ignorant of something and being aggressively ignorant. To fight against the reality that you could be wrong or that you're not good at something or don't know something. Being aggressively stupid is a very human thing. I can certainly be bad at things, be ignorant of things and I can (and have been) amazingly stupid about things - I just try to avoid being aggressively bad, ignorant or stupid about stuff. Hence my honesty about statistics and the reality of what they show.

[Verilligo]

Der Geisterbaer, on 13 February 2018 - 10:43 AM, said:

TL;DR: Your "arguments" are actually fallacies of various types and a good reflection of what's typically going on in "discussions" like these. It's not so much about an intellectual exchange of ideas and opinions but rather about the literal exchange of opinions where you "allow" others to attend with their opinion but expect them to leave with yours without questioning.

You seem rather proud of yourself, despite having not actually put forward a counter argument. You can't just point out logical fallacies by name and have that be the full essence of your retort. It doesn't progress the discussion or debate, all you're doing is spouting definitions as though the mere existence of the error in logic defeats the content of the claim.

Also, in reference to Dago's claim that claim that coaches are considered good at advising their boxers despite not being champion boxers themselves, that's true. However if a coach happens to be a good boxer, as many are, and happens to have a record of THEIR boxers being successful, which many do, would their words not be given greater weight. Or another way to put it, if the coach of a sports team leads the group to persistent failure, should they be given the same level of attention as one that consistently leads the team to victory?

[Scyther]

To be honest, equating "being good at the game" to "being good at designing the gameplay mechanics" is making quite a jump across skill sets.

I have no problem agreeing that someone whose stats are good likely has a good grasp of the game, probably understands how all the weapons and armor currently work, and has good gaming skills that allow him/her to evaluate the strategic situation in a match quickly and well and respond appropriately. (Unless, of course, he's usually carried/assisted by better team mates, but that should be an outlier)

That says nothing at all about his/her abilities in programming, data design, map design, or creating a conducive overall gaming experience. It says nothing at all about his understanding of the psychological aspects of 'gaming' that drive people to participate in it.

Great drivers don't need to know how to build a great car, although they will have strong opinions on it. Great car designers don't need to be Formula 1 drivers, although of course it won't hurt if they have been.

Being very good at the current version of the game virtually guarantees you will be resistant to any changes except to the parts you personally want 'made better'. You put a lot of work into mastering this version, it is successful for you, why would you want change?

Unless of course you can see that the current version of the game is appealing to a smaller and smaller audience over time. Those people may be very dedicated, but the numbers are dropping steadily and have been for 5 years. That's what mostly drives me to look for change.


Edit: Sorry, to tie this back to the OP... stats and information are useful to have available. Using those stats to reach conclusions they don't support is much less useful. Listening to people who make that error, even less so.

PS: Thank you to the guy who created the Jarl's list, and to Smurfy's creators, and the Skill Tree tool creators. It's efforts like that that make the game better for everyone!

Edited by MadBadger, 13 February 2018 - 02:03 PM.