366 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

I remember winning the best Top 5 (Scrub) Highlander pilot ages ago (I'd know - I put that info in my profile) and I know I'm not even close that that level these days (that and the yearly-ish grindfest for all mechs/variants is kinda silly PGI baseline analysis that they still don't understand).

You can't rest your laurels on the past... you have to have evolve your thinking to what's happening now. Otherwise you're just spouting "back in my day" useless drivel.

Then again, this is also PGI we're talking about.

Edited by Deathlike, 14 February 2018 - 04:46 PM.

[Bombast]

justcallme A S H, on 14 February 2018 - 02:14 PM, said:

Lets not forget LBX2s (that are doing crit damage) are apparently better than cUAC2s at long range.

Let me just click those links...

Koniving, on 31 January 2018 - 09:23 AM, said:

But yes. What people say about LBx is really just regurgitated hogwash. For example, we all know balls are round.
However, we know this primarily because we are told such.

Ok, I agree with the OP now. We should disallow the leaderboard stats, because they're distracting us from the real issues. Like the above.

[MischiefSC]

MadBadger, on 13 February 2018 - 01:58 PM, said:

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!

You're talking about two different things. Knowing how to build, say, a good matchmaker or what hooks are best for Nvidia drivers to minimize calls and memory use in Cryengine makes you a good choice to help with designing those aspects of a game.

However nobody is talking about that - they're talking about in the game as it currently exists what player behavior and choices are more successful than others and why in actually playing the game as it is.

A boxing coaching is nothing like an armchair MWO enthusiast. Nobody in this game, anywhere or at any point, has ever put the effort, energy and intensity into understanding how every single match can be played and is played as any serious professional boxing coach. That analogy is unreasonable on its face.

The closest anyone in this game comes to putting that level of work into understanding this game and how it plays is the comp players.

Hence, again, why stats are relevant to the value of a persons opinion about how the game plays.

[Scout Derek]

MischiefSC, on 14 February 2018 - 06:21 PM, said:

You're talking about two different things. Knowing how to build, say, a good matchmaker or what hooks are best for Nvidia drivers to minimize calls and memory use in Cryengine makes you a good choice to help with designing those aspects of a game.

However nobody is talking about that - they're talking about in the game as it currently exists what player behavior and choices are more successful than others and why in actually playing the game as it is.

A boxing coaching is nothing like an armchair MWO enthusiast. Nobody in this game, anywhere or at any point, has ever put the effort, energy and intensity into understanding how every single match can be played and is played as any serious professional boxing coach. That analogy is unreasonable on its face.

The closest anyone in this game comes to putting that level of work into understanding this game and how it plays is the comp players.

Hence, again, why stats are relevant to the value of a persons opinion about how the game plays.

Good point.


Which leads me to another thing;

A lot of other games show off stats for more competitive games. Why are we going to remove something that's been asked for years? And yes, I said years. We've gotten the personal stats page, then tiers, which didn't help much. But Leaderboard stats....

Now we can see the average progression of a player. To take that away.... is bogus. Reminder that statistics in video games usually show how much a player is invested into the game.

There's a certain ideal that's been developed around player stats and for good reason; it reflects knowledge of the game. And when you have knowledge of the game, you make better decisions.... which leads to better in everything; Killing, surviving, movements and flanks. Go ahead, take a look at my stats. Both on Here and on Jarl's list.

https://leaderboard....h?u=Scout+Derek

https://mwomercs.com...?page=29&type=0

Season 12 on the game's leaderboard is when I was most active, most matches played, best statistics overall.

Or more, Here's a Screenshot of my current stats. And I'm not saying I'm the best player, I'm one of the more seasoned one's whose been through thick and thin. I'm no balance overlord but I know when I see a bad suggestion.



Again, let's not forget the root problem of this thread, It's a whine thread. sorry to be using rude words but it's true.

Edited by Scout Derek, 14 February 2018 - 06:37 PM.

[Mystere]

Scout Derek, on 14 February 2018 - 06:37 PM, said:

Now we can see the average progression of a player. To take that away.... is bogus. Reminder that statistics in video games usually show how much a player is invested into the game.

And so again, why not just make it private? Those who want to check their own progress can still do so.

Other than the obvious, is there really any legitimate reason to track someone else's progress without their express consent?

Do you really need to know how much someone else is invested into the game?

Edited by Mystere, 14 February 2018 - 06:46 PM.

[Scout Derek]

Mystere, on 14 February 2018 - 06:46 PM, said:

And so again, why not just make it private? Those who want to check their own progress can still do so.

Other than the obvious, is there really any legitimate reason to track someone else's progress without their express consent?

Do you really need to know how much someone else is invested into the game?

The consent thing is out of the bag since PGI "Owns" your account when you make it. check out terms of use. You give consent to them to do whatever they wish with the statistics you create.

https://mwomercs.com/terms


I'm not against the private thing, that would be a somewhat half-ideal thing to do. Reminder though that it could open up more controversial things in future arguments. Instead of stat shaming it would be privacy shaming. the name changes but not the object.

And I'd say yes, I think it's good to know how much one is invested into the game.

Let's just put down an example.

A new player dies, and begins backseat driving(AKA telling people what to do and where to go). Instead of making decent callouts or suggestions, he instead makes the wrong ones and gets the entire team killed.

A seasoned player dies, and begins backseat driving. With his knowledge and keeping up with where everyone is and where and what the enemy has, he manages to make good callouts, and helps the team win.

That's just one example. We can go on about how another similar comparison about how the newer players with no experience die quickly as compared to seasoned ones where they can spread damage all the way down to 20%, etc etc.

Simply put; not objected to private stats, could cause problems, and it's somewhat important to know time invested, that way the game isn't riddled with 10-8 second Gauss and PPC cooldowns.

[Mystere]

Scout Derek, on 14 February 2018 - 06:55 PM, said:

The consent thing is out of the bag since PGI "Owns" your account when you make it. check out terms of use. You give consent to them to do whatever they wish with the statistics you create.

https://mwomercs.com/terms

And as I mentioned previously, PGI is nowhere near to being consistent in this area. Personal stats are hidden, tiers have a display toggle (i.e the "consent" part"), and the leaderboards are fully public.

Scout Derek, on 14 February 2018 - 06:55 PM, said:

I'm not against the private thing, that would be a somewhat half-ideal thing to do. Reminder though that it could open up more controversial things in future arguments. Instead of stat shaming it would be privacy shaming. the name changes but not the object.

And I'd say yes, I think it's good to know how much one is invested into the game.

Let's just put down an example.

A new player dies, and begins backseat driving(AKA telling people what to do and where to go). Instead of making decent callouts or suggestions, he instead makes the wrong ones and gets the entire team killed.

A seasoned player dies, and begins backseat driving. With his knowledge and keeping up with where everyone is and where and what the enemy has, he manages to make good callouts, and helps the team win.

Does anyone really look at people's stats while in a drop?

Or were you trying to say something else?

Scout Derek, on 14 February 2018 - 06:55 PM, said:

That's just one example. We can go on about how another similar comparison about how the newer players with no experience die quickly as compared to seasoned ones where they can spread damage all the way down to 20%, etc etc.

Simply put; not objected to private stats, could cause problems, and it's somewhat important to know time invested, that way the game isn't riddled with 10-8 second Gauss and PPC cooldowns.

You lost me there. Please clarify.

Edited by Mystere, 14 February 2018 - 07:08 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

Bombast, on 14 February 2018 - 04:56 PM, said:

Let me just click those links...



Ok, I agree with the OP now. We should disallow the leaderboard stats, because they're distracting us from the real issues. Like the above.

Now, you too, SEA...

[Khobai]

Quote

Why are we going to remove something that's been asked for years?

because only some people asked for it. obviously not everyone wanted it or people wouldnt be complaining about it.

I dont think we should remove stats from the game though, thats stupid. just let people opt out if they choose to.

[DerHuhnTeufel]

Make it a toggle. End of threat.

Please end of thread? Please?

[Scout Derek]

Mystere, on 14 February 2018 - 07:08 PM, said:

And as I mentioned previously, PGI is nowhere near to being consistent in this area. Personal stats are hidden, tiers have a display toggle (i.e the "consent" part"), and the leaderboards are fully public.




Does anyone really look at people's stats while in a drop?

Or were you trying to say something else?




You lost me there. Please clarify.

I'll answer in order;

Yeah, I can see where you're coming from. And yeah, the other two things, personal stats and tiers get controversy too when someone makes a bad suggestion or complaint. Like I said, I'm not opposed to it, but it will cause some problems still, just in different situations.

The second thing I was saying something else; I'm basically saying that people with more experience make better choices (and opinions although not stated), and people with less experience make worse decisions.

The last thing refers to the whole reason this thread was made;

Someone on reddit gave out a good reason for not wanting 8-10 Gauss + PPC cooldowns to Lighthouse, and they tried saying they didn't read. a reason of "Good" players was mentioned and later on somewhere I assume someone used stat shaming against them for making a bad choice (which I didn't see until after they made this thread).

This thread is not with good intent, that much I know. It was made out of anger for people looking down at them for making really bad suggestions. Just take a read of what was suggested;

Quote

Only time when Gauss + PPC became so problematic was when PGI nerfed ballistics into hell, as well as SRMs for no reason whatsoever. Before the Kodiaks we had really nice balance of mechs and build selection, which included dreaded 2 Gauss + 2 PPCs. Even after Kodiak was released, it was all about 2x UAC-10 + 2x UAC-5s on KDK-3 after PGI fixed ghost heat issue on UAC-10. Only when PGI nerfed ballistics even more, THEN we saw Kodiaks changing from dakka to Gauss + PPC and the rise of Night Gyr.

Even before ghost heat link between PPC and Gauss was introduced, Night Gyr was already losing its favor and fading away (thanks to repeated nerfs), because we got Clan heavy large lasers which is much easier and simpler to use.

Before screaming "NO NEVER AGAIN". Think about the history of the game. 2 Gauss + 2 PPCs existed since the introduction of the Clan. It was not something super new evil build that suddenly came into existence. It is the direct consequence of continuous nerfs on high dps builds, in other words, continuous nerfs on brawling caused Gauss + PPC builds to be strong.

Seriously, stop abusing ghost heat. It's terrible, it is not new player friendly (if you guys really want new people to come to this game, entire ghost heat mechanics should go to trash can.) Stop worrying about evil 2 Gauss + 2 PPCs, and start worrying about making brawling reasonable choice for playing the game, again.

If you still want to worry about that evil 50 pinpoint damage coming to your mech, then it is time to make Gauss and PPCs as real, slow-firing but long-range firing weapons. Anybody who played previous mechwarrior games would understand; current cooldown for PPCs and Gauss is way too short. If you translate cooldown time from MW3 to here, PPCs, for instance should have at least 8 seconds to 12 seconds. Not abomination that is 4 seconds. Developers of previous Mechwarrior games did not unintentionally made Gauss and PPCs fire slowly for nothing.

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.

Not to mention increasing the cooldown time of Gauss Rifle will nerf currently popular Gauss + Laser vomit too. One stone for two birds.

Edited by Scout Derek, 14 February 2018 - 08:00 PM.

[N0MAD]

When PGI separates group/solo stats then i (and many others i imagine) might take stats as anywhere near accurate or meaninful.

[Mister Glitchdragon]

So, if someone with bad stats agrees with you... does that make you wrong?

[Vxheous]

N0MAD, on 14 February 2018 - 08:03 PM, said:

When PGI separates group/solo stats then i (and many others i imagine) might take stats as anywhere near accurate or meaninful.

Regardless of group or solo, you can still get an idea of how well someone plays based on their stats. If someone is always below 1.0 W/L and 1.0 K/D and under 200 matchscore, chances are they don't play very well, regardless of solo/group. Where the stats start to get murky is towards the higher end of the spectrum. Is someone with a 4.0+ W/L better than someone with a 3.0 W/L? Maybe, maybe not, and that's where it makes sense to see solo/group split. Generally though, you can then look at other stats, like average match score. That person with the 4.0+ W/L might play with a very good group and so wins alot, but their average match score might be 300 (ok, not amazing). The person with 3.0 W/L might primarily solo and have a 450+ average match score (showing that said person probably hard carries a lot of solo queue games, and even when losing performs way above the rest of the competition).

It is really rare for someone with good W/L and good K/D to be completely "carried" to those stats because good players tend to prefer to play with other good players and not have to carry dead weight.

Edit: Surprise, surprise, people posting here with the whole "stats don't mean anything" tend to be sh*tters with bad stats.

Edited by Vxheous, 14 February 2018 - 10:19 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

Vxheous, on 14 February 2018 - 10:17 PM, said:

Regardless of group or solo, you can still get an idea of how well someone plays based on their stats. If someone is always below 1.0 W/L and 1.0 K/D and under 200 matchscore, chances are they don't play very well, regardless of solo/group. Where the stats start to get murky is towards the higher end of the spectrum. Is someone with a 4.0+ W/L better than someone with a 3.0 W/L? Maybe, maybe not, and that's where it makes sense to see solo/group split. Generally though, you can then look at other stats, like average match score. That person with the 4.0+ W/L might play with a very good group and so wins alot, but their average match score might be 300 (ok, not amazing). The person with 3.0 W/L might primarily solo and have a 450+ average match score (showing that said person probably hard carries a lot of solo queue games, and even when losing performs way above the rest of the competition).

It is really rare for someone with good W/L and good K/D to be completely "carried" to those stats because good players tend to prefer to play with other good players and not have to carry dead weight.

Edit: Surprise, surprise, people posting here with the whole "stats don't mean anything" tend to be sh*tters with bad stats.

+1

Kinda odd that lines up with exactly what I proved out earlier with a bunch of facts and evidence rather than total heresay

But again the players below "the line" around here just tend to flat out ignore any part of an evidence/fact based discussion so they can carry on with their totally illogical arguments that try to justify why they are stuck below, that, line...

[Vxheous]

14 pages....

[MischiefSC]

Vxheous, on 14 February 2018 - 10:17 PM, said:

Regardless of group or solo, you can still get an idea of how well someone plays based on their stats. If someone is always below 1.0 W/L and 1.0 K/D and under 200 matchscore, chances are they don't play very well, regardless of solo/group. Where the stats start to get murky is towards the higher end of the spectrum. Is someone with a 4.0+ W/L better than someone with a 3.0 W/L? Maybe, maybe not, and that's where it makes sense to see solo/group split. Generally though, you can then look at other stats, like average match score. That person with the 4.0+ W/L might play with a very good group and so wins alot, but their average match score might be 300 (ok, not amazing). The person with 3.0 W/L might primarily solo and have a 450+ average match score (showing that said person probably hard carries a lot of solo queue games, and even when losing performs way above the rest of the competition).

It is really rare for someone with good W/L and good K/D to be completely "carried" to those stats because good players tend to prefer to play with other good players and not have to carry dead weight.

Edit: Surprise, surprise, people posting here with the whole "stats don't mean anything" tend to be sh*tters with bad stats.

Look. If you're not winning at something you have a very limited set of options.

1. Set your ego aside, try to figure out what you're doing wrong and other people are doing right and adapt and change. This is a surprisingly hard and unpopular option for people in games or work or life in general. It starts with admitting you're wrong and can do better and someone else is better at something than you, which makes it a no-go for most. Also means you have to change and most people would rather get fed into a wood chipper.

2. Make up some excuse and lie to support the bad excuses. When the excuses are challenged, double down. Always double-down no matter how absurd and ridiculous it is.

3. Feigned apathy and ennui. This one is really confusing because it takes more work to support the irrational idea that you absolutely don't care at all about something you spend a great deal of time at than it would take to do option 1 - however for most people it's less frightening than admitting you're wrong and someone else is better at something than you.

That's it. This is also why arguments on forums don't change people; the people who are wrong have a lot of vested interest in doubling down when confronted with being wrong. On the plus side most the people who are willing to do option 1 lean towards being lurkers; they read stuff like this but never comment - because they are willing to accept that they don't know or understand enough to speak.

Which is why it's always worth the effort to stomp on bad ideas on the forums with both feet and a lot of reality and supporting data and statistics; you're limiting the propagation of bad ideas. Don't give up the good fight!

[Dago Red]

MischiefSC, on 14 February 2018 - 11:03 PM, said:

Look. If you're not winning at something you have a very limited set of options.

1. Set your ego aside, try to figure out what you're doing wrong and other people are doing right and adapt and change. This is a surprisingly hard and unpopular option for people in games or work or life in general. It starts with admitting you're wrong and can do better and someone else is better at something than you, which makes it a no-go for most. Also means you have to change and most people would rather get fed into a wood chipper.

2. Make up some excuse and lie to support the bad excuses. When the excuses are challenged, double down. Always double-down no matter how absurd and ridiculous it is.

3. Feigned apathy and ennui. This one is really confusing because it takes more work to support the irrational idea that you absolutely don't care at all about something you spend a great deal of time at than it would take to do option 1 - however for most people it's less frightening than admitting you're wrong and someone else is better at something than you.

That's it. This is also why arguments on forums don't change people; the people who are wrong have a lot of vested interest in doubling down when confronted with being wrong. On the plus side most the people who are willing to do option 1 lean towards being lurkers; they read stuff like this but never comment - because they are willing to accept that they don't know or understand enough to speak.

Which is why it's always worth the effort to stomp on bad ideas on the forums with both feet and a lot of reality and sujpporting data and statistics; you're limiting the propagation of bad ideas. Don't give up the good fight!

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.

[Vxheous]

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.

Pretty sure Mischief already covered the topic of "I don't play to win, I just play to have fun" in a previous post.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Vxheous, on 15 February 2018 - 12:59 AM, said:

Pretty sure Mischief already covered the topic of "I don't play to win, I just play to have fun" in a previous post.

And that "coverage" didn't boil down to the "lying to oneself" aspect of the last sentence in your otherwise unnecessary "full quote"?