366 replies to this topic

[Verilligo]

Der Geisterbaer, on 15 February 2018 - 10:52 AM, said:

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.

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?!


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?

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

I think I understand what you're trying to say. You're saying that you don't need good stats in order to have a solid argument about something, correct? If so, that's a fair claim to raise. It is entirely possible for a person to be incapable of achieving a certain level of skill while still being able to analyze a situation and argue a suitable alteration and improves that situation.

In response, though, I would argue the probability of that situation is low. Particularly given the context where the individual in question was allowed their time to make their case and it was rejected as foolish. They persisted with the belief that their suggestion was as valid as others being suggested at the same period of time and that's when the stats were brought up in order to indicate that maybe they didn't really understand what they were talking about. In other words, their suggestion was not as valid because they were implied to be incompetent. Incompetence is a very real reason to deny attention be granted to someone when they have otherwise demonstrated no reason to be listened to.

In addition, I can state that you are likely not worth debating with because you have already fully established you're just here for your own entertainment and can be "as bad as others or even worse." That would indicate to me that you aren't arguing in good faith, but purely to stir up a ruckus. So why did I take the time to respond? Because I wanted to let you know how impressed I am with your stats. I genuinely didn't believe there was a player in the game that was worse than Lyen and yet you have excelled magnificently.

[Crazyeyes244]

How is this not in K-town yet

[Scout Derek]

Crazyeyes244, on 15 February 2018 - 11:41 AM, said:

How is this not in K-town yet

Good question.

though the one poll thread that got locked accurately says something about moderation.

[Scyther]

People really seem to like things black and white, binary, either-or. Reality is a spectrum. It isn't a case of 'good stats = good opinion' or 'bad stats = bad opinion'. It also isn't a case that stats are irrelevant.

Better stats indicate, in most cases, a very good overall grasp of the game. In other cases, they might reflect very good in-game tactical performance but provide no awareness of overall game design issues.

Poor stats probably indicate, in most cases, an inability to grasp certain game mechanics, a lack of battle awareness, or simply a stubborn refusal to change one's ways and learn from mistakes and the guidance generously offered by many of the better players. Or simply laziness in seeking out better methods. That does not, to me, indicate that any notion put forth by MrBadStat is automatically poor.

Even when MrBadStat and AwesomeStatsGuy disagree, I don't automatically believe good stats over bad. If they are disagreeing over the performance of an in-game mechanic, I typically favor better stats. Because that person probably has a better grasp of the game mechanic in question.

If they are disagreeing over a proposed change to the game mechanics, I have to evaluate the arguments based on the argument, not on their stats. I will give stats some consideration, but generally people who are doing well in the game as it currently is, are not unbiased when it comes to considering the potential benefit of changes.

It's a spectrum, it's situational, it is context dependent. It's ambiguous stuff like that which leads to 20-page threads of people trying to hammer their preferred viewpoint down everyone else's throat as 'the one true way'.

Edited by MadBadger, 15 February 2018 - 11:47 AM.

[Scout Derek]

MadBadger, on 15 February 2018 - 11:45 AM, said:

People really seem to like things black and white, binary, either-or. Reality is a spectrum. It isn't a case of 'good stats = good opinion' or 'bad stats = bad opinion'. It also isn't a case that stats are irrelevant.

Better stats indicate, in most cases, a very good overall grasp of the game. In other cases, they might reflect very good in-game tactical performance but provide no awareness of overall game design issues.

Poor stats probably indicate, in most cases, an inability to grasp certain game mechanics, a lack of battle awareness, or simply a stubborn refusal to change one's ways and learn from mistakes and the guidance generously offered by many of the better players. Or simply laziness in seeking out better methods. That does not, to me, indicate that any notion put forth by MrBadStat is automatically poor.

Even when MrBadStat and AwesomeStatsGuy disagree, I don't automatically believe good stats over bad. If they are disagreeing over the performance of an in-game mechanic, I typically favor better stats. Because that person probably has a better grasp of the game mechanic in question.

If they are disagreeing over a proposed change to the game mechanics, I have to evaluate the arguments based on the argument, not on their stats. I will give stats some consideration, but generally people who are doing well in the game as it currently is, are not unbiased when it comes to considering the potential benefit of changes.

It's a spectrum, it's situational, it is context dependent. It's ambiguous stuff like that which leads to 20-page threads of people trying to hammer their preferred viewpoint down everyone else's throat as 'the one true way'.

Then answer me this, since this whole thread is about one thing really;

Is a 8-10 second gauss + POC cooldown worth it to allow them to be fired together like before linked ghost heat nerf?

All I want is a simple yes or no.

[DAYLEET]

OP found one *******, stop everything!

I dont know why people get their panties in a bunch when a ******* uses their stats as a negative point. Its not like only the 1% are allowed to have an opinion or needs about the game. These people are few and far in between, why dont you just ignore them.

Stats are good for many reasons. You can see how you do, if you improve. It also keep in check some people who havent played in years. We are not blind and we can analyses what we see but... If i was to be very specific about how the Pirana is, you would be right to tell me i havent played in 3 months and never even played versus one once. I can have an opinion about it because i played the game long enough. But i cant just shoot down someone opinion with certainty if i haven't even played versus one.


ofc this would devolve into tiering discussion. Nothing comfort me like seeing the exact same thread ive been reading the last 2 years. The forum is as stale than the game.

[Scyther]

@Scout Derek:

"Answer obscure, try again later."





(Just kidding. My personal answer would be no, for several reasons, but I am not an expert on Gauss/PPC useability and would have to defer proper answers to those who use the combo more and are not overly biased about it.)

Edited by MadBadger, 15 February 2018 - 12:07 PM.

[Scout Derek]

DAYLEET, on 15 February 2018 - 11:58 AM, said:

OP found one *******, stop everything!

I dont know why people get their panties in a bunch when a ******* uses their stats as a negative point. Its not like only the 1% are allowed to have an opinion or needs about the game. These people are few and far in between, why dont you just ignore them.

Stats are good for many reasons. You can see how you do, if you improve. It also keep in check some people who havent played in years. We are not blind and we can analyses what we see but... If i was to be very specific about how the Pirana is, you would be right to tell me i havent played in 3 months and never even played versus one once. I can have an opinion about it because i played the game long enough. But i cant just shoot down someone opinion with certainty if i haven't even played versus one.


ofc this would devolve into tiering discussion. Nothing comfort me like seeing the exact same thread ive been reading the last 2 years. The forum is as stale than the game.

there's a reason why others don't have a high opinion of the forums anymore.

MadBadger, on 15 February 2018 - 12:03 PM, said:

@Scout Derek:

"Answer obscure, try again later."

Go read the OP's post again. go click on the first link. read it, then come back and answer.

[Jman5]

My advice to people who want to make balance arguments but don't want to deal with having to defend their stats is to focus on the facts. Keep it confined to numbers and data, not anecdotes and your experience.

Because when you make an argument from authority it only stands to reason that your authority is examined.

Too many players want it both ways. They want to make unsubstantiated claims about the state of balance, but don't want their expertise questioned.

I think Jarl's leaderboard is an excellent tool that provides a lot of insight even though the ranking system is probably far from perfect. I generally just lump people into broad stroke categories. Like if I see someone is in the top 1500 on the other team I know they will probably kick my butt if I don't play really well.

I'm bad at remember names, so it's very helpful at reminding me who to watch out for in Faction Play where you get matched against people of all sorts of skill level.

[Gas Guzzler]

Jman5, on 15 February 2018 - 12:06 PM, said:

My advice to people who want to make balance arguments but don't want to deal with having to defend their stats is to focus on the facts. Keep it confined to numbers and data, not anecdotes and your experience.

Because when you make an argument from authority it only stands to reason that your authority is examined.

Too many players want it both ways. They want to make unsubstantiated claims about the state of balance, but don't want their expertise questioned.

I think Jarl's leaderboard is an excellent tool that provides a lot of insight even though the ranking system is probably far from perfect. I generally just lump people into broad stroke categories. Like if I see someone is in the top 1500 on the other team I know they will probably kick my butt if I don't play really well.

I'm bad at remember names, so it's very helpful at reminding me who to watch out for in Faction Play where you get matched against people of all sorts of skill level.

I remember when I used to see your name, and know that I would have to watch out for a HBK-4P with an endless stream of lurms.

[Kubernetes]

Scout Derek, on 15 February 2018 - 11:50 AM, said:

Then answer me this, since this whole thread is about one thing really;

Is a 8-10 second gauss + POC cooldown worth it to allow them to be fired together like before linked ghost heat nerf?

All I want is a simple yes or no.

No. With that cooldown the current dual ERPPC or dual Gauss setup is superior. One would have to commit to carrying secondary short range weapons because you'd be worse than useless if pushed.

[Scyther]

@Scout Derek:

"Go read the OP's post again. go click on the first link. read it, then come back and answer."

Already did. And already did. Sorry you missed it while I was editing. Regardless, irrelevant to my post, but relevant to something I guess.

Except for the point where you ask for a binary yes-no to a complicated question without regard to the experience of the person you are asking. That's pretty relevant to my post. Thanks!

Edited by MadBadger, 15 February 2018 - 12:17 PM.

[pattonesque]

Der Geisterbaer, on 15 February 2018 - 10:52 AM, said:

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?

It tells me you die a LOT to the point you often don't survive even when your team wins. You play almost exclusively lights so without knowing the specific chassis I couldn't tell you WHY that is, but I feel like you're probably hanging back playing something of a support light role? It's also possible that you're playing a more traditional strikerish light but are getting caught out of position a lot and getting killed early.

Although considering the dramatic improvement in both your w/l rate and KDR over 300ish games in Season 19 it looks like you're legit getting better

[Scout Derek]

MadBadger, on 15 February 2018 - 12:17 PM, said:

@Scout Derek:

"Go read the OP's post again. go click on the first link. read it, then come back and answer."

Already did. And already did. Sorry you missed it while I was editing. Regardless, irrelevant to my post, but relevant to something I guess.

Except for the point where you ask for a binary yes-no to a complicated question without regard to the experience of the person you are asking. That's pretty relevant to my post. Thanks!

you mean how the relevance is to the whole reason behind this thread partially?

And yeah, I'm a brawler, but I've used alot of gauss +PPC meta in the past, and I'm not a goon for abusing them, never have been. granted I have a summoner with nipple ppcs but I use my onion iic more than anything.

Anyone whose extensively used them before and after the nerf knows that the current suggestion that I asked a simple yes or no on knows from experience it would ruin them, for not only bigger but smaller mechs too.

like.... Imagine having a dual PPC mech with 8 second cooldown. gross.

or a dual Gauss mech with 10 second cooldown.... yeah. meta ruined and changed, for the worse.


Oh I know, let's do a throwback 2014-5 wild wild quirk west patch! give mechs 50% gauss cooldown and rapid fire ppcs! that will make the balance better right? :-)

Edited by Scout Derek, 15 February 2018 - 12:34 PM.

[Scyther]

Well actually I think the thread is more about what the OP says it is, that being people who dismiss ideas and players based on their stats.

Even when the stats they are basing their rejection on are linked to his old, retired Reddit account. Even when he points out that he has a more current account. Even when that account has 8000+ matches and is above the 80th percentile.

So I kinda thought the thread was about what it says it's about.

I disagree with the idea he put forth. But not based on his stats.

Edited by MadBadger, 15 February 2018 - 12:44 PM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Verilligo, on 15 February 2018 - 11:26 AM, said:

In addition, I can state that you are likely not worth debating with because you have already fully established you're just here for your own entertainment and can be "as bad as others or even worse."

You might want to start considering that you're not worth debating with because of pretty much the exact same reason

Verilligo, on 15 February 2018 - 11:26 AM, said:

That would indicate to me that you aren't arguing in good faith, but purely to stir up a ruckus.

And you suggest that you are "arguing in good faith"?

Verilligo, on 15 February 2018 - 11:26 AM, said:

So why did I take the time to respond? Because I wanted to let you know how impressed I am with your stats. I genuinely didn't believe there was a player in the game that was worse than Lyen and yet you have excelled magnificently.

And here I get what I so "carefully" set you up to do. Thanks for the chuckle ...
**************

pattonesque, on 15 February 2018 - 12:20 PM, said:

It tells me you die a LOT to the point you often don't survive even when your team wins.

And that's a "good" thing or a "bad" one? And it influences my ability to comment on game issues to what degree?

pattonesque, on 15 February 2018 - 12:20 PM, said:

You play almost exclusively lights so without knowing the specific chassis I couldn't tell you WHY that is, but I feel like you're probably hanging back playing something of a support light role?

While I certainly do play exclusively lights for quite some time now - just as I did earlier in my MWO career - you're totally off with your "feel" about me hanging back. As far as the "support light role" is concerned?  We'd have to establish first what you consider a "support tole light" ...

pattonesque, on 15 February 2018 - 12:20 PM, said:

It's also possible that you're playing a more traditional strikerish light but are getting caught out of position a lot and getting killed early.

So now you pretty much flip flop on your own guess and simply chose a diametrically opposed explaination. -> Looks like my stats aren't telling you that much but simply make you take a double bet with what you think gives you a 50:50 chance on being "correct".

pattonesque, on 15 February 2018 - 12:20 PM, said:

Although considering the dramatic improvement in both your w/l rate and KDR over 300ish games in Season 19 it looks like you're legit getting better

Or I'm using an "OP" light that "anyone" can ride to success? ~laugh~
***************
TL;DR: So I essentially got what I came here for. Thanks for your (not so) vouluntary participation in my personal amusement.

Edited by Der Geisterbaer, 15 February 2018 - 03:00 PM.

[Mystere]

Crazyeyes244, on 15 February 2018 - 11:41 AM, said:

How is this not in K-town yet

I have no clue. What I do know is that PGI was made aware of this thread.

Just don't ask how I know.

[pattonesque]

Der Geisterbaer, on 15 February 2018 - 02:57 PM, said:

***************
TL;DR: So I essentially got what I came here for. Thanks for your (not so) vouluntary participation in my personal amusement.

Well, it's a bad thing that you die a lot. Good players don't die a lot because they manage to kill the enemy first and spread damage well and position well. This should be pretty obvious.

Also I specified within my guess that it was just a guess and described the information I'd need to make a more accurate one.

And you're not necessarily successful in whatever "OP" light that 'anyone' can ride to success?" because you're still below a 1.0 KDR. I just said you're improving.

Also my dude you type like you're an anime villain or something. The "dance puppets dance" thing is kind of embarrassing imo

[Mystere]

pattonesque, on 15 February 2018 - 12:20 PM, said:

It tells me you die a LOT to the point you often don't survive even when your team wins.

What if I such a player was actually playing the role of sacrificial bait, tasked with distracting the enemy and drawing their attention -- and dying while doing so -- while the rest of the team took advantage of the distracted enemy?

[pattonesque]

Mystere, on 15 February 2018 - 03:16 PM, said:

What if I such a player was actually playing the role of sacrificial bait, tasked with distracting the enemy and drawing their attention -- and dying while doing so -- while the rest of the team took advantage of the distracted enemy?

oh for sure man

I mean even if that was true he ... loses more often than he wins so I guess it ain't work so good

Edited by pattonesque, 15 February 2018 - 03:23 PM.