213 replies to this topic

[Y E O N N E]

Shifty McSwift, on 26 September 2018 - 09:54 PM, said:

You know the easiest way to stay in the 99%, group with other 99%ers and ensure you keep everyone else out of that bracket. Or are you saying there are so many 99%ers that you constantly get matched against eachother instead of the equivalent of a pack of baby seals?

Have you even seen the level of play from the people you are smearing right now? They don't need groups to win, and there are mountains of video evidence to prove that.

And your statement just shows that you don't understand that ranking system. The percentiles are based entirely on matchscore, which is adjusted using weights on the 'Mech classes you used in the season and whether or not you played the minimum number of games to get the full value of your work. It is, in fact, more difficult to obtain a high match-score when playing in groups, because the whole team is either uniformly effective and gets between 300-500 damage and ~1 kill each or because a few of the players are far and away more effective than the rest, hogging all the targets. In either case, most players in the group will have worse match scores than they could earn if they played solo. Since WLR and KDR do not factor into those standings in any way whatsoever, you therefore have a higher risk of dropping in ranking by playing too much group because even your wins detract from your average match score.

I mean, I'm only a 98%er, but GQ also tanks my score compared to SQ.

[Shifty McSwift]

Yeonne Greene, on 26 September 2018 - 10:04 PM, said:

Have you even seen the level of play from the people you are smearing right now? They don't need groups to win, and there are mountains of video evidence to prove that.

And your statement just shows that you don't understand that ranking system. The percentiles are based entirely on matchscore, which is adjusted using weights on the 'Mech classes you used in the season and whether or not you played the minimum number of games to get the full value of your work. It is, in fact, more difficult to obtain a high match-score when playing in groups, because the whole team is either uniformly effective and gets between 300-500 damage and ~1 kill each or because a few of the players are far and away more effective than the rest, hogging all the targets. In either case, most players in the group will have worse match scores than they could earn if they played solo. Since WLR and KDR do not factor into those standings in any way whatsoever, you therefore have a higher risk of dropping in ranking by playing too much group because even your wins detract from your average match score.

I mean, I'm only a 98%er, but GQ also tanks my score compared to SQ.

Seems like the main reason you would be winning and getting near to no match score is if your team is frequently stomping or near to... So, what's the topic again? Encouraging small groups... Not encouraging the +99%? Or encouraging seal clubbing?

You describe a pretty flawed system, in which you need to "abuse" or work against it to maintain leaderboard scores. So I really hope that isn't a defense of such a defunct system.

[Vxheous]

Shifty McSwift, on 26 September 2018 - 10:13 PM, said:

Seems like the main reason you would be winning and getting near to no match score is if your team is frequently stomping or near to... So, what's the topic again? Encouraging small groups... Not encouraging the +99%? Or encouraging seal clubbing?

You describe a pretty flawed system, in which you need to "abuse" or work against it to maintain leaderboard scores. So I really hope that isn't a defense of such a defunct system.

I only run in small groups, and I honestly don't care about my leaderboard scores.

[Khobai]

Yeonne Greene, on 26 September 2018 - 10:04 PM, said:

Have you even seen the level of play from the people you are smearing right now? They don't need groups to win, and there are mountains of video evidence to prove that.

then thats all the more reason they should be split up on different teams and shouldnt be allowed to stack on one team

I mean duh. how does letting them all stack on one team make the game more balanced? obviously it doesnt.

Vxheous, on 26 September 2018 - 10:17 PM, said:

I only run in small groups, and I honestly don't care about my leaderboard scores.

then why are you opposed to better balanced teams? lmao

seems like you should agree with me if you truly dont care about your stats. because balanced matchups are better for everyone except the players that have something to lose from games being better balanced (i.e. the ones that care about their stats).

Shifty McSwift, on 26 September 2018 - 10:13 PM, said:

You describe a pretty flawed system, in which you need to "abuse" or work against it to maintain leaderboard scores. So I really hope that isn't a defense of such a defunct system.

no one can defend a system like that. the only ones trying to defend it are the ones that abuse it on a regular basis. and if you look at their rebuttals, theyre entirely unsubstantial, and theyve completely lost the argument.

we have brilliant rationalizations from them like "but mah friends" and "khobai doesnt play on his main account anymore" lmao. its all deflections and smoke and mirrors from them to try to defend an indefensible system of abuse.

good players stacking teams doesnt help encourage small casual groups. thats an irrefutable fact.

just give up. you've lost. badly.

Edited by Khobai, 26 September 2018 - 10:40 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Shifty McSwift, on 26 September 2018 - 10:13 PM, said:

Seems like the main reason you would be winning and getting near to no match score is if your team is frequently stomping or near to... So, what's the topic again? Encouraging small groups... Not encouraging the +99%? Or encouraging seal clubbing?

You describe a pretty flawed system, in which you need to "abuse" or work against it to maintain leaderboard scores. So I really hope that isn't a defense of such a defunct system.

Again, you don't understand the system.

Every match is a zero-sum game. Every match will always be a zero sum game, because there are only so many targets in a match; unless you want to have a formally structured merry-go-round where everybody on the team takes turns shooting a 'Mech, you will always have some players who do more than other players by sheer happenstance. Add in the pilot skill variable, and some players will do much more than other players when given the opportunity.

That is not a broken system. That is literally every PvP game in the history of PvP games, it's the nature of the beast.

The reason your score tanks in groups compared to solo is because, in solo, the lack of familiarity, coordination, and good builds within the teams means there is even more opportunity for a single player to "rockstar". You will always have this no matter what you do in terms of match-making, because you can't filter out up-and-coming ability, only established ability. In groups, the game is tighter and there is less opportunity to rockstar. Even in a well-contested match where everybody did a close spread of damage, you will tank your match score relative to solo if you are actually good at this game.

And this has absolutely nothing to do with stomping. Even in comp matches, the damage numbers are either low and fairly uniform or concentrated heavily onto a couple of players per team.

And remember...the Jarl's List rankings are not even a PGI construct, that's an Isengrim construct.

[Vxheous]

Khobai, on 26 September 2018 - 10:21 PM, said:

then thats all the more reason they should be split up on different teams and shouldnt be allowed to stack on one team

I mean duh. how does letting them all stack on one team make the game more balanced? obviously it doesnt.



then why are you opposed to better balanced teams? lmao

seems like you should agree with me if you truly dont care about your stats. because balanced matchups are better for everyone except the players that have something to lose from games being better balanced (i.e. the ones that care about their stats).

Probably because I don't share your view that there is a problem with having small groups, or somehow coming up with further incentives to being a small group. Small groups already have more tonnage to work with compared to large groups. There is no way to "balance" top players in this game due to the population that we have, without making it so they basically don't get games because there is simply very small amount of people out there to match them. 12-0 games are not "bad games", or "unbalanced" games, they are simply an occurrence that happens due to the snowball mechanics of MWO. Very balanced skill games in Comp, or internal practices within comp units often have games that end 8-0, 8-1, 8-2, simply because of mechanics, and nothing to do with "skill balance".

Also, I have mentioned many times that it is extremely rare to have large groups of highly skilled players running around in group queue, most high skill groups are usually between 3-5 for sizes. Most large group/12 mans that show up in group queue are of the mid-tier caliber of players, or stream groups that formed from LFG. "Skill stacking" is a boogeyman

Edited by Vxheous, 26 September 2018 - 10:39 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Vxheous, on 26 September 2018 - 10:37 PM, said:

Probably because I don't share your view that there is a problem with having small groups, or somehow coming up with further incentives to being a small group. Small groups already have more tonnage to work with compared to large groups. There is no way to "balance" top players in this game due to the population that we have, without making it so they basically don't get games because there is simply very small amount of people out there to match them. 12-0 games are not "bad games", or "unbalanced" games, they are simply an occurrence that happens due to the snowball mechanics of MWO. Very balanced skill games in Comp, or internal practices within comp units often have games that end 8-0, 8-1, 8-2, simply because of mechanics, and nothing to do with "skill balance".

Even if the game had a big, healthy population with a well-sorted match-maker, you still couldn't "balance" out good players because you'd always have newer players that happen to be better than the flotsam stuck in T4 passing through on their way to T1.

[Y E O N N E]

Shifty McSwift, on 26 September 2018 - 10:13 PM, said:

Seems like the main reason you would be winning and getting near to no match score is if your team is frequently stomping or near to... So, what's the topic again? Encouraging small groups... Not encouraging the +99%? Or encouraging seal clubbing?

And for the record, you were trying to accuse these 99% players of using groups to stay in the 99%. I am merely pointing out that, because percentile is based entirely on match-score (which GQ depresses) and not WLR and KDR (which GQ inflates), your particular line of logic does not track.

[Shifty McSwift]

Vxheous, on 26 September 2018 - 08:41 PM, said:

I'm not deflecting. All my friends in the game are 99%+ players, so you're telling me that I should not group with my friends. I'm being "abusive" simply because the people I associate with are the top echelon in this game. Maybe instead of trying to neuter the top, maybe work on improving the bottom?

That was the post that I was responding to Yeonne, I didn't accuse anyone of anything, I was responding to the sentiment that he put out there in this post. A sentiment which is almost the definition of elitism, I think it is ridiculous. And I didn't just pull it out of my ***, he posted it.

[Vxheous]

Shifty McSwift, on 26 September 2018 - 10:49 PM, said:

That was the post that I was responding to Yeonne, I didn't accuse anyone of anything, I was responding to the sentiment that he put out there in this post. A sentiment which is almost the definition of elitism, I think it is ridiculous. And I didn't just pull it out of my ***, he posted it.

How am I being elitist, I'm simply stating a fact. I only play with a few people in this game (less than 20 people) and they're all 99%ers, in small groups of 2-5 mostly. They also happen to all be in my unit/team (or people like ash that are part of the team, but have not earned their tag and right to call themselves EmP yet)

[Y E O N N E]

Shifty McSwift, on 26 September 2018 - 10:49 PM, said:

That was the post that I was responding to Yeonne, I didn't accuse anyone of anything, I was responding to the sentiment that he put out there in this post. A sentiment which is almost the definition of elitism, I think it is ridiculous. And I didn't just pull it out of my ***, he posted it.

This is what you said, though:

Shifty McSwift, on 26 September 2018 - 09:54 PM, said:

You know the easiest way to stay in the 99%, group with other 99%ers and ensure you keep everyone else out of that bracket. Or are you saying there are so many 99%ers that you constantly get matched against eachother instead of the equivalent of a pack of baby seals?

There is no other way to interpret that first sentence other than how I did. The second sentence is just you being snooty by presenting a false binary.

As for being elitist, not really. It's a simple statement of fact. The real "elitism" comes from the players who aggressively refuse to play this game in ways which would allow them to win. They cling to the marketing PGI gave them way back when about how there would be lore trappings, despite the fact that what we have is the same as what every MW multiplayer game has had: a PvP-only arena shooter. These grognards need to embrace it or quit whinging when other players do.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 26 September 2018 - 11:02 PM.

[Shifty McSwift]

Yeonne Greene, on 26 September 2018 - 10:29 PM, said:

Again, you don't understand the system.

Every match is a zero-sum game. Every match will always be a zero sum game, because there are only so many targets in a match; unless you want to have a formally structured merry-go-round where everybody on the team takes turns shooting a 'Mech, you will always have some players who do more than other players by sheer happenstance. Add in the pilot skill variable, and some players will do much more than other players when given the opportunity.

That is not a broken system. That is literally every PvP game in the history of PvP games, it's the nature of the beast.

The reason your score tanks in groups compared to solo is because, in solo, the lack of familiarity, coordination, and good builds within the teams means there is even more opportunity for a single player to "rockstar". You will always have this no matter what you do in terms of match-making, because you can't filter out up-and-coming ability, only established ability. In groups, the game is tighter and there is less opportunity to rockstar. Even in a well-contested match where everybody did a close spread of damage, you will tank your match score relative to solo if you are actually good at this game.

And this has absolutely nothing to do with stomping. Even in comp matches, the damage numbers are either low and fairly uniform or concentrated heavily onto a couple of players per team.

And remember...the Jarl's List rankings are not even a PGI construct, that's an Isengrim construct.

I get it man, but again the inference you made above was that that you almost need to small top tier group stomp to keep your score up, or at least that is the inference taken from the system within this game, specific to this game (pvp gaming generalisations aside, but of course they apply), if the result is sometimes you don't get a high match score because the "top performers" of a given match got all the kills in larger groups, then that shows there is value lacking from the opposition and/or matchmaking system (in an overall sense of average game results).

In very general terms, I would think the "best" of games will go down to the last men, not in terms of a specific team doing extraordinarily well, which might be a good game for them and their team building, but not a "good game" in the sense of how you want competitive games to play out, you will obviously get examples where the best teams get stomps, and the snowball effects are real with so flipping many mechs on the field and in the way permanent damage and death function in MWO... But with those variables aside the notion of good games coming down to the last men because each team has been trading at relatively equal levels of value is one I stick by. I understand even in the best of circumstances they won't happen all the time, but the goal I would think is to try and make them the norm/average as much as possible.

[Y E O N N E]

Shifty McSwift, on 26 September 2018 - 11:01 PM, said:

I get it man, but again the inference you made above was that that you almost need to small top tier group stomp to keep your score up, or at least that is the inference taken from the system within this game, specific to this game (pvp gaming generalisations aside, but of course they apply), if the result is sometimes you don't get a high match score because the "top performers" of a given match got all the kills in larger groups, then that shows there is value lacking from the opposition and/or matchmaking system (in an overall sense of average game results).

I mean, I guess you could extrapolate the concept of a rockstar in SQ up to a rockteam in GQ, but I don't see any inherent problem there. If a small group is able to get hugely inflated scores like that, it typically means they were fighting an uphill battle to begin with, which implies that the game could very well have been a stomp going the other way without their presence.

Quote

But with those variables aside the notion of good games coming down to the last men because each team has been trading at relatively equal levels of value is one I stick by. I understand even in the best of circumstances they won't happen all the time, but the goal I would think is to try and make them the norm/average as much as possible.

You shouldn't stick by that, though, because when two teams are even then you start having class differences meaning something. The guys in the Light 'Mechs tend to stay out of the front line combat because they get fragged too easily and because they may be needed for a critical game-mode-specific function. Assaults, too, will tend to play second-line because they are such easy targets for literally everything. And then you have groups deciding on themes for their composition that may or may not jive well with the opfor...

TL;DR: your vision for how GQ should play out is not realistic.

[Shifty McSwift]

Yeonne Greene, on 26 September 2018 - 11:00 PM, said:

This is what you said, though:



There is no other way to interpret that first sentence other than how I did. The second sentence is just you being snooty by presenting a false binary.

It was an offhand comment referring to the flaws in that idealism, they were rhetorical questions, and sure they are pretty flippant and not grounded in argumentative logic, and just a couple of several different responses, I was mainly just pointing at the potential ends of that line of reasoning, not accusing... But apologies if that is how it came across, the "you"s were more general and not specific to you. But I get it I responded to your quote, so again, my apologies if it came across that way.

Yeonne Greene, on 26 September 2018 - 11:00 PM, said:

As for being elitist, not really. It's a simple statement of fact.

The sentiment "I only group with +99%ers" and that everyone else just needs to "get on your level" and everything would be okay, I would think is one that pretty apparently does not work, at least in this environment. Whether you adhere to that sentiment or whether I interpreted the intent wrongly of Vxheous (which I still don't think I did, it is pretty clear) is beside the point really, I am saying that ideal is flawed.

[Eisenhorne]

Shifty McSwift, on 26 September 2018 - 11:14 PM, said:

The sentiment "I only group with +99%ers" and that everyone else just needs to "get on your level" and everything would be okay, I would think is one that pretty apparently does not work, at least in this environment. Whether you adhere to that sentiment or whether I interpreted the intent wrongly of Vxheous (which I still don't think I did, it is pretty clear) is beside the point really, I am saying that ideal is flawed.

It's more likely grouping with 90%er's or higher, there are very few people at 99%. The thing is, playing with lower level players (like below 50%) is incredibly frustrating, because they literally seem to take pride in how bad they are, and their outright refusal to improve. You give them advice, and they actively fight you every step of the way, because it's either against lore, or not the way they want to play, or they just think they're right for some reason.

So, the choice then is to either put up with obstinate people who suck at this game and are unwilling to improve, or group up with decent players and stomp them. That's a pretty easy choice IMO.

[Shifty McSwift]

Yeonne Greene, on 26 September 2018 - 11:12 PM, said:

your vision for how GQ should play out is not realistic.

"My vision" is simply a position of desiring substantively challenging games as the norm. To be honest I haven't read the stats, "my vision" of good games could already be in place right now as the norm. Has anyone averaged the match stats to see what kind of results are the norm?

anything 6-12 or above (as an average match result) I would merit in the decent to good game range in the framework of how your system is playing out on average, aside from how individuals and teams are performing.

Edited by Shifty McSwift, 26 September 2018 - 11:26 PM.

[Shifty McSwift]

Eisenhorne, on 26 September 2018 - 11:17 PM, said:

It's more likely grouping with 90%er's or higher, there are very few people at 99%.

Massive difference there, I am totally with the idea of being placed within a reasonable range of skill, don't get me wrong here, just taking it to that level of elitism, which is a numbers someone else used first not me I really don't think is healthy in more ways than one.

[Vxheous]

Shifty McSwift, on 26 September 2018 - 11:01 PM, said:

In very general terms, I would think the "best" of games will go down to the last men, not in terms of a specific team doing extraordinarily well, which might be a good game for them and their team building, but not a "good game" in the sense of how you want competitive games to play out, you will obviously get examples where the best teams get stomps, and the snowball effects are real with so flipping many mechs on the field and in the way permanent damage and death function in MWO... But with those variables aside the notion of good games coming down to the last men because each team has been trading at relatively equal levels of value is one I stick by. I understand even in the best of circumstances they won't happen all the time, but the goal I would think is to try and make them the norm/average as much as possible.

In well balanced matches, games often snowball. It's the games there there's an obvious imbalance (a really good player carrying against almost impossible odds) where you get the close 12-11, 12-10 type games. This is because good players know to punish mistakes and capitalize on them, creating a snowball effect, while average/bad players let those opportunities slide because they don't recognize the opportunities when they present themselves. This is why often times in competitive MWO play, you see 8-1, 8-2, 8-3 scores, even though the fighting/skill level of both teams is quite close.

Here's some examples from internal EmP practices from 2017 (not going to post 2018 screens due to current ongoing MWOWC.

Eisenhorne, on 26 September 2018 - 11:17 PM, said:

It's more likely grouping with 90%er's or higher, there are very few people at 99%. The thing is, playing with lower level players (like below 50%) is incredibly frustrating, because they literally seem to take pride in how bad they are, and their outright refusal to improve. You give them advice, and they actively fight you every step of the way, because it's either against lore, or not the way they want to play, or they just think they're right for some reason.

So, the choice then is to either put up with obstinate people who suck at this game and are unwilling to improve, or group up with decent players and stomp them. That's a pretty easy choice IMO.

Pretty much everyone on EmpyreaL is a 99% player, or they don't even get a chance to come try out in practices (this pretty much applies to all the top comp teams, so it's not just an EmP thing). Also, almost all of them don't care that they are 99%, it's better to have a team player than one that "farm's stats".

Edited by Vxheous, 26 September 2018 - 11:28 PM.

[Shifty McSwift]

Vxheous, on 26 September 2018 - 11:26 PM, said:

In well balanced matches, games often snowball. It's the games there there's an obvious imbalance (a really good player carrying against almost impossible odds) where you get the close 12-11, 12-10 type games.

I would like to see the actual averages out of curiosity, not just three examples that you who has a biased position have chosen for this specific topic, but sure examples are examples, some actual team fight examples might be nice too, isn't it more like group training to fight your own team? I.E. not as serious as opposing teams?

[Vxheous]

Shifty McSwift, on 26 September 2018 - 11:35 PM, said:

I would like to see the actual averages out of curiosity, not just three examples that you who has a biased position have chosen for this specific topic, but sure examples are examples, some actual team fight examples might be nice too, isn't it more like group training to fight your own team? I.E. not as serious as opposing teams?

If you don't recognize the names of the players on both sides in those screenshots, and what it means to fight against/alongside them, there is nothing else I can say to persuade you that they were serious high skill/balanced matches.