280 replies to this topic

[Feral Clown]

Mystere, on 19 August 2019 - 07:29 PM, said:

As a general rule, you cannot (i.e. should not) "fix" something to do a job it was not designed for in the first place. Otherwise, it's just a "hack".

[left]Of course, there is such a things as "repurposing". However, that is an entirely different matter altogether and I doubt it is applicable here.

Bad thinking.

Weight and scoring can be adjusted in the system we have to do a much better job.

[MTier Slayed Up]

A Really Old Clan Dude, on 19 August 2019 - 07:32 PM, said:

I cant believe anyone takes the time to look up someones stats. Seriousl ru ly I have better things to do.

Kind of matters and it doesnt.
I'll take advice on builds or game balance with someone who plays this game competitively over someone who hops on every once in awhile. Just some people's opinions have little to no weight.

[Dee Eight]

I dropped with someone the other night who didn't know how a corsair could have quad AMS... he'd been playing 1.5 months (proof at least new players are still signing up). He already had the attitude of a potato barking orders at people who've got YEARS of play experience and actually knew what they were doing as he hid his assault mech behind the rest of the team.

[PhoenixFire55]

Hey whats the problem, if you aren't sure if all players in T1 are of equal skill then go challenge someone from the top 2% percentile to a 1v1 ... I'm sure they'll show you exactly how equally skilled you and them are ... lol

[Jman5]

A Really Old Clan Dude, on 19 August 2019 - 07:32 PM, said:

I cant believe anyone takes the time to look up someones stats. Seriously I have better things to do.

It takes less time to look up someone's stats than it took for you to write that post about how you have better things to do.

ctrl C + ctrl V.

[Shanrak]

This thread has been extremely entertaining

[Kusok Myasa]

Bad teams are good. In good teams my teammates do all the job. In bad teams i can actually do some damage.

[Sebaztien Hawke]

I’m assuming fewer people are playing in protest as a result of MW5 going Epic Exclusive? I wonder if PGI expected that and factored it in to their decision making.

[JediPanther]

Why play this when you can play a better funner game? Skyrim vanilla npcs have more brains than yolo players.

[R Valentine]

The vast majority of drop callers in this game are terribads who make things worse rather than better. The few who know what they're doing get ignored. It's like players consciously decide how they can lose the game the fastest.

QP in MWO isn't hard, but everyone makes it out to be. People also abandon winning strategies at the first sign of incoming fire even when they're winning. You only need to A) know the strong positions on the map and fight for said positions to make a huge difference in the game. Two or three people in a strong area firing into enemy lemmings can halt that entire team, but as soon as people see mechs looking at them they stop firing, run, and starting turning left. Even in slow 90 ton assault mechs that don't have a prayer of outrunning the nascar. And Stop following alpha lance in your slow assault. In fact, stop following alpha lance period. They're always running around looking for a side angle or back shot, but that doesn't mean you need to do it too. All you end up doing is running around, getting constantly shot in the back while not returning fire.

[rentaspoon]

Fairly new to the game but my opinion is that with the matchmaking now makes it impossible for groups of 2-3 get in together and coordinate at least between each other and the 2 recent events meaning people are trying out new mechs it's possibly lowered the skill level.

On top of that, I painted my King Crab red (because... red can make it go faster) and the team followed me like lost sheep. Now I can manage a lance especially when it contains 3 of my friends that I know are gonna listen but when I have a whole team I don't have the location experience to setup fights.

I've had team mates curse at me because I've "ran off" from fighting 5v2 when I was backing off to squeeze them down narrow areas in solaris city.

I'm not great at this game but ignorance seems to be a big killer to me.

[Horseman]

GuardDogg, on 19 August 2019 - 07:28 PM, said:

What? Comparing two pilots, one does nothing, to the one who puts effort. Both get high scores. And some will say both pilots are good. They move up tiers. We see that.

"Good" may be an exaggeration. One thing that score tells us is that the player is doing something that seems to be helping - but the indication of whether that contribution actually helps comes from that player's win/loss ratio.

GuardDogg, on 19 August 2019 - 05:27 PM, said:

I am in T1.

As has been already established, T1 is basically a participation award and getting there does not automatically make anyone a good player. Good players just get there faster.

GuardDogg, on 19 August 2019 - 05:53 PM, said:

But will not insult others about it (shouldn't be there, or have no say MWO subjects)

You overinterpret some things and take them as personal when they were not (something you seem to have a habit of doing).

You would find the game fairer and more enjoyable if you were matched with and against players who had a similar level of competence as yourself. Competitive players would find the game less frustrating and more enjoyable if they were matched with and against players who had a similar level of competence as themselves. This makes sense, doesn't it?

Okay, so these two groups of players shouldn't be matched together - but they are, because the matchmaker is based on tiers.

"Shouldn't be there" amounts to "shouldn't be matched with/against top players, as the resulting experience is awful for everyone involved".

As for "have no say"... that's not actually what you were told in that argument.
Not everyone's opinion has equal authority. The opinion of a casual sports player would not hold the same weight as that of a competitive professional player of the same sport (nor should it).
If the two have completely opposite opinions on a subject, do you agree that the professional is more likely to be correct on this than the casual?

Edited by Horseman, 21 August 2019 - 07:40 AM.

[GuardDogg]

Horseman, on 21 August 2019 - 07:37 AM, said:

You would find the game fairer and more enjoyable if you were matched with and against players who had a similar level of competence as yourself. Competitive players would find the game less frustrating and more enjoyable if they were matched with and against players who had a similar level of competence as themselves. This makes sense, doesn't it?

Okay, so these two groups of players shouldn't be matched together - but they are, because the matchmaker is based on tiers.

"Shouldn't be there" amounts to "shouldn't be matched with/against top players, as the resulting experience is awful for everyone involved".

As for "have no say"... that's not actually what you were told in that argument.
Not everyone's opinion has equal authority. The opinion of a casual sports player would not hold the same weight as that of a competitive professional player of the same sport (nor should it).
If the two have completely opposite opinions on a subject, do you agree that the professional is more likely to be correct on this than the casual?

I Do not know about that. Both sides can be the best, and eventually one side will break down. 4-12 or even 12-9 (giving examples).

How can anyone say, a person who struggled to get to T1, is not any good, compared to those who moved to T1 with ease, is good. That is like employment of a person started at the bottom, and sweated, pulled every muscle makes it to T1, then saying you are not good (shouldn't be in T1). To a person who moves up in a few days, gets the position.

We seen those who can pull off 400-600 ms with ease (1-3 pilots on a team), and tell other pilots they are stupid to those who pull off 120-300 MS. And then when that person who can pull off a MS of 400-600 all of a sudden loses (a streak of 2-4 rounds) and makes a match score of 200, their is frustration on that pilot, calling names to other pilots but not blaming themselves. Where is the correlation in this problem of teams, players?

How can this be fixed? But if those guys can pull of a Match score of 400-600+. Maybe they should be moved into another categories, like -> "The match score pro section - A" or Damage scores of 600-1000+ per round. We seen these players.

Edited by GuardDogg, 21 August 2019 - 08:34 PM.

[Prototelis]

GuardDogg, on 21 August 2019 - 08:31 PM, said:

How can anyone say, a person who struggled to get to T1, is not any good, compared to those who moved to T1 with ease, is good.

I'm sorry dude, but PSR is a participation award. Tier has little or no merit.

The fact that you struggled to reach tier 1 says a lot about how you play. I have little doubt that any strat you cook up will be defeated with ease; you don't understand the nuances of the game.

Edited by Prototelis, 21 August 2019 - 08:35 PM.

[GuardDogg]

Prototelis, on 21 August 2019 - 08:33 PM, said:

I'm sorry dude, but PSR is a participation award. Tier has little or no merit.

The fact that you struggled to reach tier 1 says a lot about how you play. I have little doubt that any strat you cook up will be defeated with ease; you don't understand the nuances of the game.

How is that? Those who struggle from T5 to T1, do find ways to improve. Reaching T1 is not easy for many.

Edited by GuardDogg, 21 August 2019 - 08:37 PM.

[Prototelis]

Because its almost impossible to deprecate in PSR unless you're playing very very badly. You almost have to try to lose PSR.

Then you come onto the forums to complain that people don't listen to you; well no **** your track record indicates that you have little understanding of the game.

Even without being able to look you up I would know based on your post history that you don't understand the game.

To me it feels like the only reason you want to hide stats is because you want to be respected, and have your opinions heard. Even if we couldn't look you up; your opinions are counter to what many of us know are best practices in game. You've been given lots of good advice in your threads that you just brush off.

Your attitude on feeling like you're right, that you don't need to improve because you already know what is best, that is the most toxic thing in this community.


Edit: For what its worth, there are some very very bad players that I have a lot of respect for because they know they aren't good at the game, ask questions, are receptive to constructive input, and generally work on getting better. Some of those people went on to get pretty good, some haven't progressed at all despite following good advice; but at least they work on themselves. You don't want to work on yourself at all, that is not respectable.

Edited by Prototelis, 21 August 2019 - 08:58 PM.

[Feral Clown]

Prototelis, on 21 August 2019 - 08:44 PM, said:

Edit: For what its worth, there are some very very bad players that I have a lot of respect for because they know they aren't good at the game, ask questions, are receptive to constructive input, and generally work on getting better. Some of those people went on to get pretty good, some haven't progressed at all despite following good advice; but at least they work on themselves. You don't want to work on yourself at all, that is not respectable.

There are also players with very good looking stats that I don't respect cause they are either cancer eagle 24-7 or running only MKII B's. When the Kodiak was able to run quad uac10 there were players who only played that mech and when it was nerfed they were nerfed along with it.

[Prototelis]

^

Also a whole slew of "Expert aggressive lrmers" that can't figure out higher DPS low arcs that are in the same boat.

I used to have some lrmer buds I played with who were nice to have, because they didn't insist on doing it in an assault in GQ and would expose with me and pepper the things I was engaging. It was nice.

[Xiphias]

GuardDogg, on 21 August 2019 - 08:31 PM, said:

How can anyone say, a person who struggled to get to T1, is not any good, compared to those who moved to T1 with ease, is good.

Think of it this way, imagine getting to T1 is like scoring 10 bullseyes on a target. Player 1 gets 10 bullseyes in 20 shots, Player 2 gets 10 bullseyes in 200 shots, Player 3 gets 10 bullseyes in 2000 shots. Is Player 3 a good shot compared to Player 1? No, Player 3 simply got to the 10 bullseyes through shear attrition.

This is mostly how the tier system works due to the upward bias in how PSR works. Good players will get to T1 quickly (able to hit the bullseye consistently), weaker players will eventually get there just by playing a lot of matches and letting the upward bias slowly carry them to that point. Only truly bad players will never get to T1 (i.e. they can't even hit the target, much less a bullseye).

Being in T1 doesn't mean you are good. It only means that 1) you aren't completetly terrible, and 2) that you've played enough matches to get your PSR to that point. Stats are a much, much better indicator of skill that tier.

Quote

That is like employment of a person started at the bottom, and sweated, pulled every muscle makes it to T1, then saying you are not good (shouldn't be in T1). To a person who moves up in a few days, gets the position.

Effort and skill are not the same thing. A person who is skilled enough to get to T1 quickly is better than a person who takes a long time to grind it out. If PSR was a zero sum system (i.e. for you to move up someone else had to move down) and you worked your way up by getting better than other players that would be one thing. As it stands though it functions almost (though not quite) like an XP bar.

At the end of the day the fact of the matter is that you really aren't a very good player. That's not an insult, there's nothing wrong with that, and there are any number of reasons that could contribute to it, but the fact still stands.

You've played a lot of matches (more than I have I think), but you've shown minimal improvement. I think the reason for that is likely that you're not taking ownership of your part in this or reflecting on how to get better. Your first response to any criticism is not to reflect on your gameplay and try to improve, it's to argue as to why the criticism is wrong, why it isn't your fault, or any other number of excuses. When you die in a match don't quit immediately, don't blame your team, look at what you did and ask yourself where you went wrong and what your could have done better. Do this on wins too. If you were out of position on a flank and died, learn from your mistake and don't flank like that again.

Don't focus on anything else other than what you could have done better in the matches you were in (win or lose). That is how you will get better. Identify specific things to work on and focus on getting better at those.

Take the Dragon build with 3 AC2s from earlier in this thread. It is a good build and better than the one that you were arguing for. You mentioned that the arm is easy to shoot off, that's true. However, what that means is not that the build is bad or that you shouldn't play it, but that you need to get better at shielding to be able to use it effectively. If you practice shielding it will be bad at first, but if you get good at it the build will be better overall. That's how you become a better player. If you can't/don't want to get better at shielding that's you're choice, but don't pretend as though another build is better when it's simply your lack of ability to utilize the superior build.

Having different playstyles is fine, however that's not to say that all playstyles are equal. Some playstyles are inherently bad and if you use them you will never advance to really being a good player (e.g. sitting in the back lobbing LRMS). One of the core traits of good players is flexibility, the ability to adapt to new situations. Good players adapt their playstyle to the mech they are piloting, the map they are on, and the players that they are with. Some mechs/builds in this game are just better than others if you are unable to use them effectively it means that your playstyle needs to change because it is what is holding you back.

You are free to choose any playstyle you want, however if you want to get better or you want your game advice and tactics to be worth listening to you need to be willing to adapt your playstyle to what is most effective. You can't change the meta, but you can get better at playing with/in it. If you aren't willing to change, practice things you're bad at, and constantly adapt then you will never become a better player, you'll be stuck at a constant level of meritocracy.

Stats aren't toxic, they aren't inherently good or bad. What they are is cold hard reality. Toxic players may use stats in toxic ways, but it's the players not the stats that are at fault. If you find stats embarrassing or toxic that's more of a reflection on you personally. You're projecting your feelings and experiences. You can't control what other people do or say, you can only control what you do and how you react to what they do. It's the internet, people are going to be rude, insulting, and toxic. That's unfortunately, but letting it stress you out is foolish. If a game or forum is stressing you out and getting your blood pressure up rather than being fun then you really should consider stepping away from it.

Stats are a great tool for players looking to improve themselves and a rough metric for quickly evaluating how likely a given player is to know what they're talking about. If stats bother you then ignore them. Understand though that while everyone is entitled to their own opinion, not all opinions are equally valid. If you want your advice/suggestions to be taken seriously then you need to be able to demonstrate that you do in fact know what your are talking about and the best way to do that is through actions, not words.

[Prototelis]

Tiers don't even have to be zero sum to work correctly, they just need to take into account all of the performance data available when sorting people.

It only takes 24 people to make a decently balanced match.

Edited by Prototelis, 22 August 2019 - 02:31 PM.