226 replies to this topic

[_Magno_]

EDIT: After 10 pages of comments, following through on player's advice, improving weaknesses over the last week, I would agree that Jarl's list has tremendous value and more than strong correlation to both player skill and knowledge, but I still stand by the argument that player's and comments should NOT be dismissed with the simple Jarl's list arguement, rather their arguements and comments should dismiss their validity.

If they do NOT provide a good case, or an arguement, then the only thing they leave themselves with for defense is their Jarl's information.

--end EDIT--


---Original Post----
This is an unfortunate position to have. I've read plenty of responses that read as, "You have a 50% percentile on Jarl's list, so stop talking like you know things."
or
"Don't listen to this guy, he's ranked low on Jarl's list."
or
"pay attention to this guy, he's ranked high on Jarl's list.

I love Jarl's list, I love data, statistics, but I am not going to judge a player's value by Jarl's list.

Plenty of stats that will never be known from simple reference to Jarl's list.

1. The game does not capture information on whether you are tinkering around, letting friends and children play on your account, etc.. My kids play on my account, they don't suck, but they don't pad out in the positive direction either. I'm not going to limit sharing the enjoyment of fighting in giant robots to protect a standing that is used to distill humans into a simple value.

2. Focus on command work. I.e, if you're running around in an Artic Cheetah with ECM, TAG and 1 large laser, you will rarely get above 300 damage even if you ONLY focus on damage and rarely get kills so your kill count and score will not go up, but you could be doing a fabulous job spotting and communicating information to make your company mates more effective.

3. Playing all the mechs. I've played dozens of games with the Viper, Mist Lynx, etc., and NOT with meta builds. Plenty of better mechs. If I continue to challenge myself, enjoy something different, understand what truly makes for a good vs bad mech through experience/gameplay, my stats are going to be suppressed. But my knowledge is not.

4. Gaming the statistics. Plenty of ways to do this.
- Only play in meta-build mechs
- hang back and wait for team mates to soften opponents, then wake up to clean up on open torsos late game. You folks are junk humans and I hope all your ice cream tastes of swampy pork.
- Always select scenario and map locations suited for your build. (I love selecting hot maps and conquest with my slow *** laser vomit Thunderbolts).

Jarl's list is fun to peruse. I'm glad that PGI collects this information. But we should be careful how we drive this information to mean false things.

Edited by _Magno_, 21 January 2020 - 03:39 AM.

[Kodyn]

I'd say that Jarl's shows more skill than knowledge. I for example, know things, but I don't always practice the best habits while I'm actually playing, because I don't really care that much. Probably a lot of us that know the right ways to build mechs, where to go and where to avoid being on maps, how to manage heat, what weapons or mechs are optimal or should be avoided, etc. Putting all of that into practice on a daily basis in every QP match is another matter entirely. I fully accept that my opinions will carry no weight on these forums however, because a check of my stats would reveal my mediocrity of performance.

While I agree with your points, I doubt you're going to change a lot of opinions around here. Eventually what happens over time is you develop recognition of who knows what they're talking about and who's simply talking out of their a**, Jarl's or no. I don't think stat-shaming is really going to go away anytime soon, in pretty much any game.

[John Bronco]

1. True, if multiple people use the same account it will not reflect the experience of any single pilot.
2. I don't need jarls because this sentence alone tells me you are a bad pilot. What a waste of a mech.
3. Good pilots will put up good stats in any mech. Yes, there is a bit of a haircut for worse builds.
4. Yes, but we know who those people are.

Jarls is very useful for figuring out who not to listen to, less useful for determining if 98% guy is truly a better pilot than 97% guy.

And I agree it's not like low rankers don't have anything useful to offer, for if I wanted to lose more I'd gladly take their advice

[VonBruinwald]

BlaizerP, on 16 January 2020 - 07:50 AM, said:

Jarls is very useful for figuring out who not to listen to, less useful for determining if 98% guy is truly a better pilot than 97% guy.

And I agree it's not like low rankers don't have anything useful to offer, for if I wanted to lose more I'd gladly take their advice

Anyone below the 50th percentile I'll take with a grain of salt. It depends if it's in game fighting or underlying mechanics we're discussing.

[The Jewce Iz Loose]

Chicks dig pilots with a good jarl score

[_Magno_]

BlaizerP, on 16 January 2020 - 07:50 AM, said:

2. I don't need jarls because this sentence alone tells me you are a bad pilot. [playing with an Arctic Cheetah] What a waste of a mech.

So hold on here buckarroo. Choosing to go out in an Arctic Cheetah a bad pilot does not make. Going out in a an Annihilator-2A with 6x LB AC2x and getting less than 400 damage makes bad pilot.

The point being is that I SHOULD get better Jarl's list stats with the Anni than I would with the Arctic Cheetah. I can do a phenomenal job piloting the ACH, really help out the team, still get a ****** score.

So, you will associate a good pilot in Quick Play as one who ONLY choses to go out in top tier mechs?
After 5 games rolling around in a Wolfhound 5x MPL and averaging 2 kills and 700 damage, maybe I want to change things up and try a challenge mode and focus on comms and targeting for the LURMeys.

There is a soft correlation that a high ranked Jarl's list player is rarely, ....rarely ever playing in an ACH of that spotter build.

But one could have a 50% Jarl's percentile arguing that the ACH TAG mech is a bad and they have the same knowledge (not necessarily skill) as a top Jarl's player; the difference is that one player won't bother with trying because they are concerned with stats.

[John Bronco]

I'm certainly willing to believe the 50% player and the 99% player could both agree that bringing a 1xERL cheetah to a game is ******* your team over, yes.

[Horseman]

_Magno_, on 16 January 2020 - 07:37 AM, said:

This is an unfortunate position to have. I've read plenty of responses that read as, "You have a 50% percentile on Jarl's list, so stop talking like you know things."
or
"Don't listen to this guy, he's ranked low on Jarl's list."

If this guy is trying to make fallacious assertions regarding effective play, builds and gameplay balance that go against the established facts? Yes, you can bet that his track records is going to be dug up.
Usually what turns out is that this guy is a bad player with delusions of grandeur who has ground his way to Tier 1 through sheer number of matches rather than genuine competence.
The PSR system is skewed badly towards pushing players up the ranks; anyone who plays often enough and isn't too badly detrimental to their team's winrate will hit T1 sooner or later.
This guy usually doesn't get that and wholeheartedly believes that T1 means he is god's gift to mechwarriors and can do or say no wrong.

Quote

"pay attention to this guy, he's ranked high on Jarl's list.

Probabilities.
Who is more likely to have a clue about gameplay and effectiveness of certain approaches against others?
The guy who either barely plays the game or plays it badly enough to be statistically likely a detriment to any team he's on or the guy who plays the game well and is statistically more likely to be an asset to a team he's on?

Quote

Plenty of stats that will never be known from simple reference to Jarl's list.

Agreed, but their overall impact will come across in one stat or another.

Quote

1. The game does not capture information on whether you are tinkering around, letting friends and children play on your account, etc.. My kids play on my account, they don't suck, but they don't pad out in the positive direction either. I'm not going to limit sharing the enjoyment of fighting in giant robots to protect a standing that is used to distill humans into a simple value.

Given a sufficiently large sample size - ie, number of matches - that stuff just amounts to random noise. Even sharing your account, as long as you're the one playing most matches on it.

Quote

2. Focus on command work. I.e, if you're running around in an Artic Cheetah with ECM, TAG and 1 large laser, you will rarely get above 300 damage even if you ONLY focus on damage and rarely get kills so your kill count and score will not go up, but you could be doing a fabulous job spotting and communicating information to make your company mates more effective.

If you are doing a good enough job, your team will win more often than they lose.This actually does come across to Jarl's, through your winrate.

Quote

3. Playing all the mechs. I've played dozens of games with the Viper, Mist Lynx, etc., and NOT with meta builds. Plenty of better mechs. If I continue to challenge myself, enjoy something different, understand what truly makes for a good vs bad mech through experience/gameplay, my stats are going to be suppressed. But my knowledge is not.

No, if you continue to challenge yourself you will eventually get empirical knowledge that will positively affect your overall performance.

Quote

4. Gaming the statistics. Plenty of ways to do this.
- Only play in meta-build mechs

On the contrary, a bad player in a good mech is still a bad player.
A player who doesn't understand how to play his mech won't do much good in the match either.
A good player in a bad mech can still make the most out of a bad situation.

Quote

- hang back and wait for team mates to soften opponents, then wake up to clean up on open torsos late game. You folks are junk humans and I hope all your ice cream tastes of swampy pork.

Reality: These players will usually end up losing more often than they win, because while hanging back is a valid thing to do given certain mechs and builds, failing to engage with the majority of their team will mean the KDR farming ****** (and yes, I've seen a few) is usually going to have to fight one-on-many at the end of the match.
He will then get one, maybe two kills, DIE and LOSE. His score will also tank because he failed to take many possible actions that provide match score throughout a game.
(Protip: rewards for losing are smaller than rewards for winning. Anyone who doesn't try to win isn't respecting themselves, their team nor their enemy)
This is because he failed to provide firepower and share aggro (if not armor) when and where they mattered.
Lanchester's laws in a microcosm - if your team is down one man through most of the match, you might overcome that handicap but you're likely to get screwed unless the opfor really messes up.

Quote

- Always select scenario and map locations suited for your build. (I love selecting hot maps and conquest with my slow *** laser vomit Thunderbolts).

Eh, sure, but any non-meta build can be tweaked to perform slightly better under adverse conditions (which is why it's not meta, duh ).

Edited by Horseman, 16 January 2020 - 02:24 PM.

[K O Z A K]

the fact that you think playing a "spotter" ach in quickplay is helping your team shows why people shouldn't listen to advice given by 50% players

ach is not a terrible mech as such (not as good as it used to be, but still very workable), but a single erll plus tag is a terrible loadout for it

[Brauer]

To #2, a lot of command work and calling can be done from any mech. Sure some mechs are better at getting scouting info, but that's far less important in QP because of how predictable movements are. So in addition to calls showing up in your wlr already anyway you can make those same calls in a dakka Sleipnir and not only herd your team, but also drop 1K+ and get some kills.

Since your primary job as a pilot in this game is, in just about every case, to do damage and get kills that would should never be neglected.

[Khobai]

jarls doesnt separate stats for solo and group queue. that fact alone taints a lot of the data.

if you play with good players in group queue of course your stats will be better than if you play with bad players in solo queue.

[Brauer]

Khobai, on 16 January 2020 - 09:35 AM, said:

jarls doesnt separate stats for solo and group queue. that fact alone taints a lot of the data.

if you play with good players in group queue of course your stats will be better than if you play with bad players in solo queue.

GroupQ has been dead for quite a while.

Sooooooo....

[Khobai]

Brauer, on 16 January 2020 - 09:36 AM, said:

GroupQ has been dead for quite a while.

Sooooooo....

and your point is?

jarls was not completely reset since people stopped playing in group queue. those stats from when people played in group queue are still very much there.

besides group queue isnt 100% dead and most group queue matches are stomps now. so thats continuing to taint the data. thats always been the problem with jarls list.

jarls list should only should solo queue stats. that would reflect an individuals skill way better.

Edited by Khobai, 16 January 2020 - 09:49 AM.

[Brauer]

Khobai, on 16 January 2020 - 09:37 AM, said:

and your point is?

jarls was not completely reset since people stopped playing in group queue. those stats from when people played in group queue are still very much there.

But they do matter less and less as time passes. Plus if you actually play with good players you will likely only see your wlr and maybe kdr inflate. Average and adjusted match score will likely decline because you have more competition for the damage and stomps give less time to farm.

Basically, the GQ argument never made that much sense, and is especially disingenuous or misguided now that GQ is dead and we can see what jarls looks like without it.

Edited by Brauer, 16 January 2020 - 09:44 AM.

[K O Z A K]

Khobai, on 16 January 2020 - 09:35 AM, said:

jarls doesnt separate stats for solo and group queue. that fact alone taints a lot of the data.

if you play with good players in group queue of course your stats will be better than if you play with bad players in solo queue.

had group que still be working, playing in a group with good players would increase your kdr and wlr but drastically decrease your match score, and jarls ranking is based on match score

[Prototelis]

Sweet, another mad cuz bad thread.

[Bud Crue]

Kind of a rant:

I’m not directing this at the OP or any other individual, but when these sorts of “stats don’t tell the whole picture” or “I am better than my stats suggest” type themes come up, and they have over the years, come up a lot, I am always struck by how this game seems to have an awful lot of people that are really uncomfortable with not being good at it. Uncomfortable to the point of self-delusion. It’s just weird.

So let me just say to all of you who are convinced that you really do understand the game, or that you are a great player or whatever prideful aspect of your self-image you are trying to assert, despite having mediocre to crap stats; that you are wrong. The long term stats don’t lie. If like me, your stats over the long term are mediocre to poor, the cold hard reality, is that your knowledge of this game and/or your ability to play it is also mediocre to poor. And that’s OK! Own it. If you want to get better, maybe try to listen to those who are empirically, and yes, statistically, better at it, and follow their example; or not, whatever. But this whole idea that “I am very good but my stats are bad and you just don’t understand my approach to the game” or whatever is just, well, delusion. It’s OK to be bad at a game, even a game you have played for years. But trying to convince people who are actually good at the game that you are on their level or that you understand it as well as they do just makes you look really insecure, or as I say above, delusional.

I have pointed out before that there are an awful lot of motivations behind the various players of this game, and some of those motivation are fundamentally at odds with getting gud at this game. It’s fine if you want to play crap builds, or play only that one build you liked in TT, or always brawl in everything and rush in stupidly (raises hand), or Lurm no matter what, or what have you. But this delusion that “I am good” despite my objectively bad statistical performance is something that drives me nuts. Sorry. As a mediocre player who knows he is mediocre and always will be this has always bugged me.

End rant

Edited by Bud Crue, 16 January 2020 - 10:01 AM.

[Shanrak]

1. If you share your account often enough that it impacts your % significantly, then odds are when they encounter you in game you are not the one playing so its reasonable that they shouldn't expect to listen to you.

2. No reason you can only focus on command work and nothing else. Good players can shoot/move/command at the same time. Why handicap your team that way?

3. Plenty of high % players tinker and play weird builds, no one can play meta 100% of the time as it gets boring fast. At most it affects their average match score by a little bit, you won't see any significant drop off like you are implying.

4. Sure some people like to game the stats, its a video game, you are supposed to go for high scores

I call bs on

Quote

hang back and wait for team mates to soften opponents, then wake up to clean up on open torsos late game.

The majority of the score comes from doing damage, if you just wait in the back chances are you will be left with nothing to shoot at, or be facing 5+ mechs at once. To get the high scores you have to be aggressive and but not overly aggressive that you die too early.

When I see someone with a decent jarls score(80%+), I know I can count on them to know how to aim and hit stuff, position properly, twist damage, and know which parts of the map to avoid and not be caught out in the open. Out of those things, only 25% of it is what you consider 'knowledge'.

Lastly, also, its OKAY to be bad at something, its the lack of interest to improve that upsets most of the good players.

Edited by Shanrak, 16 January 2020 - 10:03 AM.

[VonBruinwald]

Bud Crue, on 16 January 2020 - 09:58 AM, said:

The long term stats don’t lie. If like me, your stats over the long term are mediocre to poor, the cold hard reality, is that your knowledge of this game and/or your ability to play it is also mediocre to poor. And that’s OK! Own it. If you want to get better, maybe try to listen to those who are empirically, and yes, statistically, better at it, and follow their example;

I'll agree to this.

[Kodyn]

I feel like one of the big problems with this discussion is that people are still conflating stats/skill/experience, when they are separate metrics for the most part. There's a lot of us with a ton of experience, but we're not always necessarily skilled enough to put that knowledge to best use. Then there's skill, which can be useful even without experience, to an extent(see players who pick up this game and within a day or two are great at it, because they're just good gamers overall). The combination of both will obviously result in better stats.

It comes down to using your best judgement as to who to pay attention to- an experienced player with poor stats can still give you useful general game knowledge, but if an equally or less experienced player with great stats contradicts that advice, then you should probably listen to that guy.

Another thing to consider is even a bad player can give good advice or have useful input on a discussion. They may have learned good tips from better players, and just fail at applying those tips themselves in game. Basically you should take everything with a grain of salt and not take any statement for granted unless/until it's common knowledge.

Overall Jarl's is still a pretty good indicator of roughly how likely someone is to be a decent player or not, but it probably shouldn't be used as a debate-ender, except in cases where some idiot is blatantly spreading misinformation and bad advice. I can see why it bothers the OP, as well as why it's used as a measuring stick in so many discussions.