178 replies to this topic

[Nightbird]

dario03, on 17 December 2020 - 01:06 PM, said:

You are comparing the proposals. But I am not, and it isn't very relevant to the point I'm making.

You can tell people the current system is a failure, doesn't bother me. You can also tell them that the other groups system would fail, again doesn't bother me. My issue is with you saying the proposals of the other group have failed. Unless I'm wrong and everything Jay wanted put in was put in, this isn't their system, its a different system. You can't say a system failed if the system wasn't actually used. Its the simple difference of "the groups system would fail" and "the groups system has failed".

I basically wasn't involved in the psr update, I commented on a couple of things but that was about it. So your last sentence would only apply to you.

There you have it folks, current MM and PSR working just fine. We don't want a 135% better MM, the one we have is fine. But it's not our fault if you think it sucks, because PGI didn't implement parts not written in our proposal. lol

Edited by Nightbird, 17 December 2020 - 01:13 PM.

[dario03]

Nightbird, on 17 December 2020 - 01:08 PM, said:

There you have it folks, current MM and PSR working just fine. We don't want a 135% better MM, the one we have is fine. But it's not our fault if you think it sucks, because PGI didn't implement parts not written in our proposal. lol

Not sure why you're jumping to that conclusion now, but...ok.

[Heavy Money]

Nightbird, on 17 December 2020 - 01:08 PM, said:

There you have it folks, current MM and PSR working just fine. We don't want a 135% better MM, the one we have is fine. But it's not our fault if you think it sucks, because PGI didn't implement parts not written in our proposal. lol

I know nothing about either proposal, their history, or any of the people involved. But just reading your overly hyperbolic posts and intentional misrepresentation of what someone is saying has convinced me that anything you have come up with is probably going to be terrible. You have made yourself look so bad that I am now actively concerned that you would be allowed to have any impact on the game. Please stop damaging community confidence with your silly ego tripping.

Edited by Heavy Money, 17 December 2020 - 01:30 PM.

[Nightbird]

Heavy Money, on 17 December 2020 - 01:29 PM, said:

I know nothing about either proposal, their history, or any of the people involved. But just reading your overly hyperbolic posts and intentional misrepresentation of what someone is saying has convinced me that anything you have come up with is probably going to be terrible. You have made yourself look so bad that I am now actively concerned that you would be allowed to have any impact on the game. Please stop damaging community confidence with your silly ego tripping.

Name one point I misrepresented. If you can't, you are describing yourself.

[Heavy Money]

Nightbird, on 17 December 2020 - 01:32 PM, said:

Name one point I misrepresented. If you can't, you are describing yourself.

Dario's point about the system not being implemented is straightforward. You may be correct that it makes no difference if it was fully implemented or not, but before you argued that you spent ages straw manning him and attacking his intentions for no reason. Watching you trying to talk crap on a neutral party making a simple point, and then you trying to gin them up into being the avatar of the other side of some spat they aren't even really a part of is infuriating for everyone else.

Its not about your arguments, its about how you've made them that destroys your credibility. You could be right about everything, but the way you have approached this discussion is so childlike and infuriating for everyone else that now I hope you fail even if you are right.

[Nightbird]

Heavy Money, on 17 December 2020 - 01:40 PM, said:

Dario's point about the system not being implemented is straightforward.

The system proposed and which I linked in my first post in this thread was fully implemented by PGI. Full stop.

Any other points to make other than sharing, and I paraphrase, "I am ignorant of the whole topic but still feel the need to comment!"

Edited by Nightbird, 17 December 2020 - 01:44 PM.

[K O Z A K]

Heavy Money, on 17 December 2020 - 01:29 PM, said:

I know nothing about either proposal, their history, or any of the people involved. But just reading your overly hyperbolic posts and intentional misrepresentation of what someone is saying has convinced me that anything you have come up with is probably going to be terrible. You have made yourself look so bad that I am now actively concerned that you would be allowed to have any impact on the game. Please stop damaging community confidence with your silly ego tripping.

This is basically why NBs proposal wasn't even looked at. There are some members of the "community" that have a negative opinion of NB for completely unrelated reasons, and when PGI was looking at options they crapped all over NBs proposal despite the fact he put in a LOT of work including showing a direct comparison how his system was far superior despite being no more difficult to implement

Now we have what we have

Edited by Hazeclaw, 17 December 2020 - 02:13 PM.

[Heavy Money]

Hazeclaw, on 17 December 2020 - 02:12 PM, said:

This is basically why NBs proposal wasn't even looked at. There are some members of the "community" that have a negative opinion of NB for completely unrelated reasons, and when PGI was looking at options they crapped all over NBs proposal despite the fact he put in a LOT of work including showing a direct comparison how his system was far superior despite being no more difficult to implement

Now we have what we have

That's a shame if he tainted a good proposal by having a bad attitude. Based on his behavior here, i can see why people are against him, but that still sucks if his system was good. It desn't matter if you are right if you can't present your ideas in a civil way, and if you start attacking other people for no reason. Its too bad the community had to suffer because of his ego.

Hopefully in the future PGI will implement whatever is best for the game regardless of who proposed it.

Edited by Heavy Money, 17 December 2020 - 02:21 PM.

[Nightbird]

Heavy Money, on 17 December 2020 - 02:21 PM, said:

That's a shame if he tainted a good proposal by having a bad attitude. Based on his behavior here, i can see why people are against him, but that still sucks if his system was good. It desn't matter if you are right if you can't present your ideas in a civil way, and if you start attacking other people for no reason. Its too bad the community had to suffer because of his ego.

Hopefully in the future PGI will implement whatever is best for the game regardless of who proposed it.

Any time I start an evidence based thread you have those community members jump in with lies. Look in this thread, people lied about my proposal being out-of-scope, my proposal being difficult to implement, of the current PSR-MM being incompletely implemented. Just give it up. We're going to be stuck with a terrible MM, PGI doesn't care, and neither does the community.

[Heavy Money]

Nightbird, on 17 December 2020 - 02:25 PM, said:

Any time I start an evidence based thread you have those community members jump in with lies. Look in this thread, people lied about my proposal being out-of-scope, my proposal being difficult to implement, of the current PSR-MM being incompletely implemented. Just give it up. We're going to be stuck with a terrible MM, PGI doesn't care, and neither does the community.

That really sucks if that's the case. I sympathize, and i'm sorry if you've gotten unfairly treated.
But I still think you are rude, and undermine yourself with the way you attack people rather than just explaining this stuff in the first place.

[Nightbird]

Heavy Money, on 17 December 2020 - 02:27 PM, said:

That really sucks if that's the case. I sympathize, and i'm sorry if you've gotten unfairly treated.
But I still think you are rude, and undermine yourself with the way you attack people rather than just explaining this stuff in the first place.

Explaining myself doesn't work (I have more than 100 posts patiently explaining every aspect of my proposal). Being rude at least amuses me, and serves as entertainment. I'll keep doing it this way, but thanks anyways.

[Heavy Money]

Nightbird, on 17 December 2020 - 02:30 PM, said:

Explaining myself doesn't work (I have more than 100 posts patiently explaining every aspect of my proposal). Being rude at least amuses me, and serves as entertainment. I'll keep doing it this way, but thanks anyways.

Ah, well, I haven't read those other posts. I am just reacting to what I saw here. I get now that there's a big history to this.
Good luck with getting some changes made though! If you get something through and it changes the game for the better, I will be happy to apologize for attacking you, and give you due credit and praise.

[Nightbird]

Heavy Money, on 17 December 2020 - 02:33 PM, said:

Ah, well, I haven't read those other posts. I am just reacting to what I saw here. I get now that there's a big history to this.
Good luck with getting some changes made though! If you get something through and it changes the game for the better, I will be happy to apologize for attacking you, and give you due credit and praise.

Thanks! Don't expect anything though, as I said before the skilled pilots that run groups in QP and thus benefit from the favoritism shown to them by the MM are not likely to vote for a change that creates fair matches. It's not so much as being malicious as being self-interested. They don't care about the pop or PGI profits.

If you're interested in this topic, here is a thread on how better matchmaking improves retention of players:

https://mwomercs.com...hmaker-is-king/

And then this thread might make more sense, how better match making concentrates players around 1 WLR and leads to better retention and pop:

https://mwomercs.com...cy-with-graphs/

Edited by Nightbird, 17 December 2020 - 02:41 PM.

[dario03]

Nightbird, on 17 December 2020 - 02:25 PM, said:

Any time I start an evidence based thread you have those community members jump in with lies. Look in this thread, people lied about my proposal being out-of-scope, my proposal being difficult to implement, of the current PSR-MM being incompletely implemented. Just give it up. We're going to be stuck with a terrible MM, PGI doesn't care, and neither does the community.

The thread you just posted earlier has Paul state multiple times in the op that match score was up to be changed. It was also talked about plenty and if I recall correctly had its own section on the groups discord which you were part of. But yet no changes to the Match score have been implemented. So it is incomplete.

[John Bronco]

Nightbird, on 17 December 2020 - 02:36 PM, said:

Thanks! Don't expect anything though, as I said before the skilled pilots that run groups in QP and thus benefit from the favoritism shown to them by the MM are not likely to vote for a change that creates fair matches. It's not so much as being malicious as being self-interested. They don't care about the pop or PGI profits.

Please tell us more about this conspiracy theory.

[Nightbird]

dario03, on 17 December 2020 - 02:51 PM, said:

The thread you just posted earlier has Paul state multiple times in the op that match score was up to be changed. It was also talked about plenty and if I recall correctly had its own section on the groups discord which you were part of. But yet no changes to the Match score have been implemented. So it is incomplete.

No part of the current PSR+MM proposal document use that as a condition for functionality. This is just an after-the-fact excuse. At the time, the authors promised it would work and that any MS changes would further improve it. Regardless, even if we do go further with MS changes (who know, we might again in Jan), I'll keep myself entertained once again showing it can't possibly work.

BlaizerP, on 17 December 2020 - 02:59 PM, said:

Please tell us more about this conspiracy theory.

The fact the group won't support a PSR+MM 135% better than the current PSR+MM isn't convincing enough?

[John Bronco]

Nightbird, on 17 December 2020 - 03:03 PM, said:

No part of the current PSR+MM proposal document use that as a condition for functionality. This is just an after-the-fact excuse. At the time, the authors promised it would work and that any MS changes would further improve it. Regardless, even if we do go further with MS changes (who know, we might again in Jan), I'll keep myself entertained once again showing it can't possibly work.



The fact the group won't support a PSR+MM 135% better than the current PSR+MM isn't convincing enough?

I haven't heard anything from the group since the changes went in. They don't appear to be active here.

Perhaps the silence is deafening, but it's not enough to lead me to conclude they had nefarious self-serving motives.

[Nightbird]

BlaizerP, on 17 December 2020 - 03:05 PM, said:

I haven't heard anything from the group since the changes went in. They don't appear to be active here.

Perhaps the silence is deafening, but it's not enough to lead me to conclude they had nefarious self-serving motives.

Then speak just for yourself then, do you support a PSR+MM 135% better than what we have today, for the next update if there is one?

[John Bronco]

Nightbird, on 17 December 2020 - 03:06 PM, said:

Then speak just for yourself then, do you support a PSR+MM 135% better than what we have today, for the next update if there is one?

Yes.

[Nightbird]

BlaizerP, on 17 December 2020 - 03:09 PM, said:

Yes.

Then obviously I have no quarrel with you. If better proposals appear at the time, so long as it is supported by evidence, I also wouldn't hesitate voting for that. By my own admission, my proposal is trash (135% better than today, yes, but still trash because much better is possible still). The whole process has been very frustrating not about what is best for MWO. Maybe we'll see something different next round, maybe not.