277 replies to this topic

[Mackman]

Naitsirch, on 17 February 2013 - 06:17 PM, said:

First of all, what you say about getting money back for purchased upgrades is true, especially when selling an upgraded mech, as the explanation for repeated upgrade-cost, (getting dhs 2mn, reverting to shs again some amount), goes with the installment of upgrades making up the cost mainly, would not be valid.

That said, what I read from your posts is, you want to win no matter what the game is and/or no matter what the background of a game is. This is by FAR not the case for most of the playerbase, but highly typical for the group of players making up pugstompers/noobcrushers/welprapers etc. in any game.
MOST of the BT-fanbase wants to be in a mech, even better in their favourite mech and come across the map stomping, firing and listening to metal or whatever meanwhile. This is exactly what Elo can and hopefully does provide: cool and interesting, hasty or slowplayed, brawls and snipefests of mechs - since the fun is in the game, not in the useless bragging
(if you want that, go to EvE/caod or was it coad?)

Seriously, learn to enjoy the games you play, since only wanting to win no matter the fun in A HOBBY makes you look... unfriendly.

There's nothing wrong at all with wanting to win. However, there is something wrong with wanting those wins to come from people vastly less skilled than you are (which is, essentially, what being against a matchmaking system means).

[Naitsirch]

Mackman, on 17 February 2013 - 06:21 PM, said:

There's nothing wrong at all with wanting to win. However, there is something wrong with wanting those wins to come from people vastly less skilled than you are (which is, essentially, what being against a matchmaking system means).

I agree 100%, I want to win too, but even if I don't win it most likely was an awesome fight and the other team earned the win, not simply stomped by using what I would deem system-exploits. The other poster implied he does not care for the sweaty fighting in mechs etc, but only for being the winner, which I 100% don't want and which is why I refuse to run ******** cheesebuilds aswell.

[Mackman]

Naitsirch, on 17 February 2013 - 06:29 PM, said:

I agree 100%, I want to win too, but even if I don't win it most likely was an awesome fight and the other team earned the win, not simply stomped by using what I would deem system-exploits. The other poster implied he does not care for the sweaty fighting in mechs etc, but only for being the winner, which I 100% don't want and which is why I refuse to run ******** cheesebuilds aswell.

I think we're in total agreement. True MechWarriors want good, even fights, not stomping on noobs because you have better equipment than they do.

[Naitsirch]

Yep we are, but I wanted to point out that I highly like a deserved and well earned win
edit: meh, 4:00 am...

Edited by Naitsirch, 17 February 2013 - 06:48 PM.

[Wintersdark]

arghmace, on 17 February 2013 - 05:15 PM, said:

How can you tell if you've gotten better? You don't see your ELO score and all the time you win 50%. You might just be getting worse all the time and thinking you're doing good. There's no feedback at all.

I'm pretty sure I already answered this.

You can tell if you're improving because if you're doing better than you were, you'll win more than 50% of your games. You'll continue to win more until such a time as you plateau, and stop improving. In order for the Elo system to adjust your score, you need to be winning more in the first place. It takes a while, too, so by playing better you win more.

Likewise, if you're actively getting worse, you'll lose more often.


Now, with regards to your other posts about upgrades/trial mechs/etc.

Yes, you won't win more matches in the long run upgrading your mechs, because - long term here - you'll balance out to about 50% wins with closely fought matches most of the time. This means, however, you can play stock mechs, exactly as they appear in TableTop (such as trial mechs, but you could kit all your mechs that way), and still have good battles.

Today, if you where to do that, you'd get roflstomped no matter how good you were.

This, incidentally, improves the new player experience. You start out mostly playing trial mechs, so your Elo rating adjusts to compensate for trial mechs and crappy score. Then, as you get better, you consistently win more battles, make more money, buy better mechs, upgrade those mechs - all along, your score continues to rise. That's a much better experience for (most) new players than what I had: Getting beat into the ground over, and over, and over.

You could argue that there's no point in buying those upgrades. I'd disagree entirely, but that would come from an overall philosophy difference more than anything else. I'd argue a tooled mech is just plain more fun to pilot. I for one am really interested in the notion that people who want to play with stock mechs can do so and still have fun.

Beyond that, this helps PGI better balance the economy, as they can ultimately assume players will win around 50% of their matches and as such set up income in that way, so content is gated at a predictable level. This way they can adjust rewards with predictable results, rather than changes affecting different portions of the playerbase very differently.

[Asmosis]

Mackensen, on 17 February 2013 - 06:33 AM, said:

Damage must be the best base for Elo. I want to get rid of players that are unable to make more than 100 damage points.

it only takes 100 damage to kill 2-3 mechs from full health, thats quite different to people who only manage to deal 100 damage spread across the front of an atlas, they are worlds apart in terms of skill

[Zylo]

Naitsirch, on 17 February 2013 - 06:29 PM, said:

I agree 100%, I want to win too, but even if I don't win it most likely was an awesome fight and the other team earned the win, not simply stomped by using what I would deem system-exploits. The other poster implied he does not care for the sweaty fighting in mechs etc, but only for being the winner, which I 100% don't want and which is why I refuse to run ******** cheesebuilds aswell.

There is nothing wrong with only being interested in winning.

There IS something wrong with cheating to win all the time (such as sync-dropping).

[Vlad Ward]

Zylo, on 17 February 2013 - 07:12 PM, said:

There is nothing wrong with only being interested in winning.

There IS something wrong with cheating to win all the time (such as sync-dropping).

It's important to draw a distinction between overt exploitation (sync-dropping) and just making the best of what you're given, though. This is mostly directed at the person you were quoting, but I dislike the idea that being good at the Mechlab is a cheat of some kind. As if making good Mechs somehow devalues you as a pilot.

Above all else, I hate this notion of "Cheese". Cheese is just an excuse - a salve for the ego. Rather than admitting that another pilot is better, either in the field or in the lab, people run to the word Cheese to explain away a loss. These sorts will never be happy with the matchmaker, because no matter how they're grouped they can't force other players to use crappy Mechs.

Edited by Vlad Ward, 17 February 2013 - 07:20 PM.

[Docshifty]

Asmosis, on 17 February 2013 - 07:09 PM, said:

it only takes 100 damage to kill 2-3 mechs from full health, thats quite different to people who only manage to deal 100 damage spread across the front of an atlas, they are worlds apart in terms of skill

And your Spider that really shouldn't be trying to damage everybody?

100 damage in a 5D is not the same thing as 100 damage in a D-DC.

[Naitsirch]

Vlad Ward, on 17 February 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:

It's important to draw a distinction between overt exploitation (sync-dropping) and just making the best of what you're given, though. This is mostly directed at the person you were quoting, but I dislike the idea that being good at the Mechlab is a cheat of some kind. As if making good Mechs somehow devalues you as a pilot.

Above all else, I hate this notion of "Cheese". Cheese is just an excuse - a salve for the ego. Rather than admitting that another pilot is better, either in the field or in the lab, people run to the word Cheese to explain away a loss. These sorts will never be happy with the matchmaker, because no matter how they're grouped they can't force other players to use crappy Mechs.

Ok, I am the player he quoted. Judge yourself if I am bad: I have a k/d of 1.17 and 584 avg exp and am not playing much, but when I do I also like to experiment with builds and only go solo, since I do not feel the need to socialize in my spare time, as I meet 20 new people everyday on avarage in my job.

That said, a) nobody is "better" in the mechlab by throwing on the same build that 90% of pugstompers use (splatcat, flakcat, 6 ppc-whatever,etc.) in fact it may quite well be the opposite.
b ) The term "cheese-builds" refers to actively using weak balance AND making the overall game dull. Also those builds mostly come in groups- by coincidence due to high proliferation or preformed groups. The prime example are the splat/gauss/ecm/d-dc-fests in 8mans. OP combination show themselves in highly competitive environments.
c) If a pilot is better than another I would be the last not to applaud, but facing premades and/or pugs with only the same builds mentioned above negates being a good pilot in a versatile mech as you rely on having counterfitted your mech AND an equivalent cheesy team as your enemy. You can compensate a lack of perfect fit by piloting only to a certain degree. -Nothing wrong in CW or Leagues or whatever organised groups, but terrible in random solo-dropping.
d) Be honest at least: Boats are easier to manage and easier to score kills with, ipso facto.
(e* This only applies to the fanbase of the underlying game-universe: The aforementioned builds are total rubbish in any but the most artificial situations, such as the current gamemodes and on the current maps. They have no place in the lore for a reason. Field them in leagues as much as you want, but not everybody wants that - and no, this is not mine NOR the group-only-fanatics game either, so ffs cater to both)

Interesting sidenote: It was already proven in the 60s that the lowest 10-15% of every profession deem themselves to be part of the best 20-25%.

edit: b and a braket forms a stupid smiley... changed that

Edited by Naitsirch, 17 February 2013 - 11:51 PM.

[Hammerhai]

On the point of doing damage as a skill metric:
I PUG mostly
I do very little damage, and am actually a bit discouraged by how little sometimes.
I die a lot.
Many K/D worshippers would commit suicide if they saw my stat
And yet my Win/Loss is 57% average.
I like to flatter myself I am doing something right, at least I hope so. As the bishop said to the actress.

Unless this is a total fluke over 3 months, what do the damage e peen guys have to say to that?
Just asking ...

Suggestion about incentive.
Either display your ELO gain/loss, not the whole stat
or hide it and award such ratings as "steering wheel underhive" and "golden ubermensch" after a match. It lets you know what to think of your performance, as well as being more irritating than people possibly realise. I do NOT like a computer to tell me his opinion in words that sting.

Oh, and Vassago, where is Joystick Purgatory ???????

[Mr 144]

Vassago Rain, on 17 February 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

It's funny, because we roped Mr 144 into dropping with us, called up some guys, and had about an hour of 8 man drops out of the blue 'because.'

Drunk enough to wake the kids laughing....check
Drunk enough to constantly forget which mech I was in...check
Fool-proof strategy of shooting teamates in the left eye...check

I know I'm fuzzy, and i'm still nursing my poor head...but even with paying absolutely no attention to the match or any 'strategy', I think we did OK...It certainly didn't feel like we lost many, but did I mention...I was really drunk

And that's the point...with basic skilled players, 8-mans can easily be fun despite any uber-tactical-cheese filled team you may or may not face. Heck...TKing added the normal pugging dimension of DCing and 0 damage players.

And Vass...I know I musta been pretty obnoxious..I don't care has fun, thanks for the 'we have a guest here' invitaion to the darkside...

Mr 144 (my head still hurts)

[elbloom]

thanks for the good read, let´s see if your scenario plays out after tomorrow evening

[Thirdstar]

RakiaTime, on 18 February 2013 - 01:45 AM, said:

but what happens if i, as a relatively bad player WANT to play against those 4 man groups and those elite puggers?

Get better *shrug*

or

Join 3 others with better elo than you.

[Mycrus]

Roland, on 17 February 2013 - 05:06 PM, said:

The incentive to be good is that you are then good, rather than bad.

Why do kids these days need to have little imaginary trophies given to them in order to justify their own self worth?

Pro-tip: nothing in any video game, ever, means anything.

indeed.

[arghmace]

Naitsirch, on 17 February 2013 - 06:17 PM, said:

That said, what I read from your posts is, you want to win no matter what the game is and/or no matter what the background of a game is. This is by FAR not the case for most of the playerbase, but highly typical for the group of players making up pugstompers/noobcrushers/welprapers etc.

That is simply not true. I don't do sync-drops, mostly don't do cheese builds and mainly play solo. Sometimes in groups of 2-4 but usually not. So I'm not in this to win at all costs and stump poor pugs with coordinated team play. I just want to have some metric of knowing how well I'm doing. Usually this is your win percentage. When you remove that, please make my ELO rating visible to me (and only to me) so I can gauge my long term performance.

Edited by arghmace, 18 February 2013 - 03:52 AM.

[Wispsy]

I would also prefer to be able to see my Elo score. How else can I aim for the top?!

[Quiz]

Since the "ELO-Rating in team games" problem and Microsoft's TrueSkill where already mentioned: there is this small online gem Allegiance, which Microsoft abandoned about 10 years ago, but the community kept working on it and they have developed thier own version of TrueSkill-based ranking. It incorporates the uncertainty of rank that comes with team based gameplay and in its newest form is supposed to keep track of ingame objectives aswell.

Maybe PGI should take a good look at that. (and so should anyone else tbh.) Quick introduction into the mechanics of AllegSkill: http://www.freealleg....php/Allegskill

[Utilyan]

Wispsy, on 18 February 2013 - 03:39 AM, said:

I would also prefer to be able to see my Elo score. How else can I aim for the top?!

The best don't have to check to know. Real confidence doesn't require acknowledgement. You fkn' with mech ninjas

[Vassago Rain]

Mr 144, on 18 February 2013 - 01:10 AM, said:

Drunk enough to wake the kids laughing....check
Drunk enough to constantly forget which mech I was in...check
Fool-proof strategy of shooting teamates in the left eye...check

I know I'm fuzzy, and i'm still nursing my poor head...but even with paying absolutely no attention to the match or any 'strategy', I think we did OK...It certainly didn't feel like we lost many, but did I mention...I was really drunk

And that's the point...with basic skilled players, 8-mans can easily be fun despite any uber-tactical-cheese filled team you may or may not face. Heck...TKing added the normal pugging dimension of DCing and 0 damage players.

And Vass...I know I musta been pretty obnoxious..I don't care has fun, thanks for the 'we have a guest here' invitaion to the darkside...

Mr 144 (my head still hurts)

You're a cool guy, and I would carry you in the pub ghetto anytime, anywhere.