277 replies to this topic

[Wispsy]

Utilyan, on 18 February 2013 - 04:23 AM, said:

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

You have me all wrong. I want to know when I hit that 2800 mark instead of "well I may or may not be there yet, as I really have no gauge as to where the current leaders are at".

[arghmace]

Actually, it seems to me that most of you guys are more hell bent on winning than I am

Explanation: To you winning in itself is enough. But I'd like to gain something by it.

[Utilyan]

Wispsy, on 18 February 2013 - 04:26 AM, said:

You have me all wrong. I want to know when I hit that 2800 mark instead of "well I may or may not be there yet, as I really have no gauge as to where the current leaders are at".

NINJAS WISPSY!!!! NINJAS!!!!

[BigJim]

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

Can do it with 36, possibly as low as 34 with headshots, which you can often get with say Cicadas or other medium laserboats at close range.



It's theoretically possible to get 8x kills by yourself, all from fresh, and only do 288 damage all match, although I'd love to see it done.

[p4r4g0n]

arghmace, on 18 February 2013 - 03:35 AM, said:

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.

They're re-setting the stats, not removing them. Hopefully, there will be more stats available soon.

Also, refer to references to combat score and global rankings in Karl Berg's comments in that thread I linked to in this post

[danust]

One of the better posts I have read here. I have been wondering where I could end up and I find your logic infallible Mr Spock. As I hope an avg or so player @ 1month and 900 matches with my W/L sadly below one and rising, but damage so very much better. I am excited.

I will need to be and expect to be challenged. I have been pugging solo only until my new mic and my non total suc-age kicks in. I'm there I think. Mic comes in today.

To skilled and premades all, tell indy pugs where your are going to defend or go to. Very few snarky comments and they are overridden when they happen from the lone losers. Several times some one has called a plan and snark is out voted. Ignore them, we do. I always follow a plan when presented. We like a plan even a bad one. Cohesion is all here. But I guess ELO will remove this issue.

Skill, large maps, ELO, I smell the death of Splats and such from my limited experience.

[arghmace]

p4r4g0n, on 18 February 2013 - 06:07 AM, said:

They're re-setting the stats, not removing them.

If we forget the players at the very top and at the very bottom then for the vast majority of players in the middle the stats are as good as removed. Whenever you win more, you start getting harder battles and thus lose more. Basically the win percentage, average xp and average credit income all converge to a certain point no matter how well you play.

[Wispsy]

arghmace, on 18 February 2013 - 06:35 AM, said:

If we forget the players at the very top and at the very bottom then for the vast majority of players in the middle the stats are as good as removed. Whenever you win more, you start getting harder battles and thus lose more. Basically the win percentage, average xp and average credit income all converge to a certain point no matter how well you play.

Except when you improve? To move up you have to win more then lose. Your stats will reflect how much you have improved from when you started out right?

[Broceratops]

I agree with Wispsy. I don't need a number going up necessarily but I need something. You cannot call a game competitive unless there is a ranking of some kind. I don't care if its leagues like in SC2, or a number like in LoL, or just random **** I can put in my cockpit win from tournies if they ever add those.

[Sprouticus]

Wispsy, on 18 February 2013 - 06:41 AM, said:

Except when you improve? To move up you have to win more then lose. Your stats will reflect how much you have improved from when you started out right?

I think Argh's point is that when you improve, you probably won't notice much.

example: You are an average player. You win 50%, 1300 rating (although you dont notice).
You get better over time, your winning % rises to say....60% for a few days (or weeks depending on how quickly your score goes up). You get to a new plateau, and your score is not 1400ish.
But since the rise is slow, and the difference between 50% wins and 60% wins is not really noticable unless you are tracking, it FEELS like you are in the same place.


I see his point. I dont totally agree with the implicaiton that ELO is a good form of feedback, but I see his pint that some folks do. I won't begrudge people for wanting feedback on skill.

I actually think they will release ELO scores eventually, but they probably dont want to do it upon release to minimize complaints until the scores settle themselves out.

[Penance]

I've been wondering what this ELO is, and kept thinking..."Who the hell is Eric Lopez, and why do people keep talking about him?"


Now I know!

So ELO is like Battlefields "Skill rating" only it makes sense...the thing that doesn't make sense is that it's only based on Wins & Loses. That doesn't really totally reflect a players skill...in fact it's probably the worst measure of it, as a terrible team can make a good player really bad...it's happened to us all who PUG for the most part.

Bad games are bad games, and all things should be considered with less of an emphasis on wins and loses, and more on kills, damage, component destruction and deaths.

I'd also like to be able to see it and see how good/bad the game says I am.

Edited by Penance, 18 February 2013 - 06:58 AM.

[Sprouticus]

80Bit, on 17 February 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

Much of the info I state comes from http://mwomercs.com/...lo/page__st__60

This post talks about combat score:




My comments on 8 man queue were just to let the uninformed know that there is already a separate 8 man queue.

And as far as Elite Solo players, I was only thinking about the small number of players who can single handily push their PUG team over the top. Players this good can either work hard on communicating with all the groups they will drop with in high elo land, or play like they have always played to live on the edge.

80Bit,

If you read his post, he only talks about PROPERTIES, not what those properties are....

As Insanity pointed out here: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1855496


We know that mech class will be one property from this post, but we dont know what the others are....variant? weapons? equipment? weapon type? speed? upgrades? team size? lat time you dropped? how often you use a certain type of weapon?

It could literally be anything, although the more specific it gets, the more it could lead to unintended consequences.

Just to be clear, I think your post has great merit. But you are speculating on some things without actually SAYING what is speculation and what is fact. The ELO modification properties is speculation. The fate of the grouping system is speculation. Not a bad thing per se, but people just reading your post might take it as gospel and then be irritated when it is different tomorrow.




Also, to make a further point, on Argh's concerns, it is very clear that the ONLY intent right now for ELO is to make better matches. If ELO is a good measure of progress, they might change that (and as I stated, I think they eventually will) but in the end I understand why PGI might want to limit the scope of the intended goal initially.


http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1854053

[arghmace]

Wispsy, on 18 February 2013 - 06:41 AM, said:

Except when you improve? To move up you have to win more then lose. Your stats will reflect how much you have improved from when you started out right?

Momentarily, yes. But when I move up, my wins, kills, xp and credit income start dropping. In the long run there is no progress whatsoever. It doesn't matter if you're an average player with 1300 ELO or a slightly better player with 1600 ELO. In both cases your long term stats (other than ELO) and both xp and credit income are the same. They are same for every single player except those few at the very top and very bottom whose skill goes beyond the ELO rating and thus they're not matched against their equals.

[arghmace]

Sprouticus, on 18 February 2013 - 07:00 AM, said:

Also, to make a further point, on Argh's concerns, it is very clear that the ONLY intent right now for ELO is to make better matches. If ELO is a good measure of progress, they might change that (and as I stated, I think they eventually will) but in the end I understand why PGI might want to limit the scope of the intended goal initially.

You are no doubt correct. And I agree, getting good even battles should be the main concern. I just hope that once that is accomplished, the system is tweaked so that it gives some feedback and rewards for playing well.

On feedback: Humans are masters of self-deception and very poor at evaluating their own performance. Basically everyone thinks they're better than they are. It's always the teams fault I lose, not mine. But when you're presented with hard cold figures that you're not that good, you start thinking... Damn, I know I can do better. What am I doing wrong? Bad builds, bad piloting, bad cooperation with team members? Objective external feedback and the self-reflection derived from that is the way to improvement.

On rewards: I really feel that playing well should grant you with slightly more xp and credits. It gives you a good reason to improve and try your best. Like I said earlier, this could be done with a multiplier based on ELO. You know when in any single player game you kill a random orc, it drops 1 gold piece as loot. But when you kill a big boss, it drops a hundred gold pieces. Why not same here? If you win a team that has very high ELO rating, you get a bonus for beating harder than usual opponents. It doesn't have to be a big bonus, but at least something.

[Mackman]

Wispsy, on 18 February 2013 - 06:41 AM, said:

Except when you improve? To move up you have to win more then lose. Your stats will reflect how much you have improved from when you started out right?

It will show your improvement, but not where you stand in relation to any other players. Especially if they have a system similar to LoL where your first 10 "ranked' (affected by Elo) matches affect your Elo drastically more than matches after that. If that happens, someone who shoots straight up to, say, 15-1600 and then levels off, will actually have a worse W/L than someone who drops to 1000 and then gradually improves to 1450.

[BigJim]

arghmace, on 18 February 2013 - 08:13 AM, said:

On feedback: Humans are masters of self-deception and very poor at evaluating their own performance. Basically everyone thinks they're better than they are. It's always the teams fault I lose, not mine.

Quote

A self-serving bias, sometimes called a self-serving attributional bias, refers to individuals attributing their successes to internal or personal factors but attributing their failures to external or situational factors.

http://en.wikipedia....lf-serving_bias

In a similar vein, can anyone recall the link to the paper where something ridiculous like 90% of drivers considered themselves to be above average? (which is demonstrably impossible)

Ah-ha, found a reference, if not the full study;

Quote

Svenson (1981) surveyed 161 students in Sweden and the United States, asking them to compare their driving safety and skill to the other people in the experiment. For driving skill, 93% of the US sample and 69% of the Swedish sample put themselves in the top 50% (above the median). For safety, 88% of the US group and 77% of the Swedish sample put themselves in the top 50%

http://en.wikipedia....ory_superiority


In short, many people won't believe their score, even if it was visible - There will always be be some reason, some external force like ELO-hell or whatever that is keeping them down, suppressing their natural awesomeness.
Fight the power, yo.

Edited by BigJim, 18 February 2013 - 08:40 AM.

[MischiefSC]

If someone can see their score they will be tempted to manipulate it.

Let matchmaking do its thing on its own. When CW comes in a year or so the environment will change again but for now we need a way to keep games as 'fair' or at least fun (for both sides) as possible.

[arghmace]

2 epic battles today so far. Both on conquest where in the end we've had 3 players left and enemy 1 but about to win by cap. Then we start running to every cap point and the single enemy light tries to take them back. In the end we win about 750-730. Naturally in both battles I had good team mates so we could coordinate caps using chat. If this new MM succeeds in creating more of this fun, then bring it on regardless of its minuses I've pointed out.

[80Bit]

I have updated my original post to speak about issues people have brought up a lot in replies.

[Fyrerock]

I wonder how many of the average pre-mades that are now blaming there losses on the pugs, are still going to do that when those pugs are doing more damage then them.