Get rid of hip fire. If I wanted to chicken dance I'd play Division. | Forums

[OsCBinary]

Sure, my PSN is the same as my forum name here. Your k:d ratio is only 1.24:1 (mine is 2.10:1) and your win:loss is 2.25:1 (better than mine because I play with randoms). So based on that information, I'm guessing you play regularly with a group of friends who are better than you and get you free wins that you would otherwise not get if you played with random people. Perhaps this is partly why you have a raging ego problem. Your teammates get you wins so you think you're better than you really are.

I’m not siding with JRK on this argument, but I think your argument here is flawed.

In a game where kill power is varied (intentionally) amongst the classes, especially where those that provide high utility having lower kill power; looking at KD and W/L to judge if someone is getting “carried” isn’t a great method.

JRK may be performing his roles well, but playing classes with lower kill power. He provides the ultility needed to enable his teammates playing the more offensive classes to get the kills more often. This lowers the number of kills JRK will get, because he is actively enabling his teammates to get more kills. Meaning, each death is more impactful to lowering the KD, because his primary role in the team isn’t “kill machine”.

Basically, don’t trust statistics too much, they don’t paint a full picture of a player’s skill and can be misleading.

[JRK1218]

I’m not siding with JRK on this argument, but I think your argument here is flawed.

In a game where kill power is varied (intentionally) amongst the classes, especially where those that provide high utility having lower kill power; looking at KD and W/L to judge if someone is getting “carried” isn’t a great method.

JRK may be performing his roles well, but playing classes with lower kill power. He provides the ultility needed to enable his teammates playing the more offensive classes to get the kills more often. This lowers the number of kills JRK will get, because he is actively enabling his teammates to get more kills. Meaning, each death is more impactful to lowering the KD, because his primary role in the team isn’t “kill machine”.

Basically, don’t trust statistics too much, they don’t paint a full picture of a player’s skill and can be misleading.

Finally somebody that gets it. #s don't paint the whole picture. I've never suggested I'm great at PvP like the guy taking shots at me implied, (not speaking of you). I play solo at least half the time, & I run the tech class for drone deterrent. I don't blow people up w C4, & I'm not good w either gun the tech class carries, so yes, I don't kill a lot of players when I run tech. I run tech in well over half my matches, bc nobody else seems to want to run that very crucial class.

[AppleJuice_Pie]

Chances are most of your kills are w C4, or from a bush you've been hiding in the entire game. Kudos to your mad Recon skills tho.

I've actually never used C4 in PvP, and never used the Sniper or Sentinel. If you care to see how I play then you can see the clips I've posted in the "community creations" section.

I agree that winning the match is the most important thing; more so than individual performance. I'll always be willing to be the one to risk getting killed by hopping on the access point or recon tower when the situation warrants it. Still, in a game where you only have 3 teammates, it's vital that each one pulls their weight performance-wise. Even with lots of support, you can't expect 1 or 2 people on your team to do all the legwork... especially when playing against a team of highly ranked opponents. Like it or not, stats do paint a general picture of that individual performance.

[OsCBinary]

I've actually never used C4 in PvP, and never used the Sniper or Sentinel. If you care to see how I play then you can see the clips I've posted in the "community creations" section.

I agree that winning the match is the most important thing; more so than individual performance. I'll always be willing to be the one to risk getting killed by hopping on the access point or recon tower when the situation warrants it. Still, in a game where you only have 3 teammates, it's vital that each one pulls their weight performance-wise. Even with lots of support, you can't expect 1 or 2 people on your team to do all the legwork... especially when playing against a team of highly ranked opponents. Like it or not, stats do paint a general picture of that individual performance.

Stats in video games in no way paint a general picture of a players skill in game though. There is no context on what level of competition is being played.

Using a real life example, a high school running back breaking 1000 yards is no where near the same as a nfl running back breaking 1000 yards. Context is extremely important when analyzing stats.

GW implements a MMR system. We have no way of knowing who is playing the more skilled players (speculating JRK, as his W/L says he’s likelt rised through the system further than you, but even then can’t be certain); so KD is a meaningless stat for skill comparison, because we lack context on the level of skill of the opponents.

[AppleJuice_Pie]

Stats in video games in no way paint a general picture of a players skill in game though. There is no context on what level of competition is being played.

Using a real life example, a high school running back breaking 1000 yards is no where near the same as a nfl running back breaking 1000 yards. Context is extremely important when analyzing stats.

GW implements a MMR system. We have no way of knowing who is playing the more skilled players (speculating JRK, as his W/L says he’s likelt rised through the system further than you, but even then can’t be certain); so KD is a meaningless stat for skill comparison, because we lack context on the level of skill of the opponents.

I'm aware the game uses MMR ratings for matchmaking, but I seriously question that system's consistency based on in-game experiences. I believe there is a substantial amount of randomness still present in the matchmaking process. Both of us have enough time spent playing the game to where that randomness certainly must provide an adequate basis for meaningful stat comparison. If one of us had only played like 15 games, or some really low number, then sure, that's not large enough of a sample size. But we both have hundreds, so that is plenty. I don't really care that much to measure stats against the OP, just backing up my points.

And to say that K/d ratios are "meaningless" is a laughable statement, honestly. Hypothetically, if a gamer with a 0.5:1 k/d were to face off against a gamer with a 5:1 k/d, and they were taking bets, which guy would you put your money on? One gets an average of 0.5 kills before he dies, and the other gets an average of 5 kills before he dies. I'd bet on the 5:1 guy every time.

Sure, a player who isn't as skilled at directly battling enemies can help his team in other, easier ways that don't always get reflected in stats. But to say that they would both have the same proficiency in a gunfight just is not correct.

Again, I agree that doing whatever it takes to win the game is the most important thing. But there are 4 players on the enemy team, and someone on your team has to kill them.

[OsCBinary]

I'm aware the game uses MMR ratings for matchmaking, but I seriously question that system's consistency based on in-game experiences. I believe there is a substantial amount of randomness still present in the matchmaking process. Both of us have enough time spent playing the game to where that randomness certainly must provide an adequate basis for meaningful stat comparison. If one of us had only played like 15 games, or some really low number, then sure, that's not large enough of a sample size. But we both have hundreds, so that is plenty. I don't really care that much to measure stats against the OP, just backing up my points.

And to say that K/d ratios are "meaningless" is a laughable statement, honestly. Hypothetically, if a gamer with a 0.5:1 k/d were to face off against a gamer with a 5:1 k/d, and they were taking bets, which guy would you put your money on? One gets an average of 0.5 kills before he dies, and the other gets an average of 5 kills before he dies. I'd bet on the 5:1 guy every time.

Sure, a player who isn't as skilled at directly battling enemies can help his team in other, easier ways that don't always get reflected in stats. But to say that they would both have the same proficiency in a gunfight just is not correct.

Again, I agree that doing whatever it takes to win the game is the most important thing. But there are 4 players on the enemy team, and someone on your team has to kill them.

Just going to address your hypothetical; even as an extreme example. The actual of slightly above 1 vs around 2, isn’t nearly as extreme.

If .5 KD is a pro mlg getting those stats against other pro mlg; and 5 KD is a low rank pub stomper. I’ll put my money on the guy playing at the pro level, not the low level.

That is my point on context in competition. The quality of a players opponents has a direct impact on how meaningful those stats are. In this game, we do not have enough information to use stats as a comparison; which is the problem I have with you trying to use them to discredit another poster.

[AppleJuice_Pie]

Let’s not confuse the term “skills” with the ability to press buttons on a controller from your mom’s couch.

Wow, nice insightful, well thought-out post. That's exactly what someone without skills would say.
This is the internet and for all we know, you're the one on the couch buddy.

You could say the same about any competitive activity. So a world champion of chess isn't actually skilled at the game of chess, but merely has the ability to move pieces of wood around on a board? Think before you post.

Just going to address your hypothetical; even as an extreme example. The actual of slightly above 1 vs around 2, isn’t nearly as extreme.

If .5 KD is a pro mlg getting those stats against other pro mlg; and 5 KD is a low rank pub stomper. I’ll put my money on the guy playing at the pro level, not the low level.

That is my point on context in competition. The quality of a players opponents has a direct impact on how meaningful those stats are. In this game, we do not have enough information to use stats as a comparison; which is the problem I have with you trying to use them to discredit another poster.

I understand what your point is, but I'll refer you back the the first paragraph of my last response because it seems you skipped it. There is plenty of information to use stats as a comparison. I'm talking about the matchmaking in the actual game. There is no "pro MLG" circuit for this game yet. Is there some underground/secret matchmaking pool that I don't know about, where all the best players are? There's the matchmaking system in the game, and that's what people play. And so that's where the stats are derived from. Everyone is part of the same matchmaking pool, matched based on MMR, which I believe is an imperfect system that slightly reduces but far from eliminates the randomness of matchmaking. Sure there might be small-scale independently hosted "tournaments" that organize their own games, but that would be a very small percentage of the player base.

[OsCBinary]

Wow, nice insightful, well thought-out post. That's exactly what someone without skills would say.
This is the internet and for all we know, you're the one on the couch buddy.

You could say the same about any competitive activity. So a world champion of chess isn't actually skilled at the game of chess, but merely has the ability to move pieces of wood around on a board? Think before you post.




I understand what your point is, but I'll refer you back the the first paragraph of my last response because it seems you skipped it. There is plenty of information to use stats as a comparison. I'm talking about the matchmaking in the actual game. There is no "pro MLG" circuit for this game yet. Is there some underground/secret matchmaking pool that I don't know about, where all the best players are? There's the matchmaking system in the game, and that's what people play. And so that's where the stats are derived from. Everyone is part of the same matchmaking pool, matched based on MMR, which I believe is an imperfect system that slightly reduces but far from eliminates the randomness of matchmaking. Sure there might be small-scale independently hosted "tournaments" that organize their own games, but that would be a very small percentage of the player base.

My point...





your head

There is not enough information about GW MMR (and how well it is working) to make any assumptions about the level of skill a player is playing against. Therefore looking at stats should not be done because you cannot reliably provide context for those stats.

Nothing you have said (I did read it all) provides hard evidence for or against MMR working as expected. You just claimed your suspicion based on your experience; which will be especially muddled if it is working and you are a middle of the road player, or if it is not working as intended.

Maybe when ranked is out, and there is a way to provide that context, you can waive your stat epeen; but for now, any reasonable person will question the insights gained from stats whose context is suspect in the very best case.

I’m done arguing, I’ve said all there is; if you don’t get my point now, you will not, and we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Happy hunting.

[AppleJuice_Pie]

My point...

your head

There is not enough information about GW MMR (and how well it is working) to make any assumptions about the level of skill a player is playing against. Therefore looking at stats should not be done because you cannot reliably provide context for those stats.

Nothing you have said (I did read it all) provides hard evidence for or against MMR working as expected. You just claimed your suspicion based on your experience; which will be especially muddled if it is working and you are a middle of the road player, or if it is not working as intended.

Maybe when ranked is out, and there is a way to provide that context, you can waive your stat epeen; but for now, any reasonable person will question the insights gained from stats whose context is suspect in the very best case.

I’m done arguing, I’ve said all there is; if you don’t get my point now, you will not, and we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Happy hunting.

We can disagree. I'm simply explaining to you that stats are far from "meaningless," as you foolishly put it. Feel free to continue to denying that though.

[AppleJuice_Pie]

I normally play standing up because this is the only place I could put the TVs and not be disturbed as seen in the picture. It is too tall to sit in the lazy boy while I play, so I stand.

Your chess analogy is ok but holds no weight IMO. I am on PS4 too though so add me, I’m always down to battle win or lose.

Ok I will add you later tonight. The second screen seems cool, I might try that.