@RichAC wrote:
I disagree
What are you disagreeing on exactly? I mostly agree with what you just said.
@RichAC wrote:
Its the players who make the apex what it is. The problem is we are in an impatient generation that play auto chess and not real chess for the same reasons. Does that mean classic chess is not a competitive skill based game.
Just as I said, most of the community ranks players by how many kills they score. And play accordingly, view the game accordingly. Streamers are definitely part of the reason why. But, PUBG highlighted kill counters in red from the start. Apex goes even further by introducing kill leaders and listing squad's kill counts and damage next to each other after each game. Lets not pretend that when a game pushes people to care about kills and damage like this it's entirely their fault when this is all they care about. In fact, it's extremely wrong to pretend so when kills and damage are literally the only individual metrics the game focuses on (survival time, players revived/respawned are rather meaningless). Imagine if instead of those two numbers the game showed your current win percentage and top 3 percentage, or average placement among the last 3 and 10 games. Imagine if kill counters didn't exist at all.
@RichAC wrote:
Even in a gambling game like poker, the pros are the ones who rank high consistently. Consistently being the key phrase.
Kills, damage done, all those stats still mean something because we are talking about MULTIPLE matches. Even if they are hot dropping and going for frags, the better players will be consistent and have higher stats over time.
You are missing the point. You first mention poker where ranking is very simple based on order of elimination. And then you say that kills and damage should matter. How do you see them mixed with the win-rate (or are you talking off topic)? People that hot drop all the time may have a decent combat rating but they will never have a great average placement. Kills and damage do not have a straightforward correlation with win-rate.
@RichAC wrote:
Kill help you win the game.
Kills help you win the game only up to a point. Technically, a win never requires more than 3 kills. Scoring more than that is often reasonable when opportunities present themselves but again, up to a point. For example, if you killed half the server, you almost certainly played very wrong (assuming your goal is to win). If we're including kills into rating, then your rating should be reduced for that, not raised. But the exact point of how many kills are too many is impossible to determine. It's like rating goalies in hockey by the amount of spectacular saves they made - it's pointless because the best goalies position themselves better and make easy saves instead.
@RichAC wrote:
There is nothing wrong with BR being competitive at all.
I agree, the constantly repeated mantra of "RNG means the game is not competitive" is complete nonsense born out of extremely shortsighted views. But a competitive game requires a clear consensus on what the goal of the game is. The reality is we don't have that.
@RichAC wrote:Society will never respect
You'd be surprised...
@2deski I agree with most of what you said except i'm trying to explain how Skill Rating is diff then a ranking. Especially on a team game. Yes kills partly determine your skill but they don't necessarily determine wins. Especially in a team game. You can't have ELO in a team game unless its dedicated premade teams, imo. A skill rating can be per individual to match players to a team and then used to match teams to a matched game.
IN pro athletic sports you have rankings based on many diff stats. Sure its what makes the game interesting, its fun. Stats are what make sports period. But it doesn't necessarily mean a win, nor should it. Some of these so called pro players have some serious entitlement issues. Then again thats the internet in general.
I stand by what I said about Poker and luck plays a part in any sport. There is a reason its on ESPN and e-sports is not. And in no way do I think Michael Jordan should have been entitled to a win every game just because he had the best stats and considered the best player. Understand?
@RichAC wrote:@2deski I agree with most of what you said except i'm trying to explain how Skill Rating is diff then a ranking. Especially on a team game. Yes kills partly determine your skill but they don't necessarily determine wins. Especially in a team game. You can't have ELO in a team game unless its dedicated premade teams, imo. A skill rating can be per individual to match players to a team and then used to match teams to a matched game.
Ranking is sorting by rating. Ranking by anything but skill rating has no meaning for matchmaking. If a stat does not represent the player's skill it's useless. The question is what constitutes a player's skill. And as I said, there's no consensus on that, nor is the game clear on that. Additionally, if you match people by skill rating and then make a leaderboard by another then that ranking won't make much sense as you'll get low-level players at the top.
Theoretically, I don't see why you can't have ELO here. If you strictly rate players by relative positioning, you should be able to match players by their ability to score high placements. The reason it won't work is not because it's a team-based game but because way too few people actually play for placement.
@RichAC wrote:Further more a rank is based on a single stat to rank on and I would pick wins. That is what any game is about. A skill rating should be based on all stats combined.
As I said before, combining everything just doesn't work because stats about kills do not correlate with stats about wins. The way I see it, there are two options:
The latter seems to be what OP wants. And it seems to be the most fitting to how the game is now. May actually be a really good thing, but the devs would probably need to say goodbye to their top streamers like Shroud and Dizzy. Because it would take minutes if not tens of minutes for them to find a close enough match to then die in a hot drop in 30 seconds (because they are not matched against weak fighters anymore). This will likely almost kill the game on Twitch.
@RichAC wrote:I stand by what I said about Poker and luck plays a part in any sport. There is a reason its on ESPN and e-sports is not. And in no way do I think Michael Jordan should have been entitled to a win every game just because he had the best stats and considered the best player. Understand?
The reason e-sports are not on ESPN is because gamers don't watch ESPN. So e-sports are on Twitch and Youtube. I get what you mean with Michael Jordan but I don't think that's a great example in here because there is no analogy in Battle Royale games. I think most people would say that it's Shroud but it's extremely shortsighted. Macro play is what separates BR from other shooters and AFAIK he never showed any prowess in that. It's like calling Ovechkin the best hockey player because of his goal scoring titles even when his +/- stat was horrible. People that follow competitive PUBG would probably name someone from there but even in the competitive scene there is so little understanding on what actually makes a player valuable that people still mostly fallback to the same basic stats of kills and damage (from the start PUBG awarded points for kills which I find very questionable). That's why focusing on having everyone go for the win and thus master the macro play seems the most attractive option to me since that would allow to actually develop an understanding on what sets the best players apart from the rest. Whereas now it is a total mess of two playstyles with contradicting goals.
@2deski wrote:
@RichAC wrote:@2deski I agree with most of what you said except i'm trying to explain how Skill Rating is diff then a ranking. Especially on a team game. Yes kills partly determine your skill but they don't necessarily determine wins. Especially in a team game. You can't have ELO in a team game unless its dedicated premade teams, imo. A skill rating can be per individual to match players to a team and then used to match teams to a matched game.
Ranking is sorting by rating. Ranking by anything but skill rating has no meaning for matchmaking. If a stat does not represent the player's skill it's useless. The question is what constitutes a player's skill. And as I said, there's no consensus on that, nor is the game clear on that. Additionally, if you match people by skill rating and then make a leaderboard by another then that ranking won't make much sense as you'll get low-level players at the top.
Theoretically, I don't see why you can't have ELO here. If you strictly rate players by relative positioning, you should be able to match players by their ability to score high placements. The reason it won't work is not because it's a team-based game but because way too few people actually play for placement.
@RichAC wrote:Further more a rank is based on a single stat to rank on and I would pick wins. That is what any game is about. A skill rating should be based on all stats combined.
As I said before, combining everything just doesn't work because stats about kills do not correlate with stats about wins. The way I see it, there are two options:
- rate by relative placement
- rate by who players kill and get killed by
The latter seems to be what OP wants. And it seems to be the most fitting to how the game is now. May actually be a really good thing, but the devs would probably need to say goodbye to their top streamers like Shroud and Dizzy. Because it would take minutes if not tens of minutes for them to find a close enough match to then die in a hot drop in 30 seconds (because they are not matched against weak fighters anymore). This will likely almost kill the game on Twitch.
@RichAC wrote:I stand by what I said about Poker and luck plays a part in any sport. There is a reason its on ESPN and e-sports is not. And in no way do I think Michael Jordan should have been entitled to a win every game just because he had the best stats and considered the best player. Understand?
The reason e-sports are not on ESPN is because gamers don't watch ESPN. So e-sports are on Twitch and Youtube. I get what you mean with Michael Jordan but I don't think that's a great example in here because there is no analogy in Battle Royale games. I think most people would say that it's Shroud but it's extremely shortsighted. Macro play is what separates BR from other shooters and AFAIK he never showed any prowess in that. It's like calling Ovechkin the best hockey player because of his goal scoring titles even when his +/- stat was horrible. People that follow competitive PUBG would probably name someone from there but even in the competitive scene there is so little understanding on what actually makes a player valuable that people still mostly fallback to the same basic stats of kills and damage (from the start PUBG awarded points for kills which I find very questionable). That's why focusing on having everyone go for the win and thus master the macro play seems the most attractive option to me since that would allow to actually develop an understanding on what sets the best players apart from the rest. Whereas now it is a total mess of two playstyles with contradicting goals.
But thats my whole point, even the pro players don't believe it should be about going for the win. So there is nothing separating them from the amateur or streamer playstyle besides good aim and tactics. Strategy is meaningless. And society won't respect a game thats not about winning. I don't blame that on the BR game mode. I blame that on players not wanting to change and play it like its a BR. It feels like overwatch players wanting to play this like its a FFA. My reply to them is don't play a BR game then because that feels fake to me.
And I beg to differ, lots of gamers watch espn and are into sports. At least the American ones do, especially fps gamers. But thats part of the problem.. Online gaming died 15 years ago and its mostly only foreigners keeping it alive. Part of that is due to trolls spammer and hackers. Its very hard to even moderate a forum or chatroom nowadays, Its a full time job.
But another part of the problem is that Gamers don't respect the games, like those who don't respect teamplay in a BR or it being about winning, like the sports they respect. It seems only Koreans and Japanese respect e-sports in the same way Americans and Europeans respect football. I mean I constanlty use to hear in quake how its just a pub, so who cares about competitive teams or fair play. As if they are noobs who deserve to get pwned because elitist players feel entitled. That is now how you grow a sport.
ANd part of that is the 3rd reason, that when people are anonymous online they show little respect towards others.
@RichAC wrote:
But thats my whole point, even the pro players don't believe it should be about going for the win. So there is nothing separating them from the amateur or streamer playstyle besides good aim and tactics. Strategy is meaningless. And society won't respect a game thats not about winning. I don't blame that on the BR game mode. I blame that on players not wanting to change and play it like its a BR. It feels like overwatch players wanting to play this like its a FFA. My reply to them is don't play a BR game then because that feels fake to me.
This is the core of my point as well. These "tournaments" we had for Apex Legends on twitch were complete abominations. Contest on who stomps the most noobs the fastest, even with purposefully leaving people alive so that they could farm more kills after they respawn their teammates. I struggle to understand how anyone finds watching this enjoyable. But it's clear that it's exactly the kind of thing that current state of BR community leads to. It's also not like these tournaments are the first of their kinds, I saw similar events for CoD Blackout before.
Where my position differs is that I believe devs could have done a way better job at what the goal of the game is meant to be so that people wouldn't play with such incompatible playstyles.
@2deski wrote:
@RichAC wrote:But thats my whole point, even the pro players don't believe it should be about going for the win. So there is nothing separating them from the amateur or streamer playstyle besides good aim and tactics. Strategy is meaningless. And society won't respect a game thats not about winning. I don't blame that on the BR game mode. I blame that on players not wanting to change and play it like its a BR. It feels like overwatch players wanting to play this like its a FFA. My reply to them is don't play a BR game then because that feels fake to me.
This is the core of my point as well. These "tournaments" we had for Apex Legends on twitch were complete abominations. Contest on who stomps the most noobs the fastest, even with purposefully leaving people alive so that they could farm more kills after they respawn their teammates. I struggle to understand how anyone finds watching this enjoyable. But it's clear that it's exactly the kind of thing that current state of BR community leads to. It's also not like these tournaments are the first of their kinds, I saw similar events for CoD Blackout before.
Where my position differs is that I believe devs could have done a way better job at what the goal of the game is meant to be so that people wouldn't play with such incompatible playstyles.
Thats probably why LoL is the most popular game on pc by far. Especially in North America. RIOT are the ones who have sole control of tournaments, and they really encourage fair play and competitive matches in the core game and at all skill levels.
These other games have numerous tournaments and hosts and formats and rules. SO no wonder these pro gamers feel entitled to change the format of the game. Alot of it feels really shady at times. I'm waiting for another developer to realize there is money in leagues and cashing in so its less corruptible.
Relying on the community is archaic just like dedicated servers are now. To much room for abuse.
