Check your mmr before you post

[Arti_Sel]

This is a helpful disclaimer for everyone to check their mmr before they post, as there has been a number of ridiculous claims on the forum as of recently.

In Mechabellum mmr = Knowledge. There is no reflex, speed or severe apm requirement, there are no team-mates to blame (assuming 1v1). There are some rng elements, though very few, they are equally effecting everyone and they don't target any particular person. If your mmr is low that is purely because you lack critical knowledge in how to properly play this game. This is true, for everyone, myself included.

So before making posts complaining about balance, check your mmr. I'm currently at around 1400 and even for me it would be overly arrogant to claim that any one unit is broken. If I found a balance concern that was unbeatable for me I would first ask better and more knowledgeable players for help in finding game-play oriented solutions.

This said a low mmr is not a measure of your intelligence as a person. It is perfectly fine to be new or just unskilled. It is fine to ask for help, and no one should talk down to you for that. Generally this is called a newb, and everyone starts as one.

Knowing this and, as a low mmr player still making balance suggestions that would be a breach of etiquette and by your own actions you would doom yourself to noobhood. Ancient gaming knowledge dictates that noobs are unhelpable, because they don't understand that they need help. Most noobs are raging and stuck in mmr-hell for extreme amounts of time never improving because they think they know better, it's not a good gaming experience. Don't be a noob.

If you want your balance concerns to be taken seriously then raise your mmr, and if you want to raise your mmr then play more and/or ask for help. That is all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_7FaWnlhS4

[Fishy]

What a troll post!

In Mechabellum mmr = Knowledge.

Incorrect.

There is no reflex, speed or severe apm requirement

Incorrect.

If your mmr is low that is purely because you lack critical knowledge in how to properly play this game.

Incorrect.

Knowing this and, as a low mmr player still making balance suggestions that would be a breach of etiquette and by your own actions you would doom yourself to noobhood. Ancient gaming knowledge dictates that noobs are unhelpable, because they don't understand that they need help. Most noobs are raging and stuck in mmr-hell for extreme amounts of time never improving because they think they know better, it's not a good gaming experience. Don't be a noob.

Incorrect. Incorrect. Incorrect.

If you want your balance concerns to be taken seriously then raise your mmr, and if you want to raise your mmr then play more and/or ask for help. That is all.

Troll.

[CS_Kiel]

I think that the previous post just perfectly shows what you mean, Arti_sel.

[Fishy]

This is one of those posts that's wrong in so many ways that it's difficult to know where to start, but I'll try and take it bit by bit.

There are lots of things that contribute to MMR aside from knowledge. Even something as simple as 'knowledge' is a deep and mutli-faceted thing. There is your knowledge of the game systems, your knowledge of the units, their stats, how they matchup against various other units, how they combine, how various combinations fare against various other combinations with all the many variations on positioning, there is your knowledge of one or more of the metas which may exist on a given server, at a given time, and at a given MMR range.

Even if the only thing that contributed to an MMR ranking was 'knowledge', you could not simply just add this up and decide that a person with a higher MMR has more 'knowledge' than another. At best you could maybe say they have different knowledge. At a minimum, the 2k MMR player likely has very little knowledge of the meta at 1k, for example. But for many of those categories of knowledge, there is no definitive right answer.

But in reality, knowledge is far from the only thing that contributes to MMR. Your ability to use that knowledge is obviously paramount. Knowing every unit stat doesn't tell you which unit to play. Knowing a range of counters and counter-counters doesn't tell you which one to use. Knowing a particular meta doesn't tell you what your opponent is likely to do in every case and how best to predict it. And that's all before we get to an MMR system which rewards consistency over experimentation.

There are many different types of players. New players. Theory Crafters. Experimenters. Analysers. Net-deckers. Ladder Climbers. MMR ranking rewards a particular style of play that has a tendency to memorise rote strategies and metas from high MMRs and then play them technically well and consistently - but these players are also the least likely to have that deep understanding of all of the units and techs and ways that they can be used outside their narrow framing. The least likely to really see balance issues as opposed to just see what gets used a lot and what counters it.

Your insistence on knowledge makes me feel that you are one of these players. Maybe if you just memorise every single possible combination of units and their positions then you'll be able to recall the perfect counter-play every time! In the long run, and without having guides to watch, players like you will always lose to the player that experimented and learned and can think fast and runs on instinct.

I could go much deeper on all of this, but it's clearly just a ridiculous claim, and not the main problem with your post.

The real issue with your post is the idea that if someone is not as 'knowledgeable' about the game as someone else, then their opinion is invalid (or indeed that voicing their opinion is rude!)

Again, there are a whole load of things that are wrong with that viewpoint, but one important one is that this seems to reflect a very elitist view on who the game is for and what the role of balance is.

Something that often becomes apparent when balancing a strategy game is that a unit or tactic that was balanced at a lower MMR becomes "too good" in the hands of an experienced player, and ends up needing to be nerfed.

What doesn't always get as much visibility is that this can work the other way around, and a tactic or unit that is balanced in the hands of experienced players can feel oppressive and un-fun at lower levels (for example due to needing a specific counter, or requiring a specific style of play to be adhered to in order to not be exploitable.)

You could view this as a reason for these players to 'get gud', but actually this is just a game design problem and if the unit/strat could be better balanced to work well at all levels of play, then this is frequently a much better choice for everyone.

The existence of higher levels of play don't make lower levels of play invalid. There are many strats in games that are completely breakable by AI (eg: the micro in Starcraft), but are enough beyond human level that we don't try and 'fix' them because we would rather the game be balanced for the lower-MMR players (the humans.)

MMR does not equal knowledge. And even if someone was less knowledgeable, that doesn't make their knowledge or opinion invalid. Neither does being at a low MMR.

Games are not made for the 1%, and aiming all the balance tweaks at that insular (and often distorted) meta does not serve the 99% well.

If something genuinely is broken at 1k mmr, then it is just as broken as if it was broken at 2k mmr.

[SanityBasket]

Originally posted by Fishy:

MMR ranking rewards a particular style of play that has a tendency to memorise rote strategies and metas from high MMRs and then play them technically well and consistently - but these players are also the least likely to have that deep understanding of all of the units and techs and ways that they can be used outside their narrow framing.

I can see someone claiming this about specific Starcraft 2 cheeses, but arguing that this is in anyway representative this game is just sad.

[Kracow]

LOL, about 2 months ago I was 500ish MMR, 4 weeks I was just shy of 2050, 2 weeks ago I was 900 MMR and as of today and thanks to almost 30 losses in 2v2 with a friend back down to 1400ish or so.

Nice but some of us just don't care about MMR anymore.

Two weeks ago in one of the mini tourneys I killed 2 players while I was 1100 MMR that day but since my CP was so high I happen to be in the advanced group and killed two guys over 2000 MMR.

Play all the ranges and you'll get a better feel of why certain strategies and complaints are coming in from all players.

[Fadeway]

everyone with more mmr than me obtained it in an illegitimate way

[Arti_Sel]

Originally posted by Fishy:

Even something as simple as 'knowledge' is a deep and mutli-faceted thing.

Yes, my words are very meaningful.

Originally posted by Fishy:

Even if the only thing that contributed to an MMR ranking was 'knowledge', you could not simply just add this up and decide that a person with a higher MMR has more 'knowledge' than another. At best you could maybe say they have different knowledge.

No, you could say that the knowledge the higher ranked person has is more useful for the purposes of winning games.

Originally posted by Fishy:

At a minimum, the 2k MMR player likely has very little knowledge of the meta at 1k, for example.

The 2k mmr player has in all-likelyhood encountered whatever that meta is before and learnt how to overcome it.

Originally posted by Fishy:

But in reality, knowledge is far from the only thing that contributes to MMR. Your ability to use that knowledge is obviously paramount.

Even skill in this game boils down to knowing how units are going to behave. Like I said in the op, there is no severe apm or reflex requirement. It's a turnbased game.

Originally posted by Fishy:

Knowing every unit stat doesn't tell you which unit to play. Knowing a range of counters and counter-counters doesn't tell you which one to use. Knowing a particular meta doesn't tell you what your opponent is likely to do in every case and how best to predict it.

Some knowledge can only be gained through experience. It would make sense that experienced people are the ones to discuss balance.

Originally posted by Fishy:

And that's all before we get to an MMR system which rewards consistency over experimentation.

This is true. Chasing mmr and improving in the long run is not necessarily the same thing. We could get into this.

Originally posted by Fishy:

MMR ranking rewards a particular style of play that has a tendency to memorise rote strategies and metas from high MMRs and then play them technically well and consistently - but these players are also the least likely to have that deep understanding of all of the units and techs and ways that they can be used outside their narrow framing. The least likely to really see balance issues as opposed to just see what gets used a lot and what counters it.

No they are the most likely to see balance issues because they are specifically seeking out the most effective strategies/tactics and pitting them against eachother.

Originally posted by Fishy:

Your insistence on knowledge makes me feel that you are one of these players. Maybe if you just memorise every single possible combination of units and their positions then you'll be able to recall the perfect counter-play every time! In the long run, and without having guides to watch, players like you will always lose to the player that experimented and learned and can think fast and runs on instinct.

You are making wild and false assumptions. If you look through my history you will find me ♥♥♥♥-talking guides and netdeckers a lot. In any case Mechabellum isn't a game that is easily netdecked.

Originally posted by Fishy:

Again, there are a whole load of things that are wrong with that viewpoint, but one important one is that this seems to reflect a very elitist view on who the game is for and what the role of balance is.

Buzzword! The problem with elitism in society is that it often rewards those that possess unearned advantage it's not necessarily the best who get rewarded. Good games are meritocracies were everyone starts from an equal position, elitism is fair and good in such circumstances because it rewards effort and excellence.

Originally posted by Fishy:

What doesn't always get as much visibility is that this can work the other way around, and a tactic or unit that is balanced in the hands of experienced players can feel oppressive and un-fun at lower levels (for example due to needing a specific counter, or requiring a specific style of play to be adhered to in order to not be exploitable.)

I think there are discussions to be had about fun gameplay, the problem we have right now however is that noobs overrun the forum with balance complaints. Before we can have discussions about fun and unfun gameplay, order and hierarchy needs to be restored.

Originally posted by Fishy:

You could view this as a reason for these players to 'get gud', but actually this is just a game design problem and if the unit/strat could be better balanced to work well at all levels of play, then this is frequently a much better choice for everyone.

Some people enjoy solving complexity, some people have no understanding of complexity. There is no perfect balance in this regard. All games should primarily be balanced around fun gameplay at the highest levels of play, because good effort and gameplay should be rewarded.

Originally posted by Fishy:

The existence of higher levels of play don't make lower levels of play invalid. There are many strats in games that are completely breakable by AI (eg: the micro in Starcraft), but are enough beyond human level that we don't try and 'fix' them because we would rather the game be balanced for the lower-MMR players (the humans.)

Every strategy and tactic is available equally to every player in this game. This is not SC2, there is nothing physically stopping a person from playing at the highest ranks.

Originally posted by Fishy:

And even if someone was less knowledgeable, that doesn't make their knowledge or opinion invalid.

It necessarily makes their opinion less valuable, less insightful.

Originally posted by Fishy:

Games are not made for the 1%, and aiming all the balance tweaks at that insular (and often distorted) meta does not serve the 99% well.

But it does. Because everyone is constantly improving, the 1% gameplay of today is going to become the majorities gameplay of tomorrow.

Originally posted by Kracow:

Nice but some of us just don't care about MMR anymore.

For the purposes of just playing the game MMR doesn't matter much. But skill should be respected, mmr is a measure of the persons current skill.

[Skha]

Originally posted by Fishy:

This is one of those posts that's wrong in so many ways that it's difficult to know where to start, but I'll try and take it bit by bit.

There are lots of things that contribute to MMR aside from knowledge. Even something as simple as 'knowledge' is a deep and mutli-faceted thing. There is your knowledge of the game systems, your knowledge of the units, their stats, how they matchup against various other units, how they combine, how various combinations fare against various other combinations with all the many variations on positioning, there is your knowledge of one or more of the metas which may exist on a given server, at a given time, and at a given MMR range.

Even if the only thing that contributed to an MMR ranking was 'knowledge', you could not simply just add this up and decide that a person with a higher MMR has more 'knowledge' than another. At best you could maybe say they have different knowledge. At a minimum, the 2k MMR player likely has very little knowledge of the meta at 1k, for example. But for many of those categories of knowledge, there is no definitive right answer.

But in reality, knowledge is far from the only thing that contributes to MMR. Your ability to use that knowledge is obviously paramount. Knowing every unit stat doesn't tell you which unit to play. Knowing a range of counters and counter-counters doesn't tell you which one to use. Knowing a particular meta doesn't tell you what your opponent is likely to do in every case and how best to predict it. And that's all before we get to an MMR system which rewards consistency over experimentation.

There are many different types of players. New players. Theory Crafters. Experimenters. Analysers. Net-deckers. Ladder Climbers. MMR ranking rewards a particular style of play that has a tendency to memorise rote strategies and metas from high MMRs and then play them technically well and consistently - but these players are also the least likely to have that deep understanding of all of the units and techs and ways that they can be used outside their narrow framing. The least likely to really see balance issues as opposed to just see what gets used a lot and what counters it.

Your insistence on knowledge makes me feel that you are one of these players. Maybe if you just memorise every single possible combination of units and their positions then you'll be able to recall the perfect counter-play every time! In the long run, and without having guides to watch, players like you will always lose to the player that experimented and learned and can think fast and runs on instinct.

I could go much deeper on all of this, but it's clearly just a ridiculous claim, and not the main problem with your post.

The real issue with your post is the idea that if someone is not as 'knowledgeable' about the game as someone else, then their opinion is invalid (or indeed that voicing their opinion is rude!)

Again, there are a whole load of things that are wrong with that viewpoint, but one important one is that this seems to reflect a very elitist view on who the game is for and what the role of balance is.

Something that often becomes apparent when balancing a strategy game is that a unit or tactic that was balanced at a lower MMR becomes "too good" in the hands of an experienced player, and ends up needing to be nerfed.

What doesn't always get as much visibility is that this can work the other way around, and a tactic or unit that is balanced in the hands of experienced players can feel oppressive and un-fun at lower levels (for example due to needing a specific counter, or requiring a specific style of play to be adhered to in order to not be exploitable.)

You could view this as a reason for these players to 'get gud', but actually this is just a game design problem and if the unit/strat could be better balanced to work well at all levels of play, then this is frequently a much better choice for everyone.

The existence of higher levels of play don't make lower levels of play invalid. There are many strats in games that are completely breakable by AI (eg: the micro in Starcraft), but are enough beyond human level that we don't try and 'fix' them because we would rather the game be balanced for the lower-MMR players (the humans.)

MMR does not equal knowledge. And even if someone was less knowledgeable, that doesn't make their knowledge or opinion invalid. Neither does being at a low MMR.

Games are not made for the 1%, and aiming all the balance tweaks at that insular (and often distorted) meta does not serve the 99% well.

If something genuinely is broken at 1k mmr, then it is just as broken as if it was broken at 2k mmr.

Right MMR is not the main key, but I think you missed the last days of posting. There where some guys especially one who always blames the game for an op unit. Many player try to help him how to counter this but he names them all ignorant and insists that the whole game is broken and by spamming one unit every round is a win. He had 300 MMR and thats may be why this post was created. I dont know if this is really helpfull but I agree that it is very anoying if someone creates a questing how to counter a unit just to reject all hints and blaming the game for the looses.

[Mimaneneko]

I'm either around 1500 MMR or sub 500, there is no rhyme or reason, there is no pattern. I just do what I think is fun stupid ♥♥♥♥ and sometimes it catapults me or sinks me

[Purple Sauce]

I've known plenty of bad players who actually have very good game knowledge and understand the concepts of the game as well the best but their ability to use said knowledge on the fly was in the gutter. The MMR system in this game is also completely busted so that's a pretty moot point as well.Many players (such as myself) will do dumb crap to see if it works just because which can easily cost games and MMR because not everyone is trying to play seriously but it's w/e. MMR does not even remotely tell anyone about your in-game knowledge, only listening to the person can.

[Fishy]

Originally posted by Skha:

Right MMR is not the main key, but I think you missed the last days of posting. There where some guys especially one who always blames the game for an op unit. Many player try to help him how to counter this but he names them all ignorant and insists that the whole game is broken and by spamming one unit every round is a win. He had 300 MMR and thats may be why this post was created. I dont know if this is really helpfull but I agree that it is very anoying if someone creates a questing how to counter a unit just to reject all hints and blaming the game for the looses.

I'm definitely not saying that every person who complains about something being OP is right or that it is useful or anything else like that. If you check the other threads, you'll see me pointing out to that player why their complaints/comments/requests in particular are not useful, and how they could be more useful.

I would say that higher MMR players would very strongly tend towards being better players with better understanding of the game and could give better advice both to newer players and feedback on balance to Devs.

I just don't think we need to jump from that reasonable set of opinions to viewing MMR as the sole determinant of whether someone's opinion has value. MMR is an imperfect reflection of one portion of the things that make an opinion have value. It's a map, not the territory. It may correlate to some degree with good opinions, but there are plenty of good low-MMR opinions and certainly no shortage of bad high-MMR opinions!

In the case of the other thread you mentioned, I would even offer some support to the idea that this person's low MMR would be reason to be suspect of their balance criticisms (but not a call to silence them.) However, in this case it's not necessary. This is map/territory again. It's confusing a metric that correlates to some degree with skill/knowledge/experience/ability/etc, with the reality of why that player was struggling - which was plainly there in the thread for everyone to see and engage with directly. You don't need the (imperfect) map when the territory is right there in front of you.

order and hierarchy needs to be restored

As for Mr. "order and hierarchy needs to be restored" .... C'mon. Just because you're irritated at some of the things one idiot says, doesn't mean we need to go full authoritarianism. Grow up. If you don't like what they're saying, just ignore them. People having irritating opinions is not a problem that is solvable by trying to impose conditions on who is and who isn't allowed to voice an opinion.

[SanityBasket]

Originally posted by Fishy:

I would say that higher MMR players would very strongly tend towards being better players with better understanding of the game and could give better advice both to newer players and feedback on balance to Devs.

That isn't what Fishy claims. Fishy claims:

Originally posted by Fishy:

MMR ranking rewards a particular style of play that has a tendency to memorise rote strategies and metas from high MMRs and then play them technically well and consistently - but these players are also the least likely to have that deep understanding of all of the units and techs and ways that they can be used outside their narrow framing.

Which is where the whole "Order must be restored" Jazz comes from. Is it hyperbolic? Oh yeah. There however has been a serious "Ummm actually high MMR players are actually clueless" narrative on these forums lately, which has been way more outrageous and aggressive.

This thread does exaggerate, and is straight up bait, but it is tame when juxtaposed with that which sparked it.

[Fishy]

Originally posted by SanityBasket:

That isn't what Fishy claims.

It clearly is what Fishy claims, as it was Fishy who wrote both posts.

Originally posted by SanityBasket:

There however has been a serious "Ummm actually high MMR players are actually clueless" narrative on these forums lately, which has been way more outrageous and aggressive.

And this is where you just need to appreciate a little nuance. Not everything that is good needs to be completely good in every way. Pointing out one generalised weakness in players who focus on increasing their MMR at all costs is not the same as saying that "actually high MMR players are actually clueless"

Different players can have different strengths and weaknesses. Some high MMR players might have the most experimental, creative and instinctive play around.

But if your goal was to try and maximise MMR, then being experimental and creative and theory-crafting is not the way to do it. At least not in the short-term or for the vast majority of players.

This is the problem with trying to reduce everything to one imperfect metric.


The original post was very clear that it was about exactly one thing: reducing the validity of a player's opinion to one single number. That is just bad and wrong.

Now you're trying to motte & bailey that to saying you were just claiming that some players are bad and have bad opinions? And then calling me out for being inconsistent when I say that I agree that some players are bad and have bad opinions? Or say that it's justified in attacking and trying to silence massive parts of the community because one guy posted some bad opinions? C'mon.

It was a bad take. Just own it.

[SanityBasket]

Originally posted by Fishy:

It clearly is what Fishy claims, as it was Fishy who wrote both posts.

The point was the positions are contradictory. As for the rest: You threw a silly tantrum and got mocked. No need to dig the whole deeper, just own it.

[Fishy]

Originally posted by SanityBasket:

The point was the positions are contradictory.

If you can't tell the difference between "Higher MMR players will tend to be better" and "Players who maximise for MMR may not be as strong in areas which are not rewarded by MMR, such as creativity, experimentation and playing off-meta" then yeah, I suppose the whole post will be largely incomprehensible to you.

Things which reward MMR, such as researching the best comps and tactics, observing, learning, adapting and executing well and consistently are all very skill intensive, and are also what many of the best players will naturally be drawn towards, leading MMR to correlate pretty strongly with skill, I suspect.

However there are also some activities and skills which contribute to becoming a better player which are actively punished by the MMR system, so players who dive too deep into those will necessarily be at a lower MMR, and anyone chasing MMR will run the risk of neglecting those areas.

More broadly I think there tends to be a difference between the mentality of players who like to push hard on the strong comps to maximise wins, and players who like to experiment. This tends to be most obvious when there is something particularly overpowered in a given meta. Some players will just play that thing over and over and over, and some players will intentionally give up win% by doing something else. The players giving up win% tend to be mocked by the higher MMR players, but only one of those groups of players is actually getting better at the game and learning something worthwhile.

I didn't think it was an overwhelming amount of nuance, but I agree it's not the black & white you seem to want, where a player's entire knowledge, skill and quality of opinion can be reduced to a single number.

That's reality for you.