The game experienced a brief connectivity issue this morning. The team promptly fixed the issue and things are back to normal, thank you to everyone who passed along reports!
How much free time you have to write a whole biography
I do it instead of things like grinding the Arena, AW, AQ, etc. But I've dabbled in those, and play MCOC otherwise.
I enjoy doing this type of analysis, reflection, and write-up. It also ties into opening up avenues for developing or working on other things I like.
I got work as a Game Designer because I'd spent my free time prior, on things like reading game systems, playing games, building tools, consuming books and movies and discussing and taking notes, networking, etc. As a Game Designer I made myself and co-workers tools that they used among other tasks I did. At a Finance company I made tools, managed projects, edited boss's write-ups, etc. among other things. Because I had spent my time in doing those types of things and building up my skills and ability.
Make time to practice and do what you like. And what you think will open doors for you or build your skills in doing things. Or, do what works for you. It's all good.
My background is in analytics which is why I asked.
That's great to hear. Looking forward to more of your input and thoughts.
I continually expand beyond my own limits through the exchange of ideas with people of different talents, experience, thoughts, thought processes, etc.
How do you derive ratings based on player skill? Rating values assigned feel "made-up" - what's to say a poor user of Quake has a power rating of 50 and not the 40 that's listed. Also how do you quantify the skill of a player when using a champion? Where do you set the bar for "high skill"? Someone that can reliably quake each and every fight without getting hit ever? If someone gets hit once do they then become medium skill?
First, please keep in mind that I added the parameters like "player skill" to show how the tool could be used to consider and convey such things. But it's just one possible type of chart the tool can make.
And also, the tool isn't meant to aggregate all entries into making one "kitchen sink" chart (this can be done so long as the entries each adhere to the same rating context, though the different mix of criteria for each entry could make for a lot of confusion: example, for entries that don't list "player skill", what is the implied player skill for that entry?) The tool is meant to be able to make different charts with it, that fit the needs of the makers and users. It is not meant for all charts made with it to have the "player skill" component. All that is up to the maker of each chart.
Also, keep in mind that few gamer charts would hold up to a requirement that the breakdowns presented reflect all nuances across all users.
That said, here is my breakdown below on the numbers for Quake. For reference, I am a good Quake player who can do Heavy-Dex and Heavy-Parry, and have dabbled a little with Heavy only. I also haven't really done Dex-Heavy, etc. I use Quake for a lot of difficult content when needed, and not too long ago I took down pre-nerf 6.2.6 Champion with Quake.
I am breaking Quake users into: 1) Heavy-Dex at a high proficiency and high both skill and results: execution, usage, knowledge, experience, etc. 2) Heavy-Parry at a high proficiency and medium both skill and results. 3) people trying to learn Heavy-Parry and Heavy-Dex or using Quake as a normal Champion and low both skill and results.
I am taking each user tier as a reflection of a (perceived) user group's abilities clustered and marking a set point within that cluster. Some players will be higher, some lower, etc.
I am also not accounting for likely skill levels other than high, medium, low. Such as (just picking some extremes for easier contrast) a helpless newborn on the super low end, or a godlike bot on the super high end. I could add those, people could use such info to determine if Quake is a good Champion for newborns or if Quake is a good Champ to make or use a bot for. I could add in thousands of tiers to cover all kinds of groups, nuances, etc. But for the chart listed I did not add those. I know it seems silly to consider MCOC for newborns (and it is silly), but keep in mind this same tool could be re-mapped onto products for newborns to play with as well.
I think smart chart users will understand that people will find themselves drifting up between the indicated levels as they advance with Quake. And they can expect to track between 40-180 if they gradually get better at Quake. Not all blue belts are at the same level. If needed, I can add a notes section onto the tool that explains how users can use the chart in this way.
I figure a Quake player that can do Heavy-Dex, Heavy-Parry, etc. and has lots of experience, knowledge, ability to adjust, etc. can break some pretty crazy content. I've seen some of it,I've done some of it. Quake may be a 5-Star, but she's still amazing in certain content. So I gave her a 180 in the hands of such a player.
The Heavy-Parry only Quake player can do a lot with Quake. Break a lot of content or at least get through it. In some matchups, Heavy-Parry might even be the best tactic for Quake. But overall they just can't get the same performance out of Quake as a person who is using more Quake methods and/or a person who has more experience, knowledge, proficiency, etc. with Quake. I gave them a healthy but not crazy 125.
People still learning Heavy-Parry and Heavy-Dex (and being bad at it) or using Quake as a normal Champion are in a dark place. There has been a lot of reports from players who were frustrated at trying to learn to use Quake. Many who gave up in frustration. The kinda frustration that comes from repeatedly beating your head into a wall with a 40 Rating Champion. If you keep doing Heavy-Parry or Heavy-Dex wrong, you are often just taking combos to the face. If you don't know how to use Quake, you are gonna get some pretty bad results (even terrible results if you're trying to force the Heavy tricks).
The 180, 125, and 40 can change. The way to identify breakpoints can change. The whole 1-200 number range can change (a super bot is gonna already be rating at over 200, unless you want the scale to just ramp up an "outcome" x-axis [with a "rating" y-axis] into a near vertical line)
For me, the issue of quantifying the skill of a player when using a champion is more about clustering the performances (which is relative to content and users) than it is precisely how many hits you take, how long it took, etc. MCOC is a mixture of modes and victory conditions. Battlegrounds awards Health, Time, K.O., whereas Event Quests are just if you have any champs surviving the attrition. And then you have other factors like the community regarding one player better than another if they do it faster, do it with less hits, take less damage, perform crazier tricks, etc. And then you have people who just look at who won AW, regardless of the "asymmetrical gameplay" components of roster imbalances or a tallying of who used more potions.
Not only this, but if you are going to bring player skill into any element of it then it becomes a factor for every champion. Archangel is a relatively simple champion to use but what if the player has terrible parry timing?
Again, for me, the issue of quantifying the skill of a player when using a champion is more about clustering the performances, outcomes. But someone else using the tool for their own chart can make their own take.
I think knowing that Archangel's effectiveness is tied to Parrying is an extremely important consideration. And one that routinely is not expressed within standard tier charts.
I myself am terrible at Parry. I have avoided ranking and using Parry Champions when I can. And I know that if I want to use those Champs I have to get better at Parry. I can use Quake well, I can use Ghost well, I can clear Eternity Of Pain. I still can't reliably Parry.
So yeah, I would definitely want to find out what each Champ needs in terms of execution, knowledge, etc. And allot points accordingly for the player's ability to derive performance. For some charts, likely add a "notes" section in a column on an entry, where writers can share these types of details so a user can figure out what defines, and how they can get to better at, the different skill levels.
And again, as much as I think exploring and conveying info on "player skill" is neat and has great potential to be helpful, I stress again that this tool is not just a "player skill" chart maker. Many charts built from this tool won't even mention player skill... although even this it invariably will frequently remain as an unaddressed factor, just as it is in Tier Charts.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not condemning the effort that's gone into this but I'm wondering how effective this would serve as a tool to anyone.
If we move away from the more unorthodox categories like "player skill", and just focus on the more familiar categories of Star, Rank, Sig. Then it's just a Tier Chart that shows where each Champ rates in an ordering. We've seen Tier Charts be effective. This would likely be similarly as "effective".
If we build up a chart to show the Top 10 Champs to knock out Week 1 of the next round of Eternity of Pain, then it looks similar to the charts Karate Mike has been making. I feel his charts have been effective. This would likely be similarly as "effective" (as long as someone as expert as Mike was involved in the data, or the data was being pulled from such sources as Mike).
If you're more worried about deriving effective use from charts made with the tool. I would emphasize to stick to the things you (or your target demogrpahic) would want to use the Chart for. And in ways that you expect you (or the target demographic) would get effective use.
Additionally, if this were to be 'community editable' (a-la Wikipedia), then who's to say which person editing is the leading authority on any given champ?
I really don't foresee any chart created by this tool as being widely 'community editable' (a-la Wikipedia).
It's possible. But almost every tool players use across games is not vulnerable to the direct full suite of read/write/execute ("rwx") permissions.
You could have a select group have such access and ability. I've worked on many projects with that. Or you could do some sort of polling thing where players can vote to set stats that are used. Prof Hoff does that sometimes.
For most charts I've worked on, I try to setup quality of data, and then control the process to get and maintain it. It often means pulling from top experts. It often means being a
But it really depends on what you want. If you want to make some ambitious ~"theory of everything" chart that also involves community input, go for it. It sounds like it could be really cool and full of all kinds of experiences and discoveries. But if you just want to make a Chart of which 6-Sar Rank 4 Mystic Champs are the best, then do that.
MCOC (like many modern games) has a complicated community interaction dynamic. Very tiered. Very inconsistent across types of communication. Even now I'm stuck on how to share a spreadsheet on this outside of sharing from Google Drive. So my ambitions for this tool/chart were converted into text and posted in my first post as a sample for Doom: at least people can edit text easily in this forum.
Again, not intending to tear the whole idea apart. More a case of offering some critical feedback for you to consider.
All good. I really do appreciate the feedback and thoughts.
I've worked on a bunch of tools before for different groups. And done or been part of setting up various other game community things (charts, websites, offline and online tournaments, etc.). I don't care too much if this tool takes off or not, with me or on its own. I've done that type of experience before, I can take or leave doing it all again. I just thought I'd share it in case the community was into something like it. Or it sparked interesting conversations like this.
Most communities are not really about specific results. They're just a place to hang out, do stuff, check out what's going on. Many of them aren't interested in something that's gonna mess with the status quo, jostle the totem pole, etc. It's all good.
Additionally, if this were to be 'community editable' (a-la Wikipedia), then who's to say which person editing is the leading authority on any given champ?
Just wanted to add an option for a "kitchen sink" system. Which is to have each entry list the author/userid/etc. of that person/group. Probably a date as well, or posting info other tags.
You could have multiple entries on the some target configurations, but they would be from different persons. This would allow users to filter by user or a set of users, to derive the list they want. Community could share which users they thought were best, and users could configure their user pool from that or from other methodology.
I think since a lot of the information in the your data exists in other places (like auntm.ai) probably one of the most useful things you could create would be a champion database that players could annotate (without deleting or amending anyone else's annotations). This would allow players to add notes on champs that often get revealed through the forum or Reddit such as optimum rotations, effectiveness of awakening/stones, lesser known abilities, immunities... Etc
I often see players asking a lot of the same questions when pulling a champ for the first time and such a guide could be a useful one-stop-shop.
I think since a lot of the information in the your data exists in other places (like auntm.ai)
Sure.
A lot of the more common entered configuration parameters, on any specific line, are gonna be fairly common references. Easily accessible data that exists in other places within the MCOCscape. Terms and meanings. Numerical ranges and values. Things like: Champion Name Star Rank Signature Level Mastery Synergy
Other potential parameters also exist as references in the MCOCscape, though in fewer places and/or less easily accessible. And still other potential parameters will be obscure or even nowhere to be found until created. It's a wide range.
probably one of the most useful things you could create would be a champion database that players could annotate (without deleting or amending anyone else's annotations).
I think that would be extremely cool. And something that this format/tool could be used for.
But that's a different project.
Two (or more) different projects really: 1) a Champion database 2) a format that allowed public access to add content, which also could be used, navigated, and achieve results easily.
It's a different project. It's a massive project (depending on how well you want it to run and to what scale). And while my background would line-up well for certain parts of it (project management, project planning, systems, general MCOC knowledge, similar projects, excel/sheets, basic ancient html, etc.), other parts of it would be well beyond me (coding, hardcore db stuff, etc.)
In theory you could just pack it into a public Google Sheet. But it would probably spill over that sand box. As I said before, almost every tool players use across games is not something players can tinker with.
As I also mentioned, you could have a small, select group have such access and ability (some stable of experts, etc.) to build out and populate it. With the public then accessing it as something they can't edit. I've worked on many projects like that. But that doesn't really fit the parameters you're talking about.
Also, while I've worked on my share of massive projects (some of which were easier to do than others), I don't really want to get entrenched as a prime mover (or high volume laborer) on a massive project.
The tool I'm placing here is just a stepping stone.
This would allow players to add notes on champs that often get revealed through the forum or Reddit such as optimum rotations, effectiveness of awakening/stones, lesser known abilities, immunities... Etc
I often see players asking a lot of the same questions when pulling a champ for the first time and such a guide could be a useful one-stop-shop.
That sounds very cool. But also a very massive undertaking.
My default project starter process would probably start by asking does such a tool/resource (in full, or in pieces) exist for any other game (or otherwise). Then to review it and repurpose it for this project (assess outcome, viability, form, etc.). It's often easier to copy from (or start with) a existing proof-of-concept.
MCOC has some great tools. And it has a lot of openings where new great tools could be added. This project of yours sounds like one of those new great tools.
Side note. With the emergence of Battlegrounds, a streetfighterdojo.com tool would be a pretty natural fit as a new tool as well. But that's a lot of work. I'll probably just whip up a personal spreadsheet version of that for myself.
Sorry Vendemiaire, I just don't know Silver Surfer very much.
For Doom, Quake, Ghost, etc. I know them well enough, and have studied other people's input on them, that I could make some rough charts. But Silver Surfer knowledge is mostly a blank for me.
Obviously you put a lot of time and effort into this so well done indeed! I think it would help if it was crowdsourced in someway? You can get input from the community as a whole and the ratings can adjust themselves as more and more people provide their feedback? Regardless seems like you got a good start, I'm looking forward to seeing updates
Comments
I enjoy doing this type of analysis, reflection, and write-up. It also ties into opening up avenues for developing or working on other things I like.
I got work as a Game Designer because I'd spent my free time prior, on things like reading game systems, playing games, building tools, consuming books and movies and discussing and taking notes, networking, etc. As a Game Designer I made myself and co-workers tools that they used among other tasks I did. At a Finance company I made tools, managed projects, edited boss's write-ups, etc. among other things. Because I had spent my time in doing those types of things and building up my skills and ability.
Make time to practice and do what you like. And what you think will open doors for you or build your skills in doing things. Or, do what works for you. It's all good.
I continually expand beyond my own limits through the exchange of ideas with people of different talents, experience, thoughts, thought processes, etc. First, please keep in mind that I added the parameters like "player skill" to show how the tool could be used to consider and convey such things. But it's just one possible type of chart the tool can make.
And also, the tool isn't meant to aggregate all entries into making one "kitchen sink" chart (this can be done so long as the entries each adhere to the same rating context, though the different mix of criteria for each entry could make for a lot of confusion: example, for entries that don't list "player skill", what is the implied player skill for that entry?) The tool is meant to be able to make different charts with it, that fit the needs of the makers and users. It is not meant for all charts made with it to have the "player skill" component. All that is up to the maker of each chart.
Also, keep in mind that few gamer charts would hold up to a requirement that the breakdowns presented reflect all nuances across all users.
That said, here is my breakdown below on the numbers for Quake. For reference, I am a good Quake player who can do Heavy-Dex and Heavy-Parry, and have dabbled a little with Heavy only. I also haven't really done Dex-Heavy, etc. I use Quake for a lot of difficult content when needed, and not too long ago I took down pre-nerf 6.2.6 Champion with Quake.
I am breaking Quake users into:
1) Heavy-Dex at a high proficiency and high both skill and results: execution, usage, knowledge, experience, etc.
2) Heavy-Parry at a high proficiency and medium both skill and results.
3) people trying to learn Heavy-Parry and Heavy-Dex or using Quake as a normal Champion and low both skill and results.
I am taking each user tier as a reflection of a (perceived) user group's abilities clustered and marking a set point within that cluster. Some players will be higher, some lower, etc.
I am also not accounting for likely skill levels other than high, medium, low. Such as (just picking some extremes for easier contrast) a helpless newborn on the super low end, or a godlike bot on the super high end. I could add those, people could use such info to determine if Quake is a good Champion for newborns or if Quake is a good Champ to make or use a bot for. I could add in thousands of tiers to cover all kinds of groups, nuances, etc. But for the chart listed I did not add those. I know it seems silly to consider MCOC for newborns (and it is silly), but keep in mind this same tool could be re-mapped onto products for newborns to play with as well.
I think smart chart users will understand that people will find themselves drifting up between the indicated levels as they advance with Quake. And they can expect to track between 40-180 if they gradually get better at Quake. Not all blue belts are at the same level. If needed, I can add a notes section onto the tool that explains how users can use the chart in this way.
I figure a Quake player that can do Heavy-Dex, Heavy-Parry, etc. and has lots of experience, knowledge, ability to adjust, etc. can break some pretty crazy content. I've seen some of it,I've done some of it. Quake may be a 5-Star, but she's still amazing in certain content. So I gave her a 180 in the hands of such a player.
The Heavy-Parry only Quake player can do a lot with Quake. Break a lot of content or at least get through it. In some matchups, Heavy-Parry might even be the best tactic for Quake. But overall they just can't get the same performance out of Quake as a person who is using more Quake methods and/or a person who has more experience, knowledge, proficiency, etc. with Quake. I gave them a healthy but not crazy 125.
People still learning Heavy-Parry and Heavy-Dex (and being bad at it) or using Quake as a normal Champion are in a dark place. There has been a lot of reports from players who were frustrated at trying to learn to use Quake. Many who gave up in frustration. The kinda frustration that comes from repeatedly beating your head into a wall with a 40 Rating Champion. If you keep doing Heavy-Parry or Heavy-Dex wrong, you are often just taking combos to the face. If you don't know how to use Quake, you are gonna get some pretty bad results (even terrible results if you're trying to force the Heavy tricks).
The 180, 125, and 40 can change. The way to identify breakpoints can change. The whole 1-200 number range can change (a super bot is gonna already be rating at over 200, unless you want the scale to just ramp up an "outcome" x-axis [with a "rating" y-axis] into a near vertical line)
For me, the issue of quantifying the skill of a player when using a champion is more about clustering the performances (which is relative to content and users) than it is precisely how many hits you take, how long it took, etc. MCOC is a mixture of modes and victory conditions. Battlegrounds awards Health, Time, K.O., whereas Event Quests are just if you have any champs surviving the attrition. And then you have other factors like the community regarding one player better than another if they do it faster, do it with less hits, take less damage, perform crazier tricks, etc. And then you have people who just look at who won AW, regardless of the "asymmetrical gameplay" components of roster imbalances or a tallying of who used more potions. Again, for me, the issue of quantifying the skill of a player when using a champion is more about clustering the performances, outcomes. But someone else using the tool for their own chart can make their own take.
I think knowing that Archangel's effectiveness is tied to Parrying is an extremely important consideration. And one that routinely is not expressed within standard tier charts.
I myself am terrible at Parry. I have avoided ranking and using Parry Champions when I can. And I know that if I want to use those Champs I have to get better at Parry. I can use Quake well, I can use Ghost well, I can clear Eternity Of Pain. I still can't reliably Parry.
So yeah, I would definitely want to find out what each Champ needs in terms of execution, knowledge, etc. And allot points accordingly for the player's ability to derive performance. For some charts, likely add a "notes" section in a column on an entry, where writers can share these types of details so a user can figure out what defines, and how they can get to better at, the different skill levels.
And again, as much as I think exploring and conveying info on "player skill" is neat and has great potential to be helpful, I stress again that this tool is not just a "player skill" chart maker. Many charts built from this tool won't even mention player skill... although even this it invariably will frequently remain as an unaddressed factor, just as it is in Tier Charts. If we move away from the more unorthodox categories like "player skill", and just focus on the more familiar categories of Star, Rank, Sig. Then it's just a Tier Chart that shows where each Champ rates in an ordering. We've seen Tier Charts be effective. This would likely be similarly as "effective".
If we build up a chart to show the Top 10 Champs to knock out Week 1 of the next round of Eternity of Pain, then it looks similar to the charts Karate Mike has been making. I feel his charts have been effective. This would likely be similarly as "effective" (as long as someone as expert as Mike was involved in the data, or the data was being pulled from such sources as Mike).
If you're more worried about deriving effective use from charts made with the tool. I would emphasize to stick to the things you (or your target demogrpahic) would want to use the Chart for. And in ways that you expect you (or the target demographic) would get effective use. I really don't foresee any chart created by this tool as being widely 'community editable' (a-la Wikipedia).
It's possible. But almost every tool players use across games is not vulnerable to the direct full suite of read/write/execute ("rwx") permissions.
You could have a select group have such access and ability. I've worked on many projects with that. Or you could do some sort of polling thing where players can vote to set stats that are used. Prof Hoff does that sometimes.
For most charts I've worked on, I try to setup quality of data, and then control the process to get and maintain it. It often means pulling from top experts. It often means being a
But it really depends on what you want. If you want to make some ambitious ~"theory of everything" chart that also involves community input, go for it. It sounds like it could be really cool and full of all kinds of experiences and discoveries. But if you just want to make a Chart of which 6-Sar Rank 4 Mystic Champs are the best, then do that.
MCOC (like many modern games) has a complicated community interaction dynamic. Very tiered. Very inconsistent across types of communication. Even now I'm stuck on how to share a spreadsheet on this outside of sharing from Google Drive. So my ambitions for this tool/chart were converted into text and posted in my first post as a sample for Doom: at least people can edit text easily in this forum. All good. I really do appreciate the feedback and thoughts.
I've worked on a bunch of tools before for different groups. And done or been part of setting up various other game community things (charts, websites, offline and online tournaments, etc.). I don't care too much if this tool takes off or not, with me or on its own. I've done that type of experience before, I can take or leave doing it all again. I just thought I'd share it in case the community was into something like it. Or it sparked interesting conversations like this.
Most communities are not really about specific results. They're just a place to hang out, do stuff, check out what's going on. Many of them aren't interested in something that's gonna mess with the status quo, jostle the totem pole, etc. It's all good.
You could have multiple entries on the some target configurations, but they would be from different persons. This would allow users to filter by user or a set of users, to derive the list they want. Community could share which users they thought were best, and users could configure their user pool from that or from other methodology.
This would allow players to add notes on champs that often get revealed through the forum or Reddit such as optimum rotations, effectiveness of awakening/stones, lesser known abilities, immunities... Etc
I often see players asking a lot of the same questions when pulling a champ for the first time and such a guide could be a useful one-stop-shop.
Yeah, lemme go grab my pc for this one.
A lot of the more common entered configuration parameters, on any specific line, are gonna be fairly common references. Easily accessible data that exists in other places within the MCOCscape. Terms and meanings. Numerical ranges and values. Things like:
Champion Name
Star
Rank
Signature Level
Mastery
Synergy
Other potential parameters also exist as references in the MCOCscape, though in fewer places and/or less easily accessible. And still other potential parameters will be obscure or even nowhere to be found until created. It's a wide range.
Side note: auntm.ai is awesome I think that would be extremely cool. And something that this format/tool could be used for.
But that's a different project.
Two (or more) different projects really:
1) a Champion database
2) a format that allowed public access to add content, which also could be used, navigated, and achieve results easily.
It's a different project. It's a massive project (depending on how well you want it to run and to what scale). And while my background would line-up well for certain parts of it (project management, project planning, systems, general MCOC knowledge, similar projects, excel/sheets, basic ancient html, etc.), other parts of it would be well beyond me (coding, hardcore db stuff, etc.)
In theory you could just pack it into a public Google Sheet. But it would probably spill over that sand box. As I said before, almost every tool players use across games is not something players can tinker with.
As I also mentioned, you could have a small, select group have such access and ability (some stable of experts, etc.) to build out and populate it. With the public then accessing it as something they can't edit. I've worked on many projects like that. But that doesn't really fit the parameters you're talking about.
Also, while I've worked on my share of massive projects (some of which were easier to do than others), I don't really want to get entrenched as a prime mover (or high volume laborer) on a massive project.
The tool I'm placing here is just a stepping stone. That sounds very cool. But also a very massive undertaking.
My default project starter process would probably start by asking does such a tool/resource (in full, or in pieces) exist for any other game (or otherwise). Then to review it and repurpose it for this project (assess outcome, viability, form, etc.). It's often easier to copy from (or start with) a existing proof-of-concept.
MCOC has some great tools. And it has a lot of openings where new great tools could be added. This project of yours sounds like one of those new great tools.
Side note. With the emergence of Battlegrounds, a streetfighterdojo.com tool would be a pretty natural fit as a new tool as well. But that's a lot of work. I'll probably just whip up a personal spreadsheet version of that for myself.
You could post more entries, pulling from your Champion knowledge, and we'd all learn a lot. Sorry Vendemiaire, I just don't know Silver Surfer very much.
For Doom, Quake, Ghost, etc. I know them well enough, and have studied other people's input on them, that I could make some rough charts. But Silver Surfer knowledge is mostly a blank for me.