99 replies to this topic

[FLAKPANZER]

While I am not a fan of statistics for the purposes of e-peen waving or bragging rights,
(preferring to use them for self-improvement) when I see the two statistics mentioned in
the title, I tend to prefer playing with players that have a higher win to loss ratio than I do
players with a higher kill to death ratio.

The the former can indicate someone who just gets lucky by being placed on good
teams, it can also indicate a player who willingly sacrifices his own character/mech
for the benefit of the team, instead solely seeking out kills, or landing the final lucky shot
to score a kill (when another player has done more to contribute to overal damage) like
the latter might indicate.

Assuming stats are available in Mechwarrior Online like they are in other games and First-
Person shooters, which of the above do you look at as being most important when you
judge other players?

Edited by FLAKPANZER, 03 July 2012 - 09:33 AM.

[Fire and Salt]

Tonnage ratio is more important than kill death...goal is to win if course, but lone wolves tend to have lower win % even though they may have considerable skill...

[Reoh]

Score.

Kill to death is one aspect that affects your score, but there are other ways that a player can help the team win without getting a lot of kills. In MWO the obvious parallel would be scout mechs. You provide valuable targeting info early on, detailed damage reports to help your support\artillery rain death in. You might also be lightening them up with Target Acquisition Gear or Narc Missiles (magnet homing pods). You may also have run straight by the enemy mechs and blew up their base behind them.

It's not infallable, but does suggest a player doing something useful.

[ArmrdChaos]

I would much rather play with someone willing to do anything to get the win as opposed to someone willing to do anything for a kill.

[NWHHarrier]

Reoh, on 03 July 2012 - 09:53 AM, said:

Score.

Kill to death is one aspect that affects your score, but there are other ways that a player can help the team win without getting a lot of kills. In MWO the obvious parallel would be scout mechs. You provide valuable targeting info early on, detailed damage reports to help your support\artillery rain death in. You might also be lightening them up with Target Acquisition Gear or Narc Missiles (magnet homing pods). You may also have run straight by the enemy mechs and blew up their base behind them.

It's not infallable, but does suggest a player doing something useful.

Agreed. Perhaps assigning an average score based on the four roles?

[Graewulf]

ArmrdChaos, on 03 July 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

I would much rather play with someone willing to do anything to get the win as opposed to someone willing to do anything for a kill.

^This.

[Voodoo Circus]

MW:O would be blessed to not be infected with this K/D pseudo-importance that has plagued many tatical FPS games
K/D is not so important in a game that is Objective/Teamplay/Tactical centric
A scout could do a superb job and secure a round winning advantage without killing a single target
and because of that be much more valuable to the team than a player that is seeking kills or has a better K/D ratio


I would prefer that mechwarriors were ranked by Battle-impact points or something like that.
Dealing the killing blow would count as a Battle-impactant action but there are so many other more important actions that should award more points in a tactical game such as capturing points, following orders/working with your team, crippiling key targets, leading missile salvos, etc etc
And all those skills cant be translated in a K/D ratio

K/D ratio is the bad teamplayer excuse

[sakkaku]

Damage weighted towards total destruction of the targeted area with a alight bias against lighter mechs.

So for instance a player would be more "efficient" if they placed all their shots into say the RT vs someone who did 1 point of damage all over the target mech. Obviously shooting light mechs would grant you a better chance of destroying all the armor in a section so you need to weigh it based on the amount of armor on the mech.

So say a commando engages a hunchback and destroys the RT but the hunchie finishes off the jenner. Then a lancemate hits the RT and crits the reactor destroying it. The lancemate and hunchie would get a ok score for the kills but the commando would get a decent score for the high efficiency against thicker armor.

Then you would need to factor in assists for spotting, etc. Obviously that would take a lot of work to balance out (particularly since scouts have a large bonus) but it would be a better indicator of player skill in the long run. It would probably be easier to seperate the roles out and compare individual score (for instance spit out a scout score, command score and damage score). Then you could compare the scores with individual mechs against other players to see who was more efficient.

Edited by sakkaku, 03 July 2012 - 10:10 AM.

[Mith]

Definitely the W-L ratio. You can be a scout doing recon and have 0 Kills and 8 Deaths and still greatly help your team win.

[Namwons]

i rather have a kill streak counter

[Xytaglyph]

I dont think we should base our judgement of fellow players on things such as K/D or W/L because both of these statistics can be complete luck.

for instance: a player can be consistently placed with other good players and have a good W/L but be a horrible player whereas a great TEAM player can have a horrible K/D but do great things for his/her team.

someone should invent a new scale...

[David Decoster]

A third option, and the one I prefer to look at in <shudder> WoT </unshudder> is the average points / XO gain per game. If set up properly, a good Scout should be rewarded accordingly in C-Bills, regardless of the amount of kills or even the win. So how about a C-Bills/XP per round stat?

[Darkstead]

Neither,

In other games I have played use of statistics has caused players to "manage" those statistics, it leads to camping and sniping to avoid death for "tank classes" - Medium or flankers don't do there jobs because they fear no support from the heavys or tank classes, and scouts make suicide runs to spot as many enemies as possible.

Awards should be based on players doing there jobs correctly, a scout may not spot 3/4 of the enemy team but may help his lance mates by staying alive and continuing to provide forward intel, he is not going to me engaging to personally destroy, so his Kill to death or direct damage ratios if high probably mean he is not doing his job.

In other words the rewards system and stat systems need to reward a player for doing his or her job, to that end if they do post global stats, they should break them down into categories by mech type not lump them into a general stat pool.

[Twisted Power]

I do not think this info should be available after the game.

After a game is over and that games state page is gone, the only thing that should be listed should be wins and kills. No loss numbers or death numbers should be posted.

If you are just messing around with your friends in a game with wierd mech builds, playing with a new player to help them out or training against your own merc unit, it should NOT penalize your stats.

I intend to bring my friends into the game and they are not good at playing FPS so if we loose a few games it will realy discourage me from using my real account. I'd end up making a new random acount to play with them. The idea of having to have that account just so I can have some dumb ratio is so stupid it would put a real sour taste in my mouth when I went to put more money into the game.

Leauge of Legends stat system is ideal. It only shows positives.

[WardenWolf]

I would prefer to see damage dealt vs damage received. This would be the metric I would go by for all non-scout roles: you should be causing more damage than you take. Scouts even should be, but it is their second priority - they need to focus first on targeting, before harassing.

With that said, I hope *all* possible metrics are recorded and available, but I would have the default be to have them *private*. A player would have to log into their account and intentionally mark their profile as public in order for others to see it.

[Voodoo Circus]

Xytaglyph, on 03 July 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

I dont think we should base our judgement of fellow players on things such as K/D or W/L because both of these statistics can be complete luck.

for instance: a player can be consistently placed with other good players and have a good W/L but be a horrible player whereas a great TEAM player can have a horrible K/D but do great things for his/her team.

someone should invent a new scale...

+1

K/D could not even exist in MW;O, that alone would encorage teamplay

Maybe as i ,said earlier, there should be a system such as Battle-Impact points that would translate how well a player performed his role in the battle.
Things as scouting, capturing bases, following orders,etc should be given more importance over killing a enemy mech

[Pun Pundit]

Xytaglyph, on 03 July 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

I dont think we should base our judgement of fellow players on things such as K/D or W/L because both of these statistics can be complete luck.

for instance: a player can be consistently placed with other good players and have a good W/L but be a horrible player whereas a great TEAM player can have a horrible K/D but do great things for his/her team.

Assuming the team selection is random (i.e. it is random which team you get placed on), over a large number of battles the "luck" factor is nonexistent ( http://en.wikipedia....f_large_numbers ). Win/loss is the best indicator for how much someone has, on average, influenced the outcomes of battles they've been in.

This can be padded if you can select what team-mates you are placed with, but that is the only way to pad it.

[crabcakes66]

Win/Loss means very little in this kind of game when it comes to public matches.


It means everything during a pre-formed match though.

Pun Pundit, on 03 July 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

Assuming the team selection is random (i.e. it is random which team you get placed on), over a large number of battles the "luck" factor is nonexistent ( http://en.wikipedia....f_large_numbers ). Win/loss is the best indicator for how much someone has, on average, influenced the outcomes of battles they've been in.

Sorry but random chance does not work that way. I could be an awesome player and still lose 60% of the time due to terrible teammates. Go look at WoT.

Human beings =/= dice.

Edited by crabcakes66, 03 July 2012 - 10:33 AM.

[SuperDuck1337]

personally i think that stats just influence poor performance, it makes people play to get good stats not help the team.

[Voodoo Circus]

I made a post in the Sugestions section of the forum regarding the replacemente of the K/D stats method for another one
more Teamplay/Tactical oriented

http://mwomercs.com/...s-insted-of-kd/

If you agree or disagree please post your opinions