27 replies to this topic

[B E E L Z E B U B]

im a good player.
and i should be, im a founder, it means ive been playing for a long time.
it would be weird if i werent any good.
anyways, from time to time we all have those horrible matches where our team gets crushed, hey it happens, right?
and sometimes we have those matches where we suck individually, happens too...

but then we have those matches where we dont suck, but were just not feeling good about it.. ya know?

so i was wondering what other people feel.

here is my personal grading system for damage (this goes for heavies and assaults usually, but can apply to some medium mechs too):

300 and less = F
301 - 350 = D
351 - 400 = C
401 - 450 = B
450 - 500 = A
500 - 600 = A+
600 - 700 = A++
700 - 999 = M(aster)
1000 and up = G(od)

i dont like anything lower than a B.
and im usually in the B to M area.
id say i get a G once or twice a month.
how about you?

[Rhaythe]

Damage does not necessarily reflect good playstyle. It's certainly an indicator, and consistently high damage generally yeilds very good play outcomes. But due to the nature of splash damage across multiple sections of the mech in this game, I would argue that high damage occasionally reflects poor play.

Case in point, of one Mack's latest videos:



You'll note he spends the entire round running around like a headless chicken and splashing mechs randomly. He still gets 500 damage, but I would argue that he was effectively useless that round. He didn't focus fire on targeted mechs. He didn't stay with the team. I would even make the argument that he was almost irrelevant to the match.

There's probably a formula that balances damage versus kills versus assists in comparison to the rest of the team, but I'm not bright enough to figure that one out. But I would make an argument that better players generally do less damage relative to their kills/assists by nature of selective targetting.

Not that your system isn't a good starting point, but it has a flaw by focusing strictly on damage.

EDIT: Hrm. Video didn't include my starting point. Skip to 11m24s.

EDIT 2: Additional thought - if damage versus destroyed components were factored into the grading system, it may be of more use. Damage splashed randomly across mech components is practically useless, but focused damage that results in destroyed components wins faceoffs. If you take your damage and divide it by the number of components destroyed that match (with some additional weight assigned to CT's, either torso for XL Engines, and cockpits, I think your grading system comes much closer.

Edited by Rhaythe, 12 November 2013 - 08:25 AM.

[Roadbeer]

Karma Police, on 12 November 2013 - 07:32 AM, said:

300 and less = F
301 - 350 = D
351 - 400 = C
401 - 450 = B
450 - 500 = A
500 - 600 = A+
600 - 700 = A++
700 - 999 = M(aster)
1000 and up = G(od)

The flaw with this system is it's takes absolutely no account for your firepower or armor you've brought to the field. In most instances, when you drop, MM at least attempts to put a comparable weight class on the OP4 as a form of balance (Notice I said that most times it attempts, didn't say it always works, so lets keep that out of the argument)

Using your method, if you were to bring an Atlas, you are giving yourself an A rating, when you didn't even remove the equivalent in armor that you've brought to the field. Since all of this is just for personal epeen anyway and to judge one's personal skill/performance, I prefer to combine two systems when judging myself and how I did in a match.

Armor Benchmark: Damage done/ armor on the mech.
Firepower Benchmark: Damage done / firepower x 10.

As long as either of those numbers are equal or greater than 1.0, I did well, meaning I either took my equivalent in armor off the field, or I took my equivalent in firepower off the field. Anything over that or if both are over 1.0, it means I'm carrying.

Edited by Roadbeer, 12 November 2013 - 08:52 AM.

[Charons Little Helper]

I just go by how well I do relative to the rest of my team.

If we get steamrolled - it's difficult to even break 300. It also varies by the enemy team makeup. If they've got a lot of light mechs you aren't going to get as much damage. (I've gotten all the damage on a locust kill with a sole AC20 shot to the back )

If they have a bunch of atlases - your damage is going to go through the roof on a win.

I figure if I get on the top half of my team - I've done my job. I aim to be in the top 2-3.

[B E E L Z E B U B]

i see your point. when i take out my dual gauss i get around 300-400 with multiple kills.

but contrary to your point... doing damage does help the rest of the team so i dont think thats what makes good players good. also, consider that kills can be stolen. for instance i once had a match with 100 damage and 3 kills.. i would have never gotten those kills unless others would have inflicted the damage before me.

another thing, a light that does 500 damage is a good light. and i really do think he did matter in that fight, he did kill their jenner and you must remember he also draws fire to him which creates massive panic when other mechs are shooting too...

right now i think damage is the best thing to go with. also because its a personal thing, for me its about damage, i dont even care that much about winning or losing as long as i get at least 1 kill and major damage done.

but overall i guess your right, its not all about the damage. but for me, it is

[Heffay]

I grade myself by Elo. But unfortunately I have no way of determining that , so I just have to assume that I'm a 2200 rated player. I feel that is right about where I belong.

[Sandpit]

It also doesn't take into account that if I drop on a locust, my damage output isn't what I'm trying to do. Now if I'm lumbering around in one of my assaults then yea I'm looking to pour out damage. Another thing to consider is that 500 damage spread across 12 mechs really isn't very effective. whereas 350 damage between two mechs is much more effective.

[Charons Little Helper]

Heffay, on 12 November 2013 - 09:01 AM, said:

I grade myself by Elo. But unfortunately I have no way of determining that , so I just have to assume that I'm a 2200 rated player. I feel that is right about where I belong.

My elo is 86,002! (prove me wrong )

[Rhaythe]

My elo is pie.

[Heffay]

Charons Little Helper, on 12 November 2013 - 09:13 AM, said:

My elo is 86,002! (prove me wrong )

For that to be possible, you'd have to have participated in at least 2.558*10^26th games assuming you never lost. Which, with an Elo of 86,002 would be a reasonable assumption.

[Roadbeer]

Elo = 9001

[B E E L Z E B U B]

Sandpit, on 12 November 2013 - 09:13 AM, said:

It also doesn't take into account that if I drop on a locust, my damage output isn't what I'm trying to do. Now if I'm lumbering around in one of my assaults then yea I'm looking to pour out damage. Another thing to consider is that 500 damage spread across 12 mechs really isn't very effective. whereas 350 damage between two mechs is much more effective.

i said it applies to heavies and assaults, and some mediums as well.

[Rhaythe]

Heffay, on 12 November 2013 - 09:25 AM, said:

For that to be possible, you'd have to have participated in at least 2.558*10^26th games assuming you never lost. Which, with an Elo of 86,002 would be a reasonable assumption.

With an average game time of 8 minutes, that would be 2.0464*10^28 minutes.

FYI - that's a lot of minutes.

[Sandpit]

Karma Police, on 12 November 2013 - 09:27 AM, said:

i said it applies to heavies and assaults, and some mediums as well.

I also showed the difference between focused damage and spread out. Damage is a decent indicator and I check my damage output at the end to judge a few thigns and whether a news build performed how I hoped and such but it's hard to gauge how "deadly" a mech is by damage output alone

[Charons Little Helper]

Heffay, on 12 November 2013 - 09:25 AM, said:

For that to be possible, you'd have to have participated in at least 2.558*10^26th games assuming you never lost. Which, with an Elo of 86,002 would be a reasonable assumption.

Well - I did have to break a few laws of quantum physics.

[B E E L Z E B U B]

Charons Little Helper, on 12 November 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

Well - I did have to break a few laws of quantum physics.

ooh, which ones?

[Charons Little Helper]

Karma Police, on 12 November 2013 - 12:29 PM, said:

ooh, which ones?

The 3rd & 5th ones.

[B E E L Z E B U B]

Charons Little Helper, on 12 November 2013 - 12:34 PM, said:

The 3rd & 5th ones.

ahh, those are the best

[Mercules]

I just check my XP earned. Easier and actually more noteworthy as to my contribution. If I am running a Spotter I still get XP for spotting and such.

[Otto Cannon]

When it comes down to it only you can know what the numbers meant. You could do 100 damage and core an Atlas or do the same spread over the arms and legs of the whole enemy team for no effect.

I normally hope for at least 300 on torsos to leave my mark.