58 replies to this topic

[sC4r]

well op you are right but hell how do you want to evaluate players after the match?

Quote

The bottom line is in pug games, even at higher ELOs - it always mixes in newbies. Newbies that will sit there and let you shoot at them. Forever. Many games I can score over 1k damage easily just off of farming people who aren't paying attention.

problem with this is pretty much there is almost no bonus for leaving enemy intact... if you can just because your opponent is new, noob, alone its best to cut him to pieces little by little -> component destruction+total damage done nets you way more money than salvage will ever do

Quote

Damage is not everything in MechWarrior. Case in point: Two pilots battle it out. One guy gave 150 damage. One guy gave 450. It's entirely likely the guy with 150 won the fight. I routinely end my Centurion runs 25-35% intact or lower, giving the enemy team huge damage numbers... but I'm still standing and they are dead. Accurate damage beats "just damage" anytime.

true its really better if player does 300 damage and has 3 kills that you alone did than doing 1000 and killing 1 guy... too bad in general when this happens the guy with 300 did some nice killsteals while the other guy most likely did most of the job though on the end of the day kills are all that matters...
also dying at low % is nice though should it be in your score nobody could tell if you were good at avoiding damage or just lucky to meet someone with accuracy of streaks

Quote

Because of the first two factors, it rewards pilots who blow apart newbies piece by piece with huge damage numbers. More efficient pilots would have ended them in half the damage or better.

too bad... money is money should salvage net a reasonable ammount of money it will be better

Quote

All these screenshots are incredibly cherry picked to skew the results, even if the poster claims it's an "average."

true story (no irony here)

also gotta agree with #2

[Bartholomew bartholomew]

honestly there is no REAL way to rank a persons contribution. The upcoming CW pilot levels thing won't do it either. you can just grind more to get levels.

Maybe the only real way to know if a pilot is good is word of mouth. But I would be against a good pilot list. Since it would end up being a hit list in the end.

Also even theat would not be totally accurate anyways. Some people play better with others. And builds complement each other. Very very rarely is the match obviously carried by one or two people. This is how it should be. It is team play.

Some times the win is not by damage assist or anything else you could measure. Someone gets on chat and give suggestions that are followed and a coherent plan come out of it. you win by a landslide, but the guy coordinating it is sitting in the back typing. How do you measure that?

Instead of a bunch of who is better than who. Maybe we should do what PGI puts in the waiting screens and just find a bunch of people you play well together with an team up. Teamwork wins!

Edited by Bartholomew bartholomew, 19 November 2013 - 07:49 AM.

[Buckminster]

I think the hardest part of this whole thing is figuring out how to let new players how well they are doing, and how to give them a metric on what to improve.

I've had friends that have jumped in, and felt like they were terrible. It's usually "look at how little damage I did" or "I didn't get any kills" or "I feel like I just got ripped to shreds". And while us experienced guys may know that the numbers aren't everything, the new guys need a way to know that they've contributed. The current Match Score is kind of an aggregate number, but it is still lacking as a means of tracking how well you did.

[Bront]

Damage is important, but it's more useful in context.

For example, my lone 1000+ damage game:


0 kills, 10 assists, 1000+ damage.

I was running an LRM mech, so while I didn't get any kills, I wore down the opponent so my teammates could, which is good. However, damage was also spread out a bit, so my damage numbers are probably higher than they effectively needed to be. The good news is that also ment I was effective in reigning down on mechs, causing some confusion, obscuring vision, and possibly demoralizing the oppoent, so my value to the match was probably fairly high and somewhat accurately reflected in my damage numbers, but it wouldn't have been attainable without my teammates, so it's as much a testiment to how great they were in spotting and keeping mechs away from me.

Also, this was on Terra Therma, a traditional "bad-LRM map". You just have to know how

[Koniving]

Just because.

LRM Thunderbolt. 2 LRM-15s, nothing else. High speed, high ammo, high jump. Bit high on damage, bit low on kills compared to my usuals (I tend to lob them to wear down enemies, wait a bit when the armor is gone, and lob them to get the kills).

[Edustaja]

An effective mech design for what you are doing is what counts.

What is effective for you for the situation at hand is going to vary a lot base on variables such as:
Your Elo rating
Solo play, 4-man play or 12-man play.

Solo play at low Elo can get away with a lot of things that aren't effective at 12-man or at a higher Elo matching.
And vice versa, you can do well in 12-man with mechs that aren't necessary best when doing solo or 4-man.

In solo you need to be very mobile and have hard hitting weaponry; eg. a more hit and run strategy. Slow assault mechs just don't work as well as more nimble designs. In solo you can also get away with the Glass cannons like cataphracts or jagermechs as they won't be focused down as often. All that matters is that you can kill a mech one on one and then re-position fast.

In 12-man the strategies are more focused on team survivability, focused damage to achieve very fast kills and scout packs to achieve fast kills on lights and capture wins. Tournament weight classes add a variation to this with drop decks that fit certain team weight limits. Every weight needs to have a strategy and a specific mix of mechs to execute best on that strategy or counter an enemy strategy.

In 4-man you can have the most freedom as long as you just run a complimentary setup (depending on your team Elo of course).

If you're a casual pugger or 4-man player then almost anything can work for your personal style of play.

[Davers]

Because a good Chess player is one who wins, not one who takes out the most pawns.

Elo is a measurement of how often you complete your objective.

I would rather hire a mercenary company that consistently wins over one that consistently does more damage.

[Koniving]

This one here just happened. Admittedly the reason I got these kills was while other players did all the damage, my DPS build could rush in and just systematically shooting at several without pause. Quite literally 3 of the 4 kills was just one quick rush.



2 AC/2s, 3 LRM-5s, 1 ML, 1 Tag, Victor 9S.

"8" is my screenshot key. Also there's 10 minutes until the patch.

[Koniving]

Oh cool, we just had an in-match warning: "Server going down in 1 minute." Comes in red.

[Bront]

Koniving, on 19 November 2013 - 09:59 AM, said:

Oh cool, we just had an in-match warning: "Server going down in 1 minute." Comes in red.

That's nice, though would be nice if they stopped allowing new matches at least 5 minutes prior.

[Ryu Uppercut]

I agree with this.

[Jon Gotham]

Greyboots, on 19 November 2013 - 04:18 AM, said:

Win/Loss is the only stat that matters to the game and is a great insight into how the Devs have structured MWO. While it depends on your team for sure, it's a measure of how well you are capable of performing as a member of a functional team.

When you are trying to show something else like how effective a particular build is? It becomes necessary to use different parameters. This tends to be when the offensive stats you get handed matter because you are trying to show something that win/loss ratio isn't much of a guide for.

It's always good to remember that a black and white viewpoint can sometimes blind you to to how the tools on offer can offer you insights into what's going on in the game . Remaining objective is always my advice when looking at stats people post!

I don't even feel W/L ratio is a fair stat either. Too many variables effect your play. You could consistently kill 5 mechs per game and rack up 1k damage per game, but get smoked and still lose consistently-that is possible.
What your team does and the enemy team does effects what you do every second you are in game.
The only things stats can do is give you a "rough idea" of how you perform.

Many moons ago on WoT I was getting frustrated with my main account's W/R and efficiency etc. So I thought, "I'll make another account, play the same vehicles with the same modules to see if I am the constant."
I did this because all the forum pros with 60%+ W/R kept on shouting people down with "YOU are the only constant."
The result was...I was nearly 30% BETTER on the 2nd account. My per tank scores sometimes were up to 45% better...same player...same tank....same equipment....same game modes...same time of day played....

Several of my friends tried the same experiment. Some of them were drastically worse, some drastically better-NONE of them were comparably the same ?

I think how to judge what level you are at is what do you do when the match goes wrong? Do you make the right choices and then back that choice up with the skill to pull it off?
Are you battlegrid-aware?
Do you communicate effectively?
Can you read the flow of battle, minute per minute?

All of the above imho-are key factors in player skill....not always kill/death, W/R etc. A friend of mine from my WoT days is a prime example, his stats were average at best. Individually he isn't that great at the game BUT he is an exceptional team player. He always seems to do the right thing at the right time, and his actions have won us countless battles-but if you looked him up you would think "average."

[Appogee]

I agree. For example, here's just one of my average games in my ShadowHawk.

(Not!)

[IanSane]

I both agree and disagree with your post. I agree completely you can't always judge a performance by the damage or lack of. The only thing I disagree with is always seeing those damage numbers pictures and assuming their intent was to get a cookie when it would have been a way to promote the build by showing its potential.

High damage numbers usually show me one thing they were in the fight and not cherry picking weak mechs while letting their teammates soak up all the damage. While low damage and high kills could mean that they hid cherry picking while letting their team take their damage instead of helping to spread the incoming damage around. I see this mainly with Assaults and really it is only the assaults doing this that causes the issue. Again there are exceptions. An assault designed to be primarily an LRM boat should not be right at the front. SOME Assaults are the armor backbone of a team and in my opinion it is their responsibility to help distribute the enemy damage by being at the front or near it. All too often though I see these mechs hiding in the back. While this is smart play for an individual mech its a team game. It isn't very helpful to the team in terms of being able to sustain damage.

Example: A friendly Assault engaged by 2 enemy Assaults. The friendly Assault isn't alone and has another friendly firing on the 2 enemies but far back. While in theory the damage output is the same on both sides, 2 vs 2 , because one of the friendly mechs is far back both the enemy will tend to focus the forward Assault wiping him out quickly. Now we are in a 1 VS 2 situation and it repeats itself. The 1 remaining friendly cannot out damage the 2 enemies who remained (obviously there are exceptions). This is a very crude example but it helps makes my point. If the other mech had been supporting with his armor helping spread the enemy damage there was at least an even chance the friendlies would win the outcome. Yes, yes for the sake of the example we will say there is only 4 mechs in this match. The same applies for 12 vs 12 though.

Obviously there exceptions to everything, Some mechs get a lot of damage by spreading their damage to the entirety of the enemy team, weakening them but not killing them. I often do this in my LRM boat. I will damage a mech but will move to another once a teammate that is likely to kill them engages. I try to spread the damage out over the whole team focusing those mechs not engaged by our direct fire teammates. While this usually results in high damage it does not result in many kills. Does that mean that it wasn't vital to the teams efforts of course not. Same with Gauss or ERPPC or other long range mechs.

Some mech drivers are just new and spread damage all over an enemy mech just happy that they hit it which can also raise their numbers. In some matches one team just steamrolls the other and no one gets remarkable damage so low damage numbers do not mean anything. At the same time low damage numbers could mean they are using the wrong loadout for that particular map. SRMs on Alpine for example. It doesn't mean they aren't trying to contribute it just means they are at a disadvantage on that extreme long range map.

So as the poster said damage numbers alone should not be an indicator of how well or poorly a mech did UNLESS it was witnessed and taken into context.

[Sen]

There's an argument to be made for both sides, but damage numbers without context don't mean much. I've pulled almost 1k damage with my shadow hawk, and I'm constantly over 500 damage. This is because I built it as an Opener... something that will rip through unwary targets and open them up enough for my lance mates to shred. The down side to the build, and the reason it scores so well is that it spreads a lot of damage. In all honesty, big damage numbers are BAD typically, because it means you wasted a lot of time and ammo on targets that didn't die -- which means you weren't focused on a single point on your target.

Edited by Sen, 19 November 2013 - 01:05 PM.

[LapsedPacifist79]

Win/Loss means nothing. KDR means less. I can't even remember how to find them out.

The light that gets killed drawing off half the red team and making them act like t0$$ers is just as good as my lurmbot or my LL badboy. Cos they do act like idiots as soon as they see a contact.

We all love to get a 400+ score but C-Bills and kudos are much better.

[Greyboots]

kamiko kross, on 19 November 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

I don't even feel W/L ratio is a fair stat either.

Oh, I believe you are right. A brand new player with one win and one loss is at 50%. A long term player with 1000 wins and 1000 losses is at 50%. 1 team full of the newbies and the other full of the experienced players is unlikely to give an even match even though everyone is at 50%. Of course this scenario is unlikely to happen. It is also unlikely that both teams will have 6 newcomers and 6 experienced players or any other mix providing "perfect balance of skill".

Which is why I'd be VERY surprised if win/loss ratio is really the only stat taken into account. Well, wouldn't be surprised if it isn't and would be shocked if it was.

[100mile]

There's a lot of good points in here...and most of us are probably right in our opinions...(If you look at it alot of them are different side of same coin)...Really the only way to judge it is thru ELO and none of us know what our ELO is...I hope it takes into account all the different stats. I have been really paying attention to my EXP points accumulation today because of this thread...What I've noticed is this...I can get 3/4 kills in a match and decent damage and only get 1,000 XP...or I can get no kills n 80 damage and get that same 1,000 XP...it all depends on the other stuff i do...Like popping a UAV, or dropping an arty strike or tagging etc....Which is how it should be...The Dev's seem to have snuck one by us and gotten a better balance with the additions of the UAV xp and the ECM XP....They are incorporating some of the intangibles into the reward system and making them tangible....

[Autobot9000]

No kind of stats whoring is better than another. None of it shows skill or just anything else. There may be a correlation with kills and deaths and your skill, but not by any means does it directly indicate skill. Even worse: there are lots of self-serving techniques to boost your stats page, that can even be detrimental to your teams success. In the end it's a prime mistake of PGI to show such a stats page. Ironically it is threads like this that show how detrimental it is to community spirit to show stats pages and other meaningless bragging rights. Once you inject this sort of malice into the game you start feeding a group of elitist, competitive nerds. These elitists then start battling over what stat might indicate best how good they are. In the end its just ridiculous with the sole purpose of feeding nerd egos and the whole thing is the sad side-effect of showing this nonesense in the game in the first place. This is an important lesson to learn for PGI, if they want a good spirit community, they shouldn't produce salty content.

If they wanted to actually determine skill and put out ranks to people, they would have to invent a multiplayer capable rank system. ELO, MMR, PowerRank and all of these systems are incapable of determining people's skill out of multi-player vs multi-player matches. They work great in 1v1 scenarios though (which isn't part of MWO, although could make great sense in Clan vs Clan).

Edit:
Regarding high damage: Churning out high damage numbers is always good, just that you can't draw the typical consequences out of it (i.e. good build, great skill). The only thing seeming certain with high damage numbers is, that you were not on the receiving end of damage for the largest part of the match. If you were destroying noobs, letting your team mates take the damage or playing a support mech or w/e else is unclear.

Edited by Autobot9000, 20 November 2013 - 02:04 AM.

[Bront]

Autobot9000, on 20 November 2013 - 01:55 AM, said:

In the end it's a prime mistake of PGI to show such a stats page.

I'm a stat geek, but in the "I want to know" variety, not worrying about what they say about me as a person/pilot. If they didn't include them, they'd probably have players screaming about them.

On an individual level, stats encourage you to "do better", as well as provide a way to track your improvement. Sure, stats rarely tell the whole story (for example, in my mech with my worst K/D ratio, I have my best winning percentage, so clearly I'm better off to my team dead when I play in that mech ), but they are useful information none the less. And not tracking them means there's a group of players who enjoy stats that they're alienating, and it costs them very little dev time to track them.

Edited by Bront, 20 November 2013 - 08:56 AM.