1911 replies to this topic

[Cimarb]

Void Angel, on 19 July 2014 - 06:42 PM, said:

That's not what Elo does, as you have repeatedly been told.

I'm sorry Dad. My bad.

[Deathlike]

Void Angel, on 19 July 2014 - 03:26 PM, said:

Good to know;

But what about lance order within an established group? I haven't been doing 12-mans for a while, but when I was we noticed that it was impossible for us to organize our lance teams with our own team makeup in mind. For example, if we wanted all of the guys who were performing the scout role to be organized into Charlie Lance, there was no way to do that. We fiddled with the system to see if we could find a (non-exploit) way to get that done, but to no avail.

I'm hoping there is some control over 12-mans with respect to lances... but I think that kinda conflicts a bit with lance spawns... when you consider the public group queue. For a lobby, the actual problem there then becomes control of specific lance drop points but both sides playing a full 12-man should be aware of that behavior.

Some control over lances in a 12v12 lobby should be made available IMO (with randomized spawns).

Edited by Deathlike, 19 July 2014 - 07:35 PM.

[Void Angel]

It may not be feasible or desirable for public groups, but it cripples your ability to designate lance teams that are set up to do certain jobs. Not a huge issue when you've got a cohesive team, but it's a nagging annoyance nonetheless - particularly if you have trainees or non-regular teammates from other parts of your organization in the drop.

[DarkonFullPower]

Void Angel, on 19 July 2014 - 08:29 AM, said:

This is Elo Hell. Sure, you'll eventually get out of it if you play enough...

Sadly, that statement is not true. Mathematically, it is possible that a person could remain in "Elo Hell" forever, regardless of how long they play for. 5 vs 5 was enough to make "Elo Hell" known to the world, but 12 vs 12? Ya. Have fun what that.

Fun fact. I was once in INVERTED Elo Hell. As in my Elo was up so high once after a crazy winning streak that me surviving or dying have 0 impact of the outcome of the fight. It took a 10-15 loss win streak over 2-3 months o figuring out what was going on to get back to my real skill Elo.

[DarkonFullPower]

Sorry for double post, but this is too unrelated to the last one. If I edit it in, I may risk it going unnoticed.

Can empty ammo slots still be crit-ed?

How does extra Heat Sinks in a 275+ engine effect the Crit roll? Are they the same roll as the engine or separate?

[Void Angel]

DarkonFullPower, on 20 July 2014 - 01:07 PM, said:

Sadly, that statement is not true. Mathematically, it is possible that a person could remain in "Elo Hell" forever, regardless of how long they play for. 5 vs 5 was enough to make "Elo Hell" known to the world, but 12 vs 12? Ya. Have fun what that.

Fun fact. I was once in INVERTED Elo Hell. As in my Elo was up so high once after a crazy winning streak that me surviving or dying have 0 impact of the outcome of the fight. It took a 10-15 loss win streak over 2-3 months o figuring out what was going on to get back to my real skill Elo.

Mathematically, it's possible that a room full of monkeys randomly hitting typewriters could produce the full script of Hamlet - but it's not realistically possible within the expected lifespan of the universe.

[ApolloKaras]

By far the most successful PGI/Community communication thread period....

[Wintersdark]

DarkonFullPower, on 20 July 2014 - 01:19 PM, said:

Sorry for double post, but this is too unrelated to the last one. If I edit it in, I may risk it going unnoticed.

Can empty ammo slots still be crit-ed?

I'd imagine so. Damage is calculated based on remaining ammo, but it would be strange for the ammo bin to cease to exist once the ammo is expended.

Quote

How does extra Heat Sinks in a 275+ engine effect the Crit roll? Are they the same roll as the engine or separate?

Karl did address this earlier (or someone else at his request) - The added heat sinks actually add crit slots, so the engine becomes "larger".

Thus, a crit to the CT can hit the engine or extra heat sinks in it.

[Wintersdark]

DarkonFullPower, on 20 July 2014 - 01:07 PM, said:

Fun fact. I was once in INVERTED Elo Hell. As in my Elo was up so high once after a crazy winning streak that me surviving or dying have 0 impact of the outcome of the fight. It took a 10-15 loss win streak over 2-3 months o figuring out what was going on to get back to my real skill Elo.

I can't see how that can happen.

If you ended up with an incorrectly high Elo, you'd be dead weight on your team. Your presence alone would be dragging them down, as the opposing team would have 12 stronger players vs. 11 on your team. One mech has an enormous impact on matches at the higher end.

Low end play, it's easy for one mech to not matter, because people are all scattered and disorganized. Matches are more a series of small, unconnected engagements. The higher up the tree you climb, the less that's the case.

You're not going to get "stuck" in high Elo for long.

[DarkonFullPower]

Void Angel, on 20 July 2014 - 01:31 PM, said:

Mathematically, it's possible that a room full of monkeys randomly hitting typewriters could produce the full script of Hamlet - but it's not realistically possible within the expected lifespan of the universe.

Funny. But I think you undresand my point. Thankfully, PGI seems to be fully aware of this issue.

Wintersdark, on 20 July 2014 - 02:07 PM, said:

You're not going to get "stuck" in high Elo for long.

If it was Mid to Top I may agree. But I went from what I would guess bottom Elo to level Mid. Even when I intentionally playing near obvious suiciding for testing purposes, the match outcome was 90% always something my skill level was completely unable to handle. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone gets better when they get wrecked before they even know what they did wrong.

Assume all you want, it doesn't change the fact that it was my personal experience for 1-2 months of my time.

As to the crit roll question: I am looking for direct numbers from Karl. Direct numbers have yet to be provided.

Edited by DarkonFullPower, 20 July 2014 - 07:43 PM.

[Void Angel]

Yeah, I do - but my counterpoint is that while it's possible, on an absolute measure, it's not feasible in the realm of practicality.

[TheCaptainJZ]

DarkonFullPower, on 20 July 2014 - 01:19 PM, said:

How does extra Heat Sinks in a 275+ engine effect the Crit roll? Are they the same roll as the engine or separate?

Page 54

Omid Kiarostami, on 20 June 2014 - 09:19 AM, said:

Good question, they don't work the way you'd expect. As far as the Crit Table is concerned, the additional heatsinks are treated like extra items equipped to that component. That means it's possible for them to get crit and destroyed independently of the engine they are slotted in, and that each extra engine-slotted heatsink impacts the overall crit distribution of items in that component.

So they basically add more crit slots to the component, lessening the chance any one of them gets critted.

[Jman5]

Hey Karl, any chance we can get a single map veto option? It could be set up like the game-mode filter we have now only limited to 1 deselect. I don't really have much fun on Alpine Peaks.

Edited by Jman5, 22 July 2014 - 07:17 AM.

[Karl Berg]

Jman5, on 19 July 2014 - 03:15 PM, said:

So did you guys enjoy watching the Clan vs IS test matches? Any fun facts you care to share with us?

Yes! We got some excellent data. Tons of fun watching too. Nothing I can share with you guys right now; but that gif of me from Niko's pic was of myself and Kyle Lawrence adding in all the analytics for that test.

[Clint Steel]

DarkonFullPower, on 20 July 2014 - 07:33 PM, said:

Funny. But I think you undresand my point. Thankfully, PGI seems to be fully aware of this issue.



If it was Mid to Top I may agree. But I went from what I would guess bottom Elo to level Mid. Even when I intentionally playing near obvious suiciding for testing purposes, the match outcome was 90% always something my skill level was completely unable to handle. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone gets better when they get wrecked before they even know what they did wrong.

Assume all you want, it doesn't change the fact that it was my personal experience for 1-2 months of my time.

My friend has been in a similar situation, in that he has been stuck on losing teams in a 10:1 ratio (sometimes worse). Oddly he does well, registering kills and good damage, though not enough to compensate for rest of his team.

My thought is that matchmaker is trying to use his higher ELO to balance out a team with an overall lower ELO (than the enemy team), but still predicts he will lose, so it doesn't change his ELO, and then the cycle continues.

Karl does this sound right? Is there anything in matchmaker that tries to prevent multiple loses for a singular person, or group for that matter? I have been losing a lot when I play with him too, one day we lost 17, won 2, and again we often did well, many times top of the team.

[Cimarb]

Clint Steel, on 23 July 2014 - 06:08 AM, said:

My friend has been in a similar situation, in that he has been stuck on losing teams in a 10:1 ratio (sometimes worse). Oddly he does well, registering kills and good damage, though not enough to compensate for rest of his team.

My thought is that matchmaker is trying to use his higher ELO to balance out a team with an overall lower ELO (than the enemy team), but still predicts he will lose, so it doesn't change his ELO, and then the cycle continues.

Karl does this sound right? Is there anything in matchmaker that tries to prevent multiple loses for a singular person, or group for that matter? I have been losing a lot when I play with him too, one day we lost 17, won 2, and again we often did well, many times top of the team.

That is actually common, and what I refer to as "average horror", where the average of High+Low Elo players is assumed to be the same as the average of a bunch of Medium Elo players. It is the whole reason I dislike this whole system. If you average numbers enough, EVERYTHING is average, and that makes the individual experience horrible.

[Kovach]

Please excuse my bad english.
About the matching players system. I think it can be improved and simplified at the same time. At least for single pilot drop considerations... maybe.
My idea is, since the game rewards some actions of the pilot with Cbills, make all the relevant pilot actions rewarded with appropriate sum (maybe tweak values up, down or add new actions reward cbills). At the end of the match do an average of the whole sum (total cbills) the players get (excluding bonuses, just plain rewards) and compare each player's money gain to that average. Since the game rewards "win" with cbills, "kills" with cbills, capture, assists etc. The whole sum at the end SHOULD reflect the player's "ability at actually doing things that matter in this match". Sitting idle and winning does indeed give cbills, but not nearly as much as actively killing other mechs, capping, assisting AND winning - the ones that sit idle will get their score lowered even if they win against stronger foe - if the majority of the other players performed better.

TLDR
If the game rewards actions with money, count the money at the end and raise/lower the player rating based on the average of the match money. Since the "win" is also rewarded with money, it will automatically be included in the formula.

[Cimarb]

Kovach, on 23 July 2014 - 02:39 PM, said:

Please excuse my bad english.
About the matching players system. I think it can be improved and simplified at the same time. At least for single pilot drop considerations... maybe.
My idea is, since the game rewards some actions of the pilot with Cbills, make all the relevant pilot actions rewarded with appropriate sum (maybe tweak values up, down or add new actions reward cbills). At the end of the match do an average of the whole sum (total cbills) the players get (excluding bonuses, just plain rewards) and compare each player's money gain to that average. Since the game rewards "win" with cbills, "kills" with cbills, capture, assists etc. The whole sum at the end SHOULD reflect the player's "ability at actually doing things that matter in this match". Sitting idle and winning does indeed give cbills, but not nearly as much as actively killing other mechs, capping, assisting AND winning - the ones that sit idle will get their score lowered even if they win against stronger foe - if the majority of the other players performed better.

TLDR
If the game rewards actions with money, count the money at the end and raise/lower the player rating based on the average of the match money. Since the "win" is also rewarded with money, it will automatically be included in the formula.

Except for certain roles, which are sorely lacking in rewards currently, such as capping and scouting. It is the whole reason lights and mediums are so underutilized currently - they are not rewarded for their work.

Otherwise I completely agree - reward us for our individual achievement in matches, not whether the rest of the team collapsed despite our best efforts.

[p4r4g0n]

Kovach, on 23 July 2014 - 02:39 PM, said:

Please excuse my bad english.
About the matching players system. I think it can be improved and simplified at the same time. At least for single pilot drop considerations... maybe.
My idea is, since the game rewards some actions of the pilot with Cbills, make all the relevant pilot actions rewarded with appropriate sum (maybe tweak values up, down or add new actions reward cbills). At the end of the match do an average of the whole sum (total cbills) the players get (excluding bonuses, just plain rewards) and compare each player's money gain to that average. Since the game rewards "win" with cbills, "kills" with cbills, capture, assists etc. The whole sum at the end SHOULD reflect the player's "ability at actually doing things that matter in this match". Sitting idle and winning does indeed give cbills, but not nearly as much as actively killing other mechs, capping, assisting AND winning - the ones that sit idle will get their score lowered even if they win against stronger foe - if the majority of the other players performed better.

TLDR
If the game rewards actions with money, count the money at the end and raise/lower the player rating based on the average of the match money. Since the "win" is also rewarded with money, it will automatically be included in the formula.

As you have stated, the main purpose of this proposal is to focus on an individual's performance in a match. Having seen the way people play during during solo tournaments, I am doubtful that this would result in better quality matches.

However, I would love to see a match with high rated players using this system just to see if the number of missiles in play would crash the server.

[TheCaptainJZ]

Kovach, on 23 July 2014 - 02:39 PM, said:

TLDR
If the game rewards actions with money, count the money at the end and raise/lower the player rating based on the average of the match money. Since the "win" is also rewarded with money, it will automatically be included in the formula.

This is actually no different that Cimarb's proposal (I think it was his?) to have the matchmaker based not on Elo alone but on each player's performance. You are just adding a cbill layer inbetween what you propose--the matchmaker taking player performance into account. Doing so makes matchmaking even more complicated and difficult to tweak than it already is since it would be using more variables and there is quite a lot of back and forth on this earlier in the thread. So you actually aren't proposing anything new. From a logic point of view, you don't want the matchmaker to make a decision based on a decision (cbill rewards) based on the variable you really want the matchmaker to look at. You'd go straight to those variables so the two would end up be complementary but one should not result from the other.