28 replies to this topic

[Urdnot Mau]

I particular dont mind the "whine". People can complain all they want. And the more the better, so PGI just dont sit around thinking everything is fine. If the complaints make them investigate things, it's even better.
Now, MM is not perfect. It may work sometimes, but there are a lot of times where it seems to be flawed. 2 year veterans playing with people that get sub 100 in heavies and assaults, people standing in the open or not knowing how to walk around a map or not sticking with the team. Also, getting more than 4 losses in a row is plain absurd.
it's OK to complain, but it's PGI's and the players job to be smart about what they're going to consider and do about it. Crying about getting 1 shot in lights is not smart, and maybe even in mediums and heavies unless its focused fire from 2-3 mechs.

[Jman5]

Would love to see a team health chart over time graph. If I could nitpick though, I would combine structure and armor into one line. Then I would merge both graphs so that you can better compare the % health of the two teams over time. That would let you know when one side started slipping. Also if PGI is really feeling adventurous, I would allow players to mouse over the lines and display the percentages in that spot (like you can do in spreadsheets). Also highlighting over that skull and crossbones would tell you which player that was who died.

Edit: Btw, I cracked up when I read the chat.

Edited by Jman5, 28 July 2015 - 09:34 AM.

[Dino Might]

Kiiyor,

Excellent post. You are the man. The simple graphic info you proposed would do wonders to answer many questions. It would also just be plain interesting to see how damage trades went over time. It is a fantastic solution because it is simple and effective.

Beyond that, if you want to get really fancy, have a selectable page with a more in-depth display, where you could select:
1) team armor vs. time
2) team structure vs. time
3) average mech health % vs. time (allow to break out each individual mech here, so you could see if someone got instagibbed or tanked a long time)
4) team damage dealt vs. damage taken over time (overlay two curves)

I'd love to see some matches with the charts at the end. Egad - best idea I've heard here in a while.

[Wronka]

KodiakGW, on 28 July 2015 - 07:55 AM, said:

Adding more stats won't fix the issue. Basing a matchmaker on teamwork and skill stats will. The closest thing that tracks that right now is Match Score. There is a reason why they base giveaways on that. You can easily get 30 match score, and do less than 200 damage with no kills on the losing team. You work with the team (protector, lance in formation), flank when necessary (hit and run, spotting), or work on game type goals (capture points/base) without abandoning the team.

Incorrect, a lot of the things you listed do not give you points for match score. It really is mostly kills, assists, and 10% of damage done that drive the bulk. The only thing you listed that adds score to the match score is spotting assists and capturing the base, aka winning, which is an instant 10 points.

Don't get me wrong I agree with you that a player can have a big impact without having the kills/damage to prove it, but that is not reflected in the match score.



Now back on topic, the only stat I honestly wish I could get that is not anywhere on the end of match screen is damage taken. This would be extremely useful on assault players that often are the first target which can have a big impact without you having anything to show for it.

Edited by Wronka, 28 July 2015 - 11:26 AM.

[Deathlike]

I've defended the MM and griped about the MM... so I can't say I like the MM either way.

Contextually, it would be nice to have more information... more graphs even if it isn't as obviously useful.

If you find your team melting quick (like, you got stuck with EmP), then you can see if a match was truly the roflstomp you claim it to be. Of course, it could just be focus fire (or firing lines that were effective/efficient). On the other hand, if the match could go "either way", you can kinda figure out based on the graphs of what happened (if someone good or enough people died, despite having relatively even amounts of damage), you could see actual trends.

Of course, it's just a bunch of lies, damned lies, and statistics in the form of graphs!

[KodiakGW]

Wronka, on 28 July 2015 - 11:22 AM, said:

Incorrect, a lot of the things you listed do not give you points for match score. It really is mostly kills, assists, and 10% of damage done that drive the bulk. The only thing you listed that adds score to the match score is spotting assists and capturing the base, aka winning, which is an instant 10 points.

I looked it up. Samurai Phoenix and his team did research post Rewards 2.0 and determined most of what I said does count. Like Protected Medium/Light. I was incorrect about lance in formation (which, IMO, should add a point) but more than just damage counts toward Match Score.

Your information was correct for pre Rewards 2.0.

Link:
http://mwomercs.com/...63-match-score/

[Revis Volek]

Wronka, on 28 July 2015 - 11:22 AM, said:

Incorrect, a lot of the things you listed do not give you points for match score. It really is mostly kills, assists, and 10% of damage done that drive the bulk. The only thing you listed that adds score to the match score is spotting assists and capturing the base, aka winning, which is an instant 10 points.

Don't get me wrong I agree with you that a player can have a big impact without having the kills/damage to prove it, but that is not reflected in the match score.



Now back on topic, the only stat I honestly wish I could get that is not anywhere on the end of match screen is damage taken. This would be extremely useful on assault players that often are the first target which can have a big impact without you having anything to show for it.

I guess you have never taking a look at the break down after the match?

More goes into it then that bud....YOU are in fact the wrong one.

Edited by Rhazien, 29 July 2015 - 11:51 AM.
Quote cleanup

[Tristan Winter]

I appreciate the effort and I applaud your faith in humanity, but I don't think it would help.

• We were winning early, but then you all failed to push. You idiots!
  
• We had crippled most of their mechs, but then you all went after that healthy assault mech instead of finishing the crippled heavies and mediums. You idiots!
  
• We actually had higher average damage than the other team and we still lost, because we spread damage too much. You idiots!

And more importantly, I do think that roflstomps are a real thing. You see it a lot as a light mech pilot when you're suddenly the last man standing and the enemy still has 11 mechs. Then you go hunting for easy kills.
"Nope, not that one. No, not that one. Definitely not that one. Nope, not that one.... are you guys sure you were firing at the right team? How are all these mechs barely damaged!?"

[Kiiyor]

Tristan Winter, on 29 July 2015 - 11:08 AM, said:

I appreciate the effort and I applaud your faith in humanity, but I don't think it would help.

• We were winning early, but then you all failed to push. You idiots!
  
• We had crippled most of their mechs, but then you all went after that healthy assault mech instead of finishing the crippled heavies and mediums. You idiots!
  
• We actually had higher average damage than the other team and we still lost, because we spread damage too much. You idiots!

And more importantly, I do think that roflstomps are a real thing. You see it a lot as a light mech pilot when you're suddenly the last man standing and the enemy still has 11 mechs. Then you go hunting for easy kills.

"Nope, not that one. No, not that one. Definitely not that one. Nope, not that one.... are you guys sure you were firing at the right team? How are all these mechs barely damaged!?"

Ah, but this is the point of all of it. If you are going to whine, you should at the very least have informed whining at your disposal - and notice how your hypothetical whining was directed at players rather than the MM, and was based on analysis?

If I was a scientist, i'd claim that as a partial validation of hypothesis already, heh.

As far as ROFLSTOMPS go, they are a part of life. Sometimes, the enemy team fits together like an apex predator, and you get shifted down the food chain to the level of plankton. Sometimes though, you get stomped, and there is a cause - you may have been on even footing until a lance went all LEEROOOOOY and charged to their doom.

There will still be people that whine at the matchmaker, but I think a little informed science would go a long way to point the whining in the right direction, because if there's a blatant reason for a loss, it needs to be whined about. That's how you learn! You encourage introspection with facts and the interpretation of data. Even if you don't appreciate the whining, you may see the truth to it (especially if it is true), and you might take some of it to heart.

"He's right, we did fail to push. Maybe i'll try being more aggressive next time" <- 2 minutes after initial rage at being yelled at wears off.
"Well look at that - things did go to crap when our glorious charge failed"
"Maybe next time we'll be more selective with targets"