263 replies to this topic

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Mister Blastman, on 17 August 2015 - 03:33 PM, said:

*sigh*

That sucks.

indeed. They could have at least put up the test server to see how itll work out instead of the normal "injecting it right into the live server with no testing at all and hoping for the best"

[AEgg]

I guess the question remains if there are actually enough players queuing for a match at any given time for skill rating to even matter.

If there's only ~100 players queuing for a match, then the MM probably won't have much choice in who to put where because of tonnage restrictions.

[KraftySOT]

FupDup, on 17 August 2015 - 03:54 PM, said:

Actually, legging people can often be one the fast/easiest ways to kill a target...it's just not as intuitive (or fun) as unloading everything you have into their center-mass.

Even assaults like the Stalker can be easier to kill by double-legging than trying to take out their juicy core, because torsos can be shielded (on most mechs) but legs can't.

It is the fastest. But you get more points, IE more match score. Two legs = two component destroyed, probably solo kill, and most damage dealt.

Coring out a CT thats already been heavily damaged, only gives you the kill. And maybe savior or whatever you would have gotten anyways.

If you want to keep a high KDR, and a low rating, to keep pounding on noobs, you gotta stop shooting legs. Legs are gonna bump you up the ladder.

I think you just misunderstood me. I was shooting legs because its the best way to kill, for the most cbills.

Now im going to shoot CTs and kill steal, because thats the way to keep my matchscore low, still make good cbills, and not having games against competent players that might end in stomps against me.

Im willing to bet my average cbill intake goes up.

Edited by KraftySOT, 17 August 2015 - 04:04 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Mawai, on 17 August 2015 - 03:48 PM, said:

I can just imagine a bunch of Tier 1 "bads" driving LRM assaults or meta Timberwolves who get over 1000 damage and over 100 match score. It will be hilarious to watch the tears on here if it works out that way

Woo like me!

[Nothing Whatsoever]

ScarecrowES, on 17 August 2015 - 03:43 PM, said:

It's actually good for the player community as a whole, really - having your skill score balanced out between your great performances in good, properly-leveled and equipped mechs, and your poor performances in new, unleveled and poorly equipped mechs.

Let's say you're awesome with your mastered Timberwolves, but terrible with brand new Hunchbacks. Ultimately, your new skill score should drop a bit because of your play in the Hunchbacks. When you're piloting your Hunchies, you should find that you're not getting stomped as hard as you would if you were facing your Timberwolf-level opponents. And when you're in your Timbies, you should find you're able to turn out a better-than-average performance. For folks who play a variety of mechs, it's going to make leveling new mechs less frustrating, and more satisfying to take those fully upgraded mechs out to battle.

I like the idea of the PSR, but my concern is performance wise in relation to my team, what if I decide to go derping around in my Commandos or Locusts, I'm not expecting to see that much of better relative performance in relation to taking out my Oxide or Firestarter or even Hellbringer.

So say for the sake of argument, my Historical data starts me as being a Tier 3 Engineer. I go off and derp around in my Commandos, because I irrationally like the little guys and the challenge, but end up in a losing streak and lower my PSR score due to facing against Arctic Cheatas, Streakercrows and so on. Then I decide to switch to my Hellbringer and end up stomping for a series of matches, since my PSR hypothetically lowered due to dropping in my Commandos earlier.

The key thing is seeing how the PSR changes with having a single score tracked so we can see fair chances in more matches with more mechs.

And I imagine that the Battle Value system that the devs are said to be working on, could potentially work with our PSR for matchmaking purposes so that I'm not a burden to my team when I want to take out my less effective mechs or when basic-ing mechs out. But this thought is my conjecture with what we've been told so far, so I could easily be wrong.

Hope I'm make sense with what I'm trying to relate.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

AEgg, on 17 August 2015 - 04:00 PM, said:

I guess the question remains if there are actually enough players queuing for a match at any given time for skill rating to even matter.

If there's only ~100 players queuing for a match, then the MM probably won't have much choice in who to put where because of tonnage restrictions.

supposedly thats the population of CW, but if you listen to ppl like Heffay theres 10s of thousands of players. Where IS he anyways? I never see him on my friends list anymore

[Gas Guzzler]

KraftySOT, on 17 August 2015 - 03:52 PM, said:

Me.

No more aiming for legs. Now its coup de grace for minimum matchscore and maximum KDR.

And I dont care. It is an improvement, but its not a big improvement. Its not really a matchmaking 'system' persay so much as it is a new way to determine something that isnt really reflective of your actual skill.

Itll be better. But dont expect miracles.

PGI COULD just be like "Ok all systems are open to change, we've been wrong before, we're doing what we can here folks".

Which ill admit, has been the case for a while now. Its just annoying when two years ago, we said this, and got nothing but static in return.

It sounds like it is in your power to not be that guy.

I don't think the majority of the player base is toxic enough to do that, but even if a few players do do that, instances of them clubbing seals should be few and far between.

In all honesty, it is pretty indicative of your average performance, but you could argue one that focuses more on damage and kills and stats related to those metrics would be MORE indicative of your actual skill with the game. It seems that the old system was more about trying to game you to have a 50/50 W/L ratio, where as this one is more geared towards trying to setup a balanced match.

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 17 August 2015 - 04:08 PM.

[nehebkau]

When you put me in tier 5, can I get training wheels on my huginn?

I wonder how many people who, all of a sudden, start having uber-awesome games won't realize that they were dropped down in rank.

Edited by nehebkau, 17 August 2015 - 04:09 PM.

[KraftySOT]

ScarecrowES, on 17 August 2015 - 03:55 PM, said:

What is a better way of dertermining your actual skill than by recording your actual results and comparing that to others entirely objectively?

Removing it entirely from the equation, like other vehicle sims. Matching the vehicles to each other, regardless of skill.

Gas Guzzler, on 17 August 2015 - 04:06 PM, said:

It sounds like it is in your power to not be that guy.

I don't think the majority of the player base is toxic enough to do that, but even if a few players do do that, instances of them clubbing seals should be few and far between.

In all honesty, it is pretty indicative of your average performance, but you could argue one that focuses more on damage and kills and stats related to those metrics would be MORE indicative of your actual skill with the game. It seems that the old system was more about trying to game you to have a 50/50 W/L ratio, where as this one is more geared towards trying to setup a balanced match.

Its not worse than ELO thats for sure. However there are problems. What I pointed out, which yeah theres actually alot of us who like to club seals and I dont think that makes us terrible people. It just means we hate the grind.

Another issue is that good players in bad mechs, still make for a bad match. Just like bad players in good mechs. Still makes for a bad match.

We have to accept some mechs are just plain terrible.

Just dont confuse my criticism with hatred for the new system. Its better. Its just not dramatically better.

Im not trying to be obtuse here, im just pointing out that its not exactly like the skies have parted and we have some wonder fix it all system coming down the pipes. We have a marginally better system that alot of people have been asking for, for a long time. Its a victory. Its just a tiny one.

Edited by KraftySOT, 17 August 2015 - 04:12 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

KraftySOT, on 17 August 2015 - 04:08 PM, said:

Removing it entirely from the equation, like other vehicle sims. Matching the vehicles to each other, regardless of skill.

So you are saying matching Tom, ****, and Harry in Dire Wolves vs Comp Player 1, Comp Player 2, and Comp Player 3 in Dire Wolves would be anywhere close to balanced?

[KraftySOT]

More so than Tom **** and Harry in Direwolves, and Comp 1 2 and 3 in Vindicators, yes. Or vice versa.

[Gas Guzzler]

KraftySOT, on 17 August 2015 - 04:10 PM, said:

Removing it entirely from the equation, like other vehicle sims. Matching the vehicles to each other, regardless of skill.




Its not worse than ELO thats for sure. However there are problems. What I pointed out, which yeah theres actually alot of us who like to club seals and I dont think that makes us terrible people. It just means we hate the grind.

Another issue is that good players in bad mechs, still make for a bad match. Just like bad players in good mechs. Still makes for a bad match.

We have to accept some mechs are just plain terrible.

Yes but skilled players in Highlanders for instance would have more of an impact than crappy players with bad builds in Dire Wolves. I would say Good players in bad mechs vs good players in good mechs is more balanced than Good players in good mechs and bad players in good mechs (with likely bad loadouts, which wouldn't be taken into account if the MM just looked at what mechs were on each side).

[oneproduct]

ScarecrowES, on 17 August 2015 - 03:37 PM, said:

I've put in a lot of posts in other threads that describes exactly how Elo is set up for MWO and why it doesn't work. Yours is a common misconception that's easily proven wrong, but I'm not typing it all again right now. Suffice it to say, Elo doesn't work for skill ratings for individual players in team games, and as implemented in MWO, your Elo score actually stays pretty much exactly the same as it was in the beginning with little deviation, no matter how well or poorly you actually play. It's a flawed system implemented poorly.

The new system will much better reflect individual skill.

Can you please just link me to your other posts where you described this then? I'd genuinely like to hear your arguments as to how it is easily proven wrong.

ScarecrowES, on 17 August 2015 - 03:55 PM, said:

What is a better way of dertermining your actual skill than by recording your actual results and comparing that to others entirely objectively?

It is not objective, it is based on the arbitrary values that PGI has determined specific actions are worth. Win/loss is objective. If you are a good player, you will have a tendency to win more, regardless of who you are paired with. I.e. a good player paired with bad people will still have a higher chance of winning than a bad person paired with bad people.

Elo is also the basis of ranking in other successful games, League of Legends being a notable example. Many people would now jump forward and say "but LoL stopped using Elo" and they'd be correct. However, their rating system is still using the same principles and is essentially a modified version of Elo with some segregation of ranking.

At a glance, it seems that CS:GO also uses Elo or a modified version of it.

And in both LoL and CS:GO the only factor they consider is whether you won or lost. The difference, at least in the case of LoL, is how they evaluate how many ranking points you gain or lose as a result of the match's outcome.

Edited by oneproduct, 17 August 2015 - 04:18 PM.

[KraftySOT]

Nothing will ever make Vindicators, Quickdraws, Commandos, and Victors, against Doomcrows, Thunderwubs, Firestarters, and Banshees, fair.

Unless they dramatically rebalance these mechs and quirks. But even then you have some serious issues to overcome, like the equipment they start with, what rating new players start at, what happens to people with high match scores grinding crappy mechs.

Not that comps normally buy the bad mechs and XP them out...but now theres even less reason to do it. Youll never get that match again where you have nothing but noobs, and make 3k xp out of a single match. Youll always be with your fellow comps, getting stomped lol

[Piney II]

And with publicized tier rankings, the epeen measuring will commence forthwith........

[Koniks]

I think the most important change is tiering players to prevent matchmaking disparities. I don't think the Elo rating input was ever the problem. They could have tiered players out based on that. They could have changed matchmaker to determine matches based on the range of Elos each team had, rather than each team's average Elo.

Replacing Elo with match score is the least important part of this. But it's also the riskiest since it assumes that match score properly weights its components and is somehow less arbitrary than wins and losses.

[Eboli]

Well, I am willing to be positive and see how the new system goes.

Feel a bit sorry that each player will only have one tier level across all mechs rather than one each for light, medium, heavy and assault.

For players who play a lot and get many games under their belt I would see their tier level becoming much more solid thus when such players try out new mechs (and not do well at first) they will likely stay in their tier level and maybe be a bit more frustrated as they try to get the necessary XP to Master such mechs.

For players who don't play too often (ie weekend warriors) they may rise and fall often which may cause frustrations for themselves and maybe with the team they are on but I am not too concerned about that becoming a big issue.

Cannot see many players tanking their tier level to get "easier" games because the system will balance things out in the long term anyhow.

Anyhow, I will wait and see and be positive at this point.

Cheers!
Eboli

[KraftySOT]

I hate the fact that you either have to rebalance the bad mechs, or put the bad mechs in a separate queue, but thats really the best option. Sometimes the best options are painful.

Alot less skill separates players than people think. Alot of it is mech choice, and build. On top of that the best match scores and highest "skill" by this system players, will be those in the group queue, who regularly stomp on teams not all on teamspeak and familiar with each other.

Then you have the issue of the slightly less skilled people who have just like ELO been getting a "free ride" drop into solo, to find theyre completely outmatched.

The new system has flaws. Just not as many as ELO.

[Piney II]

If more balanced matches come from this, it's all good. We'll see.

[IraqiWalker]

oneproduct, on 17 August 2015 - 04:15 PM, said:

Can you please just link me to your other posts where you described this then? I'd genuinely like to hear your arguments as to how it is easily proven wrong.



It is not objective, it is based on the arbitrary values that PGI has determined specific actions are worth. Win/loss is objective. If you are a good player, you will have a tendency to win more, regardless of who you are paired with. I.e. a good player paired with bad people will still have a higher chance of winning than a bad person paired with bad people.

Elo is also the basis of ranking in other successful games, League of Legends being a notable example. Many people would now jump forward and say "but LoL stopped using Elo" and they'd be correct. However, their rating system is still using the same principles and is essentially a modified version of Elo with some segregation of ranking.

At a glance, it seems that CS:GO also uses Elo or a modified version of it.

Actually, Win loss has always been a bad way of measuring a player's performance. Many here can relate to this experience:

I clocked in 1200 damage, 4 kills, and about as many assists, yet the team still lost. Why is it that my Elo drops then, when I clearly performed well above the skill tier of most players in the game. I singlehandedly out-damaged our entire Charlie Lance combined, and wiped out an entire enemy lance as well, and I wasn't in an LRM mech, btw.

Yet using Elo, I would end up losing points. Because this is not an absolutely static 1 v 1 game, where we both have the exact same pieces, and the exact same number of them too. My Com-2D is not the same as my enemy's Com-2D, we have different engines, and different piloting skills, and preferences.

Since this game's release, we've discussed how Elo is not a good way to match make MWO.

Namely because you have 23 other players (11 of which on your own team) whose behavior is outside of your control.

Here's another example where Elo fails, but the PSR would stand a chance:

We drop into a match, according to Elo, my team is slated to win, and so if we lose we will also lose Elo score. If we win, our scores don't increase.

The entirety of Bravo lance decides it's more fun to teamkill each other, or suicide, or disconnect, or whatever else, that puts us at an immediate disadvantage. Despite good play, we still lose, and our Elo Score drops. How is that an accurate representation of our skill?

At least in LoL, you can kinda use Elo, because the champions are identical, and the teams are FIXED. Only me and my other 4 friends can be on this team. So Elo can kinda be applied. That's not the case here.

By the way, LoL no longer uses Elo, as you said. They stopped using it halfway through season 2, because of these exact same problems. Instead we now have the League Point system. Which is incredibly more accurate, and fairer. It's also beyond a modification to Elo, unless by modification you mean "re-write of the entire system".

Here's another example, that is all too common with Elo: We get 1 or 2 players that are clearly way out of their league. They can't even move the mechs yet. Our team still managed to roflstomp the opposition, and even though those two players dealt all of 2 points of damage between the two of them. Their Elo will rise. Causing them to face even tougher opponents, when they clearly don't have the skill to be there.


Better yet. We drop into match, and I accidentally die early. 0 damage. 0 kills. 0 assists. Team wins. Why should my Elo increase, when my team won DESPITE me being there, instead of with/because of me?

The PSR will at least help a bit with mitigating those problems. Give it a few months, and it can work much better than Elo does right now.

Edited by IraqiWalker, 17 August 2015 - 04:29 PM.