12 replies to this topic

[Paigan]

I'm not complaining about the new score system.
I think it's a nice idea and I'm curious to see how it will turn out.

That being said, I just had a strange game:

Warhawk, got into battle (while discussing waiting for assaults with the team ... *sigh*).
I killed a Catapult (CT, solokill), then retreated because everyone else was holding back and i got pounded pretty hard.
Then I killed an ECM Raven (I think solokill as well, not sure).
Then I died against 3 flanking enemy mechs.
Well, (personal) sh** happens. But still:

12-5 victory for us.

My score: ~200 with ~300 damage.

Afaik 200 in the new system is rather mediocre.
So am I a bad player for aiming accurately?
If I spread damage all over the place, destroying components and letting the Mech get away instead of just slicing through its CT, I get a better score?

Except for the dying part, I think I did quite well and contributed to the win greatly by making two kills early on.
Not?

Edited by Paigan, 20 August 2015 - 06:55 AM.

[Bilbo]

Until PGI gives us more information we can only guess what the scoring breakpoints might be. Did you target and or damage the three flankers? Were the two you killed the only enemies you engaged?

[Lily from animove]

Paigan, on 20 August 2015 - 06:50 AM, said:

I'm not complaining about the new score system.
I think it's a nice idea and I'm curious to see how it will turn out.

That being said, I just had a strange game:

Warhawk, got into battle (while discussing waiting for assaults with the team ... *sigh*).
I killed a Catapult (CT, solokill), then retreated because everyone else was holding back and i got pounded pretty hard.
Then I killed an ECM Raven (I think solokill as well, not sure).
Then I died against 3 flanking enemy mechs.
Well, (personal) sh** happens. But still:

12-5 victory for us.

My score: ~200 with ~300 damage.

Afaik 200 in the new system is rather mediocre.
So am I a bad player for aiming accurately?
If I spread damage all over the place, destroying components and letting the Mech get away instead of just slicing through its CT, I get a better score?

Except for the dying part, I think I did quite well and contributed to the win greatly by making two kills early on.
Not?

I guess we have to do science to see how scores ruen out, es thee will especially int he end of ganmes be "Strippers" to push their scores. but in the general heta of the battle it is probably better to kill quik and efficient, because this may grant you the solo kill or kill most damage. even if involving less components destroyed.

issues may be spotting and flankings because assaults cna not make them as easily. Also using a narc and a tag s to be tested as well and how they add to score. Trying to maximise the system by finding holes would be good to adress issues soon enough.

[Paigan]

Bilbo, on 20 August 2015 - 07:02 AM, said:

Until PGI gives us more information we can only guess what the scoring breakpoints might be. Did you target and or damage the three flankers? Were the two you killed the only enemies you engaged?

Well the old system was: a kill, a component and an assist are all worth 1 point.
I had the accuracy punishment problem in the old system pretty hard as well.
With my SHC, where I more less hit and run and just annoy the enemy, glancing almost everyone with the lasers, I easily had twice the score of a stomping warhawk match.

I guess the new system isn't much different from that, only enhanced by some additional parts (UAV kills etc.)

I think what's missing is something like how early one did a kill (not to suit exactely my example, but because the earlier an enemy is killed, the less threat it is), maybe even how accurate (damage required to do the kill, except head maybe)

Edited by Paigan, 20 August 2015 - 07:09 AM.

[Lugh]

My personal observation so far is that a score of 200ish is where you are on cusp and had an ok game.

By ok, I mean you did your job. Accuracy has ALWAYS been punished in MWO.

[Paigan]

Lugh, on 20 August 2015 - 07:10 AM, said:

My personal observation so far is that a score of 200ish is where you are on cusp and had an ok game.

By ok, I mean you did your job. Accuracy has ALWAYS been punished in MWO.

Hehe so the "job" of an accurate player/mech is to carry one other guy? ;-P

[sycocys]

Not shredding mechs apart has always been punished by lower scores.

Headshots, and low damage flanking rear ct kills are very effective for wins but not so much for getting rewards based on efficiency of kill conversion.

[Rollup]

AFAICT, Damage will only get you so far in terms of match score.
Things like Flanking, Hit+run, Spotting assists, using UAV, Counter-ECM are more significant than before
UAV in particular, if used at the right time in the right place can really boost your score!

[Paigan]

Rollup, on 20 August 2015 - 07:23 AM, said:

AFAICT, Damage will only get you so far in terms of match score.
Things like Flanking, Hit+run, Spotting assists, using UAV, Counter-ECM are more significant than before
UAV in particular, if used at the right time in the right place can really boost your score!

That is not my point.
I did not have high damage but low score.
What I did was greatly contribute to the win but only get low to mediocre score for it.

My single one game is of course completely irrelevant (even for me in the long rung).
What I'm more concerned of is that this example basically means score says nothing about the performance.

[Almond Brown]

sycocys, on 20 August 2015 - 07:20 AM, said:

Not shredding mechs apart has always been punished by lower scores.

Headshots, and low damage flanking rear ct kills are very effective for wins but not so much for getting rewards based on efficiency of kill conversion.

They do provide much higher Salvage bonuses though. Stripping leave little behind, Blitzing the CT leaves a lot behind.

As to the OP. The new formula includes "more Team oriented items" to be used in the calculations. Examples (guesses) are stuff like Lance Formation, Protected Light/Medium, Protect Proximity etc etc. carry more weight then before, well before only W/L mattered...

[Felio]

I believe PSR is affected by all the things that affect match score, but not necessarily in the same way or amount. That's what I get from them saying they won't disclose the formula. If it were a direct translation, there would be no formula to disclose.

[Almond Brown]

Paigan, on 20 August 2015 - 09:14 AM, said:

That is not my point.
I did not have high damage but low score.
What I did was greatly contribute to the win but only get low to mediocre score for it.

My single one game is of course completely irrelevant (even for me in the long rung).
What I'm more concerned of is that this example basically means score says nothing about the performance.

How long did you last in that Match. Time in game will certainly allow for more "countable" things to occur and generate many more points. Like just hanging with your Lance for the full Match length may provide better scores than 2 quick kills and then dying...

Take a screen Cap and try and dissect what it means would be only other option unless PGI provides their Formula which won't happen here for obvious reasons.

[Lugh]

Paigan, on 20 August 2015 - 07:12 AM, said:

Hehe so the "job" of an accurate player/mech is to carry one other guy? ;-P

If everyone did it most games would end 12-6