63 replies to this topic

[Lugh]

Ghogiel, on 28 September 2015 - 07:24 AM, said:

300 match score on a loss is an = not a down

I've seen the = only once on a 300 match score. ONCE. Maybe PGI just hates me.

[Dimento Graven]

Lugh, on 28 September 2015 - 08:41 AM, said:

I've seen the = only once on a 300 match score. ONCE. Maybe PGI just hates me.

With damage being at least 50% of your end scoring, it can be problematic. When MM is working and puts me in a match with other people of similar rankings, it can be pretty darn hard to get a 300 score, and I've seen matches where we actually roll the other side, but only one or two people on the winning side got a match score of 300+.

Don't get me wrong, we all did very well, most scores were in the upper 200's, 270-299 range, BUT, when you play with people who know the weak spots on an enemy, actually AIM for those weak spots and kill an enemy off quickly in a surgical manner, there's not a LOT of opportunity to run up the damage portion of the calculation.

Blowing off two legs on a light is what? Maybe 70-80 damage points at most?
Headshotting, 36 damage points.
Killing an XL equipped IS 'mech via a single ST kill? What? Maximum of 100 at most?

Spread across 12 players who are doing very well, and 300 points for an individual score can be tough to get...

[Ghogiel]

Lugh, on 28 September 2015 - 08:41 AM, said:

I've seen the = only once on a 300 match score. ONCE. Maybe PGI just hates me.

post 300 match score loss with a down pls.

[Lykaon]

Devayner, on 27 September 2015 - 02:04 PM, said:

I think a lot of the UAV kill and the scouting /spotting rewards need a upgrade. As its to biased to damage.It feels like a light gets the shaft, if you want players to work as a team then make the rewards worth it and they will.There is no point in taking a light when i can roll a dashi and skate through on damage alone fluffing my match score.

Light mechs and recon piloting does indeed get you shafted over just dishing damage.

I have two accounts on one I play light I.S. mechs mostly.
The other account is clantech brawler/sniper exclusivley.

by a large margin my clan account feels like MWo easy mode.Kills are easyer to make damage easyer to deal etc.

yet my "easy mode" clan account is nearly tier 2 (like three wins shy of tier 2) my I.S. account is sitting wobbling back and forth in the middle of tier 3.

Shortly after PSR was dropped I realized it was more a measure of how "meta" you play than any skill in team work or strategy.

If you want to increase your PSR play clantech meta builds in skirmishes and pick targets apart one leg then arms then kill.

[SplashDown]

Paigan, on 27 September 2015 - 01:09 PM, said:

Yes, yes, I know: the hundredth thread about PSR.

But no flaming or whining.
I think the thing is a good idea in principle.
However details in its logic are currently not sane and need adjustment. Because otherwise (i.e. current state), the system is highly countr-productive and absurdly unfair to both good and bad performance.

Examples (seen in dozends of matches now):

1.)
Say I make 400 damage and 1 kill and we win. I'm getting uprated for sure.
Say I make 400 damage and 1 kill and we get stomped (which is a CONSIDERABLY better performance because of harder circumstances). I get downrated EVERY TIME.
This is NOT sane.

If you want to tie PSR uprating to the team win, fine. Then let people performing "halfway good" in a defeat outcome at least keep their score even, but don't downrate them for performing well under hard circumstances. This is NOT sane.


2.)
Say I played badly, ~150 score (and not due to bad score formula but actual bad performance), but we win.
I get uprated. Why? Makes no sense.
Okay, okay, maybe I helped a little, contributed a little, weren't all too bad. So keep the score where it is, but don't reward bad play for christ's sake.
Again: this is NOT sane.


My (rough) suggestion* would be:

Win:
Player score < 100: downrate
Player score in [100;200]: keep even
Player score > 200: uprate

Defeat:
Player score < 200: downrate
Player score in [200;400]: keep even
Player score > 400: uprate

(the values can/should maybe be adjusted for each tier, but the principle could stay the same)



(*) Of course that only makes sense if the match score calculation is halfway fair.
Currently, it is extremely half baked. Objectively determinable. Note the following examples:

1.)
Say a player makes 12 headshots (bear with me, for the sake of exemplification).
Afaik that would give him a score of 342 (for 198 score for 12*(15+18)=396 damage plus 12*(4+8)=144 score for solokilling 12 mechs).
Compare that to a guy who LRM-sprays 1000 damage over 12 mechs without destroying a single component.
Whatever "help" for "opening up" he might be, he definitely was LESS help than killing 12 mechs on his own.
His score: 500. Considerably HIGHER that the godlike headshot guy.
This is NOT sane.

2.)
A more realistic example:
I try to play efficiently. I have a Wubhawk, halfway okay aim, I aim for CT, kills are not too hard if I don't make big mistakes. Especially on medium mechs.
Meaning I don't require a lot of raw damage to do a kill (solo kill even), I do precise damage.
Very often, my matches look like this: 350 damage, 2 kills, 200-250 score. Damage- and scorewise, I did "okay", but actual contribution wise, I lifted twice my weight.
This is neither fair nor sane.

3.)
Killing an UAV requires 10 damage (AFAIK) but yields only 2 score.
Randomly distributing 10 damage on mechs yields ... 5 score.
Similar with capping, etc. All the actual tactical contributions bring JOKE score compared to the HUNDREDS of damage score.
NOT SANE.



Conclusion:
Damage is WAY overrated in determining match score.
Especially useless damage.
Damage that just scratches the armor of an arm or the leg, when the kill actually happened through torso or head is IRRELEVANT damage.

Why not simple measure actual relevant damage?
- If a component is destroyed, use the damage inflicted (both to armor and structure) to it to determine who gets what share of the component's total score worth. Mass Effect Multiplayer works that way (surely many other games out there) and it was ALWAYS PERFECTLY FAIR AND SIMPLE.
- Same for a destroyed Mech. Of course only the damage that led to the kill counts (e.g. all damage to left and/or right torso or to head or to CT or to bothlegs).
- Damage that takes out a piece of equipment via critical hit (HS, weapon, ammo, whatever)

Everything else is IRRELEVANT, wasted damage and should NOT be rewarded with score.




The current match score formulas can be described by two very descriptive sentences:

1.) "If you want to have low score, do the mission objective."
2.) "Match score punishes accuracy, efficiency and actual contribution but rewards useless damage spaying"

Not sane.

I agree with you completely

[Biclor Moban]

One of the problems is the system hasn't improved game play at all. Playing,40 percent of the time you roll the other team, 40 percent of the of the time they roll you and 20 percent of the time its balanced. What I am saying is only 20 percent of the games you play is a reflection of your true skill level.

When you lose it's hard to get an green up arrow. I have had games where my team evaporated around me 5 min into the game and I am left fighting 4-6 mech by myself or with 1 or 2 others I might do 375 damage and get 2 kills one solo and 1 assist( because the team only killed 4 total) all but one or two guys did more than 150dmg, do I get a green arrow, No. not even a =. If you lose in that balanced game you might get an = or + because you had more time to acrue various types of points ie. spotting assists, brawling and what not. Thing is if you dropped 1 or 2 higher tier guys in there whould they do much better against 4-6 mechs after their team evaporates? I doubt it.

As Paigan said having a decent score with a crappy team is harder and should be rewarded.

How about break it down like this;

Win
Top 6 score gets a......+
Middle 3 score get......=
Bottom 3, get a ..........-

Loss
Top 3 get a .........+
Middle 3 get a.....=
Bottom 6 get a....-

As you can see one is the reverse of the other so it still is hard to get + in a team loss but also if you don't contribute much in a win you can still go down.

Edited by Biclor Moban, 28 September 2015 - 10:28 AM.

[LordNothing]

Almond Brown, on 28 September 2015 - 07:22 AM, said:

So if a "reward" was somehow put in for "marksmanship" then you would be OK if a "negative" be put in on the other side of the ledger, for "balance" for all the "misses" that one accumulates... right?

that was just an example. the problems of scoring are not just limited the examples expressed. in fact if you look at the game it doesnt suffer from "one major flaw" it actually suffers from a large number smaller ones that all multiply against eachother.

[Almond Brown]

Dimento Graven, on 28 September 2015 - 08:37 AM, said:

stuff

I would argue with Paul's contention that if they froze the player base at its current state (no new members) that 'everyone' would 'eventually bubble up' to Tier 1/Tier 2. I've run into PLENTY of Founders who are NOT Tier 1, nor are any where near it. The fact that there's so many long time/high drop rate players who are NOT Tier 1 should indicate that his theory that "everyone" would eventually get ranked higher, nuh uh, that's just silly.

It must be mentioned that the Matches used to generate the base PSR value was from Dec./Jan. this year. if they used from Day 1 Match stats they would need to have a Tier 0.

[Hotice]

PSR should be based mostly on the mech that you are using. Even if you are tier 1, when you use a newly purchased mech, you are not going to perform as well as a mech that you have mastered or even elite level. Also, the light and medium mech should have a bonus exp in dmg done. The spot exp needs to boost up for small size mech.

The win/lose shouldn't be such a big factor like it is now. This specially true for pug players. We have no control over how the other people play thus it doesn't really reflect our personal PSR.

With the up coming info warfare and such, this PSR system really needs to be reworked. It punish people who play light medium and fun builds. Level up new mech is really bad now. Slow exp, drop over all PSR and tough to do well in a none meta mech. PGI is actually making people to buy less mechs.



PSR should be based mostly on the mech that you are using. Even if you are tier 1, when you use a newly purchased mech, you are not going to perform as well as a mech that you have mastered or even elite level. Also, the light and medium mech should have a bonus exp in dmg done. The spot exp needs to boost up for small size mech.

The win/lose shouldn't be such a big factor like it is now. This specially true for pug players. We have no control over how the other people play thus it doesn't really reflect our personal PSR.

With the up coming info warfare and such, this PSR system really needs to be reworked. It punish people who play light medium and fun builds. Level up new mech is really bad now. Slow exp, drop over all PSR and tough to do well in a none meta mech. PGI is actually making people to buy less mechs.

[Satan n stuff]

Lugh, on 28 September 2015 - 04:49 AM, said:

There is no such thing as ineffective damage. All damage leads to the defeat of that mech pilot.

A for instance, in a match I played on saturday. I alpha'd in my Arctic Cheetah at an EBJ, and because I was falling hit a leg, which instantly disappeared. The second alpha to the other leg killed him completely. According to the OP's assertion that would be ineffective damage, but it is VERY effective, especially against faster opponents. And in this case it was easier than coring him out.

Another example, you are involved in a peek and poke situation and your opponent continues to not retreat effectively, leaving an arm that has the weapons he's shooting you with exposed, not shooting and removing that arm, is the height of stupidity and is effective damage, but by the OP's assertion would be classed ineffective.

Did you even read the whole post? Legging and removing arms are included in the system I used as an example.
As for all damage leading to the defeat of a mech's pilot, that's blatantly false. If you have anywhere near a competent team, most of the time multiple components won't even have had their armor breached by the time a mech goes down. Any damage on those components was therefore wasted.

[Biclor Moban]

Satan n stuff, on 28 September 2015 - 01:26 PM, said:

Did you even read the whole post? Legging and removing arms are included in the system I used as an example.
As for all damage leading to the defeat of a mech's pilot, that's blatantly false. If you have anywhere near a competent team, most of the time multiple components won't even have had their armor breached by the time a mech goes down. Any damage on those components was therefore wasted.

Nah, you have to start somewhere.
Lets say at range someone takes out 1/2 the armor on the RT and just a few points on the CT the mech goes to cover knowing that his RT is damaged so next time he is going to exposed the other side That just had an impact on his game play Maybe he now can't use his right arm ERPPC because it would expose his RT so now he is using his left side ML at 500-600 range. You have made him less efective. Now since he is hiding more one of our mechs sneeks up behind and kills him with a shot too the back. Why wouldn't you get credit for the RT damage? Damage is often opportunistic ie, mech is only exposing right upper arm and RT or until one part gets a little more damage than the rest then OP have a target to zone in on.

Edited by Biclor Moban, 29 September 2015 - 01:03 AM.

[Satan n stuff]

Biclor Moban, on 29 September 2015 - 01:01 AM, said:

Nah, you have to start somewhere.
Lets say at range someone takes out 1/2 the armor on the RT and just a few points on the CT the mech goes to cover knowing that his RT is damaged so next time he is going to exposed the other side That just had an impact on his game play Maybe he now can't use his right arm ERPPC because it would expose his RT so now he is using his left side ML at 500-600 range. You have made him less efective. Now since he is hiding more one of our mechs sneeks up behind and kills him with a shot too the back. Why wouldn't you get credit for the RT damage? Damage is often opportunistic ie, mech is only exposing right upper arm and RT or until one part gets a little more damage than the rest then OP have a target to zone in on.

Sorry to disappoint you, but no decent player is going to waste armor on a bit of scratch damage at max range, that player would just cycle out and let someone else take his place while he watches their back and waits for the inevitable push. Who uses ER PPCs and medium lasers anyway? That's a terrible combo.

If your players need a damaged component to know where to shoot, they're not very good players and their playstyle should not be rewarded. Focus on legs or potential killshots and only go for other damaged components if there's actually a significant amount of equipment mounted there. That's how you kill mechs and win matches.
The way you say you play you'd end up blasting through an entire shield side on a meta Thunderbolt before you even got a chance to go for a kill, because that's the side that player will give you and apparently you'll happily waste your firepower on mostly useless damage. Meanwhile that same Thunderbolt will have been taking shots at your CT and will probably kill you before you even breach it's CT armor.

[Biclor Moban]

Satan n stuff, on 29 September 2015 - 01:46 AM, said:

Sorry to disappoint you, but no decent player is going to waste armor on a bit of scratch damage at max range, that player would just cycle out and let someone else take his place while he watches their back and waits for the inevitable push. Who uses ER PPCs and medium lasers anyway? That's a terrible combo.

If your players need a damaged component to know where to shoot, they're not very good players and their playstyle should not be rewarded. Focus on legs or potential killshots and only go for other damaged components if there's actually a significant amount of equipment mounted there. That's how you kill mechs and win matches.
The way you say you play you'd end up blasting through an entire shield side on a meta Thunderbolt before you even got a chance to go for a kill, because that's the side that player will give you and apparently you'll happily waste your firepower on mostly useless damage. Meanwhile that same Thunderbolt will have been taking shots at your CT and will probably kill you before you even breach it's CT armor.

First of all, I said "You have to start somewhere." If from the drop I am moving towards my group, I see a enemy mech at 750m standing partially behind a rock (lining up my ******* teamate that is ridgelining himself) or whatever not looking at me would I go.. "only the RT and RA is exposed why bother opening him up with my 4 ERLL". No. I make one shot, maybe two if he is dumb enough to not shoot at me or take cover. I would then go on my way. I never said you would single mindedly keep on that one mech.
This combines two tatics.
https://en.wikipedia..._of_opportunity
https://en.wikipedia...uppressive_fire

The point was it affects his gameplay immediately and going forward. Pick any "meta" build you want, the point was the weapon that was exposed was the one intended for use. I assume the OP decided that was the best weapon for the job. Now its not as appealing, he has to spend time to reposition, risk getting hit again in the same place or change tactics. either way it wastes his firing time.

What I meant when I said "damage is often opportunistic" was that people hide behind stuff and go under things or on top of things only expose what they want or have to.

This/your Statement:

"Sorry to disappoint you,(I am not disappointed, annoyed but not dissapointed) but no decent player is going to waste armor on a bit of scratch damage at max range, that player would just cycle out and let someone else take his place (so someone else is going to waste armor on scratch damage?) while he watches their back and waits for the inevitable push.(why even stay there if it's such a bad place?) Who uses ER PPCs and medium lasers anyway? That's a terrible combo." (I direct you below) I don't BTW

Honestly I wasn't thinking of any specific mech but there is lots of asymmetric(<---my point) meta builds.

Your Thunderbolt Meta build for instance from
http://metamechs.com...h-buying-guide/

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...d6093fea87609b4

Edited by Biclor Moban, 30 September 2015 - 09:20 PM.

[Biclor Moban]

Idealsuspect, on 28 September 2015 - 07:23 AM, said:

>>> PGI dont understand their own game

Exactly or thier making us play 4000 - 8000 games to advance one tier because they are jerks.

Did a sampling of 50 solo queue games. This is how I came up with the above numbers.
39 where lop sided, over 5 of the wining team alive at the end. ( note, 16 of those games ended with scores of 12-0,12-1 or 12-2)
10 were balanced , 4 or less of the wining team alive at the end.)
1 was a tie.(10 to 10)

I don't remember the games being this lopsided until recently.

PSR, and the result of removing higher tiers from lower tiers gameplay is like sending a bunch of privates, private 1st class, and lance corparals on to the battlefield and saying "your on your own now go get em" we go "okay, off to the drop". One of us may say "do we get a platoon or lance leader" .. Pgi said "figure it out yourself" so we wait for someone to step up which may or may not happen. Having a few more expierienced players in your queue can make a big difference.

So if you are tier 4 or 5 when the system was implemented plan on staying there for a while.

[Khereg]

Biclor Moban, on 28 September 2015 - 10:22 AM, said:

One of the problems is the system hasn't improved game play at all.

I disagree. I see matches that are generally more even, with more players at roughly similar skill levels. Plenty of exceptions, but much better than it was before PSR.

YMMV.

I do think the PSR adjustment calculations are weighted too heavily by win/loss, however.

Edited by Khereg, 02 October 2015 - 09:06 AM.

[Lord Auriel]

my previous post that said "win rate = personal performance".. of COURSE it does NOT work for the group queue because that is just a joke and completely unplayable unless you are in a 12man. Seriously, the group queue is ebola.

But for normal matches - especially solo drops, the win rate is indeed an indicator of how well you can carry your baddies

[AssaultPig]

fundamentally they have the right approach: win/loss, modified to some extent by personal performance. Some people seem to have the idea that their PSR should never go down, which is silly; sometimes you play badly.

I think the matchscore formula should probably be tweaked to put more emphasis on 1) KMDDs and 2) 'teamplay' stuff like spotting, protecting, etc., but for the most part it's fine. There's no way to really quantiy this but my matches under PSR seem to generally be better, and a bar that moves makes the grind feel a bit more rewarding.

PSR is more of a measure of 'experience' than of 'skill' per se, but that imo is fine; I would much rather have everybody experienced enough to be T1/2 just put into one bucket than have the MM try to balance out high-rated players by pulling in a bunch of newbies.

[Paigan]

Ted Wayz, on 27 September 2015 - 01:46 PM, said:

How you go up and down should be dependent on your performance that match. Not some monolithic system that tries to equate your match score to teamwork.

Exactely

[Biclor Moban]

Biclor Moban, on 02 October 2015 - 08:59 AM, said:

Exactly or thier making us play 4000 - 8000 games to advance one tier because they are jerks.

Did a sampling of 50 solo queue games. This is how I came up with the above numbers.
39 where lop sided, over 5 of the wining team alive at the end. ( note, 16 of those games ended with scores of 12-0,12-1 or 12-2)
10 were balanced , 4 or less of the wining team alive at the end.)
1 was a tie.(10 to 10)

I don't remember the games being this lopsided until recently.

PSR, and the result of removing higher tiers from lower tiers gameplay is like sending a bunch of privates, private 1st class, and lance corparals on to the battlefield and saying "your on your own now go get em" we go "okay, off to the drop". One of us may say "do we get a platoon or lance leader" .. Pgi said "figure it out yourself" so we wait for someone to step up which may or may not happen. Having a few more expierienced players in your queue can make a big difference.

So if you are tier 4 or 5 when the system was implemented plan on staying there for a while.

Alright I have continued to monitor matches and it seems after 3? weeks of these lop-sided wins the system is beginning to even out. The current breakdown seems to be about 50% even games(from 12-8 to 12-11), 25% one team gets severely rolled( from 12-0 to 12-3) and 25% one team gets mildly rolled(from 12-4 to 12-7).
Now in 70% or so of the games one very good player can influence the outcome of the game. Also I find it easier to get a = in those games. I know nothing is perfect so I am okay with the way MM is going.

I am still annoyed by the +, -,= scoring having to get over a 400 match score in a loss to advance seems high. when you think all you need is to get over 100 match score to advance in a win. It is leaps and bound harder to get a match score of even 200 in a loss than in a win.

PGI please reward good players and reduce the reliance on team win loss. If you continue to rely on team win loss you will need build a system that works better for mech to mech, mech to lance and mech to team communication and coordination.

Edited by Biclor Moban, 11 October 2015 - 08:07 AM.

[Destoroyah]

Part of the problem is that they use the same formula for ratings for all tiers. The problem with that is decent players are being dragged down or stagnated to the lower tiers where the teamwork concept isn't too prevalent even though you try.

The way I see it Tier 5 and 4 should be mostly focused on player performance only to basically say this player isn't noob anymore and understands the game mechanics enough to be a asset to real teams. Regardless if you win or lose which should have little effect on your score.

Tier 3 should be the middle ground where most average players land. Wins and lose do matter a bit more but aren't the biggest factor. Only several abysmal preformances should knock you down.

Tier 2 and 1 should be where the exceptional players go and teamwork has the most heavy effect on the score.