63 replies to this topic

[meteorol]

The problem with the current system is that it allows average players to get to tier 1 by simply playing enough. It leads to an enormous skill gap within tier 1. Someone who got there within 2k games is most likely much better than someone who got there in 20k games.

Still they end up in the same tier. Some of the very best players (Proton for example) are simply indescribably better than someone who made it to t1 over the stretch of 20k matches.

Still, PSR treats them the same. Which makes it utterly worthless as a "skill" rating.

[C I L L I P U D D I]

You have no idea how it actually works. It's quite comical. PSR is affected by all means, mostly by winning but every thing you do is a factor. Is it fair all the time, no. Will any other PSR scale make everyone happy, never, due to the simple fact there are players like yourself who will only be happy when they put in PVE so you can never have a challenge.

[Mystere]

Pariah Devalis, on 30 January 2016 - 07:23 AM, said:

Surely they can track NARC/TAG use, as well as scouting bonuses, UAV usage, and actually hitting R on untargeted or unLOSed mechs, and we know they can track accuracy with weapon systems. There must be a way (or a way might be able to be made) to track one's ability to soak up damage and armor roll effectively. It already tracks sticking with your teammates, soon will have a reward for supporting with AMS, and already tracks ECM shielding friendly mechs. Hell, while not always a great indicator, there is probably a way to determine how long you lasted relative to the duration of a fight, indicating you stayed combat functional and influential for longer.

There are many metrics to determine a good player from bad beyond KDR or flat WLR. That is not to say WLR is not important. It absolutely is an important factor. It just should not be the single defining primary factor, here.

I noticed you did not address any of the activities I listed on the post you responded to: vanguard, bait, distraction, delaying action.

[El Bandito]

Ted Wayz, on 30 January 2016 - 07:11 AM, said:

I do not see many of these Tier 1 players on leaderboards. Base our tiers on leaderboards and that will separate the men from the boys. Not only that PSR is blind to what you pilot. By basing skill rating on leaderboards you could have a skill rating for each mech.

That's not gonna work. People can actually place really high on the leaderboards if they play vs. complete noobs in T4-5, since they can farm points way more effectively. T1s arguably have the toughest time to reach the top of the leaderboard. Leaderboards is chiefly about grind and luck, and exploiting group queue by feeding one of their unit members kills.

Edited by El Bandito, 30 January 2016 - 07:35 AM.

[Pariah Devalis]

Mystere, on 30 January 2016 - 07:32 AM, said:

I noticed you did not address any of the activities I listed on the post you responded to: vanguard, bait, distraction, delaying action.

Only because Vanguard is a proximity related thing, which is trackable, so already included there as a result should they so choose. Bait and distraction are powerful, and I agree could be useful factors, but how do you track that? How would the system tell the difference between one light mech that pulls the agro of four enemy mechs away from the fight versus one heavy mech that gets focused upon by four enemy mechs?

Delaying action? Again, that would be hard to figure how to track. To be frank, in this arena-shooteresque environment, outside of cap based objective modes, delaying actions are practically pointless unless it is a delay to allow a flank in. In which case, you still have personal accuracy, ability to armor roll or absorb damage safely and evenly, and lifespan over the total duration of the battle as possible metrics.

[Mystere]

Ted Wayz, on 30 January 2016 - 07:24 AM, said:

The activities you mention you could do effectively in a win or a loss and neither are rewarded in either case. So what is your point?

The point? Did you actually miss it?

Here it is again: How do you accurately measure if someone's actions contributed to the win?

And my simple approximation is: they won.

[Mystere]

Pariah Devalis, on 30 January 2016 - 07:36 AM, said:

Only because Vanguard is a proximity related thing, which is trackable, so already included there as a result should they so choose. Bait and distraction are powerful, and I agree could be useful factors, but how do you track that? How would the system tell the difference between one light mech that pulls the agro of four enemy mechs away from the fight versus one heavy mech that gets focused upon by four enemy mechs?

Delaying action? Again, that would be hard to figure how to track.

Precisely, it is hard to track. But I can have a reasonable approximation: the team won.

Pariah Devalis, on 30 January 2016 - 07:36 AM, said:

To be frank, in this arena-shooteresque environment, outside of cap based objective modes, delaying actions are practically pointless unless it is a delay to allow a flank in. In which case, you still have personal accuracy, ability to armor roll or absorb damage safely and evenly, and lifespan over the total duration of the battle as possible metrics.

You said it yourself. We have 2 modes out of 3 where delaying actions are possible. It's not my fault though if an overwhelming majority of players play them all as Skirmish.

[Pariah Devalis]

Mystere, on 30 January 2016 - 07:45 AM, said:

Precisely, it is hard to track. But I can have a reasonable approximation: the team won.




You said it yourself. We have 2 modes out of 3 where delaying actions are possible. It's not my fault though if an overwhelming majority of players play them all as Skirmish.

Win:Loss as the primary metric is still a poor metric. You can get carried by teammates while being an objectively terrible player. WLR is extremely important, but one needs to be intentionally myopic to try and argue that it should be the be all and end all for PERSONAL statistic ranking. It should influence it. Even influence it heavily. However not to the current extent that it does. If your team wins but you are just god awful (especially in comparison to how players on the losing team did) your PSR should go down, not up. If you did the best you could be expected to do given the circumstances and held your own, but your team collapsed, your PSR should go up.

[Mystere]

Pariah Devalis, on 30 January 2016 - 07:49 AM, said:

Win:Loss as the primary metric is still a poor metric. You can get carried by teammates while being an objectively terrible player. WLR is extremely important, but one needs to be intentionally myopic to try and argue that it should be the be all and end all for PERSONAL statistic ranking. It should influence it. Even influence it heavily. However not to the current extent that it does. If your team wins but you are just god awful (especially in comparison to how players on the losing team did) your PSR should go down, not up. If you did the best you could be expected to do given the circumstances and held your own, but your team collapsed, your PSR should go up.

A player is very good at hanging on the coattails of the people he drops with? I'd say he's a lucky mascot and as such have no problem with that.

That's still better than someone who consistently kills 11 of the enemy but still consistently loses.

And in case you did not detect it, I say PSR is wrongly named.

Edited by Mystere, 30 January 2016 - 08:35 AM.

[Pariah Devalis]

Mystere, on 30 January 2016 - 07:52 AM, said:

A player is very good at hanging on the coattails of the people he drops with? I'd say he's a luck mascot and as such have no problem with that.

That's still better than someone who consistently kills 11 of the enemy but still consistently loses.

KDR absolutely is a worthless mechanic. Like I said, I prefer personal tracking based on more important skill factors like accuracy, average battlefield life expectancy, average damage absorbtion before death (by percentage), etc. KDR just measures "how good are you at getting the last hit in?"

Edit: Granted, life expectancy can also be gamed on a match to match level. Would be a pain in the *** to fluff it up over a statistically relevant number of matches, however.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 30 January 2016 - 08:02 AM.

[Mystere]

Here is another one: How do you accurately determine a good commander who consistently leads the team to victory?

[Pendaelose]

Mystere, on 30 January 2016 - 07:52 AM, said:

A player is very good at hanging on the coattails of the people he drops with? I'd say he's a luck mascot and as such have no problem with that.

Amen to this. If he's a terrible player but still manages to win more than he looses, even while being a drain on his team, then he's doing something right and I want him on my team.

Seriously, can you imagine a coat tail rider so good at mooching your skills that he causes your whole team to win more?

[pyrocomp]

Once again. The PSR is a player value rating for his/her team. Not directly intended to be a players personal skill measure. Ask PGI for renaming and for addition of the aiming/brawling/JJ/scoution/snipping 'skill' bars.

[MrJeffers]

Ted Wayz, on 30 January 2016 - 07:11 AM, said:

Not true.

I do not see many of these Tier 1 players on leaderboards. Base our tiers on leaderboards and that will separate the men from the boys. Not only that PSR is blind to what you pilot. By basing skill rating on leaderboards you could have a skill rating for each mech.

Leader boards are not a good indicator now because the people on the leader boards are not playing against each other because of the match maker trying to create like teams on each side. Tier 5 players vs other Tier 5s end up on the leader board and really have a higher chance of getting a super high score than Tier 1s vs other Tier 1s.

if you want leader boards to mean something it needs to be a separate 'Ranked queue' where there is no PSR ranking used for the match maker and all the players in the ranked matches are playing against each other - then it will really show who in the ranked matches are really the best in head to head matches.

[crashlogic]

El Bandito, on 30 January 2016 - 12:59 AM, said:

For the umpteenth time, Win/Loss MUST be the main factor in PSR to prevent people staying back and farming points!

Otherwise what's the point of leading a charge and allowing your team to win if your PSR goes down due to low damage done? What's the point of baiting the enemy lance to follow you while your team mops up the rest of the enemy? What's the point for scouting/Narcing/TAGging the enemy to help winning, if they do not give enough points for your PSR to go up?

Skilled players win more, hence win/loss has to be the chief mover of PSR. It could be harsher than current value when losing, but that's the gist of it.

I see your point, but I disagree, having briefly been tier 2 and now tier three (decided to master my battlemasters..not a mech I play well in) I can say that I can play solid (400 Damage 2 kills 2 assits in a 12-4 loss) and still go down or stay even, when the rest of my team splits up. As a tier three player, I will often get lumped in with tier 5 teams then scatter everywhere and get killed piecemeal. At tier 1 pretty much everyone is good, so maybe the problem is not so apparent.
Ultimately a good team helps players win and improve stats, and a bad team makes it hard to play well. So no winning and losing is not as much a product of individual player skill as you might think.
Now I can see how farming points might be an issue. My only solution to this is to make Psr more dependent on the ingame rewards (scouting, lance in formation, brawling, capturing, hit and run, flanking, etc. These rewards reflect both individual skill and contributions to the team and mission. You could tweak this system to make it more reflective of what goes on in game (maybe have LRM lock bonuses and rewards for hitting over 800 meters or something. Winning and losing could be eliminated from the equations and damage done and kills could be more equal with other factors.

pyrocomp, on 30 January 2016 - 08:34 AM, said:

Once again. The PSR is a player value rating for his/her team. Not directly intended to be a players personal skill measure. Ask PGI for renaming and for addition of the aiming/brawling/JJ/scoution/snipping 'skill' bars.

Except here in the forums where regularly people's arguments ar shot dow because they are at a lower tier and therefore not skilled (which) was my original objection to public display of tier.

[Ashvins]

Cillipuddi, on 30 January 2016 - 04:08 AM, said:

@Ashvins

If you look at the top image, you have 415 damage, 1 kill, and some assists, in addition to some minor other bonuses. 415 damage is fairly....average, if that's your dead BLM on the ground. BLM's easily pull over 700, which in a loss, would give you a positive bump.

Sorry that is not my DEAD BLM, I was in a CN9-A in that match. And if I had screenshotted the other end of match stats screen you would see I had top damage and Highest match score for my team. I fully understand why I had a what appears to be a better match in the 2nd screenshot. But TBH the one good UAV counted for most of those other factors. (2nd match was in a CDA-3F(L) Yes the CDA added 30% to the C-bills but that has nothing to do with the PSR or XP from the match.

And I understand which factors contribute to the win and which just add to PSR and which add to your match score. The point is even if you do everything right you can still loose a match if your team does not do everything right. Those who have a solid match and still loose that match due to factors beyond their control (other players) should not be penalized. Those who do little to nothing and win because they were carried by their team should not be rewarded. THAT is the problem with PSR and XP. The WIN counts more than any individual performance in a match.

[pyrocomp]

crashlogic, on 30 January 2016 - 09:25 AM, said:

Except here in the forums where regularly people's arguments ar shot dow because they are at a lower tier and therefore not skilled (which) was my original objection to public display of tier.

More's the reason to rename it. And add skill bars based on average stats, rather than XP bars.

[Tier 1 Smurf]

crashlogic, on 30 January 2016 - 09:25 AM, said:

I see your point, but I disagree, having briefly been tier 2 and now tier three (decided to master my battlemasters..not a mech I play well in) I can say that I can play solid (400 Damage 2 kills 2 assits in a 12-4 loss) and still go down or stay even, when the rest of my team splits up. As a tier three player, I will often get lumped in with tier 5 teams then scatter everywhere and get killed piecemeal. At tier 1 pretty much everyone is good, so maybe the problem is not so apparent.
Ultimately a good team helps players win and improve stats, and a bad team makes it hard to play well. So no winning and losing is not as much a product of individual player skill as you might think.
Now I can see how farming points might be an issue. My only solution to this is to make Psr more dependent on the ingame rewards (scouting, lance in formation, brawling, capturing, hit and run, flanking, etc. These rewards reflect both individual skill and contributions to the team and mission. You could tweak this system to make it more reflective of what goes on in game (maybe have LRM lock bonuses and rewards for hitting over 800 meters or something. Winning and losing could be eliminated from the equations and damage done and kills could be more equal with other factors.

I assure you it is so much easier to get massive scores in T4 than T1. Having even 1 or 2 players that will steal dmg and kills from you means getting +2k dmg or 12 kills is next to impossible. I've done both in one evening in T4, both are feats I haven't come all that close to in T1.

[Pariah Devalis]

Tier 1 Smurf, on 30 January 2016 - 10:56 AM, said:

I assure you it is so much easier to get massive scores in T4 than T1. Having even 1 or 2 players that will steal dmg and kills from you means getting +2k dmg or 12 kills is next to impossible. I've done both in one evening in T4, both are feats I haven't come all that close to in T1.

Yep. The more even the skill, the more even the damage spread. I know there was a good teamcomp matchup when I look at the entire team and see an almost uniform range of 300-500 damage per player. There's only so much damage you can inflict on the enemy team, and if everyone is doing their job then there is little room to snag much more than that.

[Tier 1 Smurf]

Pariah Devalis, on 30 January 2016 - 10:59 AM, said:

Yep. The more even the skill, the more even the damage spread. I know there was a good teamcomp matchup when I look at the entire team and see an almost uniform range of 300-500 damage per player. There's only so much damage you can inflict on the enemy team, and if everyone is doing their job then there is little room to snag much more than that.

And the higher that base skill of the match, the more deadly everything is. Things are going to die and you aren't going to be there to get dmg or the kill off it. Mistakes are brutally punished as well, so you often can't sit there and take mechs apart piece meal for extra points, though it does happen on occassion. But the farming is real in low tiers.