56 replies to this topic

[Aresye]

Product9, on 24 July 2016 - 03:48 PM, said:

If you could figure out a way to measure all the qualities you listed, I'd be more than happy to hear about it.

The only problem with the current system is that winning has too much weight. You shouldn't go up in PSR simply because you managed to do barely adequate damage and got carried by other teammates.

[Spleenslitta]

Yellonet, on 24 July 2016 - 08:58 AM, said:

Ah yes, the game mode also known as Hide-as-long-as-you-can mode.

Not if those that do not cause damage within certain intervals is disqualified. Players get instantly disqualified if they do not meet a certain amount of damage every 20-30 seconds.

[Thuriel]

Your idea isn't perfect but I'm with you OP
Sadly you are fighting a lost battle
Many don't want 1v1 to measure skill
Doesn't make you wonder why?

[Lykaon]

Deathlike, on 24 July 2016 - 10:10 AM, said:

This won't work perfectly.

Like, 1v1 is only a general demonstration of raw shooting ability. It doesn't really show too much about the pilot's intelligence.. outside of showing how people go about engagements.

In a team environment, players show intelligence through positioning, repositioning, and timing... not everyone's "skill" is always just raw shooting ability, but in the ability to make good decisions more often than not.


Outside of finding out who will bring the sub-optimal loadout... you will never really challenge players in the same way in a raw shooting ability environment that is 1v1. It doesn't show the entire picture, and whether you agree with it or not... it's not going to teach people the meaning of focus fire. You might learn the point of a paperdoll though... and even that is Lostech for some people.

I was thinking pretty much along those lines.

In 1 v 1 with identical mechs we can determine some basic skills but the more isoteric skill sets can not be easily determined.

If I were to judge myself I would not be exceptionally high in accuracy or even exceptional at close manuvers to spread damage. I am above average but not really in the top of my class.

What I do excel at is reading the flow of a battle and knowing when the enemy has made a mistake or faultered and how to best exploit it.

When on the rare occation I have a PUG team that trusts me and follows my plan we punish the enemy for the little mistakes that when exploited make for big wins. Sadly most of the time few puggies have the initiative to seize a moment and take advantage of it.

These skills do not really come into play in a one vs one fight. there is no grand scheme unfolding just two mechs beating the snot out of each other.

[Product9]

So, what I'm hearing is we need some way to measure teamwork and decision making (collectively some kind of X-factor).

Until someone has some really good ideas, I guess the current PSR system is the best we can hope for (with some tweaks).

I still personally believe it relies far too heavily on variables that are random, though.

Thanks for the input, guys. Much food for thought.

[L3mming2]

Product9, on 24 July 2016 - 08:19 AM, said:

Hey guys,

While reading about the general dissatisfaction with PSR, I got to thinking. How can skill actually be measured? There are so many factors in this game that contribute to a win or a loss, or how much damage someone does, and with all the many variables any measurement of skill is going to be nebulous at best.

So, I was thinking, if skill is supposed to be a reflection of the pilot inside the machine, wouldn't one way to measure that be to pit pilots against each other in the same mech and build and rate who comes out on top?

Maybe have a chosen chassis and build for each weight class, and have players face off for a ranking that can be used for matchmaker.

I understand there are several potential problems with the idea. For one thing, individual skill doesn't necessarily translate to skill as a member of a group. But, it's just an idea, and I'd like to get some discussion going on it to maybe refine it, or point out fatal flaws.

I think it would be a boon to the game if there were a 1v1 arena, because it would be a really fast way to get some instant action, and even provide something for small groups of friends to do when group queue times are super long. Also, we don't have to stop at 1v1 either. We could have 2v2 as well, which would be another really great way to get more people playing instead of waiting around for 24 people.

2v2 wouldn't be as good as a measurement for skill, because teamwork and yadda yadda, but it's just an idea.

So, what say you?

Also, for the record, this is sort of inspired by the Armored Core franchise and my experience in that series.

the best measure of skill would be your W/L ratio for solo pug (not groop que), yes u get bad teams somtimes but with enough maches played thats statisticaly irrelenvant. the only variable in the end that is constand is your skill... to bad they dont split the stats from groop and pug que....

[Stone Wall]

Thuriel, on 24 July 2016 - 11:00 PM, said:

Your idea isn't perfect but I'm with you OP
Sadly you are fighting a lost battle
Many don't want 1v1 to measure skill
Doesn't make you wonder why?

This game has a rep for a meta that is driven by wallets instead of skill.

[Walsung]

trial of position

[Satan n stuff]

Clearly duels are the best measure of skill in a team based game.

[Mystere]

Walsung, on 25 July 2016 - 03:24 AM, said:

trial of position

But what about the sharks who do not participate in such trials? They'll be endlessly feasting on the kiddie pool.

[Product9]

L3mming2, on 25 July 2016 - 01:22 AM, said:

the best measure of skill would be your W/L ratio for solo pug (not groop que), yes u get bad teams somtimes but with enough maches played thats statisticaly irrelenvant. the only variable in the end that is constand is your skill... to bad they dont split the stats from groop and pug que....

When you put it that way, it makes a lot of sense.

So, I'm guessing using the Elo system, but only in solo queue?

[Metus regem]

I guess it is lost on me, the value people place on 1V1, in a team based environment, 1V1 skill means very little, just as a team based skill set means very little in 1V1. So to me, 1V1 or FFA is just pointless and only serves to stroke the egos and e-peens of those that need to feel less insecure about their insecurities.

[Product9]

Metus regem, on 25 July 2016 - 09:05 AM, said:

I guess it is lost on me, the value people place on 1V1, in a team based environment, 1V1 skill means very little, just as a team based skill set means very little in 1V1. So to me, 1V1 or FFA is just pointless and only serves to stroke the egos and e-peens of those that need to feel less insecure about their insecurities.

Well to be fair, I did suggest if there were a 1v1 arena to measure skills, then it should be anonymous. Identical mechs, no chat, no names. Just whoever comes out on top and a rating system (and of course incentive rewards).

It should also be noted that I'm treating skill as a separate metric from decision making ability, tactics, strategy, nomenclature, etc. Those other factors are much more difficult to measure accurately.

Edited by Product9, 25 July 2016 - 01:27 PM.

[Fluff My Garfield]

Aresye, on 24 July 2016 - 03:41 PM, said:

Those are all still mechanical skills that...while they help somewhat, don't really transfer into the team based atmosphere of MWO.

While fighting 1v1 you have no score to keep track of, you have no enemy team movement you need to keep track of, you have no teammates you need to keep track of, you have no "assaults in charlie lance" to base your game plan around, you have no focus fire prioritization, you have no artillery/air strike cooldown to watch, you never have to worry about more than 1 mech targeting you at once, etc...

EXACTLY.
Just you and your opponent. No distractions, subtle movements meaning everything... Wander too close to a building and get stuck for a quick second? The error that killed you...

Think of it as romanticized samurai duels instead of a large-scale battle.

Product9, I like it - but not as you meant it. Instead, take it separately, as an aspect of the game as removed from the current team-based PvP as a single player campaign would be. When a player logs in they play group or they play solo or they play 2-man or whatever. Some people will strongly favor one mode or another and that's great for them. Maybe they'll do like Stone Wall said and use it to settle disputes from the forums (that will likely never be settled but the game and community benefits anyway!), or become legendary for their performance; maybe they'll do like you suggested after that comment and mask up, hit random and end up on a randomly chosen map, in a randomly chosen mech, against and enemy near them in the rankings equally in the dark on the circumstances. Of couse, having settings for options in between would be good but nothing too specific so the wait times are low. The only exception to that would be when two players have challenged each other specifically, allowing them to set whatever zany stuff they want to settle whatever score or test an idea.

Don't think of it as a way to better judge a player in the group setting but instead as a whole other way to play with stats unto itself. Or, if you must, make it a combined score between the two. I think 1v1 is a very valuable metric because just like situational awarness is essential in group play and can only be measured in that setting, the mob can also hide your blunders. Think about how stressful a 24-man match would be if it was actually fought as 12 1v1 duels... Think about the times you've been the last alive and had a real chance at winning! Every little move mattered and the entire game teetered on your actions. Being a highly ranked 1v1 player then would be something your teammates would be happy to have!

[Product9]

Ogrecorps, on 25 July 2016 - 02:46 PM, said:

EXACTLY.
Just you and your opponent. No distractions, subtle movements meaning everything... Wander too close to a building and get stuck for a quick second? The error that killed you...

Think of it as romanticized samurai duels instead of a large-scale battle.

Product9, I like it - but not as you meant it. Instead, take it separately, as an aspect of the game as removed from the current team-based PvP as a single player campaign would be. When a player logs in they play group or they play solo or they play 2-man or whatever. Some people will strongly favor one mode or another and that's great for them. Maybe they'll do like Stone Wall said and use it to settle disputes from the forums (that will likely never be settled but the game and community benefits anyway!), or become legendary for their performance; maybe they'll do like you suggested after that comment and mask up, hit random and end up on a randomly chosen map, in a randomly chosen mech, against and enemy near them in the rankings equally in the dark on the circumstances. Of couse, having settings for options in between would be good but nothing too specific so the wait times are low. The only exception to that would be when two players have challenged each other specifically, allowing them to set whatever zany stuff they want to settle whatever score or test an idea.

Don't think of it as a way to better judge a player in the group setting but instead as a whole other way to play with stats unto itself. Or, if you must, make it a combined score between the two. I think 1v1 is a very valuable metric because just like situational awarness is essential in group play and can only be measured in that setting, the mob can also hide your blunders. Think about how stressful a 24-man match would be if it was actually fought as 12 1v1 duels... Think about the times you've been the last alive and had a real chance at winning! Every little move mattered and the entire game teetered on your actions. Being a highly ranked 1v1 player then would be something your teammates would be happy to have!

All of that sounds awesome! Where do I go to play that game?

[Lootee]

I would be all for this idea but only for members of Clan factions. This is exactly how their trials work and the reason the Clans (except Wolf & Ghost Bear) were terrible at wars of attrition. Generally speaking Clanners were great at fighting duels but awful at fighting drawn out battles.

This idea would add flavor and also be true to lore. Make it so.

Edited by Lootee, 25 July 2016 - 06:05 PM.

[L3mming2]

Product9, on 25 July 2016 - 09:01 AM, said:

When you put it that way, it makes a lot of sense.

So, I'm guessing using the Elo system, but only in solo queue?

yep