31 replies to this topic

[Medicine Man]

I would like to propose that pilot stats and ranking be changed so that win/losses is not the major determining factor. I think that things like kills, most damage, even scouting should count for more in the rankings.

Right now it seems like the most important stat is wins which is really unfair to puggers. If you run with a regular crew you are going to have massively more wins than defeats which will artificially pad your stats making you look like a better pilot and gunner than you really are.

As a pugger I have no control who I drop with or what their skills will be and that is really tanking my stats and ranking bad. But even if I drop with the best pugwarriors in the game we'll still be outclassed by a tight unit that has been playing together for hours or days or weeks.

This mostly applies to faction play where pugging is pretty much a terrible idea. But right now pugs are going up against really practiced premades full of golden mechs and I'm sick of it.

Sooner or later PGI is going to have to add some kind of CB or matchpoint bonus for even being willing to finish these kinds of drops instead of just disconnecting as soon as you see all the common unit tags grouped against you.

Even in quickplay solo queue there is still no control over how the team itself is going to do and thus winning shouldn't be the primary stat that determines ranking.

You know sports don't do this with their rankings of individual players. You don't see a game win/loss on any baseball card or in any football stat that is based on the individual player.

Edited by Medicine Man, 13 June 2017 - 03:04 PM.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Totally agree.

I had a match last night were my power flickered out for a minute. By the time I got back in the game, the match was all but over. In fact I fired once and only managed to do 10 damage right before someone else took at the last enemy. Despite this extremely poor showing on my part I still got an "=" rating because my team won. 10 damage shouldn't be getting anything but a lowered PSR for that match, win or not.

[Medicine Man]

Sometimes other puggers won't even try for the mission objectives. I've played domination where have the team won't go to the circle and the ones who do go there get outnumbered and slaughtered. Or missions of conquest where people ignore the cap points. This shouldn't mess up my personal stats.

[UnofficialOperator]

But what's the issue? You want to stay in T4 or are you trying to move up to T1? Or is this not about tiers?

PSR really is just an exp bar. You'd reach T1 eventually.

Edited by UnofficialOperator, 13 June 2017 - 04:07 PM.

[Mystere]

I am going to have to disagree. I think only wins/losses should count.

Why? I've been farming via LRMs and it's ridiculously easy to get a PSR "=" or even a "^" after a drop..

[Kiiyor]

I ignore the wins part entirely - it's a stat based on attrition more than anything, and it's variance is enormous when you take into account the queue a player drops in. A PUG player, even a great one, will never approach the win/loss ratio of someone with a decent team in the group queue.

Other stats, like average match score, usually give a better idea of performance, but you need to sort by individual classes to get the best effect, as they play differently. Lights tend to do far less damage than assaults, but generally get more kills.

KD/R is a nice measuring stick, but it can be a little 'streaky'. It becomes a more consistent stat when you've played more games.

I think a combination of stats is the way to go.

You can scrape the data yourself, dump it in excel, and apply some filters. Generally, I sort first by number of matches played, then average match score. This helps eliminate the low match count outliers in the data, and gives you an impression of where your performance sits overall, as it addresses consistency a little more directly.

I wish the stats were more comprehensive. I think solo kills and kill most damage dealt are a better way to measure your performance. Being able to sort by chassis would be nice too, thought it might drive players to chase the meta even further than they are now.

[Mawai]

Mystere, on 13 June 2017 - 04:12 PM, said:

I am going to have to disagree. I think only wins/losses should count.

Why? I've been farming via LRMs and it's ridiculously easy to get a PSR "=" or even a "^" after a drop..

And it is even easier to level this way if win/loss is not a factor ...

Of course PGI could decide that LRM damage isn't worth as much as other damage ... but then I suspect there would be a lot of complaints.

In addition, in an rating system based only on damage/kill/assists/kmdd:

- few would go for the match objectives ... there is no point if you are farming stats
- everyone would try to hang back because the last one to die gets the greatest chance to do the most damage
- high alpha sniper builds and LRMs would rule even more than they do now since they are among the best ways to do the most damage while receiving the least
- your team mates become simply meat shields so you can pad your stats

Basically, the rating system affects how people play and if win/loss is not a factor then for many win/loss becomes pointless in such a system.

Finally, I mostly agree with Mystere, the original Elo system that MWO used which is essentially based on win/loss compared to whether you were expected to win/lose is probably a good system BUT it is STATISTICAL .. it requires some number of games (possibly quite large) to get a good estimate of player rating. However, in quick play at least, YOU are the sole guaranteed common element in every game you play so eventually a reasonable estimate of your contribution should be able to be filtered from the ratings of the other 23 players in the match.

Edited by Mawai, 13 June 2017 - 04:40 PM.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Mawai, on 13 June 2017 - 04:28 PM, said:

YOU are the sole guaranteed common element in every game you play so eventually a reasonable estimate of your contribution should be able to be filtered from the ratings of the other 23 players in the match.

Oh god, we have a WoT player here.

Statistically with 12 players per team, unless you are a MWO god, there is always going to be at least one player on the enemy team as skill or more skilled that you, pretty much guaranteed however only one of you can win the battle. Another way to think of it is what happens if Michael Jordan plays an exact duplicate of himself? The answer is which ever clone is luckier or makes the least amount of mistake that particular game wins the match. Now take those same two clone and add 4 random members to each of their teams and have them face off. Guess who wins now? Yep, the TEAM that has the most skilled players. What is my point? The TEAM is what determines win or loss not you, not by yourself.

[Medicine Man]

I'm not saying to derive ranking only from damage. Scouting, protections, being in formation etc can all count towards a participation score which would then determine ranking.

As far as LRM's go the people who spot for LRM boats should be getting part of the damage credit. Especially if people are NARC or tag for the LRM's.

[El Bandito]

I look at many stats, not just one. Players better than me usually have better stats on most categories, while players worse than me have worse stats on most categories as well.

I just wish PGI would hurry the hell up and split the QP leaderboards between SQ and GQ, and CW leaderboards between Scouting and Invasion.

[Mawai]

Viktor Drake, on 13 June 2017 - 05:41 PM, said:

Oh god, we have a WoT player here.

Statistically with 12 players per team, unless you are a MWO god, there is always going to be at least one player on the enemy team as skill or more skilled that you, pretty much guaranteed however only one of you can win the battle. Another way to think of it is what happens if Michael Jordan plays an exact duplicate of himself? The answer is which ever clone is luckier or makes the least amount of mistake that particular game wins the match. Now take those same two clone and add 4 random members to each of their teams and have them face off. Guess who wins now? Yep, the TEAM that has the most skilled players. What is my point? The TEAM is what determines win or loss not you, not by yourself.

Lol ... nope never touched WoT.

However, I do math and science for a living.

The idea behind team based Elo calculations is that each player has a rating. This rating contributes to their team value (whether the player is Michael Jordan or a street-side pick up player) and the value of the rating is unknown at the beginning of the analysis so they are given a common starting point.

There are two pieces of information available.
1) The current estimated skill rating of every player in a match .. and thus the cumulative current rating for each team.
2) The match outcome - which team wins and which loses - I don't care who is on which team.

Assuming that other factors are equal the more skilled team will usually win the match. These team values are used to set the range of change assigned to the winning and losing teams. A prediction of which team will win is made based on the team cumulative team skill ratings (you could factor in DC/AFK into a revised expectation at the end of the match).

The outcomes are as follows:
1) Team that was expected to win the match wins
- winning team ratings go up a bit, losing team ratings drop
- change depends on how evenly matched the teams were.
2) Team that was expected to win the match loses
- winning team ratings go up more because they weren't expected to win, losing team ratings drop more
- amount of change depends on how mismatched the teams were expected to be

This applies to quick play solo queue - a separate rating is needed for group play since team work strongly affects the basic win/loss expectation.

You then repeat this process for every match that is completed. Each player's rating evolves over time depending on the long term statistical outcomes of the matches they participate in.

In your example of the Michael Jordan clone ... if they are playing 1:1 then luck is the dominant factor and they will each win and lose exactly the same amount over a large dataset ... they will have the same skill rating.

Lets throw these clones into matches with 4 other random folks on each team who also have ratings. If the ratings of these other players are randomly distributed then the two clones will STILL have a 50/50 chance of winning a match over the long term and will STILL end up with same rating. Some matches will be stomps one way and some another ... but over enough matches, as long as there is no bias in the selection of team mates then the rating that will be derived for the two Michael Jordan clones (and all the random other players over all their matches) will work out to the same values. This is because the "signal" element in every match is the rating of the specific player and the ratings for everyone else are noise from that perspective. In fact, there are 24 signals (the individual player ratings) that are being combined with luck (the noise element) to give a match outcome.

With enough data, all of the 24 signal values (the player ratings) can be determined.

This is the fundamental basis for a team based Elo player rating system and most folks don't seem to understand it because of the statistical nature. Individual match outcome and performance are completely irrelevant. Everyone has bad matches, everyone has good ones. It is the long term performance as reflected in how well the individual player achieves the game objectives (i.e. winning) with their team mates that is used to evolve a player rating.

--- SIgh ... I shouldn't have wasted my time typing all of the above

Here is a link to the TrueSkill ranking system developed by Microsoft Research. It is essentially exactly what I am discussing above.

https://www.microsof...ranking-system/

" The TrueSkill ranking system only uses the final standings of all teams in a game in order to update the skill estimates (ranks) of all gamers playing in this game."

From the FAQ:

A: The only information the TrueSkill ranking system will process is:

• Which team won?
  
• Who were the members of the participating teams?

Here is the average number of games required to identify a player skill level.
Game Mode Number of Games per Gamer 16 Players Free-For-All 3 8 Players Free-For-All 3 4 Players Free-For-All 5 2 Players Free-For-All 12 4 Teams/2 Players Per Team 10 4 Teams/4 Players Per Team 20 2 Teams/4 Players Per Team 46 2 Teams/8 Players Per Team 91

With 2 teams and 12 players per team it is probably significantly more games.

Anyway, the bottom line is that this type of rating system (or some variation) based on team outcomes is available and used in this industry. Any rating system based on numbers scored by individuals in a match actually negatively affects game play since it motivates players to get high scores rather than achieve in game objectives like winning.

[Jman5]

I wouldn't over-worry about your WLR aside from trying to get it above 1.

Anyway with regards to rankings, Wins is just the default one (and not a particularly good one either). You can sort by 7 other metrics and focus on your preferred weight class.

My advice is to focus less on your rank number, or what the top ranked players have. Instead just try to improve a little bit at a time from one season to the next. So what if the top ranked guys have 10+ WLR. If you can make your WLR go from .5 to .7 that's a win in your book. If WLR isn't up your alley then focus on getting your average matchscore or KDR up.

Edited by Jman5, 14 June 2017 - 09:21 AM.

[Dread Render]

Mystere, on 13 June 2017 - 04:12 PM, said:

I am going to have to disagree. I think only wins/losses should count.

Why? I've been farming via LRMs and it's ridiculously easy to get a PSR "=" or even a "^" after a drop..

To me this is hard proof that LRM's are OP for people who know how to use / exploit them.

[Mystere]

Dread Render, on 14 June 2017 - 09:28 AM, said:

To me this is hard proof that LRM's are OP for people who know how to use / exploit them.

Lest your post be misinterpreted.

[PhoenixFire55]

Medicine Man, on 13 June 2017 - 02:59 PM, said:

You know sports don't do this with their rankings of individual players. You don't see a game win/loss on any baseball card or in any football stat that is based on the individual player.

The difference is that teams in those sport disciplines you mentioned are fixed. There are stronger team and weaker teams, thus W/L of individual players is irrelevant. In MWO when you solo PUG your team is random every time, which means that after a sufficient amount of matches is played all random factors average themselves out. The only remaining constant denominator is you. Thus W/L does matter, and in fact that is the only thing that matters.

[Medicine Man]

PhoenixFire55, on 14 June 2017 - 10:03 AM, said:

The difference is that teams in those sport disciplines you mentioned are fixed. There are stronger team and weaker teams, thus W/L of individual players is irrelevant. In MWO when you solo PUG your team is random every time, which means that after a sufficient amount of matches is played all random factors average themselves out. The only remaining constant denominator is you. Thus W/L does matter, and in fact that is the only thing that matters.

Nonsense. 1 person out of 12 can't determine victory or defeat. "Random factors average out etc etc," is just noise you have no basis for being able to prove anyway.

[MischiefSC]

W/L is accurate beyond about 50 matches. Overall is playing with you more likely to result in a win or a loss? You're 8% of your teams performance, how much you carry with that is all you.

I'm in favor of splitting pug and group queue stats though.

[Kaethir]

MischiefSC, on 14 June 2017 - 10:28 AM, said:

W/L is accurate beyond about 50 matches. Overall is playing with you more likely to result in a win or a loss? You're 8% of your teams performance, how much you carry with that is all you.

I would say more like a few hundred matches, but the general idea is right. The only common denominator in all your dissatisfying relationships matches is you.

[Grus]

#inbeforecarlvickerspostsapotato

[MischiefSC]

Kaethir, on 14 June 2017 - 10:32 AM, said:

I would say more like a few hundred matches, but the general idea is right. The only common denominator in all your dissatisfying relationships matches is you.

You can seed with a bit over 40 matches. That's enough to shake out any statistical anomalies based on who you drop WITH. You can create some inaccuracy there by playing bad mechs but I would argue that's still a "you" thing.

Within 40 matches of playing decent robbits in pug queue you've washed out the bulk of "good luck/bad luck" randomness from the results. What's left is a passing accurate view of the players impact on a teams odds of winning or losing. That's a combo of how they play and what they play.

You can inflate damage and KDR by doing things that don't win matches. Only thing that inflates win/loss is consistently doing things to drive wins.