67 replies to this topic

[Damocles]

Back to back epic posts by Kristov. +2

[Draco Argentum]

Kristov Kerensky, on 22 December 2011 - 06:31 PM, said:

Best way to become better..play against people who are better then you. Rookies in sports don't play against other rookies, they get tossed right into the thick of things, so they can learn and become better..or they fail. Do or do not, there is no try, as a wise hand once said.

You heard it right here folks, the local sports team will be playing at the Olympics.

Kristov is dsiplaying the attitude of someone who needs to pub stomp to win. He doesn't want a match maker that forces players into matches near their skill level because he'll never be able to crush anyone that way.

Win/Loss cannot be padded and is thus the only stat that should be used by the player half of the matchmaker. This is an easy to build system, chess already has one. The real tough part is getting the BV half right. How do you assign a value to a PPC given how many different mechs you could field it on?

[EDMW CSN]

Battle Value 2.0 will be the fairest gauge for all basic construction and mech stats. However you will need to factor in the pilot's KDR and assistance ratio then add or subtract the BV of your ride accordingly.

[Threat Doc]

Kristov, artificial skill is in... deal.

How will forces be balanced, if at all, who knows? However, BV would be far and away better than tonnage; tonnage does not account for the effectiveness of a single 'Mech, let alone a group of them, let alone pilot ratings for each. And, oh, by the way, Piloting and Gunnery skill help determine multipliers in the TT game, and a system could easily be done here. Now, how does a pilot best get up their skills, through BV points taken from 'Mech kills. Now, a 'better' pilot -and Kristov, for the record, if this game is being built the way I think it is, YOUR natural skills will suffer, along with your elitist buddies- will be able to have their artificial pilot's skills raise more quickly if they're used correctly. The idea behind the skills is to help level the playing field against the MW4 twitcher likes of you, to make it so those of us who do not have those natural twitch skills, and are hard-pressed to build them, will still have a chance to play in a fun game.

Now, if you're so convinced of the superiority of your natural twitch skills in the game, what are you arguing HERE for. Just let your head blow up, keep your nose in the air and, when the game drops, just start killin' away, and don't worry about getting your character's skills up, because they don't matter to you, anyway.

I'm done here, I hope... I'm going to unfollow this thread for about the third time, now. Hopefully it finally takes.

[Woodstock]

Ghost73, on 22 December 2011 - 04:06 PM, said:

It has been done before. I know BF3 uses a player skill value to help with matchmaking that is based on a number of factors including KDR, the rate at which the player gains points, etc.

Could you go into more detail on this ...never played that game.

Also how can this take into account PLAYER skill not character skill. Manual dexterity etc?

[Deamented]

I think KDR should NEVER be used in match making. In other games, I've died to save my allies, I put myself in harms way because my ally could do more damage than me. Scout mechs will have fewer kills, maybe more deaths as they feed allies information and die for being found. No one will want to scout if it is about KDR, just heavy mechs that die less, and kill more. It removes the team work.

What should pair people up, is a rank system based on your wins. Each player starting out at rank 1000 or some such. As your team wins, you gain rank,as your team loses you lose rank. Being that each game matches you up with different people, the only common factor is YOU. You do you, your team does good. You do bad, your team does bad. Perhaps to lessen the problem of 12 v 12, each lance votes for an MVP, that MVP loses the fewest points on a loseing team, or gains the most on a winning team. You can't vote for yourself.

[EDMW CSN]

Deamented, on 23 December 2011 - 09:32 AM, said:

I think KDR should NEVER be used in match making. In other games, I've died to save my allies, I put myself in harms way because my ally could do more damage than me. Scout mechs will have fewer kills, maybe more deaths as they feed allies information and die for being found. No one will want to scout if it is about KDR, just heavy mechs that die less, and kill more. It removes the team work. What should pair people up, is a rank system based on your wins. Each player starting out at rank 1000 or some such. As your team wins, you gain rank,as your team loses you lose rank. Being that each game matches you up with different people, the only common factor is YOU. You do you, your team does good. You do bad, your team does bad. Perhaps to lessen the problem of 12 v 12, each lance votes for an MVP, that MVP loses the fewest points on a loseing team, or gains the most on a winning team. You can't vote for yourself.

I do believe Piranha know hows to implement assistance.

Whether you narc someone, tag someone, run around doing nothing but to keep your ECM boat alive while jamming the enemy. Snuff out someone from his hole with BAP. Steal stuff and running away like the wind etc.

In fact I believe for people who can perma-jam their enemy for 20 minutes long without dying, they deserve a damn medal for it. But like EVE, eventually ECM will be the primary target that everyone SHOOTS first.

Edited by [EDMW]CSN, 23 December 2011 - 09:43 AM.

[Ghost73]

woodstock, on 23 December 2011 - 07:10 AM, said:

Could you go into more detail on this ...never played that game.

Also how can this take into account PLAYER skill not character skill. Manual dexterity etc?

So BF3 bases their skill level on WHO you kill, or more specifically the skill of the player you killed. Killing a highly skilled enemy gives you more points than killing someone less skilled, and points are not transferred from a player to another, they are simply added/subtracted based on the encounter and the SL of both parts (thus, after an encounter, one part may go up 50 points while the other loses only 20). So BF3 skill equates approximately how good a player is in one-on-one confrontations, meaning the player with the higher skill level will likely win in a one-on-one situation.

Deamented, on 23 December 2011 - 09:32 AM, said:

I think KDR should NEVER be used in match making. In other games, I've died to save my allies, I put myself in harms way because my ally could do more damage than me. Scout mechs will have fewer kills, maybe more deaths as they feed allies information and die for being found. No one will want to scout if it is about KDR, just heavy mechs that die less, and kill more. It removes the team work.

It depends on the game. However for this game, the system I described above probably would not work to determine skill. Mechs are difficult to kill and will probably include many players when one finally does go down. I am sure the devs will come up with a mostly accurate way to calculate a mechwarrior's skill.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Draco Argentum, on 23 December 2011 - 02:38 AM, said:

You heard it right here folks, the local sports team will be playing at the Olympics.

Kristov is dsiplaying the attitude of someone who needs to pub stomp to win. He doesn't want a match maker that forces players into matches near their skill level because he'll never be able to crush anyone that way.

Win/Loss cannot be padded and is thus the only stat that should be used by the player half of the matchmaker. This is an easy to build system, chess already has one. The real tough part is getting the BV half right. How do you assign a value to a PPC given how many different mechs you could field it on?

Never played online games have you Draco? Can't pad win/loss..really...hmm...if a game tracks a stat, you can pad it, people have been doing it for years, win/loss, KDR, hit %, miss %, etc, etc. This is a huge problem in games that use stat numbers to give rewards, like Battlefield on the PC and consoles and Modern Warfare on the consoles. It's really easy to do, you make a smurf account, you play vs your buddies on their 'real' accounts, you let them dominate you until they have the stats they want, then THEY switch to a smurf account, you get on your 'real' account and repeat. I've watched people doing it for years now in BF2 on the PC, the BadCos and the Modern Warfare games on the consoles. Go on Draco, pull the other one..

You did get ONE thing right Draco..I am an elitist..in video games and in real life. It's how I was raised, you either do your best and be a winner OR you muck about and be a failure. Never did the pubstomping, waste of time, degrades skills and encourages bad habits, but you wouldn't know about that obviously. BTW Draco..a rookie being tossed into the mix..that refers to professional sports, which I even stated, and Olympic athletes are actually considered rookies as well..good try though..

Kay, we know we'll have XP levels, we know we'll have Mech XP BY chassis(not class, not tonnage, it's specific to a chassis), but that's all we know. No idea what skills we'll get to train or what, if any, impact they'll have on the game. In BTech, these skills give a bonus to hitting the target(gunnery) or to avoid falling down(piloting) when doing tricky manuevers or getting rammed/taking too much damage in a single round. How will those, IF those are indeed the skills being used, effect the game? Player skill SHOULD be required to put a reticule on the target, or will Gunnery be an autoaim? Is THAT what you folks are expecting and wanting? Removing the player from the equation in anything but the most generic sense..aiming the walking robot in the direction of combat and letting the computer do the rest? I can't stand that with a single player game, I sure as hell won't play any PvP game like that. Obviously some of you think that's the best way to make a PvP game, remove the PLAYER from the equation..I would feel sorry for you but..I can't.

If that's what PGI is making, ya'll have fun, I won't be here, I can't stand games that play themselves.

[Draco Argentum]

Kristov Kerensky, on 23 December 2011 - 02:41 PM, said:

Never played online games have you Draco? Can't pad win/loss..really...hmm...if a game tracks a stat, you can pad it, people have been doing it for years, win/loss, KDR, hit %, miss %, etc, etc. This is a huge problem in games that use stat numbers to give rewards, like Battlefield on the PC and consoles and Modern Warfare on the consoles. It's really easy to do, you make a smurf account, you play vs your buddies on their 'real' accounts, you let them dominate you until they have the stats they want, then THEY switch to a smurf account, you get on your 'real' account and repeat. I've watched people doing it for years now in BF2 on the PC, the BadCos and the Modern Warfare games on the consoles. Go on Draco, pull the other one..

Wow, do I really need to put "in games like MWO" in front of every thing ever? Smurfing won't work, you won't be picking your opponents in planetery control matches because PGI knows people will cheat.

Your complaints about the skill system don't have any relevance to a win/loss based matchmaking system. Not that theres any point talking to you since you won't be playing the game.

[John Clavell]

I support match making. However, one thing to remember is. Sometimes being able to play against teams who are not 'in your class' present a chance for your own drop commanders and team to improve. I would like match making to suggest not force. Even if this is via a training or tutoring option. Losing to a good team can be more valuable than winning against people in your own class, it allows growth.

Edited by John Clavell, 24 December 2011 - 04:17 AM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Draco Argentum, on 24 December 2011 - 12:14 AM, said:

Wow, do I really need to put "in games like MWO" in front of every thing ever? Smurfing won't work, you won't be picking your opponents in planetery control matches because PGI knows people will cheat.

Your complaints about the skill system don't have any relevance to a win/loss based matchmaking system. Not that theres any point talking to you since you won't be playing the game.

Draco, the BIG names in the industry can't get a handle on these issues AFTER A DECADE of trying..and you think PGI will magically be able to avoid them..in a FREE TO PLAY online game...wow..just..wow. Companies that spend more on fighting these issues a year then PGI has made to date..and you think PGI will just..do it. You really don't play online games do you Draco...

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Aegis, I really don't think you will have that sort of choice. If your playing as a Merc or faction member then it will be the contracts that your unit has bid for/been assigned that determine the combat. At least that's what it seems. There may be Solaris VII matches, but no server browsers as far as we know. I'm sure if I got it wrong someone else will correct me?

[Kristov Kerensky]

That's the problem Nik, there's only been 1 game like this before, Planetside. Big persistant map, multiple hotspots at any given time, you select the hotspot/s your faction is currently engaged in and go, usually with a lot of others from your faction, since that game supports 100+ players at a time. MWO, they are hoping for 12v12 but may drop to 8v8..disappointing, but not our call. We'll have a single planet to fight over per day at launch from what the Q&A says, and that's. The ONLY ranked matches will be that planetary conquest battle, nothing else. Being able to drop somewhere for testing new Mechs or just playing around, that won't be ranked..and it's not even stated we GET to do that, they say it wouldn't be ranked if it happens...actual quote from Q&A2..

Quote

Will there be open servers with no impact on the worlds? –Technoviking
[BRYAN] All Ranked matches affect the Inner Sphere. We are considering several options for non-ranked matches, such as a practice server for players to test out tactics and BattleMech builds.

Single combat for planetary control is also stated, at launch, with possibility of multiple combats/objects leading to each other for this after launch.

So..that's really..huh..yeah. Single combat to decide planetary control, 12v12 or 8v8, the only ranked matches happening...huh. The more I actually look at that, the more I wonder.

Edited by Kristov Kerensky, 24 December 2011 - 09:47 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

It's something that will be fine for a while, but it's not anything to keep the majority of us around longterm.

[Xake]

I think total customization would be fine in the arenas as long as the proper ratio of "downgrade this to upgrade that" is observed.

[Draco Argentum]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 24 December 2011 - 09:25 AM, said:

Aegis, I really don't think you will have that sort of choice. If your playing as a Merc or faction member then it will be the contracts that your unit has bid for/been assigned that determine the combat. At least that's what it seems. There may be Solaris VII matches, but no server browsers as far as we know. I'm sure if I got it wrong someone else will correct me?

I don't think they've said anything directly. But its pretty obvious that there won't be a server browser for the territory control matches because its too easy to fix matches.

[Dlardrageth]

Yep, the meta-game cannot be totally player-controlled for sure, way too tempting to "game" it, if it were. Question remains though, if and how far any matchmaking should influence it. Meaning, having a matchmaker for random matches doesn't necessitate having one for the meta-game /strategic play. This one could very well work without the other.

Also, the whole debate about how exactly matchmaking is supposed to work shouldn't forget to take two major factors into account. First, a really balanced and working matchmaking needs to take both the element of the Mech piloted and the pilot in it into account. Weighing ratios there are debatable.(I'd suggest 60/40 Mech/Pilot out of my head.) Only taking into account the one or the other won't likely do.

Second there will be enough people giving a wet **** about any kind of statistics involved, while others will make it their main goal to shine with those. Yes, that includes W/L ratio, that includes kill ratio and what not. Thus basing matchmaking on any singular of these values/variables won't do justice either. Better to have as many as possible factored in. And not making the exact balancing formula public, goes without saying as necessary, Heck, I'd even go as far to suggest at least an option for everybody to hide most of his personal stats.

As much as some people will like to go ballistic about the whole stats issue, let's face it, there always will be stats whores and people not caring about them. And you can hardly exclude one part or the other from the game.

Edited by Dlardrageth, 25 December 2011 - 07:16 AM.

[Draelren]

I agree with the other users talking about the padding of stats, it has been done for years on the PC if it is tracked. The games that I mostly played were Blizzard's. StarCraft had constant abuse of winbot's throughout the early 2000's. What about Dialo II and duping items? Not to mention CS and aimbots... there has always been something that could be done to pad stats or to cheat.

I think personally it should be tonnage, with then a limit of how much +/- BV of the other team, like say you can't have +2,000 more BV than the other team. So if one team took all mediums, the other would be forced to take all mediums plus maybe a single heavy?

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Or the other team might be short of pilots and decide to "drop light" in heavies and assaults?