57 replies to this topic

[Tarogato]

So you know when you have those matches where there's players on your team that deal like... 50 damage, or you spectate them and they obviously don't belong in your tier. Or you kill an enemy who just stands still in front of you chainfiring his medium lasers and blatting LRMs inside minimum range...



We should have the ability to report them for being bad. If you get enough votes callling you bad, it automatically bumps you down one tier rating. Votes only count against you if you also did bad in that match. So like... people can't troll you by trying to knock your tier rating down if you did say 500+ damage. Only counts if you actually did bad. Maybe it can bump you down a tier if you accrue enough downvotes, or maybe each downvote would only take a small nugget out of your PSR.

And do the same thing for good players. Got a troll alt account in your match? Report him for being OP. He gets enough votes... he'll bump up in PSR automatically. But the upvote only counts if he did really good in the match, like 600+ or 5+ kills.

Maybe introduce this system alongside a reputation system. So you can vote people post-match for good comms, or good teamwork, or drop calling, or being a nice polite dude, or ... being a crass stubborn dummy. What's the point? I dunno. But it'd be cute. Maybe titles and badges as rewards for getting good reputations, just a feel-good thing. Reps don't have to be displayed publically... but could be a toggle option, just like tier rating.



Okay, I admit, most of the reason I made this thread is because I wanted to reply to the other thread with the same name. But somebody decided they wanted to lock it... so I had to make a new one to post my idea. So... yeah. There's my idea, wheeeeee_eeeeeeee...

[Bud Crue]

I like it!

T5, I’m a comin home!

[Tarogato]

Come to think of it, might have to add a stipulation that you can't vote for people in your active group in a group drop. Otherwise, there's an exploitable loophole there.

[Paigan]

I wrote that in another thread:
I have ideas like that myself from time to time.
The problem is, however: we are not an actual military unit where people get payed to deliver performance.
It's a free game and everyone is welcomed to play, no matter how bad they are.

You could make some kind of strictly seperated leagues or whatever. "Tiers done right", so to speak. But I guess the population base is not big enough for that. So it boils down to: play with a lot of (even consistently) bad people and hope the enemy team has more than yours - or not play at all (or only after enormous waiting times).

[PyckenZot]

Sounds like a good start.
I'm thinking of a system akin to WoWS. You have X number of rep votes per day. Combine that with the reps only counting if the performance is really bad and have each rep vote have a limited lifetime (to account for bad luck drops).

Additionally, WoWS also seems to "detect" bad games. As from time to time when a match was REALLY bad and I underperformed due to early death or the team dying so fast I get outnumbered in record time. The game actually asks me to rate the drop.

[Tarogato]

Paigan, on 14 November 2017 - 05:17 AM, said:

The problem is, however: we are not an actual military unit where people get payed to deliver performance.
It's a free game and everyone is welcomed to play, no matter how bad they are.

Ah, but are people having fun if the matchmaking system put them where they don't belong? I don't think low performing players want to move up in tier unless they actually set a goal to improve. A system where you can eventually get a player downvoted out of a tier they don't belong in, should actually help that player get better quality matches.


I mean, yes, provided there's enough players to make the matches at all in the first place. That is really the number one issue in MWO matchmaking, imo: not enough "good" players to make a "good" tier, so they will invariably get mixed in with average skill players, and there will be skill disparities and matchmaking flops as a result, and there's little that matchmaker can do to address this.

[Unnatural Growth]

Oh yeah, great idea. This won't get trolled at all. I can just picture all the "fake" reports guys spew out like vomit because so and so didn't go where I told him, or someone was mean to me over comms, or how dare he have the same paint job as me.

Your idea sounds great in a vacuum, but add it to an MMO game, and trolls gotta troll.

And just because that guy is in your match, how do you know what his tier is? We still have T5's dropping with T1's. MM is either completely offline, or dialed so far back as to be irrelevant.

My suggestion is to tighten down the MM HARD. No "safety valves", no nothing. To hell with the wait times. I also like the idea of MM taking your last 100 or 200 games match scores to generate your MM value, and not just rely on the experience bar that is Tier levels.

[Paigan]

Tarogato, on 14 November 2017 - 05:36 AM, said:

Ah, but are people having fun if the matchmaking system put them where they don't belong? I don't think low performing players want to move up in tier unless they actually set a goal to improve. A system where you can eventually get a player downvoted out of a tier they don't belong in, should actually help that player get better quality matches.


I mean, yes, provided there's enough players to make the matches at all in the first place. That is really the number one issue in MWO matchmaking, imo: not enough "good" players to make a "good" tier, so they will invariably get mixed in with average skill players, and there will be skill disparities and matchmaking flops as a result, and there's little that matchmaker can do to address this.

A voting system is really a bad idea here.
People will upvote bad players just because they are buddies.
People will downvote good players because they didn't play like they wanted.
We even have people today, actively team kill and hurt their own team because they feel entitled to execute some kind of "punishement" of other players when they don't do what they wanted them to do. Imagine what they would do with a voting system. (And yes, human stup*dity is indeed infinite)
People will develop strange strategies like always downvoting everyone because they assume it will relatively help them to rise, etc.

You would need a review and moderation system for the votes, etc etc.
Gigantic effort and with giant loopholes to be exploited.

A much more reasonable and efficient approach is to automatically evaluate people depending on their performance.
ACTUAL performance (like counting effective damage that really contributed to destryoing an item or component, factoring in weight class, maybe also tactical contributions as far as they are measurable, and win rate). And then assign them into strictly separated skill levels.

PSR and Tiers were supposed to be something like that. They just did it rather badly.
Plus too small player base.

Edited by Paigan, 14 November 2017 - 06:17 AM.

[Nightbird]

I got a better idea, they can send me the player data in excel format and I can use my 20k$ statistical software that I use for consulting work to find which stats are the most significant and how much to weigh them to make perfect match. People live or die based on my work, so hopefully balancing a game isn't as hard. I can even calculate impact on chance of win/loss by chassis.

[Asym]

There is an easier solutiuon: let those of us that don't want to play-up and enjoy having fun, lock in a lower tier.... I would gladly stay a Tier 4 or 5 ! I am not a competitive player nor want to be associated with the "alternative reality" of MWO competition...

Let us chose and use our historic W/L as a quality gate to insure we actually match that level of play and challenge us when our W/L gets "too GuD" for that tier.....

Simple fix.

[Asym]

Nightbird, on 14 November 2017 - 06:22 AM, said:

I got a better idea, they can send me the player data in excel format and I can use my 20k$ statistical software that I use for consulting work to find which stats are the most significant and how much to weigh them to make perfect match. People live or die based on my work, so hopefully balancing a game isn't as hard. I can even calculate impact on chance of win/loss by chassis.

Actually, some games I have studied for my graduate degree do similar things to improve game quality ! And, it isn't free but it is darn less expensive than hiring a FT efficiency expert ! There is a growing industry in creating games that actually shorten designed, test, prototype and test cycles in-game and use the results to shorten actual product development times..... It is here now and we could leverage your idea: if PGI had the nerve to do so and had the legal finesse to produce a strong NDA....

Great idea ! I'd volunteer my time !!!!

Edited by Asym, 14 November 2017 - 06:30 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

... what if people abuse this?

People like [Redacted] make a name for himself, murders terribads, he gets locked at low-tier and starts farming on the terribads because said terribads whine?

I've looked at [Redacted], his damage isn't really that good cause he's an efficient killer. So having him bump up at 600 damage for a PSR up might be less likely to happen. Especially when he has the EXTREME capability of nuking people from the rear.

Edited by draiocht, 15 November 2017 - 01:28 PM.
unconstructive

[Nightbird]

The data is already available ingame in leaderboards, with the exception of chassis data which honestly would be too bulky to present. Doesn't need much of an NDA. I can do a run without chassis if someone can provide the this seasons leaderboard data in excel formal. (Google doc, csv, fine as well)

[Snazzy Dragon]

It's certainly better than just locking/banning people lol

[Jack Booted Thug]

My lurm5-mando supports this system, as does my mg / flamer locust, and last but not least, my dire star when i miss.

[Methanoid]

A superb idea to kill off more of the already small population of the game. +100

[TLBFestus]

Oh yes! A Reddit style system of up or down voting, that will work just as good as it does over there.

Let's see, ....Trolling. I won't even bother to list the number of ways that this system will be trolled and abused. Large groups will love this so they can communally vote people down just for the "lulz".

Can you actually explain to me what exactly counts as a "bad player"? If you score under 200 is that bad? Under 300? Under 150? Oh...lets say it's 200 and a guy gets 198, is he bad while the guy that got 202 is good? Nothing subjective here, right?
What if the guy who got 500 damage totally ignored his team and sniped the kills, while the light pilot tagged, narced and spotted for the team while actually getting very little in terms of score?

Nope......sorry...not a good idea at all.

Now if you simply wanted to reward a good player with a thumbs up or something, I can see that work simply as a reputation sorta thing. You social media trained types should be joyous with that.

Edited by TLBFestus, 14 November 2017 - 08:23 AM.

[Palor]

The vote as bad concept should be removed as an option if someones is not in tier 1 maybe 2. Saying that, this is finally how I could get out of tier 1 at last LOL.

Edited by Palor, 14 November 2017 - 08:36 AM.

[Magnumaniac]

Why is everyone (including PGI) trying to overthink the situation when the most glaringly obvious solution is staring them in the face... PSR changes per match should be zero sum - problem solved.

[Lily from animove]

may work to help some manually sorting out. but then shouldn't we simply detrmine an additional up or downbump in the algorithm if someone does 8/10 games especially well/bad?

Edited by Lily from animove, 14 November 2017 - 09:14 AM.