196 replies to this topic

[arcana75]

Zergling, on 24 March 2018 - 03:04 PM, said:

Actually, less skilled players can have a negative influence on W/L; if they consistently have a W/L below 1.0, then their presence in a team is increasing the odds of that team losing.

I mean, if good players can have a positive influence on W/L, then shouldn't bad players have a negative influence on W/L?

Nope it does not, based on the research, the other players statistically are not relevant to win loss results. So unless you are at the top, stop looking at WL as a metric of individual skill, because you are not influencing match outcomes.

Also, be careful with perspectives. The research says that the top 2 players influence outcomes. It did not say it has to be positive influences. Hence the top 2 players could have a negative influence to the outcome. In other words, the statistical likelihood a game is won or lost depends on the good or bad performance of the top 2 in a team. The other 10 don't matter.

[MischiefSC]

BlueStrat, on 24 March 2018 - 08:06 AM, said:

Far more than half the fun in MWO for me is experimenting with builds in matches, as putting them up against live players is really the only true test. For example I'll take a laserboat assault and load it with microlasers...and promptly die. Again. And again. I've tried things like running equal amounts of armor on front and rear torsos or stripping all armor from the rear torso and put t on the front CT/STs and see how that compares over several days of play. Or I'll experiment with tactics and in the process of comparison try things I know I'll die/score low/etc doing and trash my W/L, K/D, etc. I lead pushes in my assaults far more often than not, and die early almost as often with an abysmal MS as a result.

I have all these mechs with all these possibilities and I'm an experimenter by nature. I don't play to improve my stats. I intentionally do things almost every session that I know will trash my stats. I don't care. That's not what I play for. I also almost never ever play light mechs or even faster mediums as my FPS turns a light mech brawl into a slideshow. Also, just playing at sub-20 avg. FPS also handicaps me from the get-go no matter how well I play. I also tend to feel sorry for noobs/less experienced players and will try to save them from their own bad in-game decisions and again usually die early with low MS-K/D etc. I played in ladder-leagues and such back in MW4/Veng/BK/Mercs era and did very well. I have nothing to prove to myself.

As a result, neither the leaderboard nor Jarl's list is any sort of valid reflection of my skills or lack thereof. One would need to be consistently playing their best mechs with their best loadout and using their best tried-and-true tactics they do best with consistently for those lists to have any real meaning outside of epeen-waving.

I'm sure from talking with other pilots in game that I'm far from the only one with a similar attitude.

No, it's 100% accurate - because it shows the results of the matches you play. Why you bring bad mechs and play badly doesn't matter. It's no different than someone with health issues or someone who's just too stubborn to learn new habits or skills.

It's a team game. Every single match you're on a team of 12 and how you play impacts all of them. Why you're prone to make your team lose (which you are, by your own admission) is irrelevant. Your stats reflect your impact on anyone who plays with you ergo it's an absolutely accurate reflection of your skill at winning matches.

Skill isn't just your aim. It's your focus, your attention, every single thing that goes into winning a match vs losing a match. If someone loses because they don't care is no different than someone losing because they play with a steering wheel. They lost. If they consistently lose matches then their stats reflect that.

Mistaking why someones results for the validity of the results is a common error. Your stats reflect your results as a player; how likely you are to win, how much you kill vs being killed, how much damage you do, etc. If you don't care, well, okay. That doesn't change the validity of the results nor how you should rightly be viewed by the people who end up playing with or against you.

It's a game, play how you want. However I don't feel it's unfair for the other players who also play this game to judge the people they play with. You not caring about a match that you're in when you are, in fact, impacting it for 11 other people, in no way negates the validity of the results of the match either in a historical measurement of your performance or other peoples perception of that measurement.

Edited by MischiefSC, 24 March 2018 - 09:17 PM.

[MischiefSC]

arcana75, on 24 March 2018 - 04:49 PM, said:

Nope it does not, based on the research, the other players statistically are not relevant to win loss results. So unless you are at the top, stop looking at WL as a metric of individual skill, because you are not influencing match outcomes.

Also, be careful with perspectives. The research says that the top 2 players influence outcomes. It did not say it has to be positive influences. Hence the top 2 players could have a negative influence to the outcome. In other words, the statistical likelihood a game is won or lost depends on the good or bad performance of the top 2 in a team. The other 10 don't matter.

I'm confused how you end up with this conclusion.

Statistically every single action by every player in every match is relevant to its win/loss. More to the point every action, no matter how minute, is reflected in the results with a sufficient sample size. In fact that's pretty much the basis of most of statistical analysis as a field and why analytical research is typically done - drilling down into granular results.

I think what you're doing is mistaking the fact that someone with a 3.0 w/l in pug queue has a larger impact on the outcome than someone with a 1.2. However after 1,000 matches the 1.2 is absolutely and without question doing more and better things on average to influence a win than the person with a 0.8 after 1,000 matches.

If you can prove that someone with a high w/l rate is as likely to drive a loss as a win and that their performance doesn't actually match their stats or that the actions of 10 out of 12 players are actually irrelevant I'd be interested in seeing that. It would be a hugely influential, even world changing revelation as it would fundamentally alter some of the basics of what we know about mathematics, probability, statistics and variables.

Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding your conclusion.

Edited by MischiefSC, 24 March 2018 - 09:14 PM.

[BlueStrat]

MischiefSC, on 24 March 2018 - 09:04 PM, said:

No, it's 100% accurate - because it shows the results of the matches you play. Why you bring bad mechs and play badly doesn't matter. It's no different than someone with health issues or someone who's just too stubborn to learn new habits or skills.

It's a team game. Every single match you're on a team of 12 and how you play impacts all of them. Why you're prone to make your team lose (which you are, by your own admission) is irrelevant. Your stats reflect your impact on anyone who plays with you ergo it's an absolutely accurate reflection of your skill at winning matches.

Skill isn't just your aim. It's your focus, your attention, every single thing that goes into winning a match vs losing a match. If someone loses because they don't care is no different than someone losing because they play with a steering wheel. They lost. If they consistently lose matches then their stats reflect that.

Mistaking why someones results for the validity of the results is a common error. Your stats reflect your results as a player; how likely you are to win, how much you kill vs being killed, how much damage you do, etc. If you don't care, well, okay. That doesn't change the validity of the results nor how you should rightly be viewed by the people who end up playing with or against you.

It's a game, play how you want. However I don't feel it's unfair for the other players who also play this game to judge the people they play with. You not caring about a match that you're in when you are, in fact, impacting it for 11 other people, in no way negates the validity of the results of the match either in a historical measurement of your performance or other peoples perception of that measurement.

Players can judge all they want. I stopped caring what anyone thinks because so many players in solo-QP certainly don't behave as if they care about other players, the objectives, the team/teammates, or teamwork. I'm simply mirroring somewhat what I experience from other players, although I actually do try to contribute to the team and a victory unlike so many I play with. I'd rather have someone on my team with a crap build but works as a team than a meta-try-hard who will gank everyone to save their precious stats.

Far too many are out strictly for themselves and regularly gank their whole team in a heartbeat for that few extra points of damage more, that killing blow, or that 185K c-bill loot-bag.. MWO is resembling CoD these days in solo-QP, and not in a good way. So I get my enjoyment from experimenting with builds, etc and play matches basically as testing-grounds and method to buy/upgrade the next mech with no expectations of winning or trying to chase stats.

Edited by BlueStrat, 24 March 2018 - 10:18 PM.

[cougurt]

BlueStrat, on 24 March 2018 - 10:15 PM, said:

Players can judge all they want. I stopped caring what anyone thinks because so many players in solo-QP certainly don't behave as if they care about other players, the objectives, the team/teammates, or teamwork. I'm simply mirroring somewhat what I experience from other players, although I actually do try to contribute to the team and a victory unlike so many I play with. I'd rather have someone on my team with a crap build but works as a team than a meta-try-hard who will gank everyone to save their precious stats.

Far too many are out strictly for themselves and regularly gank their whole team in a heartbeat for that few extra points of damage more, that killing blow, or that 185K c-bill loot-bag.. MWO is resembling CoD these days in solo-QP, and not in a good way. So I get my enjoyment from experimenting with builds, etc and play matches basically as testing-grounds and method to buy/upgrade the next mech with no expectations of winning or trying to chase stats.

that isn't really the fault of the evil meta tryhards, it's just the general lack of skill and coordination in solo queue. sometimes you'll get a decent team that you can work with, other times they're so inept that your own survival has to take top priority if you want to have any chance of winning.

[Dogstar]

MrMadguy, on 22 March 2018 - 10:12 PM, said:

That's, why PSR is so broken - this shouldn't happen. Players with different skill levels shouldn't have equal PSR rating. That's why quality of matchmaking is so low in this game.

Sorry but you are deeply wrong, TIER IS NOT SKILL!

All you are doing is demonstrating exactly what you're accusing everyone else of: not understanding the match maker

[Zergling]

arcana75, on 24 March 2018 - 04:49 PM, said:

Nope it does not, based on the research, the other players statistically are not relevant to win loss results. So unless you are at the top, stop looking at WL as a metric of individual skill, because you are not influencing match outcomes.

Also, be careful with perspectives. The research says that the top 2 players influence outcomes. It did not say it has to be positive influences. Hence the top 2 players could have a negative influence to the outcome. In other words, the statistical likelihood a game is won or lost depends on the good or bad performance of the top 2 in a team. The other 10 don't matter.

Then that research doesn't apply to games like MWO, because everyone in a battle has an influence, and bad players absolutely result in losses where there would otherwise be wins.

Unless you want to say that a player that runs into the enemy team and suicides at the start of every battle, or just sits AFK at spawn doesn't influence the odds of their team losing by creating a 11 vs 12 situation in every battle they are in?

[The Basilisk]

RustyBolts, on 22 March 2018 - 01:24 PM, said:

So I finally went out the "Famous" Jarls list. So what I am I missing? I fail to see the big deal as to why this list is being used to justify how good or bad a player is.

Some dude did some arbitary hillarious stuff with hillarious data out of the fool around try this and that and somewhat other queue to elevate himself over others.
It's the same thing everywhere when some kids try to lighten up their sad lifes by finaly having found something where numbers can be bade to tell others they are better then their poor little selfes.

[Sjorpha]

arcana75, on 24 March 2018 - 07:06 AM, said:

I'm not a good player, and when I started MWO I too wondered what's an objective measure of a player, in a 12v12 game where all 24 players are "randomly" assigned for lack of a better word.

There's been some research done by academics on how to objectively measure an individual's performance in a team sport, and to see if that player is/was worth his/her price tag, in professional sports.

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC2886831/

I don't really think this paper supports the conclusion that only top 2 players matter, at the very least the writers doesn't seem to defend this specific claim/conclusion anywhere. It also doesn't seem to be the question they are trying to answer. I'd be very sceptical of far reaching conclusions going sideways from their chosen data set, I think you need to work specifically on that question itself if claims are to be made about it.

There is also a number of pretty significant differences between analyzing professional soccer and a game like MWO, the two most important being that 1; soccer tournaments play with the same teams throughout the tournament (while MWO SQ is random teams) and 2; the skill disparity in professional soccer is much smaller, there are no actual bad players in professional soccer for starters. They are all pretty damn good at playing soccer, they all train as a team and play as a team, this may create a stable background against which the best players performance can be the most trackable variable between matches, but we don't know what happens if you'd throw in some complete amateurs in some of the teams or play the tournament with random teams. Now that said I don't agree this article supports your general claim that well even in case of professional soccer.

This problem also: If your statement were true only the best players in the game, those who qualify for consistently being one of the top 2 players, should have a positive W/L while everyone else should trend towards a 1/1 W/L over time.

But that isn't the case at all! Instead there is a granular scale where all sorts of high and low W/L ratios are represented, and very bad players have very bad W/L just like good players have good W/L. Why do bad players predictably trend towards bad W/L if they don't affect match outcomes?

Using myself: I'm not a top tier player, I don't consistently fall in the top 2 player category but my above average skills still net me a fairly stable W/L record of around 4/3. How is that possible if your claim is true?

Edited by Sjorpha, 25 March 2018 - 03:23 AM.

[Zergling]

If bad players did not have a negative influence on their battles in the solo queue, then they would have W/L within a few standard deviations of 1.00 W/L; statistically normal results.
Because if they do not have any influence on their battles, then it is effectively a 50/50 coin toss to determine if they win or lose a battle.
But many players have low W/L with many thousands of battles; it is mathematically implausible, to the point of being impossible, for players to produce W/L so far outside standard deviation.

Go look at Jarls list and sort by Games Played; there's one player with 21,410 battles and a 0.79 W/L ratio in there (approximately 9,449 wins to 11,961 losses).
The odds of that occurring (if MWO battle outcome was a 50/50 coin toss) is a staggering 1 in 2,556,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

For a less extreme example, there's a player further down with 13,683 battles and a 0.90 W/L ratio (approximately 6,481 wins to 7,201 losses).
The odds of that occuring with a 50/50 coin toss is still a ridiculous 1 in 24.94 billion.

Given the majority of those players are solo queue, it is a fact that those players are having a negative influence on the their team win chances.

Edited by Zergling, 25 March 2018 - 03:46 AM.

[Seranov]

The Basilisk, on 25 March 2018 - 01:23 AM, said:

Some dude did some arbitary hillarious stuff with hillarious data out of the fool around try this and that and somewhat other queue to elevate himself over others.
It's the same thing everywhere when some kids try to lighten up their sad lifes by finaly having found something where numbers can be bade to tell others they are better then their poor little selfes.

It just says what MWO's stats say, but in an easier to read format. The adjusted match score stuff is eh, but I've always looked at the average over the adjusted one, anyway. This isn't a clever scheme to make you look bad, or anybody look better than they actually are.

[justcallme A S H]

Vxheous, on 24 March 2018 - 03:54 PM, said:

MWO leaderboards and Jarl's List shows identical statistics for both your season 19 and 20 as shown below:

I honestly dunno if I should nod my head or shake my head right now at all of that.

How people still don't get it... Etc.

[RustyBolts]

Thanks to those who are actually having a discussion on this. So an average player will have a WLR/KDR of 1.0. What about the match score for an average player? Why the adjusted average match score? If all the other data is pulled straight from MWO, then the adjusted match score is subjective based on a formula created on what validity?

[Bud Crue]

RustyBolts, on 25 March 2018 - 04:19 AM, said:

Thanks to those who are actually having a discussion on this. So an average player will have a WLR/KDR of 1.0. What about the match score for an average player? Why the adjusted average match score? If all the other data is pulled straight from MWO, then the adjusted match score is subjective based on a formula created on what validity?

The following is from the Jarl's list fine print at the bottom of the screen and I think this answers your question: adjusted match score is an attempt to give more weight to more recent games and to account for weight discrepancy. If not try your google fu and find the old discussion by Tarogato and others wherein they discussed this. I think it was a thread on the Outreach HPG sub-Reddit.
---

Ranks are determined by adjusted match score for players who have been active in the last three months.
Players who have stopped playing are still tracked but are placed into "retirement". They will be placed back into ranks if they return buttheir latest performance will have significant effect on their placement when returning.

How Adjusted Score Formula is calculated: ((Season Average Match Score)*(Season#^1.8))*(-(1.007^(-TotalGamesPlayed)-1))*(ClassMultiplier)
This will give full score around 500 games and each new season is weighed higher than the last. After this, the score is adjusted based on classes played.

The weight class coefficients are derived from each classes' recent global performance. The current class weights are:
Light: 1.090671842, Medium: 0.9627151535, Heavy: 0.9505204456, Assault: 0.91315593.
Progress is the progress a pilot has made in the current season compared to their average score.

[RustyBolts]

@ Bud, I got that, but why and how was that formula deemed accurate? Was it pulled out of thin air or done through research? I will try to find that discussion though.

[Zergling]

I believe the weight class adjustment is based on per weight class averages, which show lights generally get lower average MS and assaults get higher average MS.

But if you don't like the adjusted score, just ignore it. It really doesn't change much, and relying on a single statistic like average match score isn't a good idea anyway.

Edited by Zergling, 25 March 2018 - 05:08 AM.

[RustyBolts]

It is not about like or dislike. Just trying to determine how that formula came about.

[Zergling]

RustyBolts, on 25 March 2018 - 05:09 AM, said:

It is not about like or dislike. Just trying to determine how that formula came about.

I edited my post above; the weight class adjustment is most likely based on averages for all players in each weight class, which have shown that lights generally average match score less than mediums and heavies, while assaults average more.

Eg, here's some averages for Season 2, 3 and 4.


And I'm guessing the 'total games played' adjustment is to filter out players with relatively few games played, that was likely determined through trial and error to produce a good filter.


Lastly, the 'Season Average Match Score' part of the formula is likely some weighting against the overall average for the Season, which helps keeps the rankings relative to the average (especially when there are PGI balance or match score formula adjustments that cause change in average match scores).

Edited by Zergling, 25 March 2018 - 05:17 AM.

[Bud Crue]

RustyBolts, on 25 March 2018 - 04:55 AM, said:

@ Bud, I got that, but why and how was that formula deemed accurate? Was it pulled out of thin air or done through research? I will try to find that discussion though.

I will too. They explained their reasoning very thoroughly if I recall correctly. Tarogato or Scurro would have the answer.

Try the following:

https://www.reddit.c...ay_leaderboard/
https://mwomercs.com...en-waiting-for/

Edited by Bud Crue, 25 March 2018 - 05:21 AM.

[Krivvan]

The Basilisk, on 25 March 2018 - 01:23 AM, said:

It's the same thing everywhere when some kids try to lighten up their sad lifes by finaly having found something where numbers can be bade to tell others they are better then their poor little selfes.

It's sad that some people think that the only reason that some people enjoy the process of improving at a hobby is because they have sad lives.