248 replies to this topic

[Jochi Kondur]

The6thMessenger, on 11 June 2019 - 03:19 PM, said:

....
As you said it, Jarls List AMS falls at a normal distribution, he also just used Normal Distribution as heuristics, to represent the skill derived from the normal distribution of AMS in the Jarls. His point is specifically that people could be normally distributed, from Height, IQ, and because AMS could also be normally-distributed, it stands to reason that him using Normal Distribution is representative of players.

Fun fact, it's called Laplace-Gaussian Curve, and I didn't have to google it.

The often cited Jarl's charts on Average Match Scores and W/L Ratio are both positively skewed distributions but are being interpreted as though they were symmetrically distributed (mode=median=mean) when in fact the median and mean are pushed to the right (i.e. mode < median < mean). The cited charts only give the meaningful fact that they are positively skewed distributions with a readily apparent mode value. However, critical information on the median, means (arithmetic mean, geometric mean and harmonic mean), standard deviation, coefficients of skewness, kurtosis, etc were missing.

[Ekson Valdez]

Please discuss changes to PSR in the appropriate thread: psr-update-and-hold-on-patch
We can't have several places where ideas on the same topic are discussed.

[Nightbird]

Jochi Kondur, on 09 June 2020 - 09:53 PM, said:

The often cited Jarl's charts on Average Match Scores and W/L Ratio are both positively skewed distributions but are being interpreted as though they were symmetrically distributed (mode=median=mean) when in fact the median and mean are pushed to the right (i.e. mode < median < mean). The cited charts only give the meaningful fact that they are positively skewed distributions with a readily apparent mode value. However, critical information on the median, means (arithmetic mean, geometric mean and harmonic mean), standard deviation, coefficients of skewness, kurtosis, etc were missing.

For the purpose of this thread, the WLR is just used for sorting. Skewness doesn't matter. If I wanted to do 0 sum, then yeah, transforming makes sense

[Jochi Kondur]

Nightbird, on 09 June 2020 - 10:15 PM, said:

For the purpose of this thread, the WLR is just used for sorting. Skewness doesn't matter. If I wanted to do 0 sum, then yeah, transforming makes sense

I am just sharing my observation that the average reader in MWO forums and r/OutreachHPG doesn't know how to deal with or interpret an asymmetrical distribution, they will simply assume mode=median=mean even on a positively or negatively skew distribution. Thank you for your efforts!

[Davegt27]

OP define quality match ??

also you said

Quote

To simulate the current MM, first I created 100 Tier 1 players with a hidden skill level that range from 200 to 1800 following a bell curve (normal distribution). The skill level is hidden because it is not directly accessible by the MM. From these 100 players, the simulated MM will randomly select 24 of which a random 12 will be assigned to each team. This matches the current MM in that there is no consideration to past performance.

why would you randomly pick 24 players ??
you have a computer you don't have to pick anything randomly ??

[Cluster Fox]

Not my post but this MM suggestion is so simple, and seems so effective with this model.

Matches sort players by WLR, then assign to teams alternatively. Maybe factor in the tonnage a bit.

You can even try to match PSR values, whatever system is used for it. Then you sort by WLR. Basically making this a 2 pass MM.

Davegt27, on 11 June 2020 - 02:38 PM, said:

OP define quality match ??

My two cents here but I believe he defined it as : Not a stomp. Nightbird said even skill matched teams are about 5% chance of a stomp, while 99% win chance on one side is about 50% stomp chance. PGI's definition of stomp is 12-4 or less, and we know it accounts for about 30-35% of matches. With the results of the random current MM model, it's at 35% which seems pretty close.

A quality match is a match where both sides have a similar change of winning.

Davegt27, on 11 June 2020 - 02:38 PM, said:

why would you randomly pick 24 players ??
you have a computer you don't have to pick anything randomly ??

Why is random pick bad? When are real players actually online? What times are they playing? What is the player base? When are the queues full enough to really give a great selection to the MM? Random is pretty close to what we get right now and it's a worst case scenario as well because that takes players of any combination of skill level and puts them together.

Modelling casual players vs hardcore players would simply change the number of matches they played. The WLR shouldn't be heavily affected, so I see it as taking a variable out of the equation.

Edited by Cluster Fox, 22 June 2020 - 01:05 PM.

[Nightbird]

We'll soon see what another PSR MM system backed by 0 math skills is gonna do lol

[Anomalocaris]

Nightbird, on 25 June 2020 - 03:28 PM, said:

We'll soon see what another PSR MM system backed by 0 math skills is gonna do lol

Well it sure isn't going to reverse the declining playerbase numbers, or save solos from group predation.

https://steamcharts.com/app/342200

I suppose we can look at the bright side. Too little too late from PGI is still better than doing the absolutely worst thing possible (cough, merge queue, cough)

[General Solo]

Ah you mean theirs worse than that.
O yeah
Servers shut down... Just like a bath tub, water down the drain, had to end some time.