849 replies to this topic

[JoeCold]

BlazerX64 IIC, on 26 May 2020 - 07:02 PM, said:

Oh yeah I agree that the weight disparities can get pretty bad these days. Although I don't think it's something we could entirely avoid at the moment due to the currently small playerbase (and their unpredictable preferred weight classes at any given time). Although, your experience here still kinda comes down to sheer difference in speed and the Lance spawn issue I originally mentioned. If we pair mechs into Lances based on their speed, you as an Assault should realistically be paired with either slow Mediums or Heavies in the end and vice versa (or that one abysmally slow Light). Hopefully PGI would also leave Alpha Lance to be specifically for fast and maneuverable mechs if the spawn locations won't change soon and if they use my idea. But if creating Lances with mechs of similar speeds is not possible for whatever reason, this is where my return to murderball spawn idea comes in. Say that you end up as an Assault being accompanied by Lights in the same Lance. In a murderball spawn, you can just go chill with the Mediums or Heavies from other Lances (who may also have similar problems) while your Lights chill with the faster bunch of your team. That way, each player is more likely to be able to contribute more strategically since they are more likely to have teammates they can form synergies with despite weird Lance compositions.

I think you may have misunderstood me on this point, though the fault is entirely mine. It appears self edits left a few key words out and turned my thoughts into mush, lol.

What I meant was that I really like the new mixed weight lances a lot because they've created some fresh strategy challenges (though admittedly minor ones). The situation in my example is one of the exceptions that I think need to be weeded out of an otherwise good new system.

[nuttyrat]

JoeCold, on 27 May 2020 - 10:19 AM, said:

I don't think you've read the thread thoroughly. The overwhelming majority appear to be in favor of reset and zero sum. So, it's actually a very few people being punished to make most happy.

Calling this a "Punishment" is flawed logic in the first place. It is not a punishment!

Sniper09121986, on 27 May 2020 - 09:58 AM, said:

Back when they introduced Night Gyr they ran a leaderboard event for that chassis. The score for that leaderboard was calculated by means of a complex formula not unlike the one used for The List. The event page with the formula is here: https://mwomercs.com...s?t=201609mechs Not saying that formula is perfect, but it is a start, and it proves that zero-sum math-fu is not out of PGI's reach.

True, but we don't yet know what PGI's new PSR calculation is going to be, so can't speculate on that. Fact remains that our respective stats are just average.


LOL ... apparently I hit MultiQuote by accident ... Neat!

Edited by nuttyrat, 27 May 2020 - 10:39 AM.

[Rykir -Kestrel- Jarnskibben]

Right now:

Tier 1 means you get QP matches faster.
Tier 5 means you wait forever for a drop.
(This from watching my son wait several minutes for every drop)

From this I infer that a vast majority of players are Tier 1, which, if true, is not very usefull (except to get drops faster).

I think resetting PSR would be good. Then maybe Tier 1 would mean 'got good'.

Edited by Kestrel Atreides, 27 May 2020 - 10:53 AM.

[JaxomRahl]

I support a PSR fix and reset.

[Ranzsias]

Paul Inouye, on 25 May 2020 - 03:41 PM, said:

[color=red]HOWEVER:[/color]

There's still an elephant in the room. PSR calculations. Yes it's true that it biases upward movement. That bias comes from the formula currently saying that if you LOSE, you can still move up if you perform well. THIS is the aspect that breaks zero sum distribution.

That being said, we have a plan to make PSR zero sum... but, there's a big draw back. If we make this change, the PSR rankings for all players will need to be reset. That means if you're Tier 1, you'll be going back to Tier 4 for a bit. If you're Tier 5, you're also going back to Tier 4.

There is a multiplier for the first 20 games all players play that push your PSR changes higher or lower to speed the seeding process of the PSR player distribution. After those 20 matches, regular PSR zero sum values will be used.

We need your feedback on whether this is acceptable or not (losing current Tier standings).

As much as I dread it due to all my hard work to move from tier 5 to tier 3, I actually think it's a good idea. It might see me right back to 3, or i might see i belong in either 2 or 4 (eek! either way...). I am also in support of placing the top 5-10% of players in a queue/tier all their own (tier 0/Alpha?) in support of balance if the idea is given consideration as previously mentioned by others at varying percentages of player skill/ranking per suggestion, but i'm not entirely sure the top 1% alone will be sufficient population to pull matches out of at an acceptable rate though... I might be mistaken, but as I understand it, at least part of the match making release valves issue was population to begin with, wasn't it? Not sure I am seeing fewer stomp results under the current settings, but i feel that may have more to do with having players who seem to think tactics, team work, and coordination are unnecessary in QP and assume the other team is going in without them than actual separation of tier/elo. Matches are definitely kicking off much faster for sure though.

[JoeCold]

nuttyrat, on 27 May 2020 - 10:38 AM, said:

Calling this a "Punishment" is flawed logic in the first place. It is not a punishment!

I don't think so either. I was just turning his words around on him.

However, I also don't think blanket zero sum solves the problem. It's a minor improvement, but not a solution.

In close matches, zero sum makes perfect sense. But, a player's statistical performance IS affected by his team, especially in less close matches. And the game has no choice but to use statistical performance to judge skill.

The problem is that, currently, the game additionally boosts a player's PSR when his team wins and reduces it when his team loses. But, in a stomp, the opposite should be true.

If there were a player that literally played at exactly the same skill level in every match, the would accumulate better or worse statistics on the good and bad side of a stomp, respectively, for multiple reasons. Most prominently, they would likely be on the field longer and shooting more than they would otherwise on the winning side, even if they aren't a good player. And vice versa on the losing side even if they are a good player.

So why should PSR boost them further in those wins or reduce them further in those loses? If anything, they should get a boost for losing and a reduction for winning in a stomp. Ideally, it isn't as straight forward as that since it matters just how early one goes down in the losing end of a stomp, etc., etc. But, some recognition of the stomp effect is better than full zero sum.

But again, zero sum is better than the current method, which shows how bad the current method really is.


[Edited to expound further/clarify]

Edited by JoeCold, 27 May 2020 - 12:49 PM.

[Leidulfr]

Mechdocdie, on 27 May 2020 - 02:35 AM, said:

I think your reply misses the point, Leidulfr. The Tier/PSR has always had two functions in MWO; as a metric for matchmaking and as part of the reward system for playing...

I think you missed my point. I understand how the system poorly functions. I can understand feeling accomplished for becoming a "top dog", but once you've been let in on the fact that you aren't actually that, why would you cling to it so desperately? When your parent, spouse, or friend tells you you're the best, are you actually among the best? And, if you worked hard to achieve something, you and others who knew of your efforts still have the memory of it all to reminisce over, judge your character, etc. Does a world record holder quit what they've worked so hard for when someone else comes along and takes the title, or would they work harder to reacquire it?

The "reward" for maxing out your Tier bar is superficial as is and I think it's a little silly to care about it.

[Andrzej Lechrenski]

Sniper09121986, on 27 May 2020 - 04:53 AM, said:

Yeah, I know My point is that we need a consensus on what QP objectives are in order to measure player progress towards reaching them. Now, FP is more of a group-minded mode, so players there need to be judged on the basis of their contribution in achieving their collective objective, and the biggest deciding metric for that appears to be W/L. With QP, the mergening of queues has made things difficult, but my understanding is that people come to QP primarily on their own, so individual performance takes priority, and that means K/D, match score and whatnot. The Raven guy obviously brought a VOIP gun into a solo knife fight, hence his W/L, but hey, how often does that happen in QP? So I guess we need to establish where we want to go, and that will give us the idea how to get there.

This is a 12v12 team game. If you aren't playing for your team to win, you don't belong in Tier 1. End of story. Stat-farmers and the "don't tell me how to play my" game crowd can stay in Tiers 3 and 4 where they belong. Going straight W/L ratio is a blunt tool, but it will get that job done.

[Shock21]

RickySpanish, on 27 May 2020 - 03:54 AM, said:

Yes please, reset PSR. But also, make it harder to reach T1 or it will all have been for nought.

If there are 5 tiers, the only way to reach Tier 1 should be to be in the top 20% of players. Matchmaking won't work if the tiers aren't all of equal size

[Drunk Canuck]

puresense, on 27 May 2020 - 12:31 AM, said:

Not enuf ppl.

Quantity of players doesn't matter if there's a broader tier pool, it means the match maker can form groups more evenly distributed based off player skill if that's the case. Tier 1's could effectively pull from a pool of players down to as low as tier 4 without it being a major hindrance on the quality of the matches, and the spuds would still get their games against equally spud level players without being a waste of drop spots for higher tier players. It's not that big of a stretch to have a wider tier array based off average match score as a metric, but it can't be the only metric as damage farming is one of the easiest ways to exploit match score.

[Leidulfr]

Sniper09121986, on 27 May 2020 - 04:53 AM, said:

Yeah, I know My point is that we need a consensus on what QP objectives are in order to measure player progress towards reaching them.

Isn't there a game where you can vote who the MVP is on your team? I think it was Overwatch. I played it for a minute.

I know people oftentimes would just vote for themselves, but, even in Overwatch, I remember players actually coming together and actually voting for players who did do really well. Perhaps a similar system could be implemented to not only encourage more [proper] calling, because "you did good" feels good and is desirable, but also to help rank up those who should be matching with higher tiers, based on their understanding of the game and how to win with just corralling the grunts.

Just a thought.

[nuttyrat]

JoeCold, on 27 May 2020 - 12:36 PM, said:

I don't think so either. I was just turning his words around on him.

Yeah i was going to add his original comment and yours .. but i got too lazy

[Vargancy]

Please do reset the tiers, I've been sitting at T1 for over a year and it the tier system currently feels like it has absolutely no purpose.

[The Teddy Bear]

Drunk Canuck, on 27 May 2020 - 12:55 PM, said:

[Redacted]

PGI just told us they have learnt the lesson - my wish! Why on earth would you go for a long term target if it´s not for tier1 right now? And that is prolly valid from quite a few years back in time? Mark my words: There are no long term targets to go for at the moment as far as I am aware of, maybe except for factions. Headshots maybe? People just have to inspire themselves and set up personal goals as no long term goals/progress are provided by ___.

Edited by GM Patience, 27 May 2020 - 02:27 PM.

[Horseman]

JoeCold, on 27 May 2020 - 12:36 PM, said:

So why should PSR boost them further in those wins or reduce them further in those loses? If anything, they should get a boost for losing and a reduction for winning in a stomp. Ideally, it isn't as straight forward as that since it matters just how early one goes down in the losing end of a stomp, etc., etc. But, some recognition of the stomp effect is better than full zero sum.
But again, zero sum is better than the current method, which shows how bad the current method really is.

Not exactly. if they were stomped by a team ranked as equal with them, then they should rank down overall.
However, yes, personal performance is an important factor and can still be accounted for.

As proposed (more than once) before in this thread, a possible approach would be to sort the players by score and award the increase / reduction accordingly to where they are placed in that ranking relative to the average. That would ensure that the guy who **** all on the winning side doesn't get rewarded for being useless, someone who carried HARD on the losing side doesn't get penalized too much (if at all) for their team folding while the guys in the middle don't drop or advance much if at all.

of course, that is still predicated on the match score formula putting the right emphasis on various actions. Minor tweaks there might be necessary.

[Danjo San]

Tier reset is not an issue. If you deserve Tier 1 ranking up goes fast.

[OMCBOONE]

I am all for a full reset etc.. It seems the majority of people here are for it.. so do eet and do eet sooner than later Mr. Paul.

~OMCBOONE

[NaturalBornGriller]

Anyone who doesn't want the tiers reset or is considering quitting the game if the tiers are reset aren't really interested in better matches or better game experience. Those are the people who probably shouldn't be in T1.

[Tarl Cabot]

C337Skymaster, on 27 May 2020 - 04:33 AM, said:

I don't think the issue has been coming as much from players hitting 400 MS on a loss, as hitting 250 on a loss (much easier threshold to hit). As soon as you hit 250 on a loss, you don't move down, and your next win will ratchet you up some more. This just needs to be evenly balanced around a target match score. PGI needs to decide what they want average player match score to be. If you get more than that, you move up. If you get less than that, you move down. But it's got to be centered around the same score point. Currently, Loss is centered around 300, and win is centered around 0, and that results in ratcheting.

If a player is hitting between 250 MS to 399 499 MS on a loss, would not their Winning MS meet or exceed that? Again.. overall average 171 MS to 190 MS players hitting a min of 250 MS on a loss but cannot break the bank on a win?

I agree on the other points, at least with a win the PSR thresholds, the MS need to be higher. But mind you, Paul's post pointed out that moving up with a loss on 400 MS is the culprit.... And remember how PGI usually operates...

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 27 May 2020 - 03:14 PM.

[Senator Blutarsky]

Group play has been great. Thank you and happy to hear that it will continue.

Wanted to voice my support for the zero sum/ psr reset. I find it hard to argue with the logic of it, although tinkering with the reward system does make me nervous and just from reading the comments to this thread you can see how grinding through tiers is a big part of the motivation for continued play for some people. Might make sense to continue some kind of upward tilt (periodic reset) to keep that reward/ feel good element alive. Does seem like an improvement though. I'm all for continued tinkering.

Such an awesome game, keep up the good work