849 replies to this topic

[BinaryFyre]

PSR Reset is green lit, that a go!

[Pure_NZ]

We can choose from two options: Bad and worse. All your decisions can be derived from Russ Bullock's IS worship. You can't build a house on bad basics. The basic properties are the main problems:
The missile mania, 240missiles in 1 ton(4kg/missile???)
The overtuned IS weaponry
MRM 120 mechs
7xSRM pylons
7-8x Ballistic hardpoints
Twin IS-AC20 shoots ONCE! to cause 20DMG and generates 43% of heat with 2.0 HMT under(6/10DBL Heatsink)
Twin C-AC20 shoots FOUR! times to cause 20DMG and generates 41% of heat with 2.0 HMT under(6/10DBL Heatsink)
C-AC20 and C-UAC20 shoots FOUR! Times with nearly the same range of IS-AC20 and IS-UAC20. Then the C-AC20 and C-UAC20 shoots 4xProjectiles with the range of 360. Why??? Don’t you think It should be shot with an AC5’s range??? C-AC20’s and C-UAC20’s projectile causes 5DMG. Basically these shoots 4xIS-AC5 projectile.
Twin C-UAC20 shoots 4 times and generates 45% of heat with 1.7 HMT under(6/10DBL Heatsink)
Twin IS-UAC20 shoots 3 times and generates 23% of heat with 2.0 HMT under(6/10DBL Heatsink)
4xIS-Large Laser can fire at the same time with 30% heat generation
2xC-ER Large Laser generates 30% of heat
1xIS-Large Laser can rip 2% armor from a Clan assault at 1500m
IS light mechs are faster than the ping
IS Medium and Large Pulse Lasers' duration is half a sec
7-8 IS lasers can be fired without significant heat generation
Assassin mechs don't feel three shoots from a twin Clan LB20X and can rush Clan Assault squads without loss despite they are 2 classes lighter
IS-AMS can shoot more Clan missiles because they are started one-by-one
IS-AMS has the same range as the C-AMS
Complete IS-AMS boats can be built
There are no role specific Clan mechs
The Clan omnipods' hardpoints are thrown up without any rules
An IS mech has 20% more structure points than a 10tons heavier Clan mech(MAD/MADIIC for instance)
I could continue this list until it is morning. It is a waste of time because all of you know what I am talking about. All of you sacrifices the game on the altair of your boss' hipped IS loving.
And now, we can choose the matchmaker's behaviour? How generous! All of you are ridicolous. Keep your job, please!
Bullock has the rights of the Mechwarrior game, he can build his own unrealistic world as wants.
It is the time PGI and Bullock should decide who they want to make a game to, Russ Bullock and his utopistic dreaming or the gamers who they lives from.

Secondly: When I first saw the MW5's trailer I decided I would buy that anyway. Nowadays, your boss did enough to make me uninterested in the game and I didn't buy that. Moreover, I hate seeing any advert about the MW5. I don't want to buy it, don't wamt to hear anything about that.
It is from me, who loved the Battletech Universe since he was thirteen-years-old.

[spannerturner]

@Paul Inouye,

While I am not thrilled at keeping the combined cue format, I do applaud the reset of the Tiers and changing the PSR.

Here's a thought. If you want to have a PSR that actually compares a player's skill against his fellow competitors, then keep the calculations to only those that are tracked in the match.
Win/loss should have no bearing whatsoever.
You have 24 players. At the end of the match, rank them 1-24 via their match scores. Take the 4 "middle" (11-14) scores and make them "zero change". The 10 scores (1-10) above the "middle" scores have a positive adjustment to their PSR, the 10 scores (15-24) below the "middle" scores have a negative adjustment to their PSR. You could even tier the adjustments based on where a player lands in the aforementioned areas...

Match Score Rank:
1-2 +++ change to PSR
3-6 ++ change to PSR
7-10 + change to PSR
11-14 no change to PSR
15-18 - change to PSR
19-22 -- change to PSR
23-24 --- change to PSR

This would ensure that you are rewarded PSR adjustment based solely on how you performed against the rest of the players of that match, regardless if you win or lose. Then, tie XP awarded solely to Match Score. C-Bill payout can be tied to Win/Loss, since the objective is to Win... (or a W/L times Match Score if you want to vary the amount for everyone).

Either way, try to stay within the "KISS" methodology (Keep It Simple Stupid) when coming up with your solution. No need for it to be overly complicated...

[Hammer 13]

I'm good with the reset.

And give us all Premium Time on when you do! Thank you.

Edited by Hammer 13, 27 May 2020 - 04:24 PM.

[D V Devnull]

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

HOWEVER:

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).

Hello there, Paul... You asked for some constructive feedback as to acceptability, so I have some that you can even use as a rather easy blueprint if you desire to do so.

First off, like many others, I am indeed in favor of a PSR Reset. Please make sure it is only the PSR being reset, though. Perhaps even with a new Archiving of old stats, like when the Closed Beta ended that I heard about from before I began playing MWO. Some people seem to be worried that you're wiping out their Mech Garage in the process, and I would like to think that they're just overreacting. Like, you're really not doing a full-wipe on everyone in the game, right??

Second, again as some others previously noted in this thread, let's still make sure there's still some countermeasures that can trigger based on a person's performance, such that the system doesn't run rampant in some other unexpected (or potentially generally unwanted by the players) manner. We'll need ones for both "doing well on a Loss" and "sucking badly on a Win", not just one or the other like the old system. However, it's obvious that this has to be kept relatively fair too. Probably, we even need an alternate set of rules for a Tie, unlike how the old system treats it like a Win where it probably isn't a good idea to be doing so.

Next, this brings me to the blueprint that built itself in my head and got a quadruple-checking while I was reading through the whole thread up to now. I would suggest the following "Match Score to PSR Adjustment Table" in order to handle all the (usually) possible scenarios on dealing with Match Outcome and where people's PSR goes from there...

Match Score/Outcome	Win	Tie	Loss
426 and up	PSR Up 4	PSR Up 2	PSR Up 1
341 to 425	PSR Up 3	PSR Up 1	No PSR Change
256 to 340	PSR Up 2	No PSR Change	PSR Down 1
171 to 255	PSR Up 1	No PSR Change	PSR Down 2
86 to 170	No PSR Change	PSR Down 1	PSR Down 3
0 to 85	PSR Down 1	PSR Down 2	PSR Down 4

...which I happen to be basing on a 'factor of 85' for the notches because of several things. Just for starters, it pushes the bar up a little for a Loss, and requires as equally that reasonable effort is put in on a Win to have a PSR gain. I've also defined ones for a Tie, because it should behave in-between a Loss and a Win, and not act like one or the other. But at the same time, these numbers also allow for a sharper swing directly based on a player's performance if they choose to really put effort into things, or manage to somehow suddenly screw things up really badly. On top of that, it also fits within the current Match Score ranges that I usually see on the battlefields, and therefore what people can currently earn from various actions during the kinds of Match modes that they can play.

So yeah... I'm personally trying to think in a forward-moving manner that will help MWO avoid dying for the next 15 to 25 years. Which brings me to asking... What do you think of this blueprint's setup for Match Scores and PSR Adjustment? Further, what do your fellow workers think of it?

~Mr. D. V. "trying to help setup PSR and the MatchMaker, such that this NEVER has to be revisited" Devnull




[Single Micro-Edit made by Post Author because they're human and had one minor error while proofreading before posting.]

Edited by D V Devnull, 27 May 2020 - 04:35 PM.

[Andrzej Lechrenski]

People are going to be trapped in the old way of thinking for a long time. "If I did great and we still lost, I should get a participation trophy". Sure, you lost that round, but if you keep up that high level of play (presumably it actually helps the team and doesn't just pad your KDR), over time you *will* get trophies. Plenty of them. They are called "winning". You *will* get "rewarded" for playing well. The reward is that you will play with team members who also give a flying pug about playing a team game properly. The reward is not being annoyed at constant NASCAR and idiotic tactical moves by deaf mutes. The reward is playing with people at the same skill level as you and actually being able to trust them for once. If people cannot do the simple and often quite reasonable things it takes to help the team win, THEY SHOULD NOT BE MATCHED WITH PEOPLE WHO CAN. PERIOD.

There is going to be plenty of push-back on this. Catering to people who want to see a bar advance just because they "had a good match anyway" is how we got in this mess to begin with. But please, for the love of God, fix it anyway.

Edited by Andrzej Lechrenski, 27 May 2020 - 04:52 PM.

[Dubious Squirrel]

PSR reset and zero sum sound like great ideas to me. I've never liked that a player's tier level often doesn't roughly reflect their skill level.

[Nearly Dead]

I am interested in seeing how they actually implement it.

Will it be a completely new Player Skill Rating, similar to Jarl's List? I think that would be excellent, I have never heard anyone in the forum question the accuracy of a Jarl's List ranking, it is treated like gospel. Just rank everyone and divide into as many groups as you can and still get decent drop times.

OR

Will it be the same old formula tweaked to try to remove the upward bias?

I think that would be a huge missed opportunity to improve the game and maybe grow it. People are bringing in friends, lets keep them playing.

[Jaggernaught]

Reset it. At this point, the tiers are meaningless anyway.

[Juan Toomeny]

PLEASE reset the tiers to try a fix of what is broke. For those of you afraid of "losing" status, I started an alt account and went to tier 3 in a week and a half of casual play. there will not be much "grinding" and even if there is, it will make the community and game play stronger in the end.

Also, if we had the player base, what about a Tier 6? If we had the numbers, MM could put 4,5,&6 together and more 1,2,&3 together for drops. Just a thought....

[Nuclear Weapon]

I'm ready to carry dead weight with me all their way back to tier 1 and even then I'll be still carrying ppl

I'm pretty sure that everything will go back to normal after a while, ppl will get an award for being carried. It's just a matter of time

[TheFourthAlly]

Andrzej Lechrenski, on 27 May 2020 - 04:50 PM, said:

People are going to be trapped in the old way of thinking for a long time. "If I did great and we still lost, I should get a participation trophy". Sure, you lost that round, but if you keep up that high level of play (presumably it actually helps the team and doesn't just pad your KDR), over time you *will* get trophies. Plenty of them. They are called "winning". You *will* get "rewarded" for playing well. The reward is that you will play with team members who also give a flying pug about playing a team game properly. The reward is not being annoyed at constant NASCAR and idiotic tactical moves by deaf mutes. The reward is playing with people at the same skill level as you and actually being able to trust them for once. If people cannot do the simple and often quite reasonable things it takes to help the team win, THEY SHOULD NOT BE MATCHED WITH PEOPLE WHO CAN. PERIOD.

There is going to be plenty of push-back on this. Catering to people who want to see a bar advance just because they "had a good match anyway" is how we got in this mess to begin with. But please, for the love of God, fix it anyway.

This is actually an interesting point I may have had in the back of my mind as well. If you are 'good', but consistently losing games, either your 'good' isn't very good for the team or you're not that good anyway. Should that actually be 'rewarded'?

Presumably for a consistenly decent enough player, that type of lost game would be offset by the occasional fub of a match your team wins without your contribution?


The most consistent factor in a losing streak, is the player in a losing streak, perhaps?

Edited by TheFourthAlly, 27 May 2020 - 05:20 PM.

[Foxylicious]

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

But, there's a big draw back. If we make this change, the PSR rankings for all players will need to be reset.

That isn't a drawback, it's something that I, and a lot of players, have been wanting for a long time. I absolutely hate the idea of combined queues, but this? This could make it work. This could make it not completely terrible. I'll be honest, I uninstalled when I heard queues were combining. But resetting player tiers? AND making PSR zero-sum? I didn't think this would happen. I didn't have faith.

This is exactly what I've always wanted. Thank you, for this belated christmas present.

[Dubious Squirrel]

Nearly Dead, on 27 May 2020 - 05:10 PM, said:

I am interested in seeing how they actually implement it.

Will it be a completely new Player Skill Rating, similar to Jarl's List? I think that would be excellent, I have never heard anyone in the forum question the accuracy of a Jarl's List ranking, it is treated like gospel. Just rank everyone and divide into as many groups as you can and still get decent drop times.

OR

Will it be the same old formula tweaked to try to remove the upward bias?

I think that would be a huge missed opportunity to improve the game and maybe grow it. People are bringing in friends, lets keep them playing.

Jarl's is good, about as good as it gets for an indicator. But it's not the whole story. Some people are much better than their Jarl's rating suggests because they're often running around in silly QP builds, playing drunk, etc. Others are worse, because they spend all their time farming in lurm boats, or something like that.

Edited by Dubious Squirrel, 27 May 2020 - 05:25 PM.

[Anomalocaris]

I think one of the issues people have with a purely WLR based system is based on past experience. Namely, past matchmaking inconsistencies caused individual player WLR to vary dramatically from season to season even if avg match score was relatively consistent.

For example, I'll go to one of my favorite reference players to demonstrate, MW2 Annihilator (hope I'm not embarrassing you sir). This is a guy who is a top 50 player in any given season (and currently ranks top 10 on Jarl's). He plays a lot of games (about 450 per season), so that should mitigate random elements too. Over the last 10 seasons his avg match score has varied from a high of 480 to a low of 441 and a 10 season average of 465. So his match score is varying by about +/-5% over the last 10 seasons. If you look at any 3 consecutive seasons that match score is only varying by 1-2%, so he is extremely consistent in terms of that metric.

Now look at his WLR. It has varied from 2.0 to 3.04. And those aren't one time outliers. He's had seasons of 2.03 and 2.13, along with seasons of 3.02. His average WLR over the 10 season period is 2.68, meaning his WLR can vary by up to +12% and -24%. That's a pretty big swing, and while group dropping could play a part we know group queue has been pretty dead prior to the 8v8 test so I think its unlikely. Given my experiences with some very bad and very good runs of the matchmaker in the past, I would posit that even the best players are still subject to the vagaries of inconsistent matchmaking.

In conclusion, I can understand why anyone who has experienced this in the past would be wary of basing a ranking on WLR. It could get much better with the new system, it might not. I suggest that it would be better to look at relative match score performance, perhaps even with a component comparing your performance to your average as well. I am less concerned about low skill players being ranked improperly high than I am about high skill players being ranked lower than they should be. Something to think about.

[Asmudius Heng]

I do not know if this has been said but for those saying that win and loss should play no part in PSR i disagree a little. There are many roles in the game and many things pilots can do that influence a win that cannot be counted on the match score. Taking spread damage by talking and sponging well is a real skill and you can win a game because you were a hard target and the enemy over focused on you. That pilot is a god damn hero but gets no points at all basically - same for those who active their voice comms and call targets etc (which i should do more honestly).

There are intangible things that lead to wins - though obviously a terrible player can be in a winning team too despite their efforts to be terrible individually.

I think that wins and losses should still be a factor just not the massive factor it is now.

[Kushiels Dart]

I would be all for the ability to move up in the tiers. I have played since the game first started. I consider myself to be a fairly good player but I am getting frustrated every time I am on the losing side my ranking goes down, down, down. I find myself stuck in tier five and I am getting very depressed, knowing I am a good player, in the inability to advance in the tier ranking. This is getting to the point that I am considering not playing any more or severely curtailing my playing time. In the six years I have played I have ALWAYS seem to remain a tier 5 player. This has got to stop. The system must recognize the skill of the pilot, not if you are on the winning or losing side! Currently I can get 3 kills in a game, score 300+ points of damage, and rack up many bonuses, BUT BUT BUT, if my team loses I see my ranking go down. This is not right or correct! FIX IT PLEASE!

[Javajoe42]

I vote NO RESET. I have played 4 years now and I am Tier 2 with how many thousands of hours of play just to freaking be put back all over again. I suggest get rid of TIER all together. That way its just random players playing against each other. I would presume 90% of the players here are 40+ year olds with families. Wondering if they have thousands of hours to put back into this game if the reset is done. I m mean the player population has dropped drastically already and I am one not looking to spend another 4 years trying to get back to Tier 2. I would think that if the reset is done you will lose a large percentage of players and all you will have left are basement dwellers who never go outside who play this game. I all for helping balance but a PSR reset is the few things players have left to look at what they have accomplished so far. I mean are you making lots of money introducing NO new mechs? MW5 feels like its dying already. Not sure what incentive your giving people now to stay on.

[Andrzej Lechrenski]

TheFourthAlly, on 27 May 2020 - 05:19 PM, said:

This is actually an interesting point I may have had in the back of my mind as well. If you are 'good', but consistently losing games, either your 'good' isn't very good for the team or you're not that good anyway. Should that actually be 'rewarded'?

Presumably for a consistenly decent enough player, that type of lost game would be offset by the occasional fub of a match your team wins without your contribution?


The most consistent factor in a losing streak, is the player in a losing streak, perhaps?

Exactly. The one consistent factor between every single match one every plays... is oneself.

[Andrzej Lechrenski]

Javajoe42, on 27 May 2020 - 06:50 PM, said:

I vote NO RESET. I have played 4 years now and I am Tier 2 with how many thousands of hours of play just to freaking be put back all over again. I suggest get rid of TIER all together. That way its just random players playing against each other. I would presume 90% of the players here are 40+ year olds with families. Wondering if they have thousands of hours to put back into this game if the reset is done. I m mean the player population has dropped drastically already and I am one not looking to spend another 4 years trying to get back to Tier 2. I would think that if the reset is done you will lose a large percentage of players and all you will have left are basement dwellers who never go outside who play this game. I all for helping balance but a PSR reset is the few things players have left to look at what they have accomplished so far. I mean are you making lots of money introducing NO new mechs? MW5 feels like its dying already. Not sure what incentive your giving people now to stay on.

The tiers are participation trophies. If they "get rid of them", that would be amazing... so long as they come up with some other match-making method that isn't a shiny brass coin for people to try to collect. As I've already said, I think whatever system they come up with should be kept internal to PGI instead of being a badge people can wear on the forum.

What matters here is that we all get to play good, quality matches with people who are actually at our skill levels. In that case a reset WILL get your "mechdad vs. mechdad" games and your "basement dweller vs. basement dweller" games. If all goes well, you may never have to see another basement dweller again!

Let go of the brass coin. Let it go.