Jump to content

Psr Update And Changes - Jun 2020


462 replies to this topic

#141 StrikerX22

    Rookie

  • Philanthropist
  • 5 posts

Posted 04 June 2020 - 06:34 PM

I read through the 1st 4 pages, but they keep getting added, so I'll just post my thoughts. I'll try to summarize most of what I've seen: (TL;DR suggested system at 2nd half in bold underlined.)

1. I don't believe this is a zero sum system. In order to have that, I believe you would have to have the total number of PSR change be zero sum in each match. I'm not an expert, but this stuff can very easily go in unexpected directions. I believe the proposed new system might actually result in people falling in rank on average once they reach to around their correct tier, as you tend to have lower match score on games you lose, so you will tend to inflate that negative number more than the positive one when winning, assuming you have half wins, half losses, at that correct tier. Maybe that would all work itself out still, though? I don't know that we need a strict zero sum system. And yeah, as denofsteves notes, that probably means people not playing move down. I don't think this is necessary, but correct me if I'm wrong. If they were to go down, I'd only start a week after not playing, and limit it to a certain % less from rating when last played, like 5 or 10% eventually total. I don't think skills leave that fast or much, generally, and this isn't a rank system for rewards or something.

2. I'm inexperienced, but I feel group play is more complicated than most are saying. Issues seem to be as follows:
-A- They tend to work better together. [ This is not inherently a bad thing, as the game is team-based, but might alienate solo players. ]
-B- They may tend to have their own discord and not interact with the team as a whole. [ This means they have worse teamwork, not better, so...? A potential negative, though. ]
-C- They can somewhat artificially inflate someone's rating. [ However, they are also affected by having a less skilled player, so they hurt their own rating as well. Furthermore, matchmaking should still take the skill difference into account, although with a smaller player base it does become more difficult and allows for wide gaps in skill in a single game. It can also be argued that a high skilled player has a disproportionately larger effect on the team than the negative effect of the low skilled player. This can still technically be accounted for, if enough players exist (which is a problem regardless but potentially a bit worse here). ]

3. The PSR system is clunky, in several ways:
-A- It uses arbitrary whole numbers for tiers of match score, rather than smoothly distributing.
-B- It uses 2 ratings systems at once: Win/Lose, and Match Score. Win/Lose are not arbitrary, while Match Score is absolutely arbitrary, and has many dials to adjust for balance, but is probably not actually balanced at the moment (some of this can come from certain strategies/weapons/etc. being overpowered / underpowered; otherwise, value needs tweaking).
-C- I don't remember anymore, I might've melded it with -B-.

...[ In a perfect world, match score would accurately reflect our impact, and even potential impact, on the game. With that perfect knowledge, we would actually set winning/losing aside, as they do not reflect your impact on your team, technically. You could technically have the worst teams every game and never win because of it. However, it is probably not a very realistic goal. It is complex and difficult to tune correctly. Wins and Losses are easy to read and will likely level things out over time, even though it feels bad in certain scenarios. This is not overemphasizing team play per se, but rather assuming you'll have normal luck if you play enough that it will even out properly, as it is a pretty reliable metric long term. I do feel like it would be nice to have match score weigh in a little bit, even if it is arbitrary, though... most everyone wants justice, so this would help quell people's anger a bit. However, it will never satisfy most of them when they do well but get an insufficiently good PSR change. Subconsciously, people expect perfect judgement on your part, or worse, on their part. ]

TL;DR with pseudocode:
In the end, I believe the new PSR system may be close to the correct direction. Perhaps match score should be taken out entirely from it. It should probably instead track the average PSR on your team, compared to the average PSR on the enemy team, over a long period of W/L (rather than individual games). Something like the following:

Quote

If MyGamesSinceNewSys < 20 Then MyGamesSinceNewSys += 1

If Win, Then MyPSRGain = BasePSRFromWinning * (A + B *AveragePSROtherTeam/AveragePSRMyTeam) * 20/Minimum(MyGamesSinceNewSys, 20)

Else MyPSRGain = -BasePSRFromWinning * (A + B * AveragePSRMyTeam/AveragePSROtherTeam) * 20/Minimum(MyGamesSinceNewSys, 20)


Where A and B are constants for setting a base flat value (A) and a multiplier (B) to help when say, 2x the PSR doesn't mean 2x effectiveness (one way or the other). Note that for losing, Base PSR is negative winning value, and AveragePSRMyTeam switches position in fraction. If you are using whole numbers for some reason and don't want to switch to floating point, then please inflate the PSR ratings by a couple digits to have a smoother gradient of progression. Accuracy doesn't have to be perfect, either, if you're worried about floating point errors; we just want close.

Open valves for a while at start, to help things settle. Set initial PSR based on current tier to help settle things quickly (experience does tend to mean better) and to not offend players as easily (exact amounts probably don't have to be large or specific, just significantly different). With MyGamesSinceNewSys multiplier for first ~20 games, this should work out well I think. I believe this PSR system is around the best. If necessary, group play can be limited to within 2 tiers of each other, like a group of tier 3 to tier 1. Not everyone will like that but it will address the situation somewhat for solo players. Another option is to give a slight, positive flat boost to solo players each game; not because they deserve it, but because you want them to stay, so let them know.

This doesn't take the player's PSR directly into account as it doesn't make sense to here, like it would if using match score (though it is involved in the team's average). Poster Dogmeat1 was using median instead of average. Is there a particular reason for that?


I have a system in mind if match score is to be used, but I don't think that is the correct direction to take, as discussed above. Nevertheless, if it is definitely going to be used, then I will summarize:
  • It gives winning team and losing team pools of PSR points, which is determined by the outcome of the match (bonus for win, then mostly by kills, and depending on game mode, some from details like Conquest point totals) and PSR ratio between teams. Aside from showing team skill, pyrrhic victories aren't great in-universe probably.
  • Then those pools are divvied out based on match score and PSR within the team.
  • Finally, you subtract (Total_PSR_given_to_all_Players / 24) from each player to make negative scores where they theoretically belong.
  • (Note: Make sure to balance ways to get match score. [hard, many problems])


#142 Wesleytron

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 245 posts

Posted 04 June 2020 - 06:39 PM

View PostVixNix, on 04 June 2020 - 02:56 PM, said:



turn the wrong corner and you are dead - low match score
get left behind by nascar and you are dead - low match score

no control of the team you get put on.


no one has any motivation to do anything except go to the same place on the map and then rotate...

no balance on the teams

no balancing of equipment on the teams

constantly get stuck on long range maps in short range mechs

etc etc


You never had control of teams, but despite that everyone goes up before, now not as much

Left behind by nascar, well you weren't going up anyway

No balance on teams and equipment, oh well its usually 50/50

Which brings me to the point. Most people sort of have that w/l of 1 going on.

If you get 250+ you net 2 points per pair of games

Less than 250 you lose 2 points per pair of games.

If you get lower than 250 you will eventually get 250 as you go down

If you get more than 250 you might eventually go down to 250 as players get tougher.

The really good players, sorry boys, nothing we can do about that, you're just going to go up because you can legitimately positively bias all outcomes.

[Redacted].

Hey its not perfect, for true zero sum the above commentators are probably better ideas, but meh.

Edited by GM Patience, 05 June 2020 - 02:05 PM.


#143 NumberFive

    Member

  • Pip
  • 11 posts

Posted 04 June 2020 - 06:40 PM

How about we go extremely simple on this then.

Review the allocation of match score for achieving mission and team outcomes, such as capping points, scouting, escorting the fatties, etc. Increase rewards for component destruction; if possible, rewarding weapon destruction would be an ideal addition. Reward team and mission outcomes more highly than sheer damage.

Assign player tiers based on ranking all players using the rolling average match scores of their most recent 20 matches. Update the 'tier' field in the database every day. It doesn't need to be exact.

There is no 'negative' scoring. There is no perceived punishment - no offensive little down-arrows on the match outcome screen. It's simply a matter of comparative ranking.

Players will quickly settle to a level which is about right for their skill level and will be easily able to climb out of a hole if they've been goofing around, levelling a mech or learning new game roles like learning to pilot a light.

Match make games to get an approximate equal mix of players of tiers in mechs of weight classes - equal numbers of same level players in same type of mechs would be ideal, but it obviously needs to be a bit fuzzy.

If you want to play high level competitive matches with your buddies, there's private queues for that. If you want to keep the existing player base playing, it's not going to be feasible to have one half playing boring meta and the other half playing dum-dum league. The top players will get bored and the bottom players will get frustrated.

Edited by NumberFive, 04 June 2020 - 06:44 PM.


#144 Akillius II

    Member

  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 04 June 2020 - 06:54 PM

Paul I'd like to suggest 5 match score levels for the New PSR values:

Player LOSES:
Match Score: 0-100 goes down in PSR by -5
Match Score: 101-250 goes down in PSR by -3
Match Score: 251-400 goes down in PSR by -1
Match Score: 401-600 does not move.
Match Score: 601+ goes up in PSR by +2

Player WINS:
Match Score: 0-50 goes down in PSR by -2
Match Score: 51-100 does not move.
Match Score: 101-250 goes up in PSR by +1
Match Score: 251-400 goes up in PSR by +3
Match Score: 401+ goes up in PSR by +5

The bolded font indicates the changes from what Paul proposed in OP.
1. To reward only the best players on a loosing team.
2. To not reward non-team players, nor the AFK on winning teams.

#145 Thebackson

    Member

  • Pip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 17 posts

Posted 04 June 2020 - 06:55 PM

View PostThebackson, on 04 June 2020 - 02:30 PM, said:

I almost think a better way to calculate PSR on the matches would be to take the 24 players of the match, then rank them by their match score and give the following psr modification

1-3 get +5
4-6 get +3
7-10 get +1
11-14 get 0
15-18 get -1
19-21 get -3
22-24 get -5

This is also a net 0 PSR on the scores but rewards performance independent of whether you win or lose but also naturally favors the winning team since the winners are typically going to have a higher match score. At the same time it rewards a great player on a losing teaming and lowers the really bad players on a winning team.

The number of nights where I have had 8-12 loses in a row while at the same time pulling top 1-3 damage and match scores over 300 while still losing is staggering, under the proposed system I would do nothing but lose psr in those 8-12 matches.



Based on my previous post with a PSR rating system based off of pilot skill instead of who wins or losses I wanted to post an example scoring from a match.

Posted Image
https://imgur.com/a/A1WYHDS

You can see the winner has a more + than - yet the AFK NTG-H on the winning team ends up getting a -5 while 2 people on the losing side got a +5 due to being very effective even though their team loss. It is a net 0 system and pushes good player up to tier 1 and not just players who happen to be on the winning team.

From there you can adjust what gives a good match score separately if you want to reward certain types of play. IE reduce what AMS adds to match score and maybe give higher bonus to hit and run for an example.

Edited by Thebackson, 04 June 2020 - 07:15 PM.


#146 Socal Bronco

    Member

  • PipPip
  • @ui_title_%s_Rank_4
  • @ui_title_%s_Rank_4
  • 23 posts

Posted 04 June 2020 - 07:12 PM

Ok, look if you are going to do this, at least make it a rolling number. i.e the last 500 matches or something. Don't punish someone forever because they took a while to learn the basics. If you don't do well in the first 20 matches you are screwed forever. This is also how you get to something like zero sum.

#147 Worm Seraphin

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 84 posts
  • LocationToronto, Canada

Posted 04 June 2020 - 07:16 PM

I agree with many here that both new and old calculations rely too much on win/loss, which is completely random.
I know it is meant to promote team play, but you've been beating that dead horse for years now. If it hasn't helped up to this point, why keep doing it?
Also I think the idea of moving up or down isnt the best method. Players should move toward a target tier. eg, a score of 250 should move the player toward tier 3, score 100 toward tier 5, score 500+ toward tier 1. Im not sure the current practice of moving up or down is accomplishing that.

Edited by Worm Seraphin, 04 June 2020 - 07:21 PM.


#148 Kamikaze Viking

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 368 posts
  • LocationStay on Topic... STAY ON TOPIC!!!

Posted 04 June 2020 - 07:28 PM

This is not the right way to do zero sum.

View PostPaul Inouye, on 03 June 2020 - 12:09 PM, said:

Current PSR values:

Player LOSES:
Match Score: 0-100 goes down in PSR by -2
Match Score: 101-250 goes down in PSR by -1
Match Score: 251-400 does not move.
Match Score: 401+ goes up in PSR by +1

Player WINS:
Match Score: 0-100 does not move.
Match Score: 101-250 goes up in PSR by +1
Match Score: 251-400 goes up in PSR by +3
Match Score: 401+ goes up in PSR by +5

New PSR values:
Player LOSES:
Match Score: 0-100 goes down in PSR by -5
Match Score: 101-250 goes down in PSR by -3
Match Score: 251-400 goes down in PSR by -1
Match Score: 401+ does not move.

Player WINS:
Match Score: 0-100 does not move.
Match Score: 101-250 goes up in PSR by +1
Match Score: 251-400 goes up in PSR by +3
Match Score: 401+ goes up in PSR by +5

New PSR values SHOULD BE:
Player LOSES:
Match Score: 0-100 goes down in PSR by -2
Match Score: 101-250 goes down in PSR by -1
Match Score: 251-400 does not move +0
Match Score: 401+ goes up in PSR by +1

Player WINS:
Match Score: 0-100 goes down in PSR by -1
Match Score: 101-250 does not move +0
Match Score: 251-400 goes up in PSR by +1
Match Score: 401+ goes up in PSR by +2

Edit:
Additionally. An experiment was done recently by a well known good player who started a new account and it took Just over 600 matches for him to reach tier 1.

You have advised that you will be implementing the 20 match PSR accelerator as I had Suggested in my original proposal, thankyou.
But may I recommend that you up that to 100 matches. Else it will take way too long for most players to see any effect after the changes come in, and too long for players to spread out and settle into the correct tiers.

EDIT 2 : This Suggestion has been superseeded by a better one later in this thread.
https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__6336540

Edited by Kamikaze Viking, 06 June 2020 - 07:15 PM.


#149 Kill2Blit

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 195 posts

Posted 04 June 2020 - 07:31 PM

View PostSocal Bronco, on 04 June 2020 - 07:12 PM, said:

Ok, look if you are going to do this, at least make it a rolling number. i.e the last 500 matches or something. Don't punish someone forever because they took a while to learn the basics. If you don't do well in the first 20 matches you are screwed forever. This is also how you get to something like zero sum.


they aren't screwed forever, it'll just take longer to climb. Someone who wins 50% of their games will net increase PSR with any match score above 250, which is very doable.

#150 Kill2Blit

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 195 posts

Posted 04 June 2020 - 07:38 PM

View PostKamikaze Viking, on 04 June 2020 - 07:28 PM, said:

THIS IS NOT ZERO SUM.
New PSR values SHOULD BE:
Player LOSES:
Match Score: 0-100 goes down in PSR by -2
Match Score: 101-250 goes down in PSR by -1
Match Score: 251-400 does not move +0
Match Score: 401+ goes up in PSR by +1

Player WINS:
Match Score: 0-100 goes down in PSR by -1
Match Score: 101-250 does not move +0
Match Score: 251-400 goes up in PSR by +1
Match Score: 401+ goes up in PSR by +2


this isn't zero sum either. both systems assume that for every player in one match score bracket, there's another player in an opposite bracket to match. say for example everyone gets a score of 230. in your suggestion the psr sum of all players is -12. in paul's it is -24. the scores obviously won't be that uniform but try it out for some existing match end screens. players need to be compared to each other for zero sum. a blanket set of match score brackets does not work.

#151 Valdorel

    Member

  • Pip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 18 posts

Posted 04 June 2020 - 07:53 PM

While i supported a reset and adjusting the PSR system, this is exactly what many of us DID NOT WANT.

This will boil PSR down to just W/L.

What everyone I've talked to actually asked for was something like this if you were going to take W/L into account:

Player LOSES:
Match Score: 0-100 goes down in PSR by -5
Match Score: 101-250 goes down in PSR by -3
Match Score: 251-400 does not move.
Match Score: 401+ goes UP in PSR by +1

Player WINS:
Match Score: 0-100 goes DOWN in PSR by -1
Match Score: 101-250 does not move.
Match Score: 251-400 goes up in PSR by +3
Match Score: 401+ goes up in PSR by +5

But as far as I recall, most people just wanted W/L to be completely divorced from the equation.

Edited by Valdorel, 04 June 2020 - 07:54 PM.


#152 Kamikaze Viking

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 368 posts
  • LocationStay on Topic... STAY ON TOPIC!!!

Posted 04 June 2020 - 08:04 PM

View PostKill2Blit, on 04 June 2020 - 07:38 PM, said:

this isn't zero sum either. both systems assume that for every player in one match score bracket, there's another player in an opposite bracket to match. say for example everyone gets a score of 230. in your suggestion the psr sum of all players is -12. in paul's it is -24. the scores obviously won't be that uniform but try it out for some existing match end screens. players need to be compared to each other for zero sum. a blanket set of match score brackets does not work.


Cheers, sorry first thing in the morning. Ive edited that first line.

Im not sure, but I was under the impression that Zero Sum means the total sum of the wining side balances the total sum of the losing side, within any given match. Is there another way to look at it?

Hence
Win = -1 +0 +1 +2 = +1
Loss = -2 -1 +0 +1 = -1
Win + loss = +1 -1 = 0

Edited by Kamikaze Viking, 04 June 2020 - 08:07 PM.


#153 MrMadguy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,902 posts

Posted 04 June 2020 - 08:07 PM

Knew, that winning PSR changes were biased. But that much? +3? +5? When max PSR drop is -2? Thx for reset. Now insta-death matches will be -5 for me, as they should.

Oh, man. *facepalm*

Posted Image
Posted Image

Edited by MrMadguy, 04 June 2020 - 08:24 PM.


#154 Kin3ticX

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The People's Hero
  • The People
  • 2,925 posts
  • LocationSalt Mines of Puglandia

Posted 04 June 2020 - 08:17 PM

Zero sum means if someone is tier 1, someone has to be tier 5. You can't call this zero sum.

From what I can gather, this will do the same thing as before, just do it more slowly.

Maybe matches won't get any better, but at least tier 1 or 2 status would be more valuable. It might actually be better to do nothing if full zero sum isnt the goal.

Edited by Kin3ticX, 04 June 2020 - 08:19 PM.


#155 Davegt27

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 6,467 posts
  • LocationCO

Posted 04 June 2020 - 08:18 PM

Wasted trip

the try hards dont want to see or play with the low tier low skill chitters

same thing they said in 2014-2015

when they always cried they had to carry matches

so we moved on to PSR/Tier system

now another reset and it turns out we get to change our tags (T1,T2,T3,T4) but we will still see the same people
in drops


oh well

#156 Kill2Blit

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 195 posts

Posted 04 June 2020 - 08:23 PM

View PostKamikaze Viking, on 04 June 2020 - 08:04 PM, said:


Cheers, sorry first thing in the morning. Ive edited that first line.

Im not sure, but I was under the impression that Zero Sum means the total sum of the wining side balances the total sum of the losing side, within any given match. Is there another way to look at it?

Hence
Win = -1 +0 +1 +2 = +1
Loss = -2 -1 +0 +1 = -1
Win + loss = +1 -1 = 0


that's the correct definition yes, but the current plan doesn't work for it. paul's plan also zeros out when you only look at the brackets: -5 - 3 - 1 + 1 + 3 + 5 = 0. but here's that plan with real match data:

Posted Image

sums to -14. the problem is players don't evenly fall into the brackets, so say there are two people that get the plus 5 on winning side and two people that get the minus 3 on loser's side. all else equal, the result will be +4. a true zero sum solution would be break the players on each side into groups of 4, and have the top 4 advance +3, middle 4 remain the same, bottom 4 drop -3. not suggesting that, but its an example.

#157 KitK

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 292 posts

Posted 04 June 2020 - 08:25 PM

I am taking away from this thread that there are two things that artificially produce mobility between tiers, one by PGI and one by players. PGI using the win/loss factor in its calculations and match scores, and players farming match scores and group wins. If we don't have those things will zero-sum stagnate? Just asking.

On the win/loss front I will embarrass myself. I record my stats after every session, so I have some solid anecdotal evidence with which to embarrass myself. But I think this lends toward explaining why the lousy win/loss aspects of match score and PSR are so frustrating.

Kit's W/L Ratios (mostly QP): Please don't bother telling me to learn to play, I know these are not stellar numbers.
2016: 0.94 (1840 matches)
2017: 0.97 (1274 matches)
2018: 0.86 (1182 matches)
2019: 0.74 (1485 matches)
2020: 0.79 (95 matches)

Frankly, I simply find it hard to randomly draw a winning team. I always get the naked drunk people on my team. And, you still don't know if I played well, average or poorly. All you can say for sure, is that I am well accustomed to losing. You will note my frustration by the number of matches played this year.

And teamwork in QP over that timeframe is fantasy. The few times fiction becomes fact it still fails as often as not. QP for a very, very long time has been about individual effort. Winning or losing is just luck of the draw manifested in the aggregate of individual efforts.

Still I hope all of this works out. I will give it a try.

#158 Airwolf

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Clan Exemplar
  • Clan Exemplar
  • 149 posts
  • LocationWhere's the dropship? I want off this rock!

Posted 04 June 2020 - 08:25 PM

This question has probably been answered somewhere else but I'm going to ask it anyway...

Exactly, how is Match Score currently calculated?

I ask this because in the past few events, there was the condition that you had to get a Match Score of 500 or better to fulfill a rewards goal. I had several matches (and I'm sure everyone else here has too) where you've worked your *** off the entire match and you thought that you did extremely well in that particular match, but still ended up with a Match Score of less than 500 and then later you're in a game where you figured that you didn't do as well as the match where you really worked your *** off but somehow ended up with a match score of above 500.

I've heard people talk about high damage numbers ... yeah, I get it ... but how do you account for spread damage vs pinpoint damage (e.g. where several pilots gang up on a single enemy mech and take it down by doing massive damage across the entire enemy mech or take it down by taking out the CT in a coordinated strike with a LOT less overall damage done to the enemy mech?)

If this new PSR calculation is going to be based on Match Score, then I want to know how that is calculated so I can figure out what I have to do as a pilot in order maximize my Match Score.

Before anyone says: "Do more damage" ... there are plenty of ways to be valuable to the team without doing high damage. For instance, you're in a light mech and manage to successfully squirrel 3 enemy mechs away from the rest or their teammates or even make a 100 ton assault lose his/her concentration as they're trying to deal with you ... and your team capitalizes on what you did and wins the game. Does this mean that your PSR should go down if you didn't do enough damage to get a good match score?

Which is worth more, team-contribution-wise, doing 250+ damage to, let's say a Dire Wolf and it's still alive?, or killing one, doing less than 100 damage cause you were able to core it out from behind?

Someone ... anyone ... please tell me exactly how Match Score is calculated ...

Thank you in advance.

Edited by Airwolf, 04 June 2020 - 09:01 PM.


#159 rascje

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Privateer
  • The Privateer
  • 390 posts

Posted 04 June 2020 - 08:26 PM

'cmon devs, listen advices from these posts or system improvements will never be ok!

#160 Kamikaze Viking

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 368 posts
  • LocationStay on Topic... STAY ON TOPIC!!!

Posted 04 June 2020 - 08:43 PM

View PostKill2Blit, on 04 June 2020 - 08:23 PM, said:


real match data:

/snip


Aha. Talking to Ash and co on stream and I think its clicked for me.

A: the match score thresholds need to be tweaked. OR even better flexible within the context of the total score of that match.
I already had it in my mind that we need to address MS calculations but I wanted to leave out suggesting that until AFTER the PSR fix, so as to not Muddy the waters with multiple changes.

B:
But Just now I realised as people were chatting about this that there is already a massive match score increase based on the WIN.
The system is already sort of 'double dipping' and this may explain your real world examples that sum to -14.
Hence the Solution to this would seem to be to reduce the Match Score granted for winning, so that the total MS for each player reflects better on their skill within the team.

Thoughts?

Edit: This is derived from the old suggestion from Decency back in my ancient reddit thread.
Where total match score was irrelevant. Only used as a tool to calculate your relative position to your teammates. Hence it should cancel out the Win Bonus issue i just raised as that its equal to all teammates.
Posted Image

Edit 2: the relative number of players going up and down doesn't have to be this 3/3/3/3 division, eg it could be 2/4/4/2. But that's up for discussion, and ultimately its Paul's decision.

Edited by Kamikaze Viking, 06 June 2020 - 07:17 PM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users