490 replies to this topic

[Mal Bolge]

ShogunKid, on 06 June 2020 - 08:33 AM, said:

The new PSR is like everyone getting free brand new car, but then complaining that it wasn't the make and model we wanted. What on earth? Who would do that!??

LOL are you for real? You were promised a Jaguar and end up with a Honda, and you're asking who would complain? EVERYONE!!!

[ShogunKid]

Mal Nilsum, on 06 June 2020 - 08:38 AM, said:

LOL are you for real? You were promised a Jaguar and end up with a Honda, and you're asking who would complain? EVERYONE!!!

Your sense of entitlement is astounding. How much money have you spent on this game?? Even if you've spent hundreds of dollars on this game, it is because you enjoy playing it -- not because you're earning a seat at the game dev's table.

If you don't like the Honda -- get out of the car and walk.

[Toe Fat]

This is far form Zero sum. The PSR should move the same for wins and losses. Why should they be different???

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

[spannerturner]

ShogunKid, on 06 June 2020 - 08:48 AM, said:

Your sense of entitlement is astounding. How much money have you spent on this game?? Even if you've spent hundreds of dollars on this game, it is because you enjoy playing it -- not because you're earning a seat at the game dev's table.

If you don't like the Honda -- get out of the car and walk.

There's no entitlement involved. The reason people are speaking out is because they DO care. And just because PGI changes something doesn't mean, carte blanche, that it's good for the game. (We've seen how, historically, they are at making good decisions...) The fear is, and it's a real one, more bad changes will kill the player base even more. PGI has admitted that the numbers are too low to keep the Tiers separated and that Tier 1's and 5's will be matched up against each other on most days.

[Ahh Screw it - WATCH THIS]

ShogunKid, on 06 June 2020 - 08:48 AM, said:

If you don't like the Honda -- get out of the car and walk.

I think that is kinda his point, if this is it, there will be a lot of walking.........

[D V Devnull]

The Bloody History of Communism, on 06 June 2020 - 04:48 AM, said:

Why not implement something the game actually desperately needs -- Back up camera/Rear view mirror.

I have played this game since 2012 and I have wanted this option for the vast majority of it. What gives?

It's probably in the same pile as something called "Enhanced (WireFrame) Imaging"... If I recall correctly, both of those features were things that the ancient "MechWarrior 2" (or MW2, for short) used to have. Unfortunately, we can expect to see neither. I hate to be harsh, but it feels like PGI's Staff no longer have the ability/inclination to code in things like this.

In the case of the additional rear-view camera, there might even be a performance hit with trying to maintain it in real-time for the player. Seeing as not everyone can afford a new computer, that would push more players out of the game, which becomes a blocking condition for your request.

In my case with the "Enhanced (WireFrame) Imaging", there would be multiple worse issues. (I'll have to bullet point just to keep it semi-simple to read!) These issues happen to include things like...

• Animating Smoke Stacks that would have a hard time being re-rendered in the WireFrame format, because they started out as particles instead to begin with. Remember smoke and fires in MW2, how they just got stuck as outright flat visual blocks in WireFrame, while they would render like a bunch of moving flat chunks in more normal rendering modes?
  
• Overcoming what was MW2's issues with sometimes seeing things through Buildings and Terrain, particularly when they should have been hidden from view. If memory serves me, they didn't do so well at coding occlusion back then...
  
• The renderings of the shape of the Terrain and Mechs themselves, while they don't have their usual textures/paints/decals/bolt-ons/intricacies/etc. being rendered on the Mechs, seeing as WireFrame kept the renderings simple. Major performance hits in games are incurred simply because of all the detail that people want to see in this modern-day world. Trying to maintain that in WireFrame form would also make it harder to discern where one should shoot, as it would lead to some Mechs ending up looking like indiscernible blobs.
  
• Would they allow Damage Condition Rendering like the old MW2 WireFrame format used to do? I guess this one would chock more to how much coding that they're willing to work on, as well as balance-related and/or performance-related concerns. In particular, there's the whole thing about overlaying the damage normally displayed on the Paper Doll in the top-right onto the Mechs that are in-view of the player. Being able to see several of those at once without targeting could present a major imbalance in gameplay, albeit that it would introduce added lag in rendering speed, which might balance that issue out.
  
• Also, what would they do about things like the Mech Cockpit while in WireFrame format? How renderable would that continue to be? Would the Cockpit Items remain displayed, or would they stop rendering while in the WireFrame format state? Would additional parts of the Mech Cockpit go transparent, and cause a difference in terms of field-of-view available to the player? There are soooo many questions regarding this part that would have to be reasoned through!
  
• On the positive side, having the WireFrame format as a view option would help more older computers to be in the running for keeping MWO playable as it progresses in terms of its' normal rendering & graphical subsystem design. Essentially, by not having to render absolutely 'super-everything' constantly due to how the WireFrame format functions, it would take considerable pressure off of older computers, thereby keeping gameplay smooth for people on those systems.

...and therefore leaves a lot to consider in whether or not to implement such functionality. Of course, the WireFrame mode also brings up one last question... "What was the point of designing all this nice stuff to visually examine and play with, if people are using THAT mode to view things during game matches, and therefore discarding so much detail?" ...which is a giant consideration & issue to not take lightly.

Anyway, with all that said, sorry for making you wade through a text wall! It seems like any time someone gets me thinking of what was good in the past, versus how it gets looked at & considered in the current day, and contrasted against what currently happens now, it gets to the point where I can end up ranting a 'blue streak' about such things. There's just so much to reason over, particularly when reviewing the memories of the past...

~Mr. D. V. "Rear-View Camera? Enhanced 'WireFrame' Imaging? Dang, that takes me down memory lane!" Devnull

[ShogunKid]

spannerturner, on 06 June 2020 - 08:59 AM, said:

There's no entitlement involved. The reason people are speaking out is because they DO care. And just because PGI changes something doesn't mean, carte blanche, that it's good for the game. (We've seen how, historically, they are at making good decisions...) The fear is, and it's a real one, more bad changes will kill the player base even more. PGI has admitted that the numbers are too low to keep the Tiers separated and that Tier 1's and 5's will be matched up against each other on most days.

I appreciate your concern. It's actually my concern as well. I want better quality matches and I want the player base to grow -- both of which I could see happening with the proposed plan. I agree it is hardly a Jaguar (that would contain new maps, game modes, etc.) and I don't think it ever was intended to be. It was simply better than what we have now. Once implemented, I believe it could be adjusted as necessary with match score tweaks and the like. Here's to hoping June 9th patch will yield positive results.

[BeCause]

This decision on the PSR calculation is utterly garbage, it is trash.

The win/loss should have nothing to do with the win or loss of PSR.

A player who puts out a herculean effort, and essentially kills half the enemy singlehandedly, but still loses gets punished for absolutely no good reason.

Edited by BeCause, 06 June 2020 - 12:04 PM.

[Yozaa]

Some times when I lose and played well I get that little + or = PSR sign
Makes me feel better for my efforts
Despite the loss, I'd did what I could given the circumstances

Edited by Yozaa, 06 June 2020 - 10:58 AM.

[Teknomancer]

A suggestion:

• Top 8 of all 24 players in the match gain PSR (+5 for the #1 score, +2 for the rest)
  
• Middle 8 don't change.
  
• Bottom 8 lose PSR (-5 the last place, -2 for the rest)

You get a true zero sum with equal rise and fall. Because match score does get tweaked for win/loss, on the average players on winning teams will tend to rise, while the losing team will produce more PSR loss. High performers on a loss can still rise and low performers on a win can still fall. Middle performers stay in the middle.

This should give Tier rankings that reflect both individual performance over time, and team contribution over time. It would sort players into balanced tiers for the matchmaker, continually refined over the more games played to keep you dropping with players of comparable skill.

Edited by Teknomancer, 06 June 2020 - 03:48 PM.

[Poor-Life-Choices]

What people seem to miss in this is that Match score is already impacted by win or loss. You get a bonus for winning, you also get a bonus for not dieing ( which is rare in a match that you lose). So why make continue to penalize people that have a high match score but are on the losing team? The end goal is that the matchmaker doesn't see me and ash as equals. Match score does that, look at jarl's list. Its pretty obvious who the premier players are. Yes, there are a few that don't support their teams, but over the long haul if they aren't supporting the team their match scores are impacted.

The point of PSR is to sort us into proper groups. It can't push us to be better team players if we can't even see what our PSR is! If you want to encourage team play, then adjust match scores, not PSR calculations.
PSR takes months to make a change, any psychologist ( or parent for that matter) can tell you that if you want to change behavior there has to be immediate feedback.

Edited by Socal Bronco, 06 June 2020 - 12:09 PM.

[Lionheart2012]

AEgg, on 06 June 2020 - 05:26 AM, said:

Rather than tiny changes to matchmaker values for a playerbase too small to support it, we could, you know, just go back to 8v8.

Stomps happen when players die without contributing, then the team is down a player and can't recover. With 8v8, 'critical mass', enough players facing the same direction that rounding a corner to them is instant death (which in turn decides the whole match because the team is down a player and can't recover), doesn't happen as often.

Actually, it may take a little longer to outright kill someone in 8-on-1 versus 12-on-1, but the loss of 1 in an 8 player team is more impactful than the loss of 1 in a 12 player team.

[Lionheart2012]

Mal Nilsum, on 06 June 2020 - 08:38 AM, said:

LOL are you for real? You were promised a Jaguar and end up with a Honda, and you're asking who would complain? EVERYONE!!!

Who promised you the Jag???

[Lionheart2012]

Toe Fat, on 06 June 2020 - 08:53 AM, said:

This is far form Zero sum. The PSR should move the same for wins and losses. Why should they be different???

Zero sum is, by definition, an effect where all of the results when summed equal zero. In the matrix, a high-performing winner and a low-performing loser receive a +5 and a -5, respectively to their PSR rankings. Summing these results leads to zero. Hence, zero sum. Two reasons why they should have negative reinforcement for losses and rewards for winning are:

• To incentivize winning, and
  
• To prevent farming of C-bills and experience.

[Lionheart2012]

spannerturner, on 06 June 2020 - 08:59 AM, said:

PGI has admitted that the numbers are too low to keep the Tiers separated and that Tier 1's and 5's will be matched up against each other on most days.

Hyperbole: PGI has admitted no such thing. Paul did say that limiting searches to Tier 1 and Tier 5 only would have the searches go to 1 hour, so additional tiers must be added. However, I recall that two additional tiers from your current tier could be added to the search. Hence Tier 1 players could play Tier 3 players.

[Xaat Xuun]

great,
only thing bad about this, are for the full time Puggers,

I think I see gist of what I like, no one can actually be carried to a higher tier, it's not just about winning, awesome . .screw up early, your PSR goes down fast, work together, PSR can go up , but you have to contribute.
I can see the passive players ,probably going to be even more passive

then again maybe nothing will change, just some players will not be in the higher tier any more

[AzarathRaven]

LOSS

0-100 match score = -6 PSR - Reason: Player did poorly and did not contribute to the team.

101-250 match score = -3 PSR - Reason: Player provided mediocre contribution but team lost.

251-400 match score = 0 PSR - Reason: Player did well but team lost anyway.

>400 match socre = +3 PSR - Reason: Player did excellent but team lost anyway.

WIN

0-100 match score = -3 PSR - Reason: Team won but player did not contribute to the win.

101-250 match score = 0 PSR - Reason: Player provided mediocre contribution to win, but was not a major factor in achieving the win.

251-400 match score = +3 PSR - Reason: Player provided impactful contribution to team win.

>400 match score = +6 PSR - Reason: Player was a major factor to team win.


From the PGI example, this seems to be zero-sum. The loss category sums to -6 and the win category sums to +6, which is a total sum of 0. As other people have mentioned, "personal" skill rating needs to be based on more than a win or loss. Each player is 1/24th of the contributing factor to a win or loss. Do we want to encourage better teamwork, yes. Does that mean every player on the losing team was the cause of the loss, no.

You can change the PSR values (say multiples or 2 instead of 3) or add some other calculation into the score ranges (match score and the player's current PSR) but the point is that if you play well, you do well. Win/loss is not the most important factor when you are not solely responsible for the win or loss.

[Teknomancer]

AzarathRaven, on 06 June 2020 - 02:26 PM, said:

LOSS

0-100 match score = -6 PSR - Reason: Player did poorly and did not contribute to the team.

101-250 match score = -3 PSR - Reason: Player provided mediocre contribution but team lost.

251-400 match score = 0 PSR - Reason: Player did well but team lost anyway.

>400 match socre = +3 PSR - Reason: Player did excellent but team lost anyway.

WIN

0-100 match score = -3 PSR - Reason: Team won but player did not contribute to the win.

101-250 match score = 0 PSR - Reason: Player provided mediocre contribution to win, but was not a major factor in achieving the win.

251-400 match score = +3 PSR - Reason: Player provided impactful contribution to team win.

>400 match score = +6 PSR - Reason: Player was a major factor to team win.


From the PGI example, this seems to be zero-sum. The loss category sums to -6 and the win category sums to +6, which is a total sum of 0. As other people have mentioned, "personal" skill rating needs to be based on more than a win or loss. Each player is 1/24th of the contributing factor to a win or loss. Do we want to encourage better teamwork, yes. Does that mean every player on the losing team was the cause of the loss, no.

You can change the PSR values (say multiples or 2 instead of 3) or add some other calculation into the score ranges (match score and the player's current PSR) but the point is that if you play well, you do well. Win/loss is not the most important factor when you are not solely responsible for the win or loss.

All the suggestions like this are decent, nothing terribly wrong with them except that it's not really a change, just a tweak of the current PSR scoring. It also is not zero sum. Zero sum means exactly balanced gainers and losers after a match. With the above scoring and all variations of it, the sum is variable because match scores will vary. You need a system where the score relative to other players is what matters, not to an arbitrary threshold number.

This is zero sum, and also a fair system for averaging out players to the tiers appropriate to their skill:

• Top 8 of all 24 players in the match gain PSR (+5 for the #1 score, +2 for the rest)
  
• Middle 8 don't change.
  
• Bottom 8 lose PSR (-5 the last place, -2 for the rest)

Keep in mind that it is the average over many games that matters, and will place you appropriately. The more you play, the more this works to find comparable players in the matchmaker. This is all about making matches a fun contest; it is not about a single match's target numbers.

Edited by Teknomancer, 06 June 2020 - 02:48 PM.

[JoeCold]

Teknomancer, on 06 June 2020 - 11:41 AM, said:

A suggestion:

Top 8 of all 24 players in the match gain PSR (+5 for the #1 score, +2 for the rest)
Middle 8 don't change.
Bottom 8 lose PSR (-5 the last place, -2 for the rest)

You get a true zero sum with equal rise and fall. Because match score does get tweaked for win/loss, on the average players on winning teams will tend to rise, while the losing team will produce more PSR loss. High performers on a loss can still rise and low performers on a win can still fall. Middle performers stay in the middle.

This should give Tier rankings that reflect both individual performance over time, and team contribution over time. It would sort players into balanced tiers for the matchmaker, continually refined over the more games played to keep you dropping with players of comparable skill.

Much better than what they are doing. Still doesn't account for how, especially in stomps, your team can bring up or down your performance. This makes PSR far from an individual statistic. Which, in turn, makes it a poor matchmaking statistic.

Still again, your proposal is FAR better than what they plan to do, which is a tiny bit better than what is in place.

[MadcatX]

I echo the belief that players who lose a match with 400+ match score should go up and players who win a match but with less then 100 match score should go down.