490 replies to this topic

[Mal Bolge]

PrometheusTNO, on 04 June 2020 - 12:02 PM, said:

551+ is rare enough that it should not be considered as a dedicated level. Continue to sub-divide the middle scores for a more impactful change.

You should do exceptionally well to get a big increase, likewise do exceptionally poor to get a big decrease.

[Firefox54]

Zanotam, on 04 June 2020 - 11:12 AM, said:

Not ot be devil's advocate or anything, but I don't think the people commenting in here are familiar with how MMR/ELO/PSR works in OTHER games AND HOW IT WAS DESIGNED TO WORK FROM THE BEGINNING WHEN ORIGINALLY INVENTED. It's a tool to measure natively just pure wins/losses but instead of a w/l ratio it gives you a number based upon how you were rated when you beat people at the ratings they were at at the time. It's a real-world skill ranking designed for 1v1 games. However, it scales up just fine afaik into 5v5 or 8v8 or presumably 100v100 let alone 12v12 because in the end hte only consistent statistical element between games is the one player and that player is further known to be given a 'relatively fair' match via matchmaking otherwise you couldn't even due it based upon match score because hey what if a tier 5 gets matched with a tier1 of course they won't do as well.

If anything, I think the focus on your match score is questionable - as mentioned AMS and LRM mechs are a great way to farm that number and I probably will spend some time focusing on my LRM plus my best performing non-LRM mech as the only mechs I play initially after the reset to get a relevant skill rating for the most part considering match score apparently matters which is already much more 'personal' than a normal system and really all that should be expected. Letting someone go up when they lose just ***** the system and turns it back into an exp bar.

So, the mention of ELO (and for someone who uses a lot of probabilistic/statistical models) made me look into what an ELO looks like ... interestingly, I found this link via Wikipedia

https://mwomercs.com...14120-20jun2017

that talks about MWO using ELO in the Comp Mode ... so why not just implement an ELO model in Quick Play? If this were complicated or challenging to implement, maybe I could see why ... but it already appears to be implemented in parts of MWO.

Just a thought ...

[RRAMIREZ]

Thanks for the follow-up and background information, much appreciated.

Team performance rewarded... seams legit to me.
Good players have good WLR, and will still have.
Matchscore is a sub Indicator, biaised in many ways, and you can play with to optimise it's value.
Who will lead a push for the win and take all the damage and eventually die or lose components and some precious match score point if that is what is rewarded?
Better drop an IV4 and splat mass MRM than pinpoint destroy a torso.


Don't focus on performance on ONE SINGLE match, but on the big picture.
good WLR is the apanage of good player so don't be afraid if you are one.

the 2 cts of an average potato.

Edited by RRAMIREZ, 04 June 2020 - 12:30 PM.

[JimTheGoatMan]

OneTeamPlayer, on 04 June 2020 - 12:20 PM, said:

People are still here suggesting that the top performers on the losing team go up in rank.

Here's the deal folks, PGI has said they're going to implement this system and these responses are essentially say "Yeah, but what if you tried using the old system, though?"

That's not how this is going to go down.

Here's a thought:

What if players:

1. Get off private discords and communicate with their team
2. Use the whole 9.99 it costs to get a functional mic OR:
3. Use the built in coordination tools that don't require a mike.
4. Stop using the mic to complain about a loss while having been silent all round, start using the mic to coordinate from the start
5. Accept that not all teams will want to coordinate but after a short time, people who won't work together will be pushed down while people who do will be pushed upwards.

This game has amazing potential and one of its limiting factors has always been that people talk about success in terms of individual performance instead of group success.

Well, PSR says that age is over so unless you're in one of the top tier groups that can literally drag a team to victory players are going to have to re-examine this "every mech is an island" concept that has been so ingrained.

Now it's "We all rise or we all Fall"- and we're going to have to drop accordingly.

Going to be a massive shift for most folk, but i can almost guarantee that the sea of "but what if you tried not making this based solely on team performance and allowed the losing team to individually win" are about to be real disappointed.

Agree 100%

[Anomalocaris]

RRAMIREZ, on 04 June 2020 - 12:27 PM, said:

Team performance rewarded... seams legit to me.
Good players have good WLR, and will still have.
...
Don't focus on performance on ONE SINGLE match, but on the big picture.
good WLR is the apanage of good player so don't be afraid if you are one.

Nice and to the point. But the inference here is that group dropping now becomes the new meta, a thought put forward by Brauer in another thread (hope I didn't butcher your concept sir).

Good players who do not drop in groups do substantially worse than before. And dropping in groups they do substantially better. If this is the new meta solo players are going to flee the game in droves because history says they will not group up in any significant number. Even if they did, the game needs 7-8 solos per side right now to even start a match. Think on that.

[Crashburn]

One last point I wanted to make. The whole point of this PSR/Tier matchmaker reset is to have evenly matched drops....not stomps. So everyone who says I'm not going to be in Tier X or I have to grind again. That's not the point.....who cares what Tier # you end up being in the end, So long as you have enjoyable matches that are competitive.

It's all about getting quickplay to the point where you can have regular 12v12 matches...where the game ends up with 12-11/12-10/12-9 kill results. And have stomps rarely occur. That's the goal. If when the dust settles my Tier ended up being 2/3/4 etc....who cares!

Some people seem to be all caught up on a number as opposed to regular games w/ equally skilled players on both teams that result in competitive matches!

[RRAMIREZ]

Anomalocaris, on 04 June 2020 - 12:34 PM, said:

Nice and to the point. But the inference here is that group dropping now becomes the new meta, a thought put forward by Brauer in another thread (hope I didn't butcher your concept sir).

Good players who do not drop in groups do substantially worse than before. And dropping in groups they do substantially better. If this is the new meta solo players are going to flee the game in droves because history says they will not group up in any significant number. Even if they did, the game needs 7-8 solos per side right now to even start a match. Think on that.

agreed

Edited by RRAMIREZ, 04 June 2020 - 12:38 PM.

[Parashurama]

So, please help me understand.

No PSR increase for 5 solo kills, 9 KMDDs and over 2,000 damage?

Do you guys even play your own game?

[ESC 907]

HOW ARE YOU STILL MAKING THE SAME MISTAKES WITH PSR-VALUES?! There needs to be a way for winners that do poorly to go down, and losers that do well to go up!

How about:

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

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

Or something similar? Winners carried to victory should go down, and losers that excel should be able to go up.

Edited by ESC 907, 04 June 2020 - 12:47 PM.

[FlutterKOHb]

Ах, и да. Объявляется неделя сухарей, количество прячущихся лайтов на краях карты, увеличено втрое.

Edited by FlutterKOHb, 04 June 2020 - 01:40 PM.

[Hrix]

I would venture to say that a pilot that does 401 in a LOSING match didn't do well, they were a BEAST and should be awarded accordingly. Please please please listen to the oft repeated requests here.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

I like the idea of a PSR reset and the "zero sum" theory, and that if you perform well (assuming match score is in fact a measure of skill), your PSR goes up or down accordingly, however ...

The concern that the "up or down" decision is based exclusively on win/loss is valid. If the system were based on a player's match score compared to the average match score for that particular drop, it would probably be considered more fair ... good performers go up and poor performers go down, regardless of the win/loss result ... again, assuming match score is a valid measure of skill.

Ultimately, the system presented is still not "zero sum" ... it is unlikely that the amount the winning team's players' PSR is adjusted up will equal the amount the losing team's players' PSR is adjusted down.

[Percivale]

The player wins PSR didn't change? Why is it that someone can go AFK stay in the back, do nothing, the team wins and they don't go down in PSR? HMMM.......

[Finex Dragon]

I am concerned that it will cause people who notice which mech are most useful to achieve a good PSR end up being almost the only mech we see in play, and for me that is boring

[crazytimes]

Numbers are wrong, as everyone is saying.

Not that it matters, because once we're all sorted into different tiers to we are now... we all and up in the same matches again anyhow because there is not enough people left to change the matchmaker outcomes.

[Andrzej Lechrenski]

Anomalocaris, on 04 June 2020 - 12:24 PM, said:

To those stating that wins will ultimately even out - you are correct, in theory. The problem with this approach is it assumes that player distribution, particularly during the early ranking phase, will be random. It also assumes that players will be able to get enough games to balance out any matchmaking irregularities. This is generally assumed to be about 100 games, but truly we don't know.

In reality, prior to the last couple months, the average player in the game participated in fewer than 100 matches per month/season. Which means a substantial part of the player base will never achieve enough games to be ranked properly. Furthermore, matchmaking is not random because we have groups in play. This means that an external force is able to force a potentially unbalanced situation on the matchmaker.

This works in either direction. A really good solo player who never drops group is probably going to be undervalued by this new system. A mediocre player who plays a lot of group is going to be overvalued. Let's say they both end up at the same PSR rank and drop in a solo match. The mediocre player is considered a balance to the really good player and they are placed on opposite teams. The matchmaker has now failed to provide balance due to the group bias in PSR. Yes, if they play enough solo matches their rankings will move toward a more accurate position, but all that group player has to do is go group drop again to end up with an artificially boosted ranking.

This is why, in this game, at this time, you have to have the ability to move in the opposite direction of a win or loss if you significantly over or underperform. Until and unless there is a way to better assess player skill in groups vs. solos, looking at individual performance as an adjunct to WLR is all we have. And PGI have given no indications they have any idea on how to balance groups.

This is a valid point about the group drops, but I think the unfair part of it has more to do with the handicap it places on the team with the potato-carrying group than it does with somebody getting something they don't deserve (although the psychology behind why somebody would want to game a system just to make life harder on themselves is a bit baffling to me altogether).

On the other hand, a group bringing such a weak player will also suffer for it, over a large enough number of matches, and drop in tier as well. If neither of those things happen... well, a win is still a win.

[Rameau]

[color=#959595]THIS IS NOT FAIR!

And now you've made it possible for TROLLS to damage the PSR of the entire team...

A player winning with a low match score should drop. They were a drag on their team and only won because of their teammates. Same thing with a losing player scoring 400+. They did more than anyone else to win the match but were penalized by their team.[/color]

[MechWarrior414712]

Taram, on 04 June 2020 - 12:15 PM, said:

I find this totally wrong. You should not penalize someone who played really well just because the team lost. The game overly penalizes good players when their team loses and over rewards bad players when their team wins.

Balance it out, make it zero sum but don't over reward someone just because their team happened to win despite them getting a ****** score. I also feel that doing really well, even in a loss, should give someone an increased match score.

U see Paul's suggestion doesn't penalize people that play well; you can still gain +1 on a good game or stay even.

Unless you consider 200 score "good"

Paul PLEASE don't listen to anyone that wants rating changes easier than what your suggestion has!! That defeats the purpose of the system as we can see with current PSR!

Edited by I O O percent KongLord, 04 June 2020 - 01:02 PM.

[Gerdau]

Ditto!

Better rewards for INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE, please!

[color=#959595]A player winning with a low match score should drop. They were a drag on their team and only won because of their teammates. Same thing with a losing player scoring 400+. They did more than anyone else to win the match but were penalized by their team.[/color]

[MechWarrior414712]

Rameau, on 04 June 2020 - 01:00 PM, said:

[color=#959595]THIS IS NOT FAIR![/color]

And now you've made it possible for TROLLS to damage the PSR of the entire team...

A player winning with a low match score should drop. They were a drag on their team and only won because of their teammates. Same thing with a losing player scoring 400+. They did more than anyone else to win the match but were penalized by their team.

Trolls trolling will go down so their impact is very minimal if the system works.