490 replies to this topic

[SkubaSteve]

Thanks for the effort fellas. buuuuuut……

This PSR reform is not what the player base wanted. Everyone I talk to says performance should be the factoring logic. So WHY isn't player performance represented on a loss??? You guys did the complete opposite of making tier advancement not relient on W/L, it's now MORE relient on W/L! The points value brackets should be the same for either a win or a loss if you actually want to reward good play.

[Capt Deadpool]

I would say if you are good enough to score 400+/600+ on the losing team consistently, such a person would not be worried about not increasing in rank in a loss because such a person is probably winning a lot. If you are getting such scores in losses and not winning a lot, then you need to try to help your team win more instead of just trying to maximize match score, i.e.,try playing something that isn't lurms... There are plenty of ridiculously easy-to-play meta builds out there like ATM and mpulse boats, or any fast heavy really .

For those who say they can't play their fun 'support' build because I help my teammates get good scores but my scores aren't good, then I would say as long as your 'support' build is getting you wins consistently, you have nothing to worry about. And if it isn't getting you wins, then continue to enjoy playing it (if that is your favorite build, per above post), and just enjoy whatever tier you end up in. If I absolutely love playing a quad AMS, 8x flamer assault, then good for me, do what is fun, but it would be silly for me to think a build that isn't getting me consistent wins should allow me into upper tiers.

[Roland09]

I'm sure it has been written before (not going to read all 17 pages):

Thanks to Paul / PGI for giving us figures on stomps, and taking up the suggestion about tier reset and zero-sum psr changes.

[Yozaa]

OneTeamPlayer, on 05 June 2020 - 11:31 AM, said:

Do you actually believe the conversation on here is going to cause PGI to revert the changes they've decided upon and go with one of the formulas written here that go directly contrary to what they believe i the problem with the system?

Its possible
Guess those posts were not for nothing
Its why I post stuff, for the betterment of the game and all its players

[Warning incoming Humble Dexterer]

OneTeamPlayer, on 05 June 2020 - 11:31 AM, said:

Do you actually believe the conversation on here is going to cause PGI to revert the changes they've decided upon and go with one of the formulas written here that go directly contrary to what they believe i the problem with the system?

Many of the formulas written here are within the "zero-sum" formula that PGI stated is the solution to the problem with the initial system.

I think the main difference is that players think that very bad performing players who are lucky to land on a very good team should still be "punished" for their bottom team performance, and very good performing players who are unlucky to land on a very bad team should still be "rewarded" for their top team performance...

While PGI thinks those top/bottom performing players should "not be affected" (does not move) by the outcome of such extreme matches. Which might make as much if not even more sense, since those match outcomes are mostly about how (un)lucky you were with the team you landed.

And that's a minor difference really, it doesn't matter much which version gets chosen, because they're all pointing in the same direction.

[Lionheart2012]

Dogmeat1, on 04 June 2020 - 10:23 AM, said:

As I posted in the previous thread, the matchscore targets should scale based on the player's current PSR compared to the server PSR average/median. This will prevent players from infinitely increasing their PSR if they never lose (as happens with groups). An easy fix to this issue is to use these formulas;

Player LOSES:
IF Matchscore 401 * (PlayerPSR/MedianPSR) THEN no PSR change
ELSE Matchscore 251 * (PlayerPSR/MedianPSR) THEN PSR goes down by -1
ELSE Matchscore 101 * (PlayerPSR/MedianPSR) THEN PSR goes down by -3
ELSE PSR goes down by -5

Largely agree, but there is one problem with the logic statement. It should read:
IF Matchscore ≥ 400 * (PlayerPSR/MedianPSR), THEN ....

Edited by Lionheart2012, 06 June 2020 - 05:10 AM.

[The Bloody History of Communism]

Instead of monkeying with peoples PSRs etc, which is to a certain extent giving trophies for failure/wiping away bad grades for everyone because not everyone made it; 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?

[Lionheart2012]

So combining Dogmeat1, pvt Hudsoff, and Horseman, we should have:

Player LOSES:
IF Matchscore ≥ 401 * (PlayerPSR/MedianPSR) THEN PSR +1
ELSE Matchscore ≥ 219 * (PlayerPSR/MedianPSR) THEN PSR no change
ELSE Matchscore ≥ 101 * (PlayerPSR/MedianPSR) THEN PSR goes down by -1
ELSE PSR goes down by -3

Player WINS:
IF Matchscore ≥ 401*(PlayerPSR/MedianPSR) THEN PSR goes up by +3
ELSE Matchscore ≥ 233*(PlayerPSR/MedianPSR) THEN PSR goes up by +1
ELSE Matchscore ≥ 101*(PlayerPSR/MedianPSR) THEN PSR no change
ELSE PSR -1

Edited by Lionheart2012, 06 June 2020 - 05:10 AM.

[Ranger Dave]

[color=#222222]I don't mind the linkage to win loss. Comms is a huge factor towards wins that score struggles to capture. [/color]

Would be nice to see some further tweaks to score calculation away from damage dealt, more emphasis on skill.
Otherwise, I guess it is time to boat le lurms.

[AEgg]

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.

[Tommy Atkins]

This there any breakdown of how match score is determined?

I've seen a lot of anecdotal stuff, but I've never found an actual explanation and what it weights for and against.

[spannerturner]

Kurdain, on 05 June 2020 - 07:38 PM, said:

Why am I penalized for playing a team support role?

The irony is that PSR being tied to W/L is because this is supposed to be all about the team, yet Match Score does not account for all of the team support activities/functions that are utilized and can be significant factors to winning.

What I see happening is support roles like those you enjoy playing will go away in favor of using mechs that just do more damage, individually... I can see how this will kill the "team" aspect and result in just 12 individuals out there doing direct damage.

[Yozaa]

8v 8 means less opportunity to get carried, may not be popular

[Aidan Crenshaw]

spannerturner, on 06 June 2020 - 05:56 AM, said:

The irony is that PSR being tied to W/L is because this is supposed to be all about the team, yet Match Score does not account for all of the team support activities/functions that are utilized and can be significant factors to winning.

What I see happening is support roles like those you enjoy playing will go away in favor of using mechs that just do more damage, individually... I can see how this will kill the "team" aspect and result in just 12 individuals out there doing direct damage.

Matchscore accounts heavily for team support activities. It's not just damage and kills.

[Thebackson]

spannerturner, on 06 June 2020 - 05:56 AM, said:

The irony is that PSR being tied to W/L is because this is supposed to be all about the team, yet Match Score does not account for all of the team support activities/functions that are utilized and can be significant factors to winning.

What I see happening is support roles like those you enjoy playing will go away in favor of using mechs that just do more damage, individually... I can see how this will kill the "team" aspect and result in just 12 individuals out there doing direct damage.

Support functions do provide matchscore bonus, but that is also a separate issue, if a new psr system goes in based on match score rank within the match they could also adjust what gives good match score. Things like target lock damage or tag assist or what ever support roles could easily be tweaked to give more match score weight in a match to help promote that type of game play if needed.

[Anomalocaris]

Andrzej Lechrenski, on 05 June 2020 - 07:03 PM, said:

I agree with 90% of what you guys are saying. What I don't agree with is the needless scape-goating of groups for a problem that has existed, and been hurting this game, for years. Certainly groups are highlighting the problem, but now we are even getting people (not you two specifically, but I'm sure you saw the others) coming out and saying that matchmaker was perfectly fair and balanced before groups somehow "ruined" it. I mean, c'mon, that doesn't even make sense.

We are all frustrated right now, but I don't think the attitude of "let's blame the new guys" is helping, and it's especially non-constructive from people who haven't even been playing.

Who is scapegoating groups? Look, some group guys who "wanted to play with their friends" petitioned Russ and Paul to merge queues. That's their prerogative and they believed it was in their self interest. While I question their true motivation (I think most of em got tired of being stomped in the other group(like) queues and figured they could be the big dog crushing solos), all they did was ask. Russ and Paul were misguided enough to give it to em. That's on PGI.

My argument is that this new PSR system can't work without accounting for groups. And that's a much harder task than trying to balance it with random solo players. The proposed system in the original post on this thread won't work. They can tweak it some more. But even in what I consider an ideal system, we still don't know how to account for groups in the ranking or matchmaker. Someone needs to think on that and come up with some ideas.

[letir]

spannerturner, on 06 June 2020 - 05:56 AM, said:

The irony is that PSR being tied to W/L is because this is supposed to be all about the team, yet Match Score does not account for all of the team support activities/functions that are utilized and can be significant factors to winning.

What I see happening is support roles like those you enjoy playing will go away in favor of using mechs that just do more damage, individually... I can see how this will kill the "team" aspect and result in just 12 individuals out there doing direct damage.

It's strange how sandblasting armor with RAC/MRM/LRM alongside with clear-cut cases as AMS support, ECM support, lock providing and so on treated as "score farming" and clearly very selfish, innefective behaviour.

Yet there is some very obscure actions which dosen't include anything from MS, but actually very profitable for the team and help score win. Some very dedicated "game-carrying support" which dosen't catually provide damage, dosen't get kills and not participating in recognizable actions like "hit-and-run" or "flanking", yet somehow winning games for the team.

[Mr Andersson]

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

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

This is NOT a zero sum system.

[spannerturner]

Aidan Crenshaw, on 06 June 2020 - 06:44 AM, said:

Matchscore accounts heavily for team support activities. It's not just damage and kills.

Through experience, I know this to be false. It's why I stopped playing the Narc/spotter role (which I truly enjoyed), stopped capping (unless I just happened to be there & definitely don't go capping on my own), and sniper. Even with the Win, without the damage totals being above a certain threshold, you end up with the bare minimum MS for that win. Hell, I rarely play lights anymore as it is because there really is no incentive for me. I don't care for the Piranha-style light play, it's boring to me. I'd rather do the above stated support roles.

[ShogunKid]

My goodness -- all the bickering about this is insane. A huge amount of the player base wants a reset in Tier and changes to the PSR system. Great! This has been a change many have wanted for years. So, PGI finally decides to deliver this much needed change, but all we can seem to do is argue about that now???

PSR was like a broken down car that wasn't getting us anywhere. 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!?? It may not be perfect, but at least it will be getting us moving again. So what if it doesn't account for that 1 game in 1000 where you got Ace of Spades on a loss and you felt like you DESERVED to go up?? Oh well! Play enough -- win enough -- you'll go up. Inevitably, you will be in the place where you're meant to be. But to go up in Tier isn't even really the goal is it?. It's to give us all better quality matches based on our estimated skill level. And that's the best we could ever hope for. There is no way to measure pure individual skill level on a game that is interdependent on a team's performance.

In general -- this will be a huge improvement in helping to separate the tiers. Obviously, there is NO way to make everyone happy with this change, and I can see why PGI was hesitant to pursue this change due to all the criticism they have to endure for this. They're despised for not making a change and despised for actually attempting a change -- that's a tough place to be in. They deserve some grace. Obviously they are doing some things right if we're all willing to spend our free time (and for some of us -- our money) enjoying ourselves with the product they've produced. If it's not fun for you, simply move on and play something different.

(I wouldn't be surprised if all the negative comments here deter PGI from even resetting the PSR. That would be a shame indeed. Let's hope that isn't the case. )