490 replies to this topic

[Nelio]

5th Fedcom Rat, on 05 June 2020 - 12:50 PM, said:

I like that "ranking within the team" model best. That's always how I have evaluated my performance in this game, rather than match score.

I do the same ... I dont play in a group... if i had a good score ( win or lose) i feel like contibuting something to the match!

[Nelio]

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.

I agree with this opinion and it would be a good base for tweaking the rise/fall by changing the math of the matchscore.

[Horseman]

Andrzej Lechrenski, on 07 June 2020 - 12:52 AM, said:

"I play with a joystick because I used to be great at MW4!"

"I like to play with ****ty lore builds in a PVP game"

[Thorn Hallis]

What is the tier reset good for when the player base is to small to be seperated by tiers?

Edited by Thorn Hallis, 07 June 2020 - 07:21 AM.

[Horseman]

Thorn Hallis, on 07 June 2020 - 07:20 AM, said:

What is the tier reset good for when the player base is to small to be seperated by tiers?

Nobody here is even considering complete tier separation . The point of the reset is fixing the situation where most of the playerbase bubbled up into T1 and letting the new system redistribute them into (hopefully) more accurate tiers.

[ThunderKats]

Still make no sense...Tier is just a measure of experience same as before, don't see anything new other than the global reset. Hope this time they at least they give you something when you advance into a high tier, like many days of premium-time + special decal for each tier, maybe a free mech that suit each tier, like a free medium mech for T4, heavy T3, light T2, assault T1. No comment about having group dropping in Alpa-Lance yet? Is what's braking the game apart, having no lights and dealing with 8 assaults on a group every now and then, need to be move to Bravo or Charlie and well about the tier I still think we need a secondary tier system, a hidden one that keep players with highest average score under a 20% Most Wanted list. This way the matchmaker can split this 20% top players on both side of the group properly when trying to balance the equation. I know we don't have an Oracle to measure human potential but giving how many years the matchmaker been sorting people almost like a coin toss maybe is time for some real change. Keep social distance please, I might be infected...

[ttsolo]

I hadn't played for a year, because in France, it was almost impossible to drop in group. It destroyed the SMC (a very old group for those who know).
Having the possibility to drop together again made us come back to the game.
Numbers and statistics are a thing... but just giving us the possibility to play together is way more important for us. I don't care if it means 5% less or more stomp or whatever...

[ShaneoftheDead]

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

If you are going to do it this way, which I do not recommend (see some of my older posts on this topic), then I suggest that there needs to be a "Neutral Zone" where you go neither up, nor down irrespective of Win or Loss. The Neutral Zone reflects in the algorithm that the match was balanced for that player, neither too easy or too hard.

At present, the algorithm above seems to think that either Winning with a poor score or Losing with a great score indicates that the player's PSR is exactly where it needs to be. That does not make sense to me. In the Losing case, you clearly had an easy time and deserve to gain in PSR. In the Winning case, it was clearly difficult which suggests that the PSR should go down.

The goal should be for a self-balancing algorithm that uses proper feedback, both negative and positive, to move players towards the PSR score that accurately reflects their skill as compared to their peers. If a player does OK in a match, then there is no reason to adjust the PSR.

I suggest starting with something like this:

Win, Lose, or Draw
Match Score:	  < 50   = PSR - 2

 
Match Score:  50 - 188 = PSR - 1
Match Score:  189 - 288 = no change "Neutral Zone"
Match Score:  289 - 388 = PSR + 1
Match Score:    > 388     = PSR + 2

I'm sure you have access to better data than I have access to (https://leaderboard....s#scoreWLRchart) and can adjust the ranges accordingly. Now, isengrim.org shows that the 1.00 WLR is around a Match Score of about 238. Judging from this chart (https://leaderboard....stats#gamechart) the range 189 to 288 seems like a good starting point for the Neutral Zone. 50 points on either side of 238. 388 is about where you reach 2.0 WLR, so above that you get the +2. The data on isengrim.org is meger for sub 100 match score, but a guesstimate of the curve below suggests a 0.5 WLR at around 50 Match Score.

Again, you have better data than I do and can refine the above. Its flaws are that poor players and great players will likely take too long to reach their actual PSR score, if they ever do. However, it should do well for the bulk of the OK and good players.

[A21B]

regardless of what you do there are going to people who want the game to be super easy cause it makes them feel good, if they can drop in rank by screwing around for a few games they will do it.....because they can a troll is a troll

[pvt Hudsoff]

OZHomerOZ, on 05 June 2020 - 02:37 PM, said:

To fix the leaky bathtub with an even bigger leak haha

This happens when you don't want the water to leak that particular hole

[Tarl Cabot]

PGI current proposal does not have a static PSR range, and the middle two ranges covers too much ground. It should be broken up into 100 ranges, as well as adding another PSR level.

In the graph below, the first one is broken up into 100 MS ranges, the 2nd one into 125 ranges but it may be tougher to swallow.

0, 1, 3, 5, 7 and -7, -5, -3, -1, 0.



With that said, this is what the current setup looks like, then comparing it to the upcoming PGI update. I do not expect PGI to do a complete rewrite to obtain a zero sum for every drop. It would be easier to add another level and equal out those levels.

[Voice of Kerensky]

As I saw the description of the changes:



Well, personally, my opinion on the changes being made.

In short, the people on the forum asked for only three things:
1) If the team wins - do not give a level increase to players who have not done anything to win;
2) In case of losing the team - to give a level increase to the players who tried to win, did something worthy in the match;
3) Fix the work of the matchmaker. Organize the selection of opponents of equal strength.
4) Make the matchmaker balance the premade group and the opposing team. Perhaps with their real skill level.

What was really done from this list? Nothing. A brief description of the changes made in response to three requests from players (each paragraph answers one of the requests of most players):
1) The one who did nothing to win still gets a level increase (see screenshot);
2) Those who tried to win, but lost due to a weak team, it was decided to punish even more (see screenshot);
3) A matchmaker with the current base of players simply cannot be changed to have a noticeable effect.
4) Apparently, the developers generally preferred not to respond to this. And this is generally understandable, given the situation with the base of players. However, I would like to note that this is not a solution to the problem.

Okay. Let's see how the new system will work. Although I would like for the developers to listen to the opinions of the players for real.

Upd.
I forgot to say it , so I’ll add it now.
There was another request from the players, I will give him number 4.

Edited by Voice of Kerensky, 07 June 2020 - 09:04 PM.

[Ghostrider0067]

PGI is going to PGI. That largely means they're going to say they're interested in what we have to add to the discussion but do what THEY ultimately want. I've been around long enough to see it happen time and again. It's like they enjoy sabotaging their own game.

There's a lot of great players that have come and gone over that kind of nonsense. There's some real merit to the discussion points brought forth here in the thread and I'll be shocked if any of them sway the powers that be to see the errors in their ways. Color me negative if one wishes, but I've not had much reason for optimism and this (while largely needed) doesn't give me a reason to want to suit up and drop.

To each their own. This opinion is mine and mine only. Your tonnage may vary.

[rascje]

Voice of Kerensky, on 07 June 2020 - 06:57 PM, said:

Okay. Let's see how the new system will work. Although I would like for the developers to listen to the opinions of the players for real.

No! No more wasting time.
When there was patch every month, the game was under a bit of attention.
With the mw5 coming, mwo is really shelved.
So, I (but I hope "we") don't want a useless test for the new system, simply listen how players ask, give us a new proposal and try to put live a good one.
Please, no more months of wasting time.

[Voice of Kerensky]

chel plui biel, on 07 June 2020 - 08:25 PM, said:

No! No more wasting time.
When there was patch every month, the game was under a bit of attention.
With the mw5 coming, mwo is really shelved.
So, I (but I hope "we") don't want a useless test for the new system, simply listen how players ask, give us a new proposal and try to put live a good one.
Please, no more months of wasting time.

Of course I agree with you.
But you yourself see (including from my previous message) that developers make decisions, to put it mildly, completely not the ones the players ask for them.
So give up your hopes. All the same, they will do everything in their own way, crooked, not paying any attention to the arguments of the players.
You know, in Russia we have a black humor saying: "If r*pe is not avoided, relax and have fun."
This is the only way we can do in this situation.

Edited by Voice of Kerensky, 07 June 2020 - 11:41 PM.

[Munkeyed]

Go back to the CODEX!!!!~
HONOUR system!!
Enough cyber-bullying getting esteem!
YOU DON'T WIN by FIGHTING
YOU WIN by LIVING!!!!
LITERALLY!!

[Horseman]

Munkeyed, on 08 June 2020 - 12:05 AM, said:

Go back to the CODEX!!!!~
HONOUR system!!
Enough cyber-bullying getting esteem!
YOU DON'T WIN by FIGHTING
YOU WIN by LIVING!!!!
LITERALLY!!

If everyone's a winner then NOBODY is a winner.
This is a game about FIGHTING. With GIANT ROBOTS. And NATIONAL STEREOTYPES. In SPACE. Your argument is invalid.

Edited by Horseman, 08 June 2020 - 04:08 AM.

[TunaFist88]

Beating a dead tuna here, but is it 0 sum (each team points balance out to 0) when a loss is going to be significantly (-) points? losing teams rarely make 400dmg pp; per the proposed, most of the losing team will accrue more negative given thresholds vs winners' threshold of positive.
with the patch coming in 30 hours this post's effect is moot, but would a true neutralizing 0-sum rank players by score where positions 1-3 earn 5pts 4-6: 3 pts, 7-9: 1 pt, and 10-12 (carried)= 0? inverse for opfor. THAT is a more accurate zero-sum, no?

what about backplate eating lights or mechs what use efficacy vs number farming? what value is a a kill w less damage/points by through the back, or swiped light legs out w an alpha? anyone bringing a light will work harder for numbers, and having less armor to farm, makes them reward opfor less. maybe some changes to rewards for scouting, hit and run, brawl?

I do not want to stagnate doing what I love in lights, my contributions seemingly becoming less-so b/c of weighted raw damage numbers and less than realisitic thresholds.

[RRAMIREZ]

TunaFist88, on 08 June 2020 - 04:14 AM, said:

with the patch coming in 30 hours

This is not sure:
https://mwomercs.com...tch-jun-5-2020/

[Knight Captain Morgan]

Anomalocaris, on 04 June 2020 - 10:07 AM, said:

Shorter summary:

1. Match quality went down even in the best case scenario post merge. Goal not met.
.

Nailed it