83 replies to this topic

[Windscape]

I hope to see a match score rework as well as further adjustment of the numbers as this keeps going.

Ams can farm Cbills or XP or something else (ex: 25CB per missile destroyed).
Removing the match score bumps to winners
and reducing the DPS of LRMS so even with a perfectly balanced matchmaker I still cant cheese my way to the top in my AWS 8R

[D V Devnull]

Paul Inouye, on 05 June 2020 - 05:27 PM, said:

Friday June 5,2020

Putting the breaks on Tuesday's patch.

We've been going through all the feedback and want to address the big issues out there. There are clarifications that need to be made, misconceptions to clear up and possible additional tuning to address. We are not hard locked into patching Tuesday and will extend if needed.

Hi there, Paul... The following posts cover most of my thoughts already...

Katrina Steiner, on 05 June 2020 - 06:06 PM, said:

Thanks for the heads up Paul. I'd rather see you guys crunch more data and give it a few weeks if that's whats needed.

Krasnopesky, on 05 June 2020 - 06:57 PM, said:

Thanks for listening to the feedback Paul. Hopefully this will result in an improved system being put in place and a more enjoyable experience for everyone playing as a result.

ESC 907, on 05 June 2020 - 10:01 PM, said:

Man, someone pinch me! I really look forward to seeing the clarifications/alterations that are to be announced.

...but beyond that, I do have a multipart question. Is the "Match Score To PSR Conversion" locked into only having 4 ways to decide for Wins – as well as only 4 ways to decide for Loss – or can it have finer-grained configurations in order to better adjust people based on the outcome of a Match as to where they stand? Also, can a result of a Tie have a different set of decisions than either Win or Loss would give someone, or are Win and Tie stuck to the same Conversion Decisions as each other? I think it might be helpful to expand the number of decision options in order to get better PSR Determinations after Matches are played and completed.

~D. V. "trying to understand more, in order to help with getting things right the first time" Devnull




(p.s.: By the way, you might want to close the other thread, and announce this one on the Website News page. Otherwise, the discussion may happen to remain somewhat unintentionally split between the two.)

[Aidan Crenshaw]

OneTeamPlayer, on 06 June 2020 - 08:25 AM, said:

1 in 3 games are a stomp and people are celebrating the idea that they need more than a week to tweak numbers in a spreadsheet and reset a UI tier bar.

Welp.

Let me say that again, 1 in 3 games are so unbalanced they end in total slaughter and this has been the case for over a month now.

Fine, you don't want to rush PSR changes, cool.

Split Solo and Group queue again so at least solo players can enjoy matches again, because what's going on now is entirely unsustainable and everyone knows it.

1 in 3, folks, 1 in 3.

You realize the stomp rate was nearly the same before the merge happened?

[Brom96]

This month already I have a larger number of losses then wins, by far. Most of them stomps - for me that is the game where you team gets killed fast, not just the score. And I usually play light mechs, in most cases I got 1 or 2 kills, some 200-300 points, maximum. Few other players got similar scores, while the rest performed dismal. So, with the originally proposed adjustment, we shall get punished for the performance of randomly generated team.

If this was strictly group based game, I could understand that, in a sense that group will throw out players that do not keep up with the set standard of the game and thus are detrimental to other people. But, it seems that most of us are not group people but ordinary players. Hence we shall go down irrespective of personal performance. Even the current system is based on the team performance and it's not good. And that's even without mentioning that actual actions like scouting, capping, etc. contribute relatively little to your score. Bottom line is - players who perform good in a lost match should be awarded, too.

And just a few final rants:

1. If you did not get loosing streaks of 10 or 20 matches in a row, then you are lucky.

2. If you believe originally proposed measure would increase team communication and cooperation, you are naive, to use the mild word.

[Nelio]

Hi Paul! Thanks for letting us know! I read a lot of good ideas and concerns in the other thread. Please let us know what you think can/cant be done and what are your main concerns & goals! I know it often is a question of resources what can be done. So if the Jaguar isnt possible let us know;-)

[Nesutizale]

I just did a little math and I don't think that people with a constant good performance will be punished over time.



As you can see even if you loose every second game as long as your performance is 251 + matchscore you will move to the top.

What most people ask for with "but I performed so well I should get more out of it" is asking to keep the current system !
We need a system where people move down in the same way as up.

Second thing...this is a teamgame. When your team performs bad then you are a part of the reason. Yes you might have 11 potatos around you but then do something to improve them. Be a shotcaller, explain the game and lead or shut up and farm seals.

PS: If you are sealclubbing and get 400+ matchscore you would need to loos 100 of 100 matchers to just stay where you are...you wouldn't even loose in status !

Another point that needs to be though of is that when you reach your Tier your matchscore should drop. So when you are at your personal sweat spot you should have allways the same amounts of wins and looses so that you allways have one match where your get your +1 and a game where you get -1 and that is what Zero-Sum is all about as far as I understand it.
No longer a progress bar but a leveling out.

Points that need adressing are in my opinion things like
- Do we need a rework for what gives matchscore to reflect good teamplay more then just "Who farmed the most damage"
- Are the limits of when you rise and fall done well? When I look at the Jarls list most people performe around 201-225 matchscore. That would mean that most players would move down in tier. Maybe the limits should be set differently or maybe add one more limit to the list?

Edited by Nesutizale, 07 June 2020 - 03:35 AM.

[Nearly Dead]

Paul Inouye, on 05 June 2020 - 05:27 PM, said:

Friday June 5,2020

Putting the breaks on Tuesday's patch.

We've been going through all the feedback and want to address the big issues out there. There are clarifications that need to be made, misconceptions to clear up and possible additional tuning to address. We are not hard locked into patching Tuesday and will extend if needed.

Cautiously optimistic. Caution 70%, optimism 30%.

Hopefully they will find a way to piss everyone off equally, since pleasing everyone is impossible.

[OneTeamPlayer]

Aidan Crenshaw, on 07 June 2020 - 12:18 AM, said:

You realize the stomp rate was nearly the same before the merge happened?

Did Paul say the statistics reflected that?

Perhaps it's true and it's unconscious bias on my end, but before merge I was happily enjoying MWO with the occasional stomp game, not enough for me to even remember, but post-merge so many stomps I am playing less and mostly considering putting down the game for a month or two until this is all sorted out.

I'll put it this way, I've seen so many stomps in the past few weeks that kicking another teams butt severely isn't even exciting or enjoyable anymore. I remember pre-merge when we absolutely crushed another team it was high fives all around and high energy.

Nowadays i can hear the whole team post-game saying "i've seen so many of these it's not even fun" "this is my fourth stomp in a row" "this isn't fun at all, i want a challenge".

Can you imagine managing to create a system that takes the fun out of winning in a competitive game? Cause that's what we have now.

Also, and i'm not saying that you're making this argument, but "it was that way before the merge" is just more reason to put a bit of speed on a fix. As i've said before can you imagine any other game where 1 out of 3 games ends in such a beating that no one on either side feels good about the outcome?

Especially in a game which takes about as much time from clicking search to the first full control of one's mech in match as it does in the whole active fighting period of the match?

A minimum basic standard is making competitive matches in a competitive game, this isn't even a controversial idea so much as a literal foundation of a functioning game.

[VixNix]

you can't force people to play as a team, many refuse to listen or even have voice turned off.

you don't reward game type, there is no value in playing it, most don't play it unless forced (capping).

the most often occurring tactic is to run to "that" spot on the map and NASCAR as fast as possible.

not balancing for equipment means one team is usually completely shut down (AMS and ECM vs missiles) ever play the SRM medium and have 0-100 damage after running out of ammo?

I don't care if I'm tier 1 or 5, I want a fun (STOMPLESS) game, I don't see anything with these changes fixing that.


Question, when a group is formed which PSR tier is used to determine match?

[Mochyn Pupur]

So, looking at the proposed/implemented new system.

The assault mech gets left behind because everyone nascared, they are caught by a few lights and and are wrecked with less than 100 match score and their side loses resulting in a large PSR drop. Next match same assault doles out 800+ damage, kills a couple of mechs, but doesn't cross the magical threshold - another PSR drop. Same mech destroyed by 8 enemy mechs carrying lrm/atm loadouts that easily overwhelm ams - less than 100 match score, large PSR drop . . . seems to be a running theme here for dragging a player down due to either poor team work or folk avoiding combat and relying on out of sight damage.

Guy who lags into the match or goes ld - penalised because of issues out of their control.

Person on winning side sits back, gets a few scouting rewards, missile lock rewards, maybe a few ams rewards, match score over the magical minimum threshold and PSR goes up for barely registering their presence?

How about making all QP drops completely random, filter sync drops, no PSR in QP but then focus (i.e. spend time and money on making FP what it needed to be years ago - then make PSR something to look at). Overall contribution to the extended match style, grouping, teamwork, situational mech building etc. etc. - reward that and get the player base back into the best part of the game.

Allow people to affiliate themselves with a specific faction again, introduced the tiered rewards again; you know, make MWO worth the time so many people have and would again plough into playing.

In short:

Reset - fine
PSR - nope in QP
FP - PSR yes
Overall - make the game work again for everyone

[Nesutizale]

@VixNix
No you can't force people but if it becomes more common place and more people experiance wins when they listen or when they activly play as a team more people will use it.

You will still find a lot of people not doing it but those won't change anyway. So I agree its less about forceing but enguraging people.

Also good question about how groups are calculated. It could either be highest, average or lowest.

@OneTeamPlayer
I say let the new system work out for a while. Let people sattle into their new Tier and see what matches we have then.
In theorie we should get more balanced matches at average.
Problem we have is player numbers at a given time.

For example I have experianced very little of the stuff that is mentioned here. I have played mostly solo, about 80%, of the time. I didn't made a list but from the feeling, I didn't experianced more or less stomps over time then before.
What I noticed that at certain times of the day communication actualy went up and gameplay changed with it.
When the time of comms came the better players also arrived and games became much quicker, either by our side winning or loosing faster and matchscores looked better overall.

I think a lot of how people experiance the game is depended on when you play.
For me the morning games are easy. I can get kills and do good damage and matchscores. At the evening I am mostly at the lower and of the spectrum. Happy do get one kill and sometimes I even survive.

@PeppaPig
How should FP with a PSR work? FP is about pre-made teams of sometimes up to 12 people. Good luck in finding a match for 12 people with nearly exact the same PSR on the other side.

Edited by Nesutizale, 07 June 2020 - 04:30 AM.

[Mighty Spike]

Thebackson, on 05 June 2020 - 06:34 PM, said:

I am glad you are doing the reset, I am even more glad that you are taking the extra time to do it right. Thanks

yep ^This
Thx Paul

[VixNix]

Nesutizale, on 07 June 2020 - 04:27 AM, said:

@VixNix
No you can't force people but if it becomes more common place and more people experiance wins when they listen or when they activly play as a team more people will use it.

You will still find a lot of people not doing it but those won't change anyway. So I agree its less about forceing but enguraging people.

Also good question about how groups are calculated. It could either be highest, average or lowest.

@OneTeamPlayer
I say let the new system work out for a while. Let people sattle into their new Tier and see what matches we have then.
In theorie we should get more balanced matches at average.
Problem we have is player numbers at a given time.

For example I have experianced very little of the stuff that is mentioned here. I have played mostly solo, about 80%, of the time. I didn't made a list but from the feeling, I didn't experianced more or less stomps over time then before.
What I noticed that at certain times of the day communication actualy went up and gameplay changed with it.
When the time of comms came the better players also arrived and games became much quicker, either by our side winning or loosing faster and matchscores looked better overall.

I think a lot of how people experiance the game is depended on when you play.
For me the morning games are easy. I can get kills and do good damage and matchscores. At the evening I am mostly at the lower and of the spectrum. Happy do get one kill and sometimes I even survive.

@PeppaPig
How should FP with a PSR work? FP is about pre-made teams of sometimes up to 12 people. Good luck in finding a match for 12 people with nearly exact the same PSR on the other side.

First every time you say "but" you are saying ignore what came before this.

You can't force them to and 9 years in it still happens, what's going to change?

Stomp after stomp and once in a while a good game... not fun and people on the winning side who say it is are part of the problem.

I have no interest in FP, it was added to make more money for PGI not more fun for players... otherwise why isn't that the normal game play?



If you take out all skill trees, allow only one consumable per mech unless you are a light, take out arty and airstrike the game will move toward a better balance, or at least be easier to balance.

Allow selection of load-out (via saved profiles already available in game) after map and game type is selected, you wouldn't send your arctic equipped troops to the desert and visa versa...

Go back to random maps and selectable games types.

Replace assault game type with capture the flag.

Etc... Etc...

[Nesutizale]

You are mixing two things. The new PSR is to level out players based on skill. What you are suggesting is changeing gameplay itself.

[VixNix]

Nesutizale, on 07 June 2020 - 06:06 AM, said:

You are mixing two things. The new PSR is to level out players based on skill. What you are suggesting is changeing gameplay itself.

It is all about making the game better...

PSR is IMO a joke, the suggested changes wont help because the basic principals of the game need to be fixed.

[Nesutizale]

I think the new PSR is a part of solveing at least one of many problems and I am happy that after a year or longer PGI comes back to MWO and starts to look at things.

Are there more things to look at? Sure but this particular problem is most likely the easiest to fix and a good start.

[Captain Caveman DE]

Paul Inouye, on 05 June 2020 - 05:27 PM, said:

Friday June 5,2020

Putting the breaks on Tuesday's patch.

We've been going through all the feedback and want to address the big issues out there. There are clarifications that need to be made, misconceptions to clear up and possible additional tuning to address. We are not hard locked into patching Tuesday and will extend if needed.

glad you reconsider things (at least it sounds like it); pls state the changes you think about, so people can comment. oh and pls set a date to patch it in in a week or so, not next month or even further away.

[Tarl Cabot]

copy/paste from another thread.

Notice that the current setup, PGI had set the break even for the 101-250 MS range, but now with the observed results in which players with low avg MS (avg 171 MS ), through brute force of playing 10s of thousands of games are being able to reach Tier 1, then flip/flop between it and Tier 2, all the while being dropped with and against players with 2x to 3x their average MS.




But now.. looking both the old and the new setting... shouldn't there be a even breakpoint threshold by adding another range, breaking apart the middle two ranges? Looking at the current setup, one can reason why PGI setup the PSR values like they did.

Below would add at least one more threshold breaking apart the 101-250 and the 251-400

0-100
101-200
201-300
301-400
401+

PSR can still preform the reset and apply the new values and review the result for the month to make a decision on what minor changes needs to be made, be it adding an additional threshold to tweaking the values themselves.

Of course, with that said, PGI would need to hold to that expectation of making tweaks next month instead of leaving doing nothing like they have in the past, since this will have an affect on the majority of the players in that bell curve.

[Kurdain]

Well I hope there is a rethinking on how score is determined as it now stands it seems damage is king. Sure you have to damage the other team to win but 50 pinpoint damage in the right spot is arguably more important that 200 splash damage.

Also as I have pointed out, and maybe I am just bad at playing, that when I run my NARC/Spotter mech I almost always get sub 200 match scores because I am not doing a lot of damage. Instead I am putting up UAV's in the middle of the enemies lines, narc/mark targets for 75% faster lock and 100% stronger missile tracking strength, and tagging capture points when appropriate.

I do know that when I have a good round of spotting/narc'ing that the ATM/LRM mechs...mostly LRM to be fair, usually get well over 1000 damage and often results in a win.

Also I feel that you shouldn't be penalized because you had bad luck. I crossed between 2 buildings on Grim Plexis at 150 kph and caught dual heavy guass to the chest...popped my raven in 1 hit to the core. I am sure the shot was intended for someone else and I was unlucky...but I received a penalty. Not sure how you would mitigate this but something to ponder against the guy that stand still, doing team damage...heck on HPG 3 of us was killed by the same team mate yesterday and he got a higher score than I did.

[Captain Caveman DE]

consider something like this (which is btw something 'zero sum'); just spitballed and an example.
it still pronounces a win over just matchscore-farming, but at least the people carrying the losing side still get something of it,
while the last 3 of the winning team still go down a little.

oh and: people have to get rid of the idea that going-down is a punishment; elo/tier/whatever is just a number to sort performance, so a matchmaker can build a 'fair and balanced' match; that's all.
having a third of all games be stomps is an alarming number and it needs to go down;