713 replies to this topic

[Zerex]

Kamikaze Viking, on 09 June 2020 - 03:30 AM, said:

And teamwork should not affect "player skill rating"? is teamwork not a skill?

I am almost 100% sure i never said anything to that effect regrading this topic. Teamwork is a skill of a player and it is rewarded in the match score system, assists, target locks, scouting and so forth, i have never said these should be removed.

A player that out performs every other player should not be denied the top PSR of the match because the team losing a 12-11 to the wire match or a player that gains PSR over players that out performed him but it just so happen he was on the winning team.

You say that its an outdated system that i keep going on about, its because you have never shown me a updated version, bit hard for me to understand a new system you won't tell me.

EDIT, you posted this 11 hours ago calling it you most recent proposal.

Edited by Zerex, 09 June 2020 - 04:00 AM.

[Rendiir]

Paul Inouye, on 08 June 2020 - 02:52 PM, said:

As Russ mentioned, I'm going to provide a list of all events that currently trigger and apply value to Match Score.

Each of these triggers has a value assigned to it. The values are essentially the weighting of the variable in the overall sum of all actions listed. At the end, the number is multiplied by a decimal multiplier that reduces the overall sum to a number that is manageable.


*SNIP*

One value im really disappointed isnt on the list of factors that contribute to score is damage taken. There are many mechs that are almost dedicated to being able to take a hit, the cataphract, dragon and some of the atlas varients are prime examples.

A player is capable of taking over 800 damage in some of these mechs if they are skilled enough to know what they can take and how to spread it properly. A player who died (a score negative) who took over 800 damage (not counted at all) did not let the team down. A brawler with average damage who lead the charge in a successful push but died after taking anything over 600 damage shouldnt be penalised for leading the charge and taking the damage that other mechs simply couldnt take.

Not to mention the ability to properly position and spread your damage is one of the biggest contributing factors to how a player performs, even if they arent playing a brawler. Penalising death without rewarding high damage taken values will always incentivise safe play styles and disincentive brawling or leading a charge.

Damage taken should be counted and damage over 600 should contribute more to match score than death takes away.

[MrTBSC]

Zerex, on 09 June 2020 - 03:36 AM, said:

i honestly do not like this at all ....
like .. this already would put any novice who wants to learn to play lightmechs who can´t deal damage easily or have to risk their butt for scouting at a severe disadvantage from the start .. ... the scoresystem needs to reward active players considering every tonnageclass used ... and light classmechs simply are what on avarage go down the quickest ..
and we sure don´t want novice players to be demotivated to use lightmechs because of a punishing system ..

Edited by MrTBSC, 09 June 2020 - 04:12 AM.

[Zerex]

D U N E, on 09 June 2020 - 03:34 AM, said:

I like how people assume that the "Top Men" are going to tweak the calculations to benefit themselves.

The "Top Men" want fair matches with a decent balance in both teams. Wanting competency on your team is a major thing players strive for. The game is simply not fun when you have players being mismatched on both sides. The goal for the players is to have closer matches for everyone. Meaning we all get placed into fairer teams, the restraints for getting higher/lower are dependent on what makes a team mate better in higher tiers.

When the "Top Men" finish their idea, be sure it's not being sent privately to PGI, but for the entire community to vote and agree on.

Being top 10 doesn't mean much, if we look at the current W/L ratios, or look and MS and finding out how people can already farm MS it's not a difficult process that requires them to infiltrate PGI and change the settings. These new changes, that they are currently working on as a team, in a relatively open discord are to create fairer matches, with the end result of making less stomps and closer games for everyone.

That would be a great point and far more believable if they weren't pushing for systems weighted so heavily to W/L in the PSR calc's, the systems i have seen from 2 people who i'm pretty sure consist of these "TOP MEN" are far far more open to exploitation to gain PSR than the present system. Imagine having rubbish players playing as team mates to you because they were carried there off other players skills, i have proved time and time again to these TOP MEN with actual match screen shots proving how flawed there system is, they refuse to even consider removing the major flaw in their system.

[Kamikaze Viking]

Zerex, on 09 June 2020 - 03:50 AM, said:

EDIT, you posted this 11 hours ago calling it you most recent proposal.

Hence its at least 11 hours out of date. actually 4 days out of date
and your highlighted scoreboard picture is also an inaccurate representation of that old version anyway.

I may not be posting the final proposal, but we also wont be posting half of it for misinterpretation.

Edited by Kamikaze Viking, 09 June 2020 - 04:20 AM.

[Zerex]

MrTBSC, on 09 June 2020 - 04:07 AM, said:

i honestly do not like this at all ....
like .. this already would put any novice who wants to learn to play lightmechs who can´t deal damage easily or have to risk they buut for scouting at a severe disadvantage from the start .. ... the scoresystem needs to reward active players considering every tonnageclass used ... and light classmechs simply are what on avarage go down the quickest ..
and we sure don´t want novice players to be demotivated to use lightmechs because of a punishing system ..

My real issue with this system is the Huntsman gained PSR while performing worst and contributing less to the team than the Locust, just because of the team they were on

[Zerex]

Kamikaze Viking, on 09 June 2020 - 04:12 AM, said:

and your highlighted scoreboard picture is also an inaccurate representation of that old version anyway.

Pretty sure its 100% accurate, if you work out the rest of your "out of date" system and then rank the players from top matchscore and to least matchscore, you will end up with the picture that is " inaccurate representation"

[Kamikaze Viking]

Zerex, on 09 June 2020 - 04:28 AM, said:

Pretty sure its 100% accurate, if you work out the rest of your "out of date" system and then rank the players from top matchscore and to least matchscore, you will end up with the picture that is " inaccurate representation"

Ok i just went to break it down and i got halfway through and realised this image is cut and pasted and sorted by match score. Hence i dont know who was on which team and cannot apply my system.
can you give me the raw scoreboard pic (names redacted) and then i can address is.

Then again its arguing about an old idea, which is kinda a waste of time, But i wanted to do it to clarify for you.

Edit: here you go. I applied the treatment of that old version to a random match from my screenshot folder.

Edited by Kamikaze Viking, 09 June 2020 - 05:11 AM.

[Magic Pain Glove]

I know people say match score is a separate topic , and while I agree with them there is a problem . If PGI is gonna implement a Zero Sum system in game that is gonna be solely dependent on match score we need good and relevant match score metrics in place . While I dont think the current one is overly bad , if we really go ahead with a Zero Sum system I do believe the current one needs tweaking.

Might make a match score proposal later but I would really like to hear what Tarogato and few other individuals have to say about this first.

[Toe Fat]

The problem is, these game have turn into out of control brawls 90% of the time. The way it is set up now, once contact with the other team is made, a game last about 2 to 3 minutes average.
I believe the Reasons for this is:
1. Damage output of a lot of the Mech's is to high. Short range missiles being the worse.
2. Map design is set up for too much Close Range Brawling.
3. With 12 Mechs trying to move around pilots keep getting in each other way.
I. Maps need less objects blocking movements of the Mechs.
II. Not enough Long and Middle range shooting position on most of the maps.
For example Caustic Valley use to have good long range and Middle range position now it is straight up short range brawl all the time. Plus it is a pain to move around.
There are other things that could make these matches a lot more interesting to play and last longer!!!!

[Rogard]

Mordenthral, on 08 June 2020 - 04:41 PM, said:

The only thing I dislike about the current system is that every match is basically just Skirmish; which makes sense because damage and kills are the largest contribution to match score. I would like to see the weight of the below categories increased so that when pilots are playing the game mode, their PSR change reflects that. As it stands, if I'm in a light and cap Conquest points all match, even if that wins it for my team in the end, it will tank my match score.

Otherwise, we should just get rid of the other game modes and make all matches Skirmish. Which wouldn't be as much fun.

captureassist
capture - Gain for capturing a capture zone.
capturepulse - Gain for time you are capturing in a capture zone.
firstcapture - Gain for capturing the first capture zone in a match.
powercell_pickup - Gain for picking up a power cell.
powercell_dropoff - Gain for dropping off a power cell.
kill_powercell_carrier - Gain for killing a power cell carrier.

This is a solid point, what is the point of having a match type if we do not get rewards based around the game play needed for the match type. I think this is really something to think about as with incursion no one goes for the base until the other team is dead except the rare occasion of a base push. If playing the objective had more of an outcome vs just killing, the tactics of the matches would change I feel drastically.

[Mat Sorkas]

I am no TOP MAN working on the subject by any stretch of the word. I'm a relatively new player of middling skill. That being said the changes proposed by Paul here are WAYS better than what was supposed to be implemented in today's cancelled patch.

Basing PSR on MS is a good step towards the matchmaker able to form two competitively balanced teams for each match of quickplay.

That being said there are certain points echoing throughout this discussion where I'd like to weigh in:

1. I see no point in having the PSR change so granular from +24 to -24.
Yeah, the ones between +8 to -8 are not rewarded/punished by much and will effectively see little movement if they consistently find themselves in the middle of the pack. But replacing it with a band of no net gain/loss has much of the same effect.
Around the edges there are also unnecessary differentiations. Worst person in a match is rarely that far off the second worst. And the second best pilot might have carried just as hard or even harder than the top achiever. The difference might have been getting a kill denied or not bringing that extra half ton of AMS ammo. Giving two best pilots top ranks makes them peers, promotes cooperation.
Because of this I like MisterSomaru's proposition back from page 2 of this thread.

2. I do not like the idea being floated around of adding win/loss as bonus/malus to the PSR. This is a metric already discounted for in MS. If people feel it should more heavily impact PSR then the simple solution would be to increase its weight in MS calculation.

3. While we are discussing tweaking the MS system I'd like to point out that it should be treated as its own can of worms. Zero-sum PSR is good to go. Deploy it ASAP and let us sort out what do with the MS as a separate issue. I feel that it will take at least a couple of weeks to work out a consensus within the community.

4. Tweaking the MS will change the meta. AS IT SHOULD. Adding some more weight to capping would hopefully push more people towards actually doing it. Maybe then the skirmish-alike conquest will feel like more of a separate game mode with more complex strategies than just "get two points capped, then ball up and go crush the other murderball" (although I am afraid that people will select against it even more).

5. Supporting roles are currently not satisfying by not giving enough MS rewards. NARCs, tagging, and to a lesser extent UAVs all feel like time, tonnage and c-bills wasted.
By comparison when I take my COR-7A with quad AMS I feel bordeline cheating because I know all the sneaky scouts, battery runners and cappers will have a hard time matching my MS.
In order to be top of my team in a light I have to be an extremely aggressive high DPS anklebiter with lots and lots of luck. And drop an arty or two.
SO:
AMS - SLIGHT reduction in MS (maybe pay more C-Bills per missile as someone suggested)
CAPPING - SOME increase
TAG - SOME increase, esp. TAGSTEALTH
UAV - SOME increase
NARC - A BIG increase for dmg, kills

[Belorion]

Great move!!!!!

The only change I would make is a slight nerf to match score for damage, and a bonus gained for the amount of damage taken. If I can get down to 8% with an XL engine I have done something amazing.

Keep up the good work.

[Mineomatic]

Paul,

Thank you for taking the time to receive extra feedback before any changes! I have read all the posts and I like this one the most:

Zerex, on 09 June 2020 - 02:41 AM, said:

Agreed, i feel there should be a non movement middle ground too, Just as a very quick example

Ranked 1st = 12 PSR gain
Ranked 2nd = 11 PSR gain
Ranked 3rd = 10 PSR gain
Ranked 4th = 8 PSR gain
Ranked 5th = 6 PSR gain
Ranked 6th = 4 PSR gain
Ranked 7th = 2 PSR gain
Ranked 8th = 0 PSR gain
Ranked 9th 0 PSR gain
Ranked 10th 0 PSR gain
Ranked 11th 0 PSR gain
Ranked 12th 0 PSR gain
Ranked 13th 0 PSR gain
Ranked 14th 0 PSR gain
Ranked 15th 0 PSR gain
Ranked 16th 0 PSR gain
Ranked 17th 0 PSR gain
Ranked 18th = 2 PSR loss
Ranked 19th = 4 PSR loss
Ranked 20th = 6 PSR loss
Ranked 21st = 8 PSR loss
Ranked 22nd = 10 PSR loss
Ranked 23rd = 11 PSR loss
Ranked 24th = 12 PSR loss

Every player in the game doesn't need to be gaining or losing PSR, you just end up shifting numbers for the sake of shifting numbers.

This is just example numbers, the amount of PSR and how many players that gain or lose PSR is open to being tweaked

This maybe to much coding to ask but the above applied to the different Mech classes for each player would work the best for me as a player; like I see myself as:

Light : Tier 3-4
Medium: Tier 2-3
Heavy: Tier 2
Assault: Tier 2-3

I like running Light Mechs sometimes but with the current PSR system I feel I put my team at a disadvantage each time I do and having different tier brackets for each class of mech would eliminate that some.

What ever you settle on I'm sure it will work out better than the current system and to the rest of you, I'll see you on the map!

Edited by Mineomatic, 09 June 2020 - 05:32 AM.

[GaelicWolf]

Andrzej Lechrenski, on 08 June 2020 - 07:38 PM, said:

snip
.


Solution 3

Use match score relatively, but "reward" high-performance loser and "punish" low performance winners. There have been various iterations of this already proposed. Here is one example, again using Russ' numbers. Your 'ideal' numbers may differ, or even include some changes of 'zero', but I think you'll get the idea.

Winning team:
player 1 +24
player 2 +22
player 3 +20
player 4 +18
player 5 +16
player 6 +14
player 7 +12
player 8 +10
player 9 +8
player 10 -2
player 11 -4
player 12 -6

Losing Team
player 13 +6
player 14 +4
player 15 +2
player 16 -8
player 17 -10
player 18 -12
player 19 -14
player 20 -16
player 21 -18
player 22 -20
player 23 -22
player 24 -24

+1 for option 3

[D U N E]

Toe Fat, on 09 June 2020 - 05:13 AM, said:

1. Damage output of a lot of the Mech's is to high. Short range missiles being the worse.
2. Map design is set up for too much Close Range Brawling.
3. With 12 Mechs trying to move around pilots keep getting in each other way.
I. Maps need less objects blocking movements of the Mechs.
II. Not enough Long and Middle range shooting position on most of the maps.

SRM's are one of the most inconsistent weapons in the game - not enough mid range, not enough cover...

Long range is still viable on many maps, though primarily you will find luck in the AC2 annihilator or AC2 UV. Large laser boats still have a warm place inside of faction play because teams are less likely to run around like a headless chicken as they brought mechs for the maps.

Mid range is the most viable way to play QP - it works well in most cases, you have plenty of mid range cover, though it is best done with Medium/Heavy mechs. Medium mechs can run around quite freely.

SRMs are the worst offender for damage output. Wut? They are the most inconsistent weapon in the game, when you get to use them, many time you have to fully commit to using them, if your team decides to nascar and you are in a SRM heavy, you are either at the front of it, or you are gonna die real soon. When matches take a bit of range, you can't shoot. SRM's are in a very balanced position. They don't do anything at mid range, but the moment you get in close they work. Though in QP they only really work if you let the enemy use them.
ATM's are the worst offender, those things wreck - SRM's in my opinion need a slight buff.

As for cover and how maps are set up, many maps are set up for good long range fire, they aren't the best designed maps in the world, but they work reasonably well. An issue lights have become a scourge so no one wants to go a tiny bit away from each other. Medium follow lights, heavy follow mediums, assaults follow heavies. Nascar. Lights being short range in 90% of cases find an area that isn't too far to get to the enemy, though has cover, this usually being around the center of the map.
Mediums follow suit, and try to get angles, when one mech is easy to gank, they push. Heavies want to assist the mediums to kill the mech, so they throw in their armour and firepower.
Meanwhile the assaults are getting the same done to them, and are desperately trying to catch up.

[Alan Hicks]

Came here now because supposedly today was the change...

I find a new thread of 8 pages to go view while the game remains unchanged...

But no problem, it is better to wait more and have a functional PSR and MM that what we have now. And, further tweaking will always be required to satisfy the majority of old and new players.

Adjustments should happen depending on the class you pilot, because I've seen new players pick light mechs a lot. Also, using Assaults should be a big responsibility, not a waste of tonnage because some yolo or noob decided to go Rambo and died first!

[Monkey Lover]

Alan Hicks, on 09 June 2020 - 05:41 AM, said:

Came here now because supposedly today was the change...

I find a new thread of 8 pages to go view while the game remains unchanged...

But no problem, it is better to wait more and have a functional PSR and MM that what we have now. And, further tweaking will always be required to satisfy the majority of old and new players.

Adjustments should happen depending on the class you pilot, because I've seen new players pick light mechs a lot. Also, using Assaults should be a big responsibility, not a waste of tonnage because some yolo or noob decided to go Rambo and died first!

You been around for 6 years now. You should know by now just because they push something back doesn't mean it will be better.

[FearThePaladin]

First... let me say this, defining skill through an algorithm is tough. If a player does 100 points of damage but was the focus of 12 mechs for the game say like Bows3r does that mean he is a terrible player or simply that he was the focus of anyone and everyone on the opposing team? If a player that no one knows does 1200 points of missile damage any lost only 5 percent of his armor does that mean he has skill?

Seriously I applaud the attempt you are trying to mathematically accomplish here but I see some serious issues. It does not mean that it cannot be done but I for one have seen matches where a tier one MVP player can pull 6 mechs onto themselves do 100 points damage and cause their team to win because of the pull of 6 mechs.

In general your formula will work up and to a point.

Their are folks that are tier 0.... They play and when they are on a team its a huge advantage... yet they can be the focus and may never see tier 1 again.

I really do not care beyond knowing that a formula will not see how well Bows3r, Bear Claw, Hades... can do. I can lead a team in voip comms to victory if they listen... or death... how is that skill managed by an algorithm?

Anywise... Push out the reset... Don't delay it will NEVER be perfect so long as their are Hero level players on the board...

One last thing... You may want to use historical accuracy of weapons / damage to validate. If you have someone that is tier one who shoots 25% accuracy on a weapon.. is that really tier one or is tier one 90% accuracy over 1,000 shots? Just a thought.

[Star Captain Coruja]

Thanks for this level of openness.

Please please please weight objective capture more heavily, so that more people actually play the mission instead of "Skirmish with a secondary objective".

Matchscore stays low even if the actions of a few light 'Mechs unequivocally carry the match.