Jump to content

Psr Update And Hold On Patch.


723 replies to this topic

#241 SkubaSteve

    Rookie

  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 9 posts

Posted 09 June 2020 - 09:58 PM

Thank you this is much closer to the fair system weve wanted for years. Each player should be judged individually, not based on a win or loss due to the rate of pugs bird watching and this looks like it might do that. Wonderful

#242 Saint OZ

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,603 posts

Posted 09 June 2020 - 10:00 PM

View PostHorseman, on 09 June 2020 - 02:20 PM, said:

Which lead to matchscore anyway. Accuracy translates to damage and kills. Ability to spread damage translates to more scoring opportunities.

Agree in accuracy, but amount of taken damage should be particular counted.

#243 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 5,401 posts

Posted 09 June 2020 - 10:12 PM

was asked to move my post here:

Suppose all the Match Score PSR suggestions to date have major flaws, and also suppose that there is a WLR-based MM solution that will work (at least no one is managing to present flaws), which would you prefer?

A Match Score system that is no better than what we have today, or a WLR system that will work but will knock you down if your team is unluckily bad. (Suppose that a MS solution will improve things from 15% good matches today to 20%, and a WLR solution will improve it to 50%) Which would you pick?



Details (may cause headaches!)

Match score solutions so far have the problem that
1) the PSR will go off to +- infinity for good bad players
2) the rate people go off is determined by number of games played, not skill
3) if we cap the PSR movements, people will stop at the cap like Tier 1 today
4) is as time progresses, moving between tiers is harder and harder

WLR solution:
https://mwomercs.com...thread-we-need/
Based on this thread, just set PSR=WLR (vary how many past matches WLR is based on 20-100) and you'll get much better matches. This change will be transparent to the users, keep the PSR EXP bar on the frontend. Only the MM in the backend will need to know it to make better matches. This is to prevent an unlucky loss from bothering the player.

A related thread to explain why MS is not a good predictor when used the same way:
https://mwomercs.com...and-suggestion/
Finally using WLR is not the best I can come up with, adding other factors such as mech tonnage, weapons range, map, and game mode is definitely possible, but PSR=WLR is the easiest

Edited by Nightbird, 09 June 2020 - 10:17 PM.


#244 Surn

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 987 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationSan Diego

Posted 09 June 2020 - 10:53 PM

Match Score proposed values : https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing
Posted Image
Includes 3 data points not on the list, but easily available.. one already reported.

Examples are a decent match and a terrible mistake match involving a teammate running in front of me just as I launched an Artillery Strike on the center ramp of mining collective!
First Match Score was the actual match score from that game:


Using the current game match scores and player overall PSR.

PSR Calculation
If lose:
PSR=( (player match score * (MedianPSR of players in game/PlayerPSR))/ team median match score ) - ( 1 + (winning team median Match score/ losing team median match score))

Example, good player gets 300 match score in loss
(300 * (.75)/ 200 ) - (1 + 275/200) = 1.125 - 2.375 = -1.125

If win:
PSR=( (player match score * (MedianPSR of players in game/PlayerPSR))/ team median match score ) + ( 1 + (winning team median Match score/ losing team median match score))

Example, good player gets 300 match score in win
(300 * (.75)/ 200 ) + (1 + 275/200) = 1.125 + 2.375 = + 3.5

The formula could be simplified by making win =1 and loss =-1

Simplified Formula:
If not win then win = -1
PSR=( (player match score * (MedianPSR of players in game/PlayerPSR))/ team median match score ) + (win)* ( 1 + (winning team median Match score/ losing team median match score))

Edited by Surn, 09 June 2020 - 10:59 PM.


#245 Sniper09121986

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Sickle
  • The Sickle
  • 2,134 posts

Posted 09 June 2020 - 11:08 PM

View PostAnomalocaris, on 08 June 2020 - 06:46 PM, said:

current population

View PostKnight Captain Morgan, on 08 June 2020 - 07:01 PM, said:

TLDR: the population has dropped enough

View PostVellron2005, on 09 June 2020 - 01:05 AM, said:

there simply isn't enough players still playing this game

View PostBud Crue, on 09 June 2020 - 02:43 AM, said:

What more do we need given the population?

View PostEatit, on 09 June 2020 - 11:29 AM, said:

All matches will still be unbalanced due to Low population MM pulling from all tiers.


I am sure there have been other people, but this is all I bothered to quote. As I said in a different thread:

Quote

People leave because a game is bad in some areas, and if the game is good then people have no reason to leave. The low population is the effect, not the cause. Not that I object against a marketing campaign, it just needs to come after the game-breaking issues have been addressed. There might be skill gaps with low population, but they will get filled once people see a game they can actually enjoy.


The matchmaker works with what it has, but its core principles of operation should not depend on the game population. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If the matchmaker works as advertised people would return and the gaps in PSR will get filled.

#246 MrMadguy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,903 posts

Posted 09 June 2020 - 11:11 PM

Yeah, it would be really great, if MS would be real measure of performance in match. But I don't care, how it will be implemented. Only thing, that I need now: if I have bad match - my rating should drop. And it should happen as soon, as possible. That's it.

Yeah, true zero-sum would be great. As current system has just one flaw. It has fixed MS target. And it's way to easy to achieve, even while playing badly. This means, PSR will be biased towards increasing anyway.

#247 Horseman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • 3,303 posts
  • LocationPoland

Posted 10 June 2020 - 12:00 AM

View Postcougurt, on 09 June 2020 - 04:17 PM, said:

yeah, no need to overcomplicate things. the only issue i see with the way match score is currently calculated is that it's a bit indiscriminate in how it rewards damage. i don't think it's a big deal since generally speaking if you're doing a lot of damage it's likely to be a fairly hefty contribution regardless, but obviously there's a little more nuance to a player's performance than sheer damage output.
It probably should emphasize components, KMDDs and especially solo kills a bit more and raw damage somewhat less.

#248 MrMadguy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,903 posts

Posted 10 June 2020 - 12:12 AM

View PostHorseman, on 10 June 2020 - 12:00 AM, said:

It probably should emphasize components, KMDDs and especially solo kills a bit more and raw damage somewhat less.

In most cases damage and kills - are two things, that are goal for players to achieve. I.e. high damage, lots of kills = good match. But high damage =/= skill. It just usually means, that player lives long enough, but can also mean spreading damage too much, i.e. low aiming skills or using "no brain" weapons too much.

Edited by MrMadguy, 10 June 2020 - 12:12 AM.


#249 Bistrorider

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Howl
  • The Howl
  • 187 posts

Posted 10 June 2020 - 12:33 AM

View PostSurn, on 09 June 2020 - 10:53 PM, said:

Match Score proposed values : https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing
Posted Image
Includes 3 data points not on the list, but easily available.. one already reported.

Examples are a decent match and a terrible mistake match involving a teammate running in front of me just as I launched an Artillery Strike on the center ramp of mining collective!
First Match Score was the actual match score from that game:


Using the current game match scores and player overall PSR.

PSR Calculation
If lose:
PSR=( (player match score * (MedianPSR of players in game/PlayerPSR))/ team median match score ) - ( 1 + (winning team median Match score/ losing team median match score))

Example, good player gets 300 match score in loss
(300 * (.75)/ 200 ) - (1 + 275/200) = 1.125 - 2.375 = -1.125

If win:
PSR=( (player match score * (MedianPSR of players in game/PlayerPSR))/ team median match score ) + ( 1 + (winning team median Match score/ losing team median match score))

Example, good player gets 300 match score in win
(300 * (.75)/ 200 ) + (1 + 275/200) = 1.125 + 2.375 = + 3.5

The formula could be simplified by making win =1 and loss =-1

Simplified Formula:
If not win then win = -1
PSR=( (player match score * (MedianPSR of players in game/PlayerPSR))/ team median match score ) + (win)* ( 1 + (winning team median Match score/ losing team median match score))



Very big difference between both examples. Is it like two extremities?

#250 Cherry Garden full of Blue Roses

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 63 posts

Posted 10 June 2020 - 12:41 AM

I'll put it in very easy to understand words:

give us back 8 vs 8 quick play game mode.

Decision to put 4 more player each team without complete rebuild armor, weapon power, speeds - just a whole view of this game - was the worst thing you've did. I still can't understand, why you are so stubborn to stay with 12 vs 12 gamemode. This simple decision turns your game from enjoyable, almost perfect tactical battle mech pilot simulator into mediocre shooter, which his best advantage is Mechs from Battletech.

Any more change is not so necessary like this one. That's why I leave this post here. I hope you read it.

Edited by Cherry Garden full of Blue Roses, 10 June 2020 - 12:44 AM.


#251 Mr.Wrong

    Rookie

  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 8 posts
  • Location@home

Posted 10 June 2020 - 12:55 AM

This formula looks good.
The matchscore reward for damage caused by lockon weapons should be reduced tho.
They are by nature designed to wear a mech down damaging it everywhere, yet get matchscore rewarded as pinpoint weapons.

#252 MrMadguy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,903 posts

Posted 10 June 2020 - 01:20 AM

View PostCherry Garden full of Blue Roses, on 10 June 2020 - 12:41 AM, said:

I'll put it in very easy to understand words:

give us back 8 vs 8 quick play game mode.

Decision to put 4 more player each team without complete rebuild armor, weapon power, speeds - just a whole view of this game - was the worst thing you've did. I still can't understand, why you are so stubborn to stay with 12 vs 12 gamemode. This simple decision turns your game from enjoyable, almost perfect tactical battle mech pilot simulator into mediocre shooter, which his best advantage is Mechs from Battletech.

Any more change is not so necessary like this one. That's why I leave this post here. I hope you read it.

Answer is simple - 4x3. You should understand, that real PGI's goal - is to sell all 'Mechs. Not only Heavies and Assaults, like it was back in Open Beta times. Their goal - is to sell 'Mech packs. Dunno. May be it was only part of a problem. But overall increase of match speeds - was one of things, that ruined this game. Maps started to be way too small for 150kph Lights, that could backstab enemy team almost instantly after start of match. This ruined whole strategy, cuz it relied on "enemies just can't attack from this direction, so I don't need to cover it" thing. PGI started to increase map size, but failed to fill them with any gameplay features, like cover. Maps were either "Open space with little cover in a middle, where actual fight happens, and it's WalkWarrior prior to that" or "Two cover isles with open space between them, nobody can cross, so it's boring snipe duel". And of course NASCAR, cuz fast 'Mechs always try to flank or backstab instead of holding the line and all other 'Mechs just have to follow them, cuz otherwise they would be left without support.

#253 crazytimes

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 490 posts

Posted 10 June 2020 - 01:21 AM

View PostMrMadguy, on 10 June 2020 - 12:12 AM, said:

In most cases damage and kills - are two things, that are goal for players to achieve. I.e. high damage, lots of kills = good match. But high damage =/= skill. It just usually means, that player lives long enough, but can also mean spreading damage too much, i.e. low aiming skills or using "no brain" weapons too much.

You don't think there's going to be any correlation between skill and consistent high damage? That's an interesting take on the matter.

#254 Bistrorider

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Howl
  • The Howl
  • 187 posts

Posted 10 June 2020 - 01:23 AM

It's good-looking ;) Now I only need to catch it all.

#255 Robinson Crusher

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 123 posts

Posted 10 June 2020 - 04:03 AM

View PostTesunie, on 09 June 2020 - 08:09 AM, said:

I don't mind some impact from W/L, but I feel that there is naturally already an impact from W/L that affects match score as it is. If you observe match score from the winning team to the losing team, typically the losing team has lower match scores anyway. Thus, having it penalize them farther by having PSR heavily weighted on W/L on top of match score I think is a little much.

Also, it's how heavy W/L impacts your PSR (currently) that I feel is poorly thought out. Get a match score under 100 on a win and is no change. Get a match score of 300 and I believe that it's still a PSR down on a loss... One shouldn't have to get a match score of 400+ to go up on a loss, and a match score under 100 shouldn't keep you steady on a win (in my opinion). Otherwise, we might as well just remove PSR completely and have it "If you win you all gain ranking, if you lose then you all drop ranking".

So, I believe we should do PSR one of two ways:
- Average match scores produce no change as you are (as an individual) performing the average for that tier. Under and over average participants will move according to their performance as a pilot. (It is Pilot Skill Ranking/Rating after all, isn't it?)
- I'm actually intrigued and like the idea, which is similar to my own, where the top performing players in a match go up, and the lower performing players go down, based upon the individual matches rather than a set match score number. It has potential.

As a note on the second option, players could always get a Match Score boost based upon winning the match, making them more likely to go up for winning, but still not a guarantee. We could grant 20-50 match score boost to the winning team as part of the win condition. Then, winning still has impact (beyond typical better performance most times anyway), but not such a drastic impact as it currently holds.


As a note to your two points on PSR:
1. I agree. I kinda wouldn't mind a PSR ranking based on at least weight class if not individual chassis... but that is a lot of extra data to hold and gather. I'm not opposed to this as I know you are correct and see my own performance vary drastically between different mechs and builds.

2. I am not sure how the teams are built for a match. If you are correct, then that system needs to be looked at, and players need to be balanced per team, not "per match". However, I don't think that is how matches are form...?


Posted Image Thanks. I can always count on you for a well thought out response, ever since my days in short question / short answer.

Actually I'm rather intrigued by your idea of dropping PSR entirely and going simply with winners go up and losers go down! It wouldn't reflect personal stats at all (and some other device for granting bragging rights might be useful), but it would statistically produce the most accurate reflection of self sacrifice for the team being rewarded and just being bad punished... they can look pretty similar on the end game display as it is now. Posted Image

Individual matches wouldn't necessarily reflect anything, but the effect over time would be a true measure of contribution to the team. A lot of the dispute in this thread seems to be about people wanting to be told exactly how good they are in each and every match, which strikes me as unrealistic.

Edited by Robinson Crusher, 10 June 2020 - 04:11 AM.


#256 Baron von streik

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 871 posts
  • LocationGDR

Posted 10 June 2020 - 04:13 AM

How about ECM protection. Gives points for another x seconds under your own ECM, stackable on multiple Mechs.

#257 cougurt

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 534 posts

Posted 10 June 2020 - 04:21 AM

View PostHorseman, on 10 June 2020 - 12:00 AM, said:

It probably should emphasize components, KMDDs and especially solo kills a bit more and raw damage somewhat less.


this suggestion from the previous page is pretty good IMO:

View PostStrikerX22, on 09 June 2020 - 05:06 PM, said:

"Damage contributes too much to Match Score.":
What should we actually be measuring: effectiveness on taking out a mech. Try this: Give a much heavier MS to contributing damage to components that are destroyed, more so if it contributed directly to killing the mech (both side torsos would count if clan XL mech dies to losing both side torsos. Caveat for back vs front armor: only count for this bonus if that side of armor was completely pierced (hence, it actually contributed). Reward general damage only a little.


i'm not clamoring for match score changes or anything, but i think something like this would work well.

View Postcrazytimes, on 10 June 2020 - 01:21 AM, said:

You don't think there's going to be any correlation between skill and consistent high damage? That's an interesting take on the matter.

for sure there is, but certain weapon systems can inflate your average quite a bit.

#258 Socal Bronco

    Member

  • PipPip
  • @ui_title_%s_Rank_4
  • @ui_title_%s_Rank_4
  • 23 posts

Posted 10 June 2020 - 04:25 AM

The thing I haven’t seen from PGI is how do PSR points get analyzed to put us in tiers? Is it everyone with over points is T1? What is it?

#259 Far Reach

    Member

  • PipPip
  • The Tracker
  • The Tracker
  • 24 posts

Posted 10 June 2020 - 04:37 AM

Endlessly shuffling around your 2 - 3 hundred players will not fix anything.
For any of this balancing to make sense we need more players.
To get more players, you need to put out new content, which you're not.

[Redacted]

#260 RCore

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • The Marauder
  • 53 posts

Posted 10 June 2020 - 04:44 AM

I'm for something based on what was suggested in the OP:

Use Match Score to rank all players, and assign them Positive and Negative PSR scores that have a zero-sum.

Match Score right now is already affected by win or loss. Many other things related to teamplay are also already factored into Match Score, and if needed those points can be adjusted subsequently.

Also we shouldn't assume that every good player should be winning all the time - players of all skills will have winning and losing games and as each player moves closer to the correct tier, then the wins to losses of the players will become more equal.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users