717 replies to this topic

[Nightbird]

Gozuri, on 14 June 2020 - 10:04 AM, said:

Simplify that so that a pleb like me can understand because I'm not seeing the problem.

Read it slowly and I promise you that you will understand it.

Edit.. sorry if I wasn't clear on what I was implying. The community proposal is put together by GROUPs, they're not going to propose a system that takes away their advantage.

Edited by Nightbird, 14 June 2020 - 10:24 AM.

[spannerturner]

Here's a real world example for you...

Let's take Mike Trout. Arguably one of the best baseball players currently. He's been on the LAA Angels since 2011. Let's now look at their record since then. Only one Divisional Title and a .508 W/L%. So, if we tie his "performance" to the Angels W/L%, is Trout worthy of being considered one of the best players of all time? Or is that argument made solely on his individual performance as a player?

If you want to tie Tier ranking to W/L, then fine. Call it WLR (Win/Loss Rating). Not PSR since it's not really based on skill.
PSR (Pilot Skill Rating) suggest that your skill as a player is what constitutes the make up of this stat.

[Nightbird]

spannerturner, on 14 June 2020 - 10:17 AM, said:

Here's a real world example for you...

Let's take Mike Trout. Arguably one of the best baseball players currently. He's been on the LAA Angels since 2011. Let's now look at their record since then. Only one Divisional Title and a .508 W/L%. So, if we tie his "performance" to the Angels W/L%, is Trout worthy of being considered one of the best players of all time? Or is that argument made solely on his individual performance as a player?

If you want to tie Tier ranking to W/L, then fine. Call it WLR (Win/Loss Rating). Not PSR since it's not really based on skill.
PSR (Pilot Skill Rating) suggest that your skill as a player is what constitutes the make up of this stat.

If Mike Trout played on a randomly generated team for each game, he would have a WLR over 3. The reason professional games have such strict team making rules is to create teams that are as evenly matched as possible i.e. to force WLR down to as close to 1 as possible to make the matches fun for the fans (and the players).

Who would go to a game if you can see beforehand one team has all the best players, and the other all the worst right? That's the problem with the MM, it is blind to the skill of players because Tiers doesn't predict skill, so we get really bad matches made.

Edited by Nightbird, 14 June 2020 - 10:30 AM.

[nukedog]

I vote for Jay Z's proposal.

Edited by nukedog, 14 June 2020 - 10:31 AM.

[Gozuri]

spannerturner, on 14 June 2020 - 10:17 AM, said:

Here's a real world example for you...

Let's take Mike Trout. Arguably one of the best baseball players currently. He's been on the LAA Angels since 2011. Let's now look at their record since then. Only one Divisional Title and a .508 W/L%. So, if we tie his "performance" to the Angels W/L%, is Trout worthy of being considered one of the best players of all time? Or is that argument made solely on his individual performance as a player?

I don't play, watch or have any understanding of baseball, but lets roll with it anyway.
From what i understand about professional sports, a player is generally tied to a team. An individual players skill is not taken into consideration when matching teams, only the team's collective capability.

Nightbird, on 14 June 2020 - 10:27 AM, said:

Who would go to a game if you can see beforehand one team has all the best players, and the other all the worst right? That's the problem with the MM, it is blind to the skill of players because Tiers doesn't predict skill, so we get really bad matches made.

I am not familiar with the team making rules in any sport, but I dont see how that should apply to mwo since whatever one sided stacking should be somewhat averted by limiting grp sizes.

Also, call it whatever you want. Just call it rating and leave it at that if it pleases you. I thought the main purpose was to make matches balanced, not please someone's ego.

Edited by Gozuri, 14 June 2020 - 10:58 AM.

[spannerturner]

Gozuri, on 14 June 2020 - 10:34 AM, said:

Also, call it whatever you want. Just call it rating and leave it at that if it pleases you. I thought the main purpose was to make matches balanced, not please someone's ego.

Well, that's the crux of the debate. Do you "balance" the matchmaking by tracking people's W/L count or by their average MS earnings? It's not about ego. It's about doing it right and ensuring that whatever system they move to does not end up with the same situation as we are currently in...

[Gozuri]

Nightbird, on 14 June 2020 - 10:27 AM, said:

If Mike Trout played on a randomly generated team for each game, he would have a WLR over 3. The reason professional games have such strict team making rules is to create teams that are as evenly matched as possible i.e. to force WLR down to as close to 1 as possible to make the matches fun for the fans (and the players).

Then in the context of mwo, he would get a high rating. Fair isn't it?

Nightbird, on 14 June 2020 - 10:27 AM, said:

Who would go to a game if you can see beforehand one team has all the best players, and the other all the worst right? That's the problem with the MM, it is blind to the skill of players because Tiers doesn't predict skill, so we get really bad matches made.

That's what this discussion is about, revamping the matchmaking

spannerturner, on 14 June 2020 - 10:41 AM, said:

Well, that's the crux of the debate. Do you "balance" the matchmaking by tracking people's W/L count or by their average MS earnings? It's not about ego. It's about doing it right and ensuring that whatever system they move to does not end up with the same situation as we are currently in...

My point being I don't see why MS should even be taken into account. The ego I was referring to is the SKILL part of the system. I may have interpreted this wrong, but it sounded like the MS is just to show off one's skill without it necessarily meaning anything to the outcome of the match. I mean, whats more accurate, the score indicating the potential outcome, or the actual outcome?


PS. Sry about all the edits. Had to go back quote all the lines I was replying to for clarity.

Edited by Gozuri, 14 June 2020 - 11:01 AM.

[Zerex]

Gagis, on 14 June 2020 - 09:40 AM, said:

It makes people feel bad. For the sake of matchmaking there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

More over its open to be abused by players win farming by on game modes like Assault, Conquest and Incursion. Which could lead to increased numbers of base race matches instead of mech fights, which i think you'll see players leave the game at that point due to it not b a Mechwarrior game but a racing game in mechs.

Also looking at stats good players that always perform well but on the losing team, i believe i counted 5 players in the top 40 medium pilots (arranged by AMS) this month that have a +400 AMS but less than 1 WLR.

Also looking at this months stats you have players that have high WLR (top 40 players arranged by win/loss) that have really low match scores, like AMS in 1 case was 165 with a 11 WLR.

With this taken into account using win/loss only leads to exploitable mechanics, good solo players kept in low tiers and bad players rising through the tiers t what i can only guess is their team mates carrying them to wins.

[spannerturner]

Nightbird, on 14 June 2020 - 10:42 AM, said:

lol fair enough, let not take this off topic any further though...

Here's why I brought it up. To translate into MWO terms, Mike Trout would have about a 1.04 W/L stat, which is about equivalent (to what most have said on these last few forums regarding PSR change) to what should be Tier 3. We know he's better than that. There are top Tier players in MWO, who had a less than 1.0 W/L during May's test, that would then be relegated to Tier 3 or lower, even though we know they are better than that. Then there are those that had a higher W/L during May's test that are not Tier 1 players (skill-wise), but whose rating would go up just because they had a >1.0 W/L... This is not skill based, it is luck of the draw based (at least for the solo players).

Skill based matchmaking ensures that you are matched against those with skill levels similar to you.
W/L based matchmaking ensures that you are matched against those with the same W/L% as you.

Zerex, on 14 June 2020 - 10:52 AM, said:

More over its open to be abused by players win farming by on game modes like Assault, Conquest and Incursion. Which could lead to increased numbers of base race matches instead of mech fights, which i think you'll see players leave the game at that point due to it not b a Mechwarrior game but a racing game in mechs.

Also looking at stats good players that always perform well but on the losing team, i believe i counted 5 players in the top 40 medium pilots (arranged by AMS) this month that have a +400 AMS but less than 1 WLR.

Also looking at this months stats you have players that have high WLR (top 40 players arranged by win/loss) that have really low match scores, like AMS in 1 case was 165 with a 11 WLR.

With this taken into account using win/loss only leads to exploitable mechanics, good solo players kept in low tiers and bad players rising through the tiers t what i can only guess is their team mates carrying them to wins.

And this is what would lead us right back to where we currently find ourselves...

Edited for clarity...

Edited by spannerturner, 14 June 2020 - 11:00 AM.

[Zerex]

Gozuri, on 14 June 2020 - 10:34 AM, said:

I don't play, watch or have any understanding of baseball, but lets roll with it anyway.
From what i understand about professional sports, a player is generally tied to a team.

Incorrect, to rate a Quarterback in American football the NFL use the QBR (Quarterback Rating), it tracks their individual stats for that and and compiled to give their rating for that match, the win or loss is not part of the factor when compiling the rating.

Quarterback Rating is their personal rating and can be used to compare 2 quarterbacks across different stats and can be used to see how good a quarterback they are over a season

[Nightbird]

spannerturner, on 14 June 2020 - 10:58 AM, said:

Skill based matchmaking ensures that you are matched against those with skill levels similar to you.
W/L based matchmaking ensures that you are matched against those with the same W/L% as you.

Skill? Are you talking about MS based PSR?

You can have two players, both with PSR=5000 (Tier 1 maxed). One has WLR=1. Another has WLR=10.
Clearly they're not the same skill?

[Zerex]

Nightbird, on 14 June 2020 - 11:06 AM, said:

You can have two players, both with PSR=5000 (Tier 1 maxed). One has WLR=1. Another has WLR=10.
Clearly they're not the same skill?

You can also have PLAYER A with WLR=10 and PSR=5000 and also PLAYER B with WLR=10 and PSR= 2000
Clearly they're not the same skill?

[Nightbird]

Zerex, on 14 June 2020 - 11:13 AM, said:

You can also have PLAYER A with WLR=10 and PSR=5000 and also PLAYER B with WLR=10 and PSR= 2000
Clearly they're not the same skill?

They are pretty much the same skill. WLR is a much better indication than PSR, to a laughable degree when graphed.

I'd go further, that a PSR=100 player with WLR=10 is about the same as a PSR=5000 player with WLR=10. It's clearly a great player that created an alt account to club seals. I don't need 500 seal clubbing matches to tell me that.

Edited by Nightbird, 14 June 2020 - 11:19 AM.

[spannerturner]

Nightbird, on 14 June 2020 - 11:06 AM, said:

Skill? Are you talking about MS based PSR?

You can have two players, both with PSR=5000 (Tier 1 maxed). One has WLR=1. Another has WLR=10.
Clearly they're not the same skill?

Right now MS is the only post match indicator we have as to how we compared to everyone else in the match we just played. So, if the PSR=5000 is based on skill, then yes. But if you go to a W/L based rating system, then, by your own WLR stat above, no they would not be considered of the same skill, even though they both have a PSR=5000.

[Zerex]

Nightbird, on 14 June 2020 - 11:15 AM, said:

They are pretty much the same skill. WLR is a much better indication than PSR, to a laughable degree when graphed.

No they are not.

PLAYER A = 500 AMS and is in the top 3 every match

PLAYER B = 169 AMS and is in the bottom 3 in every match.

You just said these 2 players have the same skill, clearly they don't. They are friends and played those matches together in a group, when not grouped your saying these players still of the same skill level, don't be silly.

[Nightbird]

Zerex, on 14 June 2020 - 11:25 AM, said:

No they are not.

PLAYER A = 500 AMS and is in the top 3 every match

PLAYER B = 169 AMS and is in the bottom 3 in every match.

You just said these 2 players have the same skill, clearly they don't. They are friends and played those matches together in a group, when not grouped your saying these players still of the same skill level, don't be silly.

PSR is not related the AMS, I would look this up before arguing this track ...

spannerturner, on 14 June 2020 - 11:21 AM, said:

Right now MS is the only post match indicator we have as to how we compared to everyone else in the match we just played. So, if the PSR=5000 is based on skill, then yes. But if you go to a W/L based rating system, then, by your own WLR stat above, no they would not be considered of the same skill, even though they both have a PSR=5000.

Well, the whole thing is what we're discussing now. What should be used to represent skill, PGI's/Jay Z's end of match MS system, avgMS system, WLR system, etc...

Edited by Nightbird, 14 June 2020 - 11:29 AM.

[spannerturner]

Nightbird, on 14 June 2020 - 11:28 AM, said:

PSR is not related the AMS, I would look this up before arguing this track ...



Well, the whole thing is what we're discussing now. What should be used to represent skill, PGI's/Jay Z's end of match MS system, avgMS system, WLR system, etc...

No kidding? Really? Maybe the whole point of Zerex's post is that he is advocating for PSR to be tied to AMS... That's also what I am advocating for, if you haven't noticed. That seems a better indicator of skill than whether or not you have been carried by a team X amount of times...

[Zerex]

Nightbird, on 14 June 2020 - 11:28 AM, said:

PSR is not related the AMS, I would look this up before arguing this track ...

I never said any other wise just to quote you again.

"They are pretty much the same skill. WLR is a much better indication than PSR"

So if you say their skill is the same that would mean they have equal PSR (in a perfect world), those players would have the same PSR using your rating but wildly different personal skill levels.

How can you ask MM to pick between 2 players with the same PSR when 1 player will be fine in that match and the other will struggle due to personal skill level?



Under your system (if i understand it right) would grade these players to the same PSR roughly?

Even though clearly they have wildly different skill levels.

[Nightbird]

spannerturner, on 14 June 2020 - 11:32 AM, said:

No kidding? Really? Maybe the whole point of Zerex's post is that he is advocating for PSR to be tied to AMS... That's also what I am advocating for, if you haven't noticed. That seems a better indicator of skill than whether or not you have been carried by a team X amount of times...

The idea that avgMS is better than WLR can be dis-proven by using seasonal MWO data and using past avgMS or past WLR to predict the next seasons WLR. WLR is 3 times better.

Zerex, on 14 June 2020 - 11:39 AM, said:

I never said any other wise just to quote you again.

"They are pretty much the same skill. WLR is a much better indication than PSR"

So if you say their skill is the same that would mean they have equal PSR (in a perfect world), those players would have the same PSR using your rating but wildly different personal skill levels.

How can you ask MM to pick between 2 players with the same PSR when 1 player will be fine in that match and the other will struggle due to personal skill level?



Under your system (if i understand it right) would grade these players to the same PSR roughly?

Even though clearly they have wildly different skill levels.

Yes, if they can keep it up for 100 games. Heck even 50 games. 11 is too few to be certain but keep in mind a new player that goes 10-1 today would be in Tier 3. I argue they should be boosted to T1 and if they don't do well sent back down.

Edited by Nightbird, 14 June 2020 - 11:43 AM.

[Spare Knight]

This can all be done in steps. Let's get the Tier Reset and PSR done. The the tweaks can be done after seeing some resulting data. Let's get moving and keep it moving.