Jump to content

Psr Update And Hold On Patch.


717 replies to this topic

#661 Laser Kiwi

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Leutnant-Colonel
  • Leutnant-Colonel
  • 271 posts

Posted 15 June 2020 - 11:49 AM

View PostCapt Deadpool, on 15 June 2020 - 11:09 AM, said:



Grouping reduces statistical likelihood of drawing a full team of taters.



Oh there are plenty of teams out there that are a hindrance rather than an asset to the team, the fact potatos group together makes all this even harder. Sometimes dropping solo i'll see 4 guys with the same unit ON THE OTHER SIDE, take one look and be fairly sure i'm about to have a win.

#662 Xiphias

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 862 posts

Posted 15 June 2020 - 12:53 PM

View PostWraith of Shadow, on 15 June 2020 - 11:02 AM, said:

I thought the 'goal' was to populate both sides with players of approximately the same skill level, so that they can have a fairly even match up and not have one side dominate the other.

Yes, the goal is to get close matches. Obviously generating imbalanced teams to force everyone to a WLR of 1 isn't the goal. That said, how does the matchmaker get close matches? By building similarly skilled teams. How do you identify similarly skilled teams? By looking at the players and see how good they are at winning and then splitting them up as evenly as possible.

If all your matches are close then you will end up having a WLR close to 1. That's the goal, to balance wins/losses while matches teams as closely as possible. Apologies if that wasn't clear from my first post.

Another illustration using my simple simulation and Jay Z's model. 1 million matches (24k-24k per player) and the better team (highest combined skill) always wins (yes unrealistic assumptions, I know)

X (Win weight) Y (relative MS weight)
X = 5
Y = 0 (Blue, a W/L only system)
Y = 25 (Orange, a W/L and MS system)
Posted Image
You can see that the W/L system arrives at a good steady state with clearly defined tiers. Including the MS in the calculation causes the system to diverge and ends up putting things back to where they are right now. How long that takes will depend on the values used and the playerbase, but that's the eventual result.

#663 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 7,518 posts

Posted 15 June 2020 - 01:28 PM

View PostXiphias, on 15 June 2020 - 12:53 PM, said:

Posted Image



beautiful illustration, axis are avgMS horizontal and PSR vertical right?

Edited by Nightbird, 15 June 2020 - 02:04 PM.


#664 Kodyn

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Pest
  • The Pest
  • 1,444 posts
  • LocationNY, USA

Posted 15 June 2020 - 02:00 PM

View PostMat Sorkas, on 15 June 2020 - 03:41 AM, said:

You need to understand that with the current Tier system you have a lot of potatoes in T1. If someone played for a long time and never improved they still end up in T1 regardless of their actual skill level due to the upward bias of the PSR system. The matchmaker just does not have a tool to distinguish an ancient potato pilot from an actual battlefield god.
The whole conversation in this thread is about how to divide the playerbase into meaningful tiers. This will still not prevent "true T1s" from playing against weaker pilots. The number of concurrent players just is not there for it to be feasible. The valves would need to remain open to some degee.
However with a properly categorized players we could see teams that are more balanced so for every potato in your team there would be one in the opposing force.



I fully understand both how the current system works and the point of this thread...I do however think you missed my point. It's ok. I think anyone who thinks a PSR update can fix what's wrong with MWO is missing the point a bit as well. It's a start, but it may be too little too late, and without being coupled with a Faction Warfare revamp or something to draw people back in, I think it's a lot of wasted energy. By all means, numbers nerd it out to your heart's content, I just think there's a much bigger picture determining the effectiveness of any PSR system, and that it should be kept in mind. I've played other low population pvp games before, and after a certain point there's only so much you can do with matchmaking and PSR.

#665 Xiphias

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 862 posts

Posted 15 June 2020 - 02:05 PM

View PostNightbird, on 15 June 2020 - 01:28 PM, said:

beautiful illustration, axis are avgMS horizontal and PSR vertical right?

Correct. Good practice would have been to label them, but I was lazy.

#666 50 50

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,145 posts
  • LocationTo Nova or not to Nova. That is the question.

Posted 15 June 2020 - 03:02 PM

View PostZerex, on 15 June 2020 - 07:39 AM, said:

The point is if you make winning the only goal don't be surprised when players on play to win


Not quite following your train of thought here.

#667 Vorpal Puppy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 250 posts

Posted 15 June 2020 - 04:21 PM

It's too bad that PGI can't handle creating asymetrical teams (12 on red team, 9 on blue, for example). With our low population, that would help create more balanced matches.

#668 crazytimes

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,336 posts

Posted 15 June 2020 - 05:00 PM

View PostMat Sorkas, on 15 June 2020 - 03:41 AM, said:

The whole conversation in this thread is about how to divide the playerbase into meaningful tiers.


... and then shove those exact same players into the same matches as before, just with different tier labels on them.

If everyone in this thread actually played the game instead of coming up with exotic maths to sort the same potatoes into the same match maker bucket, we wouldn't have as many issues with dying population.

#669 Kamikaze Viking

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • LocationStay on Topic... STAY ON TOPIC!!!

Posted 15 June 2020 - 05:14 PM

@xiphias - if you have time, Ive sent you a PM on reddit with a PSR discord invite. We'd love to work with you on making this model more robust and integrating it into the proposal.
That visual is the best thing i've seen as a tiered distribution. Now all we need to do is work out how to implement it within the restrictions PGI have given. We have programmers and engineers but are lacking in a stats person, hopefully together we can crack this nut!

#670 Precise Nature of theCatastrophe

    Rookie

  • Bridesmaid
  • 1 posts

Posted 15 June 2020 - 06:03 PM

Will performance relative to players on your team count?

#671 Xiphias

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 862 posts

Posted 15 June 2020 - 06:24 PM

View PostKamikaze Viking, on 15 June 2020 - 05:14 PM, said:

@xiphias - if you have time, Ive sent you a PM on reddit with a PSR discord invite. We'd love to work with you on making this model more robust and integrating it into the proposal.
That visual is the best thing i've seen as a tiered distribution. Now all we need to do is work out how to implement it within the restrictions PGI have given. We have programmers and engineers but are lacking in a stats person, hopefully together we can crack this nut!

I went ahead and accepted the invite, but unfortunate I'm going to be extremely busy starting from tomorrow and running until the 26th so I won't have the spare time to talk about the details. If there's still a discussion after that, I'd be happy to jump on and try to talk through some of the details. If I end up having extra time before then I'll try and jump on and have a quick discussion.

Disclaimer though, I'm not a stats guy. I've had some background in stats, but it's definitely not my area of expertise. I was originally thinking some of these other models would work until Nightbird set me straight and I realized what the error was. I'm happy to do what I can, but don't take a quick simulator I threw together as a highly detailed knowledge of stats.

What I showed in the graph could be implemented in the current restrictions. It's just a simplified version of Jay Z's approach that only takes into account W/L and doesn't apply points for matchscore. I think the key here is that a player only moves up for winning and only moves down for losing. Otherwise the system is going to diverge over time. The challenge I see with the W/L is that it may take a long time to actually match people correctly. Based on my current understanding (subject to change), I think the best option right now would be as follows.

1) Make PSR change entirely dependent on W/L (Win you go up, lose you go down, players can also stay constant)
2) Reseed players based on historic data (PGI has this and did it with the introduction of the PSR system, could be based on AMS or WLR, but it should evenly distribute players into tiers of appropriate level)
3) If necessary increase PSR gain/loss within the team to more quickly move players (e.g. #1 MS on team gets +12, #12 MS on team gets +1, losing team is reversed #1 MS on team gets -1, #12 MS on team gets -12). This lets players feel like their contribution matters and moves better players more quickly, but (I think) shouldn't cause problems that break the PSR system.

It's a pretty straightforward system that shouldn't be hard to implement. Also, credit where credit is due, it's effectively identical to what Decency suggested recent and a long time ago.

I welcome corrections if I've made any errors in the above recommendations, but I think that might work to make a decent PSR system. The model I'm basing most of this off of is pretty simple and has a lot of assumptions (e.g. currently that the better team always wins), so it may not accurately reflect the game. I'd want to build a better model and do some more thorough work before committing to making any final suggestions.

#672 Zerex

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Tip of the Spear
  • The Tip of the Spear
  • 298 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 15 June 2020 - 11:07 PM

View Post50 50, on 15 June 2020 - 03:02 PM, said:


Not quite following your train of thought here.


On Incursion and assault base rushing to win the game to boost your PSR, in other words you might see a huge in games being won or lost with not a single mech dying, and in some cases, not even a point of damage being done.

#673 crazytimes

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,336 posts

Posted 16 June 2020 - 01:12 AM

View PostZerex, on 15 June 2020 - 11:07 PM, said:


On Incursion and assault base rushing to win the game to boost your PSR, in other words you might see a huge in games being won or lost with not a single mech dying, and in some cases, not even a point of damage being done.


Yeah nah. The only people who seem to really care that much about PSR and be bad enough to try that tactic are legacy potatoes that think they are better than they are and forum warriors that don't actually play.

If I may quote every single match in World of Tanks where someone does touch cap- "kill all no cap".

#674 AdmiralAmazing

    Rookie

  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 5 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 16 June 2020 - 03:08 AM

View PostPaul Inouye, on 12 June 2020 - 04:20 PM, said:

[...] This is why Tier 1 will continue to play against Tier 2 and Tier 3 players.


Which is perfectly fine. No only that but very much appreciated. When/If the skill based player tiering is figured out that is the way to keep queues resulting into actual matches happening.

#675 Bistrorider

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Howl
  • The Howl
  • 273 posts

Posted 16 June 2020 - 03:21 AM

Well, I'm gonna crawl from my hole again. Still think that the matchscore and psr should be merged into simple points system. Since I'm no math man my head hurts when trying to bite on matchmaker.

Also I think we missed something very important. As far as I understand there is gonna be reset in tier system. Like we all gonna start from the scratch - back to tier 5. Question is how it will affect the WHOLE community? Some may say: "Well, I worked hard to reach tier 3 or 2. Now they gonna reset it. I don't wanna play anymore". Risky, risky. Then the PGI may say: "Well, we did what you wanted, and now we are left with 100 players so it's the end of the story". Risky, risky. Trap?

Edited by Bistrorider, 16 June 2020 - 03:37 AM.


#676 OneTeamPlayer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 399 posts

Posted 16 June 2020 - 03:37 AM

It's now 7 days past when we were initially told we would have a solution to improve the matchmaker which was broken (for over a month now) for the benefit of an extremely small percentage of the playerbase.

What progress has been made on a solution, PGI?


Would be nice if you indicated in any way which ideas you think are viable, which you prefer, and a timeline till their implementation, please.

Edited by OneTeamPlayer, 16 June 2020 - 03:38 AM.


#677 Anomalocaris

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 671 posts

Posted 16 June 2020 - 04:04 AM

Fiddling while Rome burns. Or, maybe fiddling as the last fires go out cause there is nothing left.

I thought that the overtures by Paul to try and fix MM were good at first, but I'm starting to think it was about placating the user base. Particularly with the "we'll change, but only in ways we're willing to" b.s.

Player numbers already down almost 5% this month vs. last.

https://steamcharts.com/app/342200

Queue merge is going to kill the player base faster than ever now that Covid lockdowns are ending. Told ya.....

#678 C E Dwyer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,274 posts
  • LocationHiding in the periphery, from Bounty Hunters

Posted 16 June 2020 - 04:27 AM

View PostBistrorider, on 16 June 2020 - 03:21 AM, said:

Well, I'm gonna crawl from my hole again. Still think that the matchscore and psr should be merged into simple points system. Since I'm no match man my head hurts when trying to bite on matchmaker.

Also I think we missed something very important. As far as I understand there is gonna be reset in tier system. Like we all gonna start from the scratch - back to tier 5. Question is how it will affect the WHOLE community? Some may say: "Well, I worked hard to reach tier 3 or 2. Now they gonna reset it. I don't wanna play anymore". Risky, risky. Then the PGI may say: "Well, we did what you wanted, and now we are left with 100 players so it's the end of the story". Risky, risky. Trap?


Some may well leave, others might return.
Having been away for months, possible never to return ( Crusader would change this btw)
I think I can be objective.

The Trouble with PSR was that it had an obvious upward bias, if you were slightly less than terrible, you would be able to progress, slowly. because of the big advantage winning a game gave you.

Nearly everyone (that expressed and opinion) said this was a terrible system, because sooner or later, those people that were average players, and those that were stuck between average, and the top (plucks a number out my behind) 10% the real T1's

Were going to achieve T1.

This had two problems, which were glaringly obvious to me.

T3 and to an extent T2 standard of players locked in T1 matches were not going to get much from the game anymore, endlessly handed their behinds so quickly they couldn't get satisfaction from the game was going to make them leave...

Leave....

Or even worse, started endless arguments about balance, and resizing, which caused more issues, most of which wasn't valid, because it was started by T3 people with a T1 tag, looking for excuses, for their own bad play.

Well the player base shrunk, because of low numbers, not all due to this, but it was certainly the main reason I left, I finally gave up when the match maker was putting people that were genuine T5's playing less than a week, were being put in matches against noted T1 competition players.

Because the population was so small, that the match maker was forced into doing this, and it happened on a daily basis.

The match maker was forced into bad match making by low population count.

This was then made worse by the addition of Solaris..this is why I was so dead set against Solaris.

It diluted the already shrinking player base, to dangerous levels, and Group play became almost extinct.

Being away so long I can only guess at the reason for this change, but I can make an educated one, that it's the elites demanding change, and the, not so many masses, these days can leave or be dragged along, by the next 'great idea'

It was the Leets demanding change that led to the rescale.
Led to Solaris so hey could officially measure epeen.
And of course the disaster of the current topic PSR and match making.
P.G.I used a system used by other games, but that wasn't good enough.

T1's didn't like the wait times for balanced matches, so P.G.I bowed to pressure came up with a system that was going to shove everyone, even those not suited to T1 play into a T1 situation.




This should have been addressed years ago when it was first conceived..it was so glaringly wrong, when but it wasn't. In fact it should never have been created at all.


Its to damn late now.

No new system will address low population

It's either long wait times for game, or T5's in T1 matches.


The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the one.

Unless its a computer game ego apparently.

Another good one is

You Reap what you sow

To make a major change now is a complete waste of time, money an effort, to do so will alienate even more players.

Edited by C E Dwyer, 16 June 2020 - 04:31 AM.


#679 Xiphias

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 862 posts

Posted 16 June 2020 - 05:20 AM

View PostBistrorider, on 16 June 2020 - 03:21 AM, said:

Well, I'm gonna crawl from my hole again. Still think that the matchscore and psr should be merged into simple points system. Since I'm no math man my head hurts when trying to bite on matchmaker.

Also I think we missed something very important. As far as I understand there is gonna be reset in tier system. Like we all gonna start from the scratch - back to tier 5. Question is how it will affect the WHOLE community? Some may say: "Well, I worked hard to reach tier 3 or 2. Now they gonna reset it. I don't wanna play anymore". Risky, risky. Then the PGI may say: "Well, we did what you wanted, and now we are left with 100 players so it's the end of the story". Risky, risky. Trap?

I think PGI needs to seed the new tier system based on the historic data that they have. Otherwise people will quit as you say and it will also take a long time to have enough matches to properly seed players (match quality will go down) causing more people to quit.

Honestly, PGI should just leave tiers in the game as an XP bar, and then create a secret back-end tier system to base matches on.

#680 AdmiralAmazing

    Rookie

  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 5 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 16 June 2020 - 05:22 AM

Cudos to Paul. It is a rare sight to give the community that level of involvement. I'm sorry for all the grumpy replies to your outreach.

I like the idea to give each player an initial offset based on the collected stats over the past years. Maybe weighted with a time coefficient so that the latest entries are more relevant than the ones in 201X.

True Zero sum as top priority is a sublime goal.

The contribution to matchscore by dmg caused feels like it should me modified by constants for special occasions.
  • LRMs should have a < 1.0 coefficient.
  • Light mechs a minor benefit > 1.0
Maybe many more can be argued for.

Edited by AdmiralAmazing, 16 June 2020 - 05:26 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users