713 replies to this topic

[Laser Kiwi]

Hawker Siddeley, on 08 June 2020 - 04:39 PM, said:

Do you think the game could take another one of PGI's brilliant mistakes?

More importantly in the long haul there will be next to no change in higher tier matches, you'll still be pulling in the same middle-skill players as normal, it will only be the lower tiers that suffer when they pull in more skilled T3 players.

There is absolutely NOTHING PGI can do about that problem, but correct placement of ability will still help with a few outliers. It's literally a question of, do you want a game tonight?

[Zanotam]

So far I rally around Andrzej Lechrenski's Option #2! If you do too please like this post!

[Teknomancer]

One of the hardest things about this debate is trying to find a compromise that can work for three very different ways of approaching this game, three broad types of players:

• Those for whom winning is the goal of a match, by whatever means
  
• Those for whom kills and damage dealt are the primary goals of a match
  
• Those for whom a military BattleTech sim is the point, rewarding roles and combined tactics

And of course everyone wants to have fun while playing their style, and be rewarded for what matters to that way of thinking. Each match score calculation suggestion will likely lean towards rewarding one of these play styles, while not satisfying the other two. Unfortunately there are not enough players to let us select one of these as an account preference so the matchmaker can drop us with like-minded players (how cool would that be)! Which makes compromises necessary.

Where are you willing to compromise?

Overall I think Piranha has done a decent job balancing conflicting goals with the current match score formula, I could live with not changing it yet while we see how zero sum PSR adjustments work.

I'm not sure how to suggest match score changes without knowing how player preferences are split across the player population... Maybe a place to start is dividing the scoring events into one of the three mindsets. See how many satisfy one way of thinking or another. Take a poll of the players as to which goal is the most important in a match. Then you could either give priority to scoring events according to the polled preferences split - or for simple balance and a starting place to try, have a third of the scoring events come from each style.

Assuming of course that I am correct on identifying three styles of play that have different scoring priorities...

Edited by Teknomancer, 08 June 2020 - 08:36 PM.

[nRom]

I'm not sure guys. I've read some great ideas by some undoubtedly smart people; but, PGI has already hinted they don't think it can get much better and they hold all of the match making data.

Imagine a new system of ranking players is in place. When I look at the stated number of players searching for a match at a given time and do the mental exercise of dividing them up into different skill groups to match them to teams, I see mismatches being inevitable to keep queue times tolerable. Going to zero-sum doesn't change the player skill population distribution, only the matchmaker's estimation of that distribution. Even if the new ranking system sorted players in perfect skill order, if there aren't enough players in a skill matchmaking bracket searching for a game, the match maker has to open up the range to keep queue times from extending to whenever the next player in that bracket comes online. That would technically make the match quality poorer since lower skill players are being pushed into a higher bracket for the sake of starting a match. This is what everyone wants to avoid.

People arguing for a zero-sum system are saying matchmaking is poor due to poor sorting of player skill by the tier system (ie the reason games are bad are because the good players are stuck in T3). I think odds are it's because the player base is too small and the skill range too diverse to consistently make matches in a decent amount of time. I say this as someone who keeps MWO on the shortlist of games to play over the past 7 years when I have some time not mowing grass.

[SuperMCDad]

Kamikaze Viking, on 08 June 2020 - 04:59 PM, said:

And I would be fine with addressing PSR now and then letting it settle for a month before addressing Match Score calculations. We have seen in the past that too many simultaneous changes make it hard to understand the effects and what change caused what effect.

I believe this is the way forward. Reset PSR, and implement the proposed changes with current MS calculations. Let's not drag it out forever. I see complaints that the system doesn't take into account winning the match. The current MS calculation does take this into account however, and winning the match will give you a higher MS than losing it. The amount that winning increases MS could always be adjusted later, if it's thought it gives too little differentiation.

Let's get on with it though.

[Chaosity]

I haven't read the complete thread, so I don't know if this has been mentioned.

If you want to maintain zero sum, but also reward/penalize winners/losers, then try this... Keep the same +24 to -24 in the original post but add/subtract the same value from the winning and losing teams. For example (using a global value of 2) if the top score was on the losing team then he would get 24-2, or 22 points. If he was on the winning team then it would be 24+2, or 26 points. Again, using the value of 2 this would evenly add an additional 24 points to the winning team and deduct 24 points froth losing team.

This rewards the winning team, punishes the losing team, rewards everyone based on their match score regardless of the team, yet maintains a zero sum balance.

Edited by Chaosity, 08 June 2020 - 09:07 PM.

[dr3dnought]

Please reset PSR and make it zero-sum, like you originally proposed and most agreed to.

Fiddle with match-score some other time if you must but let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good.

[LightningStorm]

Also, damage taken should apply to match score. While low skilled players stand still trying to shoot, highly skilled players keep twisting their torsos to distribute damage more evenly and also it would incentivise assault pilots to take damage for others, instead of staying behind and sniping or using them as full LRM boats.

[MrMadguy]

Paul Inouye, on 08 June 2020 - 02:27 PM, said:

We will allow the players and community to attempt consensus on a new adjusted PSR AND Match Score formula.

How can you ask community about the best PSR formula, if majority of players don't even understand, how matchmaking works and therefore suggest using Jarl's list or MS thresholds as new matchmaking systems? First you need to explain, how MM works and what models are acceptable for it.

While in the past I was for removing W/L from PSR formula, at the end I don't know, if we should do it. Only thing, that should be done for sure - remove double dependence between PSR and W/L. I.e. winning team usually already has higher MS values and giving them higher PSR is double dip.

Only thing about MS calculation, I can think of - reducing DMG part, because it's so easy to inflate your MS via dealing passive damage from missiles, while having zero real skill, that it's also direct way towards overinflating your PSR.

And one last thing. Changing PSR isn't about making current matches better. I don't think, that it's possible. It's about bringing some players back to game. Because with true MM system they'd have hope, that some day they'd play at their desired skill level, not against tryhards, who just stomp them in every single match, that of course isn't fun at all.

P.S. And also, I agree, that we shouldn't delay this change. I understand, that it's desirable to make PSR reset only once. But we don't want to wait for this change for another month, cuz you want to do endless tweaks, tests on PTR and then abandon this change, like you've done with Power Draw system. I personally won't return to this game, till this change won't be made.

Edited by MrMadguy, 08 June 2020 - 10:14 PM.

[MeterH1]

Paul Inouye, on 08 June 2020 - 02:27 PM, said:

<p><span style="color: orange"><strong>First: There will be no patch tomorrow. The PSR update is on hold.</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="color: orange;"><strong>Addressing Feedback</strong></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p>After talking it over with Russ and Engineers, we decided to hold on current PSR plans and we want to put this out there for you.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>[color=yellow]Russ' Message to the Community[/color]</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>

<p></p>

</div>

Paul, unfortunately, this would not quote the portion I wanted, but nonetheless... I am very happy with this proposal. I was one of those who complained about a player doing exceptionally well on a losing team not being able to have a positive psr change.. I am satisfied with the plan of the top 12 players going up and the 12 bottom players going down equally as well proposed in the first post on this thread.

I still don't like the psr reset, but even with the reset, I believe this proposal will find a happy medium that I can agree with.

[Teknomancer]

For those who are saying PSR zero sum yet needs an adjustment for win/loss... The match score that is used to assign PSR adjustments is already weighted for win/loss. The proposed PSR change does not alter this, the winning team will earn more PSR gains.

Knowing this, are you then saying win/loss is still more important, still under-represented in the match scores? The match score formula can be adjusted to add even more bonus for a win yet... But then you risk alienating people who value other criteria more. What is the right balance, how much bonus should a player have to their match score - and thus their odds of a PSR gain - from being on the winning team? Versus kills and damage? Versus role-based warfare?

[cougurt]

Teknomancer, on 08 June 2020 - 08:35 PM, said:

One of the hardest things about this debate is trying to find a compromise that can work for three very different ways of approaching this game, three broad types of players:

• Those for whom winning is the goal of a match, by whatever means
  
• Those for whom kills and damage dealt are the primary goals of a match
  
• Those for whom a military BattleTech sim is the point, rewarding roles and combined tactics

this is a competitive PVP game, the only thing that should be taken into consideration is a player's performance. if you're consistently doing poorly and losing matches, your PSR should drop.

LightningStorm, on 08 June 2020 - 09:17 PM, said:

Also, damage taken should apply to match score. While low skilled players stand still trying to shoot, highly skilled players keep twisting their torsos to distribute damage more evenly and also it would incentivise assault pilots to take damage for others, instead of staying behind and sniping or using them as full LRM boats.

i've seen this idea pitched a number of times and i've never particularly liked it. the value of tanking damage is entirely contextual and shouldn't be rewarded by default.

[Teknomancer]

cougurt, on 08 June 2020 - 09:46 PM, said:

this is a competitive PVP game, the only thing that should be taken into consideration is a player's performance. if you're consistently doing poorly and losing matches, your PSR should drop.

Oh agreed... but how are you defining "performance?" There are posts who want to see more weight given to role-based warfare, capping and spotting and such to help a team win. Others see it as kills, some are talking about damage, yet others are concerned that winning itself is not given enough priority... There are different ideas as to what counts as good performance.

What's defines good player performance for you?

[Heer]

Refer original post for more information

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

Solution 1
Just rank everybody strictly on relative match score. Ignore wins and losses. To see what that looks like, I'll just copy and paste Russ' numbers from the OP.

Solution 2
Use match score only in a relative (within the same match) sense and give priority to W/L ratio. Winners gain PSR, losers lose PSR. Here is an idea of what that might look like using Russ' PSR numbers:

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.

Of the three solutions, I personally prefer Solution 2 but suspect Solution 3 is better for the community

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

Match maker: uses only PSR. Period. You guys have the numbers stored on-server anyway. Simply do not bound it. Release your "valves" as you see fit to get people matches in a 'reasonable' amount of time, but keep it just as opaque as you always have. It doesn't matter for the end user as long as they are getting fun games.

To have this truly work - PGI must NOT DISPLAY the change in PSR to the PLAYER
By all means show that our team, won or lost. Show our match score. Do not show the change in PSR

If you truly want to know if you are better than someone - go to Jarl's List or something else. Most players have a gut feeling about were they sit.

BTW: The changes to how match score is made up, should be in a different post and does need a discussion.

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

[/color]
Tier Bar: Change it entirely. Make it 1 to X (with X being higher) like this is some sort of role playing game (maybe X could be as high as 100, who care?), and keep evaluating match scores for "tiers" the same way you always have. People can keep feeling like they are 'leveling up', and keep feeling good about themselves, but at the same time not have that mess up the actual match making. I'd wager that a lot of people like to see that bar go up even if they won't admit it.

I kinda like this but not sure PGI can easy do it within the current code. Something similar would be good, I suspect, for the role-players.

Lastly, there are two problems here.
How to give people a good game experience and how to give people a good role-playing experience. PSR changes are defiantly needed to give a good game experience. Match Score is a major part in the role-playing experience. How to provide/display a good role-playing experience, I have no real answer for. It is, IMHO, too diverse

Edited by Heer, 08 June 2020 - 09:57 PM.

[Andrzej Lechrenski]

Heer, on 08 June 2020 - 09:56 PM, said:

Refer original post for more information


Of the three solutions, I personally prefer Solution 2 but suspect Solution 3 is better for the community


To have this truly work - PGI must NOT DISPLAY the change in PSR to the PLAYER
By all means show that our team, won or lost. Show our match score. Do not show the change in PSR

If you truly want to know if you are better than someone - go to Jarl's List or something else. Most players have a gut feeling about were they sit.

BTW: The changes to how match score is made up, should be in a different post and does need a discussion.


I kinda like this but not sure PGI can easy do it within the current code. Something similar would be good, I suspect, for the role-players.

Lastly, there are two problems here.
How to give people a good game experience and how to give people a good role-playing experience. PSR changes are defiantly needed to give a good game experience. Match Score is a major part in the role-playing experience. How to provide/display a good role-playing experience, I have no real answer for. It is, IMHO, too diverse

Absolutely. Right now, we just need to focus on match making. Match score can be fine-tuned later.

[cougurt]

Teknomancer, on 08 June 2020 - 09:53 PM, said:

Oh agreed... but how are you defining "performance?" There are posts who want to see more weight given to role-based warfare, capping and spotting and such to help a team win. Others see it as kills, some are talking about damage, yet others are concerned that winning itself is not given enough priority... There are different ideas as to what counts as good performance.

What's defines good player performance for you?

i'd say WLR and match score are a pretty objective measurement of a player's performance. match score certainly isn't a perfect metric, but there is a strong correlation between match score and win rate. the people who go on about things like role warfare and objective play are simply lying to themselves about how much they actually contribute towards a win.

[Bistrorider]

I think we need something like this to work with. Question is it up-to-date and about numbers.

https://mwomercs.com...ed-for-science/

[Kamikaze Viking]

MrMadguy, on 08 June 2020 - 09:24 PM, said:

How can you ask community about the best PSR formula, if majority of players don't even understand, how matchmaking works and therefore suggest using Jarl's list or MS thresholds as new matchmaking systems? First you need to explain, how MM works and what models are acceptable for it.

Fear not, TOP MEN are working on the problem as we speak

[Phar Ming Yu]

Not certain if this has been mentioned but I think damage taken needs to be a rewarded stat. Reasons: The more damage you take the less your teammates face, rewards those who play assaults and who are willing to lead the charge. Often as an assault I lead the charge, do little relative damage but soak up tons until I die but my team goes on to win because of my sacrifice. Time to reward the meat-shields.

[Teknomancer]

cougurt, on 08 June 2020 - 10:13 PM, said:

i'd say WLR and match score are a pretty objective measurement of a player's performance. match score certainly isn't a perfect metric, but there is a strong correlation between match score and win rate. the people who go on about things like role warfare and objective play are simply lying to themselves about how much they actually contribute towards a win.

A role warfare player who won the match by a base cap would say they absolutely contributed to the win.

And that's the thing, you are right that it's wins and match scores, but your match score is determined by a whole lot of stats, including role warfare and objectives, not to mention damage and kills. Match score also has your bonus for winning. That's the question here: what about match score shows your performance? Which scoring factors are most important, of those many things listed at the start of this thread that go into calculating your match score? Does the current algorithm work or does it need to be tweaked?