713 replies to this topic

[Kamikaze Viking]

Tranderas, on 08 June 2020 - 05:05 PM, said:

Hey Paul/Bryan? While you're taking community feedback, would you consider a second look at the Community Balance Proposal and putting those numbers into the game, too? That would make a bigger impact on the game than the matchmaking and might excite players that have come back for quarantine to stay instead of departing once they're back in work/school.

Valid point, but PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC

[My Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ]

Mordenthral, on 08 June 2020 - 05:11 PM, said:

But that's not what this is about. Obviously, you're one of the ones that would agree with dumping the other game modes and going straight Skirmish. Nothing wrong with that.

When did I say that? Just because I don't think the bottom feeder who runs around the entire match capping then gets curb stomped doesn't deserve rewarding doesn't mean I'm opposed to conquest.

Mordenthral, on 08 June 2020 - 05:11 PM, said:

I'm saying that since there are other game modes, changing the weight of those mode-specific items could result in those modes actually being played differently. Lances defending and assaulting cap points, etc.; and it actually being worth it from a match score perspective. Instead of the current "kill everyone, then go shoot a thing to end the match."

The idea of lances vs lance combat is pointless because its ineffective. If one team wants to split up three ways and the other team doesn't, well guess which team is going to find that they quickly have people dying from a murderball?

[General Solo]

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.

This is what imo may help with what you described.

I just want to add that another thing that must be considered is how teams are constructed to avoid stacked teams, let me clarify. Example one side has a bunch of 99%ters and the other side none, we seen it before the merge too.

Lets say MM has available a list of 24 or more players ranked by PSR (using the new system) in the player pool. How MM constructs the two teams using the available players forms an integral part of the MM process and if ignored can un do all the good work being proposed.

So don't forget about that as MM is a system and all the parts gotta work together to give the intended result. Low skill gap games where each player is matched with a counter player as close as possible.

The below is my thoughts

Kinda like school yard games (maybe old school I dunno havn't been to school long time) where you have two captains in our case that would be the two highest PSR players in the available playa pool Player Ranked 1st and Player Ranked 2nd.

Lets call these teams, Team One and Team Two.
Now imo cause Player Ranked 1st is more skilled than Player Ranked 2nd MM places the next highest PSR player from the pool on Team Two and then repeats the process for Team One.

As Team Two got the higher PSR player last time, MM will swap and the next highest PSR player from the pool will be placed onTeam one first and then repeats the process for Team Two.

etc etc till you made two teams.

For groups match them with other similar groups or equal PSR solos, player for player.
Sure groups may still have a coms and coordination advantage, but similarly skilled solo'es put in what is effectively an ad hoc group should hold their own unlike the current situation.

TLDR: How teams are constructed is as important as zero sum and matchscore calculations.

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 08 June 2020 - 05:32 PM.

[C337Skymaster]

Paul, just reading through your formula, and I've got a question: isn't "UAVkill" getting a kill against an enemy UAV? That's how it tally's in the end-of-round score screen, so having it described as YOUR UAV assisting a kill is throwing me off. I also thought a defensive kill was killing an enemy that was in the process of capping a point, and savior kill was just killing an enemy that had recently fired on an ally with exposed internal structure.

Again with KMDD: my understanding is that you get that when you did the most damage, regardless of whether or not you land the killing blow. It's when you get KMDD AND the killing blow that you qualify for a Solo Kill...

Scouting: My understanding was that THAT was "press R": being the first to target a particular enemy during a match.

Flanking is dealing damage to an enemy while outside their LOS. You don't have to be behind enemy lines, necessarily.

First Capture isn't the first zone of a match, but being one of the 'mechs to first capture a particular zone (being on it at the moment that it flips to your possession).

Protected Medium is gain for BEING a medium, next to someone more than 20 tons heavier (25 tons?), and both engaged in combat. Same with Protected Light. So Mediums only get it near Assaults, but Lights get it near heavies and assaults.

Protection Proximity is what the Heavies and Assaults get for being near a medium or light while engaged in combat. For that matter, Lance in Formation also requires active combat while also being in proximity to your lancemates (so you're not getting it during the walk from the drop zone, only after the fighting starts).

Just making sure I understand the criteria, correctly, and that everyone else does, as well. These are how I was given to understand these achievements during past events that required accumulating them. Thanks!

[Zanotam]

I think the current system is better than a PURE Matchscore based one. I'm of the opinion though that the original proposal is better than the current system or the current proposal just made. Winning should be THE MOST IMPORTANT THING.

Instead of worrying about zero-sum, I would institute a system of decay towards basically the top of rank 4/bottom of rank 3 from both those above and below that which happens maybe once a month to slightly adjust people's rankings up/down so they have to actually work to keep up and if they're new but getting better it's easier to climb that way. The alternative being a larger reset once a year of course, but I think a monthly system fits with how MWO players seem to rank themselves using the Jarl's list.

HOWEVER, everyone should get reset once for the new system to start neutrally and then their first 100 matches should have a slowly decaying increased ability to lower/increase their MMR. something like (200 - match number)% multiplier to their total fluctuation in that first 100 matches to make sure they're placed well!

However, I would otherwise keep the current system or use the prior suggestion so far more than any other suggestion I've seen I think. Just add MMR/ELO decay once a month tending towards whatever the starting number is and give everyone a one-time reset back to that starting number with a temporary boost over their first 100 matches to their rating gain/loss.

Edited by Zanotam, 08 June 2020 - 05:32 PM.

[Axys Rageborn]

I think the biggest issue with match score is how both Lock on weapons and AMS can skew the total without doing much. For this I would propose the following to leveling out the playing field.

Reduce the amount of MS gained from damage (overall) but introduce a LOS damage bonus. This way those who use lock on weapons still gain MS but would gain more for direct fire. It also wouldn't affect MS gained by using direct fire weapons. This will stop inflation of MS from indirect fire.

Reduce the amount of MS gained from shooting down missiles but up the Cbill payout for missiles destroyed. This way its more for money and less about MS because it doesn't take any skill to mount an AMS, just like it doesn't take any skill to use indirect fire.

Another thing could be a gain for how much damage is taken. Those who can use their Armour effectively should be rewarded for doing so.

[Akillius II]

Since PSR is getting a full code I'd like to Suggest:

1. Anyone on either team looses the most PSR if they are perma-AFK, -OR- under 50 match score.
However PGI's servers must detect and take into account when the servers hiccup and drop as many as 22 players per match.

2. Anyone damaging team mate within first 30 seconds of match starting would instantly loose -3 PSR at match end irregardless of "performance".
And -10 PSR if they "accidentally" kill the (light) team mate within first 30 seconds of match starting.

3. Killing a friendly at any other point during the match gives an additional -2 PSR.

(yes accidents happen, but if your half as good as you think then no worries, you'll +1000 matchscore and +5 PSR anyways)

[My Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ]

Axys Rageborn, on 08 June 2020 - 05:21 PM, said:

Another thing could be a gain for how much damage is taken. Those who can use their Armour effectively should be rewarded for doing so.

Define using armour effectively? A 100 tonner that YOLOs and throws his mech away for no reason would be seen in the same light as a 100 tonner that uses it's armour at the right time to push and tank for the team.

[C337Skymaster]

Oh, and my two cents on PSR: it's not that "top players go up, bottom players go down", so much as there needs to be a target match score that is considered a "fair and decent game". I figure around 300 MS at the end of the match. If you got higher than that, you need a better challenge, and if you got less, you need less of a challenge. Maybe give it +/- 50, so from 250-350, nothing happens, but above 350, you move up, proportionally, and below 250, you move down proportionally. The idea is that you only move until you start getting 300 match score, consistently. The ideal would be that EVERYONE balances in such a way that they always get around 300 match score, every match. If you balance PSR that way, you don't need to differentiate by win/loss, because match score is automatically lower on the losing side, anyway, simply due to the outcome of the match. This way, if someone loses, but has an amazing game, they're reseeded further up, and if someone wins but does abysmally, they're reseeded further down. "PERSONAL" Skill, aimed at a middle-ground game quality.

[East Indy]

Yes. This is the way.

Remember, PGI can make matchscore reward anything they want. If they want to encourage taking conquest points or rushing a base, they can reflect it in scoring.

As it happens, 8 years on, people generally play this game to rumble with giant robots. So dealing damage and getting kills is what we get paid for.

But in the end, if you want the matchmaker to know just how well a player checks the boxes that the game asks them to, you go by matchscore.

Let's do this 24-man scoring thing.

[Masher]

I'm just an average player, don't have a real opinion about PSR so I'll just roll with it.

What I do have an opinion about is my discouragement hear that there only 1,000 average concurrent MWO players. Compared to the 5 million concurrent Fortnite players that's a tiny fraction.

I could care less about Fortnite and the scores of other FPS games out there, but I've got to have my daily dose of MWO. It is nostalgic for me as a tabletop player in my youth. With MWO, it's the closest I'll ever get to piloting a mechanized war machine from the safety of my desk.

I hope MWO lives on, it has given me endless hours of gaming pleasure. If adjusting PSR will even things out and help to bring new players, then bring it on.

Edited by Masher, 08 June 2020 - 05:31 PM.

[Axys Rageborn]

Hawker Siddeley, on 08 June 2020 - 05:25 PM, said:

Define using armour effectively? A 100 tonner that YOLOs and throws his mech away for no reason would be seen in the same light as a 100 tonner that uses it's armour at the right time to push and tank for the team.

those who roll their armour would achieve a high amount of damage taken and would recieve a bonus based on that amount. those who yolo would take a smaller amount of damge taken and would get a small amount if any.

You could base this of the amount of armour the mech has at the start of a match and scale the bonus based on how much armour was used.

Edited by Axys Rageborn, 08 June 2020 - 05:33 PM.

[Mordenthral]

Hawker Siddeley, on 08 June 2020 - 05:15 PM, said:

The idea of lances vs lance combat is pointless because its ineffective. If one team wants to split up three ways and the other team doesn't, well guess which team is going to find that they quickly have people dying from a murderball?

You're getting entirely off-topic. Your dislike of people that cap (bottom-feeders?) isn't relevant.

My contribution to the suggestions:
Skirmish - Killing the enemy is the mode and should have the most weight
Conquest - Gathering resources is the mode and should have the most weight
Assault - Capturing the enemy base is the mode and should have the most weight
Domination - Holding the circle is the mode and should have the most weight
Incursion - Destroying the enemy base is the mode and should have the most weight

Like if you agree, as mentioned.

[MisterSomaru]

can we keep this as simple as possible? Like, seriously. My idea is that Top 8 players go up, middle 8 get nuthin', bottom 8 players go down, like, +4, +4, +3, +3, +2, +2, +1 +1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, -1, -1, -2, -2, -3, -3, -4, -4 for example.
I just pulled those numbers out of my ***, but it equals zero sum, if my math isn't that rusty. Specifics could be determined later, but the point stands. People who do very well go up, people who are middling are where they belong. people consistently doing poorly go down to the tier they belong in. It's as simple as that.
KISS Keep It Simple Stupid
This is a pvp game, lets keep the metrics by which we change our own PSR simple, so nothing needs to be broken even harder.

Edit: this system is based around match score, and rewards players with uncarriable teams that work their asses off, as well as punishing people that win and do **** diddly.

Edited by MisterSomaru, 08 June 2020 - 05:35 PM.

[Zanotam]

Axys Rageborn, on 08 June 2020 - 05:31 PM, said:

those who roll their armour would achieve a high amount of damage taken and would recieve a bonus based on that amount. those who yolo would take a smaller amount of damge taken and would get a small amount if any.

You could base this of the amount of armour the mech has at the start of a match and scale the bonus based on how much armour was used.

This definitely seems reasonable to me.

[My Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ]

Axys Rageborn, on 08 June 2020 - 05:31 PM, said:

those who roll their armour would achieve a high amount of damage taken and would recieve a bonus based on that amount. those who yolo would take a smaller amount of damge taken and would get a small amount if any.

You could base this of the amount of armour the mech has at the start of a match and scale the bonus based on how much armour was used.

Sorry I should have exampled my point better. How do you differentiate someone who ignores the call, or YOLOs in, wasting their mech but still taking as much damage as someone who actually tanks the push? How do you differentiate between someone using their armour effectively and someone who isn't?

Mordenthral, on 08 June 2020 - 05:32 PM, said:

You're getting entirely off-topic. Your dislike of people that cap (bottom-feeders?) isn't relevant.

You brought up an example of how increasing the weight of capping on MS could change the dynamic and I said why it wouldn't, why you would still ultimately see what currently happens.

And ultimately my point that in most cases caps do not win conquest matches was never addressed. A murderball that gets the initial 2 cap then rolls into the enemy team is still more likely to win than the team that has people not contributing to the team by running around capping. Encouraging and rewarding people for hampering their team like that is not something that should be rewarded.

Edited by Hawker Siddeley, 08 June 2020 - 05:42 PM.

[Zanotam]

Here is some relevant reading btw for those who think we shouldn't use mostly win/loss and insist on Match Score:

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/trueskill-ranking-system/


This may not be a completely solved problem, but the fact it should be heavily based in Win/Loss isn't just a 'feeling' or something you can 'disagree with' with any real evidence to back that up.

Therefore I highly support the previously given W/L to determine positive/negative and matchscore to determine amount of positive/negative change in a player's skill ranking although I wouldn't mind if it changed to be similar to this one where say the bottom 2 players of the winning team gain nothing and the top 2 players of the losing team lose nothing and then scale up/down from there for the other players.

[C337Skymaster]

Axys Rageborn, on 08 June 2020 - 05:31 PM, said:

those who roll their armour would achieve a high amount of damage taken and would recieve a bonus based on that amount. those who yolo would take a smaller amount of damge taken and would get a small amount if any.

You could base this of the amount of armour the mech has at the start of a match and scale the bonus based on how much armour was used.

Bonuses for this should probably start after half the pre-match armor has been used, and ramp up rapidly from there, so that someone who manages to use 100% of their armor gets rewarded properly, and if they're still alive at the end, they get an extra bonus. Although this should probably relate to the structure of the 'mech, not the equipped armor (so armor is double the structure, and use that number for scaling), just to avoid gaming the system by equipping 1 point of armor so that you "used all your armor". If the amount of damage taken is equal to the base structure (pre skill nodes), then "tanking" rewards begin, and max out when three times the structure has been taken as damage.

[Axys Rageborn]

Hawker Siddeley, on 08 June 2020 - 05:41 PM, said:

Sorry I should have exampled my point better. How do you differentiate someone who ignores the call, or YOLOs in, wasting their mech but still taking as much damage as someone who actually tanks the push? How do you differentiate between someone using their armour effectively and someone who isn't?

With this they probably wont be doing much damage in return which would affect their overall MS anyway so it would be lower then someone who actively fights with the team.

I get what you a saying but those who yolo will never get MS close to those who actively participate with their teams. This in turn would lower their PSR and keep them at a lower level then those who try to do the best for themselves and the team.

C337Skymaster, on 08 June 2020 - 05:48 PM, said:

Bonuses for this should probably start after half the pre-match armor has been used, and ramp up rapidly from there, so that someone who manages to use 100% of their armor gets rewarded properly, and if they're still alive at the end, they get an extra bonus. Although this should probably relate to the structure of the 'mech, not the equipped armor (so armor is double the structure, and use that number for scaling), just to avoid gaming the system by equipping 1 point of armor so that you "used all your armor". If the amount of damage taken is equal to the base structure (pre skill nodes), then "tanking" rewards begin, and max out when three times the structure has been taken as damage.

Yeah this is reasonable.

[Khalcruth]

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

In summary, the formulas need to be agreed upon by the community

How in the heck do you propose to measure that?