713 replies to this topic

[Zerex]

MrMadguy, on 09 June 2020 - 12:54 AM, said:

And also. Who are that TOP MEN? Tweaking game by top players for top players has always been bad idea. Because they don't even understand, how 99% of playerbase plays this game.

Kamikaze Viking's proposed system benefited 6 players working as a team to have increase their WLR, thus rocketing these players to the top of the tiers, a far better skilled pilot who plays solo is going to have a worse WLR and will take far longer to reach their tier plateau, the system is designed from the ground up to help groups of players gain PSR than more skilled players.

I put forward almost the same system as PGI's in a Reddit post, Kamikaze Viking, Dogmeat and Decency have fought against the base idea of my system over theirs, all opting and trying to push a different system that benefits 6 players working as group to game the system and push beyond their skill rating plateau, now Kamikaze Viking is suggesting that they all work together to improve PGI's system, I bet the first they suggest is to make W/L factor in to a solo player performance rating in the effort to have the mechanic where 6 players can game the system.

Which of these 2 players is the better performing solo player by stats? (real stats with both players having 50 games played)

Player 1 W/L: 2.94 average matchscore: 460

Player 2 W/L: 10.50 average matchscore: 455

The stats say player 1, a PSR system that takes into account wins means in that player 2 would be much higher in the rankings than player 1.

The "TOP MEN" he is talking about are all trying to push this system.

This is a quote from one of these "TOP MEN"

"Winning is a major part of player skill"

Edited by Zerex, 09 June 2020 - 01:37 AM.

[Andrzej Lechrenski]

Zerex, on 09 June 2020 - 01:36 AM, said:

Kamikaze Viking's proposed system benefited 6 players working as a team to have increase their WLR, thus rocketing these players to the top of the tiers, a far better skilled pilot who plays solo is going to have a worse WLR and will take far longer to reach their tier plateau, the system is designed from the ground up to help groups of players gain PSR than more skilled players.

I put forward almost the same system as PGI's in a Reddit post, Kamikaze Viking, Dogmeat and Decency have fought against the base idea of my system over theirs, all opting and trying to push a different system that benefits 6 players working as group to game the system and push beyond their skill rating plateau, now Kamikaze Viking is suggesting that they all work together to improve PGI's system, I bet the first they suggest is to make W/L factor in to a solo player performance rating in the effort to have the mechanic where 6 players can game the system.

Which of these 2 players is the better performing solo player by stats? (real stats with both players having 50 games played)

Player 1 W/L: 2.94 average matchscore: 460

Player 2 W/L: 10.50 average matchscore: 455

The stats say player 1, a PSR system that takes into account wins means in that player 2 would be much higher in the rankings than player 1.

The "TOP MEN" he is talking about are all trying to push this system.

This is a quote from one of these "TOP MEN"

"Winning is a major part of player skill"

Winning is the only part of player skill.

[50 50]

Quote

[color=#00FFFF]Then with that community agreed upon formula, we will implement a true zero-sum point distribution across the entire 24 players based on that match score criteria. If we agree by way of example there is 156 PSR to be gained or lost from a match, based on the new match score formula you supply; we will apply +156 PSR across the top 12 players regardless of win or loss and -156 PSR across the bottom 12 players regardless of win loss.[/color]

This bit bothers me.
I am either not understanding something about the way match points are distributed or this is misleading or has just been worded poorly.

Someone explain it for me because at the moment it looks like BS.

[Zerex]

Andrzej Lechrenski, on 09 June 2020 - 01:47 AM, said:

Winning is the only part of player skill.

I laughed so hard at this...

I then i realized that i assumed you are being sarcastic

[Andrzej Lechrenski]

50 50, on 09 June 2020 - 01:49 AM, said:

This bit bothers me.
I am either not understanding something about the way match points are distributed or this is misleading or has just been worded poorly.

Someone explain it for me because at the moment it looks like BS.

PSR is more than just tier or the up or down arrow. There are hard values to it (invisible to the player) that are just translated into the green/red arrow and summed toward tier standing. It goes up to the thousands on their end.

[Heer]

50 50, on 09 June 2020 - 01:49 AM, said:

This bit bothers me.
I am either not understanding something about the way match points are distributed or this is misleading or has just been worded poorly.

Someone explain it for me because at the moment it looks like BS.

PSR and Match Score are not the same thing.
Match Score is used to indicate how well a player did in certain areas during that game.

From that the Players are then ranked against a value and a change is made to the player's PSR.

Previous values have been (for example and these are not 100% correct)
* Did you win and get more than 400 match score (increase PSR by an amount)
* Did you lose and get more than 250 match score (PSR change is zero)
* Did you win and get less than 50 match score (PSR change is zero)
* etc

All that is being said here is the total PSR change amount would be equal to zero for all players in that match (some would go up and some would go down)

[Zerex]

technopredator, on 09 June 2020 - 02:24 AM, said:

The triggers are OK, and should be weighed on the merit of each trigger to make up the Match Score, and the scale I think should be -12 to 12, no need to make it -24 to 24, simpler lower numbers are best.

Agreed, i feel there should be a non movement middle ground too, Just as a very quick example

Ranked 1st = 12 PSR gain

Ranked 2nd = 11 PSR gain

Ranked 3rd = 10 PSR gain

Ranked 4th = 8 PSR gain

Ranked 5th = 6 PSR gain

Ranked 6th = 4 PSR gain

Ranked 7th = 2 PSR gain

Ranked 8th = 0 PSR gain

Ranked 9th 0 PSR gain

Ranked 10th 0 PSR gain

Ranked 11th 0 PSR gain

Ranked 12th 0 PSR gain

Ranked 13th 0 PSR gain

Ranked 14th 0 PSR gain

Ranked 15th 0 PSR gain

Ranked 16th 0 PSR gain

Ranked 17th 0 PSR gain

Ranked 18th = 2 PSR loss

Ranked 19th = 4 PSR loss

Ranked 20th = 6 PSR loss

Ranked 21st = 8 PSR loss

Ranked 22nd = 10 PSR loss

Ranked 23rd = 11 PSR loss

Ranked 24th = 12 PSR loss

Every player in the game doesn't need to be gaining or losing PSR, you just end up shifting numbers for the sake of shifting numbers.

This is just example numbers, the amount of PSR and how many players that gain or lose PSR is open to being tweaked

[Bud Crue]

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

Solution 3

This ought to do it. Rewards the losing team carriers. Still rewards team play. Drops the dross. What more do we need given the population?

[ShiverMeRivets]

Here is my suggestion PGI:
Don’t listen to the community
The “community” are a bunch of random non professionals with inflated egos, limited interest in your product, and no responsibility or accountability. You can draw some new ideas from what players suggest, but you do what YOU think is right and don’t ask for their approval - you will not get it, no matter what you do.

Now, having said that and in case you chose to ignore my suggestion above:
PGI’s original proposed “+” only on wins “-“ only on losses, and exact value decided by match score brackets is far better than any convoluted system of complex scoring. Your method was based first and foremost on “do whatever makes your team win” and cannot be harvested effectively like a system based primarily on match scores. Over many games, W/L is the only reliable metric to a player’s contribution to his team.

Just saying.
Now stop listening to forum [Redacted]

[Gerdau]

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>

PERFECT!!! I like this formula very much, because it is entirely based on INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE.

[Zerex]

ShiverMeRivets, on 09 June 2020 - 02:46 AM, said:

W/L is the only reliable metric to a player’s contribution to his team.

And this comment here is why you just classed yourself in the "bunch of random non professionals with inflated egos" Group.

Here is an example, a sprinter is part of a relay team, the sprinter is the fastest sprinter over 100 metres in the world, but his team mates are much slower and they finish middle table every race, so by only taking wins and loses into account you have took the worlds leading sprinter with the most skill and ability in his field of sport and ranked his solo ability of him as a middle table runner based off team results.

PSR stands for PLAYER SKILL RATING, not teamwork related rating, not win/loss rating, not 6 man group rating but player rating, your player rating.

When working out your money credit score rating do you take other coworkers factors into account?

Edited by Zerex, 09 June 2020 - 03:07 AM.

[Rkshz]

it's all good, I'm glad that Paul and Russ began to listen to the community, but it’s important not to forget about game mods and those who drown his team

massive PSR\MS increase for:
- capping points (conquest)
- capping base (assault)
- destroy base (incursion)
- UAV spotting
- kill enemy UAV

massive PSR\MS punishment for:
- suicide
- team kill
- team damage
- AFK
- disconnect

Edited by Rkshz, 09 June 2020 - 03:09 AM.

[Rameau]

It's VERY frustrating when you lose PSR even though you performed very well as an individual - so I like this new formula by proposed by Russ very much. Regardless of victory or defeat as a team, competent players will always be rewarded - this will keep them motivated, and will quicky place them in the Tier they deserve.

I've played MWO since 2016, me and a bunch of friends from real life. But what makes us take a break from the game every now and then is not the PSR system.

COMPETITIVE gaming is all about VANITY. Look at League of Legends, for example - a huge case of success: every player has a public profile inside the game displaying his achievements in a colourful manner. And the BattleTech universe provides such great color for vanity! Loyalist players, for example, should have their officer's uniform on their profile, displaying an insignia of rank - and MEDALS! Also, a history of performance in past seasons, for example: "conqueror of Sarna", "defender of New Avalon", "ranked 56th on season 5", etc. And most important of all: THE TIER SYSTEM NEEDS COLOR! Instead of just numbering 1-5, GIVE EACH TIER A TITLE, for example:

Tier 1 - Legendary MechWarrior
Tier 2 - Elite MechWarrior
Tier 3 - Veteran MechWarrior
Tier 4 - MechWarrior
Tier 5 - Cadet

Just a few thoughts to help improve this game that I LOVE.

Bottomline is, I like this new PSR formula very much as it will better serve the VANITY of players - by rewarding their individual performance.

[MrTBSC]

haven´t had the time to read trough all posts but just to put my thoughts into this ...

the scoresystem should definetively consider the classes ..
dealing damage as a light mech is on average more difficult to do than a heavy and assault, even more so getting kills against higher class mechs ... maybe consider IS mechs running XL as well, as players who chose ISXLengines make themselfes even more vulnerable than using light engines or clanXL ..

the biggest problem i have with the score and xp system is that it relies on kills a bit too much were if a team doesn´t get enough kills/Killassists a player who causes himself a fair ammount of damage still doesn´t get a fair score for that but then has to rely on his teammates to finish off enemies he couldn´t (maybe not a good comparison but planetside 2 f.e. has the exact same problem for its infantryplay were infantry can get away and heal up were you then get NOTHING from that engagemeant which imo is like a big DEmotivator if your role is support) .. so maybe on that field there could be done a bit more

one other area that has been mentioned are the other gamemodes that are not just about killing mechs but capturing or holding possitions and support, i can´t provide any solution but the score and xpsystem needs to fairly address this for players who are willing to go for the objective ... there however needs to be a ballance between going for the objective and still focusing on fighting mechs getting appropriately rewarded in score and xp for both (again take the classes used into consideration, i don´t know all the details behind the system) ..

so basicaly the system should consider playstyles and classes, maybe reward players that use closecombat assaults/mechs with the appropriate build to get "slightly" better rewarded than a player who uses a 100ton assault with ranged direct or indirect fire builds and staying a thousand meters behind alone when he should rather be like 600 to 500 meters to the enemy and being with his group ...

of course a player should be able/allowed to play any way he wants but then still be rewarded aproprietly without however having the score/xpsystem like hard dictating the player how he should play ..

[SirHavan]

my opinion

Don't mess with the match score calculation
winning should weight the scale
up/down should be based on your performance related to the other members in the match, not gross score
I like Kamikaze Viking little graph the best.
I also vote for a reset and get on with playing the game.

[Kamikaze Viking]

Zerex, Please stop quoting an out of date proposal that i already admitted was flawed, but has been a stepping stone to a better system.

The team of people working on it has people voicing opinions on both sides and compromises are being tested. there are some casuals and some comp people and various engineers and mathematicians in the group.
We also have to work within the scope that PGI have given us.

Overall please stop assuming a bias that doesn't exist.

And teamwork should not affect "player skill rating"? is teamwork not a skill?

Edit:

Zerex, on 09 June 2020 - 02:41 AM, said:

Agreed, i feel there should be a non movement middle ground too, Just as a very quick example

/snip

This idea is actually very very close to one of the main contenders.

Edited by Kamikaze Viking, 09 June 2020 - 03:40 AM.

[MrTBSC]

Solaire55, on 08 June 2020 - 04:52 PM, said:

none of this will improve my enjoyment of the game, people don't care about score but how enjoyable things are, this won't change anything nor revive the game, we need weapon and mech balancing, buffs and nerfs. in the current state of the game a number of mechs aren't viable at this point and have been shafted due to prior nerfs, what needs to happen is to revive those mechs, or weapon systems. also a new map would be nice, the last one we got was less than spectacular.

weaponballance imho is totaly fine, there is no area i could be complaying ..
realy the only thing i may suggest a change to is to allow for gausscannons to be all chargeable instead of only 2 at a time at the expence of a larger chargetime or it being holdable shorter, or there is a jamchance..
maybe streaks could be dumbfireable to be able to put some damage into heavy or assaultmech cts instead of being a pure antilight defense

i would however ask for some mechs to get perks and omni mechs were you can´t change the engine and Endo/FF to still be able to place the equipmeant were you want it .. .. with some omnimechs it´s kind a bit hard to fully customise them not having tonnage left over were you can´t fill it .. because a jj or heashink is taking away the space were you want to put your equipmeant into ...

Edited by MrTBSC, 09 June 2020 - 03:40 AM.

[D U N E]

I like how people assume that the "Top Men" are going to tweak the calculations to benefit themselves.

The "Top Men" want fair matches with a decent balance in both teams. Wanting competency on your team is a major thing players strive for. The game is simply not fun when you have players being mismatched on both sides. The goal for the players is to have closer matches for everyone. Meaning we all get placed into fairer teams, the restraints for getting higher/lower are dependent on what makes a team mate better in higher tiers.

When the "Top Men" finish their idea, be sure it's not being sent privately to PGI, but for the entire community to vote and agree on.

Being top 10 doesn't mean much, if we look at the current W/L ratios, or look and MS and finding out how people can already farm MS it's not a difficult process that requires them to infiltrate PGI and change the settings. These new changes, that they are currently working on as a team, in a relatively open discord are to create fairer matches, with the end result of making less stomps and closer games for everyone.

[Zerex]

SirHavan, on 09 June 2020 - 03:22 AM, said:

my opinion

I like Kamikaze Viking little graph the best.

This Graph?



That leads to players gaining PSR over other players that lost PSR even thou performing better in the match.

[RRAMIREZ]

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

The Problem*

Solutions

A quick login just to backup this post.

Don't know how the feedback will be collected, so I would just say solution 2 would have my vote, but the quality of the drops and people attitude will influence more than wich implementationis choosen in making it a succes.

/disco

Edited by RRAMIREZ, 09 June 2020 - 03:40 AM.