713 replies to this topic

[MrMadguy]

Horseman, on 10 June 2020 - 12:00 AM, said:

It probably should emphasize components, KMDDs and especially solo kills a bit more and raw damage somewhat less.

In most cases damage and kills - are two things, that are goal for players to achieve. I.e. high damage, lots of kills = good match. But high damage =/= skill. It just usually means, that player lives long enough, but can also mean spreading damage too much, i.e. low aiming skills or using "no brain" weapons too much.

Edited by MrMadguy, 10 June 2020 - 12:12 AM.

[Bistrorider]

Surn, on 09 June 2020 - 10:53 PM, said:

Match Score proposed values : https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing

Includes 3 data points not on the list, but easily available.. one already reported.

Examples are a decent match and a terrible mistake match involving a teammate running in front of me just as I launched an Artillery Strike on the center ramp of mining collective!
First Match Score was the actual match score from that game:


Using the current game match scores and player overall PSR.

PSR Calculation
If lose:
PSR=( (player match score * (MedianPSR of players in game/PlayerPSR))/ team median match score ) - ( 1 + (winning team median Match score/ losing team median match score))

Example, good player gets 300 match score in loss
(300 * (.75)/ 200 ) - (1 + 275/200) = 1.125 - 2.375 = -1.125

If win:
PSR=( (player match score * (MedianPSR of players in game/PlayerPSR))/ team median match score ) + ( 1 + (winning team median Match score/ losing team median match score))

Example, good player gets 300 match score in win
(300 * (.75)/ 200 ) + (1 + 275/200) = 1.125 + 2.375 = + 3.5

The formula could be simplified by making win =1 and loss =-1

Simplified Formula:
If not win then win = -1
PSR=( (player match score * (MedianPSR of players in game/PlayerPSR))/ team median match score ) + (win)* ( 1 + (winning team median Match score/ losing team median match score))

Very big difference between both examples. Is it like two extremities?

[Cherry Garden full of Blue Roses]

I'll put it in very easy to understand words:

give us back 8 vs 8 quick play game mode.

Decision to put 4 more player each team without complete rebuild armor, weapon power, speeds - just a whole view of this game - was the worst thing you've did. I still can't understand, why you are so stubborn to stay with 12 vs 12 gamemode. This simple decision turns your game from enjoyable, almost perfect tactical battle mech pilot simulator into mediocre shooter, which his best advantage is Mechs from Battletech.

Any more change is not so necessary like this one. That's why I leave this post here. I hope you read it.

Edited by Cherry Garden full of Blue Roses, 10 June 2020 - 12:44 AM.

[Mr.Wrong]

This formula looks good.
The matchscore reward for damage caused by lockon weapons should be reduced tho.
They are by nature designed to wear a mech down damaging it everywhere, yet get matchscore rewarded as pinpoint weapons.

[MrMadguy]

Cherry Garden full of Blue Roses, on 10 June 2020 - 12:41 AM, said:

I'll put it in very easy to understand words:

give us back 8 vs 8 quick play game mode.

Decision to put 4 more player each team without complete rebuild armor, weapon power, speeds - just a whole view of this game - was the worst thing you've did. I still can't understand, why you are so stubborn to stay with 12 vs 12 gamemode. This simple decision turns your game from enjoyable, almost perfect tactical battle mech pilot simulator into mediocre shooter, which his best advantage is Mechs from Battletech.

Any more change is not so necessary like this one. That's why I leave this post here. I hope you read it.

Answer is simple - 4x3. You should understand, that real PGI's goal - is to sell all 'Mechs. Not only Heavies and Assaults, like it was back in Open Beta times. Their goal - is to sell 'Mech packs. Dunno. May be it was only part of a problem. But overall increase of match speeds - was one of things, that ruined this game. Maps started to be way too small for 150kph Lights, that could backstab enemy team almost instantly after start of match. This ruined whole strategy, cuz it relied on "enemies just can't attack from this direction, so I don't need to cover it" thing. PGI started to increase map size, but failed to fill them with any gameplay features, like cover. Maps were either "Open space with little cover in a middle, where actual fight happens, and it's WalkWarrior prior to that" or "Two cover isles with open space between them, nobody can cross, so it's boring snipe duel". And of course NASCAR, cuz fast 'Mechs always try to flank or backstab instead of holding the line and all other 'Mechs just have to follow them, cuz otherwise they would be left without support.

[crazytimes]

MrMadguy, on 10 June 2020 - 12:12 AM, said:

In most cases damage and kills - are two things, that are goal for players to achieve. I.e. high damage, lots of kills = good match. But high damage =/= skill. It just usually means, that player lives long enough, but can also mean spreading damage too much, i.e. low aiming skills or using "no brain" weapons too much.

You don't think there's going to be any correlation between skill and consistent high damage? That's an interesting take on the matter.

[Bistrorider]

It's good-looking Now I only need to catch it all.

[Robinson Crusher]

Tesunie, on 09 June 2020 - 08:09 AM, said:

I don't mind some impact from W/L, but I feel that there is naturally already an impact from W/L that affects match score as it is. If you observe match score from the winning team to the losing team, typically the losing team has lower match scores anyway. Thus, having it penalize them farther by having PSR heavily weighted on W/L on top of match score I think is a little much.

Also, it's how heavy W/L impacts your PSR (currently) that I feel is poorly thought out. Get a match score under 100 on a win and is no change. Get a match score of 300 and I believe that it's still a PSR down on a loss... One shouldn't have to get a match score of 400+ to go up on a loss, and a match score under 100 shouldn't keep you steady on a win (in my opinion). Otherwise, we might as well just remove PSR completely and have it "If you win you all gain ranking, if you lose then you all drop ranking".

So, I believe we should do PSR one of two ways:
- Average match scores produce no change as you are (as an individual) performing the average for that tier. Under and over average participants will move according to their performance as a pilot. (It is Pilot Skill Ranking/Rating after all, isn't it?)
- I'm actually intrigued and like the idea, which is similar to my own, where the top performing players in a match go up, and the lower performing players go down, based upon the individual matches rather than a set match score number. It has potential.

As a note on the second option, players could always get a Match Score boost based upon winning the match, making them more likely to go up for winning, but still not a guarantee. We could grant 20-50 match score boost to the winning team as part of the win condition. Then, winning still has impact (beyond typical better performance most times anyway), but not such a drastic impact as it currently holds.


As a note to your two points on PSR:
1. I agree. I kinda wouldn't mind a PSR ranking based on at least weight class if not individual chassis... but that is a lot of extra data to hold and gather. I'm not opposed to this as I know you are correct and see my own performance vary drastically between different mechs and builds.

2. I am not sure how the teams are built for a match. If you are correct, then that system needs to be looked at, and players need to be balanced per team, not "per match". However, I don't think that is how matches are form...?

Thanks. I can always count on you for a well thought out response, ever since my days in short question / short answer.

Actually I'm rather intrigued by your idea of dropping PSR entirely and going simply with winners go up and losers go down! It wouldn't reflect personal stats at all (and some other device for granting bragging rights might be useful), but it would statistically produce the most accurate reflection of self sacrifice for the team being rewarded and just being bad punished... they can look pretty similar on the end game display as it is now.

Individual matches wouldn't necessarily reflect anything, but the effect over time would be a true measure of contribution to the team. A lot of the dispute in this thread seems to be about people wanting to be told exactly how good they are in each and every match, which strikes me as unrealistic.

Edited by Robinson Crusher, 10 June 2020 - 04:11 AM.

[Baron von ztreik]

How about ECM protection. Gives points for another x seconds under your own ECM, stackable on multiple Mechs.

[cougurt]

Horseman, on 10 June 2020 - 12:00 AM, said:

It probably should emphasize components, KMDDs and especially solo kills a bit more and raw damage somewhat less.

this suggestion from the previous page is pretty good IMO:

StrikerX22, on 09 June 2020 - 05:06 PM, said:

"Damage contributes too much to Match Score.":
What should we actually be measuring: effectiveness on taking out a mech. Try this: Give a much heavier MS to contributing damage to components that are destroyed, more so if it contributed directly to killing the mech (both side torsos would count if clan XL mech dies to losing both side torsos. Caveat for back vs front armor: only count for this bonus if that side of armor was completely pierced (hence, it actually contributed). Reward general damage only a little.

i'm not clamoring for match score changes or anything, but i think something like this would work well.

crazytimes, on 10 June 2020 - 01:21 AM, said:

You don't think there's going to be any correlation between skill and consistent high damage? That's an interesting take on the matter.

for sure there is, but certain weapon systems can inflate your average quite a bit.

[Poor-Life-Choices]

The thing I haven’t seen from PGI is how do PSR points get analyzed to put us in tiers? Is it everyone with over points is T1? What is it?

[Far Reach]

Endlessly shuffling around your 2 - 3 hundred players will not fix anything.
For any of this balancing to make sense we need more players.
To get more players, you need to put out new content, which you're not.

[Redacted]

[RCore]

I'm for something based on what was suggested in the OP:

Use Match Score to rank all players, and assign them Positive and Negative PSR scores that have a zero-sum.

Match Score right now is already affected by win or loss. Many other things related to teamplay are also already factored into Match Score, and if needed those points can be adjusted subsequently.

Also we shouldn't assume that every good player should be winning all the time - players of all skills will have winning and losing games and as each player moves closer to the correct tier, then the wins to losses of the players will become more equal.

[Brauer]

K4I 4LL4RD LI4O, on 09 June 2020 - 09:57 PM, said:

On Mining Collective, HPG and Canyon Network change the Spawn points. Right now if you are in a slow mech and get dropped in Alpha lance you are dead, no matter how good you are, lights will swarm you and eat you alive. Change that and you will have better results.
Thx

That is patently untrue if you are in a group. There are strong positions that are easily accessible to alpha lance from both sides. Check it: https://maps.mwocomp...=xsbQ0shiaLR9U1

Strong positions for T1 are blue, strong positions for T2 are red, strong positions easily accessible to both are green. On Mining some positiions are best for JJ mechs, but there are plenty of ground-level positions and Canyon is the only map where I would very strongly prefer to have JJs to get out of the low ground quickly.

EDIT: had not thought to lock the map room, just corrected the map selection (I think) and locked the room. Hopefully this fixes any issues caused by the map highlighting strong Mining positions from Alpha spawn being set to show Tourmaline for example.

Edited by Brauer, 10 June 2020 - 12:01 PM.

[OneTeamPlayer]

As a note, i don't think anyone has mentioned that there are 3 separate regional choices for matchmaking (NA, Euro, Oceanic).

This, by definition means that the overall number isn't even a full accounting for what the matchmaker is working with as many players choose a single region due to ping issues and thus will never see each other no matter what change is made to matchmaker.

[Brauer]

OneTeamPlayer, on 10 June 2020 - 06:21 AM, said:

As a note, i don't think anyone has mentioned that there are 3 separate regional choices for matchmaking (NA, Euro, Oceanic).

This, by definition means that the overall number isn't even a full accounting for what the matchmaker is working with as many players choose a single region due to ping issues and thus will never see each other no matter what change is made to matchmaker.

I think that is inaccurate in some meaningful ways which make the pot from which the servers draw players seem smaller than it actually is at any one time. First, many players have multiple servers selected for a variety of reasons. Generally my impression is that Oceanic players frequently select both NA and Oceanic, Euro players often select both NA and Euro servers, and a meaningful percentage of NA players select NA and Euro servers.

Not to mention that the servers tend to be most active at different times. My understanding is the NA servers tend to be most active between something like 00:00 UTC and perhaps as late as 06:00 UTC, whereas the Euro servers are more active between something like 18:00 UTC and 00:00 UTC. I am less familiar with when the Oceanic servers are more active, but I assume during evening hours for the local timezones. I am confident that the Oceanic servers have the smallest population, and my impression is that Oceanic players are probably the players most likely to select more than one server.

Granted those are educated guesses based on my experiencing scheduling with teams in other timezones, playing with friends in Europe and in Asia, as well as subjective experience with queue speeds at different times of day, but local time certainly impacts server activity and to at least a degree means 1 or 2 servers are very active at a time.

[Horseman]

MrMadguy, on 10 June 2020 - 12:12 AM, said:

In most cases damage and kills - are two things, that are goal for players to achieve. I.e. high damage, lots of kills = good match. But high damage =/= skill. It just usually means, that player lives long enough, but can also mean spreading damage too much, i.e. low aiming skills or using "no brain" weapons too much.

Yes, like I said - de-emphasize raw damage, instead reward effective application of damage on targets (KMDD means you're staying on target, solo kills and components mean you don't just farm damage all over but are focusing it on weak points)

[Saint OZ]

Guys, this place based sistem is bad just because it based only on PLACE not on RESULT.
For example: we have a good match with pretty close matchscores, and then some people will have too much positive/negative effectes.
It is strongly recommended to count only RESULT and separate it on groupes of effects.

[Tarl Cabot]

Okay, my second attempt, whereas my first attempt was only slightly modifying the existing PSR setup, which is heavily influenced by W/L.

Others though believe the W/L should be removed from the equation compleletly but there are a few things we do not know.

PGI version has extreme numbers but would they still be keeping the total number of points per Tier, ie 1000 or 2000, or whatever they are, or would that also change?

I also liked MisterSomaru but too much middle ground with no movement at all. Mind provides some movement while not using PGI extreme values. As a reminder, PGI original setup had a +5 for 401+ while on a loss under 100 only moved -2. A player could do notihng on a loss but break even hitting just 101 (+1) then get ahead by hitting 251 MS (+2). Said player could not play 4 games and lose -4 but generate 401+ MS to earn +5pts., being 1 ahead.

player 01...08

player 02...08

player 03...06

player 04...06

player 05...06

player 06...04

player 07...04

player 08...04

player 09...04

player 10...02

player 11...02

player 12...00

player 13...00

player 14...-02

player 15...-02

player 16...-04

player 17...-04

player 18...-04

player 19...-06

player 20...-06

player 21...-06

player 22...-06

player 23...-08

player 24...-08

I would also ask the moderators to move up the suggestions to the first part of the thread while keeping the discussions going, it would make it easier to review the entries, hai?

[OneTeamPlayer]

So after re-reading that PSR spread posted in the top post i just realized that with this "win or loss" spread that instead of competing with the enemy i am now competing with my own team?

So i should save heat stripping armor and only hit after my teammates have opened components for the destruction bonuses and kmdd bonus (armor damage doesn't seem to count towards KMDD at all)

If an enemy is near death i should hold and wait for the kill shot.

I shouldn't share armor with my competitors (previously teammates) basically ever.

I suppose if your design decision is intended to de-emphasize teammwork then this is a great idea, it's basically a free-for-all, but with 11 "off limits" opponents.

I just don't understand how the system would lead to better gameplay in any way, however, as much as heavily incentivizing the very behaviors that players claim to hate most.

Edited by OneTeamPlayer, 10 June 2020 - 08:39 AM.