713 replies to this topic

[The Teddy Bear]

Nightbird, on 10 June 2020 - 02:19 PM, said:

Those better at adapting will have higher W/L, those bad will have lower W/L, what's the problem? match score still bad

Only problem for me is that GP failed badly and you are still having 8 solos out of 12 members on your team. Funny that I even have to tell you. Seems like you never played a heavy amount of solo games. Lets retain the solos as well. Otherwise you prolly have a month`or two to go.....

[D U N E]

"Well, like I said earlier, they could split damage rewards for armour and structure. Make it damaging armour gives little to no match score, while damaging structure gives a lot more.

LURM spam will mean a lot less if they have grind through non-point giving armour first."

People don't lrm for matchscore, they lrm for damage. Splitting that makes little to no sense. Damage is damage. It only gives back stabbers more MS for doing a basic procedure. MG mechs get more bonus's for eating through structure than they actually deserve, and in general it heavily penalizes mechs dying earlier in the battle. Which while that sounds good, it also means more players won't want to come into contact with the enemy for their MS to get into their "Earned T1" meaning more people avoid the enemy.
That's one of the least thought ideas I have heard about. Now if you want to change how damage is tracked by weapon system, and want to remove MS gained from LRMing, that would be a smarter idea that reduces MS gain of it's targeted audience. Then again, this is beyond what they are looking at.

[Andrzej Lechrenski]

The Teddy Bear, on 10 June 2020 - 02:27 PM, said:

Only problem for me is that GP failed badly and you are still having 8 solos out of 12 members on your team. Funny that I even have to tell you. Seems like you never played a heavy amount of solo games. Lets retain the solos as well. Otherwise you prolly have a month`or two to go.....

This is why group queue failed. No mystery here.



Anyway, what is this noise about W/L ratio not being applicable to solos? Teamwork is exactly as OP as it always was, and always will be. Get rid of the experience bar so people don't whine about their lack of ability to help, and watch matches improve when team players get grouped with and against team players and casuals get grouped with and against casuals. That simple.

[The Teddy Bear]

Nightbird, on 10 June 2020 - 02:46 PM, said:

[Redacted]

Dont even try mate. You are arguing for high W/L and I am saying you cant get those if you are playing solo. How can this even be an issue to understand for a player in your skill level?

[Andrzej Lechrenski]

The Teddy Bear, on 10 June 2020 - 02:52 PM, said:

Dont even try mate. You are arguing for high W/L and I am saying you cant get those if you are playing solo. How can this even be an issue to understand for a player in your skill level?

He is doing no such thing. He is saying that players with similar W/L should be matched against each other. This is perfectly reasonable.

[The Teddy Bear]

Andrzej Lechrenski, on 10 June 2020 - 02:54 PM, said:

He is doing no such thing. He is saying that players with similar W/L should be matched against each other. This is perfectly reasonable.

Yup, what I am trying to say is that a "good" solo player wood have dropped their W/L in last month comp to earlier, and a "bad" solo player most like will increase their W/L just because the cannot anylonger loose games in the rate as they could earlier. This happens to solos any time teams are involved, they cannot possibly impact a game as they did in the old solo que either for good of for bad.

Edited by The Teddy Bear, 10 June 2020 - 03:12 PM.

[Andrzej Lechrenski]

The Teddy Bear, on 10 June 2020 - 03:06 PM, said:

Yup, what I am trying to say is that a "good" solo player wood have dropped their W/L in last month comp to earlier, and a "bad" solo player most like will increase their W/L just because the cannot anylonger loose games in the rate as they could earlier. This happens to solos any time teams are involved, there cannot possibly impact a game as they did in the old solo que either for good of for bad.

The quality of solos will always have an impact on whether a team wins or loses. And there is just as much chance, as a solo player, to be placed with a 'stomping' group as there is to be placed against one (regardless of how it feels).

[The Teddy Bear]

Andrzej Lechrenski, on 10 June 2020 - 03:13 PM, said:

The quality of solos will always have an impact on whether a team wins or loses. And there is just as much chance, as a solo player, to be placed with a 'stomping' group as there is to be placed against one (regardless of how it feels).

Yes they will have that impact on the W/L - just a bit less than earlier, W/L for a solo will from now on be more of an impact from what teams you are getting on side, and of course how well you can adapt to them as a solo. W/L for a group are more like up to their decisions, wheather they play decent mechs and/or decent players to get in there. Basically for teams there will be a situation where they will have to find a way to balance themselves into a game. I am not sure I would call my self a fan of that.

[LordNothing]

im still leaning towards a ms based system, but with a largely inflated win contribution. like increase the importance of winning by at least a factor of four or higher such that it is the highest possible contributing factor.

[Nightbird]

LordNothing, on 10 June 2020 - 03:30 PM, said:

im still leaning towards a ms based system, but with a largely inflated win contribution. like increase the importance of winning by at least a factor of four or higher such that it is the highest possible contributing factor.

That's still throwing darts while blindfolded. How you weigh each MS contribution has to be computed from a massive database of past matches and results with all tracked actions listed for every person. Even when you do so, you will only get CLOSER to how reliable W/L is at predicting future contributions to teams.

Basically all suggested MS systems will have 0 impact to improving the Match Making quality and will actually make things much worse for 1-3 months until it gets to the current degree of quality.

[Andrzej Lechrenski]

The Teddy Bear, on 10 June 2020 - 03:26 PM, said:

Yes they will have that impact on the W/L - just a bit less than earlier, W/L for a solo will from now on be more of an impact from what teams you are getting on side, and of course how well you can adapt to them as a solo. W/L for a group are more like up to their decisions, wheather they play decent mechs and/or decent players to get in there. Basically for teams there will be a situation where they will have to find a way to balance themselves into a game. I am not sure I would call my self a fan of that.

The same can be said for any solo player. The difference is that groups are up to four people. That doesn't mean the same rules don't apply to them.

[Gagis]

EDIT: I've since revised my proposal and made a new post with it on a much later page of this thread. Link to that post: https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__6338091

The WinScore / LossScore Ratio
Why?
I designed this model for the purpose of combining the good parts of Jay Z's proposal with the good parts of Nightbird's proposal. Jay Z's model gives players the feedback they want by taking into account Match Score, but is mathematically divergent. Nightbird's model is good for matchmaking purposes, but does not take your match score into account so it will not give players the feedback they want to see.

Why ratio?
Straight sums for PSR from wins and losses are inherently mathematically unstable. The current PSR has an upwards bias, which leads to the ''XP Bar'' phenomenon that we are all familiar with. Jay Z's model and other Zero Sum proposals alleviate this by making the upward motion of above average performers and downward motion of below average performers dependent on each other. A Zero Sum system is still divergent with all below average performers ''Grinding XP'' towards negative infinity and all above average performers ''Grinding XP'' towards positive infinity.

Using a ratio of your winning performances and losing performances prevents the PSR from exploding away from the mean and instead stabilizes over time towards a number that properly describes your performance regardless of if you have played a thousand matches or a million matches.

How?

WinScore = (your_score - lowest_score) / (highest_score - lowest_score)
LossScore = 1 - (your_score - lowest_score) / (highest_score - lowest_score)
PSR = sum(WinScore) / sum(LossScore)

with scores for PSR summed over either all matches or preferably the last N (where N is some large integer) matches and seeded with some initial WinScore and LossScore, such as 10, for each sum.

Examples
If you have the lowest score in a match, your result would be either

WinScore = (your_score - your_score) / (highest_score - your_score) = 0

or

LossScore = 1 - 0 = 1

If you have the highest score in a match, your result would be either

WinScore = (your_score - lowest_score) / (your_score - lowest_score) = 1

or

LossScore = 1 - 1 = 0

From these examples you should be able to see how the system does not punish you too hard when you lose despite playing well and rewards those who are being carried by their team less than it rewards those doing the carrying.

Ok but...
If we want to, we could even add a small factor F to the score calculations so that someone with an abysmally low score could win with a negative WinScore which would have the same effect on their PSR as a minor loss and someone with an absurdly high score could end up with a negative LossScore which would have the same effect on their PSR as a minor win.

With such a factor, the equations for the scores would be

WinScore = (your_score - lowest_score - F) / (highest_score - lowest_score)
LossScore = 1 - (your_score - lowest_score + F) / (highest_score - lowest_score)

A win with a Match Score of 0 would give you

WinScore = (0 - 0 - F) / (highest_score - 0) = -F / highest_score

for a ''negative win'', or similarly a loss with the highest match score would give

LossScore = 1 - (your_score - lowest_score + F) / (your_score - lowest_score)
			 ~  1 - (your_score + F) / your_score < 0

for a ''negative loss''. However, this could lead to some really weird results if F ends up being larger than highest score in a match for example, so I am not too happy about it.

F = highest_score / 10

or something along those lines might work.

Technical note
If lowest_score and highest_score are equal, which can happen if both teams disconnect at start due to server failure and no one scores any points, we would be dividing by zero. Such matches, as well as ties, should simply be discarded. I suppose all matches where the scores would involve division by zero are almost certain to be ties in the first place.

This may be outside the scope of what PGI is willing to implement, in which case Jay Z's proposal is probably the best we could get.

Edited by Gagis, 12 June 2020 - 05:08 PM.

[LordNothing]

Nightbird, on 10 June 2020 - 03:38 PM, said:

That's still throwing darts while blindfolded. How you weigh each MS contribution has to be computed from a massive database of past matches and results with all tracked actions listed for every person. Even when you do so, you will only get CLOSER to how reliable W/L is at predicting future contributions to teams.

Basically all suggested MS systems will have 0 impact to improving the Match Making quality and will actually make things much worse for 1-3 months until it gets to the current degree of quality.

you dont need to log every action, just the final match score, then integrate that into your psr. ms is also going to be a good indication of whos carrying and who is being carried. i dont think the latter should climb psr as fast as the former, even if they win.

w/l would work great in games where everyone is pulling their weight equally (teams composed from a single tier), but thats not really something that is going to happen given the low pop.

Edited by LordNothing, 10 June 2020 - 03:46 PM.

[Andrzej Lechrenski]

LordNothing, on 10 June 2020 - 03:30 PM, said:

im still leaning towards a ms based system, but with a largely inflated win contribution. like increase the importance of winning by at least a factor of four or higher such that it is the highest possible contributing factor.

It's easy to understand why a lot of people think this, but we have to keep sight of the fact that the greatest single factor in predicting future wins is past wins. And the greatest single thing making this game un-fun is the number of stomps due to 'too much' winning.

[Nightbird]

It's also false to draw any link between <weighing Winning/Losing more in match score calculations> and W/L. W/L doesn't have the MS problem of being dependent on how often you play matches. A good player that plays more matches will outpace a great player playing few games (think 20 per day versus 5 per say) under the MS system, this will be true even if you set MS to 100% based on wins and losses.

LordNothing, on 10 June 2020 - 03:43 PM, said:

you dont need to log every action, just the final match score, then integrate that into your psr. ms is also going to be a good indication of whos carrying and who is being carried. i dont think the latter should climb psr as fast as the former, even if they win.

Ok, two players have 400avgMS, one has 2 WLR, the other has 10 WLR. Are they equal in your eyes? They are to a MS PSR.

[Poor-Life-Choices]

This thread is supposed to be proposals, not arguing over whether AMS should be in match scores. Most of the proposals are pointless because they don't explain how the data will be used to assign teirs. I've only seen 2 proposals that explain how Tiers would be decided. Nightbirds that would use WL ratio, however he doesn't explain where he would draw the lines for the Tiers and whether they would be permanently set or whether they would change over time.

The other proposal was mine where I laid out that what ever measure you use would be broken down by % of player base to keep T1 at 5 % of players.
We also don't know how they do that now.

[The Teddy Bear]

Andrzej Lechrenski, on 10 June 2020 - 03:40 PM, said:

The same can be said for any solo player. The difference is that groups are up to four people. That doesn't mean the same rules don't apply to them.

You did not even understand what I tried to say did you? A good solo player will not have the same impact to their games anymore, as they are playing with groups now, Which will most likely cause a drop in their w/l. At the same time the low skilled players are more likely to have increased their w/l, just because their poor performance are not influencing the games to the same degree the did in the old solo que. How can this logic even be hard to understand?

Edited by The Teddy Bear, 10 June 2020 - 04:05 PM.

[Andrzej Lechrenski]

Nightbird, on 10 June 2020 - 03:46 PM, said:

It's also false to draw any link between <weighing Winning/Losing more in match score calculations> and W/L. W/L doesn't have the MS problem of being dependent on how often you play matches. A good player that plays more matches will outpace a great player playing few games (think 20 per day versus 5 per say) under the MS system, this will be true even if you set MS to 100% based on wins and losses.



Ok, two players have 400avgMS, one has 2 WLR, the other has 10 WLR. Are they equal in your eyes? They are to a MS PSR.

If a "great player" who can only bother to play the game 30 matches a month doesn't get the idolization he thinks he deserves... I'm not going to shed a single tear. Not one.

Socal Bronco, on 10 June 2020 - 03:53 PM, said:

This thread is supposed to be proposals, not arguing over whether AMS should be in match scores. Most of the proposals are pointless because they don't explain how the data will be used to assign teirs. I've only seen 2 proposals that explain how Tiers would be decided. Nightbirds that would use WL ratio, however he doesn't explain where he would draw the lines for the Tiers and whether they would be permanently set or whether they would change over time.

The other proposal was mine where I laid out that what ever measure you use would be broken down by % of player base to keep T1 at 5 % of players.
We also don't know how they do that now.

There is no sense in talking about Tiers if all they are going to do is loosen their "valves" anyway. Only productive thing is try to get the try-hards as separated from casual players as reasonably possible.

[LordNothing]

Nightbird, on 10 June 2020 - 03:46 PM, said:

It's also false to draw any link between <weighing Winning/Losing more in match score calculations> and W/L. W/L doesn't have the MS problem of being dependent on how often you play matches. A good player that plays more matches will outpace a great player playing few games (think 20 per day versus 5 per say) under the MS system, this will be true even if you set MS to 100% based on wins and losses.



Ok, two players have 400avgMS, one has 2 WLR, the other has 10 WLR. Are they equal in your eyes? They are to a MS PSR.

400 is certainly an above average player according to jarls global stats. how do i know the wins and losses arent due to other players in that match? the 10 wlr would indicate to me that this player ended up in matches with similar or higher skilled players. the guy with 2 wlr probably lost because he had to carry taters.

my concern is the 50 ms scrub getting credited for a win and gaining psr they didnt really deserve and which is going to lead to worse games in the future.

i also dont like that we are nitpicking the details when the important thing is the zero sum, which will allow movement to the correct tier for the skill, no matter how skill is determined.

Edited by LordNothing, 10 June 2020 - 04:08 PM.

[Andrzej Lechrenski]

The Teddy Bear, on 10 June 2020 - 03:58 PM, said:

You did not even understand what I tried to say did you? A good solo player will not have the same impact to their games anymore, as they are playing with teams now, Which will most likely cause a drop in their w/l. At the same time the low skilled players are more likely to have increased their w/l, just because their poor performance are not influencing the games to the same degree the did in the old solo que. How can this logic even be hard to understand?

No, I understood. But facts do not matter how much a player feels he 'should have' contributed. He either contributed or he didn't. If he contributed, that will show up. If he didn't, that will to. End of story. If a self-described "good player" feels like their W/L ratio has gone down, then they are clearly not able to keep up with the current meta. But you haven't even been playing the game for the last two years, so you are wasting everybody's time here when you pretend to be speaking from experience and yet are not. Play this season, and then, when you have a stake in the game again, we can talk about this with a common frame of reference. That would be productive. This is not.