357 replies to this topic

[Nightbird]

OZHomerOZ, on 20 June 2020 - 08:51 PM, said:

Well thats why we are here
To change that

We're not going to. Not when the solution is based on 1+1=5.

[Scant Runt]

Immediate: 1A is simple, "zero sum", and should work okay short term.

Future: JayZ's 2C (2B modified) please.

[NUMBERZero1032]

Core 2B looks good.

I also took a look at JayZ's modifications and those sound really good.
https://mwomercs.com/forums/topic/277269-psr-community-feedback-round-1/page__view__findpost__p__6338581

[General Solo]

Nightbird, on 20 June 2020 - 09:28 PM, said:

We're not going to. Not when the solution is based on 1+1=5.

It will be better than now, get low ms on a win you go down PSR better.

Having a hen house designed by foxes bothers me.

Most can more easily understand 1A and why it works its so simple, elegant.

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 21 June 2020 - 03:11 AM.

[OneTeamPlayer]

Every day we discuss this with no action player metrics over at steamcharts get lower and lower.

That's not speculation, i've been watching just to see how much this "merge" was effecting the playerbase.

"But coron-" Yesterday was a saturday, a weekend in any environment and the peak was still down 100 from last month.

In another game that might be not be a concern but here that's about 5 to 10% of the entire population gone.

Most people don't even want to post on forums, they want a game where the 5 or so matches they can squeeze in are fun, or they'll leave without saying a word.

Can it be time to stop talking and start doing yet? Please?

[Nearly Dead]

I'm sitting here sucking down a bottle of water while the battery for my lawnmower finishes charging. When I am done cooling down I will finish the yard and work in the garage finishing the connections on my dust collection system. MWO is only on my mind in terms of looking in on the forums once in a while during an idle minute.

I haven't played in a week or so and don't expect that to change any time soon. Before the merge I remember once starting Steam and seeing that I had played 113 hours in two weeks. That tapered off by about half as I would play a match or two. get disgusted, and quit. Then a day went by where I didn't feel like playing. Then a couple of days.

For every person who comes on the forum and complains or tries to help improve the play experience, ten or more have left without saying anything.

PGI. Time to fish or cut bait.

[Nightbird]

OZHomerOZ, on 21 June 2020 - 03:06 AM, said:

It will be better than now, get low ms on a win you go down PSR better.

Having a hen house designed by foxes bothers me.

Most can more easily understand 1A and why it works its so simple, elegant.

Easily understand, but still 1+1=5 is wrong and that's why it won't work. Math still trumps over opinion.

[Spare Knight]

I see those who want the PSR rated on W/L and I see you arguing the point with comparisons to sports teams like baseball. You are comparing Static Team Rosters to Random Team Rosters. Your argument is invalid.

I see the discussion about these random teams communicating and working as a team. Some of these random team members don't even speak the same language. Your argument also, is invalid.

Player Skill Rating should be the result of Player performance and not Team performance. Granted there should be some W/L weighting in there, but that is already in the Match Score and can be tweaked on the fly, if needed. All of the MS kickers can be tweaked once we have a working PSR. My point is, that we have to stand up and start taking steps or we are all going to just be sitting here till the game is gone. Move it! Move it! Move it!

[Gozuri]

Spare Knight, on 21 June 2020 - 07:26 AM, said:

I see those who want the PSR rated on W/L and I see you arguing the point with comparisons to sports teams like baseball. You are comparing Static Team Rosters to Random Team Rosters. Your argument is invalid.

I see the discussion about these random teams communicating and working as a team. Some of these random team members don't even speak the same language. Your argument also, is invalid.

Player Skill Rating should be the result of Player performance and not Team performance. Granted there should be some W/L weighting in there, but that is already in the Match Score and can be tweaked on the fly, if needed. All of the MS kickers can be tweaked once we have a working PSR. My point is, that we have to stand up and start taking steps or we are all going to just be sitting here till the game is gone. Move it! Move it! Move it!

You should probably check who brought up baseball and what the argument was because I absolutely agree that it was invalid for the same reason you stated.

You don't need to be able to speak to each other to work as a team. For example, I like playing flamers when running small mechs in supportive roles. The idea is simply to shut down the enemy and get out of the way so that your ally can scrap him.
Another example was when I was playing a direwolf in canyons and spawned on the left. As according to 'tradition' everyone moves right and I get left behind to die to wolfpack, except this time, the team turned back and we wiped out a full lance with no casualties.
There is no need to say a word to pull off some general teamwork. You just need to perform actions that benefit the team.

[Vindicated]

OZHomerOZ, on 20 June 2020 - 08:48 PM, said:

So 12v12 is measuring personal skill?
Well I disagree.

Edit: It did when it was just solo queue but not now that its mixed solo/group que.

1. You're forgetting this is isn't straight W/L for the PSR adjustment. Match score is being factored in.

Game 1: Lose 400+ MS (something like 3+ solo kills), PSR stays
Game 2: Lose 400+ MS again, PSR stays
Game 3: Win 400++ MS, PSR skyrockets

net result is still going up.

2. Nothing is stopping a few random people from coordinating and fighting as a group. Let's take focusing fire for example. What's scarier, 3+ players standing next to each other with 60+ alpha shooting one target, or 12 players who mostly split off into individual directions (and get picked off one at a time by the former group)

Spare Knight, on 21 June 2020 - 07:26 AM, said:

I see those who want the PSR rated on W/L and I see you arguing the point with comparisons to sports teams like baseball. You are comparing Static Team Rosters to Random Team Rosters. Your argument is invalid.

I see the discussion about these random teams communicating and working as a team. Some of these random team members don't even speak the same language. Your argument also, is invalid.

1. Same as above, it's not straight W/L. It's heavily factored W/L to reduce the impact of match score farmers who play clearly detrimentally to their team. If you are consistently getting high MS you will not be impacted by losses and the wins will still increase your PSR. This does require you to win some games (doable for a truly good player), not every game, so it doesn't matter in the long run. And yes, as much as I hate to say, the math does still recognize high MS players with W/L below 1.

2. I did not realize that you have to speak the same language to stand next to (or behind but not directly behind) someone in a big mech and shoot who they are shooting? Even if you don't know the exact loadout of your team mech (this would be a nice feature though), surely you can see some of the weapons mounted? And of course, the mini map exists right? Or is it a figment of our imagination that we can see the position of our teammates and some of them grouping up at a vantage point?

Edited by Vindicated, 21 June 2020 - 09:36 AM.

[DevinMace]

If you are playing fairly consistently wins and losses will work, because if you are a good player you will only be unlucky for so long before you are always the best player. The trouble comes in when you play 20 matches a month, maybe there needs to be 5 different starting points based on where you finished the previous reset.

Rather then throwing everyone to the same starting point, a proper system should allow people to dig themselves out of where they start easier, or allow people who don't play as often to be where they below without having to make a lot of matches.

[Zanotam]

Guys, stop worrying about individual matches. Research has been done on this subject and while the exact numbers vary a little, for something like a 12v12 team game you're going to need 150-200 matches to ACCURATELY AND PRECISELY MEASURE AN INDIVIDUAL'S SKILLS. Like, one game isn't going to matter. In an 8v8 you can get that nubmer down to something like 50 games in theory for relatively good ratings and IIRC it was like 65-70 games where someone should stabilize assuming you have everyone without too much of skill changing in that time while they play those games. BUT IN 12V12 YOU NEED A STATISTICALLY NOTICABLE AMOUNT OF MATCHES TO GAUGE A PLAYER SKILL AND ONCE YOU REACH THAT YOU CAN ADJUST SLOWLY AND NORMALLY, BUT YOU NEED TO GET TO LIKE 150 MINIMUM MATCHES WHICH IS TOTALLY DOABLE FOR ANYONE FOR WHOM ACCURATE MATCHMAKING SHOULD MATTER IN THE FIRST PLACE..... But, as I said, that means you shouldn't worry about individual wins/losses but aggregate ratio/averaging things out. That means people who actually contribute to a team winning can get accurately placed purely off win/loss because they aren't finished being placed until they've probably played 150 if not 200 games which is plenty for statistical purposes!

[Bowelhacker]

Apologies if this has been mentioned in one of the previous 12 pages I don't have time to read through, but is this being applied to faction play results as well?

[Sneakytrig]

If the goal is to make matches closer by putting evenly skilled players together then 1A makes the most sense. It's good to have a midrange field where the players who perform at par will stay where they need to be.

The idea to drop damage ms slightly is good and maybe drop ams match score values, but also raise the match score for things like capping, tagging and narcing and things that will reward a good light mech for doing team things. If people want to play for themselves and do dodgy stuff that will get them higher MMR they'll soon find themselves out of their league against better players anyway I believe.

If WL is so important then have the bonus in match score or make it just a small variable in the factor of PSR change, or else I think it will bias the skill level of players and therefore not keep matches even.

If it doesn't work great JZ has had a good idea with 2B for sure, but I would still keep the WL value a bit lower

Edited by Sneakytrig, 21 June 2020 - 05:06 PM.

[Firewired]

The only option I support is 1A.

Reason: As long as Groups and Solos are in the same matches, a Win or Loss should have no impact on a Pilot Skill Rating.

[Kamikaze Viking]

Bowelhacker, on 21 June 2020 - 04:42 PM, said:

Apologies if this has been mentioned in one of the previous 12 pages I don't have time to read through, but is this being applied to faction play results as well?

I believe the FP MM is a different piece of code. So probably not.

But If the FP MM uses PSR/Tiers then this change will have a flow on effect in FP.

[50 50]

OZHomerOZ, on 20 June 2020 - 08:35 PM, said:

That same high performing player in a group will rarely have a bad match cause they will be chewing gum and taking names have a way higher w/l..
When grouped that players PSR will increase at a faster rate, lets say 50% due to win rate, compared to when playing solo.
And one cannot argue that the players effectiveness is increased due to being grouped.

I would expect a high performing player to do well regardless and be getting good scores win or lose.
In a group, that win to loss ration might improve, but not necessairly their match score.
A good player grouped with other good players may see their score decrease in comparison as they are no longer the only one playing at that level and part of what made up their match score is now being taken by those players.

As you point out:

OZHomerOZ, on 20 June 2020 - 08:35 PM, said:

Lets use the number above for arguments sake, 50%.
But is the players SKILL increased by 50%, is that player 50% more skilled as a result of being in a group.
IMO no, the player don't magically become a different better player just because they are in a group, like Battlecat and He-man.

They maybe more effective but their skillset and skills are the same as 5 minutes ago before they accepted that group invite and will be the same ish when they leave the group, amirite?

I agree.

Bad matches happen however and looking at the numbers put forward by JayZ and the other contributers there, it is based on individual performance with a slight weighting for win/loss.
So if you are a good player and put up a good score, you would still see that increase in PSR on a loss and a player getting a bad score on the winning team would still get a decrease.

OZHomerOZ, on 20 June 2020 - 08:35 PM, said:

And as PSR is a Pilot Skill Rating using w/l is not really measuring the players skill as it can't remove the Teams skill from the players skill when using match results (w/l) as the metric measure of a players skill.

Straight up, I do not like the PSR changes based solely on your team winning or losing. ie. The losing players have no hope of gaining PSR.
The 1A example seemed a lot fairer as it was purely based on individual performance but you might argue that if players did so well but still lost, why should they get the same level of increase?

However, that's why the proposal in the external spreadsheet seems fair.
It is taking into account the individual player performance.
It gives a slight bonus for the win.
It also seems to cater for a stomp scenario with the way it is working it out.
But if you have a lousy game even on the winning team and even in a group, you will see a reduction in PSR.
Likewise it is still allowing for a player to have a blinder of a match on a losing team and get the increase.

A follow up question might be how are groups going to be placed in the match maker?
Is it going to use the player's tier and average over number of players in a group?
Would it use the accumulated PSR total and then averaged over number of players in a group?
Will being in a group add some weighting to that?

[General Solo]

Nightbird, on 21 June 2020 - 07:13 AM, said:

Easily understand, but still 1+1=5 is wrong and that's why it won't work. Math still trumps over opinion.

Totally depends on the requirement spec, numbers can be right for a requirement spec but if the requirements are wrong well those numbers don't mean much.

Do the requirements meet the needs of soloes and groups equally since its a PSR we is talking about.

Does it measure/rate the players skill as its name/label implies, PSR! in a mixed soup environment, grouped or ungrouped.

Which suggests group favored metrics such as win loss cannot constitute a major portion of the PSR equation.
Win loss can be a minor component of the system such as adding some Match score for the win, so win can still have an effect on the results. But just not to the magnitude of being unable to drop PSR on a win when carried hard.

So any maths where win/loss is a major part of the decision to change PSR for a player does not met the requirements and thus is not help full in the slightest, no matter how accurate.

That math is but a tool to do a job, applied to a problem
If the problem is not understood guid the maths won't fix it.

Rate Pilot Skill (all situations - Grouped, Ungrouped, any mech/map/mode/build ) using one number to rate the pilot skills in all conditions so MM can do its thing.

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 21 June 2020 - 09:02 PM.

[General Solo]

50 50, on 21 June 2020 - 07:13 PM, said:

I would expect a high performing player to do well regardless and be getting good scores win or lose.
In a group, that win to loss ration might improve, but not necessairly their match score.
A good player grouped with other good players may see their score decrease in comparison as they are no longer the only one playing at that level and part of what made up their match score is now being taken by those players.

As you point out:

Precisely, its why match score is better than w/l as it takes out the group skill from the player skill rating.

50 50, on 21 June 2020 - 07:13 PM, said:

.....
Bad matches happen however and looking at the numbers put forward by JayZ and the other contributers there, it is based on individual performance with a slight weighting for win/loss.
So if you are a good player and put up a good score, you would still see that increase in PSR on a loss and a player getting a bad score on the winning team would still get a decrease.

Straight up, I do not like the PSR changes based solely on your team winning or losing. ie. The losing players have no hope of gaining PSR.
The 1A example seemed a lot fairer as it was purely based on individual performance but you might argue that if players did so well but still lost, why should they get the same level of increase?

However, that's why the proposal in the external spreadsheet seems fair.
It is taking into account the individual player performance.
It gives a slight bonus for the win.
It also seems to cater for a stomp scenario with the way it is working it out.
But if you have a lousy game even on the winning team and even in a group, you will see a reduction in PSR.
Likewise it is still allowing for a player to have a blinder of a match on a losing team and get the increase.

A follow up question might be how are groups going to be placed in the match maker?
Is it going to use the player's tier and average over number of players in a group?
Would it use the accumulated PSR total and then averaged over number of players in a group?
Will being in a group add some weighting to that?

I see 1A doing those things as well, do 500MS win or lose that player did 500MS of skill and should go up PSR accordingly and vica versa.

I'm not bagging JayZ's model, never have, she's hawt.
Just like I said that I see that 1A will do the trick, its logic is simple and fair which makes the maths simple as well.
Top MS players go up PSR win or loss and Bottom MS players go down PSR win or loss, until they find their equilibrium and peers.

I still remember when the current MM was first released years back. It worked very well for the first year or so. My unit mates never met EMP unless I was in the group. True story.

So even 1A which has even less bias than the current system, should be good enough for about a year and a half.
Just reset it then and make an event.
MM reset Season 3.

[C64 Warrior]

Horseman, on 20 June 2020 - 03:07 AM, said:

Statistically, over a sufficiently large sample size the input from the remaining 23 people will average out to become insigificant and the primary remaining factor will be you, your decisions and your actions .

and this is exactly why we need a system that measures OUR individual performance and not just win rate/our luck at dropping on the winning team. Our PSR should be based on our actions not the sum result of how the other 23 people performed.