357 replies to this topic

[Daidachi]

2B with Jay Z's modifications.

[Hibbety Jibbety Hoo Hah]

For what its worth, 2B with the modifications seems like a fairer spread to those that do well and incentivises improvement. Vote for 2B with the mods.

[Capt Deadpool]

Thank you, Paul, for your work on this.

Kamikaze Viking, on 16 June 2020 - 10:14 PM, said:

Thankyou Paul for working through this with us.

I vote Core 2B with JayZ's modifications.

AFAIK this was refined in just the last few days with the help of Xiphias's analysis of PSR over time. (I havent kept up with the PSR Discord in detail as I have been busy in real life and realised that this had gone beyond the point that I could help much further)

Thankyou vipershark0 for your breakdown of Jay Z's proposal. It really explains it well.

(backup vote for Core 2A, which looks like my proposal from the other week)

Agree! Core 2B with modifications is my first choice, followed by Core 2A.

I think we should have a poll as well; I think enough of the community realizes a team-based FPS needs to incorporate W/L into PSR if we want to encourage activities and behaviors CONDUCIVE TO WINNING, as opposed to a PSR system like 1A and 1B that seeks to reward people for individualistic match score hunting that may or may not be conducive to winning.

Map knowledge, situational awareness, effective comms, and aim are all going to be underrepresented in match-score, yet are some of the most important requirements to winning. The game needs to reward people for learning these skills, as opposed to rewarding LOWER SKILLED gameplay where players simply hunt various components of match-score.

I also think we should consider reducing team sizes during off-peak times to keep similar tier levels playing against each other, i.e. less stomps. But that is another discussion.

Edited by Capt Deadpool, 16 June 2020 - 10:54 PM.

[MisterSomaru]

Capt Deadpool, on 16 June 2020 - 10:47 PM, said:

Thank you, Paul, for your work on this.



Agree! Core 2B with modifications is my first choice, followed by Core 2A.

I think we should have a poll as well; I think enough of the community realizes a team-based FPS needs to incorporate W/L into PSR if we want to encourage activities and behaviors CONDUCIVE TO WINNING, as opposed to a PSR system like 1A and 1B that seeks to reward people for individualistic match score hunting that may or may not be conducive to winning.

Map knowledge, situational awareness, effective comms, and aim are all going to be underrepresented in match-score, yet are some of the most important requirements to winning. The game needs to reward people for learning these skills, as opposed to rewarding LOWER SKILLED gameplay where players simply hunt various components of match-score.

to be fair though, Winning provides a greater boost to match score than losing, so it does already have an influence, just not as much as would be preferred.

[General Solo]

1A cause their are soloes and groups in soup queue, winning is easier for groups, so no wonder its popular with group players.

Though if the other options are chosen I'm ok with that as I'm not really bothered what Tier I am in as long as both teams have similar skill player for player.

Playing premades with 11 other OzHomerOz's would be great and is what I'd hope for ideally.
(Edit: only once the population starts to grow again and is large enough for that.)

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 16 June 2020 - 11:00 PM.

[Capt Deadpool]

OZHomerOZ, on 16 June 2020 - 10:58 PM, said:

1A cause their are soloes and groups in soup queue, winning is easier for groups, so no wonder its popular with group players.

Though if the other options are chosen I'm ok with that as I'm not really bothered what Tier I am in as long as both teams have similar skill player for player.

Playing premades with 11 other OzHomerOz's would be great and is what I'd hope for ideally.
(Edit: only once the population starts to grow again and is large enough for that.)

This is a good point, Homer, and hopefully addressing the group vs. solo issues will come after, such as having a separate PSR for each player depending on whether they are solo, or in a 2-man, 3-man, or 4-man, or at least a PSR modifier depending on whether someone is grouped or not like Dauntless suggested if someone is in a good vs. bad chassis.

Otherwise, maybe Tier 1 just ends up being the 'grouped tier', which maybe that is fine? Maybe it's bad, I don't know. Hell, we could just rename tier 1 'grouped tier', and tier 2 becomes tier 1, and kudos to solo players who achieve 'grouped tier' lol.

Or, think of it like this, if 1A or 1B is used, that still isn't unmerging groups and solo, so solos will probably play against groups less often if 2A or 2B is used.

Edited by Capt Deadpool, 16 June 2020 - 11:33 PM.

[Blechreiz]

Option 1A looks like a good starting point.

Edited by Blechreiz, 17 June 2020 - 12:28 AM.

[pvt Hudsoff]

Let's try 1A

[Jay Z]

vipershark0, on 16 June 2020 - 08:51 PM, said:

You guys seemed to have misunderstood Jay Z's (2B) approach, and he doesn't do the absolutely best explaining, so let me put my tech writing class to use....

I appreciate your efforts in explanation. I have the full detailed report in the google doc and sheet which I do not think many people read. It is true that being above average on a losing team will indeed boost you a significant amount. This is not an error but rather a result of simplification. I originally had a more complicated calculation that addressed this exact phenomena but felt it would be too intimidating to implement, at least without the core of the system (2B) taken seriously. However, now we have a foot in the door I will post and explain my original system here. When I have time I will extend my sheet to compare 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B and my original system (2C?) simultaneously with both real and synthetic matchscore inputs. Give me about 5 hours or so to finish work and get around to it.

EDIT: NEW SPREADSHEET
https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing

Edited by Jay Z, 17 June 2020 - 06:44 AM.

[Rathnor1]

Thanks for the consultation.

I vote Core 2B with JayZ's modifications.

Core 2B encourages teamwork and achieving the objective.

Core 1A and Core 1B encourage match score farming at the expense of the objective, which wouldn't be the objective of a team game.

[JohnyBlack]

I vote Core 2B with JayZ's modifications.

As said previously by many: Core 1A and 1B encourage match score farming.

[Dakkonn]

Regardless of which option gets picked I would suggest doing a few resets and seeing how each tweek plays out.

It might be a lot of work but doing a week of one system then a reset and another week of games under another/addition edits should give ya some solid data to work with. Long as everyone knows these are a few weeks of "testing" I don't see the harm.

[Nesutizale]

Haven't time to go into the depth but from my gut feeling Core 1A: Global Compare is the way to go.

To me it seams to be the most fair system and the one that is mostly working for "messuring" and not in the way of "rewarding" someone.

Quote

However, there are pros and cons to this system depending on what the numbers are set to. There are scenarios that all suggestions should be taking into consideration. For example, how much would you want to reward a team that lost? In some of suggestions around this global compare system, even mid level participation could end up in positive gains from players on the losing team. High performing players could have a bad match and be severely punished for that.

Wouldn't this just be the case when you give out extra points as MS Kicker at the end for winning or loosing?
Like this

350 point player on loosing team gets +50 MS for loosing = 400 MS final result
200 point player on winning team gets +250 MS for winning = 450 MS final result
Second player would move up further even though his team lost because of the winning bonus.

If this is the case you (Paul) are talking about....kill the bonus !
When PSR is about rating, placeing and matching individual people then there shouldn't be a winning or loosing bonus as this is a bonus that is team dependend and you would mix a team value into a single persons skill value. Something he can neither prevent or force to change....well at least in 99% of the cases. There is allways the one guy that seams to carry a team but that guy will allready have a very high matchscore anyway.

Maybe change the name to Personal Score Rateing

[Andrzej Lechrenski]

Metalgod69, on 16 June 2020 - 09:58 PM, said:

Win loss is irrelevant. When i am dropping solo i often loose 6-8 times in a row. And with a good group i rarely loose. In both cases i am the same pilot with the same skill level. But if the formula looks at win loss then the group player will be treated as high skill player and the single dropper as low skill one.

I had some of my best individual performances (over 8 Kills over 1400 dmg), when my team was super bad and lost of course. On the other hand i win often when i am drunk and contributing nearly nothing. (0kills 200-400dmg) Win loss should mean nothing. Individual performance means everything, since there is mostly no real team play.

When somebody did exceptionally well and his team sucked, then he should of course go up because he is too good for his teammates. On the other hand when my team wins and i perform bad, then i should go down much. Use the system that makes sure, that bad players never, ever can be carried at all. (otherwise we will have the same tier one mess again...)

Every match becomes a group match when you have a team that you can actually count on. When you have a team of farmers just trying to "grind" PSR, you end up with a miserable experience of a whole bunch of people with the attitude of "screw you, I wants muh points I deserve!"

Help your team win = you end up with other people who helped their team win.

Farm those sweet, sexy PSR points = you play with a bunch of other selfish farmers.

[Gagis]

The only accurate measure of player skill we actually have is how often and against who they win. It is what everything else adds up to. Using match score to measure your skill is exactly as accurate as how much match score predicts your chance to win.

This is statistics, NOT match analysis. MWO has a large luck-based component, but the luck is symmetrical and equal to all, and the fact that sometimes you lose despite playing well or win despite playing poorly really does not matter. If we focus too much on making you all feel good about the results page of an individual match, we will not get an accurate matchmaker.

Some concessions can be made to satisfy all of you who don't understand basic statistics, but please lets not ruin a potential improvement to the game because of that.

[Jochi Kondur]

I vote for Core 2A Win/Loss Team Compare Zero Sum in lieu of a better solution.

[Thorn Hallis]

Just implement one of the options and look for feedback after a month.

[Altered Beast]

I like the simplicity of 1A, it has my vote.

[Horseman]

Sign me up for 2B (JayZ modification)

Paul Inouye, on 16 June 2020 - 04:30 PM, said:

There is an issue with this, it is no longer zero sum as the number of players moving up by X are not matched by the number of players moving down by X. You can see this in the image below:

The number of players moving up by X and number of players moving down by X do not need to be equal as long as sum of X across all players in the match equals zero.

Edited by Horseman, 17 June 2020 - 05:11 AM.

[Adrian Burton]

At the moment i would prefer the Option 1A
After a few weeks we should know more about the outcome and can then decide to test another Option (e.G. 2A)