357 replies to this topic

[Bistrorider]

I vote for Jay Z 2B. For me it's fair when the best from losing team can go up, at least a little.

But look at the player 13 in Jay Z chart (2B section). His PSR is 21.3 and he has 401 MS. When players 1 and 2 had 452 and 446 MS, and they go: player 1: 17.6, player 2: 17.1. Something is not right here. Think that the player 13 should go somewhere around 15 PSR.

If something will be bad some values may be adjusted.

About a teamplay. Imo in QP teamplay sometimes happens, sometimes not. And this or that system has nothing to do with that.

2B or not 2B. That is a question.

[OutlawHunter]

1B

[Demitas the unholy Davion]

1a

[vipershark0]

Jay Z, on 17 June 2020 - 06:51 AM, said:

I can post the maths for each but essentially I have collated a bunch of suggestions so you can see how they work. Even better YOU can put any MS values from your real matches or even synthetic results in the Orange Cells with White text.

2C is my favourite and adds a C value which is a weighted average factor of Team AVG MS and Match AVG MS. 1B has an inherent C value of 0 since it looks at the entire Match AVG MS and does not care about winning or losing at all. 2B has an inherent C value of 1 since it looks at the Team AVG MS but does not look at the other team's results. 2C uses a weighted average by the factor of C (0.6) which gives the best of both worlds in rewarding winning while punishing losing while smoothing the boost effect of performing strongly on the losing team. I am happy to answer any questions.

Is the math is something along the lines of?:

W*X + ((P/A_team)-1)*Y*C + ((P/A_all)-1)*Y*(C-1) = PSR change

If so I think it's a nice addition to help cushion bad teams, but I think C should be .4 (or maybe .3) to encourage fighting the enemy team rather than trying to out preform your team.

[Nesutizale]

OneTeamPlayer, on 17 June 2020 - 07:49 AM, said:

Also reiterating that either of the Core 1 choices that are designed around players directly "competing" against their own team and will highly incentivize negative in-game behavior.

Ironically the shift in gameplay will lead towards pushing teamplay to the bottom of pilot consideration, heck if i'm just competing against everyone i don't even need to bother with putting on my headset for callouts as it's actively against my best interest to coordinate and ensure everyone on my team does well.

Things that come to my mind when I read this.

1) When I only look out for myself and not for my team too I will be very quickly, very lonely as everyone else got killed very fast, resulting in me haveing a low final score because I died faster too.

2) The mindset that this is anykind of competition for high values is dead wrong. Its a skill rating not a highscore !
When you just try to get the highest score by...don't know...LRMing then, let say it works beside point 1), then you will very fast land in a place where your are far outskilled by players who can actualy play.

So it should be in my very interest to play team oriented to live as long as I can with my team because when there are more of us then the enemy it means we get to shoot stuff longer, getting more points etc.

[Tamerlin]

I vote Core 2B with JayZ's modifications.

[spannerturner]

I vote 1A or 1B.

Whichever way you decide to go, I would recommend the reset needs to place everyone in the middle tier to start. This way, good and bad players can move in their respective directions. Otherwise, if everyone starts out in Tier 5, players who have no PSR movement (ie "average" players) will stay in the same tier as the bad players, since there will be no place for the bad players to move to... In essence, you'll end up with a pool of bad to average players stuck in the same tier while the above average and better players start moving up. This pool won't help the MM at all. (On the programming side, you may then have to account for negative or zero PSR...)

To put it into even plainer language, if your PSR system rewards both + and - PSR, then you need to allow for both + and - based PSR movement within the Tier system from the start.

I believe "Cadets" should still start out in Tier 5. It should be assumed that they are new players that have not developed skills yet, and should be able to advance as their skills in the game improve. For those that start "alt accounts"... Well, they should have no problem moving out of Tier 5 then since they already have familiarity with the game and should have some skill.

[Capt Deadpool]

OZHomerOZ, on 17 June 2020 - 02:38 AM, said:

Firstly in my experience if groups are the tier 1 and dominate the queue then it dies like every other group dominated que.

Well, groups (or more specifically, some groups) are going to be dominant no matter what tier they are placed in, it's just they will likely be matched more often against other groups and less often against full teams of solos if 2A/2B is used.

Unfortunately population size is so low that groups and solos will almost always be facing each other, and the only way I see to reduce the number of solo vs. group instances is if max team-size is determined by current online population.

My instincts tell me that removing W/L from the equation like 1A/1B will cause solo players with good match scores to vacillate more frequently from Tier 1 where they will be forced to endure more stomps because group players lurk there (good group players will still be ranked higher by 1A/1B than good solo players), to the next lower tier where they will do well and then be bumped back into the 'Group/Stomp' tier again, and the cycle repeats. 2A/2B would keep good solo players in a steadier state of competitive games against other solos, while great solo players will be able to hang with groups (remember, not all groups are OP or even good). In 2A/2B players who group some of the time and solo some will likely experience vacillation between tiers, however.

OZHomerOZ, on 17 June 2020 - 02:38 AM, said:

1) By using Win/Loss you are effect causing a downward PSR bias simply because a player is solo, not in a group.

Being placed in almost the top tier but not the very top doesn't mean good solo players have doward bias, and I think many good solo players will end up there in 2A/2B, and there will definitely be good solo players in top tier in 2A/2B, but it will be a different level of skill than we see in current Tier 1.

OZHomerOZ, on 17 June 2020 - 02:38 AM, said:

And if a solo pilots PSR does not reflect their skill simply because they are not in a group, IMO by using win loss you are in fact causing MM to forgo using the very soloes that can best counter groups

I think Modified 2B will do a good job of ranking skilled solos so MM can counter groups.

Edited by Capt Deadpool, 17 June 2020 - 10:58 AM.

[OneTeamPlayer]

Nesutizale, on 17 June 2020 - 10:05 AM, said:

So it should be in my very interest to play team oriented to live as long as I can with my team because when there are more of us then the enemy it means we get to shoot stuff longer, getting more points etc.

In these systems you don't need more points, you just need more points than the person standing next to you.

Whoops, accidentally stood behind you while you were poking so now you're dead two minutes into the round!

Guess that 10 match score you're going to get is definitely going to make the 120 matchscore i got look better in comparison.

Again, with these systems you don't have to have a great match score, you just have to ensure a few players end up with worth scores than you.

The above example is just one of many tricks people will start pulling out of the woodworks, i don't want to list others as not to give anyone ideas but i don't have to- people are generally smart enough to figure them out by themselves.

If Win/Loss doesn't matter the entire face of this game will change just like game designers learned that if given the opportunity most gamers will "optimize" their way out of any fun combinations a game has to offer.

This isn't a guess, this is a prediction based off every other team game i've seen with individual measures that are greater than the team metrics.

Whatever, we're going to let this community steer the ship as though we're game designers anyway.

We'll get whatever we vote for, and once the smoke clears we'll see how it turns out.

[Nesutizale]

@OneTeamPlayer

Your point is again just with the mindset of getting a "highscore" that you won't get with that kind of playstyle and people will learn that either the hard way or other.

In your example you "sarcifice" the guy in front of you. Nice you just upped someone elses score, moveing yourself down the scoreboard.
What you also archive is that you are next in line, getting you killed just faster. Again you up someone elses score and move down the scoreboard.
You also sacrificed not only a teammate but also your potential to earn more points during the game.

Final result? You move yourself down the scoreboard by not playing as a team. Sharing armor, calling targets etc. because the longer the game takes, the longer you and people around you survive the higher your endscore will be.

This isn't a competition its a SKILLSYSTEM. Best just hide how much points everyone makes to stop the virtual "wiener" comparsion and lets people just have a win or loss without any points.
Less optimising, more fun.

Also for other games with scores....I play World of Warships what is pretty much the same. You know when I get the highest scores? When I play with the team. Looking out what targets are fired uppon, going with people or leading a charge and the score gets even higher when others do that too.

Winning and loosing is a result of how you play the game, not an artifical "up your score".

Edited by Nesutizale, 17 June 2020 - 12:26 PM.

[Decency]

Use 2A and call it a day, closest thing we're going to get to a functional system. 2B could be made zero sum by normalizing the output values by side and is a better system because of its gradient, but I think that's probably too complex to expect.

1A/1B only have a chance of working if there's a huge match score bonus for winning- they're not good systems because they don't sufficiently incentivize winning games. In the long run, that means we can expect similar problems to the current ones.

[Anomalocaris]

Capt Deadpool, on 17 June 2020 - 10:48 AM, said:

Well, groups (or more specifically, some groups) are going to be dominant no matter what tier they are placed in, it's just they will likely be matched more often against other groups and less often against full teams of solos if 2A/2B is used.

Unfortunately population size is so low that groups and solos will almost always be facing each other, and the only way I see to reduce the number of solo vs. group instances is if max team-size is determined by current online population.

Still won't help. The population is too small to prevent the top half the of the population from facing upper crust players in most matches. And its getting smaller by the day.

https://steamcharts.com/app/342200

The desire to improve player ranking is admirable, but it won't make a bit of difference without commensurate changes in how teams are built. And how teams are built is always going to be buggered by the presence of groups in the merge queue. Choosing a remedy for the PSR system really requires having some idea of how you're going to address the additional issues down the road. I argue that population is dropping because of imbalance in matchmaking, but the PSR systems proposed here will not fix this without major steps beyond PSR. I know, you gotta start somewhere, but we also need a roadmap beyond this first step.

[ESC 907]

IMHO, the people that are attempting to argue that players will "play the system" by intentionally tanking the scores of their teams are incredibly ignorant. What is the point of going up in PSR, if your W/L record gets tanked? What absolutely idiotic ******* would intentionally throw a match so that they themselves can go up? It will not be many. What makes you feel good in a game like MWO is winning and performing well, NOT being "high-level". When people boast about MWO, they post recordings or screenshots of their performance in a particular match, not their ranking.

[Blechreiz]

People should keep in mind that EVERY predictable system can be abused one way or the other. Saying that you can't "cheat" in a certain model that is up for discussion is, imo, delusional...

Given the current underlying matchscore system, option 1A still looks like the best choice to me.

Now, if people want to get a better ranking system for each match or try to reduce the percieved "abuse of the system", this can be done by changing the way matchscore is calculated. For instance by increasing the MS gained for a win...

In order to avoid the "Alterac Valley Rush" games of 2010 WOW, objective related score kickers could be increased while damage related ones could be decreased while avoiding to make any kind of rushing interesting for the winning team.

Supportive functions like TAG and NARC need their rewards increased; AMS related MS gains could be decreased...

Overall, I think, the MS calculation is pretty good as it is and just needs some minor tweaking...

Edited by Blechreiz, 17 June 2020 - 01:02 PM.

[Nearly Dead]

Any system, even one 99.99% accurate, will accumulate error over time, long enough and you will have a non functional system.

Like we have now.

I vote for Jay Zs dual metric modification that takes win loss and combines it with MS. If you can't use a rolling number than reset it once in a while and tie it to an event to reward people for putting up with the disruption.

I miss playing, I hope that whatever they do makes the game more palatable, there is nothing like it really, and I believe that the MW universe is worth preserving.

Edited by Nearly Dead, 17 June 2020 - 02:05 PM.

[Zanotam]

I would vote for 1a with something along the lines of the following changes to Match Score:

1. Give something like say 15% of a player's Total Damage Taken as a kicker to match score to reward taking in a push AND reward torso twisting plus give the often slightly tankier but lower damage IS mechs an advantage in match score potentially.
2. To help offset that bonus make it so a win is worth I would say 50 Match Score kick while a Loss is a -50 matchscore kicker

A mech which dies in a loss without tanking well will suffer penalties while an Atlas that tanks every possible point of damage in a push on a loss will still have a net gain. In a win however the extra match score you get from damage taken will offset the matchscore you're losing for the reduction in how much matchscore damage gives ASSUMING THE MATCH WAS REMOTELY CLOSE (thus rewarding good, consistently winning players but giving those who fulfill a role some benefit).

If anyone has an idea for how to give a benefit to 'good ECM use' I would love to see that as well as I think damage taken when tanking properly, punishing losses/rewarding winners, and rewarding good ECM play need to be enhanced/increase if we're initially doing Core 1 systems (for which I vote for Core1a!)

[East Indy]

ESC 907, on 17 June 2020 - 12:35 PM, said:

IMHO, the people that are attempting to argue that players will "play the system" by intentionally tanking the scores of their teams are incredibly ignorant. What is the point of going up in PSR, if your W/L record gets tanked? What absolutely idiotic ******* would intentionally throw a match so that they themselves can go up? It will not be many. What makes you feel good in a game like MWO is winning and performing well, NOT being "high-level". When people boast about MWO, they post recordings or screenshots of their performance in a particular match, not their ranking.

This bears repeating. I have no idea where these abstract conspiracy theories are coming from. Players with consistently high matchscores drop with the sole purpose of beating the snot out of the other team with a minimum of friendly losses every single time.

[Termin8rSmurf]

While winning and losing are part of this game, placing a large percentage of the PSR rise/fall on that is a mistake.

A good pilot, solo dropping, outperforming his random pugs, and losing, should not be punished by his team under-performing. A good caller, making great calls, can still be ignored, can still be over-ruled, and can still have a loss, simply because he lost the pug lottery.

Meanwhile, someone with a terrible build, spending half his match AFK, returning in the last two minutes of a match, and doing very little to gain the win, will benefit greatly from not having died, from going to the bathroom, from being carried by his team.

As most of us know, teamwork is a very OP thing. But how often do you see actually teamwork, actual coordination in a solo drop? Many players simply do their own thing without saying a word in comms, then ***** and whine that their [Redacted] team didn't help and they're now dead because their pugs didn't help. (Didn't know they were pushing, etc... Failing to communicate, remember?)

PSR should reflect the Skill of the Pilot.

When you go for your driving test, you will pass or fail, based solely upon your ability to drive the vehicle. It's not based on how Mrs Johnson was walking her pooch down the street, Nor how the postman was emptying the mailbox. Nor how nice the flowers look in the florist's windows. No. Only on the driver's skill.

PSR should be the same.

[Tamerlin]

Does MWO allow for one team to have a group and not require the other team to have a like-size group? If so, it shouldn't.

[Mal Bolge]

This is a solo game, and no amount of wishing it was any different, is gonna change that. The majority of players sign up solo and is bunched together with 11 other random people in a team. All that matters is how well you as a solo player do in the match.

1A is the right way to go, otherwise you'd be catering to the minority of players that group up. Let quick play remain a place for solo players, with the option of small groups joining. And then faction play can be the place for groups and team ratings.

Edited by Mal Nilsum, 17 June 2020 - 02:44 PM.