357 replies to this topic

[Nightbird]

Noticed some people bringing up teams in QP. Sorry, you have no choice to vote for that will keep groups from beating down on solo players, since all choices are biased towards groups.

[Capt Deadpool]

Bud Crue, on 22 June 2020 - 10:50 AM, said:

Really? I just don't get that. Presumably we all want the best quality matches we can get (i.e. less frequent stomps/rolls). We can all look at Jarl's.

I definitely think most here are voting in good faith, but I would disagree; probably some number of players who will vote don't check jarls and may never have heard if it. And, as anyone who has played video games for any amount of time should know, there is one thing as inevitable as death and taxes, and that is that a very significant percentage of any gaming population from the worst players to nearly the best will always assess their skill as greater than it actually is (Dunning-Kruger Effect). And for some, being dropped down a tier will definitely be painful.

Not trying to sound like an elitist jerk, and it is pretty clear that those using sound logic in their arguments want a more competitive system and even some of those people who aren't. Just an observation, and I suspect PGI is taking such things into account, but it would be terrible PR for them to bring up such a point.

Edited by Capt Deadpool, 22 June 2020 - 11:21 AM.

[Vindicated]

Capt Deadpool, on 22 June 2020 - 11:11 AM, said:

I definitely think most here are voting in good faith, but I would disagree; probably some number of players who will vote don't check jarls and may never have heard if it. And, as anyone who has played video games for any amount of time should know, there is one thing as inevitable as death and taxes, and that is that a very significant percentage of any gaming population from the worst players to nearly the best will always assess their skill as greater than it actually is. And for some, being dropped down a tier will definitely be painful.

Not trying to sound like an elitist jerk, and it is pretty clear that those using sound logic in their arguments want a more competitive system and even some of those people who aren't. Just an observation, and I suspect PGI is taking such things into account, but it would be terrible PR for them to bring up such a point.

Yea I think a lot of folks acting like PSR is a reward aren't getting one thing. Tier 1 is not a reward. It is a punishment for winning too often.

Jumping from the lower tiers to Tier 2 (or maybe 3 after reset) is probably something that could end up nicely, but going to T1 means you will be up against the top 1% players people are complaining about right now.

[-6IX-]

2A is my overall fav. here, but for now my vote goes for running 1A for testing next.

[L1f3H4ck]

Capt Deadpool, on 22 June 2020 - 10:43 AM, said:

Well, I don't think it is necessarily a conscious decision, though in some it might be. Commenting on biases determined by basic human psychology is not unconstructive. And I don't think you would be able to provide any evidence that 100% of the players choosing a system here are definitively more concerned with competitive matches than achieving an e-peen tier.

When you combine this with the already stated fact that it seems some people don't have a grasp of basic statistics, it would not be prudent to exclude this information from the decision-making process.

Provide evidence? What I can do, is point to the previous thread, in which a majority of players expressed support for a reset, and any notion that Tiers are a reward system of some sort met fierce resistance, with numerous players pointing out that they themselves do not belong in Tier 1 (myself included)

The "I want my Tier 1 trophy" crowd exists, but judging from what I've seen, they're a minority in the single digit %, not enough to be a factor in this vote.

Edited by Dakkalistic, 22 June 2020 - 12:43 PM.

[C64 Warrior]

Gagis, on 22 June 2020 - 01:07 AM, said:

The random elements are equal for everyone. Luck is blind. Random is random. Over a large sample of matches played, W/L is the most accurate possible way to measure your success. Match Score based corrections to make people feel good will be just that, adjustments for the sake of making people feel good about a single individual match, but they will unavoidably reduce matchmaker accuracy as well, since match score can at best roughly approximate the ground truth that is your actual chance of winning or losing.

What kind of schools have people gone to, for so many people in this thread to have absolutely no understanding of how chance and statistics work? Pretty much everyone who has argued in this thread against W/L has done so on fundamentally flawed premises. Just do the damn math.

I'm sorry for being so snappy at this point, but it is getting seriously frustrating to see same false statements repeated page after page after page. Your gut feeling about what seems right on the results screen of a single game are not logic. They are just your gut feeling.

Whats frustrating is seeing this same false assertion page after page that measuring wins/losses somehow equates to personal skill/individual performance match over match in a 12v12 environment. If we had control over who the 12 people in our match are AND if we always dropped with the same 12 people every time we play then yes maybe you could simply things and based PSR on wins/losses but even then you wont get an accurate read on how well each of the 12 people truly perform...all you will see after 100s of matches is how frequently those 12 people are capable of putting together wins as a group. PSR is intended to measure INDIVIDUAL skill not group performance. This isn't a "feeling" this is reality.

Try thinking of it like this...two players (call them A and B ) finish a match with roughly the same match score, around 260. They appear to be pretty evenly matched and if they both que up again, likely should be in the same match together. But if they were on opposite teams then one players PSR would go up while the other player would drop PSR and now they wouldnt be in a match together next time if all that matters is weather or not they won. Is that accurate? No, no its not and that is one of the many reasons why PSR should not be based on winning or loosing.

Edited by C64 Warrior, 22 June 2020 - 01:48 PM.

[OneTeamPlayer]

Dakkalistic, on 22 June 2020 - 12:34 PM, said:

Provide evidence? What I can do, is point to the previous thread, in which a majority of players expressed support for a reset, and any notion that Tiers are a reward system of some sort met fierce resistance, with numerous players pointing out that they themselves do not belong in Tier 1 (myself included)

The "I want my Tier 1 trophy" crowd exists, but judging from what I've seen, they're a minority in the single digit %, not enough to be a factor in this vote.

The number of people responding through all these threads combined is the slightest of a fraction of total population.

Most players do not participate in the forums, even those who play regularly.

[YUyahoo]

We already have a system where our "skill rating" is heavily weighted by wins and losses. That system has turned the tiers into an experience bar and any system that puts more value on winning than individual performance will do the same in enough time. Worse still is how it will impact player mentality. People will only want to play if they win because they know that is all that matters. People who loose games will become more and more salty and eventually ragequit if they loose too many times (I see enough of this with our current match maker). Then comes the realization that, if you lost more games than you one in a sessions you likely would have been better off not playing at all because a 0 PSR change is far better than a negative PSR change (specially when it doesnt matter how well you did in a loss because all that matters is if you win). So, for the sake of the future of MWO I cannot support ANY system that put a heavy weighting on wins/losses.

My vote: 1A

[Nightbird]

C64 Warrior, on 22 June 2020 - 01:47 PM, said:

Whats frustrating is seeing this same false assertion page after page that measuring wins/losses somehow equates to personal skill/individual performance match over match in a 12v12 environment. If we had control over who the 12 people in our match are AND if we always dropped with the same 12 people every time we play then yes maybe you could simply things and based PSR on wins/losses but even then you wont get an accurate read on how well each of the 12 people truly perform...all you will see after 100s of matches is how frequently those 12 people are capable of putting together wins as a group. PSR is intended to measure INDIVIDUAL skill not group performance. This isn't a "feeling" this is reality.

On average, the strength of the opposing team is Average_Player + Average_Player + ... + Average_Player = 12 x Average_Player

On average, the strength of your team is You + Average_Player + Average_Player + ... + Average_Player = You + 11 x Average_Player.

If you are average, both teams will be 12 x Average_Player on average, and you will have a 1 WLR. If you are above average, then on average your team will be stronger than the opposing team, and your WLR>1. If you are below average...

[Vindicated]

C64 Warrior, on 22 June 2020 - 01:47 PM, said:

Whats frustrating is seeing this same false assertion page after page that measuring wins/losses somehow equates to personal skill/individual performance match over match in a 12v12 environment. If we had control over who the 12 people in our match are AND if we always dropped with the same 12 people every time we play then yes maybe you could simply things and based PSR on wins/losses but even then you wont get an accurate read on how well each of the 12 people truly perform...all you will see after 100s of matches is how frequently those 12 people are capable of putting together wins as a group. PSR is intended to measure INDIVIDUAL skill not group performance. This isn't a "feeling" this is reality.

Try thinking of it like this...two players (call them A and B ) finish a match with roughly the same match score, around 260. They appear to be pretty evenly matched and if they both que up again, likely should be in the same match together. But if they were on opposite teams then one players PSR would go up while the other player would drop PSR and now they wouldnt be in a match together next time if all that matters is weather or not they won. Is that accurate? No, no its not and that is one of the many reasons why PSR should not be based on winning or loosing.

The last part of that argument, yes it is accurate. Both players would receive the same adjustments if they were consistently capable of getting 260+ MS. Why, because a thing called W/L ratio exists. If you're telling me your W/L ratio is 0 or infinite (or say >10 to be realistic) and you've played enough games, that's a bit questionable. Really, a full 0 would be very hard to get if you aren't sabatoging your team.

If you're telling me that Player 2 (assume 1 has higher W/L, say 1.5 vs 0.5) is not capable of winning a game unless Player 1 was in the team, yes player 1 should be ranked above player 2.

If not (say both players have approximately the same W/L of 1.0 and equivalent technical skill in every category you can rate), they have equal chances of winning. So Player 2 loses to Player 1 once because they got total scrubs for team mates (becomes unwinnable 1v12). Guess what, since 1 loss most likely does not kick P2 or the scrubs (all of them at least) out of the tier, Player 1 has equal chance of getting scrubs for team mates (and it's likely they will all drop at the same time, so repeat game) and now P2 wins and P1 loses. Now they have exactly the same tier adjustment.

If we are indeed having players get the same scrub teammates games in a row, this is a fault in the matchmaker and not the PSR system for not shuffling teams. Any player should have equal probability of getting a combination of teammates from the same tier, and over time (of course not one game) the team averages out. If not, and you're telling me you can't usually win with ANY combination of teammates (except let's say the team with bows3r, ciag, and dopebear) and that that's not fair, is that a reasonable expectation?

Basically, I'd like to ask you to explain how ONE game matters when the concept of W/L ratio exists and we know one game does not make or break a tier (yes including the game you won 12-0 and broke 500 MS in).

Even today, I don't fret one loss (yes even for the sake of my stats which I don't care about too much) because statistically, if I lost a game, I should be able to win the next one or the one after. (My W/L is close to 1, but even if you were under 1, you can still say the same thing if you lost twice in a row, next game is likely to be good because that's what history tells me)

[C64 Warrior]

Nightbird, on 22 June 2020 - 02:21 PM, said:

On average, the strength of the opposing team is Average_Player + Average_Player + ... + Average_Player = 12 x Average_Player

On average, the strength of your team is You + Average_Player + Average_Player + ... + Average_Player = You + 11 x Average_Player.

If you are average, both teams will be 12 x Average_Player on average, and you will have a 1 WLR. If you are above average, then on average your team will be stronger than the opposing team, and your WLR>1. If you are below average...

How do you know that every time someone ques for a match there will be 24 average players of equal skill available for the match maker so that a completely balanced match can be made every game? In a wins only based match making systems a player could have a w/l ratio greater than 1 but have an average match performance rating very low as long as they have the LUCK of being on the winning team more often than the loosing team while someone could have a fairly high average match performance but a w/l ratio below 1 because they have the LUCK of being on the loosing team more often than the winning team...how does this accurately measure each players SKILL? Simple answer: it doesn't

[Nightbird]

C64 Warrior, on 22 June 2020 - 02:44 PM, said:

How do you know that every time someone ques for a match there will be 24 average players of equal skill available for the match maker so that a completely balanced match can be made every game? In a wins only based match making systems a player could have a w/l ratio greater than 1 but have an average match performance rating very low as long as they have the LUCK of being on the winning team more often than the loosing team while someone could have a fairly high average match performance but a w/l ratio below 1 because they have the LUCK of being on the loosing team more often than the winning team...how does this accurately measure each players SKILL? Simple answer: it doesn't

On average. If you don't believe me, flip a coin a million times, and you'll get awfully close to 50% heads and 50% tails, despite the possibility of there being much more or less it just doesn't happen.

[C64 Warrior]

Vindicated, on 22 June 2020 - 02:39 PM, said:

The last part of that argument, yes it is accurate. Both players would receive the same adjustments if they were consistently capable of getting 260+ MS. Why, because a thing called W/L ratio exists. If you're telling me your W/L ratio is 0 or infinite (or say >10 to be realistic) and you've played enough games, that's a bit questionable. Really, a full 0 would be very hard to get if you aren't sabatoging your team.

If you're telling me that Player 2 (assume 1 has higher W/L, say 1.5 vs 0.5) is not capable of winning a game unless Player 1 was in the team, yes player 1 should be ranked above player 2.

If not (say both players have approximately the same W/L of 1.0 and equivalent technical skill in every category you can rate), they have equal chances of winning. So Player 2 loses to Player 1 once because they got total scrubs for team mates (becomes unwinnable 1v12). Guess what, since 1 loss most likely does not kick P2 or the scrubs (all of them at least) out of the tier, Player 1 has equal chance of getting scrubs for team mates (and it's likely they will all drop at the same time, so repeat game) and now P2 wins and P1 loses. Now they have exactly the same tier adjustment.

If we are indeed having players get the same scrub teammates games in a row, this is a fault in the matchmaker and not the PSR system for not shuffling teams. Any player should have equal probability of getting a combination of teammates from the same tier, and over time (of course not one game) the team averages out. If not, and you're telling me you can't usually win with ANY combination of teammates (except let's say the team with bows3r, ciag, and dopebear) and that that's not fair, is that a reasonable expectation?

Basically, I'd like to ask you to explain how ONE game matters when the concept of W/L ratio exists and we know one game does not make or break a tier (yes including the game you won 12-0 and broke 500 MS in).

Even today, I don't fret one loss (yes even for the sake of my stats which I don't care about too much) because statistically, if I lost a game, I should be able to win the next one or the one after. (My W/L is close to 1, but even if you were under 1, you can still say the same thing if you lost twice in a row, next game is likely to be good because that's what history tells me)

One game doesn't matter if you are analyzing 1000s...but it matters infinitely more when you are only using 20 to establish baselines. And this becomes the point of why wins/losses doesn't accurately portray INDIVIDUAL skill/performance...if both players had a match score of 260 (and that was just to pick a middling number) their performance is EQUAL, what happens to A's PSR should also happen to B's PSR regardless of how the match turned out or what the other 22 players did even if A and B are on opposite teams. But in a w/l system even though these two players performed equally, A will go up and B will go down. If you repeat the same match 1000s of times A ends up tier 1 B ends up tier 5 and you have the same dilemma that we have with our current MM because looking at someones win rate does not give you an accurate description of their performance in each match. People can do really well consistently and can still loose more games than they win just like people can do poorly and still win more often than they loose. Neither is a true measure of skill. How a person performs match after match, on good teams and on bad teams that is a far more accurate measure of their skill than how often they win matches will ever be.

[C64 Warrior]

Nightbird, on 22 June 2020 - 03:00 PM, said:

On average. If you don't believe me, flip a coin a million times, and you'll get awfully close to 50% heads and 50% tails, despite the possibility of there being much more or less it just doesn't happen.

So you would rather have a system based on luck/randomness to equate skill than a system that measures a players performance metrics to equate skill? OK, if that is what makes you happy...I would rather use a system that measures individual performance metrics to determine skill

[Nightbird]

C64 Warrior, on 22 June 2020 - 03:06 PM, said:

So you would rather have a system based on luck/randomness to equate skill than a system that measures a players performance metrics to equate skill? OK, if that is what makes you happy...I would rather use a system that measures individual performance metrics to determine skill

No player performs the same every match. People win or lose, earn more or less match score. Analyzing that randomness requires an understanding of statistics. It's no more than needing to know arithmetic to calculate 3+4, or algebra to solve x+5=10-2x.

That absolute performance metric you're referring to doesn't exist.

[C64 Warrior]

Nightbird, on 22 June 2020 - 03:11 PM, said:

No player performs the same every match. People win or lose, earn more or less match score. Analyzing that randomness requires an understanding of statistics. It's no more than needing to know arithmetic to calculate 3+4, or algebra to solve x+5=10-2x.

That absolute performance metric you're referring to doesn't exist.

You dont make any sense, on the one hand you say "its random" but on the other hand you say "its a quantifiable statistic". If I see a person had a win/loss greater than 1 all I know about that player is that they win more games than they loose...but that doesn't telly if they are a good player or not or give you any indication on how accurate a shot they are, or if they are good a placing strikes or if they play objectives...it just tells me that they win more often than they loose

[Nightbird]

Take two players with 1000 games played each,

Player A has 300avgMS, 1 WLR, Player B has 300avgMS, 2WLR
Are they equally skilled?

Player A has 300avgMS, 1 WLR, Player B has 250avgMS, 1WLR
Are they equally skilled?

[L1f3H4ck]

OneTeamPlayer, on 22 June 2020 - 01:55 PM, said:

The number of people responding through all these threads combined is the slightest of a fraction of total population.

Most players do not participate in the forums, even those who play regularly.

True, but those ppl wont be voting either, so they're even less relevant in this case

[Cluster Fox]

C64 Warrior, on 22 June 2020 - 03:21 PM, said:

...it just tells me that they win more often than they loose

I'd rather play with that person then. It can't happen unless they do something right.

Edited by Cluster Fox, 22 June 2020 - 03:40 PM.

[C64 Warrior]

Nightbird, on 22 June 2020 - 03:27 PM, said:

Take two players with 1000 games played each,

Player A has 300avgMS, 1 WLR, Player B has 300avgMS, 2WLR
Are they equally skilled?

Player A has 300avgMS, 1 WLR, Player B has 250avgMS, 1WLR
Are they equally skilled?

If both players average MS is 300 then yes they are equally skilled...if one has a higher w/l than the other then you could either say one played with better teammates than the other OR one is a bit luckier than the other (maybe a bit of both). If one player averages 300 MS and the other averages 250 MS the better player likely is the 300 MS average player and you can say the same thing about the equal win loss ratio. If all you consider is the w/l ratio though you cant really tell anything about either player because all you know is that in scenario 1 player B wins twice as many games as player A and in the second scenario both players win as often as each other. Win rate does not equal skill.

Take a 3rd scenario into consideration: player A after 1000 matches averages 340 match score and player B after 1000 matches has an average match score of only 172...which is the more skilled player? Now what if you were told player A has a .87 w/l ratio and player B has a 1.31 w/l ratio would you then say player B is more skilled than player A?