379 replies to this topic

[Nearly Dead]

I look after every match to see where I stood in relation to the rest of the team. I don't expect to be the top scorer, but I want to know how I did. And yes when I was running a Nova Cat with 6 LRM 15s I was often top damage with one or no kills and we lost. Don't play that mech much anymore. As my first flight chief once said, "What do you know, you are trainable".

I have also looked at other players mechs and their damage and kills and went to the mech lab/store to try them out. IIRC even bought one or two that way. Not always happy with them. Kept seeing AC2 Annies everywhere for a few weeks. Probably a great combo, but not for me. Got a mech bay out of it anyway.

IMHO, keep the end game display as is, don't dumb it down, don't hide things to avoid pissing people off. I don't care about Tier but maybe I will if I feel like I earned whatever rating I end up with.

If it isn't 5. Would not want to think I was a potato, I eat too many potatoes, it would be like cannibalism.

[Nesutizale]

Nearly Dead, on 26 June 2020 - 01:01 PM, said:

I look after every match to see where I stood in relation to the rest of the team. I don't expect to be the top scorer, but I want to know how I did. And yes when I was running a Nova Cat with 6 LRM 15s I was often top damage with one or no kills and we lost. Don't play that mech much anymore. As my first flight chief once said, "What do you know, you are trainable".

I have also looked at other players mechs and their damage and kills and went to the mech lab/store to try them out. IIRC even bought one or two that way. Not always happy with them. Kept seeing AC2 Annies everywhere for a few weeks. Probably a great combo, but not for me. Got a mech bay out of it anyway.

IMHO, keep the end game display as is, don't dumb it down, don't hide things to avoid pissing people off. I don't care about Tier but maybe I will if I feel like I earned whatever rating I end up with.

If it isn't 5. Would not want to think I was a potato, I eat too many potatoes, it would be like cannibalism.

Well the final screen just shows if you move up or down in Tier not your exact Tier IIRC. The Tier you are in is just on one of the view blocking orange panels in the main screen and thats what I am talking about. Leave that out.

Also its not about pissing people of by rubbing them your Tier number in the face. The current scorescreen allready shows who did well by showing importend numbers like damage and matchscore of the team. That alone should give you enough of a hint who is the better player...or the more lucky one.

That people get the new Tier system wrong can be seen with comments like "I played so many games to reach Tier 1 now I have to play the same amount again and I refuse and will quite the game", missing the point that the new system isn't about reaching T1 by just playing long enough but that you actualy need to be good enough.

You could avoid that by simply removeing the Tier tab and players who know the game will find out that there are more importend stats anyway and they are presented at the end of the game anyway. I think its no big loss there.

[Cluster Fox]

OZHomerOZ, on 26 June 2020 - 11:53 AM, said:

So all this spag bowl numbers soup is based on assumptions.

To answer your rhetorical question, No. The only numbers based on this assumption are the two yellow crosses on the graph and the associated averages. The rest doesn't talk about groups but WLR which applies to anyone.

So your counterargument, if any, is telling me that all the players with no unit tags are as likely to play in groups as often as all the players with a unit tag?

There's no 100% way to get that data is what I said, because it's not recorded. The assumption: "Players with a unit tag are more likely to play in groups than players without a unit tag" is very reasonable IMHO and is the closest thing to any kind of data discrimination we got on that aspect.

I did change the wording to make it clear, english is my second language after all.

Feel free to come up with your own data analysis if you wish.

Edited by Cluster Fox, 26 June 2020 - 02:01 PM.

[OneTeamPlayer]

If you constantly change a game around the lowest common denominator you will end up with the worst possible gameplay features.

There are decades of proof of big companies "simplifying because this or that group of players doesn't understand" which is why many flagship games get dumbed down over the course of iterations until they are unrecognizable as a game in the series they represent.

No one cares that people are going to feel bad about their tier and no one cares that they will complain about their tier.

If we change the game for every idiotic complaint people have let's just re-tune LRMs to be massive damage again, drop the concept of heat entirely, and be done with it.

Asking PGI to use coding time to re-code the entire main page to the game to remove one element is ridiculous especially since it's for a hypothetical group of people whom, in this entire conversation have said nothing about wanting the tier panel removed.

I am sick of every game having to be as stupid as possible and we're well past the "appealing to the masses" phase in this game's lifecyle.

People who think they "deserve" a tier will find a reason to complain about PSR, their matchscore, or something else if tier is removed and if we remove everything a person like that gets hurt feelings over, as i've said before, we won't have anything displayed at all.

We need to add more stats to the main page, not less.

[Nearly Dead]

Easy games don't hold people's attention. As long as it is a level playing field, a challenging game is much more interesting.

That is where PGI screwed up combining group and solo queues. While it may be debated just how much of an advantage premades have, I don't think there is much doubt in most solo players minds that it is huge. And people don't use a spreadsheet to determine if they are going to play a game. Most people don't even use one to decide to spend $40,000 on a car, they go with their gut feelings.

Come on Tuesday, lets try this out.

[Nesutizale]

@Oneteamplayer
More stats at the right places, yes I am totaly for it. I would even prefere to have all the data you can pull up from the website in a dedicated menu in the game even. That way you could have a detailed look without the time restriction at your last matches, your average scores etc.

The Tier showing at the frontpage? Nope thats just confusing people and I would rather prefere that we get the real numbers behind it instead of the "status bar" that people allways seam to confuse with a "progress bar".

@Nearly Dead
Yes I hope that the new system will provide more even matches in the future. Problem will be the first month I guess. When everyone is reset we will have quite a mix of levels before it starts to sort itself out. I aspect quite some stompy matches at first, so I keep my aspectations low for the first month.

[General Solo]

Cluster Fox, on 26 June 2020 - 01:47 PM, said:

To answer your rhetorical question, No. The only numbers based on this assumption are the two yellow crosses on the graph and the associated averages. The rest doesn't talk about groups but WLR which applies to anyone.

You say No then right after say Yes! I used assumptions.

Cluster Fox, on 26 June 2020 - 01:47 PM, said:

So your counterargument, if any, is telling me that all the players with no unit tags are as likely to play in groups as often as all the players with a unit tag?

There's no 100% way to get that data is what I said, because it's not recorded. The assumption: "Players with a unit tag are more likely to play in groups than players without a unit tag" is very reasonable IMHO and is the closest thing to any kind of data discrimination we got on that aspect.

You implied and even your implication has assumptions.

Why not just say yes I used assumptions instead of implying what I'm thinking.

Not so hard.

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 26 June 2020 - 10:11 PM.

[ghost1e]

technopredator, on 25 June 2020 - 04:52 PM, said:

OK good, it' was about time, 2.5 months is long enough IMO. RESET EVERYONE TO TIER 5 0-POINTS. Since you decided for some reason to include the 24 players in the equation, instead of just the 12 of the team, and keep a ±24 point system, instead of a simple 12-based, then I suggest to make each tier 100,000 points with +50,000 increment on each Tier, so this will give us 4+6+8+10=28,000 games with relatively good skill level with plenty of victories 50+% probably to get to Tier 1, so a deserved title IMO

it is a deserved title anyways...
you seem to not get what PSR is... it's not an "achievement" or a "title", it's just a rating representing your skill

so to have maximum effect and help the matchmaker, you should be rated as quickly and accurately as possible

btw guys as a warning match quality will go down for a while directly after this patch bc everyone will be T3 again but it'll be better afterwards

Edited by TheUltimateGhost, 27 June 2020 - 12:08 AM.

[ghost1e]

Cluster Fox, on 26 June 2020 - 07:18 AM, said:

Jarl's list doesn't give information about groups, because that's not recorded. However Jarl's list does give a player's unit tag or lack thereof.

Assumption: Players without a tag are more likely to play solo and players with a unit tag are more likely to play in groups. Not 100% but it's the closest to accurate group information we can get. If anything, any deviation from this assumption will push both averages closer together.

in theory a valid assumption if it weren't for the fact that almost all "units" on jarls are comp teams
so basically you're comparing the stats of mostly comp players against the stats of mostly casual players and saying the comp players do better bc they're in a group?
wut?

[OneTeamPlayer]

TheUltimateGhost, on 27 June 2020 - 12:12 AM, said:

in theory a valid assumption if it weren't for the fact that almost all "units" on jarls are comp teams
so basically you're comparing the stats of mostly comp players against the stats of mostly casual players and saying the comp players do better bc they're in a group?
wut?

I dunno, I'm not going to name any names but there are unit names i cringe when i see stacked in our alpha lance because their presence is more likely to lead to a loss than not (especially since those which aren't stellar performers and don't communicate with the team) that are represented in Jarl's.

I think you might underestimate the number of very casual units.

Though I also wonder if "vanity units" with one person are factored out of the equations.

[Cluster Fox]

OZHomerOZ: No, as opposed to your comment, not all of it is based on assumptions. However, I did use an assumption for the aspects that I mentioned.

OneTeamPlayer, on 27 June 2020 - 06:32 AM, said:

I think you might underestimate the number of very casual units.

Though I also wonder if "vanity units" with one person are factored out of the equations.

Yes, Jarl's list is voluntary for adding unit tags, which leads to some variation in the data.

Problems are:

• It is more likely that experienced and organized groups will know about this feature (Leads to higher rank players in the w/tag portion)
  
• Some rosters will be out of date (Blends the data. For instance, I play grouped and I don't show up under CH)
  
• The very casual groups will be represented in the unitless data and the vanity tags will be represented in the w/tag data. (Blends the data)
  
• Less likely to capture ALT accounts. (Blends the data)

This inevitably leads to the w/tag group scoring higher in the distribution since their experience and organization level is higher.



So as I mentioned, this is not a perfect metric, but can still give a general trend and the problems highlighted do not invalidate my assumption.

Edited by Cluster Fox, 27 June 2020 - 07:27 AM.

[General Solo]

Bunch of assumptions cannot be good for accuracy.

And as another said in essence comp guys gunna play guid group or no group anyway.

Why assume stuff about groups at all, just judge the player; PSR.

Keep win/loss out of the equation as it has a different influence on PSR movement depending on if a player is grouped or solo.

Its biased is that so hard to understand.

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 27 June 2020 - 09:34 PM.

[Too Much Love]

So we are changing one Win\Loss based PSR system to... another Win\Loss system.

Wow, that's not inspiring at all. Except for PGI, which made a smart move, because now they can brand the new rules (almost the same as old) as "community created".

Try to compare the data set for "current PSR Shift" with "2C PSR Shift" and it would be obvious that the difference is negligible.

Whats really bad is that 2C inherits the main vice of the previous system - it doesn't evaluate your performance, but the performance of 24 random people.

To make PSR individual it should evaluate individual actions, not the random outcome of the match.

Moreover, 2C is relatively complicated and includes some muddy variables. What's "Matchscore constant used in weighting PSR shift compared to the value of X"? "Team's average Matchscore constant used in weighting calculated team effects"? Etc.

If you want something to work properly it should be as simple as AK-47. That's why I appreciated 1A variant.

My prediction - the new system won't improve anything, maybe it would be little more punishing for bad and average players (so it would make them leave faster).

Anyway, who cares.

[RRAMIREZ]

drunkblackstar, on 28 June 2020 - 12:18 AM, said:

My prediction - the new system won't improve anything, maybe it would be little more punishing for bad and average players

If by punishing you means they won't face top teams and better player and get less rolled... Oh yes mummy! Punish me!
<--- average player wanting to have fun

ps:
we'll see soon now, how all this will go after "placement mayem"

Edited by RRAMIREZ, 28 June 2020 - 12:56 AM.

[Nesutizale]

The further discussion is kinda pointless at the moment. The new system will come, lets try it for about 3 month so that everyone had a good chance to get a good number of plays and then see how people have seperated and how the game experiance is.

[Cluster Fox]

Nesutizale, on 28 June 2020 - 02:00 AM, said:

The further discussion is kinda pointless at the moment. The new system will come, lets try it for about 3 month so that everyone had a good chance to get a good number of plays and then see how people have seperated and how the game experiance is.

I disagree. 2C has been chosen but the 5,20,1 parameters are a starting point. Why not 7,14,2 or 10,10,0.5
Late season 46 and ongoing season 47 are the only two seasons with combined queue right now and comparative data can be used to look into the parameters.

Edited by Cluster Fox, 28 June 2020 - 07:47 AM.

[Anomalocaris]

Nesutizale, on 28 June 2020 - 02:00 AM, said:

The further discussion is kinda pointless at the moment. The new system will come, lets try it for about 3 month so that everyone had a good chance to get a good number of plays and then see how people have seperated and how the game experiance is.

You'll be back to down to 300 avg players/month (steam numbers) in 3 months. The average player isn't going to understand that the sorting period will be crazy and should get better. Some of them will just leave, along with the others that continue to depart because of group vs. solo dynamics.

Honestly, the whole effort is kinda pointless at this moment. Not saying it wasn't a nice change of pace, or that reworking PSR isn't a good idea. Just saying that with the current population, plus merge queue dynamics, plus the limited nature of the rework (as dictated by PGI limitations), it just won't make much of a difference. Even after the sorting period PGI still needs to figure out how to deal with groups in the matchmaker, which the proposed system can not do (because PGI doesn't allow it, not because the community doesn't want it).

[Tarl Cabot]

PGI should exclude Tier 5 and potentially lower end of Tier 4 from being reset to mid-Tier 3. Between Tier 1-3 there should be more than enough players, and the graph Paul posted about the number of Tier 5 players over the last 2 months, that likely also includes players who only played a few games, not even breaking min 10 games to even show up on the leadership boards....

That in itself is a lost of potential customers.

[Cluster Fox]

Tarl Cabot, on 28 June 2020 - 11:59 AM, said:

...

That would be a smart way to do it ! Reset Tiers 4-3-2-1 together and Tier 5 left alone.

I totally agree that would be less likely to startle the Tier5 playebase.

Edited by Cluster Fox, 28 June 2020 - 12:58 PM.

[Spare Knight]

Nesutizale, on 26 June 2020 - 01:43 PM, said:

Well the final screen just shows if you move up or down in Tier not your exact Tier IIRC. The Tier you are in is just on one of the view blocking orange panels in the main screen and thats what I am talking about. Leave that out.

Also its not about pissing people of by rubbing them your Tier number in the face. The current scorescreen allready shows who did well by showing importend numbers like damage and matchscore of the team. That alone should give you enough of a hint who is the better player...or the more lucky one.

That people get the new Tier system wrong can be seen with comments like "I played so many games to reach Tier 1 now I have to play the same amount again and I refuse and will quite the game", missing the point that the new system isn't about reaching T1 by just playing long enough but that you actualy need to be good enough.

You could avoid that by simply removeing the Tier tab and players who know the game will find out that there are more importend stats anyway and they are presented at the end of the game anyway. I think its no big loss there.

I have been playing less than a year. If the new Tier Levels are going to be accurate (not an XP bar), I want to see it. I want to know if I am improving. I want more data, and not less. I am a grown man. My feelings are not going to be hurt by having Tier 3 on my Mech Bay screen.