144 replies to this topic

[OneTeamPlayer]

ShadowSpirit, on 12 July 2020 - 04:38 AM, said:

It's this type of mentality that leads to all the stupid nascar. People don't play objectives. I would argue there would be less nascar if PGI actually rewarded playing objectives.

Ding, people don't understand second and third order consequences and thus create a dull repetitive experience for themselves. These are the gamers who speak the loudest and are catered to most often.

You saw as the person you responded to talked of how they would bump a person out of cap in a different game and then TK him all to avoid specifically designed anti-griefing measures rather than changing their own tactical play.

It's an example of what I keep repeating and the basis of the current malaise in MWO:

Given the opportunity players will optimize the fun out of a game for themselves.

People complain that there's a rotation, the same rotation, and no difference in any maps, but also complain if fast movers cap points in a match ending the match early.

The simple, few-minutes-of-thinking solution that "perhaps if we countered cappers to stop quick cap matches" never comes to mind. The thought that maybe strategies might need to include ideas such as:

• seeing more lights in queue because they have a critical role
  
• keeping medium fast movers aware and ready to fall back to support
  
• keeping defense at certain areas or preferring choke points
  
• actively hunting fast movers early
  
• any number of variants on the theme

...never come to mind for these types of gamers. They simply see that the match ended early, their precious individual score wasn't great, and they can't solve it by walking forward and shooting so they will solve it by having the developers patch out the ability entirely.

In doing so they remove the reasons people take lights, the reasons people take different paths around the maps, the reasons for a dozen of other alternate strategies that make the game actually interesting from match to match in favor of simplistic, repetitive play.

Then the people who played those roles see they are no longer welcome and drop off, oh- and by the way those people who like alternative play are often highly represented in the content creator section of any game. No one wants to produce content about the same W + M1 then walk in a circle matches over and over so they leave, take their drop commanding their videos and their streams with them.

Others never join because they aren't enticed, or because they notice that no one is calling matches (drop callers left first, remember) and thus the people who weren't great at leading but follow well and make leading a joy leave for greener pastures too.

After "optimizing" all the possible variance out of the game you have a sea of people who complained loudly about the possibility of variety in the game sitting around playing essentially the same match in perpetuity and arguing with each other about why the ship is going down in flames, no one wants to call or work together anymore, and why there are no new players and the few they have leave instantly.

You can put band-aid after band-aid on the issue but the core of the problem remains- in submitting to the will of the "instant gratification" style gamer MWO has been rendered into a bland, flavorless gruel much like the thousands of other "score-shooters" that are available, much more polished, have better graphics, and don't crash every few matches.

This community created potato play when we killed the assault mode and killed conquest. Domination is a joke (if it weren't the point would move on a regular basis) and so what we're left with isn't a tactical mechwarrior game, but what i would call more akin to MechAssault, if i didn't have to admit that that game was solid, varied, and brought quite a few people into mech fandom so is A-OK in my book.

TL;DR Everyone complaining about objective modes and bragging about how they break them is one in a sea of people responsible for the brown sea/nascar standard seen today.

[Big-G]

ShadowSpirit, on 12 July 2020 - 04:38 AM, said:

It's this type of mentality that leads to all the stupid nascar. People don't play objectives. I would argue there would be less nascar if PGI actually rewarded playing objectives.

Agreed, the tactical MW aspect went out the window with NASCAR... every tard is too leftist to get it...

[Trifakt]

The best tactic to counter nascar is nascar, you just needs to be faster than the enemy. Thats the reason while so many people adopt this

[ESC 907]

All this complaining about objectives is reminding me of Scouting. LOVED the mode, but it was kind of tiring how it was either an immediate brawl, or a smoke-dive. MWO really needs an objective overhaul, in all gamemodes.

Make scouting more interesting somehow, like make it so that you have to put your reticle over something to get a "lock" for the necessary information from within a certain range. And then rebalance how playing these objectives is scored. In the end, the thing that should matter most is winning your team the game, and if it comes to pass from playing an objective instead of attrition, properly reward those who helped to play that objective!

Either that, or do away with all gamemodes other than Skirmish and "Skirmish in the ring".

[Big-G]

Trifakt, on 14 July 2020 - 06:13 AM, said:

The best tactic to counter nascar is nascar, you just needs to be faster than the enemy. Thats the reason while so many people adopt this

Nope... counter nascar... be the wall they smash into

[Nesutizale]

Big-G, on 14 July 2020 - 10:09 PM, said:

Nope... counter nascar... be the wall they smash into

It would be if the rest of the team wouldn't nascar too. 1 v 12...lets say its not the best idea

[RRAMIREZ]

RRAMIREZ, on 08 July 2020 - 09:40 AM, said:

Can we expect an update of the player distribution graph after one week?

or after 2 weeks?

[Big-G]

Nesutizale, on 14 July 2020 - 11:51 PM, said:

It would be if the rest of the team wouldn't nascar too. 1 v 12...lets say its not the best idea

Live life dangerously! LOL

[ESC 907]

Nesutizale, on 14 July 2020 - 11:51 PM, said:

It would be if the rest of the team wouldn't nascar too. 1 v 12...lets say its not the best idea

It usually works for me if I am heavy enough. Particularly if I pilot a DWF, and tell the team "hey, I am 100T and I am pushing HERE in approximately 10s. Support me or lose 100T!" Often times, all I had to do was communicate either over VOIP or in Team-Chat, and a majority of the team would cooperate. So if one could communicate properly and coordinate a stand or a counter-nascar, THAT would be the best idea.

Almost all players want to win, and to win you typically have to cooperate in this game. I noticed that usually those without a plan have no complaints with following a player or group that have a plan (as long as it is not too complicated) once it is communicated clearly.

[D V Devnull]

RRAMIREZ, on 15 July 2020 - 03:23 AM, said:

or after 2 weeks?

You wanted the Player Distribution Graph update? It has arrived @ https://mwomercs.com/forums/topic/277493-psr-tier-metrics-round-1/ for you to read. Unfortunately, the result of it has caused another problem.

~D. V. "You asked, and there it is... Sadness included..." Devnull

[PCHunter]

After a couple of weeks of this, here are my humble observations:

1. Matchmaker (MM) does not seem to factor in weight classes and/or number of assaults on the teams. In about 1/2 the matches I have played, one team has far outweighed the other and generally that is the winning team. It takes a long time to grind through 7 assault mechs worth of armor.

2. Whatever math MM is doing to put like level players together, it seems as though the small player pool (depending on when one is playing) still pits high skill players with far lesser ones. My rating is now Tier 4 (more on that below), but I am still playing matches with the same Tier 1 players I always have when I was rated Tier 2. The takeaway is that tier rating does not matter as much as we believe to MM when faced with the reality of having to put together a 24-player match in minutes. It's about priorities.

3. The 4-player groups are still affecting match outcome in 3 ways: (a) team drop weights seem to be skewed; ( more high skill players seem to be dropping into lower level matches; and (c) groups can substantially affect the map and type of match by voting as a bloc. I have been in matches where a Tier 1 group mauled the other team almost single handedly too many times.

4. For me personally, I find that no matter my match outcome I dropped from Tier 3 to Tier 4 regardless of match score, win/loss or kills. I have thought about why this happened and the only reason I can come up with is that there are so many more highly skilled players that they are biasing the rating curve.

5. It seems that we may eventually see not the bell curve targeted in prior posts, but a double bell. There will be a Tier 1/2 bulge along with a corresponding Tier4/5 bulge. Tier 3 will end up with less players than planned.

To me, the best fix is a temporary curve smoothing brought on by monitoring the player pool ratings. It's like being in a classroom full of over-achievers. The teacher needs to use grading on a curve based on population performance and this needs to be adjusted regularly to make sure that the algorithm results in the appropriate results. In the classroom, so many A's, B's, etc. In a match, this is a fair distribution of players from the included tiers. The devs should post biweekly the player distribution as a bell curve plot so we can see how the new rating system is working, or not.

Then there has to be an adjustment for drop weights beyond gross averaging, if that is the current model. Frankly I have been stymied to identify any logic in drop weights between teams. 7 lights on a team? 9 assaults on another? MM is on holiday. Unlike a prior post, I have noticed that lately the number of lopsided outcomes has decreased. Stomps still occur but with lesser frequency. And I have noticed more matches with very close scores, which is really fun to be in and/or watch, regardless if one wins or loses.

And that is how I see it so far.

Edited by PCHunter, 16 July 2020 - 06:05 PM.

[Lionheart2012]

Here are some thoughts about restructuring the match score triggers to promote objective play.

First, completing objectives and winning the match based on the objective should yield a match score equal to or greater than simply farming damage and kills (unless in Skirmish mode). For this reason, the baseline rewards for capturepulse, capturing or destroying an objective, destroying turrets, killing the power cell carrier, delivering a power cell should all be increased, possibly to a level that a match score of 250 is routinely achievable by completing the objectives alone.

Further damage is far too controlling a measure of match score, and subsequently PSR, and it discounts other essential factors of battling like positioning, spotting, electronic warfare, and the amount of damage taken while still remaining functional. For these reasons, I have updated the list of triggers Paul provided with multipliers based on performance metrics found in the game.

https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing

The numbers are suggested and may require tuning. Further, I don't represent this as a perfect solution, but I would like to get this discussion started in a substantial manner. So please reply with your comments.

Edited by Lionheart2012, 17 July 2020 - 03:24 PM.

[Goose]

So: 'Bout an update?

[Reavers]

I'm super excited about the how things have shaken out I was sitting at the bottom of tier five, and now that we don't just get thrown in a random queue I've climbed out of tier five and right into tier four. My guess is I'm a tier three player but I would have never known because I was getting bumped into games with tier one and two guys and taking bad losses so my bar never got the chance to fill up.

[Janet Yellen]

There needs to be a larger penalty to match score and cbills for team dammage especially if you destroy a teammates component.

[Trifakt]

Janet Yellen, on 05 August 2020 - 12:36 PM, said:

There needs to be a larger penalty to match score and cbills for team dammage especially if you destroy a teammates component.

team damage/kills aren't a big problem in MWO imho

[PCHunter]

With the new Event going on, it has become painfully clear that the PSR does not take into account other positive strategic contributions made by a player. Caps mean nothing. NARCs mean nothing. UAVs mean nothing. EMS coverage counts for nothing. AMS intercepts count very little. Damage is reviewed as a constant but not on a curve based on the mech fielded. This places lights and mediums at a substantial disadvantage. It takes a lot of skill to amass over 300 damage points with a 30-ton mech - this is 10x your mech weight. I generally average 200 or so with my lights, but my focus is on other strategies than getting damage or kills. There is no way to evaluate the impact a light mech has on the overall match. I have consistently been on winning teams, sometimes with a kill or 2, capped and done all sorts of positive things, but have recorded a loss of PSR. That is plain BS. Who the heck will play lights with such a stacked rating system? Right now, I play other mechs until my PSR is high enough where I can suffer the hits. If you play only lights and mediums, chances are that no matter how good you are, you will end up in Tier 4 or 5.

[Danjo San]

PCHunter, on 08 August 2020 - 01:29 PM, said:

With the new Event going on, it has become painfully clear that the PSR does not take into account other positive strategic contributions made by a player. Caps mean nothing. NARCs mean nothing. UAVs mean nothing. EMS coverage counts for nothing. AMS intercepts count very little. Damage is reviewed as a constant but not on a curve based on the mech fielded. This places lights and mediums at a substantial disadvantage. It takes a lot of skill to amass over 300 damage points with a 30-ton mech - this is 10x your mech weight. I generally average 200 or so with my lights, but my focus is on other strategies than getting damage or kills. There is no way to evaluate the impact a light mech has on the overall match. I have consistently been on winning teams, sometimes with a kill or 2, capped and done all sorts of positive things, but have recorded a loss of PSR. That is plain BS. Who the heck will play lights with such a stacked rating system? Right now, I play other mechs until my PSR is high enough where I can suffer the hits. If you play only lights and mediums, chances are that no matter how good you are, you will end up in Tier 4 or 5.

UAVs contribute to Matchscore... Matchscore determines PSR... a well placed UAV with spotting assists and counter ECM above multiple enemies will do much.
NARC does nothing, especially if nobody is making use of it. Use Narc only when you drop with friends that agree to use guided missile weapons.

Now when you say it takes a lot of skill to amass over 300DMG with a 30t mech ... uhmm, well, that's not true. Each weight class has it's challenges a Light is made of paper, play evasive and stay vigilant and 300DMG is easy. Take something that can mount Large Lasers and stay at range until you get more comfortable playing Lights at closer ranges.

That said, PSR isn't meant to be an achievement system, it's not meant to be an experience bar. It should be hard for some and easy for others. That will put players in the Tier they belong, and if they end up in Tier 4-5, that simply means they shouldn't be running with Tier 1-2 players anyway. No fun for them, no fun for us.

My advice, just ignore the Tier bar on your start screen, play the Mechs you enjoy and progress naturally. Have fun, that's more important than a number under your Forum Profile badge.

[Cluster Fox]

PCHunter, on 08 August 2020 - 01:29 PM, said:

With the new Event going on, it has become painfully clear that the PSR does not take into account other positive strategic contributions made by a player. Caps mean nothing. NARCs mean nothing. UAVs mean nothing.

If you play only lights and mediums, chances are that no matter how good you are, you will end up in Tier 4 or 5.

It's well known that Damage is too high a factor in the Matchscore. MS isn't skill. It is much easier to alter your builds and behaviour to change MS than to alter your behaviour to win.

I just finished simulating a bunch of scenarios for PSR systems. Including the one we have. The two biggest problems already raised by both Nightbird and I are : The PSR is unstable and will push players to T1 or T5 regardless, Matchscore alone is not a good indication of skill so the PSR needs to weight W-L heavily to get more balanced matches. The Win chance of a team is directly related to the WLR of the players in that team.

https://mwomercs.com...psr-comparison/

Edited by Cluster Fox, 08 August 2020 - 03:32 PM.

[Tarl Cabot]

PCHunter, on 08 August 2020 - 01:29 PM, said:

With the new Event going on, it has become painfully clear that the PSR does not take into account other positive strategic contributions made by a player. Caps mean nothing. NARCs mean nothing. UAVs mean nothing. EMS coverage counts for nothing. AMS intercepts count very little. Damage is reviewed as a constant but not on a curve based on the mech fielded.

This places lights and mediums at a substantial disadvantage. It takes a lot of skill to amass over 300 damage points with a 30-ton mech - this is 10x your mech weight. I generally average 200 or so with my lights, but my focus is on other strategies than getting damage or kills. There is no way to evaluate the impact a light mech has on the overall match.

I have consistently been on winning teams, sometimes with a kill or 2, capped and done all sorts of positive things, but have recorded a loss of PSR. That is plain BS. Who the heck will play lights with such a stacked rating system? Right now, I play other mechs until my PSR is high enough where I can suffer the hits. If you play only lights and mediums, chances are that no matter how good you are, you will end up in Tier 4 or 5.

Look at some of the top players, who are back into Tier 1 with a majority of the drops in lights. My alt, which is getting the most playtime right now is 70% mediums and he is Tier 2 (shudders). At least right now he is bouncing between Tier 2 and Tier 3, and if primetime there is a difference between gameplay, imho, with Tier 2 being more.. cutthroat..?

That said, PGI screwed up by not performing a limited seeding of the playerbase based on avg MS over the last 100 to 300 matches. That may have helped with the negative "perception" of those players who, due how they rank amongst other players they drop with, based on that match's matchscores would have been residing in Tier 4 or 5.

And based on your avg June MS, which relates to how you did perform (damage contributes approx 40ish % of its points to the MS), piloted primarily heavies, followed by assault/meds, you likely may end up residing in Tier 4 at least. Then you would be playing with/against players who also have the same avgs a majority of the time once enough players have played enough games to spread the population out more. Reminder, PGI restarted everyone in mid Tier 3, and sadly new players also start there too now, talk about being silly.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 08 August 2020 - 03:49 PM.