184 replies to this topic

[Psikez]

HC Harlequin, on 07 February 2013 - 06:23 AM, said:

Here is part of my thinking...

Let's say you have a unit.
You have a relatively new player that you are working with.
You have a relatively stable set of criteria that you are looking for for a player in your unit.
How do you answer the question when that relatively new player wants to know how they stand with the greater community of players.
If you are stumped for answers beyond your unit's criteria you can say "go to this forum and see where you are"
If anything this will give players a place or an objective to work towards at their individual level of play.

Will it work? Dunno
Is it necessary? Dunno
Is anyone else doing anything like this? no?

My theory is you like math and let the guy who likes math do some math, not hurting anything and vastly better than most of the topics that float around.

[Asakara]

(2,524 kills x 11.85 kdr) / 213 deaths = 140.41

Edit: Found out what OP meant by "losses".

Edited by Asakara, 07 February 2013 - 07:16 AM.

[t0ast]

HC Harlequin, on 07 February 2013 - 06:23 AM, said:

Here is part of my thinking...

Let's say you have a unit.
You have a relatively new player that you are working with.
You have a relatively stable set of criteria that you are looking for for a player in your unit.
How do you answer the question when that relatively new player wants to know how they stand with the greater community of players.
If you are stumped for answers beyond your unit's criteria you can say "go to this forum and see where you are"
If anything this will give players a place or an objective to work towards at their individual level of play.

Will it work? Dunno
Is it necessary? Dunno
Is anyone else doing anything like this? no?

I admire the effort, but honestly, I don't think this has much use outside of a general census. We can't really quantify individual standing with the game as it is. Stats are unevenly distributed based on drop demographics. We nave no way to accurately audit and adjust for differences in said demographics between players. We have no player/team balancing system until ELO shows up. We have no long-term goals until CW shows up. When the game gets re-balanced and/or available modes of play are altered, stats aren't wiped and will remain "tainted" by outdated game mechanics for months to follow.

We just don't have anything good to work with statistically, and probably won't for some time. The best we can do today in the situation you describe is encourage honest self-evaluation and rely on observation/guidance by other trusted and knowledgeable players (preferably those with similar roles/playstyles). Given enough time, a player and/or those around them in your unit can get a reasonably good idea of their performance and go from there. If one insists on taking these stats (or anything derived from them) into consideration, it should only be done within a VERY narrow and focused scope of comparison, and even then, still probably be taken with a grain of salt.

Fun Fact: My HC Statistic has increased by 2 since my first post in this thread.

Edited by t0ast, 07 February 2013 - 01:32 PM.

[HC Harlequin]

t0ast, on 07 February 2013 - 01:21 PM, said:

I admire the effort, but honestly, I don't think this has much use outside of a general census. We can't really quantify individual standing with the game as it is. Stats are unevenly distributed based on drop demographics. We nave no way to accurately audit and adjust for differences in said demographics between players. We have no player/team balancing system until ELO shows up. We have no long-term goals until CW shows up. When the game gets re-balanced and/or available modes of play are altered, stats aren't wiped and will remain "tainted" by outdated game mechanics for months to follow.

We just don't have anything good to work with statistically, and probably won't for some time. The best we can do today in the situation you describe is encourage honest self-evaluation and rely on observation/guidance by other trusted and knowledgeable players (preferably those with similar roles/playstyles). Given enough time, a player and/or those around them in your unit can get a reasonably good idea of their performance and go from there. If one insists on taking these stats (or anything derived from them) into consideration, it should only be done within a VERY narrow and focused scope of comparison, and even then, still probably be taken with a grain of salt.

Fun Fact: My HC Statistic has increased by 2 since my first post in this thread.

I don't think the ELO will give a very good statistic either actually. It doesn't in chess.

[Abivard]

All the founder stats skew the results. If there was a separate poll for founders and for people who only joined after the last stat reset maybe something could be seen.

in any case, it is just an E-peen measurement.

[t0ast]

HC Harlequin, on 07 February 2013 - 10:54 PM, said:

I don't think the ELO will give a very good statistic either actually. It doesn't in chess.

Yeah, unless they're doing some more stat tracking/calculations than what we're already privy to today, I'm a bit skeptical of it myself as well. Also really not keen on the thought of it potentially interfering with 3rd party league drops or organized scrimmages . It's a step in the right direction, but without much else to help make it work correctly, it's just going to be yet another growing pain we'll have to put up with.

Edited by t0ast, 08 February 2013 - 08:30 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

The only constant in all of this, is that an Asshat that ruins everyone else's Fun can have a HC of 2345.0987 and in the end, is still an asshat that ruins everyone else's Fun.

You decide if it's the numbers or the person that you want to play with. I know which one I am picking.

[TheFuzzyBunny]

6.33333

[Mongoose Trueborn]

As of today:

4,444 kills
16.04 K/D
214 Losses

333

Did I break the bell curve? Did anyone come up with why this makes any difference to anyone about anything? Just proves I play with the best players and says nothing about actual ability IMO.

[Chavette]

Yea... being in premades kinda messes it up, just like the W/L or KD.

[Mongoose Trueborn]

I hope they put in accuracy and a damage ratio. A damage ratio made from damage done, damage taken, and tonage of the mech you used to do it with, would be idea for me to quickly evaluate players. I know everyone will say wits are a major factor in this game, but I've never met an elite mechwarrior that was an ***** before. Following orders is a given and expected and delivered by people I play with. A damage ratio stat would give light and med pilots the boost they need to rank properly as they will die more and kill less than the bigger mechs.

And stats per mech will be epic as well. Game is moving in the right direction, HC Statistic not so much.

[HC Harlequin]

Keep voting.

[HurlockHolmes]

4.17

100% pug (am getting tired of it fast though), about 90% medium mechs.

Not sure what the point of this number is though.

*Edit* After reading the thread I see the intention of this number and I think this is a pretty good idea. Nice one.

Edited by HurlockHolmes, 11 February 2013 - 09:23 PM.

[Vahnn]

.99.

Only playing pugs, plus I'm quite certain I died and lost my first 25 or so games without any kills before I got the hang of the game. Also, I was suffering from atrocious graphic performance and a long period of tweaking hardware/drivers before I got some playable performance, which happened around 40 games ago (out of less than 300 total games played.)

[Ripnfly]

Not a bad metric actually.

[nferno6]

Anyone else got a problem with HC Harlequinafter the last match I played...Stoopid, ConnorStClair, you guys can eat it.

nuff said

/,,/.

[Culler]

High KDR seems to cause serious HC explosion. I'm a little over 8.5 KDR and so my HC stat is 69.2.

What is this stat designed to measure anyway? It seems to be kills^2 / deaths * losses. Wouldn't kills * wins / deaths * losses be more appropriate and scale better for veteran players? Mine would be 34.9, and that number probably works out more consistently for people and better measures performance.

[HC Harlequin]

Culler, on 12 February 2013 - 05:12 AM, said:

High KDR seems to cause serious HC explosion. I'm a little over 8.5 KDR and so my HC stat is 69.2.

What is this stat designed to measure anyway? It seems to be kills^2 / deaths * losses. Wouldn't kills * wins / deaths * losses be more appropriate and scale better for veteran players? Mine would be 34.9, and that number probably works out more consistently for people and better measures performance.

Two things. Wins are not self limiting in this metric. By that I mean, it's possible to get 8 kills and win, and keep getting 8 kills and win over and over again. However, the max number of kills (generally) in a loss is 7. The other issue is that I think that winning is kind of meaningless as a metric. Even the Cubs win. It's the losses that matter.

[Z0MBIE Y0SHI]

Weiland, on 12 February 2013 - 05:30 AM, said:

Mongoose... You really don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to acting out. We're all remember exactly why R-Sauce broke down.

...R-sauce broke down?

wut?

[nferno6]

Wut?

Tell em.
I'll try not to laugh again...

/,,/.