18 replies to this topic

[Red squirrel]

Match Score confuses me.
No matter how many kills and/or assists I do.
Basically is lies between Damage+10 and Damage+20

Is that the great new ELO system? So LRM boats are the best players I guess.

[Rakashan]

How could you have read enough to know that this is the great new ELO system and *not* read enough to see the glaring warning that they were collecting data so that they could tune over the next two weeks before they actually implement ELO?

[Red squirrel]

Mhh maybe if I would play less and read more .... meeh bad idea

[Bilbo]

As was stated in the patch notes, your combat score has no bearing on Elo. Also, I've seen the numbers differ by as little as 2. No idea where the number comes from though.

[Padic]

I haven't taken data, but I assume match score is something like (dmg)+(kills)+(assists)+(component destruction).

It's a silly number and I'm sure that this community of level headed, responsible adults will not put too much stock in it.

[Vassago Rain]

Combat score looks like it sums up all the things you did in the match.
It has nothing to do with the chess scores. No idea what it'll be used for.

[Bilbo]

Padic, on 07 February 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

I haven't taken data, but I assume match score is something like (dmg)+(kills)+(assists)+(component destruction).

It's a silly number and I'm sure that this community of level headed, responsible adults will not put too much stock in it.

If that were the case I would expect damage and match score to be drastically different for someone at the top of the leaderboard, and I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing differences in the scores being fairly consistant across the leaderboard. It would be nice to know the formula though.

[Vyviel]

I think its a placeholder right now.

[Padic]

Bilbo, on 07 February 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

If that were the case I would expect damage and match score to be drastically different for someone at the top of the leaderboard, and I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing differences in the scores being fairly consistant across the leaderboard. It would be nice to know the formula though.

Notice, I didn't say "100*kills", or anything. I think the match score if you do 951 damage and get 6 kills and 2 assists would be something like 959 (+ a few more for components destroyed along the way). I think if you do 47 damage and get 0 kills and 0 assists, your match score will be 47.

[Red squirrel]

I miss the global scoreboard where you could end up on top even when loosing the game

[Padic]

Padic, on 07 February 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

I haven't taken data, but I assume match score is something like (dmg)+(kills)+(assists)+(component destruction).

It's a silly number and I'm sure that this community of level headed, responsible adults will not put too much stock in it.

To resurrect this two-week old thread. I have taken some data now.

I am pretty sure that on a loss, match score is described by:
(dmg)+(kills)+(assists)+(component destruction)+(spotting)

And that on a win, match score is described by:
(dmg)+(4*kills)+(2*assists)+(component destruction)+(spotting)

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

[Homeless Bill]

Padic, on 18 February 2013 - 06:12 PM, said:

(dmg)+(4*kills)+(2*assists)+(component destruction)+(spotting)

I'm sincerely curious as to who thought that formula was a useful metric to measure... anything. I could understand it being a place-holder, but then why even put in the work to come up with a formula at all?

[EitherWay]

Red squirrel, on 07 February 2013 - 02:16 PM, said:

Basically is lies between Damage+10 and Damage+20

Well I've gotten damage + 30 before so HA!

[Padic]

Homeless Bill, on 18 February 2013 - 08:58 PM, said:

I'm sincerely curious as to who thought that formula was a useful metric to measure... anything. I could understand it being a place-holder, but then why even put in the work to come up with a formula at all?

Every metric they could use to score us would be flawed. This one is no exception. However, I don't think it's particularly bad.

[Homeless Bill]

Padic, on 18 February 2013 - 09:36 PM, said:

I don't think it's particularly bad.

So you would agree that...
1 kill is equivalent to 4 points of damage (almost a full medium laser)
1 assist is equivalent to 2 points of damage
1 component destroyed is equivalent to 1 point of damage
1 spot is equivalent to 1 point of damage

I won't disagree that every arbitrary metric will have its flaws, but Combat Score is doing it all kinds of wrong. Damage is ridiculously over-weighted. Sniper? Your aim is irrelevant; do more damage. Scout? Your kills at critical moments are worth less than the medium laser you scored them with. Splattercat? You ******* rock. All the time.

Don't get me wrong: I don't care about the score, but it is an incredibly ****** measure of anything besides damage. I'm not saying that kills are the end-all, but they're certainly worth at least 50 damage. Likewise, component destruction and spotting assists are far more valuable than what they're currently weighted.

Assists are a tough one because you can get 8 assists by tagging everyone once with a machine gun. I'd rather have them weight assists based on percentage of damage done... or something. But even as it is, they're more valuable than two points worth of damage.

TL;DR: Yes, it is.

[JPsi]

Vassago Rain, on 07 February 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

No idea what it'll be used for.

I hope the answer is : Nothing at all.

Edited by JPsi, 18 February 2013 - 09:58 PM.

[p4r4g0n]

Vassago Rain, on 07 February 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

Combat score looks like it sums up all the things you did in the match.
It has nothing to do with the chess scores. No idea what it'll be used for.

Global rankings as mentioned / alluded to by Karl Berg. Incidentally, current match score =/= combat score if I recall what he said correctly.

[LordBraxton]

Red squirrel, on 07 February 2013 - 02:16 PM, said:

Match Score confuses me.
No matter how many kills and/or assists I do.
Basically is lies between Damage+10 and Damage+20

Is that the great new ELO system? So LRM boats are the best players I guess.

you get out damaged by LRM boats!?!?

O_o lrms are my favorite weapon to encounter on enemy mechs every time

[Padic]

Homeless Bill, on 18 February 2013 - 09:53 PM, said:

TL;DR: Yes, it is.

I actually like that kills and assists both have a relatively low weight. Basically between the ease of "kill stealing" and the aforementioned ease of grabbing assists, getting either is not a particularly huge accomplishment.

Straight damage done obviously gives a huge advantage to missile boats and punishes scouts and snipers, but what else can you really measure? "The amount and quality of orders you give to your group" is probably the most important, but pretty darned intangible.

The only think this score is failing to take into account at all, and that I think is necessary, is some metric of how much time you spend capping or counter capping.

Damage taken, like damage done, is a double edged sword. Taking lots of damage means you're involved in a lot of fights (and therefor presumably participating a lot), but taking lots of damage also indicates you're taking stupid risks or charging into fights without backup.

So, this is obviously arbitrary and weighted towards certain load outs, but I can't think of a better formula to use.

Aside from just counting wins and losses and who they're against. But that's just Elo, which is good for determining how good of a player you are over the long run, but bad for determining how good of a player you are over the short run.