|
|
Post by SGT D00M! on Mar 3, 2017 18:42:28 GMT -5
Many people are unhappy with how the damage only skill rating system for league placement is effecting the game. In order to better score actual game contributions, I had recommend basing the league cup score based on Kills + Beacons + Damage/100,000. Damage is rounded down and tie goes to higher damage. To match this, AU payout could be 7 to top score, 5 to 2nd and 2 to third. In order to test this, I’m going to start tracking what my cup score and Au earnings ARE and what they WOULD be under this change. I will not change play style, focusing on winning and continue to play mixed hangars and play a variety of roles within each game, from capper, to mid-range support to knifer. To be honest I expect minimal change overall, maybe make -20 games rarer (they are not common now). Anyone else that is curious, PLEASE feel free to do your own comparisons over a range of games and let me know, along with your play style and hangar. Especially if you feel you are losing more than gaining or are gaining quickly or running an unconventional hangar.
|
|
|
|
Post by critter667 on Mar 3, 2017 19:02:16 GMT -5
I do like your general idea and am curious as to the result.
That said, why change gold payout? It could function as normal and your system could still work.
Also, you are assuming that Pix isn't making the league progression by design. Just because the players disagree doesn't make the players right. Players have no metrics like how many people rank into each league or average league progression. I guess what I am trying to say is that you don't know what pix's plan is for leagues. Maybe PIX wants slow progress so that lower ranked players have time to gather resources in the form of silver, bot, and weapon levels. Maybe the best way to do this was to make league progress based on damage with the idea that only the higher skilled players would be able to capture becons while maintaining high damage. This also may be the best way to keep the highest tier realitively devoid of people to make the rank more meaningful. Just because your system may improve your progreasion, that does not mean such matches pix's goal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2017 19:09:40 GMT -5
I always felt that the last two guys on the winning team should get negative points. Played an match in Powerpoint today and I literally could not do anything because I had no Aphids. Ended up with 136K damage, last place. I don't think I deserved those points.
I would also like to see win rate get factored into matchmaking. If someone is repeatedly getting crappy teammates, they should be getting good ones for once. I only won 1/7 matches today, and fought 2 1v6s so far. Not fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by SGT D00M! on Mar 3, 2017 19:15:06 GMT -5
I do like your general idea and am curious as to the result. That said, why change gold payout? It could function as normal and your system could still work. Also, you are assuming that Pix isn't making the league progression by design. Just because the players disagree doesn't make the players right. Players have no metrics like how many people rank into each league or average league progression. I guess what I am trying to say is that you don't know what pix's plan is for leagues. Maybe PIX wants slow progress so that lower ranked players have time to gather resources in the form of silver, bot, and weapon levels. Maybe the best way to do this was to make league progress based on damage with the idea that only the higher skilled players would be able to capture becons while maintaining high damage. This also may be the best way to keep the highest tier realitively devoid of people to make the rank more meaningful. Just because your system may improve your progreasion, that does not mean such matches pix's goal. True. The Au payout was just to keep it simple and address an old complaint from even the old MM days of players going for beacons and then quitting once they were sure they had the most beacons or when they would be unable to get the most. Since it will be tracked separately, it won't effect the results. I'm sure Pix had an idea, but the high noise ratio of upset players suggest that looking at other options is not a bad idea. Pix has also already stated that they are looking at ways to add beacon captures to the cup score. I want to try my idea out and see if it has merit, or if it makes to large a change, or no change at all. The big losses of cups on the losing side also seems to be a point of contention, but changing those scores would be more difficult to test. |
|
|
|
Post by SGT D00M! on Mar 6, 2017 8:12:22 GMT -5
**Update: based on Pixo's feedback on the Q&A Reddit that they are looking at incorporating beacons into the cup score but not feeling that kills are a measure of skill, my tests are now based on 1 point per beacon and 1 point per 50,000 damage, rounded down.**
Feed back from the first 10 recorded scores have me at -9 cups on actual placement scoring and +3 on the test concept scoring. Not bad and I think that including the beacons does make for a better actual representation of "skill" and game contribution. The other point is that the point disparity is not huge, so a lot of these calls for "ONLY GO FOR DAMAGE!!" may not be factually based. Yes your ecu cossack hangar will suffer, But your Plasma Gareth should contribute just fine. I also tracked an alternate Gold system, with no MoD or MoC, just Au by placement. I kept the Au payout the same per game, but increased the slots awarded to 4 to increase the incentive to win and decrease the advantage to of tanking since 6 Au is the highest you could get per game, not 10. Payout would be 6 gold for 1st, 4 for second, 3 for third and 1 gold for fourth.
My actual Au earnings were 18 in the recorded games, my Au under the alternate would be 11.
We will see where I am at again in the next five games.
|
|
|
|
Post by ewing411 on Mar 6, 2017 9:11:18 GMT -5
So how did you evaluate the value of beacons to damage?
|
|
|
|
Post by ShutUpAndSmokeMyWeed on Mar 6, 2017 10:20:51 GMT -5
So how did you evaluate the value of beacons to damage? I had the same thought. The value of damage changes with level but the value of beacons stays relatively constant, so I think a bonus multiplier for beacons would be more appropriate. For example +25% to your score per beacon. |
|
|
|
Post by SGT D00M! on Mar 6, 2017 10:32:39 GMT -5
So how did you evaluate the value of beacons to damage? 1 point to placement per beacon. 1 point to placement per 50,000 damage. Do you feel beacons are worth more? Less? Damage is a better indicator of hangar ability then beacon captures, but beacon captures directly effect game outcome. 2 to 1 felt like a fair ratio to me. |
|
|
|
Post by SGT D00M! on Mar 6, 2017 10:34:11 GMT -5
Also by this count, beacons matter more at low levels and less at top tier. As it should be.
|
|
