Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > PvP Gameplay
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 11
03-15-2010, 01:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Dravis
This gives us two options for buff/debuff weighting:

1) Assign weights on a fixed participation-point to resistance ratio over time (e.g., X points per % resistance over Y duration, with -X points possible for -% resistance).

OR

2) Ignore these weights as well, and simply rely on the Big Three, remembering that buffs/debuffs directly affect the Big Three anyway.

I don't think we need to take match duration into account. Rewarding a specific duration is more easily exploitable than rewarding raw numbers.

I do agree that participation inflation can be problematic as a result of good (i.e., long) matches.

I propose the following:

1) First, we distinguish between participation and (individual) rating.

2) Participation is calculated by the weight points as described above.

3) (Individual) Rating is then calculated as a ratio of individual participation to everyone else's participation (total). So my rating would be calculated as (MyParticipationPoints)/(TotalParticipationPoints).


Thoughts?
For determining Participation values:
One way to deal with this would be "damage mitigated" and "damage assist" stats. If I throw Engineering Team on somebody, they get a heal (credited to me) and a 30% resistance buff. If we were to calculate the damage mitigation (30% of the incoming damage) and credit it to me as Damage Mitigated, then that could help to better represent the full contribution of the ability. Ditto if I throw Fire on My Mark on somebody, in the Damage Assist column. Mitigation and Assist would count at a lower rate toward Participation than actual damage or healing, perhaps half or so.

This concept makes it possible to account for many complex abilities using approximation methods: VMing someone credits me their base weapon DPS as damage mitigated for the duration of the effect (crude but better than nothing). Beam Target Shields gives a damage assist equal to the shield+regen over the duration of the ability.

The other major upshot of this idea is that it scales directly with the effectiveness of what you're doing - if you're throwing Eng team on somebody who's not actually getting shot, you're not mitigating any actual damage and it's not going to be worth points.

The downside of this is simply that it's a accounting nightmare keeping track of whose buffs and debuffs are whose. Damage mitigation is not constant, so if TWO people throw +resist on somebody, each of us will mitigate less absolute damage. I'm sure there are more disadvantages, but I think for now, I've at least expressed the basic idea.


Ratings vs. Participation:
The Participation point metric alone allows the scoring system to distinguish how well someone did relative to other players in the same match, but not how well they did in an absolute sense. A big fish in a big pond, and a small fish in a small pond look exactly the same. Some sort of "pond size scaling" needs to be included.

How this is done, however, requires that you answer a related fundamental question: whether ratings are cumulative always-increasing totals, or closer in principle to a "True Skill" valuation (e.g. ELO). That is, do your Rating points keep going up, or are they supposed to stabilize at some point?

There are pros and cons to each, of course. A perpetually increasing scale simplifies rewards and motivates point-hungry players. At the same time, it rewards high playtime as well as high skill - you can grind rating, as it were. A stabilizing-value system would eliminate playtime as a variable and instead reward mostly skill. However, such systems are known to promote irrational behavior such as rating-protection where players stop playing in order to preserve a high numeric rating.

A simple Accumulation system might look like this:
myNewRating += AverageRatingsOfPlayersInGame/100 * (myParticipation/totalParticipation)

A True Skill Value system would have to follow something like a modified ELO or WoW individual rating calculation. It seems like this would be the intent, since otherwise players who play a lot could essentially rank themselves out of having any chance whatsoever of winning a match (T1 plays a ton and ends up fighting T5). I'm not familiar enough with the ELO computation, however, to figure out exactly what would happen here.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 12
03-15-2010, 02:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edgecase View Post
For determining Participation values:
One way to deal with this would be "damage mitigated" and "damage assist" stats. [...]
Absolutely love this detail. I have included it in the original post, slightly modified to suit my Damage + Healing component point idea.

Regarding diminishing returns on (for example) resistance buffs, I don't see a need to compensate for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edgecase View Post
Ratings vs. Participation: [...]
...
A simple Accumulation system might look like this:
myNewRating += AverageRatingsOfPlayersInGame/100 * (myParticipation/totalParticipation)
Also something I had mentioned ('ratings brackets') but didn't elaborate on. Thank you for providing some detail, which I have included in the original post.

===

Can you take a look at the original post again and then tell me what you think?

Thank you, again, for the excellent feedback.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 13
03-15-2010, 02:47 PM
I think the post makes a good point now. For illustrative purposes, you might want to include an anecdote describing how the system would affect a player, and how the player's ratings would be adjusted as a result. For example, a T2 captain who is clearly performing at an ability level above his ship tier being grouped with T3 players.

One thing that's a little unclear also is under what circumstances a player would drop in rating - the equation provided doesn't actually allow for that, as it's purely additive.

Finally, how would rewards work with cross-tier matchmaking? Right now there's a base for the bracket, modified by damage dealt. In a cross-tier system, how would you determine this? It seems intuitive that you'd use the Participation point ratio to divide up a pool of rewards, but did you have something special in mind?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 14 Nada
03-16-2010, 05:33 PM
They need to fix PVP in other threads you see Klingons agreeing that SN is over powered, along with orther combos and abilities they expect to be nerfed in short order, hopefully in the 45 -55 day patch. It's all written in this forum Cryptic just needs to take a long good read and see all the Klingon gloting over stuff they know is over the top. As far as rating system what a waste of time the game is crying for balancing of PVP not months of programming for no return no one will be pvping by then.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 15
03-16-2010, 05:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormsender View Post
They need to fix PVP in other threads you see Klingons agreeing that SN is over powered, along with orther combos and abilities they expect to be nerfed in short order, hopefully in the 45 -55 day patch. It's all written in this forum Cryptic just needs to take a long good read and see all the Klingon gloting over stuff they know is over the top. As far as rating system what a waste of time the game is crying for balancing of PVP not months of programming for no return no one will be pvping by then.
How do you define 'balance'? I define it as 'equal potential'. A large part of that is player 'skill', and the queue system at the moment is very unfair or inconsiderate in that regard (i.e., favouring pre-mades over PUGs). Fixing the match-making would account for at least half of the balance complaints, because it would ensure that players are seeing 'equal' teams.

Lastly, do you agree or disagree that the proposed concept is a good improvement? Just because there is a priority development list, and other priorities might be higher on that list, does not necessarily mean that other ideas should never make it onto that list. Should this idea make it onto that list at all?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 16
03-16-2010, 05:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edgecase View Post
I think the post makes a good point now. For illustrative purposes, you might want to include an anecdote describing how the system would affect a player, and how the player's ratings would be adjusted as a result. For example, a T2 captain who is clearly performing at an ability level above his ship tier being grouped with T3 players.

One thing that's a little unclear also is under what circumstances a player would drop in rating - the equation provided doesn't actually allow for that, as it's purely additive.

Finally, how would rewards work with cross-tier matchmaking? Right now there's a base for the bracket, modified by damage dealt. In a cross-tier system, how would you determine this? It seems intuitive that you'd use the Participation point ratio to divide up a pool of rewards, but did you have something special in mind?
I'll work on these. Thanks again for the excellent feedback.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 17
03-16-2010, 05:41 PM
this is a good idea.



imo there should also be something like an black list information file or data base, that allows players to look up another player to see what they have in equipment load out, and traits. This will allow others to see why one specie may have an advantage over the other, not to mention equipment brought to the fight.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 18
03-24-2010, 01:13 PM
I'm really not crazy about the idea of being placed in a T4 match with my T3 Cruiser just because I'm winning more T3 matches than most other people. One of the things that's generally true about PvP is that good players do well, and reap the rewards of their success. I have no problem being matched against opponents of similar skill - that is a necessity of any matchmaking system - but I have a big problem with artificial impediments to my success that are introduced because I'm doing too well.

Said another way, my victory or defeat should be a function of my skill and the skill of my enemies and teammates. Adding additional conditions, like escalating my T3 ship into a T4 map because the numbers suggest that's where I'll be balanced, is just another way of placing a handicap on me to even the playing field for inferior players. I do not believe that my opponents should be given a significant effective buff to make up for the relative difference in our skill levels. If my team is better than yours, we deserve to win; not to be placed in a match with a group of lousy players who are flying better ships so that the game will be closer.

Now, that said, the assumption here is that the playing field is even (independent of skill) if you're fighting against ships from the same tier. In practice, given that Klingons and Feds are different and have access to ships with different capabilities, this is not the case and so I understand that your idea is formed with the goal of bringing balance to an imbalanced system. I'm simply pointing out that I shouldn't be getting blown up by T4 Escorts in a T3 Cruiser just because the system thinks that would be more fair to the feds.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 19
03-24-2010, 01:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildfyre010 View Post
I'm simply pointing out that I shouldn't be getting blown up by T4 Escorts in a T3 Cruiser just because the system thinks that would be more fair to the feds.
The counterpoint is simply that if those T4 escort captains were any good, they'd be fighting T5 people and not you. A high-rated T3 captain would more likely get bracketed with low-mid rated T4 captains.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 20
03-24-2010, 01:26 PM
They did a pretty good job with the halo 3 matchmaking system, I don't see why it could not work in this game. Other than the dev's just not implementing it.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:41 PM.