test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Proposal: Seperate Queues with Experience

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
edited May 2010 in PvP Gameplay
After seeing a thread about people complaining about how bad Federation PuGs, why not do this:

Seperate PvP Queues do to experience.


That way PvP Fleets or those who deem themselves "good" in PvP, can actually get a decent fight, instead of constantly killing weak players who are just there for Marks of Honor and not really for PvP.

Or we an have the alternative, tell Cryptic to get rid of Marks of Honor so the only ones in the PvP Queues are actually PvPers.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Interesting suggestion. I think on the most basic level that's why queues are separated by captain level. I'm not sure how they would accurately quantify a players experience well enough to queue things up more adequately. To be honest, they are struggling to get general mechanics right so something subjective like player skill seems out there.

    This could relate to another older thread about developing leader boards. I haven't read all of it but maybe there are some good ideas in there.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    SteveHale wrote: »
    Interesting suggestion. I think on the most basic level that's why queues are separated by captain level. I'm not sure how they would accurately quantify a players experience well enough to queue things up more adequately. To be honest, they are struggling to get general mechanics right so something subjective like player skill seems out there.

    This could relate to another older thread about developing leader boards. I haven't read all of it but maybe there are some good ideas in there.

    This actually would be quite easy. You see, as it stands now, you have players grouped by their Captain's rank. Their Captain's PvE rank which means absolutely nothing in PvP. Solution? Have a PvE rank and a PvP rank based on your experience or skill points earned in that particular arena. Or, alternatively, you could utilize a well-established system like the True Skill ranking system which bases a player ability on a statistical formula comprised of key performance indicators such as win/loss ratio, kill/death ratio, damage dealt, heals provided, and other factors established by the DEV's.

    Rather than be a "leaderboard" per se, it serves to match players with teammates and against opponents of similar skill, experience, and ability levels.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Then I like it. Now teach Cryptic to do it ... correctly... :o
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    BountyXP wrote: »
    This actually would be quite easy. You see, as it stands now, you have players grouped by their Captain's rank. Their Captain's PvE rank which means absolutely nothing in PvP. Solution? Have a PvE rank and a PvP rank based on your experience or skill points earned in that particular arena. Or, alternatively, you could utilize a well-established system like the True Skill ranking system which bases a player ability on a statistical formula comprised of key performance indicators such as win/loss ratio, kill/death ratio, damage dealt, heals provided, and other factors established by the DEV's.

    Rather than be a "leaderboard" per se, it serves to match players with teammates and against opponents of similar skill, experience, and ability levels.

    Judging from the Accolade System counting PvP kills, that could easily be the PvP Ranking.

    But I don't like the idea of leaderboard or showing Win / Loss Ratios, because honestly that can easily mislead people. For instance, a good PvPer queuing into a group of bad players. Or running into a baddly mismatched que.

    Then of course you would also have to mention the ship type used in PvP, because we all know that Escorts alwasy have higher kill rates than Cruisers or Science Ships.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Azurian wrote: »
    Judging from the Accolade System counting PvP kills, that could easily be the PvP Ranking.

    But I don't like the idea of leaderboard or showing Win / Loss Ratios, because honestly that can easily mislead people. For instance, a good PvPer queuing into a group of bad players. Or running into a baddly mismatched que.

    Then of course you would also have to mention the ship type used in PvP, because we all know that Escorts alwasy have higher kill rates than Cruisers or Science Ships.

    Of course...the actual details of the system can be customized anyway the DEV's want. You'd actually want to classify damage/healing stats by rank, ship-type, and map/game type. There'd also be room...if they so desired...to incorporate other factors in a negative manner such as disconnecting early or being AFK in a Capture and Hold match.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Kills is not a great way to rank us... not that I don't kill. lol I would hate to end up in a highly ranked pug with nothing but paper thin escorts. lol
    They should change PvP rewards to favour the victors... and rank the que based on points earned. Hopefuly the guys that KILL and the guys that HEAL end up on the winning end and rack up points.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Husanak wrote: »
    Kills is not a great way to rank us... not that I don't kill. lol I would hate to end up in a highly ranked pug with nothing but paper thin escorts. lol
    They should change PvP rewards to favour the victors... and rank the que based on points earned. Hopefuly the guys that KILL and the guys that HEAL end up on the winning end and rack up points.

    The fact that a player ranking system is needed isn't really the issue. So far we all agree it is. But the specifics are things which can be worked out. Kill/death ratio is a staple of an effective ranking system. But what qualifies as a kill? Not the way it is now where one or two shots contributing damage on a ship that dies is considered a kill. Something more accurate would be every ship that does 25% damage to a ship gets credit. This means you would only get credit for each ship you contribute significant damage to. Right now I can go into a ball of ships, hit Fire At Will and touch all five, zoom out and when they die I am 5-0. Not very accurate. A percentage-based "qualifier" for being awarded a kill would be much more accurate and contribute to better ranking criteria.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    BountyXP wrote: »
    The fact that a player ranking system is needed isn't really the issue. So far we all agree it is. But the specifics are things which can be worked out. Kill/death ratio is a staple of an effective ranking system. But what qualifies as a kill? Not the way it is now where one or two shots contributing damage on a ship that dies is considered a kill. Something more accurate would be every ship that does 25% damage to a ship gets credit. This means you would only get credit for each ship you contribute significant damage to. Right now I can go into a ball of ships, hit Fire At Will and touch all five, zoom out and when they die I am 5-0. Not very accurate. A percentage-based "qualifier" for being awarded a kill would be much more accurate and contribute to better ranking criteria.

    A very good point... and I thought my 45 and 2 cap yesterday was an indicator of my god hood. ;)
    Not sure if it would work, however mabey even one kill one credit to the highest damage too attacker.
    Still would have figure out the healing factor somehow... you can't go 45 and 2 in an escort with out one good space whale or 2 pitching you the odd life line.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Azurian wrote: »
    After seeing a thread about people complaining about how bad Federation PuGs, why not do this:

    Seperate PvP Queues do to experience.


    That way PvP Fleets or those who deem themselves "good" in PvP, can actually get a decent fight, instead of constantly killing weak players who are just there for Marks of Honor and not really for PvP.

    Or we an have the alternative, tell Cryptic to get rid of Marks of Honor so the only ones in the PvP Queues are actually PvPers.

    I see your point Azurian, but personally, I think one of the problems (in fact the biggest problem) that the way PvP is currently set up only conspires to separate us; It separates us from the "real" world (the galaxy), it separates admirals from captains, captains from lieutenants ad infinitum.

    What we need is to bring everybody together, to make PvP worth it, so to speak. Give people a real incentive to PvP, a reason to care about it. Like real ingame geopolitical consequences, diplomacy, alliances and a persistent world in which to play. Until then, you'll get some folks are are interested in working together, but many others who just don't care, who are only doing it for the PvP medals because they need that purple gear. :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Sto relics and sto starbases!... nm open pvp :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    BountyXP wrote: »
    The fact that a player ranking system is needed isn't really the issue. So far we all agree it is. But the specifics are things which can be worked out.
    Specifics worked out here:

    http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=127714

    Feel free to sign the thread for support, but my last conversation with DEV Falkoren led me to believe that the earliest this would be introduced is Season 2, if at all.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    There is no point splitting the queues up when people barely fill the ones that exist now. Further, I have yet to see any metric proposed that actually accurately measures someone's ability.

    And there is no real reason to split the queues, because you learn by failure. You learn good tactics by going up against people with different good tactics and trying to deal with them, not by playing with a set of people with lousy tactics and learning lousy tactics to deal with those people.

    Just say no to segregation.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    I'd love not to be stuck with noobs but with different divisions at this point there would never be matches. We need more players.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    I disagree. PvP needs to be more vicious and ruthless.

    I don't think it's hard to learn what the "pros" are doing, especially since there are so many videos around now, and also guides and very lengthy forum threads about every "I-WIN" skill. (I personally have made a ton of videos, with annotations.) Besides that, you can just watch what goes on in a game and hover your mouse over everyone's buff icons. Not to mention that in Ground PvP, there are little dialog boxes that say exactly what everyone is doing, "Applying Tachyon Harmonic", "Suppressing Fire", etc.). I just watch very closely and experiment myself. When someone kills you instantly, just take a screenshot or video, review your combat logs, and try to figure out everything that happened rather than run in again and die. STO isn't a simple first person shooter. STO is complex, and it is fun and thrilling to learn what the "experienced" people are doing.

    Learning the game mechanics and strategy is what drives us to keep playing MMO's, right? Casual players who want an easy time can stick to Explore missions (and they do).

    Marks of Honor should be regarded as very rare, not a free hand out to anyone who can get into a PvP match, even if they lose. To get a Mark of Valor doing the STF's, you have to find a good team and spend hours fighting. It took me three days to finish Undine Terradome and get those Marks of Valor. Those were the best 5 Marks I've ever gotten and I truly savor them, and nothing else in the entire game had ever made me feel as awesome. I had devoted so much time to defeating that STF. It should be the same for Marks of Honor. People aren't determined to win because there's no incentive to win--you get the Mark of Honor regardless of whether or not you put in any effort. There is no threat of failure and no penalty from losing. (In fact, my favorite matches have been when I have lost or died multiple times against good players.) Most of the time they don't care, and will run in and die over and over. Ground is the worst. I don't want the PUGs I play against to be in a separate tier--I want them to be determined to win. Marks of Honor should be something that takes days to complete, forcing you to find a good team and fight against difficult opponents. But in reality... the player base is so small now that we need all these gimmicks and free Marks just to lure anyone, even the casual player, into PvP matches.

    I think if it were harder to get purple gear, more people would stick around and learn the game, and thus subscribe for longer. They'd strive to spend hours and weeks to get Marks that were truly rare and difficult to obtain. Players are leaving now because STO is as easy as, no pun intended, Hello Kitty Online.

    I think the bigger problem is that the game doesn't feel immersive, the player base is too small, and it's hard to meet people to form a team that you play with over and over. If you can't find friends in the game, then you keep playing in PUG groups and having a miserable time because STO PvP is extremely focused on playing as a team and having a set of team strategies. So I truly believe that a full team of "inexperienced" players can get up to speed if they just stick together and keep playing as a team. People should go to Deepspace K7 or Ganalda, announce in zone chat "Looking for PVP team, need 1 Science", etc., and then queue as a team in the same was that people find teams for STF's. I also see some changes on Tribble with the Fleet search, so that you can find PvP focused fleets. Maybe that will help.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Resources spent separating players in any way at this point would be completely misguided. The PvP community in particular is already at or below minimum critical mass - one of the most common complaints is that there simply isn't anyone to play with anymore. Telling people who ARE online that they can't play with each other would only aggravate the situation. Subdivision is something you do when you have too many players, not too few.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Edgecase wrote: »
    Resources spent separating players in any way at this point would be completely misguided. The PvP community in particular is already at or below minimum critical mass - one of the most common complaints is that there simply isn't anyone to play with anymore. Telling people who ARE online that they can't play with each other would only aggravate the situation. Subdivision is something you do when you have too many players, not too few.

    On certain levels I agree and disagree. I believe that you're using "separating" of the PvP community with a negative connotation which might not exist. Players are already separated by PvE rank. In theory, this is to assure ship and player experience balance. But in practice...as you and I both well know from extensive Premade experience...just being an RA5 means little in PvP.

    What is the point of spending resources to attract people to PvP if they only insta-pop when they get there and never return? If there were a PvP ranking system which matched skilled players/fleets with other skilled players/fleets as well as above average, average, and below average players with and against similar skill levels then the balance they seek through all this ridiculous nerfing and adjustments can be reached.

    The players themselves can create their own equilibrium and balance through their gameplay. If you are a casual player and do not strive to eek out every ounce of performance from yourself and your teammates you can play with others who feel the same and have a more well-rounded and enjoyable experience. If you are one of the so-called "hardcore" players you can have meaningful and challenging matches with other players who share your ability level.

    Allowing players to determine their own path through the game is a vital part of any MMO. Game mechanics changes which "dumb down" the game and reduce gameplay to the lowest common denominator so that lesser skilled players can be artificially propped up during PvP are a poor method to reach equilibrium. They are still going to lose...but the general nerfs will allow them to stay alive longer. In all it's just a poor business model and reeks of desperation in an attempt to either cover for the extreme lack of end-game content, a rapidly reducing player population, or both.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    BountyXP wrote: »
    On certain levels I agree and disagree. I believe that you're using "separating" of the PvP community with a negative connotation which might not exist. Players are already separated by PvE rank. In theory, this is to assure ship and player experience balance. But in practice...as you and I both well know from extensive Premade experience...just being an RA5 means little in PvP.

    It's not quite that actually, it's much more basic. The number of people in PvP is prohibitively small and dwindling.

    In an unsegregated system, the MOST people you can have queued before starting a game (discounting the issue of odd-sized groups that can't be pieced together into a set of 5) is 9. If you have two mutually exclusive divisions of players, you can have twice that number: 18 players trying to queue and neither one able to pop (9 in the lower division, 9 in upper).

    Doubling the number of players that can be queued without a game starting is an inherently bad idea when you're already in a situation where there often aren't enough players to start a game. Instead of providing a better gameplay experience, increased fragmentation significantly increases the odds of having no game played at all.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Edgecase wrote: »
    It's not quite that actually, it's much more basic. The number of people in PvP is prohibitively small and dwindling.

    Agreed. In fact we touched on that subject during our in-game discussions last night. Directly after our three game Premade vs Premade series. I mention that because I'm going to refer to it later on in this post...
    Edgecase wrote: »
    In an unsegregated system, the MOST people you can have queued before starting a game (discounting the issue of odd-sized groups that can't be pieced together into a set of 5) is 9. If you have two mutually exclusive divisions of players, you can have twice that number: 18 players trying to queue and neither one able to pop (9 in the lower division, 9 in upper).

    Hence the option of "Join New Game" or "Join Any Game" currently provided. People can get into a match that has started or has uneven numbers (even though technically it should never start out less than 5v5). Or they could be queued for a new game. But in reality, the queue system being what it is, that matches start off lopsided often.
    Edgecase wrote: »
    Doubling the number of players that can be queued without a game starting is an inherently bad idea when you're already in a situation where there often aren't enough players to start a game. Instead of providing a better gameplay experience, increased fragmentation significantly increases the odds of having no game played at all.

    In certain ways it's a matter of semantics. You use words like "separate" or "fragment" while I use ones like "ranking" or "structuring." In the end we're talking about the same thing...a player ranking system. For you, this is a negative. For me, a positive. You and I both agree we want more PvP players and better PvP gameplay.

    There's two ways to go about dealing with those two factors...the reactionary view and the preemptive view. The reactionary view is what Cryptic is employing now. PvP and overall game population is plummeting. So how do they entice more people to join and stay in PvP? By "dumbing down" and "nerfing" PvP so that anyone who comes in...regardless of skill or ability or loadout...can be artificially propped up to survive. Their ego isn't hurt and they lose but lose happy. At least that's the thinking they use.

    The preemptive school of thought preaches that if you build a good PvP system and create exciting and challenging gameplay, players will come and stay. Organizing them into a ranking structure allows for equally skilled players to be paired with and against others of like ability level. You create a ranking and leaderboard structure for players/fleets. You host Cryptic-sponsored tournaments. You have accolades or in-game challenges for PvP. You have special rewards for these accolades such as a specific ship skin or piece, special looking armor or colors, etc. You can look at a player's ship and see...wow, look at that emblem on his hull...he's killed 1,000 players in PvP. You have more than one or two maps. You create more than one or two game types. You make people both want to play and want to stay.

    I reserved last night's example of our gameplay until now. We played three matches of Premade vs Premade because we were two fleets actively looking for matches. Before those games we sat in the queues rolling PUG after PUG 15-0 or the occasional 15-1 or 15-2 when people get bored and fly off to try ridiculous tag-team Ramming Speeds. We do things like make videos with no shields or in Tier 3/4 ships or in runabouts to spice things up and keep things entertaining and fun. I don't see how matching us against random PUGs, RA1's, and assorted skill levels makes us better, their experience in PvP enjoyable, or the game markedly more healthy. We have the "unsegregated" system now and PvP is dying. I don't see how organizing players, matching them better, and making the changes and improvements I alluded to above could be any worse and more than likely...it's be much, much better.

    Just my opinion, but what do I know...;)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    BountyXP wrote: »
    In certain ways it's a matter of semantics. You use words like "separate" or "fragment" while I use ones like "ranking" or "structuring." In the end we're talking about the same thing...a player ranking system. For you, this is a negative. For me, a positive. You and I both agree we want more PvP players and better PvP gameplay.

    There's two ways to go about dealing with those two factors...the reactionary view and the preemptive view. The reactionary view is what Cryptic is employing now. PvP and overall game population is plummeting. So how do they entice more people to join and stay in PvP? By "dumbing down" and "nerfing" PvP so that anyone who comes in...regardless of skill or ability or loadout...can be artificially propped up to survive. Their ego isn't hurt and they lose but lose happy. At least that's the thinking they use.

    We're talking about two different but related things. The distinction I'm trying to point out is "additive" versus "subtractive". My point is primarily that I don't think that any solution belonging to the subtractive camp, i.e. one that could result in a net reduction of games FOR ANY REASON, could be a viable solution because it would drop the PvPing population below critical mass immediately. Without short-term survival, there can be no long term, unfortunately.

    Beyond that, we must distinguish between different types of additive solutions. I agree that an additive solution that involves "dumbing down" the gameplay would be a poor choice because it actively sacrifices long-term growth for short-term. Could it be necessary? Possibly, out of desperation, but a far better solution would be an additive approach that avoids making this long-term sacrifice.

    Thus, I agree that some sort of soft categorization system that would bias matchmaking toward equal skill levels would be good, as it is neutral on the additive/subtractive scale, while providing some long-term benefits. However, the OP (which is what I've been directing my argument toward for the most part) talks about mutually exclusive separation of queues, an inherently subtractive approach that would cause harm in the short term - potentially putting the last nail in the population coffin and pre-empting any long-term benefits it might have bestowed.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Difficulty slider for PvP! I'll totally fight someone on elite.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    What many posts here seem to ignore or not realise is that a rating system need not maintain status quo. A good system will keep you moving.

    So, let's say you face 'lousy players'. You beat them. The system moves you up to the next 'level' against better players. You don't beat them, you stay where you are, but they move up, until you beat someone else at this 'level'.

    That is a gross simplification, but a clear example that a good rating system does not keep players from getting better.

    After that, the real incentive for getting better would be rating-related rewards.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Foxrocks wrote:
    Further, I have yet to see any metric proposed that actually accurately measures someone's ability.
    • damage dealt
    • damage received
    • hull repair given
    • hull repair received
    • shield repair given
    • shield repair received
    • total number of allies
    • total number of enemies
    • damage dealt by allies on debuffed target (for the duration of the debuff)
    • damage resisted by allies with non-self resistance buff (for the duration of the buff)
    • enemy subsystem power drained (total drained power for all subsystems on all drained enemies)
    • enemy disabled weapon damage (total of the damage tooltip for all enemy weapons together, on an enemy suffering CC and unable to fire; this total * number of times CCed)
    • Damage = (DamageDealt / DamageReceived) + DamageAssist

    • Healing = [(HullRepairGiven + ShieldRepairGiven) / (HullRepairReceived + ShieldRepairReceived)] + DamageMitigation

    • DamageAssist = (coefficient * DamageDealtByAllies) + EnemyPowerDrained
      where coefficient is a fraction, most likely (1 / totalNumberOfAllies)

    • DamageMitigation = (coefficient * DamageReducedOnAllies) + EnemyDisabledWeaponDamage
      where coefficient is a fraction, most likely (1 / totalNumberOfEnemies)

    • ObjectivePoints = <units the same as those used in Damage and Healing; values arbitrarily assigned dependent upon the map>

    • myParticipation = Damage + Healing + ObjectivePoints

    • totalParticipation is the sum of every player's myParticipation in the current match

    • Participation = (myParticipation / totalParticipation) * (AvgParticipationOfHighBracket / AvgParticipationOfMyBracket)

    • myRating = Participation / totalNumberOfRatings

    • myNewRating = additive + myOldRating
      where additive = (myNewRating - myOldRating) * (myNewRating / myOldRating)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    The problem is, there aren't really enough PvPing to make any suggestion workable. At least, not in a way that wouldn't double/triple wait times.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    • damage dealt

      ...snip...

    • myNewRating = additive + myOldRating
      where additive = (myNewRating - myOldRating) * (myNewRating / myOldRating)

    Thanks Matt. I've been thinking about what exactly we should be getting credit for in PvP matches. This is perfect. I personally can't stand the way it's being done currently. (And there's always that one guy in a match that starts smack-talking about doing the most damage; of course this is in a cap/hold match, and his team lost, and he's healed/repaired absolutely nothing... but he did the most damage. :) )

    I'd actually like to see a ranking system, hell, I even like the idea of kill/point-boards, similar to the Battlefield 2/2142 stat ranking system. It's a great opportunity to foster not only faction/faction rivalry, but on a personal basis as well.

    In a canon sense, it's the lower tiered Klingon captain hearing about Captain Kirk's exploits around the galaxy, then vowing to take him down. It would be interesting to see a column telling who your worst enemy is, and who fears you the most. (Who you've taken down most.)

    I've heard objections to this sort of thing before, mainly I think it's about a lack of anonymity; it's hard to smack-talk (and I think that smack-talk does have it's place, if only to picture Captain Kruge telling Kirk that his ship is a garbage scow) when you're at the bottom of the list... but I really think that the opposing sentiment to skill ranking and leader boards are centered on the PvE players, who either don't PvP at all, or only rarely.

    Personally, I want to take steps to open up PvP to more players, so more of us see it as an integral part of STO, and not a completely separate experience. There's really no reason to develop a game in two completely different ways for two completely different crowds, they can be joined, I'm sure of it. There is a way to make it fun for all. :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    What many posts here seem to ignore or not realise is that a rating system need not maintain status quo. A good system will keep you moving.

    So, let's say you face 'lousy players'. You beat them. The system moves you up to the next 'level' against better players. You don't beat them, you stay where you are, but they move up, until you beat someone else at this 'level'.

    That is a gross simplification, but a clear example that a good rating system does not keep players from getting better.

    After that, the real incentive for getting better would be rating-related rewards.

    If cryptic can do it properly than I would support this idea.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
      stuff

    But this is terrible. It chiefly rewards the button mashing part of the game and little else like strategy and coordination.

    How is maneuver rewarded, say by staying out of a cannon arc for example, or by putting distance between you and a fully buffed tac/escort that makes him waste his alpha strike, or at the very least do much less damage because of the distance and/or defense rating?

    How are non-disabling powers rewarded? Tractor beams, scramble sensors, boarding parties, jam sensors, etc?

    How is debuff removal rewarded, or even SNB for buff removal?

    How is focus fire rewarded when you end up getting more points for non-focus fire by doing more damage over time, and taking more damage to mitigate?

    Why is self-mitigation unrewarded?

    And how can you weight these things done at the right times instead of bad times, say like removing jam sensors debuff immediately when you get hit by it to finish off a dying foe, as opposed to removing it 20s into the skill when you weren't even fighting the debuffer in the first place? Who cares if you heal when the last Klingon died and they are regrouping under cloak when that cruiser will be back to full HP from crew regen before they decloak?


    A huge part of the problem people don't understand with the scoring right now is that damage and healing doesn't tell you anything. So you do 600K+ damage in a match... so what? That doesn't mean you are better than whoever did 200K. They may be 3 times as good in fact, where you had to do 3 times the HP of a hull to destroy a target, they did it before the target could heal, or disabled their healing or whatever.

    And the same goes for healing. So what if you did 200K healing? Maybe that person that did 100K actually mitigated a lot more damage through maneuver and resist and powers like tractor beam that prevented an enemy from doing much damage, whereas you were sloppy and couldn't prevent any damage.

    A good player doesn't just do a lot of healing and damage, they actually do less because the targets die faster and they take less damage to heal in the first place. Efficiency is not accounted for at all, not by the current system, and not by yours either.


    Trying to put metrics to the unmeasurable is just flawed. It creates a false sense of importance and value when there are many other factors that just can't be measured accurately and can mean as much if not more than the numbers being measured. There is also the aspect of efficiency, as a prolonged battle will greatly inflate scores, while it takes much longer to actually achieve the real objective that a shorter, decisive battle does. Of course a shorter battle may just mean your opponents suck, too.

    And don't forget the wildcard of balance. Should a player who scores better because of a soon-to-be nerfed power/bug/exploit really rate higher than one who doesn't use it? Balance is an ever changing thing and can't really be measured accurately.

    I don't put value in these metrics, not the one in game, nor any replacement metrics, because they do not paint a remotely accurate picture of skill or ability, despite the claim to the contrary. And any automatic metric is inherently exploitable as well.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Foxrocks wrote:
    But this is terrible. It chiefly rewards the button mashing part of the game and little else like strategy and coordination.

    How is maneuver rewarded, say by staying out of a cannon arc for example, or by putting distance between you and a fully buffed tac/escort that makes him waste his alpha strike, or at the very least do much less damage because of the distance and/or defense rating?

    How are non-disabling powers rewarded? Tractor beams, scramble sensors, boarding parties, jam sensors, etc?

    How is debuff removal rewarded, or even SNB for buff removal?

    How is focus fire rewarded when you end up getting more points for non-focus fire by doing more damage over time, and taking more damage to mitigate?

    Why is self-mitigation unrewarded?

    And how can you weight these things done at the right times instead of bad times, say like removing jam sensors debuff immediately when you get hit by it to finish off a dying foe, as opposed to removing it 20s into the skill when you weren't even fighting the debuffer in the first place? Who cares if you heal when the last Klingon died and they are regrouping under cloak when that cruiser will be back to full HP from crew regen before they decloak?


    A huge part of the problem people don't understand with the scoring right now is that damage and healing doesn't tell you anything. So you do 600K+ damage in a match... so what? That doesn't mean you are better than whoever did 200K. They may be 3 times as good in fact, where you had to do 3 times the HP of a hull to destroy a target, they did it before the target could heal, or disabled their healing or whatever.

    And the same goes for healing. So what if you did 200K healing? Maybe that person that did 100K actually mitigated a lot more damage through maneuver and resist and powers like tractor beam that prevented an enemy from doing much damage, whereas you were sloppy and couldn't prevent any damage.

    A good player doesn't just do a lot of healing and damage, they actually do less because the targets die faster and they take less damage to heal in the first place. Efficiency is not accounted for at all, not by the current system, and not by yours either.


    Trying to put metrics to the unmeasurable is just flawed. It creates a false sense of importance and value when there are many other factors that just can't be measured accurately and can mean as much if not more than the numbers being measured. There is also the aspect of efficiency, as a prolonged battle will greatly inflate scores, while it takes much longer to actually achieve the real objective that a shorter, decisive battle does. Of course a shorter battle may just mean your opponents suck, too.

    And don't forget the wildcard of balance. Should a player who scores better because of a soon-to-be nerfed power/bug/exploit really rate higher than one who doesn't use it? Balance is an ever changing thing and can't really be measured accurately.

    I don't put value in these metrics, not the one in game, nor any replacement metrics, because they do not paint a remotely accurate picture of skill or ability, despite the claim to the contrary. And any automatic metric is inherently exploitable as well.

    So what, exactly, do you suggest we measure?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Kinjiru wrote: »
    So what, exactly, do you suggest we measure?

    Well my point was that you can measure whatever you want to, but you're not going to get a system that accurately reflects skill through metrics. Measure anything you want, just don't think it actually tells you anything beyond the raw data measured. That is the issue I have with these suggestions, the idea that you can accurately measure skill through the various numbers that pop up over the ships.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Foxrocks wrote:
    But this is terrible. It chiefly rewards the button mashing part of the game and little else like strategy and coordination.

    How is maneuver rewarded, say by staying out of a cannon arc for example, or by putting distance between you and a fully buffed tac/escort that makes him waste his alpha strike, or at the very least do much less damage because of the distance and/or defense rating?

    How are non-disabling powers rewarded? Tractor beams, scramble sensors, boarding parties, jam sensors, etc?

    How is debuff removal rewarded, or even SNB for buff removal?

    How is focus fire rewarded when you end up getting more points for non-focus fire by doing more damage over time, and taking more damage to mitigate?

    Why is self-mitigation unrewarded?

    And how can you weight these things done at the right times instead of bad times, say like removing jam sensors debuff immediately when you get hit by it to finish off a dying foe, as opposed to removing it 20s into the skill when you weren't even fighting the debuffer in the first place? Who cares if you heal when the last Klingon died and they are regrouping under cloak when that cruiser will be back to full HP from crew regen before they decloak?
    First, a specific response to the specific questions. How are non-damage and non-healing factors rewarded?
    • damage dealt by allies on debuffed target (for the duration of the debuff)
    • damage resisted by allies with non-self resistance buff (for the duration of the buff)
    • enemy subsystem power drained (total drained power for all subsystems on all drained enemies)
    • enemy disabled weapon damage (total of the damage tooltip for all enemy weapons together, on an enemy suffering CC and unable to fire; this total * number of times CCed)
    • Damage = (DamageDealt / DamageReceived) + DamageAssist

    • Healing = [(HullRepairGiven + ShieldRepairGiven) / (HullRepairReceived + ShieldRepairReceived)] + DamageMitigation

    • DamageAssist = (coefficient * DamageDealtByAllies) + EnemyPowerDrained
      where coefficient is a fraction, most likely (1 / totalNumberOfAllies)

    • DamageMitigation = (coefficient * DamageReducedOnAllies) + EnemyDisabledWeaponDamage
      where coefficient is a fraction, most likely (1 / totalNumberOfEnemies)

    • ObjectivePoints = <units the same as those used in Damage and Healing; values arbitrarily assigned dependent upon the map>

    • myParticipation = Damage + Healing + ObjectivePoints

    In other words, buff, resistance, and CC abilities are fully accounted for. Every single ability in the game counts and is measured in these formulae. Self-applied abilities count as well.

    If you create a spreadsheet (as I have already done) and fill in stats as best you can (which can be difficult given the poor CombatLog), you will see that DamageAssist and DamageMitigation components -- primarily buffs, resists, and CC/drains -- end up factoring just as heavily (if not -more- heavily) than direct damage and healing abilities.

    ===

    Now, a blanket response to the rest of your concerns. How can we trust metrics to measure a player's ability? How can we take into account timing rather than button mashing? etc.

    We cannot code a system that says, 'You are a good player' or 'You are a bad player' in comparison to the other players. What we can do is code a system that says, 'You were this active in this match as compared to the other players in that match', and then break down that activity into specific weighted components.

    Is this a perfect indication of who is a 'good player'? No. Is this intended to be an indication of who is a 'good player'? No.

    The intention is to create a system that rewards activity. However, the system is fundamentally composed of two halves: the individual and the team, just like the current implementation of PVP in STO. All of the metrics I mentioned apply only to the individual component, as this helps PUG matchmaking work a lot more fairly (i.e., match up individual players who participate equally, more or less).

    The better metric for the team component is win/loss, but that should -only- apply to registered teams (i.e., premades), so that it does not punish the individual who has no 'control' over their team (i.e., PUG).

    Really, all of this is accounted for in my proposal thread. It's not perfect, but, in my opinion, it's the -closest- we can go, using the system given to us. And, in my opinion, it's better than the current system (or lack thereof).

    ===

    EDIT: Lastly, a disclaimer. I am neither infallible nor a genius. The point of me posting these suggestions in their own proposal thread, rather than e-mailing it to Cryptic directly, is to gather feedback from fellow players. If there is something missing that should be accounted for, say so (in the thread).

    Scramble Sensors was mentioned, for example, and that was a good catch. Add more, fiddle with the formulae if they seem off. The point is to offer alternatives to Cryptic that they can use to give us a better, more competitive yet rewarding game.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Problem with this idea is that the queues can take a long time as it is, I dont want to wait 2/3 times as long to wait for a smaller group of people to pool from.
Sign In or Register to comment.