Methods for judging individual player effectiveness [POLL]

For the sake of this poll, level of skill is defined as how much a player can be expected to contribute to victory in any single game he/she plays.

I deliberately included the "damage taken w/o losing a location" option because let's face it, tanking is just as valid a strategy here as it is in any other MMO. If it wasn't, then assaults, ECM, and AMS wouldn't be part of the game.

I have allowed people to change their votes at will, because I think it would be very useful to see how people's opinions change as the game develops.

 

This depends on the game type.

While contributing 500 points of damage in a match shows that someone actually showed up to play being able to run around and act as ECM and cap Points in Conquest is also equally important.

 

The problem I have with that description is that certain game types have skills that can't be effectively transferred to other game types.

For example, in Conquest, being able to evade your enemy and hit a point, cap it quickly, and move one before they catch up to you is quite useful as a skill set. However, it's almost useless in Assault, because A) It's much harder to capture that base, and B) Because there is only one base, it's much easier for the enemy to interfere with and kill you. Unless the enemy is extremely incompetent, the best you will manage is MAYBE a minute of distraction, depending on how big the map is and how slow the enemy is.

By contrast, the skill set that lets you catch and slaughter enemy mechs w/o getting slaughtered in turn is extremely useful no matter what game mode you are playing.

If MWO had implemented a "Damage Prevented" score (i.e., how many seconds of friendly ECM coverage you provided, number of missiles shot down, etc.), I would have made that a pole choice instead of Most Damage taken. But they didn't, so I didn't.

 

And this is why the game is currently broken.

As the contribution is only counted, via XP and c-Bills, in damage, kills and kill assists and all that is linked to it.

I was running this morning with 3 friends in a Light/Cicada combo and we ROCKED Conquest. Mostly due to capping the shit out of the other team but also when it came to rounding up stragglers.

But yea... your poll just shows why this game has still a long way to go before it is "fair".

 

This reminds me of a capture game I had not too long ago on Alpine.

I went capping with a friendly Cicada (I was running my Cent -D). Rest of the team gets wiped out and I get banged up pretty good, but we're ahead on resources and there are only 3-4 enemies left. I start heading for a capped node, and I see in chat

"What is he doing?"

"Capping."

"Why, he should just go ahead and end it. This is a waste of time."

A couple of the other friendlies backed me up, and I knew that it was more for the glory than for any kind of tangible reward... and that's the problem. That discussion should never happen - winning should convey enough of a reward that people actually root for their own team instead of just wanting to re-queue.

My side ended up winning the match (barely got away from an Atlas trap at the end), but it was a little hollow...

I'd do it again though.

 

I don't see a clear metric for translating tactical acumen into a score.

There's something like
((Damage - TeamDamage) x (Kills + Assists/2 - TK))/AlphaDamage + CapTicks
comes close to capturing it. However, it still doesn't cover the value of a flanker flushing out enemies, LRM pressure, use of TAG, etc.

 

I don't think alpha damage should be below. I see no problem in building a cheesy high alpha damage build. Tonnage is better since match pairing is affected by tonnage and not alpha damage.

For all I care if a cheese build would help my team win, join in! There will always be minx/max cheese build, and those who use it effectively is a good pilot. That, and being able to design/find a good build is an important skill also.

A pilot that does good in stock Jager is an ok teammate, but he would be GREAT if he learn to pilot the mech with a better custom setup (boomjagers, SRM builds, Gauss, etc).

I think TD/TN would be a good way to do it. But this does not account for the ability to do things as a team. Scouting, capping, haressing, ECM, ASM support, BAPing for LRMs, etc are all important roles that does not get taken into account.

I was thinking about something akin to xp gained per match. Unfortunately while "xp gained per match" would tell you something more about a player performance, it is not too accurate either. You can easily harvest assists with a grinding mech and some long range AC/2 + Tag, but that does not mean you are being effective.

That, and from the current reward system, sometimes killing things are much more rewarding than winning. Same reason why capping is being looked down on in the regular games (even killing and losing give you more cbills).

 

I was effective. hear:

 

The thing about high-alpha builds is that they draw down everybody else's damage. The same sort of thing thing happened back when LRMs were king.

I know people--who will remain nameless--who drop only high alpha builds and try to make a game out of keeping the other lance from scoring any kills or doing much damage.

 

If only there was reward for winning via cap. A Raven or Jenner can overpower another team and circle cap the map and with without firing a shot as his team grinds the enemy, yet, for the light's trouble of resource collection, what does he get? A few thousand C-Bills, a few hundred XP and a team who's pissed for not letting them kill everyone. That is my biggest gripe in this meta. I love the game, but, I wish there was more reward and more respect for actually playing the game-mode instead of "everything's a death-match."

For judging players ASIDE from those who go for game-mode wins, I would go with Kill/Death ratio. At least in the death-match play-style.

Chatt.

 

^^ soooooo this!!! I am equally annoyed with the fact that some people think Light mechs should average 500 damage. That's not their role. Without a way to show something for capping, we are left by the wayside. I managed 6 caps in one round, got nothing for it. No kills, less than 50 points in damage, yet won the round. Through the methods described in your poll, I would have been considered non-effective. Utterly frustrating! :angry:

 

I find it very easy and effective to run a Jenner F as a kill seeker. I think many people do. 500 damage and 3-4 kills a round is easily within reason for the mech. However, that is no the point. I drive the fastest mech, topping 150kph, to accomplish match objectives. Yet, my team mates get pissed unless we are about to lose from points. Then, EVVVVVERYBODY suddenly loves the light...

 

I've had rounds when I have killed 6-7 mechs in my Jenner but that doesn't necessarily win team matches on conquest. Lights FTW

 

That, and capping in assault is currently being looked down upon, even if you helped your team to win.

 

None of these things in the poll quantify skill.

 

My point exactly! I think if you were actually able to get equal c-bills for that win and the pilots who actually got the cap got equal XP, this would balance some. There will still always be players who just want a death-match mode and that is all they will ever want. However, when I strategically place myself in position to capture resources, use my speed to stay ahead of an enemy force, use distraction and cover to avoid and route my enemy - at this point - I am penalized. Be it C-Bills, XP or just harassed by everyone in the match for accomplishing the objective.

I'm not a fan of that aspect.

Chatt.