CHANGE REQUEST to PUGs

  • Hey - turns out IRC is out and something a little more modern has taken it's place... A little thing called Discord!

    Join our community @ https://discord.gg/JuaSzXBZrk for a pick-up game, or just to rekindle with fellow community members.

Its really nice Timo. Its fun to watch stats after a pug. LIke from pug last night well see blue win 4-2
even tho Red has 3 top fraggers only twnz with same avg240. Its not all about frag skills when we pick teams. So should stop all crying about picking teams "fragwise" . AS u also can see there were 88 launches vs 24 for blue team. Obvious what made blue team win =).

http://www.utassault.net/pugstats/?p=uta_match&matchcode=aoQ2tX1H&sort=kills


I think though it would be nice Timo to reset stats from 2013-01-01 WITH XBs new rating about importance of the objectives. Clearly we should save stats for 2012 fun to backtrack. But would also b nice for a cleah new start.
Thats my opinion. ANd this would b even better if its possible to solve this with XBs new rating of importance of the obj.

I also thought something out last night but dunno if thats possible to solve. Like pug last night we played i actually got last objective on autorop via test room without even despatch and development finished.

Would own if stats could in a case like that give all points for all obj to the the one finising it.
LIke in XBs case below i would get 7+1+8+4= 4OBJ and 20 points.

AutoRIP
1. Despatch (7)
2. Defence Door (1)
3. Development (8)
4. Bomb (4)
Click to expand...

Same goes with Warhead. If TWNZ get warhead before gen taken he should get all obj before warhead thats not yet bin taken. If Main gate still up he gets Main gate + Gen + Warhead points.

Doable? kinda like that idea.

//DJ
 
Would need to remake map for that, since gen still needs to be taken after warhead.

Autorip will need to be remade so its like bridge final where all objectives are tied to final. Probably easier to edit map then recode pug stats
 
Yes, it would indeed be down to how the map chains objectives together, rather than us having to compensate with extra code in the stats, which may not be suitable for all maps.

For example, some may feel that on some maps, since the other objectives were not on the critical path for achieving the final, why should people be awarded for them.

I'll have some time to review the ranking calculator between xmas and new year, so can look at ensuring the code for the objective weighting calculation is working too.
 
Warmup has always been included and shown in stats, as it would be incredibly difficult to differentiate between warmup and non-warmup in the calculation routines. The only way we know it's a warmup in the view is because it's the first map after it's all been imported and ordered...

When the log files are imported, they are not often inserted and [stats acc,eff etc] calculated in the correct order, so would require changes to the pug server in order to have the relevant info available during import... Not something I'd be looking at doing soon.
 
hope it goes well for the puggers :)

may try reinstall UT and join the odd pug next year if stats are back and pug actually had some structure lol :)
 
Ok, I can confirm that the objective rating has always been used to calculate ranks (since UTA Stats days).

So, moving forward, perhaps I need a better explanation of the scale of the numbers you've put XB, because there doesn't seem to be much alignment across maps as I thought there would be (as is currently), e.g. Final on some maps is much higher or lower than others - shouldn't they be the same? Or should all objective values add up to a certain amount? Or are you just taking difficulty to attack in to account, cost of targets etc?

Just need to understand how best to convert those numbers into a multiplier rating, given that's what the code is expecting.

If you take a look at a players Explained Ranking page, then you will see that their ranking is calculated based on a number of factors, of which objective ratings are taken into account, but they are actually calculated depending on team sizes, so for example if the team size is 6v5 attacking, then the overall value added to an attacking players rank through objective completion is less than if it were even teams.

So, example:

Player A takes 4 objectives worth 0.1, 2 x 0.5 and 1, objective ranking in a 6v6 is roughly calculated at:

0.1 * 6000
+
2*(0.5) * 6000
+
1 * 6000
=
12600 objective points.

Even player matches give multipliers of 6000, matches with 5v6 would give a multiplier of 7000, 6v5 would give a multiplier of 4000, for example.

Of course, being able to build fluid multipliers which adjust based on the existing known ranking of the opposite team would give much better rank calculations i.e. beating a much harder team should yield better rankings, but I wouldn't really know where to start with that!
 
Last edited:
hi Timo,

The objective ratings i have used are based on how difficult they are to attack (as you put it "cost of target"). I think this is the best method as there are so many useless objectives not even worth points!

The interesting twist is the multiplier since obtaining objectives can get easier/harder depending on number of players playing. I still think in most cases the difficulty of objective is about the same so only the multipliers need adjusting once the new objective ratings have been entered.
 
Last edited:
I think the objective rating system is a good idea and the values seem good too. That is probably what needs to be implemented the most right now because every objective having a value of 6000 in 6v6 from Laser Field to Warhead is definitely not fair.

I agree that being launched should not give any points and I don't see why it should, the result of the launch is what should earn you points in theory. At first I also thought that setting a hammer launch should give 300 points, but it would probably be better being a little higher. People play different roles in a 6v6 pug and some are exclusively launchers and you can't launch on defence or constantly throughout an attack, so maybe it should be worth more, certainly not 1800 though.

As for fragging, I think you need to look at the values again. Reducing the fragging multiplier and leaving deaths the same is a blatant hit at front defenders. The increased point gain on doubles, multis and sprees also appeal primarily to back def. A front defender will rarely hit a rampage or anything over a multi, and these original values have hardly been changed at all (a double is the same as now on your system, a multi gives 300 more), while a godlike from a back defender would give nearly 10x the value of what it is right now. You said you want to "promote good back defence" in your post, which I agree with and think is a good idea but I don't see why front defence should suffer at the same time. Like I said with launching there are different roles in a 6v6 pug and fragging IS one of them even if that is not how you play or what you personally feel the game is about.

You said that you balanced the new fragging points around 15 frags = a decent objective, but the value of fragging will go down more than you think due to deaths staying the same and efficiency taking a hit (which IMO should be part of the ranking, as much as anything else)

If you take a look at the ranking, players like Wakk and DJ who play more of a pure fragging game style aren't even in the top 10. In all the stats I have looked at during the last week, Wakk has been the top fragger nearly every time. This doesn't suggest to me that there is an issue with frag points, BUT, since the average points earned from objectives would go down with your system due to the objective ratings I do think that the fragging multipliers need to change. I suggest a 225 / -75 multiplier, keeping the values down but not rendering efficiency completely useless. The values of doubles, multis etc should be adjusted accordingly in this case.
 
Last edited:
have adjusted HL and RL after looking at stats, there doesnt seem to be too much launching afterall so higher value needed for launchers as they simply wont be able to keep up with objective takers without. But think it might be slightly to high, will have to review if implemented.

Frag / Death multiplier i have edited about 100 times, have to try and calculate many things to work out what a fair level is for all, some people get more action upfront then others. I've gone with 225/-75 which is same ratio as original 300/-100. But now fragging keeps in check with objective taking. Just means back defenders get shafted a bit as they get less action and therefore will always score lower then upfront defenders just because they dont see as much action. 225/-85 might be better? (less deaths (minus points) for back defender offset by more deaths front defender who gets more kills)

As for doubles/multis thats definetly advantage for front def they are more likely to hit these more often then back defender. Ultra and Monster I've never seen and im mostly back def so this is no advantage to front or back really.

Double is an increase if u take into account frag multiplier will be reduced (so it is a change). Multi is a massive increase (worth 4x a normal frag + all the frags to obtain it). These changes definitely favouring front defenders (e.g beach defence bridge, far more likely to see multi then base defender (who probably never get one)). Autorip front lift/laser defender far more likely then some1 sitting on the stairs at back or test room. The whole team is defending but only the front guy gaining ranking points.

Am happy with multipliers as they are in my post #71, so if anyone else has input feel free to post. Anyone wondering what I am talking about please see image attached Blue x Red (multipliers).
 

Attachments

  • multipliers.JPG
    multipliers.JPG
    114.2 KB · Views: 20
Last edited:
That seems very fair now, I would either go with 225 / -75 and reduce the bonus of doubles, multis, ultras, or 225 / -85 and keep the bonus. But you are assuming that back def get shafted because they don't see as much action which isn't always true (depending on map). Riv is quite often the top fragger on his team and will usually frag more than the front def when he's on ramp at Warhead. Insp got a godlike and ended with like 70 frags as back def on Asthen. It just depends on the quality of the front def, so to change the values assuming that front def frag more is risky. In one pug twnZ was up front on Warhead def but got fragged by like 3 attackers nearly every time he could get out of the window

225 / -75 seems fairer for the attacking team too, because it isn't just about the defending team.
 
w1sh said:
That seems very fair now, I would either go with 225 / -75 and reduce the bonus of doubles, multis, ultras, or 225 / -85 and keep the bonus. But you are assuming that back def get shafted because they don't see as much action which isn't always true (depending on map). Riv is quite often the top fragger on his team and will usually frag more than the front def when he's on ramp at Warhead. Insp got a godlike and ended with like 70 frags as back def on Asthen. It just depends on the quality of the front def, so to change the values assuming that front def frag more is risky. In one pug twnZ was up front on Warhead def but got fragged by like 3 attackers nearly every time he could get out of the window

225 / -75 seems fairer for the attacking team too, because it isn't just about the defending team.
Click to expand...

u don't even pug anymore
 
w1sh said:
I think the objective rating system is a good idea and the values seem good too. That is probably what needs to be implemented the most right now because every objective having a value of 6000 in 6v6 from Laser Field to Warhead is definitely not fair.
Click to expand...

Think you missed a post or two, as this isn't how it works currently at all.

With Ballistic as an example, currently in a 6v6:

Laser field is worth 600 points
Main gate is worth 6000 points
Generator is worth 9000 points
Warhead loader is worth 9000 points
Final is worth 6000 points

So all i will be doing is tweaking these multipliers (both the team size and objectives) based on the consensus of this thread.
 
Ahh yeah I missed that. I thought that all objectives gave the same amount atm :hangover:

So will the average points from objectives per map stay the same as now or will there be a change? Asking because I assumed that the frag points were being reduced to stay in line with a reduction in objective points (and there currently doesn't seem to be a problem with frags giving too many points).
 
will there be a reset from 2013-01-01 ? Or reset later in January from same date?

If so ill might start play diffrently from what i do atm.:)

--> more armors, more easy objectives, more going front, get launched more. Thats how to get points.

Its really hard with stats. The one who takes armor and attacks warhead has 10 times higher chanse get warhead then the player without armor. Usually the less good player gets 0 armors during pugs. This will give the better players even more points as they keep taking armors AND launches and the glitch between top player and bottom will b even higher.

Hard to do something about this really.

I never pld trying get as many obj as possible. I think ppl do so atm tho during pugs. Thats what i noticed at least. WAy more players even on warmup just to get free objectives lol.

And ppl trying get useless obj to gain more points. LIke Main Gate on bridge ppl shooting the gate instead of cover a launch from start.

My own gamestyle does not fit this system what so ever. But i still think its fun to watch some stats after.

Ill never get the useless obj as i dont care and never has. Only focusing on development, samsiite, warhead etc. Rest useless obj ill never focused on which now stats from last summer is based on. Im also almost always at back def which shows fragging is less then many more. That is not shown either in the stas. Dunno really either how to solve this.

If i make 3-5 mega saves at end on Dungoens and front just front run shock 40 guys its not really fair in stats.
Every1 wants to go front.

Best way is keep track of a player if he pld front 1 pug the next he should b back def. But cant keep track of this.
The on defender on bridge beach will get 50 frags compared to the one defending cave on bridge.

There must be some ways rate frags better or make stats more "useful".
At the moment i just watch them and think its fun to see like whos bottom and whos top.
 
Ermmm dunno about you DJ but I don't think anyone is using the stats to play competitively. Its just a nice way to see how well you played.

Also, about the front defence BS. I think being back defence is actually better! Look at the last 10 pugs I've played, I am usually second or first in terms of frags and I'm often not that far behind front fraggers, and I am ALWAYS back defence. I also have noticed that I usually die the least out of everyone in the entire pug (because of being back defence)

It's true in theory that front fraggers are bound to get more frags, but then again they die a lot more than back defenders, and if your a good player then you can stack up a lot of frags even whilst playing back defence.

edit: btw, before people start think im trying to say i'm the best, im not, just trying to make the point that I think back defenders have it better as long as your good.
 
Last edited:
Timo said that objectives are rated on the current system so people going for those useless objectives wouldn't see much of an increase anyway, and Warhead / Samsite etc give more points. People getting launched won't give any points I guess once Timo changes the multiplier so that won't be an issue in the future.

More armors doesn't necessarily mean more objectives, yes there's a higher chance to get the objective but people who are seen to have armor generally get hunted by the defenders. I also looked at the armor stats and it seems quite even amongst players (btw, if someone throws you an armor does this count as a pick up?)

Fragging upfront will be effective if you manage to keep a decent efficiency, which isn't guaranteed. I do agree that the system cannot be 100% fair due to the nature of AS but I think the changes that XB propose will make it as fair as possible. The only extra thing I can suggest for back defenders is to possibly do something with the Average Time to Live stat. Not sure if this can be coded but perhaps you could get a bonus the longer you stay alive, the stats do record this anyway. Btw, since when have you been a back defender?! :P

DJ said:
LIke Main Gate on bridge ppl shooting the gate instead of cover a launch from start.
Click to expand...
This was obviously going to happen when the stats came back though :lol: Only answer for that is to remove the ranking altogether and just have stats for each pug at the end of the game, that would probably be the easiest solution. There are way too many intangibles in AS and the ranking should be seen as just a bit of fun and not the Holy Grail :]
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back