PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds PC Full Release |OT| El pollo es mio

Crushed · Oct 3, 2018

The update is out, but it currently seems a bit dodgy re: the region lock stuff.

On the one hand, OCE players can finally get games again, though sometimes they get sent to SEA or AS.

On the other, some people across various regions like NA and EU are getting bounced to various other regions even when theoretically there's enough servers/players that they shouldn't be getting sent to another region so quickly because the queues are too long.

Jest · Oct 3, 2018

Crushed said:
The update is out, but it currently seems a bit dodgy re: the region lock stuff.

On the one hand, OCE players can finally get games again, though sometimes they get sent to SEA or AS.

On the other, some people across various regions like NA and EU are getting bounced to various other regions even when theoretically there's enough servers/players that they shouldn't be getting sent to another region so quickly because the queues are too long.

The auto region was supposed to be based on ping I thought, not necessarily queue times.

Crushed · Oct 3, 2018

Jest said:
The auto region was supposed to be based on ping I thought, not necessarily queue times.

I think it's a balance where it starts at lower ping servers and then goes upward if it can't find matches or think it'll take too long, because that's the only explanation of what's happening.

Jest · Oct 3, 2018

Crushed said:
I think it's a balance where it starts at lower ping servers and then goes upward if it can't find matches or think it'll take too long, because that's the only explanation of what's happening.

That's an interesting idea. Of course it's going to annoy people though.

kueijin · Oct 3, 2018

As an oc server guy a price I'm willing to make everyone else pay, sick of people telling us it was the server population.

LuckyLactose · Oct 3, 2018

Uh, so with the recent patch things are definitely interesting...
Apart from the issues I had with input settings not being saved until I set them 3 or 4 times, and the change making jumping from the plane now forcing you in the direction of the plane's travel... AND the "hitting Start from the lobby doesn't necessarily actually DO anything" bug.

I just landed in Sanhok, and ran towards the first weapon I saw. So did another player. We both reached it roughly at the same time, with the other player collecting the weapon right before me. Out of desperation I started trying to punch the other player.
... which resulted in me teleporting backwards once per punch, through the wall, to safety. (Sort of. The next house I entered had someone sitting in wait who instantly gunned me down.)

abracadaver · Oct 3, 2018

This makes it look pretty cool

Crushed · Oct 3, 2018

*clears gatka of 3 people and makes a miraculous rush into south george*

okayyy

*runs the bridge on the bike, someone kills me in an alley but my bike runs them over after i die*

lol okay

*complete two large weekly challenges*

awesome

*get a permanent reward early, it's a biker jacket to go with my glasses and erangel biker pants*

HELL YE-

*it's Miramr Biker Jacket so it doesn't match*

gdi

Also, when I can actually get a game and the queues aren't graying out and busted, I'm actually getting really good ping??

Divius · Oct 3, 2018

Just played a game and had terrible ping, packet loss, red symbol galore. Never had that problem before. Might sit this patch out until the next hotfix.

I live in Holland. There is a server in Holland. Bluehole pls.

Jest · Oct 3, 2018

Picking a specific map tends to result in better ping so far. Though I think this has a side effect as it's splitting the queue between 3 maps on top of the new system of matching pings. Throw quick join into the mix and it's a lot of variables for the system to try to match up and it's just not doing it very effectively on a large scale.

LuckyLactose · Oct 3, 2018

Crushed said:
Also, when I can actually get a game and the queues aren't graying out and busted, I'm actually getting really good ping??

I've been having some matches with very low ping as well -- 20ish. Then again, there's also been a few 120+ (yellow), plus various warning symbols I don't understand. Looking forward to some proper duos this weekend to try things out for real :)

Crushed · Oct 4, 2018

I'm still getting good ping (from 55-70 before to 35-50 now), but I have seen a lot of weird shit.

-The queue gray out bug, which I can usually fix with resetting the lobby. After that I get a match either instantly or slightly longer than the ETA.
-Inventory bugginess (Ammo counts not showing up on a gun, a scope being both on the gun and a "ghost" in the inventory where I can't do anything but drop it)
-When people jump it's like they... spring forward much faster, and it visually looks striking at range. I've seen people do a goddamn Mario long jump while sniping them, and twice I've been running a person down dead on and they spring out of the way at the last second.
-Once I died and my body fell through the world, and I've killed three different people who suddenly fell through the ground when they died, like comically fast ragdolling into quicksand.

Olaf · Oct 4, 2018

Does the game feel different to any of you? A lot harder to get high kill rounds for me, as if people are trying more than before?

LuckyLactose · Oct 4, 2018

Crushed said:
Once I died and my body fell through the world, and I've killed three different people who suddenly fell through the ground when they died, like comically fast ragdolling into quicksand.

Possibly related, I had an incident where I killed someone and their character mesh kinda exploded for a brief moment. Vertices/triangles of the mesh stretching in all kinds of directions. Basically looked like a divide by zero thing.

Crushed · Oct 4, 2018

Was having two decent back to back games, then when I died sandwiched between two people in the second one (I kept wondering why the guy on my right wasn't shooting the guy on my left), I spectated and saw they were teaming, which was the first I've seen that in ages.

c043y · Oct 5, 2018

Crushed said:
Was having two decent back to back games, then when I died sandwiched between two people in the second one (I kept wondering why the guy on my right wasn't shooting the guy on my left), I spectated and saw they were teaming, which was the first I've seen that in ages.

funny enough, I was talking shit in the lobby/plane so I go "land at Quarry if you're bad!!!" it was duos, and they did. He got an SKS and downed me right away lol, but when I said "I respect you for actually landing here" they decided not to kill me and asked if I wanted to team lol. So we said yes (with the intention of killing them later) - my teammate comes with his weapons put away and revives me.

I had never teamed before so it was just hilarious to me, we end up fighting another team right away, down that guy, and then get them to join - but then they turned before WE had a chance to and everyone but my teammate ended up dying. SO funny, that had never happened to me before.

Hupfen · Oct 5, 2018

Olaf said:
Does the game feel different to any of you? A lot harder to get high kill rounds for me, as if people are trying more than before?

It certainly feels like the ranking system has people trying a little more. I know it's influenced me a little bit, but when I can hit Platinum by generally dropping mild and avoiding most combat, maybe the rank doesn't mean very much. XD

Deleted member 21996 · Oct 5, 2018

Edit: posted in wrong PUBG thread

abracadaver · Oct 6, 2018

Reported a cheater on thursday evening and when I started the game yesterday I got a message that he was permanently banned. Feels good man.
It was also the only cheater I encountered/noticed this week. (He insta headshotted me with an M24 from 200m away)

Also Miramar became my favourite map in the last few weeks.

spineduke · Oct 6, 2018

this event is dumb

vehicles arent even a guaranteed spawn

Pegasus Actual · Oct 6, 2018

I kept drinking beers and yelling at my screen until I inexplicably finally got a dinner. Can't say I love the new map select though... I mean it would be great if I could get on a map I wanted to play, but instead it's infinite queue unless you pick Sanhok, or Quickplay, which is essentially also Sanhok 24/7.

Peekers advantage is something else in this game. Oh, and west coast servers plz bluehole.

LuckyLactose · Oct 6, 2018

I figured out the jumping out of plane camera behavior working sometimes, and snapping to face in direction of flight path other times.
If you face to the right side of the flight path, the camera doesn't snap back. If you face to the left of the flight path, the camera snaps back.

Sounds crazy, but seems easy to reproduce/verify.

Crushed · Oct 6, 2018

please stick around until just before the 8 minute mark for one of the funniest deaths i have ever seen

demosthenes · Oct 7, 2018

Crushed said:
please stick around until just before the 8 minute mark for one of the funniest deaths i have ever seen

Amazing

Pegasus Actual · Oct 7, 2018

That chocoTaco clip is hilarious.

I blew a dinner earlier thanks to the ADS thing where it kicks you out of ADS if you fall 6 inches. What the fuck, ok I get it I'm falling I have hip accuracy but don't make me unclick and reclick to get ADS back that is just fucked up.

But then I snagged a 2k dinner against the #4 player on the NA FPP leaderboard, who was on a 14k. Christ looking at the guy's stats I dunno, he has an 825m kill this season in solos (65% headshots) and a 733m in squads already this season? What the fuck kind of psychopath was I dealing with?

abracadaver · Oct 8, 2018

Is anyone else getting worse performance now?

My game was pretty much locked at 144fps before but now it's dropping to 120fps a lot.

Not sure what did it. Update #22 or Windows update or the new Nvidia drivers

abracadaver · Oct 8, 2018

Oops: double post

Jest · Oct 8, 2018

The new Nvidia drivers have definitely had a negative impact on PUBG. Shadows are going nuts all over the place and reportedly you can now see the shadow of people who are above you inside a building. It's completely jacked up. I'm also running into way more cheaters. Had a guy shoot me through a door but the door took no damage and then he promptly ran through the closed door spraying at me. Only pure luck I was able to kill him before he did me.

pksu · Oct 8, 2018

Jest said:
The new Nvidia drivers have definitely had a negative impact on PUBG. Shadows are going nuts all over the place and reportedly you can now see the shadow of people who are above you inside a building. It's completely jacked up.

It's not about Nvidia, the bug exists on AMD too unfortunately. Lobby is way more broken than ever before for some reason, I can't see anyone (except icons on bottom right corner) anymore and "waiting for reply" is stuck on bottom yet the game usually launches anyway when everyone is ready. Also every time I click ready or toggle lobby settings everything stutters for a while as if the game was making synchronous network requests.

At least you can see ping now! Sometimes you get 30-50 ms, sometimes 150-200 right on start so you can just exit immediately.

spineduke · Oct 8, 2018

Anyone try Ring of Elyesium yet? it looks mechanically very similar to PUBG (with far easier recoil - a bit too easy from what im seeing)

abracadaver · Oct 9, 2018

Wonder when DLSS will be implemented

Hupfen · Oct 9, 2018

I'm feeling like the ranking system is weighted heavily towards survival, maybe too much so. I just hit Elite in solo FPP, and I did it by dropping really mild and avoiding people most of the time. My K/D isn't even at 1.0, don't even have a win on record this season. Sure, I usually last until top 30, periodically top 10, but that's just because I'm evasive rather than especially good at encounters. I don't think I should be third-from-top rank with that kind of playstyle, honestly. Diamond, platinum, I guess, but I feel like I should at least have to have a 1.0 K/D to get here.

Jest · Oct 9, 2018

Hupfen said:
I'm feeling like the ranking system is weighted heavily towards survival, maybe too much so. I just hit Elite in solo FPP, and I did it by dropping really mild and avoiding people most of the time. My K/D isn't even at 1.0, don't even have a win on record this season. Sure, I usually last until top 30, periodically top 10, but that's just because I'm evasive rather than especially good at encounters. I don't think I should be third-from-top rank with that kind of playstyle, honestly. Diamond, platinum, I guess, but I feel like I should at least have to have a 1.0 K/D to get here.

The game is about survival first and foremost. Sure a person can rack up tons of kills but the goal is to be the last one alive, not to kill a lot of people. Any strat that results in you living longer is a good strat.

Pegasus Actual · Oct 9, 2018

Jest said:
The game is about survival first and foremost. Sure a person can rack up tons of kills but the goal is to be the last one alive, not to kill a lot of people. Any strat that results in you living longer is a good strat.

Yes. The goal is to be the last one alive. Which she has not accomplished once this season. So how can you say her strategy is better than some 'gold leaguer' that hot drops, and gets a dinner 1 out of 40 times but often flames out at 90th place trying to acquire some game winning loot?

Ideally a ranking system should only be based on winning. As in #2-#99 are all losers, and they all lose points for being such losers. 2nd place is just a loser who wasted more of his time to lose. I get that people would get super mad and discouraged by such a ranking system, but that doesn't make me wrong.

If you want to go off in the weeds on what the players think a ranking system 'should' encompass then clearly as a group they care at least as much about taking fights and getting kills as the ultimate dinner. So kills are massively undervalued by the current rating system. The rating system the community wants would be something like winrate*KD/avgplacement, none of this pseudo ELO bullshit they have going on their leaderboards.

Jest · Oct 9, 2018

Pegasus Actual said:
Yes. The goal is to be the last one alive. Which he has not accomplished once this season. So how can you say his strategy is better than some 'gold leaguer' that hot drops, and gets a dinner 1 out of 40 times but often flames out at 90th place trying to acquire some game winning loot?

Ideally a ranking system should only be based on winning. As in #2-#99 are all losers, and they all lose points for being such losers. 2nd place is just a loser who wasted more of his time to lose. I get that people would get super mad and discouraged by such a ranking system, but that doesn't make me wrong.

If you want to go off in the weeds on what the players think a ranking system 'should' encompass then clearly as a group they care at least as much about taking fights and getting kills as the ultimate dinner. So kills are massively undervalued by the current rating system. The rating system the community wants would be somethink like winrate*KD/avgplacement, none of this pseudo ELO bullshit they have going on their leaderboards.

First, you're assuming that the Gold Leaguer gets a win at 1 in 40 games. Second, averaging higher finishes overall in a survival based game shows that you're far more consistent at surviving.

It doesn't really matter whether "the community" wants kills weighed higher (which isn't something that can actually be proven). The game objective takes precedence over whatever it is the community wants to do within the confines of the game. What you're suggesting is like saying a CoD Ranking system should weigh 360 no scope headshots higher than regular kills. It's nonsense.

Now if Tourneys want to weigh kills as high or higher than placement, that's fine because the goal of a tournament is different than that of the game intent. Hot dropping players don't care about getting a chicken dinner. They want to get into gun fights. This is what Warmode is for. Battle Royale, however, is about placing as high as you can.

Pegasus Actual · Oct 9, 2018

Jest said:
First, you're assuming that the Gold Leaguer gets a win at 1 in 40 games.

I'm assuming.... you.. uhh... what?!? It was a fucking hypothetical player! Are you seriously disputing the basic premise? Do you really need a concrete example? Literally all that's required to make my point is a player that actually wins a game that isn't ranked as Elite.

Second, averaging higher finishes overall in a survival based game shows that you're far more consistent at surviving.

No it doesn't. Because you still die once. Just like every other player that doesn't win. How can you be consistent at surviving without you know... actually surviving?

It doesn't really matter whether "the community" wants kills weighed higher (which isn't something that can actually be proven).

Right. Can't be proven. And you can't prove the opposite. But I mean, you can watch streams, you can look up reddit, you can read this thread. If you don't think people generally feel like kills are undervalued in the current overall rating system you're really jumping some mental hurdles

The game objective takes precedence over whatever it is the community wants to do within the confines of the game. What you're suggesting is like saying a CoD Ranking system should weigh 360 no scope headshots higher than regular kills. It's nonsense.

No, your comparison is nonsense. There are plenty of analogous montage-type kills you could pull from PUBG that people go for. Pans for the dinner, crossbows, etc, none of which I brought up. It's an extra stupid point to try to make since the rating system I actually want derives solely from wins anyway. Disingenuous garbage.

Now if Tourneys want to weigh kills as high or higher than placement, that's fine because the goal of a tournament is different than that of the game intent. Hot dropping players don't care about getting a chicken dinner. They want to get into gun fights. This is what Warmode is for. Battle Royale, however, is about placing as high as you can.

Except you're the one making up game intent here.

Description of the game on Steam:

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS is a battle royale shooter that pits 100 players against each other in a struggle for survival. Gather supplies and outwit your opponents to become the last person standing.

It doesn't say "to last as long as possible". That is just shit you're making up. I'm not saying placement isn't a thing that players value... which is why I threw it into my half-ass-but-still-better-than-PUBG's-actual-leaderboard formula.

And you can go further into the Battle Royale movie to get a feel for where the whole genre is coming from. Didn't seem like 8th place was that excited about placing that highly as they died. They even had a couple of characters in there that were actually in it more for the kill count than surviving.

Jest · Oct 9, 2018

Pegasus Actual said:
I'm assuming.... you.. uhh... what?!? It was a fucking hypothetical player! Are you seriously disputing the basic premise? Do you really need a concrete example? Literally all that's required to make my point is a player that actually wins a game that isn't ranked as Elite.

You didn't think any of this through. 1 win in 40 times is an expression of average. Does the player have only 40 games played? Does the player have 240 games played? What about the player ranked Elite? They have zero wins but do they only have 15 games played? Or do they have 500? The specific actually matter as once you are placed in a ranking, you earn points based on a number of things. This is how you move up or down in divisions. So playing more games overall makes a huge difference in how many points one can accrue.

So it's baseless to assume that a Gold League player can be in Gold League with an average of 1 win in 40 attempts while averaging a 90th place finish with no other specifics.

Pegasus Actual said:
No it doesn't. Because you still die once. Just like every other player that doesn't win. How can you be consistent at surviving without you know... actually surviving?
Right. Can't be proven. And you can't prove the opposite. But I mean, you can watch streams, you can look up reddit, you can read this thread. If you don't think people generally feel like kills are undervalued in the current overall rating system you're really jumping some mental hurdles

They average out your placement for a reason. If you place higher more often, that average is higher. If I've won a single game but I average 70th overall it's quite easy to say I'm worse at surviving than someone who averages a top 10 finish, even if they've never won a single game. This isn't rocket science.

Pegasus Actual said:
No, your comparison is nonsense. There are plenty of analogous montage-type kills you could pull from PUBG that people go for. Pans for the dinner, crossbows, etc, none of which I brought up. It's an extra stupid point to try to make since the rating system I actually want derives solely from wins anyway. Disingenuous garbage.

The comparison is apt in that what we're discussing is the way people play a game that has nothing to do with the end result. Just because it's popular to play Battle Royale like a Deathmatch does not mean that Battle Royale performance/skill should be judged the same way Deathmatch is. Because that's not the purpose of the game mode.

Pegasus Actual said:
Except you're the one making up game intent here.

No. Literally the point of Battle Royale is to survive as long as possible. Some games have it be a sole survivor that wins. Some have it be teams. Some have it be several people even when they aren't on the same team. The common denominator is always trying to survive longer. It is not "kill as many other people as possible."

Pegasus Actual said:
Description of the game on Steam:

It doesn't say "to last as long as possible". That is just shit you're making up. I'm not saying placement isn't a thing that players value... which is why I threw it into my half-ass-but-still-better-than-PUBG's-actual-leaderboard formula.

And you can go further into the Battle Royale movie to get a feel for where the whole genre is coming from. Didn't seem like 8th place was that excited about placing that highly as they died. They even had a couple of characters in there that were actually in it more for the kill count than surviving.

"Pit against each other in a Battle of Survival." is the most relevant part of the game description. As even the last part, "gather supplies and outwit your opponent to become the last person standing" doesn't apply to team modes. And nowhere in the description does it say you must kill the other players. Calling upon the movie is meaningless because character motivations for the intent of story and themes the film was trying to express are not at all included in the game.

In standard competition only one person can win. But when ranking competitors we don't simply rank the winner at #1 and everyone else equally behind that person. Because that type of ranking system isn't accurate.

Hupfen · Oct 10, 2018

Did not realize the thought would be controversial.

Jest said:
The game is about survival first and foremost. Sure a person can rack up tons of kills but the goal is to be the last one alive, not to kill a lot of people. Any strat that results in you living longer is a good strat.

I agree that survival should be weighted considerably, but I feel like "survival despite conflicts" should be weighted more strongly compared to "mere survival". Hence the thought around K/D.

I suppose it hinges on what the ranking system is really supposed to reflect. If it's just about survival, then yeah it's doing a reasonable job: routinely finishing in the 70th percentile of players should put you in the 70th percentile of ranks. Doesn't much matter how you got there. If it's meant to reflect the full battle royale experience--which, based on the stats displayed, I suspect is what they're going for--then my thought is simply whether or not they weigh the survival element too highly over the others (which appear to be combat and resource management). I mean, if that's the case maybe my stats are skewed by really good resource management? I genuinely don't know. I just feel like ranks should put a little more weight on how you do when you have more encounters versus your runs where you don't see anyone until 20 alive, and I don't know that they do that right now.

I'm also wondering how much play volume factors in. In doing research, I found as an example one Grandmaster player with a lower K/D than myself. But their top-10 survival rate is 14% better than mine, so, fair. Definitely better than me on that front. They've also played about 4x as many matches. The only GMs anywhere near my match count are obvious cheaters. (18 K/D? C'mon now.) How much does that heavy play count factor in? I dunno. I do recall reading that rank can drop, but how easy is it to drop versus gain? Sounds like dropping is a bit too uncommon right now.

But a lot of this comes from a semi-idle systems design train of thought. (Along with a really incredulous sense that I could be anything remotely "elite".) I feel like I'd want to design a system that rewards surviving conflicts, whether by killing your foe or evasive action, rather than raw survival. I don't know that this system looks like that, but since I'm not a seasoned game designer I don't know what a system designed like that would specifically look like. Maybe I'm skeptical for no reason.

(Also, I'm female. Hence why it's best to just use "they" when talking about someone known only through an avatar.)

Pegasus Actual · Oct 10, 2018

Jest said:
"Pit against each other in a Battle of Survival." is the most relevant part of the game description. As even the last part, "gather supplies and outwit your opponent to become the last person standing" doesn't apply to team modes. And nowhere in the description does it say you must kill the other players. Calling upon the movie is meaningless because character motivations for the intent of story and themes the film was trying to express are not at all included in the game.

You're cherry picking a small section of an already small blurb that doesn't even really say what you claim it does. The reason that the finishing order in a BR game isn't that important is because you can, and many people do, play the game in a way where they will finish reasonably high but have no chance of winning. What separates 5th from 1st in a race is typically a case of 'just needed to race a little faster'. That is often *not* the case in BR, it's not a simple matter of "he just didn't survive quite as long as the guys ahead of him". A 6th place player that loses a 50/50 gunfight with the eventual winner trying to take a strong position in the final circle is a better player than a guy who proned in a bush across the field and waited to die getting shot crossing in the open. Or worse shot the 6th place player in the back for a cheap kill while dying to the blue. Playing badly can increase your overall placement yet hurt your chances of winning.

Look at a game like Survivor, it's incredibly common for people to not consider the second place player as even a decent player, because once again there are strategies for placing higher while sacrificing your chances of winning. In games like these looking at something like average placement is ridiculous as a measure of skill.

Hupfen said:
(Also, I'm female. Hence why it's best to just use "they" when talking about someone known only through an avatar.)

My bad, I didn't actually look at your avatar at all.

LuckyLactose · Oct 10, 2018

I think there's also the passive/active way of looking at things.
In the passive way, you hide. Find a rabbit hole somewhere, crawl down it and hope the final circle lands on top of you.
In the active way, you are Rambo. Don't even let anyone else get a kill or die to blue/red/fall -- you are the angel of death, you harvest all souls.

Obviously, it's possible to be good and bad at both of these things. Also obviously, these are extremes, and most people would fall somewhere along the spectrum.

GIven that winning should yield the most rating (which I think most can agree on), the question is what to do when you do not win. For me, I would contend that personally getting e.g. 5 kills means that you actively prevented 5 others from surviving longer than you. I would also contend that the active way is more demanding in terms of skill -- mainly because you are actually pit against someone in a competition with very few outcomes. On average, you need to be more skilled than the other player to outgun them.
As such, as long as you're not the winner, I think the active way should be encouraged more than the passive.

This is also linked to my personal preference of finding the active way the funner way to play. Dropping cold, looting meds and generally staying in desolate areas, camping a bush or waiting for 5 minutes for someone to open a door, coming into the circle late, etc. is definitely an easy way for me to gain ranking, but I also find it horribly boring.
I'm not against people playing to win or maximize their rating. But I would personally prefer if the active way of playing was rewarded more, making both options closer in terms of rating viability.

Jest · Oct 10, 2018

Hupfen said:
Did not realize the thought would be controversial.

I agree that survival should be weighted considerably, but I feel like "survival despite conflicts" should be weighted more strongly compared to "mere survival". Hence the thought around K/D.

I suppose it hinges on what the ranking system is really supposed to reflect. If it's just about survival, then yeah it's doing a reasonable job: routinely finishing in the 70th percentile of players should put you in the 70th percentile of ranks. Doesn't much matter how you got there. If it's meant to reflect the full battle royale experience--which, based on the stats displayed, I suspect is what they're going for--then my thought is simply whether or not they weigh the survival element too highly over the others (which appear to be combat and resource management). I mean, if that's the case maybe my stats are skewed by really good resource management? I genuinely don't know. I just feel like ranks should put a little more weight on how you do when you have more encounters versus your runs where you don't see anyone until 20 alive, and I don't know that they do that right now.

I'm also wondering how much play volume factors in. In doing research, I found as an example one Grandmaster player with a lower K/D than myself. But their top-10 survival rate is 14% better than mine, so, fair. Definitely better than me on that front. They've also played about 4x as many matches. The only GMs anywhere near my match count are obvious cheaters. (18 K/D? C'mon now.) How much does that heavy play count factor in? I dunno. I do recall reading that rank can drop, but how easy is it to drop versus gain? Sounds like dropping is a bit too uncommon right now.

But a lot of this comes from a semi-idle systems design train of thought. (Along with a really incredulous sense that I could be anything remotely "elite".) I feel like I'd want to design a system that rewards surviving conflicts, whether by killing your foe or evasive action, rather than raw survival. I don't know that this system looks like that, but since I'm not a seasoned game designer I don't know what a system designed like that would specifically look like. Maybe I'm skeptical for no reason.

(Also, I'm female. Hence why it's best to just use "they" when talking about someone known only through an avatar.)

The issue with trying to weigh survival with high encounters over survival with low encounters is that it would reward playing the game like a deathmatch game mode and it can be gamed by hot dropping constantly. When you choose not to hot drop, you can't determine if you'll run into other players or not. There are tons of variables and multiple players individual choices at play in regards to that. You can absolutely guarantee that you'll fight a bunch of people though, by picking a popular drop. So weighing encounters heavily allows the system to be gamed.

Pegasus Actual said:
You're cherry picking a small section of an already small blurb that doesn't even really say what you claim it does. The reason that the finishing order in a BR game isn't that important is because you can, and many people do, play the game in a way where they will finish reasonably high but have no chance of winning. What separates 5th from 1st in a race is typically a case of 'just needed to race a little faster'. That is often *not* the case in BR, it's not a simple matter of "he just didn't survive quite as long as the guys ahead of him". A 6th place player that loses a 50/50 gunfight with the eventual winner trying to take a strong position in the final circle is a better player than a guy who proned in a bush across the field and waited to die getting shot crossing in the open. Or worse shot the 6th place player in the back for a cheap kill while dying to the blue. Playing badly can increase your overall placement yet hurt your chances of winning.

Look at a game like Survivor, it's incredibly common for people to not consider the second place player as even a decent player, because once again there are strategies for placing higher while sacrificing your chances of winning. In games like these looking at something like average placement is ridiculous as a measure of skill.

This thought process is not at all true. There are a lot of variables in terms of what wins or loses a gunfight, including latency/peekers advantage, positioning, terrain, gun stats, hell even perspective differences in the terrain itself. Skill plays a heavy role in winning a gun fight but it's not the only role and often it isn't even the determining factor. So to say that someone who gets to the Top 10 has "no chance of winning" is just plain false. There are a lot of variables before player skill even comes into play that can determine who is going to win a fight. A player would have to be incredibly gifted to be able to overcome those variables consistently. Essentially you'd have to have Shroud's mechanics and reaction time while the person you're fighting has a decent ping.

The comparison to a reality show doesn't work as that involves politics and manipulation.

LuckyLactose · Oct 10, 2018

Jest said:
So weighing encounters heavily allows the system to be gamed.

Ah, but currently kills do not seem to matter at all -- at least not to me, based on various experiments. As in, it seems like kills has 0 impact on rating, or close enough to it for me not to notice a difference.

There are obviously ways which would weight kills too heavily. So let's not weight kills too heavily.
Imagine 2 scenarios:
A) Player dies at 10th position. 0 kills.
B) Player dies at 10th position. 7 kills.

Do you think it would be unfair if the player in scenario B gained more rating than the player in scenario A?
I think the player in scenario B should gain more rating.

At that point, it becomes a balancing act -- what if player A died at 9th position, etc. Before pursuing that point, however, one must first agree on the base premise that the above scenarios should give different ratings. If there is no agreement there, it is meaningless to go into details.

Jest · Oct 10, 2018

Lactose said:
Ah, but currently kills do not seem to matter at all -- at least not to me, based on various experiments. As in, it seems like kills has 0 impact on rating, or close enough to it for me not to notice a difference.

There are obviously ways which would weight kills too heavily. So let's not weight kills too heavily.
Imagine 2 scenarios:
A) Player dies at 10th position. 0 kills.
B) Player dies at 10th position. 7 kills.

Do you think it would be unfair if the player in scenario B gained more rating than the player in scenario A?
I think the player in scenario B should gain more rating.

At that point, it becomes a balancing act -- what if player A died at 9th position, etc. Before pursuing that point, however, one must first agree on the base premise that the above scenarios should give different ratings. If there is no agreement there, it is meaningless to go into details.

If rating were to take kills into account at all, it should be an the K/D ratio. However I don't think the K/D should weigh very much overall.

LuckyLactose · Oct 10, 2018

Jest said:
If rating were to take kills into account at all, it should be an the K/D ratio. However I don't think the K/D should weigh very much overall.

Do you agree with the fundamental idea/thought that kills should be taken into account for rating gain, somehow?

Jest · Oct 10, 2018

Lactose said:
Do you agree with the fundamental idea/thought that kills should be taken into account for rating gain, somehow?

Not for the internal rating of the game. For the purpose of Tournament play, sure. Because at that point you're controlling a lot of variables and measure the same group of players against each other. For normal non-tournament games, the rating should be giving the player a general idea of how well they are performing overall in terms of achieving the goal the game intends. So a game mode based on surviving should weigh surviving, by any means, highest. A game mode based on getting kills should weigh kills highest.

LuckyLactose · Oct 10, 2018

Jest said:
Not for the internal rating of the game. For the purpose of Tournament play, sure. Because at that point you're controlling a lot of variables and measure the same group of players against each other. For normal non-tournament games, the rating should be giving the player a general idea of how well they are performing overall in terms of achieving the goal the game intends. So a game mode based on surviving should weigh surviving, by any means, highest. A game mode based on getting kills should weigh kills highest.

Then we fundamentally disagree, and arguing details like whether or not any kill weighting is based on K/D or other means is an absolute waste of time.

I will say that I highly disagree, and that there is precedence for weighting kills and damage in the game already, with the other reward systems. I think leaving kills out of rating rewards is highly inconsistent, and in addition promotes a play style which I personally find mindnumbingly boring. You might disagree, which is fair enough, but this is a subjective choice, not an objective one. Note again that I acknowledge the fact that kills can be weighted too heavily. I'm not saying finishing 99th killing 1 player should give more rating that finishing 2nd with 0 kills. But I do in all honesty think it makes sense for someone finishing 3rd with 96 kills should gain more rating than someone finishing 2nd with 0 kills.

Basically, I think the rules should promote fun gameplay. To me, fun gameplay in PUBG involves a mix of survival, sneaking around and actual combat. What the current rules do is promote players ignoring a major aspect of the game in order to gain ranking.

Jest · Oct 10, 2018

Lactose said:
Then we fundamentally disagree, and arguing details like whether or not any kill weighting is based on K/D or other means is an absolute waste of time.

I will say that I highly disagree, and that there is precedence for weighting kills and damage in the game already, with the other reward systems. I think leaving kills out of rating rewards is highly inconsistent, and in addition promotes a play style which I personally find mindnumbingly boring. You might disagree, which is fair enough, but this is a subjective choice, not an objective one. Note again that I acknowledge the fact that kills can be weighted too heavily. I'm not saying finishing 99th killing 1 player should give more rating that finishing 2nd with 0 kills. But I do in all honesty think it makes sense for someone finishing 3rd with 96 kills should gain more rating than someone finishing 2nd with 0 kills.

Basically, I think the rules should promote fun gameplay. To me, fun gameplay in PUBG involves a mix of survival, sneaking around and actual combat. What the current rules do is promote players ignoring a major aspect of the game in order to gain ranking.

I think the thing to keep in mind is that rating is absolutely meaningless. Whichever way people choose to play in order to enjoy it is fine. I mean, the game doesn't even matchmake based on the ratings, so it's not like Overwatch, Seige, LoL, DOTA2, etc... in that regard.

LuckyLactose · Oct 10, 2018

Jest said:
I think the thing to keep in mind is that rating is absolutely meaningless. Whichever way people choose to play in order to enjoy it is fine. I mean, the game doesn't even matchmake based on the ratings, so it's not like Overwatch, Seige, LoL, DOTA2, etc... in that regard.

Well, by the same logic it could be based purely on kills, because it is meaningless.

Jest · Oct 10, 2018

Lactose said:
Well, by the same logic it could be based purely on kills, because it is meaningless.

That's not the same logic at all. Basing it on placement shows a player how well they're doing at achieving the game's objective. Kills are not the games objective. That's what War Mode is for and why War Mode is a different game mode entirely.

LuckyLactose · Oct 10, 2018

Jest said:
That's not the same logic at all. Basing it on placement shows a player how well they're doing at achieving the game's objective. Kills are not the games objective. That's what War Mode is for and why War Mode is a different game mode entirely.

Of course it is. If it is meaningless, as you yourself just claimed, then you can't convey meaning onto it, which is what you're now doing in this post. Alternatively, if it's meaningless, why would you care whether or not it is based on kills?

Equally valid is saying if the goal is survival, then being killed at any point means you failed in surviving. E.g. last person to die before victory is achieved is not achieving the game's objective. If you do not win, you get 0 points.

Also, I do not actually think the rating system is meaningless - I was addressing your post in which you claim it to be.

As an aside, is War Mode always available? And what about the people who would prefer no respawns, but still like both placement and kills to matter in ranking? Should they just go sit in a corner?

PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds PC Full Release |OT| El pollo es mio

User requested account closure