New noob, new questions

1235»

Comments

  • Greeny_Huwjarz
    4808 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Quite a pedantic point for sure Berg......and yes, I agree. However if you wanted to move the needle - you could do so significantly in only 10 rounds. If you had not plateaued. The point being that it is a current view of skill........and a good one. 

    If I had played over 10000 rounds (which I have)I'm more interested in the last 100 and than the first 100, which will contribute circa 99.9% of the score weighting.......Alonso vs Hamilton. 'Has been' vs champion. 

    I don't think it's pedantic. I mean it's not about every game counting. That would in deed be pedantic. Its about the number 10 which is just arbitrary and implies a wrong image of what's actually going on. one could also say that it reflects the past 5, 15 or 30 games instead with the same legitimacy. I would use no number at all in such a case. I'd say it just reflects those three stats in recent games.

    Lol. Ok. I agree. Still didn’t delegitimise my point.
    Wasnt trying to do that in the first place. I pointed out an inaccurate point, nothing more, nothing less. This doesnt mean i disagree or agree with anything else said in the comment. 
    I know you well enough to know that is 100% true! 
  • Greeny_Huwjarz
    4808 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    There are many variables involved that need answered before posing a question like that, in my opinion.
    Is the other player playing at the same time?
    Are they squad leader each game?
    Do both players main the same class?
    Are they playing the same map/game mode?
    Are they playing with a squad of mic'd up players?
    Are they playing against squads of mic'd up players?
    It is not just a cut and dry How many games will it take? in comparison of two players.
    Everything should be the same for each, to have a level playing field of data.

    We can do some basic math and not factor in any of that stuff, since that is what you are asking for, looking at the simple picture instead of the more important big picture.
    If someone started with 300 skill and had 500 raw SPM(not the inflated crap you see on the tracker that shows 2000/3000 SPM but the actual stat the skill stat is based off of), with 2 KPM and 4 K/D, and if they maintained that 500 raw SPM, 2KPM, 4K/D it would break down to:
    300 start.
    328 = 1 game 353 = 2 games  375 = 3 games 395 = 4 games 414 = 5 games 430 = 6 games 445 = 7 games 458 = 8 games 470 = 9 games 481 = 10 games
    491 = 11 games  499 = 12 games 507 = 13 games 514 = 14 games 521 = 15 games 526 = 16 games 532 = 17 games 536 = 18 games 540 = 19 games 544 = 20 games
    548 = 21 games 551 = 22 games 553 = 23 games 556 = 24 games 558 = 25 games 560 = 26 games 562 = 27 games 563 = 28 games 565 = 29 games 566 = 30 games
    567 = 31 games 568 = 32 games 569 = 33 games 570 = 34 games 571 = 35 games 572 = 36 games 572 = 37 games 573 = 38 games 573 = 39 games 574 = 40 games
    574 = 41 games 575 = 42 games 575 = 43 games 575 = 44 games 576 = 45 games 576 = 46 games 576 = 47 games 576 = 48 games 577 = 49 games 577 = 50 games

    Continuing that trend, it would take over 100 consecutive games of 500 Raw SPM, 2 KPM, and 4 K/D to go from 300 skill to 600 skill.

    How fast could a score drop from 600?
    Maybe 10 horrible games? ( I don't feel like doing the math right now for that) and you are looking at a 200? skill ranking(if not sub 200).
    Horrible as in something like 100 SPM, .5 KPM and .75 K/D

    TL:DR
    It doesn't take much to go down quickly if one stacks horrible games one after another, but it takes forever to get a score to go way up.
    ~edit for typos

    Thanks for that analysis. 

    I don’t agree with some of your points because aggregated over a number of games, the key metrics for a good player (SPM, KD KPM) will almost always be higher for a good player than those for an average player. This is simply a numbers game.  For example, whether someone played on different maps is pretty much irrelevant in the long run, especially when you are comparing a great player with an average player. 

    The point was made earlier on the thread that I am an average player, who’s posts are sullied and tainted by my averageness. I’m happy to accept this as a starting premise.  I am average. My skill currently sits at 618 as I write this post. 

    Let’s use your model for a theoretical player that has the follow stats as a starting point:

    Starting skill - 500

    SPM - 2800 (not raw)

    KPM - 2.25

    KD of 6.5

    playing almost entirely operations.

    I think I’ve seen number if posts from operations players being dismissive of players with a KPM of less than 2.0, so let’s use that as a starting point. Let’s assume the players is a bit rusty, so they can’t maintain their KD of 6.5, they only manage 5. I’m going to pump the following numbers into the model for this elite player playing slightly below par……..so not actually elite…….but still VERY VERY good. 


    KPM -2.0 - apparently the minimum for a good player…..I'm happy to source that if necessary. 

    KD - 5.0 - allowing some rustiness


    Given that SPM, I don’t think its unreasonable for a real TOP END player to be pushing for a 650 SPM on a normal game of operations. I’m happy for some of the contributors here to advise me what players in the top 5 of a game typically get…..


    Let’s assume that the player literally had double XP boosts on for all off their entire BF1 playing time (actually impossible), their SPM would be 1400.  650 seems reasonable for an ELITE player given that the maximum win bonus for any game is 2.5 and this is a multiplier of 2.15. Noone has XP boost on the whole time and noone wins all their games


    …….so lets pump that into the model and see how long it takes for that elite player to overtake the average player (me!):


    After game 1 - Skill - 519

    After game 2 - Skill - 536

    After game 3 - Skill - 551

    After game 4 - Skill - 565

    After game 5- Skill - 577

    After game 6- Skill - 589

    After game 7 - Skill - 599

    After game 8 - Skill - 608

    After game 9 - Skill - 616

    After game 10 - Skill - 623


    So even for allowing for some rustiness, if should only take a real  top end player a maximum of 10 games to overtake an average player. Even allowing for playing a bit below par! Lt's not forget, we are only talking about overtaking average!

    Luckily for me, BF tracker allows me to track all of this, as I can pump in the KD and KPM from every session and work out what the typical raw SPM is. I’m looking forward to the opportunity to fully test out the scoring mechanism….using players real data and tracking the skill stat over time. I’ve even built a spreadsheet ready for the task! 

    If anyone thinks that I need to tweak the raw SPM for players that regularly hit top 5 win operations, then I can easily adapt the model and update the results. It will be a pleasure to do this. And of course, I will do it! I promise. 


  • Plucky6922
    560 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Ugh!
    I had so much stuff typed out right now.
    Seriously, like 20+ minutes worth of typing out examples and data values.
    Dropped my mouse and closed the window.
    Meh.
    I will get back to you when I have more time, but want to say that 600 Skill is not average, but above average. Average would be closer to 400, if not 300.
  • Greeny_Huwjarz
    4808 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 21
    Plucky6922 wrote: »
    Ugh!
    I had so much stuff typed out right now.
    Seriously, like 20+ minutes worth of typing out examples and data values.
    Dropped my mouse and closed the window.
    Meh.
    I will get back to you when I have more time, but want to say that 600 Skill is not average, but above average. Average would be closer to 400, if not 300.

    Doh. That’s really annoying. I always type my posts into a doc now to stop that happening. So what do the top players in a game typically get? Top 5 players in raw SPM.

    Just for clarity, I’m trying to ascertain what players that are literally in the top 1% of skill might get in operations. The sort of players that top the leaderboards in a regular basis.

    Don’t worry about average.
    Post edited by Greeny_Huwjarz on
  • Plucky6922
    560 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 21
    I have no idea anymore, since I haven't really paid attention to BF1 stats since BFV came out(have not played BF1 since BFV launched).

    Award Score, Boost Score, Bonus Score do not count towards the SPM for Skill stat.
    I am not 100% sure if or what other Scores are not counted and controlled data would be super helpful to figure that out.
    (bf1 has slightly different scoring systems from BF3/4, but the skill stat formula from what data I have gathered, was never changed to reflect that, instead it just does not include certain scores in the SPM for the skill stat)
    If you could do something for me, play one game at a time, let BFTracker update between each one, writing down your starting Skill stat, then your updated Skill stat after each round.
    Also, the actual scoreboard Score from each round played, but before the end of round scoreboard, since I might be misremembering, but those have the bonuses included.
    Play, I don't know, 5 games? And then post that information in this thread.
    Having that data would be extremely helpful to determine which scores are included in the SPM formula for the Skill stat.
  • Swam1_Bam1
    29 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    bleachee said:
    Swam1_Bam1 wrote: »
    Wow, I thought that everybody was chasing that target, but it's per squad. OK, makes sense ...

    But I don't know what commo rose is, yet. I thought that was another name for spotting.

    The commo rose is the thing you pull up to give commands, or make requests and such. It also has a part that allows the squad leader to target an objective.

    Next to the objective letters you will see little numbers, generally 1-4. That's the number of other squad leaders targeting that flag. This is useful info.

    I gotta check that out still. I see it being used on Youtube and I thought it was a Xbox/Playstation thing, where they can't use a keyboard, and thus can only give commands using another menu. But you can mark an objective - as squad leader - by using the spot-button, on a target letter. I found that out by coincidence, as I click on everything to spot, and suddenly I had set a new objective. Image my surprise.
  • Swam1_Bam1
    29 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Today I found out that the map used on deploy, and the mini-map in the game itself, have a different orientation.
    The mini-map stats N E S W, but the map on the deploy screen, does not .. Hmm
  • GerocK-
    695 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Yeah the extremely unorthodox opinion that the SMG 08/18 isn’t overpowered. I forgot we have to pretend that assault is a medium to long distance class to frame that argument. Never-mind the fact that medium range is a capable niche of another assault gun that you get filtered by. And lol yes let’s compare the starter gun use stats to a DLC gun, because that framework is totally valid. Like the M1916 self loader, it’s clearly the best medic rifle because it gets used the most. You can never compare guns to each other using anything that would make sense for comparison, just global use stats. This is also why the Martini Henry is the best scout rifle.
    In the same way that you use Symthic stats as your bible, I use user expericnce as mine. I raise the issue of medium range only because it is a fact that most actual engagements in BF1 are 20m plus, an area in which the SMG08 is not exactly user friendly. 

    The SMG is way overpowered, but ONLY in  CQC and for players that like camping. Good for maps like Argonne and Fort De Vaux, but actually pretty average elsewhere. 

    What is really clear: not many people like the RSC SMG, and the SMG08 is a noob gun. I don't know many really good players that prefer it to other SMG alternatives for the reason I gave. 

    You might not like that opinion, but its my experience and I know it's the same as many of the other top quality conquest players that I play with. 


    I can work with both weapons. See these example runs I recorded:


    With the MP18 Trench I have 30% accuracy and 2.8 KPM and I use it on every map (55 hours, 91 stars)
    With the SMG 08/18 I have 25% accuracy and 3.6 KPM and I've used it mostly on Fort Vaux and Argonne Forest (6 hours, 13 stars)

    There's a huge difference in KPM and I guess that proves the SMG 08/18 is the best in those CQB maps, but it's also still good in other maps. But I would never choose it over the MP18 trench in any large map.
    The MP18 Trench is my favorite weapon in the game because of its allround performance. Also, I feel more proud after a killstreak with the MP18 than after a killstreak with the SMG 08/18. That's why I stopped using he SMG 08/18. The SMG 08/18 feels too easy.



  • Greeny_Huwjarz
    4808 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    GerocK- said:
    Yeah the extremely unorthodox opinion that the SMG 08/18 isn’t overpowered. I forgot we have to pretend that assault is a medium to long distance class to frame that argument. Never-mind the fact that medium range is a capable niche of another assault gun that you get filtered by. And lol yes let’s compare the starter gun use stats to a DLC gun, because that framework is totally valid. Like the M1916 self loader, it’s clearly the best medic rifle because it gets used the most. You can never compare guns to each other using anything that would make sense for comparison, just global use stats. This is also why the Martini Henry is the best scout rifle.
    In the same way that you use Symthic stats as your bible, I use user expericnce as mine. I raise the issue of medium range only because it is a fact that most actual engagements in BF1 are 20m plus, an area in which the SMG08 is not exactly user friendly. 

    The SMG is way overpowered, but ONLY in  CQC and for players that like camping. Good for maps like Argonne and Fort De Vaux, but actually pretty average elsewhere. 

    What is really clear: not many people like the RSC SMG, and the SMG08 is a noob gun. I don't know many really good players that prefer it to other SMG alternatives for the reason I gave. 

    You might not like that opinion, but its my experience and I know it's the same as many of the other top quality conquest players that I play with. 


    I can work with both weapons. See these example runs I recorded:


    With the MP18 Trench I have 30% accuracy and 2.8 KPM and I use it on every map (55 hours, 91 stars)
    With the SMG 08/18 I have 25% accuracy and 3.6 KPM and I've used it mostly on Fort Vaux and Argonne Forest (6 hours, 13 stars)

    There's a huge difference in KPM and I guess that proves the SMG 08/18 is the best in those CQB maps, but it's also still good in other maps. But I would never choose it over the MP18 trench in any large map.
    The MP18 Trench is my favorite weapon in the game because of its allround performance. Also, I feel more proud after a killstreak with the MP18 than after a killstreak with the SMG 08/18. That's why I stopped using he SMG 08/18. The SMG 08/18 feels too easy.



    Yes, I relate to the last couple of sentences.....I also avoid the SMG08/18 because it is a noob gun. It doesn't even make my top 40 most used guns.......
Sign In or Register to comment.