Posted 30 January 2017 - 01:43 PM

METHOD:

Useless fact: out of the 88 matches I played, I won 67 and only lost 21. gg me

(note, some variables/analysis may be missing, as I made those on my original after creating this dummy-duplicate.)

THE FINDINGS:

Average match score:

Win/Loss Ratio:

Kill rate:

Death rate:

Matches played:

Tonnage:

GMan Tier Rating

GManTonnage

Clan vs. Inner Sphere

Extra tidbits:

CONCLUSIONS:

COMMENTARY:

Ever wonder what is the driving force behind those really lopsided matches? Maybe one side had a LOT more tonnage, or just had more meta mechs, maybe it was map imbalance, or maybe matchmaker just dropped the ball and one side had better players. Maybe it was teamwork or leadership. I decided to analyse some of these stomp-matches and see if I could find anything that is statistically significant.- I included only matches that ended in 12-0, 12-1, or even 12-2 if it felt particularly stomp-y- Every match is from solo queue- Every screenshot was submitted by a Tier 1 player- 76% were my own matches, the rest submitted by unit mates- Matches were collected between October 1 and January 1- I collected all pilot names, so that I could pull their stats from the QP Leaderboard - I compared winning teams vs. losing teams according the average of their players leaderboard stats- I collected all mech names, so that I could compare tonnages and mech ratingsHere is a copy of my spreadsheet with pilot names removed, but I'll explain all my findings below, I don't expect anybody to understand this poorly organised mess: https://docs.google....t#gid=288291280 Total matches collected: 116Total unique players: 2,337Total unique chassis: 73Total unique variants: 251This is each pilot's average match score on the QP Leaderboard, not how they actually performed inside the match itself.- Winning team average: 239- Losing team average: 2256.6% advantage to the teams that won.- The team that won had the advantage 88 times (average of a 10% advantage)- The team that lost had the advantage 28 times (average of a 3% advantage)This is each pilot's cumulative WLR on the QP Leaderboard- Winning team average: 1.16- Losing team average: 1.069.4% advantage to the teams that won.- The team that won had the advantage 93 times (average of a 15% advantage)- The team that lost had the advantage 23 times (average of a 7% advantage)This is each pilot's cumulative kills per match (not KDR!) on the QP Leaderboard- Winning team average: 0.86- Losing team average: 0.7712% advantage to the teams that won.- The team that won had the advantage 88 times (average of a 17% advantage)- The team that lost had the advantage 28 times (average of a 7% advantage)This is each pilot's cumulative deaths per match on the QP Leaderboard- Winning team average: 65%- Losing team average: 68%4.2% advantage to the teams that won.This is each pilot's cumulative matches on the QP Leaderboard- Winning team total: 1,915,362- Losing team average: 1,821,107Teams that won play an average of 5.2% more QP matches- Winning team average: 65.0- Losing team average: 65.20.3% advantage to the teams that lost.- The team that won had the advantage 48 times (average of a 3.3% advantage)- The team that lost had the advantage 68 times (average of a 3.2% advantage)Lower is better. This is each mech's tier rating according to GMan129's site, MetaMechs . These tier lists are the opinion of only one player, so they are not absolute, but they are widely regarded as "pretty close."- Winning team average: 2.1- Losing team average: 2.25% advantage to the teams that won.- The team that won had the advantage 63 times (average of a 17% advantage)- The team that lost had the advantage 53 times (average of a 14% advantage)Higher is better. This is mech tonnage adjusted by GMan tier rating. A tier 3 mech will be worth its facevalue, while a tier 1 mech will be worth more tons and a tier 5 mech will be worth fewer tons. The formula I decided on is [ Tonnage + (12 * (3 - Tier)) ]- Winning team average: 75.6- Losing team average: 74.70.1% advantage to the teams that won.- The team that won had the advantage 65 times (average of a 7.9% advantage)- The team that lost had the advantage 51 times (average of a 7.1% advantage)Number of each tech base per side.- Winning team: 40% IS, 60% Clan.- Losing team: 48% IS, 52% ClanThe winning team had 15% more clan mechs on average.The higher-match-score-team was the winner 88 times. Of the 28 times that it lost, the opposing team had the higher WLR 14 times. In fact, of the 28 times that the higher-match-score-team lost, 25 of them could be explained by the fact that the other team had either more tonnage, more meta mechs, or higher WLR. That leaves only 3 matches unexplained by variables that I investigated.The higher-WLR-team was the winner 93 times. Of the 23 times that it lost, the opposing team had the higher-match-score-players 9 times. Also, of the 23 times it lost, 20 could be explained by the other team having more more tonnage, more meta mechs, or higher matchscore. That leaves only 3 matches unexplained by variables that I investigated.Players that tend to win more will more often be on the winning side of a stomp. (I KNOW, GROUNDBREAKING SCIENCE, RIGHT??!!) The team with higher collective WLR was on the winning side of a stomp 80% of the time. This was the strongest correlation of all the variables I examined.The next strongest factors were QP average match score and kill rate. The team with higher match score was on the winning side of a stomp 76% of the time, and the team with the higher kill record also won the stomp 76% of the time.Team tonnage had a negative correlation. The heavier team was on the losing side of a stomp 59% of the time. I suppose this makes sense if you look at it from the perspective that the team with the heaviest and slowest fatties is more likely to have those fatties get left behind in the Nascarfest and get picked off, initiating a snowball effect. I can't assert this fully, but if there is enough interest I could investigate a little more closely and see if I can confirm these suspicions.Mech tier rating and mech worth-ness didn't seem to be an appreciably large factor, only in favour of the team that won 54% and 56% of matches respectively, but nevertheless in favour the slight majority of the time.These findings support my theory that either the PSR system or Matchmaker does not adequately assess the skill level of individual players. I fear that the Matchmaker only sees PSR Tier and nothing else. Here is an example:Matchmaker sees available players:Matchmaker splits them up into two teams:Looks perfect! The weight classes are evenly filled, and there is an equal number of each Tier per team. But what the matchmaker wasn't considering, was the following:Now that we've revealed each player's average match score, we see a massive imbalance! But if we just shuffle a few players from one side to the other:Now it looks much more balanced! PGI, why can't your matchmaker do something like this?

Edited by Tarogato, 30 January 2017 - 01:47 PM.