No replies to this topic

[Buckminster]

We know that MM is theoretically based on ELO - that we are all divided into buckets based on this mythical number. Thing is, the MM is still one thing people continue to complain about, and it seems that most people point to "matched against a far superior opponent" as their biggest gripe in the game. I know, a bit hyperbole, but hear me out.

Rather than ELO, I think that a pilot's rating should be based on average match XP. It's a fairly good indicator of how effective you are in a match, and includes not just damage and kills, but captures, assists, counter ECMs and others. It also takes wins and losses into account. I think it's a fairly good representative of how effective you were in a match.

Obviously we'd need to take into account the XP bonuses for Premium Time, First Win and Champion mechs. I'd think these bonuses don't belong in the XP that is used to calculate your ranking. They are bonuses, and not a reflection of match play.

As for the exact details - that I'm still up in the air. Should it be average XP in a given chassis? Average of a weight class? Average overall? How many matches before it uses "average"?

I'd think that by weight class is still the best way to go - it'd give a larger pool of numbers for calculating average XP. Per chassis would be nice though (I'd hate to have my leet Jager skills used against me if I pick up a Thunderbolt), but I can see where it may be harder to get a good enough data set. I think overall average is just a bad idea.

So, what do you guys think?