767 replies to this topic

[entomolog]

Only "Full disclosure". Folks will be must known own "heroes" !
It's about you, handless n.o.o.b.s.

[McHoshi]

Full disclosure must be the only solution

[-=Heloc=-]

Units are going to use it as a joining requirement (Comp units might only allow tier 1-2 people to join, others might exclude lower or higher tiers depending on the goals of the unit. And you can bet that some units will go the other way and advertise that they don't care what your rank is. But they'll need to be able to see it to make that work. If it's opt-in, a player doesn't want to share it publicly, but wants to join a unit with a rank requirement, they'll be able to change their settings to display it, get a rubber stamp from the unit, and then turn it back off.

It would be good for units to be able to use rank as a recruiting tool and, as a player, their requirements will help me figure out which units will be a good fit. If I'm a tier 1 player looking for a competitive unit and I'm looking at a unit with no rank requirement I'll no that they won't be a good fit.

I think it will also be helpful for players to at least see their own ranking. There are plenty of players who are terrible but think they're doing well. An objective ranking like that is one more fact that can tell them otherwise and hopefully spur them to improve. Likewise, there are probably players who think they're just a little above average but they're actually a tier 1 player and they should have a way to find out how good they really are. I mean, it's like the ranking is infallible or the definitive measure of their skill but it's better than nothing and could be a useful stat to know.

I like to make data based decisions when I can but I can't do that without data!

[Jugger Grimrod]

"Be careful what you wish for, you just may get it!"

Let players chose via the Opt-In.

[Kassatsu]

Since there's no option for outright hiding them entirely, even from the individual player... Full disclosure.

Leaving it optional or only visible to the individual person means people will lie about it or claim they're higher/lower than they really are.

EDIT: Seeing as how the results have already been decided at this point, I guess we'll know who to ignore when they're talking about "skill" or tactics, i.e. those that choose to hide their ranking. It's like making a new, private Steam profile to talk crap on a game's forum. There is absolutely no reason to do it other than being afraid of criticism from other players that are higher up in the chain (or in the case of Steam, simply have more hours logged on their profile).

Edited by Kassatsu, 20 August 2015 - 12:50 PM.

[Seelenlos]

Imperius, on 19 August 2015 - 12:03 PM, said:

Full disclosure! No more hiding and may humble some peoples talk, maybe even mine

Think what you want noob, some are not posers.
If necessary, i will show mine, when it is needed. Nut likes you will never been showed

[Major Smoke]

As a professional soldier and leader with numerous upper tier schools, deployments and a multitude of tactical training and assessment courses under my belt and a resume that reads like a Bond film I would like to make two points:
ONE) None of that makes any difference as to how well someone plays a video game. I've seen out of shape couch potatoes who live in their mom's basement who can outfight any SEAL or Green Beret in single combat on Call of Duty.
TWO) Number One doesn't matter much in this game. Scores largely depend on how well the group can band together and fight. This is a team game.
I'm a pretty decent shot on this game and am great at utilizing terrain and tactics to move and shoot. But in a bad team I'm often one of the first killed while trying to hold a flank alone or lead an attack as others simply run away at the first sign of trouble....or wander around studying the fauna and flora. So no matter how good a player is, if their team sucks they are often severely hampered. In a good team I often get 2 to 3 kills and damage 8 or more enemy Mechs. In a bad team I'm lucky to get a single kill as I spend most of my time trying to shore up the defense or prevent a total team collapse.

So, unless the Devs can determine a way to account for these less empirical aspects of team play and leadership this Tier system is nigh unto meaningless.

Edited by SmokeJaguarSix, 20 August 2015 - 01:17 PM.

[Peiper]

Imperius, on 19 August 2015 - 12:03 PM, said:

Full disclosure! No more hiding and may humble some peoples talk, maybe even mine

For every one player humbled, there will be 10 more that will be measuring the size of their small lasers against each other. Still, I want full disclosure. The behavior of mewling cats doesn't bother me too much. I just one up them with statements like "my small laser is an ER small laser' or 'my small pulse laser pulses two more pulses than the average small pulse laser.'
On a more serious note, are these poll results going to change significantly in the next week and a half? I doubt it. Just give us option 2, PGI! We've already been waiting 2 1/2 years to see how we stack up!

[Wintersdark]

B O A, on 19 August 2015 - 12:45 PM, said:

You are opening a can of worms if there is Full Disclosure. Units will then put requirements on recruitment, for example you have to be Tier 1 or 2 plus have 10,000 matches. You will then see units full of high level players only and then in turn they decimate other units with ease. Teamwork last as long as it can until actual skill starts to reinforce it, then it's smashing the opposition time.

That's ridiculous. Units can and do already put skill bounds on recruitment if they want to. Nobody cares how many drops you have, but personal skull is evident inside a few drops.

This has absolutely no impact on unit recruitment at the high end whatsoever. None.

It's true that some wannabe scrub units may put tier restrictions on joining. But, if that's a problem for you (either because of your ideology or your tier) then knowing in advance saves your time and theirs.

If a unit doesn't want poor players, they don't have to accept poor players. If you feel this means they're jerks, that's fine: now you know you don't want to play with them, without having to go through the trouble.

[el piromaniaco]

Thats exactly what i think about that score.
Well, except the soldier part.

Greetings

el piro

P.s:I would like to see some kind of score or other progress indicator, but have to admit that I don't know how such a thing can even be representative. So many mechs, variants, loadouts etc. ??

[Jon Gotham]

VERY VERY bad idea. It'll be WoT all over again-it'll also be VERY depressing.

[Kev Rosse]

@PGI - I encourage you to carefully consider the costs to the growth and sustainability of the game of making this information public. Clearly, developing an effective matchmaking mechanic that produces fair, competitive and fun matches is a worthy and important step in the development of the product. However, the public humiliation of being a low tier player is likely to rapidly drive "casual" or less competitive players out of the game. Currently, someone who is of low to moderate skill (due to newness to the game, infrequent practice or, frankly, poor aptitude) can still enjoy the game in relative anonymity. Sure, they may die first or second on their team nine games out of ten and receive some "noob" trash talk (usually from frustrated teammates) but every once in a while they may luck into a good game where they finish off several weakened opponents, survive the match and wind up with a decent match score. They can then feel good about themselves... At least until the next disastrous match. While many on these forums might be happy for all such players to quit, the reality is that the continued survival and growth of the game depends upon these players sticking around long enough to buy some MC and maybe a mech package or two. Although I may not be a top tier player, I am generally a high achieving person. I have money to support the game and am willing to do so (and do.). However, if Tier 1 is "best" and Tier 3 is "average" and if I'm labeled as Tier 4 or 5 (and, after reasonable effort I'm unable to quickly improve it), I'm not going to continue playing the game for long. Additionally, I do not see "opt in" as a useful distinction. It will be assumed that if you have not opted in you are embarrassed of your tier, and therefore you are below average.

This is a significant potential "cost" I see to publicly displaying Tier rankings. So, what is the benefit that could potentially be achieved? I can understand why serious players who earn a Tier 1 or 2 rank would enjoy touting that on the forums and in-game, but how does that help to promote the sustainability and profitability of the game? To achieve a high tier, those players are playing frequently, and are already spending as much on the game as they are likely to, so I don't see this generating a substantial amount of additional revenue from that portion of the player base. So where is your business case in making this information public?

Edited by Kev Rosse, 20 August 2015 - 07:13 PM.

[Lugh]

Viges, on 19 August 2015 - 12:15 PM, said:

And you are wrong. There are a lot of people that are not tryhards and ok to be 4-5 tier, and also people that don't think that they should show off their tier 1. So no, you won't be able to 'realize' what tier player is if it's hidden. And you can take a guess about it even now anyway.

Sure I will, if I am tier 3 and I score 400 points a game, and I see the same players over and over again, I can be reasonably sure they are ALSO tier 3.

The more data you have the more informed your conclusions can be.

In the absence of data you have /faith/

[Zarathustrah]

Full disclosure, it's a game after all, nothing to be shy about. It will prevent more trolling than it will cause because often losing or being an incapable player is the cause of animosity. A public display of psr will quiet down the loud and handless.

[Dettmam]

Kev Rosse, on 20 August 2015 - 02:27 PM, said:

@PGI - I encourage you to carefully consider the costs to the growth and sustainability of the game of making this information public. Clearly, developing an effective matchmaking mechanic that produces fair, competitive and fun matches is a worthy and important step in the development of the product. However, the public humiliation of being a low tier player is likely to rapidly drive "casual" or less competitive players out of the game. Currently, someone who is of low to moderate skill (due to newness to the game, infrequent practice or, frankly, poor aptitude) can still enjoy the game in relative anonymity. Sure, they may die first or second on their team nine games out of ten and receive some "noob" trash talk (usually from frustrated teammates) but every once in a while they may luck into a good game where they finish off several weakened opponents, survive the match and wind up with a decent match score. They can then feel good about themselves... At least until the next disastrous match. While many on these forums might be happy for all such players to quit, the reality is that the continued survival and growth of the game depends upon these players sticking around long enough to buy some MC and maybe a mech package of two. Although I may not be a top tier player, I am generally a high achieving person. I have money to support the game and am willing to do so (and do.). However, if Tier 1 is "best" and Tier 3 is "average" and if I'm labeled as Teir 4 or 5 (and, after reasonable effort I'm unable to quickly improve it), I'm not going to continue playing the game for long. Additionally, I do not see "opt in" as a useful distinction. It will be assumed that if you have not opted in you are embarrassed of your tier, and therefore you are below average.

This is a significant potential "cost" I see to publicly displaying Tier rankings. So, what is the benefit that could potentially be achieved? I can understand why serious players who earn a Tier 1 or 2 rank would enjoy touting that on the forums and in-game, but how does that help to promote the sustainability and profitability of the game? To achieve a high tier, those players are playing frequently, and are already spending as much on the game as they are likely to, so I don't see this generating a substantial amount of additional revenue from that portion of the player base. So where is your business case in making this information public?

Agreed

[Navid A1]

[Imperius]

Navid A1, on 20 August 2015 - 02:54 PM, said:

I support this message

[ShinobiHunter]

Are some of you actually scared to know what your ranking is? I can understand some of you not wanting others to know, but seriously, you don't want to know yourself?

I voted opt-in. I know I suck, but I would like to know how much. And yes, I will display my rank. It's a game, there's no shame in being in the bottom tier as long as you're having fun...

[x Zool x]

I think it should be either show all or none. NO opt in/out. That's the only REALLY fair way to do it. Opting in/out suggests you're embarrassed by your ranking or you want to gain advantage by hiding your own to look for easier kills.

Also killing an opponents higher or lower than your own tier should yields more or less score, ie
- Opponent higher by 1 tier = + 10%
- Opponent higher by 2 tier = + 20%
- Opponent lower by 1 tier = -10%
- Opponent lower by 1 tier = - 20%

[Uncle Totty]

Imperius, on 20 August 2015 - 03:04 PM, said:

I support this message

And prove to you that I am not a Tier 5?

Where is the fun in that?