137 replies to this topic

[LookUpGaming]

I'd argue its easier to get to Tier 1/2 while IN the PUG queue. Think about it.

If you are pugging its much easier to rack up those high match scores. In the group queue you tend to see lots of 200 to 300 damage games with quick kills and the 'work' spread out among the team. In the PUG queue you get the wide range of damage done with some dudes doing less than 100 and some over 600......

[Lily from animove]

Random Carnage, on 23 September 2015 - 02:59 AM, said:

The longer it takes you to level up, the harder/slower it will become as more and more "capable" opponents rise to limit your chances of a high score.

not really because T3 can alreay meet T1's

LookUpGaming, on 23 September 2015 - 04:00 AM, said:

I'd argue its easier to get to Tier 1/2 while IN the PUG queue. Think about it.

If you are pugging its much easier to rack up those high match scores. In the group queue you tend to see lots of 200 to 300 damage games with quick kills and the 'work' spread out among the team. In the PUG queue you get the wide range of damage done with some dudes doing less than 100 and some over 600......

no, funfact is winning with 160 damage UPS you already, So being bad in a good group rises you faster than beign good in mixed win/lose matches.

[Dark DeLaurel]

Grisbane, on 22 September 2015 - 03:18 PM, said:

still don't see a point for skill based MM.. there should be a que for those under 1000 battles and then a que for everyone else. Wargaming games do this and they seem to do just fine.

World of Tanks doesn't do this, I've got under 4k battles in and regularly see players with less than 1k battles. It's based solely off the tank tier rating (which is +-2. So a tier 6 can see 4/5/6/7/8).

[Gideon Grey]

The whole system is a bit mysterious to me. I'm a scratch mark into Tier 2 (you can see my screenie I the "no shame" post if it matters, on my phone now) and I can't explain that.

I've always considered myself average at best. I've played 100% Pug. Probably 98% public queue (very little CW). I don't truly do "meta" though I have a few "cheese" or meta builds that I find fun... My W/L is around 1.15 overall with like 3300 matches since the reset, and a KDR of 1.56. I do well enough, but truly monstrous damage games are rare... Though until this weekend total crap games were fairly uncommon as well. I'm both happy, confused, and worried.

[STEF_]

Lily from animove, on 23 September 2015 - 01:16 AM, said:

yes Some other games catched my attention that I needed to play a lot. The only time I played a lot since jan 15th was actually the Tukkayid event.

At this point I wonder how CW games affected the judgement. We know PGI used the CW matches for Tiers as well. They stopped doing so.

Yep, I would like to know how tier is calculated.
Maybe it's something like matchscore average in a determinated period (last 6 months? 4? 2?) but if the player didn't have played enough the amount of earned matchscore points are low and so is his tier.
I was asking this to you, because a couple of guys in my unit left the game during august (holidays) and they are back since 1 september; they are currently in tier 2, despite they clearly are tier 1 players, kicking asses every match.

[Bigbacon]

Don't feel bad, I am T3....and I am by no means a good player and I play lots of oddball stuff which is usually not very good.

[Lily from animove]

Gideon Grey, on 23 September 2015 - 04:28 AM, said:

The whole system is a bit mysterious to me. I'm a scratch mark into Tier 2 (you can see my screenie I the "no shame" post if it matters, on my phone now) and I can't explain that.

I've always considered myself average at best. I've played 100% Pug. Probably 98% public queue (very little CW). I don't truly do "meta" though I have a few "cheese" or meta builds that I find fun... My W/L is around 1.15 overall with like 3300 matches since the reset, and a KDR of 1.56. I do well enough, but truly monstrous damage games are rare... Though until this weekend total crap games were fairly uncommon as well. I'm both happy, confused, and worried.

That probably explains it, the 3k games you have. as long as you never drop but have 1 out of 10 games being an UP, you will end at the top some day. While a player always upping will end at the same top, just earlier. And this shows the issue, because I would say in most cases they are not equal in skill, but they can reach the same "skill" rating. its sololy a matter of matchnumbers.

Stefka Kerensky, on 23 September 2015 - 05:10 AM, said:

Yep, I would like to know how tier is calculated.
Maybe it's something like matchscore average in a determinated period (last 6 months? 4? 2?) but if the player didn't have played enough the amount of earned matchscore points are low and so is his tier.
I was asking this to you, because a couple of guys in my unit left the game during august (holidays) and they are back since 1 september; they are currently in tier 2, despite they clearly are tier 1 players, kicking asses every match.

according to PGI it's not related to any averages, it's sololy about which borders PGI defined and how your matchscore is in relation to those borders. Otherwise a T1 player winning with 106 score would never rise. That would be far from what a T1 player and his "average" should be.

Edited by Lily from animove, 23 September 2015 - 05:36 AM.

[STEF_]

Lily from animove, on 23 September 2015 - 05:31 AM, said:

according to PGI it's not related to any averages, it's sololy about which borders PGI defined and how your matchscore is in relation to those borders. Otherwise a T1 player winning with 106 score would never rise. That would be far from what a T1 player and his "average" should be.

Ok, so it must be a kind of match played "pool" during a time period.
I can only say that players who left the game for a period have thier tier below than expected

[L3mming2]

Lily from animove, on 23 September 2015 - 01:16 AM, said:

but there is not an infinite amount of opponents available, once 12 are dead they are dead. and when everyone in your team only shoots CT's in worts case everyone would maybe net 200 damage, and its correlated low number of score. While the "spreadwarrior" simply needs 2x more demage and gets nearly 2x as much score.




yes Some other games catched my attention that I needed to play a lot. The only time I played a lot since jan 15th was actually the Tukkayid event.

At this point I wonder how CW games affected the judgement. We know PGI used the CW matches for Tiers as well. They stopped doing so. But did that made them erase past CW matches from that calculation or did they stayed? If they stayed it may explain this at all, because in the tukkayid event and with those weird CW score calculating system. In that case playing with the CWI's and trying to "win" CW matches was basically always a situation which either caused no skill rating increase (because low score winnings for base rushes) or dowranking because low score and failed rushing will always be low score and lose conditions.

PGI said also, if not enough matches were held you get beginner tier right? Or do I just imagine this. This may indeed have caused me tostart over at T4. Since then I only had a few matches during the takeover events. probably, if I had to start over at T4 those matches may have cause the progress in T3.

If I weren'T busy playing Elite atm, I would make like 100 matches and trakc the ups and downs to see how it develops. That would be quite some interesting sight. But wiht the few games I made i will be T2 in soem time, but givne how slowly the bar raises these are porbably 100-200 games mostly depending on if the team loses or wins.

That is in fact something I wonder about. if you do constantly lets say 500 damage getting your 250 score + something. you would be a mechwarrior of "constant" skills. but PSR will rate your skill then sololy on the winning of your team. if you have bad luck and your team loses most time, your PSR goes down. If you are lucky and it wons, you significantly will rise.

This gets especially problematic with the buils one brings, if you have a low dps build but oyu are a good pilot most of the time you will not rise unless games are long enough. But when you make a high dps build runnign dry after 2 minutes but you net your 300 scores, you will never drop but always rise when winning.

It is strange since it seems PGI is using fixed score values to determine this. But we need more statistics to determine this. But if so, the scores will never be in "skill relation" to others.

the spread warior needs 2 times longer to aply that 2x damage... the fact that he cant aim just means that he will win less often as the well aimed dps is the same dps as the badly aimed dps

[0bsidion]

Well, according to the tier system, I'm exactly as good as a newbie. Tier 4 baby. I'm right there with all those people who'd be standing at the spawn point for half the game if their mechs didn't start the match already turned on for them.

I guess that's what I get for running my Mad Dog instead of my Timberwolf, and my Nova or Shadowcat instead of my Stormcrow. Wouldn't have it any other way.

[Mawai]

cdlord, on 22 September 2015 - 01:34 PM, said:

I was just gonna ask PGI to release the numbers of players in each tier. Don't need to know who, but how many would a good story tell.

They might be convinced to release percentages but they will never release actual numbers since it would give too much information on community size.

[Lily from animove]

L3mming2, on 23 September 2015 - 06:12 AM, said:

the spread warior needs 2 times longer to aply that 2x damage... the fact that he cant aim just means that he will win less often as the well aimed dps is the same dps as the badly aimed dps

but the spread warrior will when losing mostlikely have more score due to not running out of targets, spread 400 dmaage and die not dropping in PSR. score a kill with 150 damage and you drop in PSR when losing. THAT IS THE FLAW.

now lets take a rather extreme example

24 spreadwarriors meet in match, all will have rather "high scores. in the current system the winners all UP, the losers all stay.

24 headshooting killing warrios meet each other, they end up 11:12 in wirst case those 11 who lost get down in skillratign because blelow 200score and losing. the other 12 just stay. because not even 100score and winning.

So the "sweet" spot of the current system is when winnign, net at least 160damage, or when losing grab those 300 score somehow (no mater if skill or not) this way you constantly go up when winning but never drop when losing. While the guy constantly making

While the guy coonstantly getting 500 damage will drop and rise sololy dependend on if he wins or loses, but he will always stick on the place due to loss=down win=up.

So you are btter not one of those light pilots that backscrathes 3 people per match because those efficiency is not what PSR likes. you better take lrm's and just make shure to land a few volleys for the big scores, no matter if you efficiently helped taking a mech out or not.

2 teams meet each other, lets say 24 players of spreadwarriors

Stefka Kerensky, on 23 September 2015 - 05:49 AM, said:

Ok, so it must be a kind of match played "pool" during a time period.
I can only say that players who left the game for a period have thier tier below than expected

I guess PGI put everyone at T4, on the date of 01.01.2015 and then went through all the games you did since then with their new judgement, so people have started getting their ups and downs since then.

but omg, i have like 2500 games combined in my entire MWO gameplay. and since january, maybe not even 200. And since the PSR obviously is a climbing state for good pilots depending on number of matches I just lakc like 1000 games to be "better". This is not skillrating its just a counter.

Edited by Lily from animove, 23 September 2015 - 08:01 AM.

[Mudhutwarrior]

So far the guys I have seen on the field I clearly have seen as better players than me all fall into tier one and two so I think the system is working well. Of course there will always be aberrations but on a whole it's working.

[CDLord HHGD]

Mawai, on 23 September 2015 - 06:22 AM, said:

They might be convinced to release percentages but they will never release actual numbers since it would give too much information on community size.

I would be good with percentages. TBH, I was just gonna convert the numbers anyways...

[wanderer]

Tier 3 is the nastiest thing a Tier 4/5 player should encounter, IMHO.

And we already know from the event that we're getting about 15,000 playing accounts over the time of an average event by playing a single 0-1 damage match and checking rank afterwards.

[Bigbacon]

wanderer, on 23 September 2015 - 11:08 AM, said:

Tier 3 is the nastiest thing a Tier 4/5 player should encounter, IMHO.

And we already know from the event that we're getting about 15,000 playing accounts over the time of an average event by playing a single 0-1 damage match and checking rank afterwards.

i would suspect once the game ends up on steam and they can see how many new players they get and keep they would adjust the MM as needed to get different tier battles.

As of now they probably don't have the player base or since PSR just launched, people are in the wrong tiers