62 replies to this topic

[Threat Doc]

It needs to be replaced with something that is not divisive, such as... oh... ummm... an MWO based version of Battle Value, which would allow all players to be in the same queue, but allows for the tools of the game, BattleMechs, to be rated individually based on their potential on the battlefield offensively, defensively, and with special equipment, and that is then modified by already available telemetry that represents Piloting and Gunnery Skills in-game. Dump it all together in a bucket, the overall numbers have to match within 5% of each others total team Battle Value, and then you drop and play.

Many folks, including PGI, are not convinced of this, but I'm working the system to attempt to bring about their being so.

[Not A Real RAbbi]

Kay Wolf, I like your idea of just deciding tier movement (if any) on the relative position of a player in a match. Here, watch THIS. Yes, I KNOW I'm awful at MWO.

What you see there is top damage in the whole drop, and #2 match score in the whole drop, despite LOSING and not even being the last on my own team. That SHOULD result in a net increase, and probably a decent one, in ranking. And it did.

But you also hit at something else just now, that I think should also be considered. I was in perhaps THE most OP mech in the game, when you consider it's a flightless ECM-less not-the-fastest-there-is 35-tonner. And that BattleValue (BV) system would be really nice, at least in order to use to produce some coefficient for one's tier movement/placement after a match.

Was that match score, that damage, REALLY indicative of how well I played? Was I REALLY the second-best player in THAT match? No, and no. Might have reached-up a little over my head, but I wouldn't say that performance was better than MAYBE 75th-80th percentile in that match.

Now watch THIS one. Sorry I cut off the match summary. Similar numbers, also a loss. Top damage and score in the match. BUT, it was in a less awesomely-OP mech (WLF-1A, versus JR7-O). Also netted an increase in PSR. SHOULD have netted a bigger one, because it was in a less-powerful mech with less-powerful weaponry, etc.

So yeah. Let's talk more about that idea of PSR movement based on relative performance within a match AND BV of the mech used.

We need a range. LOWEST possible BV for a mech (say, unarmored Urbie, stock engine, single Flamer or MG, no JJs). HIGHEST possible (what, maybe DireWhale full-on meta). Average of all that. Mean, median, etc...

See where this goes? Take a 'score' based on the previous idea of placement within the 24 players in the match, MODIFY it by the relative BV coefficient, and produce a number. >1 is a PSR increase, <1 is a decrease. Rounded appropriately, 1.00 +/- 0.02 is a net equal. Or something.

Thoughts?

[Threat Doc]

Sister RAbbi, on 26 April 2016 - 07:56 PM, said:

Kay Wolf, I like your idea...

I have to hit the rack in about 45 minutes and Agents of SHIELD is on, so I'm going to hold onto your email and look this over when I'm home from work, tomorrow. I have to be at work at 6am, so it's going to be a bit before I can answer.

[Serpentbane]

The reason I don’t like the 8-8-8 rule is the fact that the importance of each player in that particular match cannot be measured by hard numbers generating an mach score.

I just played this match. As you can see, we lost. With my 1 kill, 3 assist, 927 dmg and 499 match score I had the 2^nd highest score in this game. And I got a PSR increase, which is OK.



Judging by the numbers two players on my team were great, the others not so much. The other team pretty much had a **** assault lance, but the other two lances saved the day.

By the 8-8-8 rule, Rdzen68 and Generalhoebag should have a PSR decrease, even if their team won. A fair assumption would make this right considering their **** performance.

Now, let me tell you what really happened. My entire team did a flank, they knew it, but we were moving in fast, they had spread out and most likely, we would have hit them hard before they were able to respond properly. What those two players did were a move directly into the center/rear part of my team. Breaking the formation, stopping our progress, vasting a lot of time on our part as they managed to survive for long enough for their team to regroup, while keeping us in a very disadvantageous location. Before we managed to destroy them, their backup came raining down on us, confusing many of my teammates not being able to focus on the right targets and moving into good locations.

I’m not saying we had a sure win, but we surely had the upper edge, and their two players with the lowest score really contributed to our defeat.

Give me one good reason those players should not be rewarded. As I’ve written before, I consider this a team play game where individual performance is less important than the team. Players should learn to think about the team as a single entity with several abilities depending on the contributing mechs, and PGI need to emphasize this, rather than making the game more focused on single player’s performance.

PGI is constantly moving further away from this. Saying ppl can’t play as a team is just bull. They can, if the game worked that way.

Today some of the highest scorers are light pilots rushing solo in god mode, perhaps with their ECM bubble hiding them while the team gets hammered by LRMs. Being able to single out a strangler or two, scoring some dmg and kills while the rest of the team gets steam rolled. Directly contributing to a team loss just by not being in the right place, shooting at the right mechs, providing cover for their team. This might give them a match score among the top 8 if the enemy team divides dmg and kills between them selves, but they should not get a PSR increase in my eyes.

This is why I don’t like the 8-8-8 solution. Getting increases if team loses should be hard.

Edited by Serpentbane, 27 April 2016 - 02:33 AM.

[Threat Doc]

Wow, I'm surprised no one has responded in the time since I was last able to take a look, here. I apologize about the lengthy response time, but again the responses were sort of late last night, and both posts long enough that I wanted to spend some real time with them. I had some time at work, today, while my students were performing computer based training, so I did so...

Sister RAbbi, on 26 April 2016 - 07:56 PM, said:

Kay Wolf, I like your idea of just deciding tier movement (if any) on the relative position of a player in a match. Here, watch THIS. Yes, I KNOW I'm awful at MWO.

I’m working on this at work, and so I’m not allowed to watch the video, here. From the first video, I have to tell you that I am singularly impressed with your prowess and the fact you fight honorably. Most Light 'Mech drivers run around and find back armor ONLY to shoot in, but you actually give your targets the opportunity to hit you back, and THAT is impressive. THAT is honorable. Thank you for restoring some faith, there.

For the second video... "Up 3-1. I'm a Light. Chasing. ..." can't repeat the rest, but that was an awesome response, hehe. Still that was excellent work and, again, except for the JagerMech, you kept moving and kept giving the enemy the ability to hit you, though they were pretty much denied a LOT.

Quote

What you see there is top damage in the whole drop, and #2 match score in the whole drop, despite LOSING and not even being the last on my own team. That SHOULD result in a net increase, and probably a decent one, in ranking. And it did.

The problem is not one of high score allowing a gain in PSR, it’s a matter that a lower score on a winning team may still gain in PSR over a higher score on a losing team, and that is just not right.

Quote

But you also hit at something else just now, that I think should also be considered. I was in perhaps THE most OP mech in the game, when you consider it's a flightless ECM-less not-the-fastest-there-is 35-tonner. And that BattleValue (BV) system would be really nice, at least in order to use to produce some coefficient for one's tier movement/placement after a match.

With BV, it is possible to have an OP ‘Mech, as you pointed out, but that ‘Mech is scored according to its strength, and the system allows for comparisons between ‘Mechs based on their design strengths. Now, would that allow for certain players, called munchkins, to over-design ‘Mechs with certain weapons and design properties that allow for values that are incongruously high, where a Light ‘Mech, when over-designed, would allow for that higher BV over a Medium or, perhaps, even a Heavy ‘Mech.

Quote

Was that match score, that damage, REALLY indicative of how well I played? Was I REALLY the second-best player in THAT match? No, and no. Might have reached-up a little over my head, but I wouldn't say that performance was better than MAYBE 75th-80th percentile in that match.

Well, therein lies the problem... time, circumstances, position, and bravado all go into how much damage you do, how many kills you get, etc. The fact of the matter is, you did score that much damage, regardless of how hard you worked, or whether you were just in the right place at the right time, or if you just were particularly good in your aim or not for that match or that day. I had a game in early 2013 where I was driving a Catapult K2 with twin AC/5’s and twin ER Large Lasers, and I single-handedly killed 6 ‘Mechs in the game in the span of about three minutes; that was a particularly delicious game for me, but my future games have all defined the fact that game was a fluke for me. I’ve actually killed exactly one-half the enemy team two more times, on my own, since then, but that is NOT my normal play style.

So, the idea is that although you might have an amazing game, all of your other games matched with it, which are all recorded in PGIs telemetry since June 2012, determine what manner of Pilot and Gunnery Skills you have overall, so these amazing games we’ve had are all bumps in the road of that telemetry, but not an overall determinant of where your skills are.

Quote

Now watch THIS one. Sorry I cut off the match summary. Similar numbers, also a loss. Top damage and score in the match. BUT, it was in a less awesomely-OP mech (WLF-1A, versus JR7-O). Also netted an increase in PSR. SHOULD have netted a bigger one, because it was in a less-powerful mech with less-powerful weaponry, etc.

So yeah. Let's talk more about that idea of PSR movement based on relative performance within a match AND BV of the mech used.

Yes, but my idea of 8/8/8 both does not ignore the Match Score and it also removes the false limitations PGI have set for thresholds for making your PSR bonus, equals, or penalty, which I’ve been over, before.

Quote

We need a range. LOWEST possible BV for a mech (say, unarmored Urbie, stock engine, single Flamer or MG, no JJs). HIGHEST possible (what, maybe DireWhale full-on meta). Average of all that. Mean, median, etc...

See where this goes? Take a 'score' based on the previous idea of placement within the 24 players in the match, MODIFY it by the relative BV coefficient, and produce a number. >1 is a PSR increase, <1 is a decrease. Rounded appropriately, 1.00 +/- 0.02 is a net equal. Or something.

Thoughts?

All of that depends on what sort of scale PGI would set up for MWO, and I couldn’t begin to speculate. If they’re smart, they would go with a smaller score for Battle Value, and a larger modifier for pilots, such as x3 for Elite pilots, x2 for Veteran pilots, x1 for Regular pilots, and x.65 for Green pilots. The scale for Light ‘Mechs in the Battle Value 2 system runs in the upper hundreds to very low thousands for stock ‘Mechs, and for Assault ‘Mechs anywhere near 2000 as far as 3500, also for stock ‘Mechs. I developed a Wolverine one time, however, that was more powerful than a top-flight stock Stalker, more than 1800 points, if that tells you anything.

Serpentbane, on 27 April 2016 - 02:25 AM, said:

The reason I don’t like the 8-8-8 rule is the fact that the importance of each player in that particular match cannot be measured by hard numbers generating an mach score.

It does so in the current PSR system all the time. The difference is this, however, that with PSR the work of the ENTIRE TEAM is allowed to affect an individual’s score permanently based off whether the team won or lost, not how well the individual did within the team. So, if a normally top-flight player in a PSR Tier gets caught with a **** team, and that “TEAM” loses, it’s NOT the fault of the top-flight player, but it is THEIR individual score that will be affected.

With my 8/8/8 proposition, it takes out the win-lose aspect of the TEAM to DIRECTLY influence the PSR of the individual, though the team would still have an INDIRECT influence. Think of it this way, however... if a top-flight player gets thrown in with a **** team on a fairly regular basis, which I know for a fact happens a LOT, how often is that player going to have a Match Score higher than two-thirds of the opposing team? The losing team generally loses all of their ‘Mechs before that top-flight player goes down, meaning the top-flight player has less time to do damage and, most typically, ends up dying before they get a high enough Match Score, anyway, right? It follows that two, maybe three players, from the losing team WILL have scores higher than those of the winning team, and the winning team will have more high scoring individuals.

Can we agree on that?

Assuming you will say yes to my question, that means my 8/8/8 system would give, based on top-flight performance, the two or three players from the losing team with high match scores the green up-arrow, and some of the losing team –perhaps less than half the number of players from the winning team- in the stalemate category, and more of the losing team –perhaps more than half the number of players from the winning team- in the red down-arrow category, right?

Quote

I just played this match. As you can see, we lost. With my 1 kill, 3 assist, 927 dmg and 499 match score I had the 2^nd highest score in this game. And I got a PSR increase, which is OK.

Judging by the numbers two players on my team were great, the others not so much. The other team pretty much had a **** assault lance, but the other two lances saved the day.

By the 8-8-8 rule, Rdzen68 and Generalhoebag should have a PSR decrease, even if their team won. A fair assumption would make this right considering their **** performance.

I want to note that, going through the tonnages, there was a 10 ton disparity against the losing team. There were two front-line Clan ‘Mechs on the winning team, and two front-line and four second-line Clan ‘Mechs on the losing team.

Now, from the image you gave me to work with, here is how my 8/8/8 PSR breakdown would work...
These are read as ‘Mech (Win/Loss, Alive/Dead, Match Score, 8/8/8 PSR bonus/penalty, match damage, and current PSR system up/equals/down)...

Positive PSR Adjustment
1) Grasshopper (Win, Alive, 579, +8 PSR; 950 dmg, current PSR up)
2) Mad Dog (Loss, Dead, 499, +7 PSR; 927 dmg, current PSR up)
3) Stalker (Loss, Dead, 387, +6 PSR; 719 dmg, current PSR static)
4) Wolverine (Win, Alive, 353, +5 PSR; 525 dmg, current PSR up)
5) Stalker (Win, Alive, 335, +4 PSR; 529 dmg, current PSR up)
6) Dire Wolf (Win, Alive, 324, +3 PSR; 475 dmg, current PSR up)
7) Warhammer (Win, Alive, 288, +2 PSR; 461 dmg, current PSR up)
8) Spider (Win, Dead, 270, +1 PSR; 381 dmg, current PSR up. This guy really busted his butt to get this high before he got ganked.)
So, in short, only two guys from the losing side would still get a raise in PSR.

Static PSR Adjustment 0 Movement
9) Blackjack (Win, Alive, 266; 393 dmg, current PSR up)
10) Warhawk (Loss, Dead, 188; 348 dmg, current PSR down. Now, look at the JagerMech, below, who contributed less to his team, whose Match Score is only six points off, and his current PSR goes up.)
11) JagerMech (Win, Alive, 182; 229 dmg, current PSR up)
12) Highlander (Loss, Dead, 179; 334 dmg, current PSR down. Again, the JagerMech is only 3 points better on match score, but his current system PSR drops? Where is THAT fair?)
13) Shadowcat (Win, Alive, 177; 223 dmg, current PSR up, with a Match Score less than the Highlander?)
14) Atlas (Loss, Dead, 158; 282 dmg, current PSR down)
15) Jenner (Loss, Dead, 125; 202 dmg, current PSR down)
16) King Crab (Win, Dead, 114; 177 dmg, current PSR up)
Exactly one-half of the people listed here are from the losing team, but they did more than those I’m about to list. These are people who are, if their games are relatively consistent for Match Score are right where they need to be in the Tier structure.

Negative PSR Adjustment
17) Marauder (Loss, Dead, 106, -1 PSR; 200 dmg, current PSR down)
18) Mauler – Relzen68 (Win, Dead, 95, -2 PSR; 139 damage, current PSR down)
19) Hunchback (Loss, Dead, 87, -3 PSR; 104 dmg, current PSR down)
20) Enforcer (Loss, Dead, 85, -4 PSR; 150 dmg, current PSR down)
21) Hunchback (Loss, Dead, 74, -5 PSR; 120 dmg, current PSR down)
22) King Crab - Generalhoebag (Win, Dead, 72, -6 PSR; 84 dmg, current PSR down)
23) Highlander (Loss, Dead, 63, -7 PSR; 125 dmg, current PSR down)
24) Mad Dog (Loss, Dead, 37, -8 PSR; 60 dmg, current PSR down)
Three Medium ‘Mechs in this category is understandable, two Heavy ‘Mechs here is kind of silly, and then three Assault ‘Mechs here is laughable, and completely deserved. You will notice only two of the winning team are listed, here; this is where they fit FOR THE MATCH. If their other matches are similarly bad, then they need to be adjusted to a lower Tier, where they will face others of their caliber and, perhaps, be forced to learn how to play better. Finally, you’ll notice my negative adjustments match those made by PGIs current system; however, the number of downs would total twelve between the two teams, only one static pilot losing team, but with a VERY HIGH Match Score, and the ups would total eleven.)

Quote

Now, let me tell you what really happened. My entire team did a flank, they knew it, but we were moving in fast, they had spread out and most likely, we would have hit them hard before they were able to respond properly. What those two players did were a move directly into the center/rear part of my team. Breaking the formation, stopping our progress, vasting a lot of time on our part as they managed to survive for long enough for their team to regroup, while keeping us in a very disadvantageous location. Before we managed to destroy them, their backup came raining down on us, confusing many of my teammates not being able to focus on the right targets and moving into good locations.

I’m not saying we had a sure win, but we surely had the upper edge, and their two players with the lowest score really contributed to our defeat.

Look at the match scores, the two players on the winning side did nothing to aid in your defeat… they did almost nothing at all before your team ganked them. They DID NOT deserve to gain anything, if they did. My 8/8/8 system for PSR is designed to help sort players who are working to improve from those who are just out for a good time, would introduce both a more competitive spirit for team’s facing off and cooperative spirit so teams would actually work together. It might also cause those who aren’t working all that hard to find better games to see that they need to work harder in the games to move up.

Quote

Give me one good reason those players should not be rewarded. As I’ve written before, I consider this a team play game where individual performance is less important than the team. Players should learn to think about the team as a single entity with several abilities depending on the contributing mechs, and PGI need to emphasize this, rather than making the game more focused on single player’s performance.

8/8/8 would do that, would help groups of individuals to become teams. You could see, under my idea, here, PUG teams eventually be able to truly face off against units in Faction Warfare.

Quote

PGI is constantly moving further away from this. Saying ppl can’t play as a team is just bull. They can, if the game worked that way.

Precisely. 8/8/8 would do this. If you put players together who have like abilities, who fit within a certain team dynamic, as defined by the current PSR Tier system, even, but defined better by 8/8/8, they will win or lose similarly, and can be played off against like teams, leveling the playing fields for those disparate teams and encouraging team work.

Quote

Today some of the highest scorers are light pilots rushing solo in god mode, perhaps with their ECM bubble hiding them while the team gets hammered by LRMs. Being able to single out a straggler or two, scoring some dmg and kills while the rest of the team gets steam rolled.

I’ve seen this happen many times, but I’ve also seen games like the one outlined above in this post, where everyone tried to contribute but wound up being incapable of doing so because they were caught out doing something that was not team related, were new, and/or just sucked at driving a ‘Mech. You know how it is when you start grinding out a new set of ‘Mechs, you kind of really suck until you get your Elite mastery on all three ‘Mechs, right?

Quote

Directly contributing to a team loss just by not being in the right place, shooting at the right mechs, providing cover for their team. This might give them a match score among the top 8 if the enemy team divides dmg and kills between themselves, but they should not get a PSR increase in my eyes.

This is why I don’t like the 8-8-8 solution. Getting increases if team loses should be hard.

Well, this is actually something 8/8/8 would help solve, as well. When bad team mates, or greedy ones at least, are out for themselves, getting like-PSR folks together, as I’ve suggested, will force a dynamic where those team mates would not, necessarily be able to get out the same as they used to. These non-team players, as things are right now, artificially affect their PSR by picking off stragglers and players who play like crap and, perhaps have not filtered out to their proper PSR level, because it’s an easy kill and they can get more points and, thus, a higher match score, for it. My 8/8/8 idea would sort these folks pretty quickly, I think; it will either get them away from players they can’t easily pick off, putting them in the lower PSR Tier, and/or force them to work with the team, for the sake of their individual PSR, to continue moving upward.

Paul has said, in the past, that the purpose behind the PSR was to allow everyone to, eventually, move to Tier 1; however, the way the current system is laid out disallows this movement and, perhaps, getting everyone to Tier 1 should NOT be the desired result. Why? Because you want teams of various calibers to be able to show down against other teams of the same, or similar, caliber, and some folks simply CAN NOT get to those upper calibers. So, as you thin one group down, and there is less competition to work with, that means fewer matches against those and more matches against higher caliber players, which eventually means the loss of those players. Not everyone WANTS to get to those higher tiers, though.

Edited by Kay Wolf, 27 April 2016 - 02:49 PM.

[Serpentbane]

I’m not saying the 8-8-8 would not work as you describe. I’m saying it would not necessarily reward the players contributing the most to a victory.

You claim the two players I mentioned to have done nothing to aid in our defeat, even when I tell you they are the reason everything collapsed on our part? This is no random score table I had saved on my computer, I played this match and immediately thought about this discussion taking that screen shot.

You fail to acknowledge the fact that not every contribution is possible to measure in hard numbers. What about scouting and communicating enemy movement back to the team, people taking charge, commanding the team to a victory, people making all kind of smart decisions that can trigger the events leading to a victory. An atlas leading a breach, taking tons of enemy fire while creating chaos and confusion, letting friendlies swarm out from behind him. Just surviving long enough during such an event would in many cases be one of the key factors to a victory. I’ve seen it happen several times, even if he might not do a lot of damage or get many kills just him walking through the enemy lines opens the opportunity for the rest of the team. The light flanking, taking some shots before running off, dragging several of the enemy players after him, splitting the enemy team making a force push possibility for his team.

Again. Should those players not be rewarded for that exact match? What happens the next match is not relevant.

I jumped straight in on T2 and have just continued from there, and I’m soon at T1. I don’t really care, but if you ask me, up there, I’d rather have the smart player scoring a little lower but always ending up on the wining team for whatever reason, than the ego running off on solo runs that manage to get some decent score even if the team looses. Even if someone gets a free ride now and then, they would not get it every match. When their team loses, they go down again.

I’m not saying all players with low scores on the wining team did something like that. I’m saying that they should be rewarded when they do. And the only way to do so, is by rewarding the wining team.

If you don’t contribute like this and are at about the same level as other players on your team, you should get about 50/50 win/loss ratio. If you have an average score, you would remain in this Tier. In my head, this is how it should be.

Players standing out with over average match score, even when the team loses, are climbing the PSR ladder. I know, I do. If you play bad every time compared to players on the same Tier, then your team would perform lower on average, making you eventually go down one level. Also ok.

I think we pretty much want the same, but our disagreement is based on our view on some of the factors playing in one the game. Again, as I wrote, the K/D ratio, damage done, and match scores are just indications, not telling the full picture. For me, Win/Loss ratio is the one counting. I don't care if I get the kill or not. I’m ending my part in this discussion here.

Edited by Serpentbane, 27 April 2016 - 04:30 PM.

[Threat Doc]

Serpentbane, on 27 April 2016 - 04:27 PM, said:

I’m not saying the 8-8-8 would not work as you describe. I’m saying it would not necessarily reward the players contributing the most to a victory.

You claim the two players I mentioned to have done nothing to aid in our defeat, even when I tell you they are the reason everything collapsed on our part? This is no random score table I had saved on my computer, I played this match and immediately thought about this discussion taking that screen shot.

I understand what you're saying; however, the only thing they did was pull off some of your people, who should have known better than to chase them. The contribution to your defeat was people with no tactical sense whatsoever chasing the rabbit, even if they were damn big rabbits. How would the game -which I'm sure you will agree would have to be the "judge" of all actions, so we don't get a bunch of cry-babies- tell the difference between a true tactical advantage being exploited from a couple of bubbleheads who decided to leave their team? How do you know what those two pilots were thinking? I see plenty of ignorance from players who think they know better than everyone else, and go do silly things that net neither them, nor their team, anything significant. So, yes, whether those two pilots performed a sacrifice or were just being idiots, they lose PSR.

If there ever comes a way to tell the difference between a brave, defiant, tactical diversion from stupidity, then yes those pilots should be praised and rewarded. For now, however, I don't know what they were thinking, neither do you, and so their PSR drops.

Quote

You fail to acknowledge the fact that not every contribution is possible to measure in hard numbers. What about scouting and communicating enemy movement back to the team, people taking charge, commanding the team to a victory, people making all kind of smart decisions that can trigger the events leading to a victory.

Scouting is rewarded when it bears fruit, I can't agree with people taking charge, unless they're an Officer or NCO, because Russ has said there will be no further embellishment of mercenary unit control, so no way to determine ranks, hierarchy, or anything INSIDE the game. However, if that ever changes, then yes there should be rewards. There are ways, just like any other video game, that would allow for triggers in the game to be tripped, and rewards to be made. This game already has those and they trigger to keep our XP totals, and I am all for adding as many as can be developed for this game.

Quote

An atlas leading a breach, taking tons of enemy fire while creating chaos and confusion, letting friendlies swarm out from behind him. Just surviving long enough during such an event would in many cases be one of the key factors to a victory. I’ve seen it happen several times, even if he might not do a lot of damage or get many kills just him walking through the enemy lines opens the opportunity for the rest of the team. The light flanking, taking some shots before running off, dragging several of the enemy players after him, splitting the enemy team making a force push possibility for his team.

Again. Should those players not be rewarded for that exact match? What happens the next match is not relevant.

There is one way this might happen, and that would be an out-of-match-after-match screen that would list all of the participants, good and bad guys, and players would be able to vote for effectiveness they saw in the match, choosing a reason for it, and whomever gains the most votes -ties would all get the reward- is rewarded some extra C-Bills, XP, GXP, and/or MC, even. I use that in my role-playing games all the time, allowing my players to vote at the end of a game session, and at the end of an adventure, to gain extra XP. No, this is not a joke, and I believe folks would go for that.

Quote

I jumped straight in on T2 and have just continued from there, and I’m soon at T1. I don’t really care, but if you ask me, up there, I’d rather have the smart player scoring a little lower but always ending up on the wining team for whatever reason, than the ego running off on solo runs that manage to get some decent score even if the team looses. Even if someone gets a free ride now and then, they would not get it every match. When their team loses, they go down again.

I absolutely agree with you, and the 8/8/8 system would place those of similar skill together more accurately than the present system. The smart player who works with the team will typically gain more Match Score for doing more things, such as spotting, sticking with their Lance, using a UAV, air strike, artillery strike, at the right time, for the sake of saving the team. Alternately, the guy who hides during the main fight and only comes out to make final kills, or who only sits on a capture point for the entire game, will not get those points, will have a lower Match Score, etc.

Quote

I’m not saying all players with low scores on the wining team did something like that. I’m saying that they should be rewarded when they do. And the only way to do so, is by rewarding the wining team.

No, that's not true. In fact, it's amazingly short-sighted, I think. How did PGI come up with the bonuses they have in the game, now? They had to develop them, right? Some of them came from our community, whether as direct translations or great ideas that were, then, modified, or somewhere in-between. Can we do that, again? Balance the current system to welcome even more happenstance that can make the Match Score take into account more things? Yes, we could, as a community do that, and then you would get more rewards. Start a thread about outlining more rewards for in-game actions, and let me know where it is, and I will support the development of that thread to the best of my time and ability. That's a challenge, by the way, in case you were wondering.

Quote

If you don’t contribute like this and are at about the same level as other players on your team, you should get about 50/50 win/loss ratio. If you have an average score, you would remain in this Tier. In my head, this is how it should be.

Yes, absolutely! And, the 8/8/8 system would detail that FAR BETTER than the present system. Out of curiosity, did you read my breakdown of the game you played in, at all, and how each of these individuals would be set based on Match Score rather than the team win or loss, and why I think the current PSR system is way off? Why should a player, win or lose, with a match score of 286 not have their PSR adjusted upward against a player with a match score of 151? The team that won the game has still won the game, and that is accounted into Match Score as well, and the team that lost the game has still lost the game... why do the individual's who busted their butts in the fight on the losing team be ranked downward, only, while those who sat back, played it safe, and only came out of hiding to make kills, are ranked upward, only?

Why does that seem fair and right to you?

One team still won the match, one team still lost... why does individual performance HAVE to remain tied to that with static number thresholds? You DO understand that the numbers are static, right? They don't move. As long as you get 150 damage and you're on the winning team, you go up in PSR, but if you're on the losing team, you have to get 750 damage to go up in PSR. Why is there a 600 point disparity in damage to do this. Why isn't 400 points enough to get a bonus in PSR, rather than an =?

The 8/8/8 system would remove those static number thresholds and make it so the calculated Match Score for each MechWarrior in the game is the driving force behind whether or not they get a bonus or penalty to PSR, or remain static, among other MechWarrior's they belong with. Total damage done is already calculated into Match Score, so why does that help determine, separate of Match Score, whether you go up, down, or remain static? Why is damage used twice, for separate calculations? And, I ask the question, again... why does a person with between 550 and 749 damage on the losing team only get an = to PSR, while the person with between 150 and 349 get a bonus to PSR? Why does that make sense?

Truthfully, you've not given me any reason to pause in my march forward with my idea. What is your idea in favor of the current system over 8/8/8?

Also, your two opposing players you thought were so brave and should have had a bonus to their PSR, go down in either system, not just in mine, so consider that as you consider your answer. Had they done 150 or more damage, they would have had a bonus to their PSR.

Quote

Players standing out with over average match score, even when the team loses, are climbing the PSR ladder. I know, I do. If you play bad every time compared to players on the same Tier, then your team would perform lower on average, making you eventually go down one level. Also ok.

Yes, but my 8/8/8 system would allow for more players to remain static if they fall below the numerical thresholds that should not exist, because those thresholds are prejudicial against those who actually do more work for their team, while simultaneously rewarding those who really didn't work that hard.

Quote

I think we pretty much want the same, but our disagreement is based on our view on some of the factors playing in one the game. Again, as I wrote, the K/D ratio, damage done, and match scores are just indications, not telling the full picture. For me, Win/Loss ratio is the one counting. I don't care if I get the kill or not. I’m ending my part in this discussion here.

Let me tell you a secret... NONE OF THOSE ARE USED in determining your Match Score. I am not talking about using out-of-simulator indicators, except for my Battle Value arguments, which my 8/8/8 system would also work very well with, by the way, but Match Scores in-simulator. Go back and re-read how I laid out the three sections on how 8/8/8 would classify the MechWarrior's who participated in the game screenshot you posted, above.

Why should people who played an average damage/score game be rewarded for that average performance, or penalized for being a few points lower, when they could stay in place for the current game, and work harder to begin moving up in follow-on games, all of which are averaged together, even now, for both systems of PSR determination.

If you're still not understanding what I'm talking about, or if you still feel the point-threshold system being used by PGI to determine and modify PSR, now, is better than balancing out the MechWarrior's who truly earn an up-arrow, a static = symbol, or a down-arrow to their PSR, then I am at an end with being able to explain just how fair my idea makes things. Isn't this community supposed to be all about balance and fairness? Well, then why is that only being applied to 'Mechs and circumstances, why not also to PSR?

[Serpentbane]

I wrote I was out of the discussion, but here I go.

Last thing first, I do understand how you your suggestion works. We just don’t agree on the values that should make an player increase his PSR rating. You are afraid some get a free ride playing mediocre on the wining team, and that good players would end up on the loosing team not getting the rewards they deserve.

I’m more afraid that contributions not measurable in hard numbers that still have a huge impact on the match outcome is not accounted for when PSR score for the match is calculated. Or that the numbers them selves are insufficient to give true testaments on the performance of the individual player.

In my opinion, players performing on or under average would not be able to piggyback up to let’s say T1. If you do not contribute to the team in any way, neither those hard to put numbers on things ppl do or those leading to high match scores, your team effectiveness would be affected and over time you would see a standstill or drop.

On the other hand, people who for whatever reason always ends up on the wining team are either extremely lucky, or they are doing something right, regardless if you can set a number on that or not.

Again, our main difference in opinion is based on the numerical thresholds. You feel those numbers do give an adequately representation of the players performance during the match, while I do not.
You ask why a person doing 550+ damage on the loosing team gets a PSR stand still, while the player scoring 349 damage or less on the wining team gets a decrease. The answer is easy. Because those numbers do not tell much by themselves at all.

As you can see by the image I posted above, I did close to 1000 damage. That one kill I had I got at the very end. As they were sweeping up the remains of my team that spider miscalculated my combat effectiveness moving in to secure the kill for himself, head on, forgetting his own weaknesses. Giving me that window of opportunity was a fatal mistake.

So, with all that damage, did I play great? Perhaps, only judging by the numbers one could say so. However, the enemy team halted our progress, removed our initiative, and then used the terrain very well on the counter attack as they also did some good maneuvering taking turns on taking the front line. It is difficult to say exactly what happened, but I never got the opportunity to shoot at the same mech enough to destroy any of them. All that damage were probably ripped off all 12 mechs on the enemy team. As you see, I have that one kill, and assists on the other 3 that died. From a team point of view, in the end, all that damage did not matter at all, we failed, we lost.

This dynamic movement during the enemy teams push, spreading damage amongst the entire team is yet another factor that is not accounted for in the stats. Intentionally or not, I was unable to kill any of them because of it. I don’t count the last one I destroyed as that was a last minute stupid move after their maneuver shred us apart.

Also a while ago when I used my whales I was a little AFK (I know, but sometimes **** happens), and moving slowly, by the time I reached the enemy I was the only player left. They had damaged mechs. First they spread out to find me, the first mistake. They found me one at the time, two down. Instead of running off and win by time, the three remaining damaged mechs thought they were up for the task. I got 5 kills and did very little damage, I’m talking less than 200dmg here. Just a few well-placed gauss rounds. Now, I’m not proud of this round, being AFK an all, and the enemies were all primed by my team. Nevertheless, I turned the tide and won the match.

So, what was the most important reason for this victory. The other players doing lots of damage, not destroying the enemy before they got destroyed themselves? Me, not contributing to the initial fight, doing little damage, destroying the remaining enemy, and ultimately wining the match? What I can say is those kills did not give much in terms of match score.

No damage my team did, won the match, but I would not say I did exceptionally well either. It was easy. However, as a team we reached the objective. Your rules would give me a PSR decrease. Would you say this is right? Hell yes you say, being AFK and all.

If so, even though I scored close to 1000 dmg in the picture above, and I do 1000+ runs rather often, as you get better the dmg tend to go down while your accuracy goes up. Depending on the weapons of choice. I have several high precision builds, putting out less damage total, but spread the damage I do over fewer mechs, and over fewer components per mech. Thus, the damage I do before the enemy is destroyed goes down. Even so, even if destroying the mech ultimately is more important than damaging it, match scores tends to be lower even if you kill more mechs. Moreover, this is necessary, or ppl start doing stupid **** to get the final blow.

Now, say that I, in my high precision build primes the left torso on an enemy mech, an Atlas AS7-D with XL engine. Not being 100% accurate I do so by doing 100 dmg. Seeing this hole in the enemy mech, my kill stealing friends jumps out from cover, putting him down.

The enemy had two of those. The other one was primed by my good friend, the LRM guy. Some LRM spamming later, the Atlases left armor is gone, and my kill stealing friends jumps him as well. The LRM boat did however spread all his shots all over the enemy Atlas, clocking in on lets say 450 dmg before the left side opened.

Who contributed the most of me and the LRM guy? This round we both had one assist, zero kills, and 100 vs 450 dmg, and we won. The end result were identical for both of us. Should I get a PSR decrease while he got an PSR increase? What if this is all he did, and I did the exact same on the third Atlas? He would still have done 250 dmg more than me.
What about those kill stealers, they got the kills. I don’t really call them kill stealers, because as I wrote above I do not care about those stats.

I can even put down an enemy in one round with my gauss boat if I hit right. How do you suggest rewarding this at the end, if this is the only one I have the opportunity to shoot at when the team steam roles the enemy and most people get a kill. How to you part such a high precision shot from a guy just popping the can off the already boiling enemy mech with a few MLs.
And as for the reason we lost in the example I posted above with the image, nobody chased those two. They was in assaults, they were slow. They just hit us dead on, forcing us to stop and focus on them. They used the terrain, as did we. They were unable to get many shots at us after that, but we used to much time on them as well as they made it hard for us to take them down.

Could we have pushed harder and killed them faster? Perhaps. Was they forced to do those moves, being slow and unable to outrun us anyways? Perhaps. Never the less, the point remains. Even if they were the worst players in the universe, during this match, they were one of the huge factors that eventually led to our defeat.

My point remains. There are way to many factors leading to a victory, or a loss, that are not measurable by those numbers. Also, the numbers by them selves do not say who contributed the most. They give indications at best but so much can be hidden behind those numbers. PGI could calculate all kind of data and make a chart based on mech used, weapons used, and a complete combat efficiency for every possible build, damage done, accuracy, damage received (would that be good or bad), and all those other things, but numbers would still only be indicative on true performance.
I’m not saying the current system is perfect. I’m saying that to preserve the importance of teamwork PGI should continue rewarding team victory higher than personal performance.

Remember, I’m in the same boat as everyone else here. With my average performance, so far in T2 I’d most likely be in the top 8 list at least 90% of the time. It would have been good for me if I wanted to reach T1 fast.

I think we should just agree to disagree on this one

[Ahh Screw it - WATCH THIS]

I don't know why you guys want into a lower tier so bad. It's not like the teams get better in solo que. Solo play in a team game is always going to be a roll of the dice, and you can get a bunch of bad rolls in a row.

Recent tier 2 play exhibit A, B, C:











Going up in tier means nothing in solo que. If, in higher tier solo, you call out "I need help in D4" - text and/or VOIP - then you are just as likely (or maybe more likely) to see blue arrows on your mini map turning AWAY from D4 as fast as they can.

If you want to advance your PSR by team playing - get into the group que. Then all of those things you say you do that make you so great will advance your PSR because your team will be winning.

[Serpentbane]

Stop Shooting ME, on 28 April 2016 - 09:23 AM, said:

I don't know why you guys want into a lower tier so bad. It's not like the teams get better in solo que. Solo play in a team game is always going to be a roll of the dice, and you can get a bunch of bad rolls in a row.

Recent tier 2 play exhibit A, B, C:











Going up in tier means nothing in solo que. If, in higher tier solo, you call out "I need help in D4" - text and/or VOIP - then you are just as likely (or maybe more likely) to see blue arrows on your mini map turning AWAY from D4 as fast as they can.

If you want to advance your PSR by team playing - get into the group que. Then all of those things you say you do that make you so great will advance your PSR because your team will be winning.

Yeah, I know. As I wrote further up I really do not care what Tier I’m in, I usually get an PSR increase in most matches anyways regardless if it's a win or loss, and I'd rather have it removed anyways. But it is here, it's not going away any time soon, and it is a way for PGI to rank and match players. The only reason I care is because many other players do care a lot, and rewards will always affect how people play. And I just don't want a system that rewards single player performance more than is already the case. This will always lead to even less team oriented focus from players. It’s like CoD. A bunch of players on the same map, but nobody really playing together. I'd rather have it the other way around, where the combined result of the team is the key factor, aka win or loss.

[Threat Doc]

Serpentbane, on 28 April 2016 - 04:05 AM, said:

I wrote I was out of the discussion, but here I go.

Yeeeaaaahhhh, you should probably leave the discussion, or put down the drugs, or something, because you've taken everything I wrote and flipped it end for end. You said I was saying things opposite of what I actually said. That means you did NOT read what I actually wrote.

For clarity, I want the number thresholds removed altogether, and ONLY the individual Match Scores used to rate pilots. The biggest thing about 8/8/8 is making it so the top 8 scores, regardless of winning or losing side, get an up arrow, the bottom 8 scores, also regardless of winning or losing side, get a down arrow, and the 8 scores in-between stay put.

Your last post started out with us on the very same sheet of music, and then you started flipping what I said end-for-end, and that's not something I'll stand around for.

So, puff-puff-pass, let me share what you're smokin', and let's agree to agree, because you're saying ALL of the same stuff I am.

[MechWarrior319348]

I dont have a chance at the moment to read over your entire post, short on time, but I needed to use it as source information because I know you to be reputable. Do you keep this updated regularly, if it even needs to be?

Edited by Gigliowanananacom, 29 April 2016 - 11:43 AM.

[kudzuuu]

Interesting.

[MechWarrior319348]

vesit, on 30 April 2016 - 08:00 PM, said:

Interesting.

Don't forget to look at this, I think it basically sais what you see here though
Some clarification about tiers and PSR

[Serpentbane]

Kay Wolf, on 28 April 2016 - 03:08 PM, said:

Yeeeaaaahhhh, you should probably leave the discussion, or put down the drugs, or something, because you've taken everything I wrote and flipped it end for end. You said I was saying things opposite of what I actually said. That means you did NOT read what I actually wrote.

For clarity, I want the number thresholds removed altogether, and ONLY the individual Match Scores used to rate pilots. The biggest thing about 8/8/8 is making it so the top 8 scores, regardless of winning or losing side, get an up arrow, the bottom 8 scores, also regardless of winning or losing side, get a down arrow, and the 8 scores in-between stay put.

Your last post started out with us on the very same sheet of music, and then you started flipping what I said end-for-end, and that's not something I'll stand around for.

So, puff-puff-pass, let me share what you're smokin', and let's agree to agree, because you're saying ALL of the same stuff I am.

Can’t see I flipped anything you wrote. I’m not English as my native langue, so I might be putting different value or meaning to certain words than you, or am unable to express myself properly.

You want PSR to be determined solely by the match score of each individual player, regardless of which side he/she is on. Am I not right? I also understand that 8-8-8 would divide the players into one of these groups without any minimum or maximum threshold numbers.

And while this might seem fair, looking only at the numbers, I do disagree to the fact that it is actually fair or right, because while match score can be an indication on how well you performed, it’s only indicative at best, especially if you want to determine why the team won. And, a victory for the team should be the key goal of the game, not individual performance in my opinion.

I’ve been trying to explain that there are many things happening during a game contributing to the teams victory that are not calculated into the match score, and players getting high match score can play in a way that do not benefit the team or directly leads to a team loss. And as I for example wrote in my last post with my Gauss vs LRM comparison, match score can be very different for players achieving the exact same effective results, with different weapons.

As an LRM pilot I focus solely on damage done, and everything below 500dmg during a match I consider poor performance. As an LRM pilot my focus is softening enemies removing as much armor as possible for either myself or someone else to burn trough those internals as fast as possible. To really do this with the LRMs spread, 500 dmg is my target on how much damage you need to do before you really make a difference. There are exceptions or additions though. As an LRM I’m the one that can easily respond to others struggling as long as I have a target, even if they have split from the team. Also, keeping the incoming missile lights light on enemies, and providing area denial is a key task as well. I try to land every shot where it benefits my team, after all, I’m a support mech. A hated one, by both teams, but I can deal with that.

As a mech having gauss as the main weapon I find damage done pretty much irrelevant. If I can land a one weapon cycle kill I’m happy. As little damage as possible done before they go down and move on to the next. If they are softened by friendlies, even better.

If I down 4 enemies with a few good gauss rounds, with 8-8-8 I could easily end up outside the top 8. In the image I posted above I have pushed one of the players on the wining team out of the top list. He had done less damage than me, but also had one kill and more assists. I don’t see why I should be considered a better player than him, with his weapons he could be more effective per shot. I was unable to maintain focus on the same enemy.

And. We can’t weight kills higher either, because sometimes ppl just finishes off what other players started. So in short, even without the stuff that do not add to the match score, the match score cannot really determine how good you did, and how much you contributed to the final result, win or loss.

Today, the easiest way to get a PSR increase is by victory. This equals having to think about what benefits the team rather than just your own K/D, damage and ultimately your match score. Easy things like stop shooting at the target you are about to kill and rather aid your friendly mech having trouble with another mech. You then shoot at a different mech, perhaps doing exactly the same amount of damage as you would do to kill the one you were shooting at. However, you save your friendly mech from a lot of damage or perhaps from being destroyed. The match score would be exactly the same, the outcome of the match could be totally different as having more active team members as long as possible is really important.

This is why I want a system where being on the wining team have much lower thresholds for increasing PSR than you would need as a player on the loosing side. Ultimately, high PSR would equal players that for some reason ends up on the wining team most of the time, as well as players doing very well at a personal basis.

I’m not saying your system could not work. I’m saying that it is not optimal from a team point of view, and have several flaws as the match score values also have several flaws by themselves.

In my opinion, good players tend to be on the wining team most of the time. And if they are not, they should be able to score enough to get a standstill or increase even with a loss. I usually do. I find this to be a good system. And you have not addressed any of the examples I’ve given.

This do not mean I don’t understand your system or don’t respect it, we just see things differently. And I don’t smoke.

Edited by Serpentbane, 02 May 2016 - 09:03 AM.

[Serpentbane]

Gigliowanananacom, on 30 April 2016 - 08:23 PM, said:

Don't forget to look at this, I think it basically sais what you see here though
Some clarification about tiers and PSR

I don’t always agree with PGI, but in this case I fully back the thoughts behind their decision.

[Threat Doc]

Okay, here we go. I will try to be as succinct as possible. I think much of what you've written I'll be able to answer up-front, and I need to get dinner moving, soon, so I can't be here too long.

Serpentbane, on 01 May 2016 - 11:39 PM, said:

Can’t see I flipped anything you wrote. I’m not English as my native langue, so I might be putting different value or meaning to certain words than you, or am unable to express myself properly.

That now being explained, I understand where some confusion might be.

Quote

You want PSR to be determined solely by the match score of each individual player, regardless of which side he/she is on. Am I not right? I also understand that 8-8-8 would divide the players into one of these groups without any minimum or maximum threshold numbers.

Yes... The TOP EIGHT (8) Match Scores would get a bonus to their PSR. The BOTTOM EIGHT (8) Match Scores would get a penalty to their PSR. The MIDDLE EIGHT (8) Match Scores would remain static, getting an =. The thresholds that are presently used to determine whether an individual goes up or down in PSR is based on whether or not the team wins, not how well the individual works with the team. Your team could all be absolute aces when you're working together, and/or the other team could be complete slugs and can do nothing right; however, three players from the losing team play their hearts out and each has a high damage threshold (785, 748, and 653, for example). However, only ONE player gets enough damage to increase their PSR, and the other two score just under that benchmark; as well, two players from the winning team went and hid, played like crap, and each scored just enough points, 150+, and they get a bonus to their PSR, while the 748 and 653 scores on the losing team get an =?

That's fair to you?

Quote

And while this might seem fair, looking only at the numbers, I do disagree to the fact that it is actually fair or right, because while match score can be an indication on how well you performed, it’s only indicative at best, especially if you want to determine why the team won. And, a victory for the team should be the key goal of the game, not individual performance in my opinion.

I agree with you about the victory for the team should be the key goal of the game. However, even though a player may do the best they can for their team, if they did not compete very well why should they be rewarded for it? The team may win, but it is the individual whose score is affected, not the overall team, since there is no real team, at least not for PUGs.

Is it right or fair to the player who plays their best, but still comes out with a crappy Match Score, to keep playing with teams who out-rate them at every turn, or to any team who has to put up with carrying the crappy player, rather than being able to enjoy the game with like-scored people? Again, the fat kid gets a trophy for showing up to the game, and the one who did all the work gets to stay put or go down on the PSR scale, regardless of how hard they worked, and how much they carried for their team.

Well, what I've just described is the present system PGI has in place.

Let's handle this, first, and then try to advance to the many things that happen in a game and are not calculated. I agree with you that not all metrics are being taken, not all triggers for special actions are set in place, and should be, and that there are many things taking place in these games which are not awarded and, in all likelihood, can't be awarded.

Right now, though, I have to go cook dinner, I'm starting to get light-headed and no one would like me when I'm light-headed.

[Serpentbane]

Kay Wolf, on 02 May 2016 - 04:07 PM, said:

~snip

While I do see your point, and don’t like free riders much either, I’m usually of the impression that most players do their best most of the time. And, with low score on the wining team their PSR growth will be low that match. The team usually need all 12 players to win, so even if they end up freeriding some matches, they would end up losing more. Even with 50/50 win/loss they would still get an average PSR decrease as low match score on the winning team gives little PSR increase and low match score on a losing team gives huge PSR drop. You can’t free ride up the tiers.



Also, playing well on the loosing team easily gives a standstill even today, and with my score in the above picture I got an PSR increase similar to the players with low match score on the enemy team. I’m fine with that.

And regarding your example and if it’s fair. I would say yes. Not because I favor those who hid in that example. They would lose PSR in the long run.

I want to turn it around. let’s say that player is not hiding, but instead is really great in tracking enemy movement relying that information back to the team so they know how to position themselves, while also harassing the enemy’s rear just as the engagement begins, making half the enemy team turn to shoot at him or even having some of them breaking off chasing after him? He might not have done much damage, but what he did would ensure victory as his team then pushed a confused and split enemy team. What if those three other players you mentioned were the ones breaking off chasing after him to secure what would appear to be an easy kill, instead of holding their ground with the team?

In my example he really contributed to the victory, but why would he ever do that if he’s never rewarded for it? Is that fair? The other three, while doing lots of damage before breaking off, actually played a huge part directly causing the team to lose. Why should they be rewarded only measured by their damage done?

I think the danger of not rewarding players contributing to the victory overshadows the danger of rewarding free riders or punishing elites on the loosing team.

I will always back PGIs solution rewarding the entire team, even with lower scores, because as I wrote above, each player’s actual influence on the outcome of the match cannot be determined by the match score alone. In any team based sports, like football, there would be players on the loosing team better than some of the players on the winning team. But you don’t kick out one of your own players and bring these to the finals.

I do understand the difference in a team and people randomly playing together in each match. Even so, over time, those players usually ending up on the winning team would follow each other up the Tier ladder. And I don’t want to climb with people unable to grasp the importance of team play over personal performance in plain numbers. I’m not talking about you here btw, but in game players with a solo playstyle and huge focus on K/D ratio and point harvesting.

It is already easy enough to climb the ladder even if you are a **** team player but good enough on a personal level to do some damage. But if people find themselves on the losing teams all the time, while still having high match scores, then they should consider a change on play style.

Even so, I think we have both made our point rather firmly here, and I think we can both understand each other’s opinion even if we do not fully agree.

Edited by Serpentbane, 02 May 2016 - 11:40 PM.

[Threat Doc]

Serpentbane, on 02 May 2016 - 11:36 PM, said:

While I do see your point, and don’t like free riders much either, I’m usually of the impression that most players do their best most of the time. Even with 50/50 win/loss they would still get an average PSR decrease as low match score on the winning team gives little PSR increase and low match score on a losing team gives huge PSR drop. You can’t free ride up the tiers.

Under the current system, you can. In the graphic, below, the amount of PSR increase or decrease is NOT based on Match Score, but on damage done and win-loss, which I seriously disagree with.

Quote

Also, playing well on the loosing team easily gives a standstill even today, and with my score in the above picture I got an PSR increase similar to the players with low match score on the enemy team. I’m fine with that.

To me, playing well means between 150 and 250 damage done, but PGI requires 350 or more just to get no change, a static number. I am NOT okay with this.

Quote

And regarding your example and if it’s fair. I would say yes. Not because I favor those who hid in that example. They would lose PSR in the long run.

No, as long as they did 150 points of damage or more, they would increase.

Quote

I want to turn it around. let’s say that player is not hiding, but instead is really great in tracking enemy movement relying that information back to the team so they know how to position themselves, while also harassing the enemy’s rear just as the engagement begins, making half the enemy team turn to shoot at him or even having some of them breaking off chasing after him? He might not have done much damage, but what he did would ensure victory as his team then pushed a confused and split enemy team. What if those three other players you mentioned were the ones breaking off chasing after him to secure what would appear to be an easy kill, instead of holding their ground with the team?

In my example he really contributed to the victory, but why would he ever do that if he’s never rewarded for it? Is that fair? The other three, while doing lots of damage before breaking off, actually played a huge part directly causing the team to lose. Why should they be rewarded only measured by their damage done?

You and I have already addressed this in a couple of posts, previously, and you know I agree with you about contributions, so I'm going to leave that alone.

Quote

I think the danger of not rewarding players contributing to the victory overshadows the danger of rewarding free riders or punishing elites on the loosing team.

Agreed, but that doesn't affect the argument about how PSR is modified at the end of each game, not at all.

Quote

I will always back PGIs solution rewarding the entire team, even with lower scores, because as I wrote above, each player’s actual influence on the outcome of the match cannot be determined by the match score alone. In any team based sports, like football, there would be players on the loosing team better than some of the players on the winning team. But you don’t kick out one of your own players and bring these to the finals.

Okay, then you still misunderstand. The win is the win, and that's fine... I have no problem with one team winning over another, it's going to happen. There will always be a winner, and there will always be a loser, and there is XP for winning and for losing, which affects Match Score for the entirety of the team. I have zero issue with that.

What I take issue with is that players with much higher match scores are having their personal, post-match score affected negatively, while those who barely contributed, for whatever reason -the reason does not matter, they got a low Match Score-, are rewarded like the fat kid on the soccer field who couldn't run, kick the ball, or contribute to their team winning at all. If you've ever watched sports, you've seen players that fumbled or were put out because their physical prowess wasn't enough, or they weren't thinking enough about the game, to do what they were supposed to do to help the team win and, overall, they were just present. Do you cheer those people on? Or, do you yell and scream at the television or, at the very least, think very poorly of that individual on the team? Now, think about this for a second... that's an actual team, they've trained together, and this individual slug has made the cut, and he's still a piece of ****. Should that guy be rewarded with the rest of the team, or should the franchise let them go?

Also, you're dealing with someone playing with a group of people, generally ONE TIME, and that does not a team make. Thus, it is not fair to the player who actually worked hard to have a negative personal outcome just because the rest of the group didn't pull their weight. That is WRONG.

Quote

I do understand the difference in a team and people randomly playing together in each match. Even so, over time, those players usually ending up on the winning team would follow each other up the Tier ladder. And I don’t want to climb with people unable to grasp the importance of team play over personal performance in plain numbers. I’m not talking about you here btw, but in game players with a solo playstyle and huge focus on K/D ratio and point harvesting.

What you are not seeming to grasp, here, is the reason PGI developed PSR in the first place, was to encourage team play on a personal level. Team play and personal ability are directly inter-related INSIDE the game... however, once the drop has ended and Match Scores are calculated, why should the loss caused by lazy or inept players affect those who actually did the work?

The current PSR system is ignorant. If you're going to continue to ignorantly back up PGIs way of doing things, with the damage number benchmarks, rather than contributions to Match Scores, which by the way is completely opposite of what your argument was in your previous post -you want people's contributions to matter, but the ONLY place they matter is in Match Score, and the only way PSR up or down or equals is calculated is through damage done-, then there's nothing more to be said. I'm tired of trying to get you to back up your own argument, which apparently you yourself are against, so have your ignorance. I've all but stopped playing, anyway.

[arther]

i've read an read, let face it if your a ace your and ace. This diversify of tier well suck's . i like to play against top player ,i might learn something from them but not if i never get to play with or against them. so i think pilot skill is for units not solo players. kill it an leave it in faction play. sorry if i rained on your parrade.