277 replies to this topic

[TexAce]

El Bandito, on 25 September 2015 - 02:01 AM, said:

That idea is gonna make cowards out of everyone. One wrong move and one can die in 2 seconds in current alpha heavy meta. And if the team doesn't win, then that person is going to have a large drop in rating. Who will risk engaging the enemy first then?

It is much better for player retention if the tier climb rewards more than it punishes.

Why? Doesnt make sense. I just brought win and loss closer to each other by punishing those who do nothing on a win with a slight PSR drop and rewarding those who still did great in a loss with a bit higher PSR rise.

The losing team will never have a match score as the winning team, but if a player succeeds to still get a high match score he/she should get a slight PSR boost.

12-0 rolls usually are done very fast, there is not much time to do your "best game" when you are the last of 12 and have to fight 12 alive mechs from the enemy team. No matter how good you are, you die very quickly.

Also my proposal slows down the "if you just play enough, you will eventually get to Tier 1" algorithm a bit.

Edited by TexAce, 25 September 2015 - 08:29 AM.

[MrJeffers]

Johnny Z, on 25 September 2015 - 08:24 AM, said:

Likening 5 tiers that include personal score(based on many numerous actions in a match), win/loss, matches played, positive and negative tier gaining, to an 1 to 50 linear EXP lvl grind in an RPG is a stretch by any definition.

It's really not. But since you can't seem to understand that it's pointless to even have this discussion. But I'll try one last time, putting it in MWO terms>
XP systems have rewards and penalties.
You get different rewards for doing different things (winning, damage, kills, scouting, UAV detection, ECM counter, etc)
You get different penalties for doing things wrong/badly (Team damage, team kills, losing)

It takes X amount of points to move from one level (Tier) to another.

That is an XP system.

[MrJeffers]

The Paulconomy, on 25 September 2015 - 08:25 AM, said:

b/c of "the maths" huh...

Bachelor of Science in math here, please enlighten me

Elo is a zero sum game. For you to increase in level you take points away from other players. There is a limited pool of available points.

PSR is not a zero sum game, and the pool of points is unlimited. Meaning that given enough time (matches) Everyone can aquire the points required to reach the top tiers. Those who win more often than lose end up at tier 1. Those who don't end up at tier two. It takes thousands of matches now to reach these tiers, and over a long enough time scale everyone would get there.

[RussianWolf]

Kira Onime, on 25 September 2015 - 08:25 AM, said:

Group drops want a word with you.
They say you're wrong.

honestly they had the same issue with ELO. playing mostly group with more competitive players could inflate your "rank"

[Johnny Z]

MrJeffers, on 25 September 2015 - 08:29 AM, said:

It's really not. But since you can't seem to understand that it's pointless to even have this discussion. But I'll try one last time, putting it in MWO terms>
XP systems have rewards and penalties.
You get different rewards for doing different things (winning, damage, kills, scouting, UAV detection, ECM counter, etc)
You get different penalties for doing things wrong/badly (Team damage, team kills, losing)

It takes X amount of points to move from one level (Tier) to another.

That is an XP system.

Ok fine I will conceded EXP system may be part of the equation, but that definition ignores the player performance part of the equation. Tier 1 is not attainable through number of matches played or so called "exp" gained, unless that player can perform to tier 1 standards. So it therefore is a player threat assement( definition a few pages back ) and not an exp system.

[Ghogiel]

WarHippy, on 25 September 2015 - 07:35 AM, said:

What you described is a red shirt not Rambo. Rambo is the one man army where as the red shirt is the low damage fodder player. Calling players who get themselves killed right off the bat having done virtually nothing Rambo makes pretty much no sense if you have actually watched the movies.

True. The text I quoted was refering to rambos in such a fashion, where they rush into a 3v1 and get rekt right off the bat doing sub 200dmg most games.

[An Atlas]

MrJeffers, on 25 September 2015 - 08:33 AM, said:

PSR is not a zero sum game, and the pool of points is unlimited. Meaning that given enough time (matches) Everyone can aquire the points required to reach the top tiers. Those who win more often than lose end up at tier 1. Those who don't end up at tier two. It takes thousands of matches now to reach these tiers, and over a long enough time scale everyone would get there.

Oh look, another guy that just decides to ignore the "Player must improve in skill to continue performing well as his Tier increases" portion of the system.

How many times do I have to quote this exact same sentence for these people?

"If we were to turn off new player registration/sign-up and just let the current player base play on forever, eventually everyone will bubble up to Tier 2 or Tier 1.

That's because with experience comes better player skill.

There would still be people in lower Tiers, it's just that that pool of players would be smaller than top Tier players.

Lower tier players would end up being those who refuse to adjust to their team's dynamics and play a 1 trick pony type of gameplay."

Edited by MechWarrior1086091, 25 September 2015 - 08:41 AM.

[MrJeffers]

Johnny Z, on 25 September 2015 - 08:36 AM, said:

Ok fine I will conceded EXP system may be part of the equation, but that definition ignores the player performance part of the equation. Tier 1 is not attainable through number of matches played or so called "exp" gained, unless that player can perform to tier 1 standards. So it therefore is a player threat assement( definition a few pages back ) and not an exp system.

Problem is the "Teir 1 standard" is just winning more than losing. If you do that you are tier 1. It doesn't matter *who* you win against, thus it's *not* a skill system.

[Johnny Z]

That it wasnt called a player threat assement system is because maybe it doesnt sounds very nice, but thats what it is. So it isnt an exp system or a ranking system just like the guy said.

[An Atlas]

MrJeffers, on 25 September 2015 - 08:39 AM, said:

Problem is the "Teir 1 standard" is just winning more than losing. If you do that you are tier 1. It doesn't matter *who* you win against, thus it's *not* a skill system.

So by your logic it's just as easy to win against a team of all Tier 5 players as a Team of all Tier 1?

Nice try, but that's a giant logic fail.

[MrJeffers]

MechWarrior1086091, on 25 September 2015 - 08:38 AM, said:

Oh look, another guy that just decides to ignore the "Player must improve in skill to continue performing well as his Tier increases" guy.

How many times do I have to quote this exact same sentence for these people?

"If we were to turn off new player registration/sign-up and just let the current player base play on forever, eventually everyone will bubble up to Tier 2 or Tier 1.

That's because with experience comes better player skill.

There would still be people in lower Tiers, it's just that that pool of players would be smaller than top Tier players.

Lower tier players would end up being those who refuse to adjust to their team's dynamics and play a 1 trick pony type of gameplay."

Oh look, someone who ignores the explanation that is directly in response to that meaningless section.
I've got news for you:

Quote

That's because with experience comes better player skill.

That isn't relevant to the system in place.

[LORD ORION]

Not revealing the forumals does 2 things.

1) It prevents people from learning to play properly but trying to score the criterias.
2) It shows that PGI has no F'ing clue how their game is played, and they are not willing to take any flak about it or fix it.

[An Atlas]

MrJeffers, on 25 September 2015 - 08:43 AM, said:

That isn't relevant to the system in place.

RIIIGGGHHHTTT

Players don't get better as they get more practice.... sure thing buddo

[MrJeffers]

MechWarrior1086091, on 25 September 2015 - 08:24 AM, said:

and playing a 1000 games without getting better won't get you to Tier 1.

So system is working perfectly.

I'll give you one thing, you are right here. Because best case playing 1000 exceptional winning games will only get you from Tier 4 to tier 2. So saith Paul. 2500 for normal winning matches to get to tier 2.
https://www.reddit.c..._to_settle_out/

Skill systems converge much faster than 2500+ games.

MechWarrior1086091, on 25 September 2015 - 08:47 AM, said:

RIIIGGGHHHTTT

Players don't get better as they get more practice.... sure thing buddo

Never said that. I said in the context of the PSR model it doesn't matter because of the math of how it works.

[Goose]

I find the positive buoyancy in the system disturbing …

[PurpleNinja]

I wonder why do people care so much about this kind of thing. In pugland we see balanced matches and stomps all the time, rank means nothing.

[An Atlas]

MrJeffers, on 25 September 2015 - 08:49 AM, said:

Never said that. I said in the context of the PSR model it doesn't matter because of the math of how it works.

Now you're just talking in circles.

"Winning doesn't require skill b/c of "the maths""

Are you good enough to win more than not against a team of all T1 players?

Either you have the skill to do that.... or you're not T1 and the system will drop you.

You can play 100 games a day for the rest of your life but if you can't perform, it won't move you up.

You either get better.... or you settle at the Tier you're good enough to win against regularly.

Skill is LITERALLY all that matters.

Sorry you don't like the truth.

Edited by MechWarrior1086091, 25 September 2015 - 08:59 AM.

[Gnume]

MechWarrior1086091, on 25 September 2015 - 08:42 AM, said:

So by your logic it's just as easy to win against a team of all Tier 5 players as a Team of all Tier 1?

Nice try, but that's a giant logic fail.

The point is it doesn't matter WHAT tier the other team was ... you WON...ergo, your PSR likely goes up ;P PSR doesn't care about the skill level of the match ... just that you won and performed "average" and it will go up.

[An Atlas]

The real problem here is people don't like that the PSR system judges you as a team player....b/c the results show how much they suck.

Everyone wants to it to just rate how much of a KDR ***** you are instead.

[Johnny Z]

PurpleNinja, on 25 September 2015 - 08:54 AM, said:

I wonder why do people care so much about this kind of thing. In pugland we see balanced matches and stomps all the time, rank means nothing.

The regular queue matches have been alot better with this tiers in place. At least twice as good. You in the fixed mach group queue mostly?