277 replies to this topic

[Pjwned]

Interesting to see that's their intention for PSR tiers, but then if it's not really much of a skill indicator then why call it personal skill rating and sort people into tiers?

Kind of misleading, I thought the idea and the intent was to sort players based on their skill.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Im still in tier 3 like I was yesterday

[Kotzi]

Johnny Z, on 24 September 2015 - 10:20 PM, said:

What ever the situation may be, over all the stomps are 1/3 matches as opposed to 2/3 like before. Match quality is way up.

Epic close matches 2 out of 5 matches yesterday. 1 really bad stomp because one team was losing the Nascar race on Caustic and none really stopped to fight effectively.

Couldnt say that, has not really changed the last month.

[Xetelian]

Calling a tiers anything but a rank is a lot of BS.

Our best players are tier 1

Our least effective players are tier 5


Thus your ranking is based on W/L and some other things but heavily W/L I hear.

[Johnny Z]

Pjwned, on 24 September 2015 - 11:09 PM, said:

Interesting to see that's their intention for PSR tiers, but then if it's not really much of a skill indicator then why call it personal skill rating and sort people into tiers?

Kind of misleading, I thought the idea and the intent was to sort players based on their skill.

Well I think there is a misconception about skill itself. Skill is actually a quantifier of experience and preparedness, so this tier rating is based more on experience than "skill" or "talent".

[Kotzi]

Johnny Z, on 24 September 2015 - 11:42 PM, said:

Well I think there is a misconception about skill itself. Skill is actually a quantifier of experience and preparedness, so this tier rating is based more on experience than "skill" or "talent".

That would make loosing a tier nonsense.

[Johnny Z]

Xetelian, on 24 September 2015 - 11:32 PM, said:

Calling a tiers anything but a rank is a lot of BS.

Our best players are tier 1

Our least effective players are tier 5


Thus your ranking is based on W/L and some other things but heavily W/L I hear.

Not sure why he didnt outright say it but this tier system is designed to make good matches but first and foremost to protect noobies. Maybe it may look bad to say that outright.

Fact is protecting noobies and making good matches work hand in hand anyway.

So it isnt actually a ranking system but an experience system as said above. So he cant actually say its a ranking system and then later be called untruthfull. Although of course it is a ranking system of sorts.

LOL and he didnt say it was an experience system either because that would sound like a level grind. But since it isnt based on "gaining experience" only but also performance related it cant be called that either.

All this is guessing with common sense on my part and could be entirely wrong.

Edited by Johnny Z, 24 September 2015 - 11:59 PM.

[meteorol]

Fits my first impression.

It's nothing but an exp bar, really.
You can pretty much do as bad as you want in a win, your PSR will go up (atleast thats the case for me, being t2)
If you perform decend in a loss, your PSR will go up aswell. The only way to lower it seems to be losing while playing terrible.

I have played like 15 matches since the patch. 1 the PSR stayed the same, 14 it went up. Didn't go down a single time. Given how this works, every average player with a positive w/l and k/d will be tier 1 if he plays enough.
It's no indicator of personal skill whatsoever, it's a grind meter.

Thinking that people will get better the longer they play and therefor have to get to t1 is a glaring mistake IMO. People simply have a personal skill ceiling they won't exceed, no matter how long they play. Average casuals (which i count myself to) will NEVER get on the level of players on EMP or SJR, be it 2000 matches or 20.000 matches played. Putting people into t1 for simply playing enough is a stupid system.

[Johnny Z]

meteorol, on 24 September 2015 - 11:59 PM, said:

Fits my first impression.

It's nothing but an exp bar, really.
You can pretty much do as bad as you want in a win, your PSR will go up (atleast thats the case for me, being t2)
If you perform decend in a loss, your PSR will go up aswell. The only way to lower it seems to be losing while playing terrible.

I have played like 15 matches since the patch. 1 the PSR stayed the same, 14 it went up. Didn't go down a single time. Given how this works, every average player with a positive w/l and k/d will be tier 1 if he plays enough.
It's no indicator of personal skill whatsoever, it's a grind meter.

Thinking that people will get better the longer they play and therefor have to get to t1 is a glaring mistake IMO. People simply have a personal skill ceiling they won't exceed, no matter how long they play. Average casuals (which i count myself to) will NEVER get on the level of players on EMP or SJR, be it 2000 matches or 20.000 matches played. Putting people into t1 for simply playing enough is a stupid system.

Just saying its a stupid system doesnt make it so. It depends how well it works. Huge improvement so far it appears.

Also the last sentence above is either over simplifaction or just plain untrue.

Edited by Johnny Z, 25 September 2015 - 12:05 AM.

[Xetelian]

meteorol, on 24 September 2015 - 11:59 PM, said:

Fits my first impression.

It's nothing but an exp bar, really.
You can pretty much do as bad as you want in a win, your PSR will go up (atleast thats the case for me, being t2)
If you perform decend in a loss, your PSR will go up aswell. The only way to lower it seems to be losing while playing terrible.

I have played like 15 matches since the patch. 1 the PSR stayed the same, 14 it went up. Didn't go down a single time. Given how this works, every average player with a positive w/l and k/d will be tier 1 if he plays enough.
It's no indicator of personal skill whatsoever, it's a grind meter.

Thinking that people will get better the longer they play and therefor have to get to t1 is a glaring mistake IMO. People simply have a personal skill ceiling they won't exceed, no matter how long they play. Average casuals (which i count myself to) will NEVER get on the level of players on EMP or SJR, be it 2000 matches or 20.000 matches played. Putting people into t1 for simply playing enough is a stupid system.

Just took my LCT 1V out
I've done 389 damage on a loss and gotten a down red arrow.
I then got 120 damage on a win and got a green up arrow.
228 loss down red arrow.
199 win up green arrow.

Seems to me like you can do almost nothing in a win and get a green arrow and what that represents ultimately is hidden.

However doing well on a loss is still giving me a red arrow and yes doing 228 damage on a loss isn't good but doing 120 on a win is even worse.

Edited by Xetelian, 25 September 2015 - 12:06 AM.

[Johnny Z]

Xetelian, on 25 September 2015 - 12:05 AM, said:

Just took my LCT 1V out
I've done 389 damage on a loss and gotten a down red arrow.
I then got 120 damage on a win and got a green up arrow.
228 loss down red arrow.
199 win up green arrow.

Seems to me like you can do almost nothing in a win and get a green arrow and what that represents ultimately is hidden.

However doing well on a loss is still giving me a red arrow and yes doing 228 damage on a loss isn't good but doing 120 on a win is even worse.

I have had 1 red arrow since this system started. Thats due to alot of luck I am sure, seriously, but thats what I got. Maybe 1 or 2 slipped past me. I dont pay attention really.

Thats out of something like 12 to 15 matches. I use a Cicada thats fast enough not to get ganked and a Arctic Cheddar would have to have an aim bot and seek me out at the start of the match for me to really badly, or some other bad luck.

If in my King Crab its either fiest or famine, its favourite place is on Crimson straight when the tunnel is full. Completely front loaded armor. In fact I had a light from other team camp me at the very start of the match on forest colony not to long ago just waiting for me to turn my back to fight their team. He got me to. Was frustrating cause he only fired out of cover when my back was turned and my team wasnt aware of him at all as he camped me basically the entire match.

Edited by Johnny Z, 25 September 2015 - 12:18 AM.

[Greyhart]

The logic is that team play should be rewarded and poor team play should be punished.

It is based on the assumption that if the team wins then they played as a better team than the loosing team.

The question is whether that assumption is right?

In reality what the community want is for match score to reflect whether you played well as a team player (win or lose) and then that could be used to measure tier.

[meteorol]

Johnny Z, on 25 September 2015 - 12:04 AM, said:

Also the last sentence above is either over simplifaction or just plain untrue.

Well, no it wasn't. You can play pretty terrible in a win and your PSR still goes up. So as long as your w/l is slighty positive, chances are high you will get t1 sooner or later if you just play enough. You can play bad in a win and rise it, good in a win and rise it, or good in a loss and rise it. If you play really bad in a win it is likely to stay the same, and if you don't play well in a loss it will go down.
There are simply more ways to raise it than to lower it. So as long as someone is an average player ( with positive w/l as i stated) he will end up in t1 sooner or later if he simply plays enough.

Edited by meteorol, 25 September 2015 - 12:38 AM.

[Johnny Z]

meteorol, on 25 September 2015 - 12:34 AM, said:

Well, no it wasn't. You can play pretty terrible in a win and your PSR still goes up. So as long as your w/l is slighty positive, chances are high you will get t1 sooner or later if you just play enough. You can play bad in a win and rise it, good in a win and rise it, or good in a loss and rise it. If you play really bad in a win it is likely to stay the same, and if you don't play well in a loss it will go down.
There are simply more ways to raise it than to lower it. So as long as someone is an average player ( with positive w/l and k/d as i stated) he will end up in t1 sooner or later if he simply plays enough.

Well you can say it leans towards tier rising more than tier lowering over time but its not just the amount of matches played.

Also the amount of up or down seems to have variation although I dont know where to look for that yet or if its visible.

So its experience and performance based. Sounds like what a tier system should be based on right? Or what?

Another part of mechwarrior that has no equal in gaming it seems. Along with mech customization and depth of gameplay mechanics. I just hope they continue on with this and some more off the field content.

[Sarlic]

meteorol, on 25 September 2015 - 12:34 AM, said:

Well, no it wasn't. You can play pretty terrible in a win and your PSR still goes up. So as long as your w/l is slighty positive, chances are high you will get t1 sooner or later if you just play enough. You can play bad in a win and rise it, good in a win and rise it, or good in a loss and rise it. If you play really bad in a win it is likely to stay the same, and if you don't play well in a loss it will go down.
There are simply more ways to raise it than to lower it. So as long as someone is an average player ( with positive w/l as i stated) he will end up in t1 sooner or later if he simply plays enough.

You are mostly correct though.

PSR takes a teamwin heavily in account.

Note: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4632610

Quote

Please note:
- We will not be disclosing the match score > psr calculations.
- We will not be disclosing your actual PSR value.
- We will only be showing (depending on the result of this poll), the Tier (1-5) you reside in.

Edit: Paul released another post to clarify.

I have to do exceptional damage as stated in PGI's post to make it even a PSR green.

Winning the game is almost a positive 100% green PSR rating.
Wrote a few matches down for analysing. In my experiences the losses are:

402 damage, 0 kills and 9 assists is PSR =
302 damage, 0 kills and 11 assists PSR =
520(!) damage, 0 kills and 2 assists (top of the scoreboards) PSR =
512 damage, 1 kill and 3 assists (top of scoreboards) PSR =

320 damage, 2 kills and 3 assists PSR red down

All done in a BASIC Orion.
It seems that the system does not take your personal mech (master)skills into account and i have to do EXCEPTIONAL high damage in a obsoleted mech if you want to make it green.

Example of just a normal green PSR rating. A full win results:

253 damage, 2 kills and 6 assists PSR green.
207 damage, 1 kill and 3 assists PSR green.
459 damage, 1 kill and 8 assists PSR green

= Meaning over 600 perhaps even 800 range as a heavy to make your PSR go green when you are facing a loss.
- Meaning less then 200 damage in a heavy with a full team win makes your PSR go green if your team wins.

In my opinion this system has changed nothing at all and is just a XP bar and it's nonesense.(and not independence on teamwork, how is anything teamwork if you get rolled? The solo que is still brutally independence.)

Edited by Sarlic, 25 September 2015 - 01:11 AM.

[Appogee]

Excellent clarification thread by Paul, I thought.

The only thing that remains to be discovered is: what are the Match Score values that consitute "low score", "medium score" and "high score".

If we knew these, we'd have it pretty much nailed.

[Johnny Z]

1 kill 450 damage and some other points is arrow up on loss. Only one I am sure of. It doesnt take a great score to have arrow up on a loss just really accounting for your own mech against the odds that a loss can give.

[Johnny Z]

Appogee, on 25 September 2015 - 12:55 AM, said:

Excellent clarification thread by Paul, I thought.

The only thing that remains to be discovered is: what are the Match Score values that consitute "low score", "medium score" and "high score".

If we knew these, we'd have it pretty much nailed.

Yep and and difference between the tiers to rise and lower. Really doesnt matter unless match pay outs are reliant on tier some day. I suspect this is up in the air but a possibility.

[meteorol]

Johnny Z, on 25 September 2015 - 12:41 AM, said:

So its experience and performance based. Sounds like what a tier system should be based on right? Or what?

Strictly performance based. Because there is a limit in which experience influences performance. The moment the experience stops to influence performance, people hit their personal skill ceiling.
The current tier system doesn't reflect said skill ceiling in any way.

Lets just say (for an example) i played as many matches as Proton did. My experience with this game will be roughly the same. But my performance is not. He has better aim, better reflexes and probably decides faster what to do. My aim will never get as good has his, no matter how long i play, because i hit my personal skill ceiling, which is lower than his.

Still, the current system will put me in the same tier as Proton is sooner or later because i'm winning more than i'm losing and perform average while i do so, and thus i'll climb from t2 to t1 if i play enough. (i just took Proton as example for any player out there that is better than me).

And i don't think i should be in one Tier with Proton (or anyone close to his level) in a system that is called "Personal Skill Rating", because my personal skill is not even close to his. Still, i will hit t1 simply by playing more. Like i said, it didn't go down once since the patch. The reason i'm not t1 right now is not that i'm not good enough, but that i didn't play enough matches. But i wish the reason was me not being good enough, because then the system would fit the name "personal skill rating" better, imo.

[Vellron2005]

Personally, I don't really care about PSR, as long as my matches are challenging and fun.

If the MM puts me in a match with people who cooperate, and dont play like complete D's... I'm happy.