277 replies to this topic

[Widowmaker1981]

The Paulconomy, on 25 September 2015 - 01:57 AM, said:

It doesn't reward just playing alot....

It just happens that if you play a lot.... YOU GET BETTER.

Yes. You do. However Talent is also a thing, that you cannot learn.

Im decent, but i could play 1,000,000 more games and I will never be as good as Proton, for example. There are other people who could play 1,000,000 games and will still never be as good as me. People have a cap. Some of it is age based reflexes, some of it is mindset / competitiveness, some of it is simply intelligence.

It DOES 'reward' playing a lot, in a group. If you are 'decent' (say T2 or above ability wise) and you play say 50% of games in a decent group, you WILL, ABSOLUTELY, rise to maxed T1, even if you don't improve at all, and in the solo queue your PSR wouldnt rise. Afaik 95%+ of BMMU already has maxed out T1 Tier bars...

That is not conducive to good matchmaking, at least not at the top end. The idea is to differentiate people by skill so you can make good matches.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 25 September 2015 - 02:18 AM.

[Johnny Z]

Another aspect to this subject is a thing called "dethreating" basically its when a player deliberately drops "tiers" to play against lower tiers. Its a well known thing that some players do for various reasons, maybe to play with a friend or maybe to troll and abuse newbies.

This is a game mechanic well known to be clear.

Anyway Mechwarrior has to have as part of their system a way to combat "dethreating".

Just another item to keep in mind on this subject that players may not be aware of but the guys who made this system most assuredly are.

This hasnt been known up till now in this game because of the way the "threat" system worked. Basically this game has improved in determining a players "threat" level. And in a great way I may add, best I am aware of.

This probly the most important thing to keep in mind about the tier system when trying to decide if its good or not.

Edited by Johnny Z, 25 September 2015 - 02:18 AM.

[Random Carnage]

The PSR system is a waste of time. Poorly thought out and poorly implimented.

PSR should directly reflect individual skill, period.

Match score is far from perfect, but other than a bit of a decrease in the damage component it reflects a persons contribution and should directly impact their PSR regardless of win/loss. If you're on the losing side, but have the third highest match score across both teams, that should be an increase, not an "=" as it currently stands.

Scrap this PSR abortion and rework it to reflect individual contribution to a matach, and by extension, individual skill level.

Edited by Random Carnage, 25 September 2015 - 02:23 AM.

[An Atlas]

Widowmaker1981, on 25 September 2015 - 02:15 AM, said:

It DOES 'reward' playing a lot, in a group. If you are 'decent' (say T2 or above ability wise) and you play say 50% of games in a decent group, you WILL, ABSOLUTELY, rise to maxed T1, even if you don't improve at all, and in the solo queue your PSR wouldnt rise.

No it literally doesn't.

Clarification 2: The more games you play the higher Tier you're going to get.
That's partly true. The more games you play, the better you should become. The better you become, the higher your match scores will be. But you will plateau somewhere.

The fact that you had to try and change the subject to "but a good team might be able to artificially inflate my score as long as they were always around to keep it artifically inflated"....means you already know that.

Widowmaker1981, on 25 September 2015 - 02:15 AM, said:

The idea is to differentiate people by skill so you can make good matches.

That's hilarious...

One second you're saying "but all these guys better than me could make it look like I'm as good as them by letting me play in their Tier"

Next second "Oh Tiers don't separate player skill, it's bogus"...

Face it. PSR works great, you just dont' like hearing you're a terrible team mate.

Random Carnage, on 25 September 2015 - 02:22 AM, said:

PSR should directly reflect individual skill, period.

Scrap this PSR abortion and rework it to reflect individual contribution to a matach, and by extension, individual skill level.

It does reflect player skill.... player skill at working with the other 11 guys on their team to win.

Random Carnage, on 25 September 2015 - 02:22 AM, said:

Scrap this PSR abortion and rework it to reflect individual contribution to a matach, and by extension, individual skill level.

Or you could learn to play, and stop being butthurt that this isn't COD and you're actually expected to work as a team.

Edited by The Paulconomy, 25 September 2015 - 02:33 AM.

[Random Carnage]

Playing a lot is no guarantee that a person will get better.

[PholkLorr]

But its ok, if all the average players are going to collect at tier 1 anyway, the best player will still be the best player. More noobs to kill in tier 1.

Kill em till they beg for the tier system to work like a Real tier system instead of a collection point for long player average players.

[Random Carnage]

If this is Paul's idea of clarifying things, I'd hate to see when he deliberately tries to confuse things.

[maxmarechal]

i am a founder
been playing that game for three years
i'm good with mediums and average with the rest
took some time to myself and only played basic chassis meanwhile psr initial setting....now i'm tier 4 and play with people who can barely read a minimap...how is that fair?
i have no interest in rank but if i pug i play against newbies? and if i group with rest of team i'll play against AS or 228...and still doing my part.
must be some wicked sense of humour?

[Widowmaker1981]

The Paulconomy, on 25 September 2015 - 02:25 AM, said:

No it literally doesn't.

Clarification 2: The more games you play the higher Tier you're going to get.
That's partly true. The more games you play, the better you should become. The better you become, the higher your match scores will be. But you will plateau somewhere.

The fact that you had to try and change the subject to "but a good team might be able to artificially inflate my score as long as they were always around to keep it artifically inflated"....means you already know that.

No, it literally does. Use your brain, instead of taking the words verbatim.

If i play with the BMMU guys 50% of the time, my PSR will absolutely be max T1, because we win 70-80% of our games, and in that world, unless i am a complete liability the fact that we rarely lose (i think we lost.. 2 games out of 30ish last night) means that PSR will always rise. They dont have to be carrying me for this to happen, and in fact thats not the case.

Do you think its sensible that members of good groups will always have a fully max skill rating in the solo queue, regardless of individual skill? Because in the current system, i promise you that is the case.

[Random Carnage]

Widowmaker1981, on 25 September 2015 - 02:48 AM, said:

Except im one of the founding members of the Unit and am never going to leave it. And its not that its full of people massively better than i am carrying me, its that a good unit is greater than the sum of its parts.

Oh, I'm not so sure. Based on some of these posts, I'm sure the persons parts could be useful far more than the sum of said parts.

Edited by Random Carnage, 25 September 2015 - 02:52 AM.

[Elizander]

Johnny Z, on 25 September 2015 - 02:15 AM, said:

Another aspect to this subject is a thing called "dethreating" basically its when a player deliberately drops "tiers" to play against lower tiers. Its a well known thing that some players do for various reasons, maybe to play with a friend or maybe to troll and abuse newbies.

If PGI can separate my Direwolf or Timberwolf's tier from my Pretty Baby then this would happen a lot less often.

[Widowmaker1981]

Elizander, on 25 September 2015 - 02:53 AM, said:

If PGI can separate my Direwolf or Timberwolf's tier from my Pretty Baby then this would happen a lot less often.

No, it would happen more.

For example i could choose to tank the PSR on my (insert any mech here) down to T5 by only ever playing it in solo queue and instakilling myself every game. Then i could keep that one mech down there so when i feel like it i can go farm the crap out of noobs, while keeping the rest of my stable at its natural tier for better matchmaking.

I think they should split it by weight class, but splitting by chassis or variant is too exploitable.

[Sjorpha]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 24 September 2015 - 06:14 PM, said:

There are going to be players who after 5000 games (or any number of games) will not be at the same player skill level as other players, unfortunately with the PSR system, everything converges at tier 1.

You could literally have a player who plays nothing but stock Urbanmechs, using a steering wheel as a controller, and playing blindfolded, who will eventually reach tier 1, and play against the best players in the game.

If that was true, since you start in tier 4, no one would be tier 5 now. Fortunately it isn't true, people wo play really badly and don't contribute to the win do drop down to lower tier as evidenced by the fact that there are players in tier 5 at all.

It's also not at all what Paul said in his post, what he says is that assuming everyone gets better at the game over time everyone should also rise in tiers over time. If you don't actually get better at the game you will get worse results as you face better players and therefore eventually stop rising.

That is very different from how you and many others choose to read it, despite hw clearly the post is written, and quite frankly I think it isn't even a genuine misunderstanding but a deliberate case of dishonest smearing.

[Elizander]

Widowmaker1981, on 25 September 2015 - 03:01 AM, said:

No, it would happen more. For example i could choose to tank the PSR on my (insert any mech here) down to T5 by only ever playing it in solo queue and instakilling myself every game. Then i could keep that one mech down there so when i feel like it i can go farm the crap out of noobs, while keeping the rest of my stable at its natural tier for better matchmaking. I think they should split it by weight class, but splitting by chassis or variant is too exploitable.

That's mostly for people who have way too much spare time on their hands. I just want to play a lot of mechs. I suck at some of them but it's hard to be bad when you're meta.

[Widowmaker1981]

Elizander, on 25 September 2015 - 03:17 AM, said:

That's mostly for people who have way too much spare time on their hands. I just want to play a lot of mechs. I suck at some of them but it's hard to be bad when you're meta.

Thats just you.

People are frequently trollish, especially online, so online rule systems have to assume people will try to exploit the crap out of them. Because some people will.

[Lily from animove]

So he clarified what we already figured out?

and tbh I am disappointed.

I wanted PSR to be a playser SKILL rating, not a player gamecounter.
I wanted a system that matches palyers by skill, and not by gamecount.
PGI put a lo hours of work into this system, while they simply could have done:

every player with K/D below 1:00 will never meet a player with k/d>1 and 2000+ games .

This would simply have the same effect and not require any complcated calculations based on scores or whatever.

And If paul thinks people at T1 also drop, then well he fails.

simple xample: a player will have averagely every 10 games 4x up, 2x down and 4x stays. Then this player will one day be T1 with the current "skill" system. I am not sure if Paul is aware of this, but in the end: this is a big fail when you implement this to let the MM define "fair"matches.

I am not mad or angry, just havily disappointed, because this is neither what MWO MM needs, nor was any of the time and money spent into this system worth anything.

So the only "skill" this system differ is those with more ups than downs and those with more downs than ups. Al the others will sooner or later arrive at T1 or T5.

I want a skill system that defines how good I am in comparison to others and not just did the other played 2k games and me only 200.

Edited by Lily from animove, 25 September 2015 - 03:41 AM.

[An Atlas]

Widowmaker1981, on 25 September 2015 - 02:55 AM, said:

I just dont think that people who play a lot in the group queue should be auto T1 and. they. are. IF THEY CAN WORK AS A TEAM B/C THAT'S WHAT TIER MEASURES Otherwise explain how nearly 100% of my unit is T1 already?), because it messes with the solo queue matchmaking.

Fixed that for you.

Lily from animove, on 25 September 2015 - 03:30 AM, said:

I wanted PSR to be a playser SKILL rating, not a player gamecounter.
I wanted a system that matches palyers by skill, and not by gamecount.

Clarification 2: The more games you play the higher Tier you're going to get.
That's partly true. The more games you play, the better you should become. The better you become, the higher your match scores will be.

Translation: IT'S NOT A PLAYER GAME COUNTER, YOU JUST GET BETTER OVER TIME. LEARN TO READ.

Edited by The Paulconomy, 25 September 2015 - 03:34 AM.

[Sjorpha]

RussianWolf, on 24 September 2015 - 06:06 PM, said:

To him "better" means conforming to the play style that PGI perscribes. Those who do not conform to that playstyle, regardless of skill level, will have lower Tier rankings.

I very rarely conform to their perscribed play style, but would be described by those that I play with as average to better than average in skill. Yet here I am in Tier 5.

It's not "the playstyle PGI perscribes", it is whatever makes you win more often.

All ways of winning are rewarded, all ways of losing are punished.

You might say that ultimately PGI "perscribes" all those methods of winning by virtue of having created the game, but that is true of any game ever created so it's not really a meaningful statement.

Since that whole point of the matchmaker is to pit players who are equally good at winning against each other it is natural that contribution towards winning is the primary factor measured.

If you want the freedom to play a way that contribute less towards winning than the strongest metagame you shouldn't want to be in a high tier anyways. Putting you in a lower tier is actually a way to provide you that freedom, so you should be happy about that.

[Chemie]

Kira Onime, on 24 September 2015 - 05:35 PM, said:

Someone will have to explain to me the point of tiers if technically, anybody and everybody can reach T1 if they just play enough.

Finer point:
6/8 ways to increase or stay the same
2/8 ways to drop

Hard to not end up T1 regardless of skill.

[MechWarrior5152251]

I am half an inch from Tier 2. I am hoping Tier 2 will have smarter players because it is hard farming C-Bills on bad teams.