277 replies to this topic

[Johnny Z]

Sjorpha, on 25 September 2015 - 03:14 AM, said:

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.

Hes right. A player of 1 year is a higher threat level than a newbie and they should under no circumstances meet in a match any time to soon. Thats the point of this matchmaker. Players that are not newbies shouldnt expect to meet newbies to often once this game comes out of hiding lol.

In all likelyhood players wont be able to drop into the newbie tier if there is many players on. Trying to dethreat or not like one guy said he could try to do, to get to tier 5. I dont think that would work. I dont know though.

Also it seems very likely that any cheats will find themselves in tier 1 eventually and be under heavy scrutiny, although that was already the case via stats I assume. They can find cheats very easy if anyone reading this is cheating or thinks about it banned yet or not.

Edited by Johnny Z, 25 September 2015 - 05:44 AM.

[Veritae]

Johnny Z, on 25 September 2015 - 05:35 AM, said:

Hes right. A player of 1 year is a higher threat level than a newbie and they should under no circumstances meet in a match any time to soon. Thats the point of this matchmaker. Players that are not newbies should expect to meet newbies to often once this game comes out of hiding lol.

In all likelyhood players wont be able to drop into the newbie tier if there is many players on. trying to dethreat or not like one guy said he could try to do to get to tier 5. I dont think that would work. I dont know though.

If the goal is to insulate new players, then players should be put in a newbie solo queue of 8v8 for the first 25 matches as they start to learn to control their mechs. After that, send them in with the rest. The only way they'll start to gain actual skill is by learning how to optimize mechs, learning maps, beginning to move together, etc. Isolating them from vets will not generate a good NPE.

[AdamBaines]

People said:

Stuff about PSR and Tiers

Aint opinions just grand!

[Johnny Z]

Veritae, on 25 September 2015 - 05:41 AM, said:

If the goal is to insulate new players, then players should be put in a newbie solo queue of 8v8 for the first 25 matches as they start to learn to control their mechs. After that, send them in with the rest. The only way they'll start to gain actual skill is by learning how to optimize mechs, learning maps, beginning to move together, etc. Isolating them from vets will not generate a good NPE.

They might do that. The 4 v 4 scouting missions is changing match sizes, it might come in with that. Its a guess though of course. A newbie queue of some sort. Maybe 4 v 4 for newbie/low ranks for faction wars and 4 v 4 for newbies to regular queue? Or 8 v 8 like you say. And yes a good idea of course.

Oh about the newbies and vets in same match, thats no good at all. Better to have new players test the waters with and against each other than get thrown in the shark pool because thats exactly what high threat matches are.

This where the push for PVE comes from and also what tier 3 can offer for casual players and not so newbies that dont want every player on each team going for the throat. Again tier 4 and 5 for newbies.

Mech balancing also works with this to stop some of the OP load outs from ending other players matches in one or two alphas. Alot of improvment to be done there. So the game is actually improving on the field alot lately or soonish.

Edited by Johnny Z, 25 September 2015 - 06:05 AM.

[RussianWolf]

CaptRosha, on 25 September 2015 - 05:29 AM, said:

It is totally tied to W/L. You don't go down AT ALL if you Win...and you only rise a small amount if you are exceptional in a loss.

I am saying take out the Win/Lose portion of the calculation because that is not a function of Individual Skill. The Win/Loss is a function of Team Performance. Individual performance within the team will contribute to winning or losing, but it doesn't work the other way around.

You will still end up with matches against players within your skill range. I would think moreso without the W/L added because your PSR was totally dependent on YOUR performance, not whether you were carried to a win by a team a lot. People that play with Units that predominantly win their matches can artificially inflate someone's PSR with the current system just because they win. In what way does that reflect upon an individual's skill?

They include the win/loss in the calc because they want to get people to conform to their prescribed playstyle "team only" in order to progress. For those of us who function as individuals in a team environment, we get Tier 4 and 5.

[An Atlas]

Lily from animove, on 25 September 2015 - 04:05 AM, said:

that is untrue and a lie, if you really believe that.

or you are juts amazingly trolly.

I only have two pieces of evidence to back up my conclusion:
1) The word of the guy that designed and implemented the system flat out stating that's exactly how it works.
2) My account is rated higher than guys that are better at twitch shooting than me, b/c I'm a better team mate.

What's the evidence for your conclusion?

[RussianWolf]

Bilbo, on 25 September 2015 - 05:29 AM, said:

I am a prime example of one reason this isn't the case. Because of the way I choose to play, when I fail I fail epically. So even with a positive win/loss I probably wont come out of even tier 4 much less surpass tier 3. I'm fine with that and I'm certainly not going to change a playstyle I enjoy simply to move up tiers.

Right there with you Bilbo. We are both the type that push the edges and do wild flanking maneuvers and try to move the battle to places on the map that people haven't even seen, much less fought on.

Edited by RussianWolf, 25 September 2015 - 06:00 AM.

[RussianWolf]

Sjorpha, on 25 September 2015 - 03:36 AM, said:

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.

And how do you explain that I am in Tier 5 with a 1.05 win/loss rate?

And as I said in an earlier post in here, I am happy being in Tier 5 after reading his explanation. It means that I'm not playing the way PGI thinks the game should be played. I play as more of an individual and am still waiting for them to give us Solaris VII with a FFA match so that I can thrive.

I guarantee that even my unit mates will tell you that I'm more of an individual, they are constantly having to tell me "Wolf, you are over there by yourself, watch your back".

Edited by RussianWolf, 25 September 2015 - 06:33 AM.

[Khujjo]

How could you possibly have something called player skill rating literally NOT take personal skill into the equation? I am ******* baffled. How is this possible? They told us this was going to be based on individual performance and instead just made it about team win/loss and games played. ******* assinine.

Edited by Khujjo, 25 September 2015 - 06:26 AM.

[AntleredCormorant]

Quote

Remember, PSR calculations reward team play more than 'Rambo' or 'I'm the hero and will carry my team to victory' play styles.

I feel like match score, XP & C-bill payouts could be made to better reflect this philosophy, as well. Heavies were a solid 40% plus in the queue during the last challenge & I expect to see the same during this one. Point being that any weight class should be equally viable in a contest based on match score & not damage/kills.

[Johnny Z]

AntleredCormorant, on 25 September 2015 - 06:37 AM, said:

I feel like match score, XP & C-bill payouts could be made to better reflect this philosophy, as well. Heavies were a solid 40% plus in the queue during the last challenge & I expect to see the same during this one. Point being that any weight class should be equally viable in a contest based on match score & not damage/kills.

About creds pay out and tiers is the only real question worth anything. Is that a good idea basing payouts on tiers or not.

No offense bt most of the other complaints are best left for a Solaris topic or something. Should higher tier players get larger income????????

While on the subject, should high ranked players get larger cred rewards on the Galaxy map??????

Also when will there be something in this game to spend these credits on????

I got 100 questions.

[WarHippy]

Chemie, on 24 September 2015 - 05:05 PM, said:

"You are Tier 4/5 because you do not play as a team."
....but...
PSR can not drop if your team wins (regardless of how you played).

?? It is a win/loss plus games played counter but somehow that equates to teamwork?

You can get a zero match score but if your teams carrys and wins, you don't drop PSR. Go teamwork!

Yeah, his clarification 5 was one of the more ignorant and condescending things I have seen spew out of their mouths or in this case fingers. There is a lot more to teamwork than their arbitrary line items they have chosen to represent teamwork. Getting solo kills and most damage dealt isn't really teamwork, but gets high points despite the fact that being Rambo is supposedly being discouraged. Does not compute.

Looking at clarification 3 also has me scratching my head because if this is about your PSR(Personal Skill Rating?) winning should play almost no role in your moving up or down. At the very least I would be looking at what gets points and how many. I mean a very high score on a loss only gets the smallest bump up in points? That seems pretty silly honestly. Outstanding performance she be rewarded win or loss.

[An Atlas]

Khujjo, on 25 September 2015 - 06:10 AM, said:

How could you possibly have something called player skill rating literally NOT take personal skill into the equation? I am ******* baffled. How is this possible? They told us this was going to be based on individual performance and instead just made it about team win/loss and games played. ******* assinine.

1) B/c in team based games "individual performance" doesn't mean "Rambo". It means how valuable you are to a team. Sorry you logged onto a team based game expecting to not have to work as a team.

2) Number of games has no bearing on the formula at all. He merely stated "the longer someone plays, the better they tend to become". Seriously, just learn to read.

[WarHippy]

El Bandito, on 24 September 2015 - 05:38 PM, said:

High tier will still signify skill. It is just without new players, everyone who had kept playing MWO will reach high skill. Eventually. That last part is an issue though, as other games offer much faster climb to tiers if one is good enough.

Not really. You an Paul are making the same mistake in equating skill with experience. It does an okay job at separating beginners from veterans, but it really isn't a proper break down of skill.

[RussianWolf]

Found a clip of them explaining the system.

[Lily from animove]

The Paulconomy, on 25 September 2015 - 05:53 AM, said:

I only have two pieces of evidence to back up my conclusion:
1) The word of the guy that designed and implemented the system flat out stating that's exactly how it works.
2) My account is rated higher than guys that are better at twitch shooting than me, b/c I'm a better team mate.

What's the evidence for your conclusion?

No1 is a statement, but not the truth, reason? because you cna play exactly the same amount of performance and you rise sololy based on the fact that every up more than a down will make you rise.

ther eis no need to "imporve" to raise from T4 to T1, all you need is more ups than downs and enough games. it does not require any skill imporvements. especeially not when oyu are T3 because then you anways play with and vs T1's as well.

No 2 has not even remotely close anythign to do with the topic.

also wording: Pilot skill rating, not team skill rating.

WarHippy, on 25 September 2015 - 06:49 AM, said:

Not really. You an Paul are making the same mistake in equating skill with experience. It does an okay job at separating beginners from veterans, but it really isn't a proper break down of skill.

No it does not, because a veteran not playing often is still at T3 or T2 unless he has like 3k games on the counter. So all veterans not having this count of games since beginning 2015 are still regulary matched vs newbies. So it's not even an "ok" at that job.

Edited by Lily from animove, 25 September 2015 - 07:01 AM.

[Lostdragon]

GRiPSViGiL, on 24 September 2015 - 05:19 PM, said:

So Paul says it is more of an XP bar then. Kinda what I thought it was.

This wasn't hard to figure out when I saw some of the guys ranked T1. I am T3 and I can and have spanked T1 guys (and been beaten by them too, to be fair).

[Ghogiel]

PSR does about one thing. It keeps the steering wheel underhive and new players out of games of people who have played enough to grind T1/are good.

Kinda.

I could still be T3 and just haven't played much since Jan or something. But that's an exception. Most people not in T2-3 and people playing sub optimally/ dont care about winning/ are just not as good/ or are good but just don't play enough (in the case of solo only haven't played thousands of matches since jan).

I think it's to shield the hopefull steam player influx from getting smashed too hard in an attempt to raise player retention %.

[RussianWolf]

Ghogiel, on 25 September 2015 - 07:03 AM, said:

PSR does about one thing. It keeps the steering wheel underhive and new players out of games of people who have played enough to grind T1/are good.

Kinda.

I could still be T3 and just haven't played much since Jan or something. But that's an exception. Most people not in T2-3 and people playing sub optimally/ dont care about winning/ are just not as good/ or are good but just don't play enough (in the case of solo only haven't played thousands of matches since jan).

I think it's to shield the hopefull steam player influx from getting smashed too hard in an attempt to raise player retention %.

This is the first I've hear that this only pulls in info since January. If that's the case, they should make another archive of stats so we can pull good data. I was going off my stats since the last archive. Maybe I've been playing worse lately since I've been leveling mechs. But I have a feeling my W/L record is still pretty accurate.

[Ghogiel]

RussianWolf, on 25 September 2015 - 07:12 AM, said:

This is the first I've hear that this only pulls in info since January. If that's the case, they should make another archive of stats so we can pull good data. I was going off my stats since the last archive. Maybe I've been playing worse lately since I've been leveling mechs. But I have a feeling my W/L record is still pretty accurate.

the patch notes when PSR came into the game explains a lot. As does the recent PSR clarification by paul.