45 replies to this topic

[Ted Wayz]

So Paul states that Tier 4/5 is full of players who haven't learned teamwork. And that by learning teamwork they will be able to pull themselves out depths of PSR hell.

First, I don't necessarily agree. It seems most of the players that say they are in T4 also mention that they like to play a variety of mechs or play non-optimized builds. But that isn't my main point.

If this game rewards teamwork and teamwork is the behaviour you want to promote, why would you place new players in T4? Wouldn't you want to place them in the tier where teamwork is the norm not the exception? Wouldn't you want them observing what you think are the "right" behaviours from the start?

[El Bandito]

In LoL, the game does not pair fresh level 1 newbies with Platinum ranked players from the start. Learning how the game works is a slow incline that takes many hundreds of matches to climb, if not thousands. Especially if they do not play every day. Otherwise, they will abandon the game faster than a sinking ship.

I personally have been playing this game for 3 years, and still have not learned all the vital things. Especially quirk values on all mechs.

Edited by El Bandito, 27 September 2015 - 07:44 AM.

[Ted Wayz]

El Bandito, on 27 September 2015 - 07:39 AM, said:

In LoL, the game does not pair fresh level 1 newbies with Platinum ranked players from the start. Learning how the game works is a slow incline that takes many hundreds of matches to climb, if not thousands. Especially if they do not play every day.

As I pointed out this is a much different, less competitive game than LoL. They are not even close and cannot be compared with the exception of they are online games that people play.

[El Bandito]

Ted Wayz, on 27 September 2015 - 07:42 AM, said:

As I pointed out this is a much different, less competitive game than LoL. They are not even close and cannot be compared with the exception of they are online games that people play.

The logic is all the same. You cannot feed fresh meat into the grinder right away. You will only drive away new players like that. Being competitive has nothing to do with it.

Edited by El Bandito, 27 September 2015 - 07:51 AM.

[Ted Wayz]

El Bandito, on 27 September 2015 - 07:49 AM, said:

The logic is all the same. You cannot feed fresh meat into the grinder right away. You will only drive away new players like that. Being competitive has nothing to do with it.

So put them in T3 then. T3 doesn't mean they are better players than T4 players, just they use better teamwork according to Paul. And I don't think seeding in 1 in 12 is "feeding meat to the grinder". In LoL 1 in 5 would be, especially in a game that has actual roles and where you need independent play (lanes) to succeed.

[El Bandito]

Ted Wayz, on 27 September 2015 - 08:00 AM, said:

So put them in T3 then. T3 doesn't mean they are better players than T4 players, just they use better teamwork according to Paul. And I don't think seeding in 1 in 12 is "feeding meat to the grinder". In LoL 1 in 5 would be, especially in a game that has actual roles and where you need independent play (lanes) to succeed.

I do not know how your brain worked out that there will be only 1 fresh meat seeded in a T3 match. Especially when the game hits Steam.

[Ted Wayz]

El Bandito, on 27 September 2015 - 08:15 AM, said:

I do not know how your brain worked out that there will be only 1 fresh meat seeded in a T3 match. Especially when the game hits Steam.

I didn't say in a T3 match, sorry if you didn't pick that up. If you put them in T3 it would be a better fit according to Paul's reasoning.

What I meant to convey is seeding 1 in 12 in the upper tiers would not have much of an effect. Match maker could easily ensure a 1 in 12 and one on each team seeding in all T2 and T1 matches. Still T3 makes the most sense.

[STEF_]

New accounts should be tier 5.
In tier 5 they can still see some sort of "teamwork" because they would be matched with/versus tier 3/4

[Kdogg788]

PSR based on match score has nothing to do with how well players use team work. I don't know what Paul is smoking. We group all the time and are generally coordinated as a force and some including me are tier 4/3. The difference being in tiers 4 and 5 you can take whatever you want for mechs and still have fun competitive games. In tiers 1 and 2 you're a slave to the meta.

-k

[El Bandito]

Kdogg788, on 27 September 2015 - 09:04 AM, said:

The difference being in tiers 4 and 5 you can take whatever you want for mechs and still have fun competitive games. In tiers 1 and 2 you're a slave to the meta.

"Competitive" games in T4/5, hehe.

[STEF_]

Kdogg788, on 27 September 2015 - 09:04 AM, said:

In tiers 1 and 2 you're a slave to the meta.

-k

BS.
I enjoy rolling quickie(draws), lolcust, trollmando, ferrit, etc.etc.
I also wrote a love guide to HGN (http://mwomercs.com/...-love-for-them/)
I play to have fun, not to be a slave.

Edited by Stefka Kerensky, 27 September 2015 - 09:14 AM.

[Alistair Winter]

I don't think bad players would benefit from being matched up with good players. The frustration of being totally pwned outweighs the benefits of watching good players and trying to learn by observation.

And for the really good players, it sucks to hold new players' hands through the match as well.

It's a lose-lose proposition, in my book.

[Fleeb the Mad]

Nah. Think the tier ratings are fine.

New players would get wrecked in tier 3, even if they didn't see tier 1 or 2 opponents, for the simple reason that they'd be playing with and against people who had the money to fully outfit and customize their machines. Even with a completely unjustified assumption that piloting skill and knowledge would be equal, that's a huge disadvantage already.

Tier 4 is probably the right place so new players have the ability to go up or down, as opposed to just up.

[MoonUnitBeta]

Ted Wayz, on 27 September 2015 - 07:34 AM, said:

So Paul states that Tier 4/5 is full of players who haven't learned teamwork. And that by learning teamwork they will be able to pull themselves out depths of PSR hell.

First, I don't necessarily agree. It seems most of the players that say they are in T4 also mention that they like to play a variety of mechs or play non-optimized builds. But that isn't my main point.

If this game rewards teamwork and teamwork is the behaviour you want to promote, why would you place new players in T4? Wouldn't you want to place them in the tier where teamwork is the norm not the exception? Wouldn't you want them observing what you think are the "right" behaviours from the start?

I always thought that the flaw is you have 11 people not working as a team, and unless you carry the team you're not considered a team player either.

The chart needs to look like this. With more areas for no change, and a faster way to accel if you did good. Notice, there's no "small" change.
Regardless of win or lose, if you did poorly, you're going down.
Regardless of win or lose, if you did OK, you'll stay the same.
If you lose, and did good, you'll still stay the same as your contribution may not have been team orientated.
If you win, and did good, you'll go up as your contribution was likely team orientated.
If you win, or lose, and you did awesome, you're obvious in the wrong place, so you'll be going up.

Paul punishes and rewards win/loss too much. Tier is all about skill placement, so that's why keeping you in a certain spot is essential, and getting you into a different tier faster that matches you is also essential.

[WildeKarde]

It's quite clearly not a "teamwork" rating. Or are PGI saying a new team starts today plays 500 matches and wins 50% of them will be classed as tier 1? They would have played as a team but just not won every game.

It would be interesting to see the lowest number of games any of the tier 1's has. I'm thinking there won't be many or any under 5k of games as a guess.

[El Bandito]

MoonUnitBeta, on 27 September 2015 - 09:17 AM, said:

I always thought that the flaw is you have 11 people not working as a team, and unless you carry the team you're not considered a team player either.

The chart needs to look like this. With more areas for no change, and a faster way to accel if you did good. Notice, there's no "small" change.
Regardless of win or lose, if you did poorly, you're going down.
Regardless of win or lose, if you did OK, you'll stay the same.
If you lose, and did good, you'll still stay the same as your contribution may not have been team orientated.
If you win, and did good, you'll go up as your contribution was likely team orientated.
If you win, or lose, and you did awesome, you're obvious in the wrong place, so you'll be going up.

Paul punishes and rewards win/loss too much. Tier is all about skill placement, so that's why keeping you in a certain spot is essential, and getting you into a different tier faster that matches you is also essential.

I'm fine with such placements, but it might be biased against lighter mechs under current reward system.

[Elizander]

You can mow down 3-5 new players solo if you are experienced in this game. That teaches them nothing.

[AztecD]

PGI is to focused on wining, you can have a good score but a lose will just kill any good work you did, and TIERS are supposed to be individual, so dont punish good/average players for bad PUG teams

[Otto Cannon]

All the flaws in Paul's PSR thinking, and you manage to point out the one thing that isn't wrong. That's actually impressive.

[Zerberus]

Ted Wayz, on 27 September 2015 - 08:48 AM, said:

I didn't say in a T3 match, sorry if you didn't pick that up. If you put them in T3 it would be a better fit according to Paul's reasoning.

What I meant to convey is seeding 1 in 12 in the upper tiers would not have much of an effect. Match maker could easily ensure a 1 in 12 and one on each team seeding in all T2 and T1 matches. Still T3 makes the most sense.

And if you put them in T3 they can also end up being the one T3 guy in a match full of T1 players, if their luck sucks for their entire cadet life, which is exactly what initially seeding them in T4 is supposed to avoid.

They´re still getting thrown to the wolves, because they can still be matched with T3 and T2 players... but at least they`re not getting tossed in front of a whole pack of Comp overlords with min/Maxed mechs and full module sets while themselves piloting their first trial mech.

There`s a big difference between a trial mech and a build that makes full use of quirks, in the hands of a player who`s played at least a few hundred matches

"A FEW HUNDRED?? BS!!" you say? No, think about it:

He had to level at least 2 mechs thru elite and the one he´s currently in to master, and unless he`s got too much RL money to spend he had to farm an additional 10-15 million + for modules. if we assume earnings that (for a beginner) are above average at 200k /match, that`s 50 matches for just the modules (if we assume 10mil), another 10 mil for the mech he`s currently in, and another 10 mil for the second mech he bought (assuming the first was "free" after cadet bonus and tutorial), that´s already a bare minimum of 150 matches..

All assuming he knew from the second he logged on exactly what he was doing boith in game and in teh mechlab, and what his favorite mech was going to be, and never wasted a single cBill..... In reality, the number will probably be about twice if not triple that for most people.

If we assume 10 matches /hr, you have someone who`s been playing for half a week nonstop without eating,. sleepinging, or using the loo, and he`s getting matched with a player that started literally 2 minutes ago.

And that´s the BEST CASE scenario for the new recruit if matched against T1 players.

The worst case, which is equally likely when seeded in T3, is getting tossed in against veterans with thousands of matches each under their belt that know the maps and small grooup tactics like the back of their hand. He may as well just dc right after the drop, as his match score will be insignificantly different.

Edited by Zerberus, 27 September 2015 - 10:30 AM.