1
Let's break down some of the clarifications then.
#1
This is a constant, not much to discuss here.
#2 and #3
Now this is horribly off the mark.
Since you can gain PSR rating when you meet one of 4 conditions (win/v. high, win/high, win/medium, lose/high), but lose only on 2 conditions (lose/medium, lose/low). Considering you score roughly 50/50 wins/losses the system naturally converges to Tier 1.
Perhaps you can influence the win/loss ratio by how much you carry or fail, but still the system will have a tendency to move you up. And still a lot depends on how much your teammates carry or fail. All you may influence is the speed of progress. You really have to do terribad AND have a lot of bad matches to actually drop in PSR rating.
What also influences the result is how the criteria for low/medium/high/very high score is determined. From what I have experienced it seems to me that the division is static. Perhaps it is not and I just did not analyze the situation properly. I believe it needs to adapt dynamically to scores achieved by all players on the team and divide players into groups according to what was achieved (and most probably achievable) in the match that is being considered. Because if you find yourself in a roflstomp (on the losing side) you may have very little chance to do much better than anybody else - regardless of your skill. On the other hand not much of a contribution seems to be required to gain points if your team wins.
Furthermore, as already discussed elsewhere, damage done strongly influences your match score (half of damage dealt is added to total point gain). You could just be running around shooting random targets into random spots (or just hurling various missiles at them) thus achieving the biggest damage tally and possibly top score while the total contribution could be questionable. If the team wins, OK, gain for most. If you lose, gain for you, loss for other, perhaps more skilled players.
Is the match score metric flawed? Perhaps. And most probably.
Is the PSR rating change flawed? Most definitely. A balanced system that converges to a point when the player reaches his skill limits would need to look like this:
The player's PSR would still improve - when the player's skills (aiming, loadouts, awareness, etc.) improve, because he would be more effective. Yet still his rating would oscillate around a value that is determined by his abilities.
In the current state players are rewarded for activity, not for real player skill or anything. The more matches you play the higher your PSR. What we end up with in the end is a lot of frustration, because no matter how good the matchmaker is, if the PSR system is broken:
1) Players level up to a point where their opposition is overwhelming. While they play their teammates may still carry them and they stay on the same tier level - but the game will not be enjoyable for them. Because their PSR will not drop/will not drop quick enough to make a difference. This may end up being a significant player deterrent.
2) Players with lower skill enter higher tier - again, a game spoiler - because they are not enough of a contribution to the team (even if the team wins) and may spoil the game for others. This mostly incites forum unhappiness.
And yes, I recognize they are basically two sides of a coin. But that is the result of an imbalanced system.
TLDR: What needs to be recognized is that we need the system to converge around a player's skill, not the top tier. The current system does not do that.
A reward system can be implemented to reward players for playing a lot, etc. Just please do not make the skill rating system that.
everyone having bad reading comprehension.
