67 replies to this topic

[Yellonet]

Now that I'm T1 it feels as though I've been in more bad teams than before, and thinking back it seems to me that the higher tier I've had, the larger percentage garbage games due to no comms and generally no team play.
And as I usually get into a match quickly (<30 seconds) I should be with high tierish players, right?

What's up with that?

Even though tiers are mostly XP, surely they should count for something?

Edited by Yellonet, 06 October 2016 - 09:14 AM.

[cazidin]

There is only one constant variable in every game you've lost.

[Zibmo]

cazidin, on 06 October 2016 - 07:00 AM, said:

There is only one constant variable in every game you've lost.

This is quite possibly the most glib retort to these threads. There are 11 other players on a team. There is only one constant variable in your post.

OP: I feel you.

[SWANN]

Because the tiers don't denote skill, just time spent playing the game (which you can artificially increase by being carried by a unit/group of skilled friends). But the problem is video games require a degree of natural ability which most people do not have even if they really like gaming, meaning most will have hit their skill ceiling well before tier 1.

Edited by SWANN, 06 October 2016 - 07:05 AM.

[Kalimaster]

cazidin, on 06 October 2016 - 07:00 AM, said:

There is only one constant variable in every game you've lost.

lol.

[ShoeKush]

In T5 players will, about 70% of the time, acknowledge they have their coms up. 50% of the time they will direct friendly groups as a sort of in game sergeant. 25% of the time they'll all be LRM capable and call out targets. In all those cases 99% of the time we trounce the other team.

I drink 2% milk and 99% natural orange juice. I enjoy POM, but split it 50-50 with liquor. I normally drink 8-10% ABV beer, anything less is water. Bud light happens to be made from a mixture of rice, which beer drinkers never knew, until InBev bought out Budweiser. Which registers at 5% unless you buy Bud Light Platinum. Which is a joke, because they use rice wine to give it that extra 1% ABV.

PERCENT.

Edited by ShoeKush, 06 October 2016 - 07:11 AM.

[Mole]

cazidin, on 06 October 2016 - 07:00 AM, said:

There is only one constant variable in every game you've lost.

I hate this response. It's statistically impossible that one player could be dragging down all 11 other members of his team so hard that he causes them to repeatedly lose. If I can witness teams that have one player that does 1000+ damage and gets 7 kills but his team still loses and I can also witness teams win while they have one or more disconnects or AFKs then this argument holds no water.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Mole, on 06 October 2016 - 07:08 AM, said:

I hate this response. It's statistically impossible that one player could be dragging down all 11 other members of his team so hard that he causes them to repeatedly lose. If I can witness teams that have one player that does 1000+ damage and gets 7 kills but his team still loses and I can also witness teams win while they have one or more disconnects or AFKs then this argument holds no water.

It is a hold over from WoT and WoWS. They are utterly convinced that win rate is solely determined by individual skill however the fail to recognize the fact that statistically even someone who is more skilled than 90% of all the players in this game still have a 10% chance of facing someone that is better than them. To put this in perspective, since there are 12 players on the enemy team and a player who is only better than 90% of all other players still have a 1 in 10 chance of meeting a player who is better than him, that it is almost guaranteed out of 12 enemy players, 1 will actually be more skilled than him. That being the case, if you believe the whole more skilled player wins theory, the 90% player would always lose.

[Wintersdark]

Yellonet, on 06 October 2016 - 06:55 AM, said:

Now that I'm T1 it feels as though I've been in more bad teams than before, and thinking back it seems to me that the higher tier I've had, the larger percentage garbage games due to no comms and generally no team play.
And as I usually get into a match quickly (<30 seconds) I should be with high tierish players, right?

What's up with that?

Even though tiers are mostly XP, surely they should count for something?

How long YOU have been searching for a match has no bearing on the tier spread in the match.

It's how long the MM has been building that match for. You could click "search" and be pulled instantly into a max-spread match.

[El Bandito]

I had 1.28 WLR when the PSR system started and I began at T2. Became T1 almost a year ago and now my WLR is 1.37.

Following OP's logic, I should be dealing with worse teammates than before, which in turn makes me a "really skilled player" for increasing my WLR while fighting alongside worse teammates.

[Ultimax]

cazidin, on 06 October 2016 - 07:00 AM, said:

There is only one constant variable in every game you've lost.

Even the wins are often awful.

The enemy teams are frequently a complete sack of potatoes, your own team might also be a smoking hot mess.


Every time I drop solo, I actually consider uninstalling the game - not because the game is bad, but because this player base has some of the worst players & match making I've come across. (And then I drop team queue with my team and remember where the actual fun is, as long as the enemy is decent)

To make it worse, and more frustrating - they aren't just "new" or "inexperienced". I can live with those players, I'm willing to help them.

This playerbase has a contingent of players that seem to delight in making purposefully awful choices in mech builds and while playing the game. It's like they revel in just being terribads.


Other games have their potato tier clowns, but you're not usually exposed to them constantly once you fight your way out of that zone.

Edited by Ultimax, 06 October 2016 - 08:11 AM.

[Almond Brown]

The best explanation would be that given the time you play, the Server you play on, there are not as many T1 players as one might think, thus, it is quiote likely that your Teams are now being created using a rather large Tier gap, despite the "rules", than expected.

That or T3 and T2 players just aren't that good and your stuck with many of them when you do play.

[Trollfeed]

Viktor Drake, on 06 October 2016 - 07:28 AM, said:

It is a hold over from WoT and WoWS. They are utterly convinced that win rate is solely determined by individual skill however the fail to recognize the fact that statistically even someone who is more skilled than 90% of all the players in this game still have a 10% chance of facing someone that is better than them. To put this in perspective, since there are 12 players on the enemy team and a player who is only better than 90% of all other players still have a 1 in 10 chance of meeting a player who is better than him, that it is almost guaranteed out of 12 enemy players, 1 will actually be more skilled than him. That being the case, if you believe the whole more skilled player wins theory, the 90% player would always lose.

At least some players admit that their godly winratios on WoT were because of company battles, platooning or sealclubbing in lower tiers. When going solo your win rate pretty much depended on random generator deciding amount of tomatoes in your team and any real difference you could make in overall wins is only around 5-10%.
If you had full platoon of good players and used xvm you could pretty much win almost every game as long as you didn't face some other ******** gaming the system.

As long as they dodn't steal matchmaker system from some moba, the feeling of unfairness and 12-0 stomps will be our bread and butter. Take a note of damage done from enemy team when you win or lose 12-0, usually everyone has around 200-400 damage, meaning that everyone just pulled their weight for that match while losing team just had too many hiding potatoes.

Edited by Trollfeed, 06 October 2016 - 08:03 AM.

[Tier5 Kerensky]

This is probably true. As you climb higher, you do it not necessarily getting so much better.

But yet, just because tier isn't about skill, doesn't mean the tier 1 isn't where the most skilled players are. So it's possible average player may win less in tier 1.

But, it's more likely OP just has gut feeling about it, after only some few battles.

El Bandito, on 06 October 2016 - 07:45 AM, said:

Following OP's logic, I should be dealing with worse teammates than before, which in turn makes me a "really skilled player" for increasing my WLR while fighting alongside worse teammates.

Among and againts.

This is always so common, people seem to think their teammates are somehow special and different than teammates of enemy.

They are all the same people. At least in system like this.

Edited by Teer5, 06 October 2016 - 08:04 AM.

[Davers]

Well, all the players who said that the game would be better without a MM should be very happy.

[El Bandito]

Teer5, on 06 October 2016 - 08:02 AM, said:

Among and againts.

This is always so common, people seem to think their teammates are somehow special and different than teammates of enemy.

They are all the same people. At least in system like this.

And so we are back to the part where people say "there is only one constant variable in every game one loses, (or wins)". And since I am that variable, I am pretty happy about my performance.

Still, when one spectates a teammate who seems alien to the concept of torso twisting in T1 matches, it really feels tragically comedic.

Edited by El Bandito, 06 October 2016 - 08:21 AM.

[Bohxim]

Unfortunately most of the time when I'm in solo queue, I'm either levelling mechs or testing derpy builds to see how far I can push them. If you've played with me before, you'll know I've had my fair share of sub 100-200 games. So I apologise in advance if you ever see me in solo queue. XD

[Y E O N N E]

Mole, on 06 October 2016 - 07:08 AM, said:

I hate this response. It's statistically impossible that one player could be dragging down all 11 other members of his team so hard that he causes them to repeatedly lose.

All players being equal, this would be true. Because the game uses players it perceives to be better to offset players it believes to be worse, the good player will consistently drag his team down if he plays less than optimal 'Mechs and goes down early since the game was expecting him to carry.

It's reproducible. When I bring my Jester with laser vomit, useful at just about every engagement range, we win all the time. When I bring a brawling Marauder, it's much harder because I can't do my work if the team won't commit with me.

[Mystere]

Davers, on 06 October 2016 - 08:09 AM, said:

Well, all the players who said that the game would be better without a MM should be very happy.

Well, I'm not convinced. I want to be absolutely sure that there really is no MM whatsoever, instead of just having one with a high failure rate.

Edited by Mystere, 06 October 2016 - 08:27 AM.

[Yellonet]

Wintersdark, on 06 October 2016 - 07:43 AM, said:

How long YOU have been searching for a match has no bearing on the tier spread in the match.

It's how long the MM has been building that match for. You could click "search" and be pulled instantly into a max-spread match.

Ah, that would explain a few things...