72 replies to this topic

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

Zergling, on 20 October 2016 - 12:51 PM, said:

Everybody gets bad teams; yesterday I played 23 battles, only winning 8 for 15 losses, despite averaging 405 damage/battle in my Loyalty Hellbringer and Summoners.

Your Season 4 average match score per weight class is as follows:
Lights = 124
Mediums = 158
Heavies = 163
Assaults = 263

Compared to this, your performance in lights, mediums and assaults is not good, below the bottom 25% of players in each weight class.
Your performance in assaults is top 25%, likely due to playing the Kodiak.

You are a below average player, so averaging 328 damage per battle in an assault mech is well above normal performance for your skill level.

I'm trying to not be a jerk or anything, but your statistics indicates that even for below average players, the Kodiak performs above average, so it is indeed overpowered.


Here's per weight class average match score for another player (whom I shall not name); the Kodiak is the only assault mech they play, while other weight classes are a mix of various top tier mechs.

Lights = 174
Mediums = 203
Heavies = 200
Assaults = 294

By that player's performance in lights, mediums and assaults, they are solidly average. But their performance in assaults is top 10%!
It is obvious there that the Kodiak is having a heavy influence on their performance; an overpowered mech is making them perform well above their skill level.

This is what I did since the new season began.

Light -- leveled a locust going for X2 bonus.
Medium -- tried 6 x machine guns on a shadowcat plus targeting computer to see if I could get elevated crits.
Heavy -- leveled techs & tried different builds on 3 diff marauders.
Assault -- leveled basic techs on a kodiak and used another assault to try and keep my psr from dropping too much.

Yes. My stats are probably !@#% as a result as a result of using questionable builds and underperforming chassis like the marauder which I can't seem to find good builds no matter what I do.

Then the matchmaker gives me 5-10 game losing streaks almost everytime I log on. Game after game where no one my team beaks 200 damage and we all get murdered.

But nah my stats aren't skewed cuz the kodiak is OP. Its that way because I used a locust without X2 bonus, a shadowcat with 6 machine guns and I have 3 marauders that don't have an X2 bonus I'm leveling. If I used a better light mech, medium mech and heavy mech -- with some decent builds things would probably be more proportionate.

I've seen you around in game zergling. Next time you can show me how "below average" I am.

Edited by I Zeratul I, 20 October 2016 - 01:09 PM.

[Zergling]

I Zeratul I, on 20 October 2016 - 01:07 PM, said:

This is what I did since the new season began.

Light -- leveled a locust going for X2 bonus.
Medium -- tried 6 x machine guns on a shadowcat plus targeting computer to see if I could get elevated crits.
Heavy -- leveled techs & tried different builds on 3 diff marauders.
Assault -- leveled basic techs on a kodiak and used another assault to try and keep my psr from dropping too much.

Yes. My stats are probably !@#% as a result as a result of using questionable builds and underperforming chassis like the marauder which I can't seem to find good builds no matter what I do.

Then the matchmaker gives me 5-10 game losing streaks almost everytime I log on. Game after game where no one my team beaks 200 damage and we all get murdered.

But nah my stats aren't skewed cuz the kodiak is OP. Its that way because I used a locust without X2 bonus, a shadowcat with 6 machine guns and I have 3 marauders that don't have an X2 bonus I'm leveling. If I used a better light mech, medium mech and heavy mech -- with some decent builds things would probably be more proportionate.

I've seen you around in game zergling. Next time you can show me how "below average" I am.

The Marauder isn't as good as the Warhammer, but it isn't a bad mech either. In the heavy leaderboards event it averaged close to the Hellbringer and above the Mad Dog, Catapult, Jagermech, Thunderbolt and Grasshopper.
The only heavies that are actually better than it are the Night Gyr, Timber Wolf, Ebon Jaguar and Warhammer.

I suggest letting your PSR drop, because the lower overall skill level of the players in your teams will allow you to influence the results more, so you'll have fewer frustrating losing streaks.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

Zergling, on 20 October 2016 - 01:19 PM, said:

The Marauder isn't as good as the Warhammer, but it isn't a bad mech either. In the heavy leaderboards event it averaged close to the Hellbringer and above the Mad Dog, Catapult, Jagermech, Thunderbolt and Grasshopper.
The only heavies that are actually better than it are the Night Gyr, Timber Wolf, Ebon Jaguar and Warhammer.

I suggest letting your PSR drop, because the lower overall skill level of the players in your teams will allow you to influence the results more, so you'll have fewer frustrating losing streaks.

From my perspective, the marauder has very good aesthetics but is one of the most underperforming heavy mechs in the game. Its slow, lacks hardpoints and the firepower someone would expect from a legit 75 ton mech. Its like a dragon that is 10 tons heavier with the same limited hardpoint layout. If an average match score for heavy chassis were calculated for this month, the marauder would definitely be low scoring in comparison to other heavies. Its aesthetics and the sentimentality people have for the mech in TT are the only things it has going for it.

The trouble with PSR and losing streaks has always been the same. All the competent players wind up on one team. The other team will have 1-2 good players with everyone else being tier 4 or tier 5. Its never been a question of skill level. Its always been about the MM creating teams that are extremely unbalanced and uneven, repetitively. Sometimes I watch tier 1 players stream and I get the impression I face tougher competition as a tier 2, than they do as a tier 1. I'm sure there are a lot of people who know what I'm talking about. There are some people that play this game who are handed easy win after easy win by the matchmaker. Which in turn gives them overinflated stats that are undeserved And there are other people in this game who get screwed by the matchmaker repeatedly. The MM isn't an even or neutral playing field and it never has been.

The truth is we will never really have a decent benchmark for skill level until dueling and solaris come into play. The matchmaker with its wonky and inconsistent side effects are certainly no valid test of skill.

Edited by I Zeratul I, 20 October 2016 - 01:45 PM.

[FLG 01]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 20 October 2016 - 12:12 PM, said:

There will never be an IS equivalent to the Kodiak because of how large IS ballistics and XL engines are.

Unfortunately that is true. Imo, the only solution is introducing the LFE - a true functional equivalent to the Clan-XL. It would level the playfield and allow PGI to balance the small differences between LFE and C-XL via quirks. (...at least much better than quirks can overcome the huge difference between XL and C-XL).

I Zeratul I, on 20 October 2016 - 12:03 PM, said:

I think the TT engine cap is 260.

Its TT engine is 200. Since the TT rules of construction are different, a PGI-like engine cap does not apply. A 260 engine e.g. is illegal/impossible under TT rules; next step is the 300 engine.

If PGI applies the usual 1.2x multiplier to the stock engine, the max engine rating would be 240. Fully leveled this translates to a whopping 41.8 kph. The truth is: nobody wants the Annihilator. Perhaps some people want a Mech in the shape of an Annihilator - for whatever reason you'd want a potbelly giraffe - but they'd change everything else.
The engine cap is one of the few remaining elements of immersion; slow Mechs are relatively slow and fast Mechs are relatively fast. I am not willing to abandon that immersive feature when there are so many alternatives. The IS has so many Assaults to offer, including many which are faster than forty-one kph.

[Zergling]

I Zeratul I, on 20 October 2016 - 01:43 PM, said:

From my perspective, the marauder has very good aesthetics but is one of the most underperforming heavy mechs in the game. Its slow, lacks hardpoints and the firepower someone would expect from a legit 75 ton mech. Its like a dragon that is 10 tons heavier with the same limited hardpoint layout. If an average match score for heavy chassis were calculated for this month, the marauder would definitely be low scoring in comparison to other heavies. Its aesthetics and the sentimentality people have for the mech in TT are the only things it has going for it.

I find it to be a fairly solid mech, not as good as my Ebon Jaguar or Timber Wolf, but much better than my Dragon.

I Zeratul I, on 20 October 2016 - 01:43 PM, said:

The trouble with PSR and losing streaks has always been the same. All the competent players wind up on one team. The other team will have 1-2 good players with everyone else being tier 4 or tier 5. Its never been a question of skill level. Its always been about the MM creating teams that are extremely unbalanced and uneven, repetitively. Sometimes I watch tier 1 players stream and I get the impression I face tougher competition as a tier 2, than they do as a tier 1. I'm sure there are a lot of people who know what I'm talking about. There are some people that play this game who are handed easy win after easy win by the matchmaker. Which in turn gives them overinflated stats that are undeserved And there are other people in this game who get screwed by the matchmaker repeatedly. The MM isn't an even or neutral playing field and it never has been.

The truth is we will never really have a decent benchmark for skill level until dueling and solaris come into play. The matchmaker with its wonky and inconsistent side effects are certainly no valid test of skill.

Everyone gets bad teams and losing streaks, the difference is that good players can still influence battles into producing wins where others could not.

The matchmaker isn't picking on you; if you are consistently performing badly in decent mechs, then there is something wrong with how you are playing.

Edited by Zergling, 20 October 2016 - 01:53 PM.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

Zergling, on 20 October 2016 - 01:53 PM, said:

Everyone gets bad teams and losing streaks, the difference is that good players can still influence battles into producing wins where others could not.

The matchmaker isn't picking on you; if you are consistently performing badly in decent mechs, then there is something wrong with how you are playing.

With 12 vs 12, a single player is only 8% of the outcome. If the other 91% of your team is composed of tier 4's and tier 5's you're going to lose no matter how good you are.

If the matchmaker gives you that team 2/3 times, your stats are going to look like !@#% no matter how good you are.

Stats in this game are heavily determined by the ratio at which the matchmaker gives you good teams vs bad teams.

Skill has absolutely nothing to do with it.

[Zergling]

I Zeratul I, on 20 October 2016 - 01:58 PM, said:

With 12 vs 12, a single player is only 8% of the outcome. If the other 91% of your team is composed of tier 4's and tier 5's you're going to lose no matter how good you are.

If the matchmaker gives you that team 2/3 times, your stats are going to look like !@#% no matter how good you are.

Stats in this game are heavily determined by the ratio at which the matchmaker gives you good teams vs bad teams.

Skill has absolutely nothing to do with it.

8% of the team is still sufficient to influence a significant number of battles towards wins. By the same reasoning, an underperforming player can influence battles towards losses; that is why some players have negative winrates.

The matchmaker does not give any player more 'bad teams' than others. Everybody has the same amount of bad teams, so skill is the primary determining factor in statistical performance.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

Zergling, on 20 October 2016 - 02:16 PM, said:

The matchmaker does not give any player more 'bad teams' than others. Everybody has the same amount of bad teams, so skill is the primary determining factor in statistical performance.

The MM definitely gives some players a higher frequency and consistency of bad teams than it does to others.

I bet if you dug around, you could probably find some tier 1 pilots who are known to be very good who have worse stats than mine.

Why? Because the MM is shafting them, giving them bad team after bad team. It is a known thing.

Edited by I Zeratul I, 20 October 2016 - 02:25 PM.

[Zergling]

I Zeratul I, on 20 October 2016 - 02:24 PM, said:

The MM definitely gives some players a higher frequency and consistency of bad teams than it does to others.

I bet if you dug around, you could probably find some tier 1 pilots who are known to be very good who have worse stats than mine.

Why? Because the MM is shafting them, giving them bad team after bad team. It is a known thing.

Do not confuse player Tier with skill level, because Tier functions as an XP bar that goes up as people play; all but the absolute worst players will eventually hit Tier 1 if they play enough.
I'm currently 25% to Tier 1, when I just hit Tier 2 at the end of September; I'll hit Tier 1 in another 900 battles at my current rate, and I am definitely not a top tier player by any means.

The matchmaker does not give any player a higher frequency of bad teams than others. That is a myth.

Everyone gets losing streaks due to random bad luck out of their control, because the matchmaker will give some unlucky players a larger than normal amount of bad teammates, but this only occurs over the short term.
Over the long term, the law of large numbers means this random effect will be nullified and the primary determining factor on personal statistics will be personal performance.

Edited by Zergling, 20 October 2016 - 02:56 PM.

[Tordin]

Every mechdeserve a chance to be in MWO and the upcoming Battletech. But there are exceptions. The annhilator looks like godzilla crossed with a hypershrinked male genitalia upside down. That or a sideways egg with head and limbs... It just looks... I dont have words. Hell, even the old viper concept looks nice in comparison!

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

Zergling, on 20 October 2016 - 02:30 PM, said:

Do not confuse player Tier with skill level, because Tier functions as an XP bar that goes up as people play; all but the absolute worst players will eventually hit Tier 1 if they play enough.

The matchmaker does not give any player a higher frequency of bad teams than others. That is a myth.

Everyone gets losing streaks due to random bad luck out of their control, because the matchmaker will give some unlucky players a larger than normal amount of bad teammates, but this only occurs over the short term.
Over the long term, the law of large numbers means this random effect will be nullified and the primary determining factor on personal statistics will be personal performance.

Everyone will hit tier 1 if they play enough is 100% false. Its like saying everyone will become a millionaire if they work enough. You can only gain PSR by other people losing PSR. There aren't enough loose PSR points floating for everyone to do it. On a 1:1 level gaining one level of PSR means someone else has to lose a level of PSR. The effects are distributed among a population of people and not that noticeable. But no not everyone can hit tier 1 under the current system as it functions via displacement. Claiming everyone will hit tier 1, is like claiming everyone can have a KDR greater than 1.0. If you know the basics of numbers & statistics, you know that never happens. For you to repeat those types of silly myths should be a hit to your credibility and an indication that you don't really think about what you're saying, you simply repeat things you've heard because you don't know enough to certify whether or not they're true.

The matchmaker does consistently deal some people a better hand than others when it comes to teams. For one thing there are too many variables for a matchmaker to account for. Qualities like skill, making good decisions, aim, having good loadouts are impossible to quantify with a single digit number. There are also shady practices like sync dropping the matchmaker could never hope to address. Then there's the extremely limited pool of players online at any given time. The odds are stacked against the matchmaker being accurate. But the thing that stands out the most to me are the 20-30 game losing streaks I know a number of people have had to deal with. The divide that exists where some experience 20-30 game losing streaks on a regular basis, whereas others have 20-30 game winning streaks is probably the biggest indication there are a number of MM hiccups which lead to extremely varied experiences with teams and matchmaking.

Anyways, I would like to make a prediction. If Solaris or some form of dueling is implemented. You're going to see a lot of people topping the stats list get smashed in 1 vs 1 duels. On the flipside, you're going to see a lot of people who have very crappy stats on the leaderboard wrecking people. I have seen a number of people topping the leaderboard list in game. Some of them are good. Some of them I've spectated and they're not good at all, even though they have WL and KDR stats in the 3 or 4 range.

People shouldn't be concerned with stats or leaderboard numbers. They're more indications of how much the MM likes you, than they are skill or ability in this game. If solaris is ever released you're going to see that what I'm saying is a fact.

[Zergling]

I Zeratul I, on 20 October 2016 - 03:13 PM, said:

Everyone will hit tier 1 if they play enough is 100% false. Its like saying everyone will become a millionaire if they work enough. You can only gain PSR by other people losing PSR. There aren't enough loose PSR points floating for everyone to do it. On a 1:1 level gaining one level of PSR means someone else has to lose a level of PSR. The effects are distributed among a population of people and not that noticeable. But no not everyone can hit tier 1 under the current system as it functions via displacement. Claiming everyone will hit tier 1, is like claiming everyone can have a KDR greater than 1.0. If you know the basics of numbers & statistics, you know that never happens. For you to repeat those types of silly myths should be a hit to your credibility and an indication that you don't really think about what you're saying, you simply repeat things you've heard because you don't know enough to certify whether or not they're true.

I suggest you check your facts before you go spouting false information.

There is NOT a finite amount of PSR to go around; players gain PSR completely independent of others.

Here is how PGI describes PSR changes as happening:


And the leftmost section of this image showing some more exact figures for match score:


Basically, if you are averaging above 175 average match score, your PSR will go up until it hits Tier 1.
That is very easy to do; the average player typically has an average match score of around 200.

Only those players performing well below average will actually drop in PSR, so the majority of the playerbase will gain PSR until they reach Tier 1.

I Zeratul I, on 20 October 2016 - 03:13 PM, said:

The matchmaker does consistently deal some people a better hand than others when it comes to teams. For one thing there are too many variables for a matchmaker to account for. Qualities like skill, making good decisions, aim, having good loadouts are impossible to quantify with a single digit number. There are also shady practices like sync dropping the matchmaker could never hope to address. Then there's the extremely limited pool of players online at any given time. The odds are stacked against the matchmaker being accurate. But the thing that stands out the most to me are the 20-30 game losing streaks I know a number of people have had to deal with. The divide that exists where some experience 20-30 game losing streaks on a regular basis, whereas others have 20-30 game winning streaks is probably the biggest indication there are a number of MM hiccups which lead to extremely varied experiences with teams and matchmaking.

The matchmaker does not deal some players a better hand, and deal others a worse hand.

The matchmaker simply grabs people within a given PSR range, attempts to give each team 3 of each weight class (but practically never does) and also tries to give each team an equal number of mechs in each weight class.
But other than that, the selection of teams is entirely random; there doesn't appear to be any attempt to balance teams by skill.

And even if it did balance teams by skill, a skilled player would still show good stats, because the 'punishment' of being weighed down by bad teammates would not overcome the advantage in skill they have over the average player.

Further, a skill based matchmaker would not punish an average or below average skill player at all, nor would it punish an above average skill player to the point that they perform worse than the average.
Even if MWO did balance teams by skill (when there is no evidence that it does), it still would not excuse a player for having below average personal performance statistics.

So there is nothing to blame but yourself for your poor performance. Quit making excuses and admit it, then you might start improving.

I Zeratul I, on 20 October 2016 - 03:13 PM, said:

Anyways, I would like to make a prediction. If Solaris or some form of dueling is implemented. You're going to see a lot of people topping the stats list get smashed in 1 vs 1 duels. On the flipside, you're going to see a lot of people who have very crappy stats on the leaderboard wrecking people. I have seen a number of people topping the leaderboard list in game. Some of them are good. Some of them I've spectated and they're not good at all, even though they have WL and KDR stats in the 3 or 4 range.

There probably will be a difference in stats between normal play and 1 vs 1 duels, but not because of your claims that some people are being favored by the matchmaker, but because 1 vs 1 will have a different meta to normal 12 vs 12.

Such a different meta would naturally favor players with different play styles, so they would perform better or worse than in 12 vs 12.

I Zeratul I, on 20 October 2016 - 03:13 PM, said:

People shouldn't be concerned with stats or leaderboard numbers. They're more indications of how much the MM likes you, than they are skill or ability in this game. If solaris is ever released you're going to see that what I'm saying is a fact.

Stats and leaderboard numbers are of concern and should be discussed when personal performance is a topic being discussed.

You claimed the Kodiak isn't overpowered based on your poor performance in it, and your level of skill is entirely relevant to your performance in the Kodiak.

Edited by Zergling, 20 October 2016 - 07:08 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 20 October 2016 - 12:12 PM, said:

There will never be an IS equivalent to the Kodiak because of how large IS ballistics and XL engines are.

True.

On the other hand, if IS Gauss rifles didn't explode and one could fire 3x PPCs without roasting due to ghost heat, there are a couple IS Assaults that could be a reasonably close approximation provided the XL gets structure-buffed.

Actually, the more I think about it the more I like the idea that IS Gauss Rifles shouldn't explode. The fact that they do basically precludes its use in any 'Mech since it can't be combined with an isXL.