116 replies to this topic

[justcallme A S H]

Antares102, on 15 January 2017 - 09:24 AM, said:

They also need to make the Tier rating gain/loss dependent on individual performance ONLY and not if the team won or lost.
On the one hand nobody should gain Tier rating if he won but only did 10 damage in an assault because he totally focked up.

Again - that is not how the PSR system works. If in a match win, someone does 10dmg in an assault. Their PSR bar will still go DOWN.

Winning is not an automatic "rise" or "neutral" to the PSR bar. You need to achieve a minimum match score for each condition far as I understand. So win/lose/draw - You can always go up even if you have a 30% win rate because you're paired with the most inept players in the game.

So it's working fine in that particular respect.

The biggest issue is a "win" counts for too much of the match score. If that is reduced by at least 50%, that would make a significant difference to people's Tier IMO. A very simple modification as well.

[Clownwarlord]

Tina Benoit, on 13 January 2017 - 04:26 PM, said:

Haha don't be sad Restos, it should be much better now, go try it out!!

PS: I was looking at your signature like, "whoa that's really cool" and then after a moment I was thinking that the shark looks like it's swimming backwards due to the back text rotation!



T1 and T5 do not encounter.

Are you sure that tier 5 and tier 1 do not encounter each other, because I remember a thread where a tier 5 player posted with his tier showing to prove he was in a match with a tier 1 player who had a screenshot of them both being in the same match. Unable to find the thread because the search function is horrible for this website and forum.

[naterist]

Tina Benoit, on 13 January 2017 - 04:35 PM, said:

also PS: this info was for Solo Q.

Group Q is set to 3 minutes.

what if its a group with 1 teir 5 and 1 teir 1?

[N0MAD]

Russ comments on data hes reading indicates to me he doesnt know how to read data or he chooses to ignore parts of the data..
5k game players in T5? ya i can see that figure somewhere on his data sheet.
When Tiers were introduced everyone was given a Tier but that was dependent on how many games were played before and during a certain time period, so many an old vet with over 5k games were given a tier of 4 or 5, although they had not played at all since they quit playing or very infrequently.
Im the perfect example of this, ive played probably Tens of thousands of games but havent played more than couple dozen games over the last Two years (on this account), im at tier 4 was not started in T5.
Because of debates on this forum after the tier system was introduced and other changes i have made several new accounts to test things (so much for the player numbers).
With a new account its rediculously easy to get out of tier 5, i had my son test this durring the tier discussion back when it was introduced, he is a gamer but had never played MWO, took him couple dozen games if that to get out of T5, i did it in about same time, so much for experience, either way i know many if not all of you have seen this thru your own smurf accounts, if not give PGIs player numbers a boost and try yourselfs, its ridiculously easy to get out of T5.
So Russ comments? does he not understand the data, is he ignoring parts of it, or quoting the parts of the data that suits his argument while not the complete data?.
To me it does not make sense, ive seen the tier progression in game, we all have, 5k game players that play even semi regular are not T5.

[The Lighthouse]

I have a huge feeling that Empyreal is wrong with this one.



I mean, this assumes if all tier 1 players actually keep playing the game.

Recently, I was moved from tier 3 to tier 2, and I noticed significant wait time increase for Quick Play. If Russ is correct, it means now I am most likely less getting teamed with tier 4~5 and more likely teamed with majority of tier 1.

With my increased wait time, there is really no viable explanation other than that there are far more 'active' players in lower tiers than higher tier. I am talking about 'active' players, which mean the people who regularly play the game.

I suspect large amount of tier 1 players have stopped playing the game. I must say PGI really pissed off a lot of old players, and it is definitely possible they lost a lot of higher tier players as time passes.

The graph above is correct for 'all' players for sure, but I don't think this is actually close to 'active' players which actually matter for the matchmaking.


Edit : Let you know guys I started from tier 5 (I was doing terrible all the time), one thing I remember about being tier 5 is that matchmaking was nearly instant. Not true in my current tier.

Edited by The Lighthouse, 15 January 2017 - 06:37 PM.

[DJ Sikosis]

All I know is when I started playing this game I didn't even notice the PSR, I was too busy grinding away trying to earn cbills so I could buy a mech without really money. By the time I learnt about tiers, I was at about 20-30% on my tier 5 and then I bought the Kodiak pack and lost even more matches to the point where now I'm practically tier 6. So, I can't see myself ever getting out of the tier 5 now.

[The Lighthouse]

DJ Sikosis, on 15 January 2017 - 07:48 PM, said:

All I know is when I started playing this game I didn't even notice the PSR, I was too busy grinding away trying to earn cbills so I could buy a mech without really money. By the time I learnt about tiers, I was at about 20-30% on my tier 5 and then I bought the Kodiak pack and lost even more matches to the point where now I'm practically tier 6. So, I can't see myself ever getting out of the tier 5 now.

What's the waiting time for quick play for you? And I think there is a definite bottom that you can't go lower than the bar shown there.

[Kynesis]

The tier and PSR systems need to be mathed out from scratch, the game is drastically different compared to its inception and its about to be even more dynamic with the advent of extremely customised mechs in the new XP system.

It seems likely for example that many people will have a share of mechs with _tons_ of xp to allocate on their favourite mechs but very little on others, and by ranking players solely by their aggregate (team) win/loss ratio we'll see even more lop-sided matches.

Having said that, yes great pilots can pilot just about anything and do really well. There's also a very valid concern about ranking systems cornering players in PSR (or whatever acronym a given game uses) hell, where it's essentially impossible to escape if they aren't consistently good enough to carry a team of scru.. variously competent players, game after game, through the entire tier.

[Tarl Cabot]

justcallme A S H, on 15 January 2017 - 05:47 PM, said:

Again - that is not how the PSR system works. If in a match win, someone does 10dmg in an assault. Their PSR bar will still go DOWN.

Winning is not an automatic "rise" or "neutral" to the PSR bar. You need to achieve a minimum match score for each condition far as I understand. So win/lose/draw - You can always go up even if you have a 30% win rate because you're paired with the most inept players in the game.

So it's working fine in that particular respect.

The biggest issue is a "win" counts for too much of the match score. If that is reduced by at least 50%, that would make a significant difference to people's Tier IMO. A very simple modification as well.

Incorrect, a Win results in either a rise or no change but PSR will never drop with the current settings. And it is an absolute scoring and not relative to that specific match.

http://mwomercs.com/...-tiers-and-psr/




http://mwomercs.com/...-as-best-i-can/

On a Win:
PSR goes UP a lot if match score is >400
PSR goes UP a moderate amount if match score is >250 but <=400
PSR goes UP a little if match score is >= 100
PSR has NO CHANGE for a match score <100

On a Loss:
PSR goes UP if match score is > 400
PSR has NO CHANGE for a match score >250 but <= 400
PSR goes DOWN a little if match score is <=250
PSR goes DOWN a lot if match score is < 100

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 15 January 2017 - 08:33 PM.

[Navid A1]

Have a look here:
https://www.reddit.c...hmaking_survey/

A very VERY comprehensive analysis based on real data


Go input your data to the pool. (takes 10 seconds)

[justcallme A S H]

Tarl Cabot, on 15 January 2017 - 08:28 PM, said:

Incorrect, a Win results in either a rise or no change but PSR will never drop with the current settings. And it is an absolute scoring and not relative to that specific match.

Ye I am fair certain I've had mine go down in a win, last year.

Don't forget that post is from Sept 2015 & for at least 6 months of last year T1 and T5 have been put into the same matches. Yet PGI have just came out saying that hasn't happened - & we know 100% that it does...

What that means is I have very limited faith on what I'm being told right about now as there is no accuracy coming out the other end. There are obviously bugs somewhere.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 15 January 2017 - 11:04 PM.

[PhoenixFire55]

Tina Benoit, on 13 January 2017 - 04:17 PM, said:

Let us know if the Matchmaker is feeling better!

It won't feel any better until you fix PSR so that it actually means something. Doesn't matter if T1s are matched with T4s or not as long as T1 is full of horrendous players to begin with.

Edited by PhoenixFire55, 16 January 2017 - 12:22 AM.

[Old-dirty B]

Tina Benoit, on 13 January 2017 - 04:17 PM, said:

Let us know if the Matchmaker is feeling better!

Not entirely sure when this adjustment has been made, but up until the weekend i had quite a few interesting, challenging and close games per evening / night. Since this weekend i have to wait a lot longer to get into a match and most matches are plain out boring - its alway a stomp or getting stomped. A close good game is getting rarer by the day...

For some reason the matchmaker is able to continuously produce a match where an aggressive player composition is facing a timid player composition. In that same perspective, i suspect that the higher tiered players that are "ought to carry the game" are distributed unbalanced over both teams. I think a higher tiered player with a heavy or assault mech is much more likely to carry the game then with a light or perhaps medium mech, especially when the lighter classed mech and higher tiered player ended up on the timid side, i suppose its harder to stop a push / zerg with a locust then with an atlas, kodiak or marauder iic.

My PSR is currently mid tier 2 and i'm mostly a light pilot - piloting a locust. What i experienced is that im able to perform very well and get high scores, damage, kills, kmd's and so on when the games are close, in these cases im usually with the last few mechs fighting it out in the finale. Typical data for these matches for me are 3-4 kills, 1-2 solo kills, 2-3kmd's 600+dmg, im not sure if my data from these matches indicate i have carried these games / allowed the rest of the team and those that survived until the finale to perform well OR that both teams where pretty much equally aggressive / timid allowing me to achieve these kind of scores..?
On the other hand though, if one team is much more aggressive / timid then the other team and the game is a complete steamroll one way or another - its almost never with me topping the scores (al tough i might have a few kills, but these were just scavenges - not because of my "excellent" gameplay). In these games, there's simply not enough time and space for me to do lay down my gameplay.

tl;dr The matchmaker doesnt feel any better - for me actually a lot worse...

Edited by B3R3ND, 16 January 2017 - 01:49 AM.

[MacClearly]

justcallme A S H, on 15 January 2017 - 05:47 PM, said:

Again - that is not how the PSR system works. If in a match win, someone does 10dmg in an assault. Their PSR bar will still go DOWN.

Winning is not an automatic "rise" or "neutral" to the PSR bar. You need to achieve a minimum match score for each condition far as I understand. So win/lose/draw - You can always go up even if you have a 30% win rate because you're paired with the most inept players in the game.

So it's working fine in that particular respect.

The biggest issue is a "win" counts for too much of the match score. If that is reduced by at least 50%, that would make a significant difference to people's Tier IMO. A very simple modification as well.

No. It's actually covered in one of the posts in guides I believe, but the worst possible outcome in a game in which your team won, is an =. This means not going up but more importantly not going down in psr.

[MacClearly]

justcallme A S H, on 15 January 2017 - 05:40 PM, said:

Sorry, again that is not an accurate statement.

Plenty of players T5/T4 have fully kitted out mechs. I made a alt-account for a laugh. After 5 games I was in T3. So it's got nothing to do with modules, skills or otherwise.

Also the usual excuses of "ping" or "hit reg" do not really play a factor either. I play between 220-350ms depending on how my connection feels on any given day. Matches like the below are not a "one off", they are regular for me these days. 12 months ago, my first FP matches, I did like 200/300dmg, but since then I've learnt.






Once you take all the excuses aside it simply comes down to this:


They are just not as good at the game as others.

It's not a rude statement, it's just pure fact without emotion put in it. Tiers should reflect that.
I don't even believe I'm a T1 player if the Tier system worked properly (when comparing myself to MWO C/Ship finalists level etc).

I have had the exact same experience as you and I mean down to the same number of games it took to get into tier 3 (1/4 of the way up the bar as well). This is with my Evil Goof account.

Worth noting too is that I have played a lot with you and against you from both accounts (fw and qp) and consider you to be a better pilot than I am. So if a newer and only somewhat competent player is getting the same results as someone who I have seen consistently do 2000 damage in FW, I think even this anecdotal evidence probably has some merit.

Edit: I honestly didn't even notice until after I hit post that Evil Goof (myself) was actually in one of your images...

Edited by MacClearly, 16 January 2017 - 07:07 AM.

[MacClearly]

N0MAD, on 15 January 2017 - 06:24 PM, said:

Russ comments on data hes reading indicates to me he doesnt know how to read data or he chooses to ignore parts of the data..
5k game players in T5? ya i can see that figure somewhere on his data sheet.
When Tiers were introduced everyone was given a Tier but that was dependent on how many games were played before and during a certain time period, so many an old vet with over 5k games were given a tier of 4 or 5, although they had not played at all since they quit playing or very infrequently.
Im the perfect example of this, ive played probably Tens of thousands of games but havent played more than couple dozen games over the last Two years (on this account), im at tier 4 was not started in T5.
Because of debates on this forum after the tier system was introduced and other changes i have made several new accounts to test things (so much for the player numbers).
With a new account its rediculously easy to get out of tier 5, i had my son test this durring the tier discussion back when it was introduced, he is a gamer but had never played MWO, took him couple dozen games if that to get out of T5, i did it in about same time, so much for experience, either way i know many if not all of you have seen this thru your own smurf accounts, if not give PGIs player numbers a boost and try yourselfs, its ridiculously easy to get out of T5.
So Russ comments? does he not understand the data, is he ignoring parts of it, or quoting the parts of the data that suits his argument while not the complete data?.
To me it does not make sense, ive seen the tier progression in game, we all have, 5k game players that play even semi regular are not T5.

I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make nor do I follow your logic.

Tier 5 is not for just new players. It is for players who for lack of a better term are terrible. Just as it is possible for me to run a 38 minute mile, it is just as possible for someone with 5000+ games to be so bad they are still tier 5.

[C E Dwyer]

Tina Benoit, on 13 January 2017 - 04:35 PM, said:

also PS: this info was for Solo Q.

Group Q is set to 3 minutes.

Sorry but T4's should simply not be matching up with T1's no matter how long it takes to form a match.

I'm hardly the worlds greatest player, I might be considered a little bit above average, by some, but I made T4 in two games on an alt I made up to take part in the what mech challenge, and I made T3 before the cadet bonus was completed, was about game number 22-23.

Now I'm not even going to try to put how long it would take in games for a complete newbie player with no game experience, to progress, but the circumstantial evidence is that people are progressing far to quickly in the game, and facing people they should not be facing for months, when it's taking them weeks to have a mathematical chance of facing tourney level players.

[JaxRiot]

MacClearly, on 16 January 2017 - 07:40 AM, said:

I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make nor do I follow your logic.

Tier 5 is not for just new players. It is for players who for lack of a better term are terrible. Just as it is possible for me to run a 38 minute mile, it is just as possible for someone with 5000+ games to be so bad they are still tier 5.

What he is trying to say is that he doesnt think that it is very likely that an Active player (one that has played since the introduction of the PSR system) could be T5 with 5000 games played. And I agree with him.

Russ is probably counting people that played years ago before the PSR system. Those people could easily have thousands of games but would have been put in T5 because they didnt play for so long and chances are, havnt even played since the introduction of the PSR system, yet are being counted.

Even though I can agree that it could be possible for an active player that is really so terrible at the game that they could still be T5 after 5000 games, I dont think it is very probable and those players would be very very rare.

The way the PSR works, and the way its Upward trend works, those players would easily be carried up past T5 into T4 with hardly any contribution at all. Especially with 5000 games played.

I mean, I dont even have 5000 games played and Im T2, and a Potato.

Edit- And for the record, a Mile in 38 minutes is called walking..

Edited by JaxRiot, 16 January 2017 - 09:31 AM.

[Wronka]

The Unstoppable Puggernaut, on 15 January 2017 - 04:25 AM, said:

They need to double the Ttiers, split people up nicer into them and re-work the brackets of who plays with who. Or if lazy split the T1 bracket to have T0 as well.

There's no way I should be in T1. I've seen some nasty (well nice) players and they need a bumpty to be in top tier. If I end up having to game with them then no problemos but some of the people I've been viewing are using just the keyboard to aim. They need to be moved to safety for their own sake of enjoyment and others.

I just came on here to make a thread about tiers, so perfect timing this thread is here. I have to quote this post because it is basically what I wanted to post about, and I want to make sure it is seen.

I am a tier 1 player as well, however I am not as good as some of the true T1 players, you know the guys everyone knows about, the regulars. There is no way I should be grouped in the same tier as those guys. I've been playing for years on and off, so I get why I would sometimes play against those guys, but I should not be weighted the same as them for matching purposes. I am not a part of a big clan or want to be, I just play a few hours a week with a friend of mine and that is what I want keep doing. But recently, me and my friend both made it to tier 1. And this is when it really became obvious. I am not opposed to a challenge, we always look forward to trying to beat these guys, but the reality is, we lose 95% of the games we play against them.

I must say it gets really annoying if you happen to play on a night a group of the pros happens to be on. Since i'm tier 1 it is a guaranteed chance I will have to play with or against them, and that is when the game gets really boring, really fast. Losing 12-0 on a match the game thought was fair, but in reality was over before it started, kills it for me. It's equally boring to be on their team because the game is over so fast, it feels like I could have just powered down at start and we would have still won. I understand part of the problem is the low population so they have to open the tiers up a bit for faster matchmaking, but they should create more tiers so that I am not counted for the same as someone that is a top 10 player in the game.

Also, it is too easy to level up in tier. I am not sure what the exact rules are, but it seems anyone that is half decent at this game will eventually make it to tier 1, even if they do not actually become better at the game. I think each tier should have its own range as what is considered a good game and what isn't. For example, 400 dmg might be a good game for a tier 3 player, but it shouldn't be a good game for a tier 1 player. I think they need to raise the threshold at when your skill decreases and greatly increase when your skill stays the same the higher the tier you are. This in combination with more tiers I would imagine would at least have the chance for more improved games, even if the same players match up on most days when population is low.

Edited by Wronka, 16 January 2017 - 11:47 AM.

[MacClearly]

JaxRiot, on 16 January 2017 - 09:10 AM, said:

What he is trying to say is that he doesnt think that it is very likely that an Active player (one that has played since the introduction of the PSR system) could be T5 with 5000 games played. And I agree with him.

Russ is probably counting people that played years ago before the PSR system. Those people could easily have thousands of games but would have been put in T5 because they didnt play for so long and chances are, havnt even played since the introduction of the PSR system, yet are being counted.

Even though I can agree that it could be possible for an active player that is really so terrible at the game that they could still be T5 after 5000 games, I dont think it is very probable and those players would be very very rare.

The way the PSR works, and the way its Upward trend works, those players would easily be carried up past T5 into T4 with hardly any contribution at all. Especially with 5000 games played.

I mean, I dont even have 5000 games played and Im T2, and a Potato.

Edit- And for the record, a Mile in 38 minutes is called walking..

No, I absolutely follow what he is saying. I am fully aware of how psr works. I am almost tier 1 on this account with over 3000 matches played in under a year. I also have another account I play regularly that after five matches was places into a quarter of the way through tier 3 (is now at tier 2) Also have messed around and have accounts purposely sandbagged into tier 4. Tier 5 is actually very difficult to stay in. I say this as a player who has a .84 wlr who can still steadily climb the psr despite how weighted it is towards winning.... Please believe me when I tell you that I get it.

So being that I have visited recently I am fully aware of the shenanigans of tier 5. To be there, one has to be extremely bad as well as perhaps vehemently anti-social. Add to this that I actually recognize some of the folks there from my previous journey on through. So because I have visited the land where every other mech is a lurmer who stands in a corner by themselves and seem completely oblivious when they are being cored out from behind...I believe it when Russ says there are players with a lot of games who are deep within the bowels that is tier 5. I don't think he is lying about the data and what he says seems to validate my own personal experience.