224 replies to this topic

[Revis Volek]

Johnny Z, on 07 July 2017 - 08:47 AM, said:

Anyone gets into tier one can hold their own and participate in a match. That along with random players thrown onto a team should make for good matches. Most times matches are good. If the troll brigade starts synch dropping of course there are bad matches. Of course player numbers and time of day makes a difference.

So who are you calling out here?

Who are these imaginary mechwarriors you AND ONLY you see every match? They seem awesome i need to meet them one day.

KekistanWillRiseAgain, on 07 July 2017 - 01:51 PM, said:

Rebalancing the Tier reward system... -600 damage/-350 Match Score is just even & -300 damage/-200 Match Score is a Negative on Win, reducing PSR even more on -500 damage/-300 Match Score on Loss. Make it HARD to level your Tier not the inevitable XP Bar it currently is.... not be dragged upwards while not accomplishes much and being carried by the good players. It needs to be made crystal clear to people they are not good, putting up terrible numbers consistently but still going up Tiers gives them a false sense of accomplishment and knowledge. They cling to the few good games they have and blame the rest on their team or it just being a bad game for them as a singular event.

But people lack even the basic level of knowledge to path themselves correctly on the map at the very start let alone accomplish anything like real time understanding of enemy movements or the counters to that movement. Like watching headless chickens running around and calling it fighting, so many games (even victories) are depressingly sad & pathetic. People play absolutely atrociously yet will crow about it because the enemy team managed to accomplish an even more impressive feat of actually being WORSE which should not be possible. Yet every time I think I have seen the lowest possible potato, super potato shows up to prove that they can in fact be even more incompetent & clueless.

In a nice 12 man brawl where everyone is shooting the same target and burnning things down there is only about 250 dmg per mech to go around.


This system would actually reward being selfish more and working as a team less and reminds me of the way it used to be.


Cant let it be based on dmg and stat ho' things other wise you get what we used to have and guy who jut waited around to steal your kill and look they they are good. I agree 100% that making it based SOLEY on the win is dumb and you should have to have done something to benefit from the W or your should Lose Sum.

Making it based off Kill assists and then making sure you do like 1/3rd of the best dmg scorer in the game. So if they did 1000 and 3 kills your better have your 2 assists and at least 350dmg or you dont gain much at all.

Edited by Revis Volek, 07 July 2017 - 03:55 PM.

[Mechwarrior4670152]

PhoenixFire55, on 07 July 2017 - 03:41 PM, said:

Still refusing to prove my point, so I am going to mock you for not getting how an example does something

So lighter mechs should be in a lower tier.

Gotcha
Edit:

By the way, still waiting for the actual proof you keep claiming is "so obvious"

Assuming that is, that it actually exists

Stefka Kerensky, on 07 July 2017 - 03:30 PM, said:

OMG....really?

U really need to take informations, buddy.

You really need to stop and use what brain cells you have, buddy. Because I am pretty sure you are not as stupid as your response here (mocking me for trying to point something out to you) makes you look

When you base something on damage - even partially - that makes things worse for those that can bring less damage potential.

IE - the lighter mechs.

Edited by Wence the Wanderer, 07 July 2017 - 04:03 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Wence the Wanderer, on 07 July 2017 - 12:45 PM, said:

So what WOULD be a tier system related to skills?
Because we DO have a tier system, and it is based on wins.

Since this is a team-based game, what else would measure your skills?

I see that claim a lot - but the best I have ever seen anyone offer has been "soemting dat lest me smush lowur tiers, durrr."

I'm not sure you understand


We want to remove the Terribads from Tier 1
You can consistently guess that one of either team will have 5 or six players below 200 damage
A number you can get from 5 attacks in optimal range, from the majority of robots


Half the team performing Terribad



I'd like some more Robot Competence, please


Zero Sum system is the easy solution. A set number of Tier 1 players, an so forth, so the Carried Terribads do not stay at Tier 1, as their performance isn't consistent.

[Mechwarrior4670152]

Mcgral18, on 07 July 2017 - 03:57 PM, said:

I'm not sure you understand

I am not sure you have reason to believe that.

Mcgral18, on 07 July 2017 - 03:57 PM, said:

We want to remove the Terribads from Tier 1

So does almost EVERYONE.

Problem is - I have yet to see a method that does that, that does not outright favor heavier mechs.
I have seen HUNDREDS of examples like earlier - but they all involve 1 thing.

!!!!!!!DO MUR DAMOGE!!!!!!!!!

Which does not help the lighter end of the spectrum

Many are okay with that - there are MANY who think that bringing lighter mechs itself is offensive.
I disagree with that.

HOWEVER
In a truly team based game - built around TEAM play
Your win/loss ratio ALONE is a far better method.

OH WAIT!
We have that!
It may not be perfect (very much so not!)
But to claim it does not exist?
That is outright bullsh*t

[Felicitatem Parco]

Guys...

Here is the big hurdle - does tonnage = power?

In Faction Play, the answer is YES, Tonnage = Power, and that is why there are weight limits. This game IS, INDEED, based on the premise that Weight = Power.

Now, there is also the Quick Play queue where you can bring a Light if you want, or you can freely upgrade it to a Heavy if you want. We have to accept the fact that Heavies tend to just be better than Mediums, for example, in unrestricted combat.

So, in the end your Open Quick Play Tier system has to acknowledge that weight can make you more powerful, AND that playing a lighter Mech in the open Quick Play queue is kind of like just "practice mode" for your weight-cutting regimen. you don't necessarily have to expect smaller Mechs to perform the same as larger Mechs if you don't want to. You can weight-bias your Tier-points per patch if you think that's appropriate, however also note that big Assault Mechs can be subject to crap matches, despite being huge and that can cause match-output-value-calculation errors to snowball.

____________________________

The only real way to gauge your effectiveness is Wins (obviously not kills or damage, because if you cannot get wins over the course of hundreds of games, then you're doing something that doesn't help your teams win). You can't say "wins and losses are subject to the other potatoes and not reflective of your own skill" because you can observe trends over time. Eventually a statistically significant number of matches will pass and your wins/losses will be the closest gauge to your ability to perform winning behavior as part of the team.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 07 July 2017 - 04:15 PM.

[Bud Crue]

Wence the Wanderer, on 07 July 2017 - 04:01 PM, said:

I am not sure you have reason to believe that.

So does almost EVERYONE.

Problem is - I have yet to see a method that does that, that does not outright favor heavier mechs.
I have seen HUNDREDS of examples like earlier - but they all involve 1 thing.

!!!!!!!DO MUR DAMOGE!!!!!!!!!

Which does not help the lighter end of the spectrum

Many are okay with that - there are MANY who think that bringing lighter mechs itself is offensive.
I disagree with that.

HOWEVER
In a truly team based game - built around TEAM play
Your win/loss ratio ALONE is a far better method.

OH WAIT!
We have that!
It may not be perfect (very much so not!)
But to claim it does not exist?
That is outright bullsh*t

Sorry to be a johnny come lately to this debate, but if you are a good player, you will do just fine in a Cheetah or Locust as say a Rifleman or Maddog, or say an Atlas or Dire. Bad players will do bad in all, good players will do good in all...on average.

The damage they put out may very well be proportional to the class of mech, but goods will still do consistently more damage than the bads. So I don't see why you think the current system favors tier advancement via greater weight to a greater extent than a zero sum system, or others that have put forth above.

Wence the Wanderer, on 07 July 2017 - 03:57 PM, said:

So lighter mechs should be in a lower tier.

Like I said, I am late to this discussion, so I may be missing something, but tier advancement has nothing to do with the class of mech, but the players performance in any mech on average. Right? Again, sorry if I am not understanding.

[Mcgral18]

Wence the Wanderer, on 07 July 2017 - 04:01 PM, said:

I am not sure you have reason to believe that.

So does almost EVERYONE.

Problem is - I have yet to see a method that does that, that does not outright favor heavier mechs.
I have seen HUNDREDS of examples like earlier - but they all involve 1 thing.

!!!!!!!DO MUR DAMOGE!!!!!!!!!

Which does not help the lighter end of the spectrum

Many are okay with that - there are MANY who think that bringing lighter mechs itself is offensive.
I disagree with that.

HOWEVER
In a truly team based game - built around TEAM play
Your win/loss ratio ALONE is a far better method.

OH WAIT!
We have that!
It may not be perfect (very much so not!)
But to claim it does not exist?
That is outright bullsh*t

Me carrying six Potatos is not team play


That is Potato Saturation on both sides, because of the skill imbalance.
The six Potatos who dealt ~150 damage did not deserve to have their PSR increased, because they did nothing to contribute


My Lights have no issue getting 200 damage


They certainly don't get 1200 damage games very often, but they perform much better than your typical Potato in an Assault or Heavy mech.

[Mechwarrior4670152]

Bud Crue, on 07 July 2017 - 04:16 PM, said:

Sorry to be a johnny come lately to this debate, but if you are a good player, you will do just fine in a Cheetah or Locust as say a Rifleman or Maddog, or say an Atlas or Dire. Bad players will do bad in all, good players will do good in all...on average.

That is not the question.
The question is will that good player in a Locust do as well as the good player in the Dire?

[Pur]

You're right, Wence: the question is... what is your deal.

Wence the Wanderer, on 07 July 2017 - 02:09 PM, said:

Still waiting for someone to counter the main thrust of my argument, rather than get offended at my mockery of their lack

Not exactly a counter to the main thrust of your argument, but I fail to see the reasoning behind your supposed conviction, when considering that you've apparently played a grand total of 25 matches in the entire past year of the game. And those were all within one season (month) over 6 months ago.



Please don't get offended when I mockingly question your entire existence here in the first place since you barely play, according to this game's stats page.

[Bud Crue]

Wence the Wanderer, on 07 July 2017 - 04:26 PM, said:

That is not the question.
The question is will that good player in a Locust do as well as the good player in the Dire?

Well is the debate about a win based system vs something else? If it is, who knows and who cares which mech is "better" for the good player. The question is did the good player in either mech add to the chances of getting the win? If not they should go down in PSR regardless of which mech. Right?

[Mechwarrior4670152]

Mcgral18, on 07 July 2017 - 04:19 PM, said:

Me carrying six Potatos is not team play

No it is not.

But then again - this is a team based game.

If you are deliberately teaming up with potatoes then there is nothing PGI can do to help you.

And as far as PuGlandia the Insane goes?
None of the "solutions" here do anything to help that.

After all - every good player has bad days.
Some days even though they are "good" days that person decided to play a mech they do not perform as well in (My scores in the TBR are FAR lower than they are in my MDD for example)

There is only so much anyone can do in a pure-PuG environment.

That is not the discussion though.
That is not what brought ME in to the conversation.

Stefka Kerensky, on 07 July 2017 - 11:25 AM, said:

There is NO tier system related to skills.

THAT is.
And THAT is outright lies on his part
Especially as he keeps arguing about how the current system does not do what he wants it to.
And in order for the current system to not being working well, it has to exist.

And what has kept me here is people telling me I am wrong (while at the same time refusing to actually provide any proof - a sure sign of simple minded trolls) and me waiting to see if they actually are what they present themselves as.

Bud Crue, on 07 July 2017 - 04:30 PM, said:

Well is the debate about a win based system vs something else? If it is, who knows and who cares which mech is "better" for the good player. The question is did the good player in either mech add to the chances of getting the win? If not they should go down in PSR regardless of which mech. Right?

In other words - if you win consistently, your PSR goes up?

Sounds an awful lot like what we have now.

[Bud Crue]

Wence the Wanderer, on 07 July 2017 - 04:33 PM, said:

In other words - if you win consistently, your PSR goes up?

Sounds an awful lot like what we have now.

Yep. I was right. I am missing something here. Sorry for the interruption. I am not understanding you're beef. Carry on.

[Mechwarrior4670152]

King Harkinian, on 07 July 2017 - 04:28 PM, said:

You're right, Wence: the question is... what is your deal.

My deal is I don't like liars

King Harkinian, on 07 July 2017 - 04:28 PM, said:

Please don't get offended when I mockingly question your entire existence here in the first place since you barely play, according to this game's stats page.

I don't play on this account.

I got tired of people mocking me for my tier level (and as there are both those who mock "seal clubbers" as well as low tiers that tells you nothing) and made this one simply for posting (hence why my tier is hidden)

On the other hand - thank you for lowering your own arguments

When you have to try to point out that someone does not play much to counter their arguments, it is a fairly good sign you have no other counter.

Bud Crue, on 07 July 2017 - 04:35 PM, said:

Yep. I was right. I am missing something here. Sorry for the interruption. I am not understanding you're beef. Carry on.

No worries

Kind of hard to understand how you can not understand a dislike for those who outright lie - and then prove their lies to try and support their argument though

[Pur]

Lol.

[Y E O N N E]

1453 R, is that you?

[Alexander of Macedon]

Wence the Wanderer, on 07 July 2017 - 04:01 PM, said:

I am not sure you have reason to believe that.

So does almost EVERYONE.

Problem is - I have yet to see a method that does that, that does not outright favor heavier mechs.
I have seen HUNDREDS of examples like earlier - but they all involve 1 thing.

!!!!!!!DO MUR DAMOGE!!!!!!!!!

Which does not help the lighter end of the spectrum

Many are okay with that - there are MANY who think that bringing lighter mechs itself is offensive.
I disagree with that.

HOWEVER
In a truly team based game - built around TEAM play
Your win/loss ratio ALONE is a far better method.

OH WAIT!
We have that!
It may not be perfect (very much so not!)
But to claim it does not exist?
That is outright bullsh*t

"Lights can't do as much damage as other weight classes."

Exhibit A:


That ACH (I think-apologies if I'm misremembering, my mind was on other things) and I were the last two left against... I think 8 enemies? We did more than a third of the team's damage between us and got 8 of 10 kills. The enemy Shadow Cat was a weaponless stick; I slipped up at the end and died to the mostly-fresh Bounty Hunter II. Two lights, total of 50t of 'mech, nearly wiped out the entire enemy team. And the damage numbers are deceptive because almost all of the kills were me backstabbing while they ran around trying to kill him, so not much was done per kill.

Here's a random grab of some light results.

The single biggest factor in performance is ability. Even a heavy/assault running fresh stinky meta-cheese will still do bad damage if there's a tater in the cockpit. It is absolutely possible to get good damage and contribute meaningfully in a light in QP. Maybe it's a bit more difficult, since harassing and evasion-tanking is a bit more involved than peeking/poptarting/shoot-twist cycling, but it's not rocket science and still rests on a lot of the same basic decisionmaking re: pathing, exposure, target selection, patience, &c.

Edited by Alexander of Macedon, 07 July 2017 - 05:54 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

Wence the Wanderer, on 07 July 2017 - 04:38 PM, said:

My deal is I don't like liars

I don't play on this account.

Two statements that are seemingly, mutually exclusive

[STEF_]

Wence the Wanderer, on 07 July 2017 - 03:57 PM, said:

You really need to stop and use what brain cells you have, buddy. Because I am pretty sure you are not as stupid as your response here (mocking me for trying to point something out to you) makes you look

So, when you don't have arguments, you release offences.
clapclapclap

you should thank me for having demonstrate to you how bad tier system is....and how bad tier 1 are:


release more offences, buddy.

Your salt makes me alive!

[Mechwarrior4670152]

Stefka Kerensky, on 07 July 2017 - 05:57 PM, said:

Your salt makes me alive!

I am not the salty one (believe it or not) I am laughing FAR to much for that claim to stick.

You still have not explained how your adding damage to the formula does not screw over lights though.
You DID specify that it was needed, after all.

Also:
You chart (interestingly enough) only shuffles up how the current system's shifting changes.
Which itself proves my original post in this topic (and the whole reason I am here!) right.

And the part of your post I was originally responding to a lie.

Go ahead - keep proving me right.
I am still laughing as you prove yourself not only an open (and self-admited!) liar, but a stupid one at that. (as you would have to be to so openly admit to it)

justcallme A S H, on 07 July 2017 - 05:53 PM, said:

Two statements that are seemingly, mutually exclusive

How does me not playing on this account make me a liar?

Edit: Figured it out.
I had to play on this account long enough to get through the new player period.
Otherwise your account is limited to one section of the forum - and only so many posts a day at that.
But then, intelligent people who read the patch notes know such things, do they not?

Alexander of Macedon, on 07 July 2017 - 05:53 PM, said:

"Lights can't do as much damage as other weight classes."

As frequently as other light classes?
As reliably as other weight classes?
As consistently as other weight classes?

Then why is the light que so consistently, frequently, and reliably so much lower?

I am well aware that they potentially can deal as much damage - ANY mech with access to any laser weapons can potentially deal infinite damage. 6 or more hardpoints and the potential within a match skyrockets
I have had multiple matches where I ran through the enemy team, completely ignored as the focused on the 'greater threats' my my teammates were.

Does not mean my mech is as good as theirs in a competitive environment

Does not make them as potent as the others - otherwise people would not consider mechs such as the MLX and such to be so low tier.
To be such bad mechs.

Edited by Wence the Wanderer, 07 July 2017 - 06:59 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

Well - what account do you play on? Don't be one of these usual trolls that "hide" behind the old "oh but I play on another acct"

You say lights can't do dmg, yet I can crank out a 500dmg game without even trying in a light...

All your commentary sounds like is that of a T4 level player. Why? Because it's those users that make silly comments because they are quite simply not good at the game. Nothing wrong with that but don't tell good players what they aren't capable of.