110 replies to this topic

[VonBruinwald]

PhoenixFire55, on 29 March 2020 - 08:19 AM, said:

And how is regularly placing everyone from T1 to T5 into the same pot any better than tier bloat exactly?

I wonder sometimes if people who post these "suggestions" actually bother to think about em for like 1-2 mins before they do.

You took these arbitrary tier boundaries from where exactly? ... Have you perhaps considered that people with average matchscore of 400+ are less than 1% of population. Same for people with under 100 matchscore. Which means that you literally put 2% of population into two tiers, and remaining 98% into 3 tiers. Makes sense (no, no it doesn't).

This is why moving to a league system works better. You split the population based on the current average match score equally between the tiers. Therefore each Tier , 1-5, would have 20% of the population.

Every month you migrate the top 10% of each tier up and the bottom 10% down one tier. From there the system self regulates. Good players move up, bad players move down. If we see a spike in new players you'll see an increase in volume of players moving up from T5 relative to those moving down from Tier 4, and vice versa if a bunch of Tier 1s walk out. Inactive players don't factor into the equation.

Your maths bomb basically parrots what I said, split the players 20% per tier. But it still compares the population as a whole instead of comparing a players performance to those in the same tier.

[Kodyn]

PhoenixFire55, on 29 March 2020 - 09:10 AM, said:

It takes 24 people to create a balanced 12v12 match. Literally any 24 people.

Technically true, yes, but I think you understood my point...I just feel like people get going on these threads tossing math around like they actually expect PGI is going to read it and modify their algorithms. That's all I was saying, is we have what we have and it's not going to change unless something unforeseen happens.

[VonBruinwald]

PhoenixFire55, on 29 March 2020 - 08:19 AM, said:

The easiest way to separate people is to create dynamic boundaries between tiers.

Unless of course you're saying the matchmaker dynamically recalculates Tier based upon the current active population, which does make sense. But then that Tier badge you have become meaningless as it becomes a function of the matchmaker instead of a "rank" for a players performance.

[PhoenixFire55]

DontTaseMeBro, on 29 March 2020 - 09:42 AM, said:

There has to be a cutoff somewhere, and as you go higher up the avg match score the more impactful those guys get. Maybe 350 is the right number. Either way it's a small percentage of the population but if they are going to be put into games with other T1s, they need to be doled out carefully for reasonably decent matches.

They are "impactful" because they are playing among potatoes. If we are trying to build a proper MM then such things shouldn't be happening and thus there shouldn't be any "cutoff".


[redacted]

Kodyn, on 29 March 2020 - 09:47 AM, said:

Technically true, yes, but I think you understood my point...I just feel like people get going on these threads tossing math around like they actually expect PGI is going to read it and modify their algorithms. That's all I was saying, is we have what we have and it's not going to change unless something unforeseen happens.

We've talked about it before. There is no hope of anything with PGI for years now. But, there are still people reading this forum for who this topic for whatever reason might be interesting and/or useful.

[DontTaseMeBro]

Is this how every thread on this forum goes? No wonder this is a dying game. Keep on topic, stop insulting others and take it to PM if you two have a personal beef.

[Dr Cara Carcass]

Methanoid, on 15 August 2017 - 08:47 AM, said:

you talk as if a frequent player is dropping in a 1v1, doesnt matter if that 1 player is the best player ever, if the rest of his team are a bunch of myopic windowlicking 6 fingered muppets then he is going to be on the losing team regardless and it will hurt his ranking.

just now finished a conquest game where we took over the nodes 1 at a time, doing a good job of taking them all, yet even with prompts our "team" seemingly wasnt concerned that 1 enemy player was waiting for us to move on and just retook those nodes, conquest yet again turned into skirmish with our team getting anhialated in the process, no amount of 1 "good player" could fix that. Examples like that bag of genius is at present commonplace.

Urgh this discussion again, disproven argument over and over again.
Someone post that 5 games to T1 Video pls...

-Edit-
Wow who ressurected this thread?

Edited by Dr Cara Carcass, 29 March 2020 - 12:16 PM.

[Temporary Axis]

VonBruinwald, on 29 March 2020 - 09:50 AM, said:

Unless of course you're saying the matchmaker dynamically recalculates Tier based upon the current active population, which does make sense. But then that Tier badge you have become meaningless as it becomes a function of the matchmaker instead of a "rank" for a players performance.

This is exactly what it is, hence why lumping 98% of the player base in three tiers (which is pretty close to a nominal distribution) would work with the current system and the 2+/- tier bracket the matchmaker uses.

It doesn't involve the math fu Phoenix just used and represents functionally the gaps in player skill.

Tier 1 should be for the 1%. You should be afraid to play them

Edited by Temporary Axis, 29 March 2020 - 06:07 PM.

[cougurt]

RickySpanish, on 29 March 2020 - 03:03 PM, said:

If you want to get girls, guys, be more like Von-B.

i'm not sure i want to spend that much on tinfoil.

[Sniper09121986]

I have a business model.
A guy wants to be respected on these forums. So he pays devs to put him in T5. Can be a monthly subscription or something. He gets matched with scrubs, he pads his stat with scrubs and goes around wagging his percentile as devs go around wagging his money. All the tryhards would have only themselves to play with, pretty much like comp queue. New players... there are none. And how hard it is to make a new account in F2P game that would start in T5 anyway? Broken system is broken and insecure people are insecure, might as well cash in on it.

[VonBruinwald]

cougurt, on 29 March 2020 - 06:11 PM, said:

i'm not sure i want to spend that much on tinfoil.

It's cheaper than a diamond ring.

[RickySpanish]

VonBruinwald, on 30 March 2020 - 02:44 AM, said:

It's cheaper than a diamond ring.

The rule is, 3 month's wages worth of foil.

[Ted Wayz]

What follows is an opinion, not a statement of fact.

Tiers promote a specific play style. This does not mean one cannot reach T1 playing a different style, but in general tiers promote a try hard play style.

Have been around since open Beta and play less and less. That said have been in T3 since tiers were introduced. The main reason? Have about 400 mechs and have only played over 100 matches on one of them.

On some mechs have a KDR over 2. Could try hard and just play those and get to T1. But why? Why focus in on "gettin' gud" on a few mechs and ignore the other 400? Back in the days when mech releases came with leaderboards would always finish in the top 50, usually top 20, on one mech but only after playing all the mechs from the release. Prefer variety over notoriety.

Have always thought tiers should be "by mech". This would mean you would be ranked on how you perform on each mech individually. This could mean a person is T1 on one mech while being T5 on another. This would promote people to play more mechs without worrying about their precious KDR and diffuse the inevitable "just looked you up on the leaderboards.." bs.

[VonBruinwald]

RickySpanish, on 30 March 2020 - 09:32 AM, said:

The rule is, 3 month's wages worth of foil.

What do you think, should I go for something with more bling?

[RickySpanish]

Ted Wayz, on 30 March 2020 - 10:26 AM, said:

What follows is an opinion, not a statement of fact.

Tiers promote a specific play style. This does not mean one cannot reach T1 playing a different style, but in general tiers promote a try hard play style.

Have been around since open Beta and play less and less. That said have been in T3 since tiers were introduced. The main reason? Have about 400 mechs and have only played over 100 matches on one of them.

On some mechs have a KDR over 2. Could try hard and just play those and get to T1. But why? Why focus in on "gettin' gud" on a few mechs and ignore the other 400? Back in the days when mech releases came with leaderboards would always finish in the top 50, usually top 20, on one mech but only after playing all the mechs from the release. Prefer variety over notoriety.

Have always thought tiers should be "by mech". This would mean you would be ranked on how you perform on each mech individually. This could mean a person is T1 on one mech while being T5 on another. This would promote people to play more mechs without worrying about their precious KDR and diffuse the inevitable "just looked you up on the leaderboards.." bs.

The requirement for increasing your ranking is so low, that most players would have to actually throw games to stay below tier 1. The number of games played is the most important factor - if you continued to play the game just to have fun, you would probably end up in T1 with everyone else. It would just take a little while because of your smaller number of games.

[Dr Cara Carcass]

RickySpanish, on 30 March 2020 - 09:32 AM, said:

The rule is, 3 month's wages worth of foil.

Before or after taxes?

[Ilyahweh]

Cleaned up this thread a bit.
Please refrain from personal attacks and harassment if you would like to continue this discussion.

[VonBruinwald]

RickySpanish, on 30 March 2020 - 11:35 AM, said:

The requirement for increasing your ranking is so low, that most players would have to actually throw games to stay below tier 1. The number of games played is the most important factor - if you continued to play the game just to have fun, you would probably end up in T1 with everyone else. It would just take a little while because of your smaller number of games.

This is why Tier is meaningless and carries no weight as a players rank. As far as the MWO matchmaker is concerned I'm on the same level as the boys in EmP/228/EON.

Dr Cara Carcass, on 30 March 2020 - 12:40 PM, said:

Before or after taxes?

That depends on how much you love her.

[RickySpanish]

VonBruinwald, on 30 March 2020 - 01:15 PM, said:

This is why Tier is meaningless and carries no weight as a players rank. As far as the MWO matchmaker is concerned I'm on the same level as the boys in EmP/228/EON.

That's not much of a problem though since most of them don't drop in QP. I used to see them farming group queue when it was alive, but QP is a little tougher to pad stats with har har har har.

[Brauer]

RickySpanish, on 30 March 2020 - 03:21 PM, said:

That's not much of a problem though since most of them don't drop in QP. I used to see them farming group queue when it was alive, but QP is a little tougher to pad stats with har har har har.

It's easier to pad damage and kills in QP than with a strong group, less competition.

The same often holds in faction, my best damage games are from pug drops or dropping with just one or two others.

Dropping with a strong group is only good for padding wlr and to an extent kdr (you likely get fewer kills/match but it can be really hard to die with a good enough group).

[Eldan]

i'm T5 and apparently played 3.578 matches.(from archived/current stats page in profile)

havent played for many (many) years. Maybe if i played a game the thing will get unstuck?
I dont really care for tiers to be honest but add this one too on the list!
an old top10 in tournaments could reactivate and lurk in T5
(meh it should prob assign a different tier if i played a match though, right?)

/necro bump