Addressing the point about my Tier 5, I think everyone starts at Tier 5 now. On top of that the player tier bar is somewhere at 3/4 full at the start. So you need to put in some good games to get out of Tier 5.
At the start I only have trial mechs and these mechs don't earn XP so I can't build the skill tree which helps with the success of the mech I'm piloting. It's only thru 25 missions and the tutorial did I have enough C-Bills to properly get a mech of my own to level up on. However from playing the game, it seems like the game has a high bar set for adding points to my Tier bar, usually about 300 match points and up before there is a + side to the battle summary, otherwise it's an = sign which I suppose means no change and if it's below 200 it's a - sign which means I dropped abit in the Tier bar. This thing happens regardless of the mech I pilot so it was all negative points when I was piloting trial mechs, I often struggle to survive. Things picked up when I finally bought my first mech (Arctic Cheetah stats posted) and started to post good results over 58 matches.
When I did well in my ACH, I won more matches. When I did well or not in my WHM, I lost anyway. There appeared to be a correlation (note correlation is not the same as cause and effect). I truly wondered what more I could have done to help my team win. In the context of team dynamics more could be examined if the team composition remained static but in QP, this is not the case. More so it is not the case that individual performance can shape a team's victory chances in QP, in fact as Trissila astutely pointed out it requires good performance from a majority of the random team. This is comfort but still cold comfort to me. If a player (like me, maybe I'm a snowflake as per US slang) feels powerless to shape his/her outcome, repeatedly over time, despite his/her good
and bad efforts, I start to wonder...
As for the tier thing being a badge of honour or disgrace, I see it differently. I see it as opinion-shaping, combined with join date. Comments made by someone in the forum, the same words written by someone in Tier 1 with years of MWO on their belt, versus a Tier 5 with 2 weeks, the words take a different tone altogether. IMHO if a new player comments about the new player experience, PGI should listen closely, much more closely than a 5th year Tier 1 player. Not that PGI should ignore, but there is a different emphasis IMHO. The reverse happens or should happen if PGI is asking for ideas on late game content additions, or tweaks to deep mechanics like matchmaking, hitboxes and game balances.
For me, when someone gives advice to me about things in MWO, Tier helps me prioritise the suggestions as well. This was indeed the case when I read the forums looking for advice on my first mech to buy. The keyword here is prioritise, so I don't reject or blindly accept suggestions based purely on player Tier. Additionally, the tier status also changes my expectations of a forumer/player, where someone in a higher Tier, I expect better from them, as I have them in higher regard, so I expect more from them. We have other mechanics to develop the same mental models across other forums, on our own, etc creation date, post count, cogency of argument, etc, but here on MWO Tier is one helpful metric. This produces a more complex outcome than a simple "badge of honour or disgrace" that one should flaunt or hide.
My 2 cents. Anyway I'm taking time off from MWO. One thing's for sure those losses did make me think twice about firing up MWO these last 2 days.
Edited by arcana75, 13 September 2017 - 09:36 PM.