48 replies to this topic

[Racerxintegra2k]

We need a Tier reset and a skilled based algorithm to set the new Tier Rankings.

Tier 1 Should mean best of the best.

Tier 3 should mean average etc ... the way it is now it just doesn't work and everyone knows it.

Since the tighter match requirements, matches are actually worse imo. Its a stomp one side or the other with terribly long build ups before the battle.

Not to mention wait times are a lot longer as well.

[Battlemaster56]

Just wonder what do see this new skill base algorithm be looking at when determining someone's own tier?

[Tier5 Kerensky]

How many would you envision to be the "best of the best"?

You can't make a own tier for like 100-1000 people.

Edited by Teer Kerensky, 09 September 2017 - 06:08 AM.

[El Bandito]

I doubt the post tightened MM results in more rolls than before.

[Racerxintegra2k]

Teer Kerensky, on 09 September 2017 - 06:03 AM, said:

How many would you envision to be the "best of the best"?

You can't make a own tier for like 100-1000 people.

I know i should not be Tier 1 .. i am not the best this game has to offer.

[Davegt27]

same with me
me getting rolled time after time day after day match after match is starting to get old

I am trying not to complain since that will only make matters worse

still it would be nice to have a little fun before MW5 comes out in 2 years

[Ghogiel]

MM is better imo. What is worse, and also the reason that even if they made PSR more Elo-esque again, it would have to be so loose as to be virtually the same as now, is that wait times are worse.

[Gaden Phoenix]

Tier 1 is not about being the best.... No No No, MWO following the new American style of grades.

You just need to be there for "insert some amount of time" to be Tier 1. EVERYONE GETS A TIER 1!!!

How darn you all put skill into a perfectly politically correct system! I want a T1 so I demand I get one!

Edited by Gaden Phoenix, 09 September 2017 - 07:08 AM.

[Ripper X]

I think the Tier system should be based on average Match score.

[nehebkau]

Was in a match last night where it should have been only T1s and T2s (was a quick ~30 second wait for a match).... still had a lance average less than 100 damage (was our assault lance), another lance at ~200-300 damage and the third lance doing the heavy lifting (500-1k was the light-medium lance).

I think that group queue victories may be skewing some player's PSR upwards when they go back to QP.

Edited by nehebkau, 09 September 2017 - 07:16 AM.

[ThundrGod]

The matches have seemed much more even to me so far.

[East Indy]

Plain and simple, the problem is that PSR isn't accurate.

Having some kind of exclusive top tier with the 17 best players in the world is a gamer prestige fantasy, not a solution for effective matchmaking.

But if ranking were actually accurate, players could expect that teams would at least be balanced (e.g., each team has 8 true Tier 2 players and 4 true Tier 1 players, or a group of effective players with a few dominant players).

A while ago, PGI boasted of gathering all this "telemetry." This is what I think devs probably can, and definitely should capture and compare to determine player rank:

• Time until first 30 points of non-strike damage dealt to enemy. Good players are aggressive. (Lower is better.)
  
• Average interval between receiving non-strike damage from enemies. Good players are constantly engaged. (Lower is better.)
  
• Total damage of non-strike dealt. Good players maximize opportunities. (Higher is better.)
  
• Total solo kills. Good players pull their weight. (Higher is better.)
  
• Playerbase average score of variant used. Good players excel regardless of tool advantage. (Lower is better.)

Wins should not be recorded. Almost every athletic event since the dawn of time has valued individuals by individual performance, especially when statistics exist that can meaningfully rank one contestant over another.



Metrics like these, taken together, are impossible to fake. You can either do it all or you can't. Use them, and player skill should be accurately reflected in tier assignment.

Edited by East Indy, 09 September 2017 - 07:58 AM.

[Davegt27]

anyone remember when you used to play PC games
the game would give you a choice

beginner/easy
average/moderate
hard/advanced

all those games and wisdom have been thrown out

instead hey lets throw everyone in together
oh that don't work lets give new players a 15% boost to help them
ok how about founders hey lets give them a boost
man we have players that only play a few times on the weekend, yeah lets give them a boost

man players keep complaining about balance
can we computer work the system to get better balance
yes sir if we have a good enough data center

any chance we can tweak things you know buff some players and nerf others
yep can do

what we can do is place players in shift registers (buckets) and we can tweak things to get the overall
balance we want

man that sounds great

I am closing in on 19,000 drops here my win loss stats

Quote

Wins / Losses 9,254 / 9,712

[stealthraccoon]

I'm a damn good IS light mech pilot - so no matter what algorithm you run my numbers through I will always be T5 in Damagewarrior Online.

Edited by stealthraccoon, 09 September 2017 - 08:40 AM.

[MadRover]

East Indy, on 09 September 2017 - 07:51 AM, said:

Plain and simple, the problem is that PSR isn't accurate.

Having some kind of exclusive top tier with the 17 best players in the world is a gamer prestige fantasy, not a solution for effective matchmaking.

But if ranking were actually accurate, players could expect that teams would at least be balanced (e.g., each team has 8 true Tier 2 players and 4 true Tier 1 players, or a group of effective players with a few dominant players).

A while ago, PGI boasted of gathering all this "telemetry." This is what I think devs probably can, and definitely should capture and compare to determine player rank:

• Time until first 30 points of non-strike damage dealt to enemy. Good players are aggressive. (Lower is better.)
  
• Average interval between receiving non-strike damage from enemies. Good players are constantly engaged. (Lower is better.)
  
• Total damage of non-strike dealt. Good players maximize opportunities. (Higher is better.)
  
• Total solo kills. Good players pull their weight. (Higher is better.)
  
• Playerbase average score of variant used. Good players excel regardless of tool advantage. (Lower is better.)

Wins should not be recorded. Almost every athletic event since the dawn of time has valued individuals by individual performance, especially when statistics exist that can meaningfully rank one contestant over another.




Metrics like these, taken together, are impossible to fake. You can either do it all or you can't. Use them, and player skill should be accurately reflected in tier assignment.

East Indy, on 09 September 2017 - 07:51 AM, said:

Plain and simple, the problem is that PSR isn't accurate.

Having some kind of exclusive top tier with the 17 best players in the world is a gamer prestige fantasy, not a solution for effective matchmaking.

But if ranking were actually accurate, players could expect that teams would at least be balanced (e.g., each team has 8 true Tier 2 players and 4 true Tier 1 players, or a group of effective players with a few dominant players).

A while ago, PGI boasted of gathering all this "telemetry." This is what I think devs probably can, and definitely should capture and compare to determine player rank:

• Time until first 30 points of non-strike damage dealt to enemy. Good players are aggressive. (Lower is better.)
  
• Average interval between receiving non-strike damage from enemies. Good players are constantly engaged. (Lower is better.)
  
• Total damage of non-strike dealt. Good players maximize opportunities. (Higher is better.)
  
• Total solo kills. Good players pull their weight. (Higher is better.)
  
• Playerbase average score of variant used. Good players excel regardless of tool advantage. (Lower is better.)

Wins should not be recorded. Almost every athletic event since the dawn of time has valued individuals by individual performance, especially when statistics exist that can meaningfully rank one contestant over another.




Metrics like these, taken together, are impossible to fake. You can either do it all or you can't. Use them, and player skill should be accurately reflected in tier assignment.

Solo kils shouldnt be included. Total amount of assists should with kills being a bonus.

[Mcgral18]

What they need is a better ranking

Every Potato can get Tier 1 as long as they aren't the absolute Terribad of Terribad
It's an EXP bar as the system is currently implemented


Zero sum PSR, now that would work fine.
Players ranked relative to one another. Higher performers, Tier 1
Potato performers, no longer Tier 1

stealthraccoon, on 09 September 2017 - 08:39 AM, said:

I'm a damn good IS light mech pilot - so no matter what algorithm you run my numbers through I will always be T5 in Damagewarrior Online.

...Incorrect
http://leaderboard.i...=stealthraccoon

[Composite Armour]

If I can get to Tier 1 it's undeniable proof that the system is broken.

I think Tiers themselves just need to go and move to matchmaking by PSR. Which is a problem in itself. Kills, Damage, KMDDs, Assists...none of it can be used to be an accurate measure of player skill.

Best short term solution I can think of is base it off W/L ratio and damage per component destruction.

[Deathlike]

Mcgral18, on 09 September 2017 - 12:03 PM, said:

What they need is a better ranking

Every Potato can get Tier 1 as long as they aren't the absolute Terribad of Terribad
It's an EXP bar as the system is currently implemented


Zero sum PSR, now that would work fine.
Players ranked relative to one another. Higher performers, Tier 1
Potato performers, no longer Tier 1





...Incorrect
http://leaderboard.i...=stealthraccoon

Sad thing is that I'm a mediocre Light pilot but I look OP/above average vs a potato. I should really be Tier 2, but "PSR" says "lol XP bar" instead.

http://leaderboard.i...php?u=Deathlike

Edited by Deathlike, 09 September 2017 - 12:43 PM.

[El Bandito]

Ripper X, on 09 September 2017 - 07:11 AM, said:

I think the Tier system should be based on average Match score.

Nope. Light and Medium queues are as small as is.

[Davegt27]

the system that was ELO was a win loss system

so a new system would need to be devised

1) win loss (part of the old sys)
2) match score (are you participating)
3) combat effectiveness rating (something new)