First if all, we need a match score system that is not 90% based on damage.
After that we can talk.
6
Tier System Reset
Started by Racerxintegra2k, Sep 09 2017 05:17 AM
48 replies to this topic
#22
-
-
- Little Helper
- 3,861 posts
Member
Posted 10 September 2017 - 02:08 AM
xe N on, on 10 September 2017 - 12:27 AM, said:
First if all, we need a match score system that is not 90% based on damage.
After that we can talk.
After that we can talk.
What it should be based on? The team that does more damage usually wins. The game is a deathmatch.
#23
-
-
- Ace Of Spades
- 3,410 posts
Member
- LocationBusy stealing clan mechs.
Posted 10 September 2017 - 02:25 AM
No, and I can't believe I am saying this but with the revamp of match making based on tiers ... it helps new players.
Think of it, the system works so that if you have played enough you will eventually make it to tier 1. BUT new players do not now face tier 1 players allowing them to play against "supposedly" other new players to learn the basic mechanics of the game.
Outside of that the tier system is meh. Tier 1 players should have a way to be ranked so that MM can hopefully better balance them but that would require a more active and larger player base to make a more robust match maker work in an efficient manner.
Think of it, the system works so that if you have played enough you will eventually make it to tier 1. BUT new players do not now face tier 1 players allowing them to play against "supposedly" other new players to learn the basic mechanics of the game.
Outside of that the tier system is meh. Tier 1 players should have a way to be ranked so that MM can hopefully better balance them but that would require a more active and larger player base to make a more robust match maker work in an efficient manner.
#24
-
-
- The Corsair
- 487 posts
Member
Posted 10 September 2017 - 03:38 AM
Tier can't be just based purely on game scores. A casual player who's been playing since 2012 might not have gotten to tier 1 but they'll be better than a lot of new tier 5 players for example.
You'd need to have tiers add in length of playtime and number of matches played to rating a player simply from an experience variable.
You have to promote players up the tiers though - no one will stay in a game they have no progression in. Ideally you'd like to get everyone to tier 3.
You'd need to have tiers add in length of playtime and number of matches played to rating a player simply from an experience variable.
You have to promote players up the tiers though - no one will stay in a game they have no progression in. Ideally you'd like to get everyone to tier 3.
#25
-
-
- Littlest Helper
- 29,240 posts
Member
- Location#NOToTaterBalance #BadBalanceOverlordIsBad
Posted 10 September 2017 - 06:11 AM
WildeKarde, on 10 September 2017 - 03:38 AM, said:
Tier can't be just based purely on game scores. A casual player who's been playing since 2012 might not have gotten to tier 1 but they'll be better than a lot of new tier 5 players for example.
You'd need to have tiers add in length of playtime and number of matches played to rating a player simply from an experience variable.
You have to promote players up the tiers though - no one will stay in a game they have no progression in. Ideally you'd like to get everyone to tier 3.
You'd need to have tiers add in length of playtime and number of matches played to rating a player simply from an experience variable.
You have to promote players up the tiers though - no one will stay in a game they have no progression in. Ideally you'd like to get everyone to tier 3.
Some players "may have all the experience" over time, but still end up being not very good.
The thing about experience that people should get better or have learned their lessons. Reality in this game (due to current population trends) is that some never honestly get better.
#26
-
-
- Ace Of Spades
- 88 posts
Member
- LocationKCMO
Posted 10 September 2017 - 08:19 AM
I'll post an example that is not well thought out.
12 players in a round - 5 tier system
2 players with top match score get a Tier 1 Stamp for the match
2 players with 3-4th match score get a Tier 2 Stamp for the match
4 players with 5-8th match score get a Tier 3 Stamp for the match
2 players with 9-10th match score get a Tier 4 Stamp for the match
2 players with 11-12th match score get a Tier 5 Stamp for the match
If not match score - then some other algorithm be it KMDD/Solo Kills/Damage as primary.
12 players in a round - 5 tier system
2 players with top match score get a Tier 1 Stamp for the match
2 players with 3-4th match score get a Tier 2 Stamp for the match
4 players with 5-8th match score get a Tier 3 Stamp for the match
2 players with 9-10th match score get a Tier 4 Stamp for the match
2 players with 11-12th match score get a Tier 5 Stamp for the match
If not match score - then some other algorithm be it KMDD/Solo Kills/Damage as primary.
#27
-
-
- Bad Company
- 4,864 posts
Member
- LocationTerra
Posted 10 September 2017 - 08:51 AM
Well along with the tier system, I agree with others how you score in game could be reevaluate so as to make the system as a whole, and how one progresses more uniform.
I would also go onto say with inclusion of 8v8 comp, group queue scoring should be moderately less than solo q players. I say that as it is a bit easier to do well in group, than when you lone wolf it..
But ya tier could definitely be fleshed out better with little to no effort on PGI s part. How many players that were ranked t1 have just quit the game because they weren't t1 material, yet they were being thrown in with actual t1 and get repeatedly steamrolled
I would also go onto say with inclusion of 8v8 comp, group queue scoring should be moderately less than solo q players. I say that as it is a bit easier to do well in group, than when you lone wolf it..
But ya tier could definitely be fleshed out better with little to no effort on PGI s part. How many players that were ranked t1 have just quit the game because they weren't t1 material, yet they were being thrown in with actual t1 and get repeatedly steamrolled
#28
-
-
- The Defiant
- 2,912 posts
Member
- LocationRUNNING FAST AND TURNING LEFT
Posted 10 September 2017 - 08:59 AM
stealthraccoon, on 09 September 2017 - 08:39 AM, said:
I'm a damn good IS light mech pilot
lol okay
I think I'd rather have someone like Spr1ggan, an actual good light pilot, on my team rather than a t5 puglord that can't even manage .4 kd/r and 200 average match score
#29
-
-
- Nova Captain
- 2,186 posts
Member
Posted 10 September 2017 - 10:17 AM
One way toi solve this problem could be for average players to "opt out" of tier'd play.... I'd create a Novice or Intermediate class where average players could gather and not be involved with any sort of competitive players..... Why frustrate you'all?
Of course, that'd mean that they might not be very many games for you'all to play...... We'd all be having a lot of fun being average or below average !
Of course, that'd mean that they might not be very many games for you'all to play...... We'd all be having a lot of fun being average or below average !
#30
-
-
- The 1 Percent
- 3,851 posts
Member
Posted 10 September 2017 - 10:58 AM
Racerxintegra2k, on 09 September 2017 - 05:17 AM, said:
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.
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.
It'd honestly take resetting tiers, altering the PSR system to require higher match scores to advance at higher tiers, AND going 8v8 to relieve some long-term stress on the MM to really make a difference.
#31
-
-
- Bridesmaid
- 2,051 posts
Member
Posted 10 September 2017 - 01:15 PM
kapusta11, on 10 September 2017 - 02:08 AM, said:
What it should be based on? The team that does more damage usually wins. The game is a deathmatch.
Winning. And only winning. And only winning on solo QP.
Right now it's partially based on winning, but the link is too loose, and the other component is too unrelated to "skill".
#32
-
-
- Urban Commando
- 441 posts
Member
Posted 10 September 2017 - 02:48 PM
The tiers should have always been fairly even fractions of the player pool with moving goal posts to keep the proportion of players in them similar.
The idea that tier 1 is for compies is a bit of a fallacy. Even if you limit it to the top 10% of players instead of 20%, it's still going to capture a very wide swath of competent casual players that grossly outnumber the competitive people that are also in there. There's no point in making a separate group for the top 1% of the player base. Not for quick play matchmaking. It would just cause more skill spread in the middle tiers because there's simply not enough people in that 1% to build matches.
I'm fairly set against the idea of tiers being a long-term progression goal since it defeats some of the point of sorting people for matchmaking. Of course, tiers could simply be a placebo or a rough-sort mechanism. There's too much spread within any one tier for it to work without some sort of weighting for individual players.
The idea that tier 1 is for compies is a bit of a fallacy. Even if you limit it to the top 10% of players instead of 20%, it's still going to capture a very wide swath of competent casual players that grossly outnumber the competitive people that are also in there. There's no point in making a separate group for the top 1% of the player base. Not for quick play matchmaking. It would just cause more skill spread in the middle tiers because there's simply not enough people in that 1% to build matches.
I'm fairly set against the idea of tiers being a long-term progression goal since it defeats some of the point of sorting people for matchmaking. Of course, tiers could simply be a placebo or a rough-sort mechanism. There's too much spread within any one tier for it to work without some sort of weighting for individual players.
#33
-
-
- Littlest Helper
- 29,240 posts
Member
- Location#NOToTaterBalance #BadBalanceOverlordIsBad
Posted 10 September 2017 - 03:07 PM
Asym, on 10 September 2017 - 10:17 AM, said:
One way toi solve this problem could be for average players to "opt out" of tier'd play.... I'd create a Novice or Intermediate class where average players could gather and not be involved with any sort of competitive players..... Why frustrate you'all?
Of course, that'd mean that they might not be very many games for you'all to play...... We'd all be having a lot of fun being average or below average !
Of course, that'd mean that they might not be very many games for you'all to play...... We'd all be having a lot of fun being average or below average !
Keeping actual Tier 1 players in Tier 5 because we can? Oh the farming we will do!
The problem actually is that adding a Tier-less bucket is only going to compound the current situation in population. Had you had a greater population (like say back in Beta), then this would be doable... but not with the issues the current MM has to deal with now (which again is population, and indirectly the broken behavior that PSR uses to determine Tiers - the ultimate XP bar).
#34
-
-
- The Pharaoh
- 695 posts
Member
Posted 10 September 2017 - 04:13 PM
I am in favor of some or all of the following components (others have posted some of these already) when it comes to ranking and matchmaking:
1) The ranking needs to be based upon a limited time frame. Last 2-3 seasons, or weighted average of last 5 seasons with most recent season carrying the most weight (eg. 35%-25%-20%-15%-5%). A lifetime ranking just doesn't work.
2) Zero-sum ranking. If someone goes up in rank, someone else must go down. Everyone does not get a trophy. This will also help with players who don't play much. They will naturally drop in ranking over time.
3) I'm not sure that ranking should include performance in different queues grouped together. You may need a group queue ranking and a solo queue ranking. Simply because, as others have pointed out, group and solo performance depend upon some very different competencies (including how good your group is).
4) I think it's ok to combine multiple tiers in a game as long as there is balance between teams. World of Tanks will combine super-unicum players (top 0.1%) with players in the lower 50% of the population. But as long as you have a super unicum on both teams, it can be balanced. It's also a way that players can learn. If you're a Tier3 but you get to watch a couple Tier1s on your team play, or follow their lead, you may learn something that you wouldn't learn in an all Tier3 match. WoT also matches by vehicle level as well, so you will get Tier X (top) tanks with Tier IX and Tier VIII as well.
If you were to mandate a maximum range of 3 Tiers, you could do something like 3 Tier1, 4 Tier2 and 5 Tier3 on each team per match. Or maybe we need even more Tier buckets. Just spitballing it here. But combining Tiers would make it much easier to get quick matches (as we already know). Maybe you even denote on the loading screen which players are which Tier (but perhaps its only visible to your own team). Puts a little pressure on the Top Tier guys, but hey, they earned it
.
Again, just throwing out some ideas here, but I think that ranking and matchmaking are one of the top 2 or 3 issues facing the game today and need some serious attention. Going to 8v8 really doesn't address the problem at all.
1) The ranking needs to be based upon a limited time frame. Last 2-3 seasons, or weighted average of last 5 seasons with most recent season carrying the most weight (eg. 35%-25%-20%-15%-5%). A lifetime ranking just doesn't work.
2) Zero-sum ranking. If someone goes up in rank, someone else must go down. Everyone does not get a trophy. This will also help with players who don't play much. They will naturally drop in ranking over time.
3) I'm not sure that ranking should include performance in different queues grouped together. You may need a group queue ranking and a solo queue ranking. Simply because, as others have pointed out, group and solo performance depend upon some very different competencies (including how good your group is).
4) I think it's ok to combine multiple tiers in a game as long as there is balance between teams. World of Tanks will combine super-unicum players (top 0.1%) with players in the lower 50% of the population. But as long as you have a super unicum on both teams, it can be balanced. It's also a way that players can learn. If you're a Tier3 but you get to watch a couple Tier1s on your team play, or follow their lead, you may learn something that you wouldn't learn in an all Tier3 match. WoT also matches by vehicle level as well, so you will get Tier X (top) tanks with Tier IX and Tier VIII as well.
If you were to mandate a maximum range of 3 Tiers, you could do something like 3 Tier1, 4 Tier2 and 5 Tier3 on each team per match. Or maybe we need even more Tier buckets. Just spitballing it here. But combining Tiers would make it much easier to get quick matches (as we already know). Maybe you even denote on the loading screen which players are which Tier (but perhaps its only visible to your own team). Puts a little pressure on the Top Tier guys, but hey, they earned it
.Again, just throwing out some ideas here, but I think that ranking and matchmaking are one of the top 2 or 3 issues facing the game today and need some serious attention. Going to 8v8 really doesn't address the problem at all.
#35
-
-
- Nova Captain
- 2,186 posts
Member
Posted 12 September 2017 - 12:22 PM
Deathlike, on 10 September 2017 - 03:07 PM, said:
Keeping actual Tier 1 players in Tier 5 because we can? Oh the farming we will do!
The problem actually is that adding a Tier-less bucket is only going to compound the current situation in population. Had you had a greater population (like say back in Beta), then this would be doable... but not with the issues the current MM has to deal with now (which again is population, and indirectly the broken behavior that PSR uses to determine Tiers - the ultimate XP bar).
Acutally, in a voluntary system, the statistics are still kept..... Going up is simple......yes, you'll get slaughtered, but that was "your choice" or if you wanted to see what the next tier looks like....
Going down is about impossible..... Take your stats and my stats as an example...... Your stats create "thresholds" that can't be circumvented...... Your, let's say, 1.5 w/l ratio says "he's pretty good" compared to my .68 w/l......"potato". I could chose to play against you but you'd never be allowed to play in my tier (beginner, Intermediate, seasoned, veteran and competitive...)
So, if you took some time off mastering an entirely new class of mech and your w/l dropped significantly, you might fit into a level below the 1.5 threshold. That would insure that w/l changes keep your play "relevant" to your current situation....
the MM itself wouldn't let you click tiers below you current status.....
The down side is that the upper tiers may be a bit sparce...... (we'd be having all of the fun in the bottom two tiers and you'all would be struggling just to find a match......) (dark humor...eh?!)
Farming couldn't happen unless a competitive player created a new account just to screw with noobs and potato's (like me!)
#36
Posted 12 September 2017 - 12:41 PM
Racerxintegra2k, on 09 September 2017 - 05:17 AM, said:
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.
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.
As I understand it, with the current formula, as long as you either win as often as you lose, or at least when you lose, you don't lose too badly and get the small PSR penalty, eventually you'll move up to Tier 1.
Instead, reverse the PSR reward so that, unless you do REALLY good, your PSR won't receive an increase, and even if winning and doing 'sub-par' (scoring less than 100 points in a match), or losing and doing 'meh', or losing and doing very badly, you get progressively bigger PSR penalties.
This way only those that can regularly score really well will be able to increase (or maintain) their PSR.
BUT, this is all for nought anyway as MWO doesn't have the population for rankings to really mean anything due to a non-existent advertising/marketing strategy.
#37
-
-
- The Defiant
- 244 posts
Member
- LocationUS East Coast
Posted 12 September 2017 - 12:55 PM
I’ve actually been annoyed over my Tier ranking recently, so this is topic got my attention.
I don’t feel we need a Tier reset. Maybe I can get onboard with a reformulation, but I’ll leave that for the Eggheads. First, to put this into context;
I’ve been on a hiatus from the game for a bit. Last time I played in a semi-serious manner was February-ish. At that point I was squarely into Tier-2 and holding my own. I was never a Comp player nor am I super serious about the Meta. Well recently I’ve started to dabble again here and there and I’m still at Tier-2. What’s the problem with that? I’m a Tier-2 Potato.
I’ve lost the gameplay skills I once had. Just as with any skill based ability, if you don’t practice it, you will lose it. Now I’m not crying over this, it is what it is and I expected the face stompage upon my return. It just never fails to get me, that the current ranking system doesn’t have a mechanic to degrade the players Tier standing during a period of prolonged inactivity. Is this idea too much? I certainly don’t think so. Imagine how many T1 and T2s we have out there who’ve left the game because of X, Y and Z and have come back a little more rusty then they’d like to admit, but still getting thrown in with T1 matches.
With a degradation system in place, If a T1 player has been away for a 12 month period, maybe now he is performing at T2 or 3. That is where I find myself personally. I’m a T2 who is really performing at T4/5 just because of that time away. If the returning player is still that good, they’d make short work on the lower tiers to get back into his ranking. In my case I made a new account to practice with and I went from T5 to T3 in 4 or 5 matches?
So what do you all think of that? A degradation system that simply eats away at ranking after a players account shows inactivity after a certain amount of time vs the idea of a complete Tier reset. It would be a way to knock down some of those false T1/T2s who we’ve all seen and said the same thing… how did this guy make it to T1?
I don’t feel we need a Tier reset. Maybe I can get onboard with a reformulation, but I’ll leave that for the Eggheads. First, to put this into context;
I’ve been on a hiatus from the game for a bit. Last time I played in a semi-serious manner was February-ish. At that point I was squarely into Tier-2 and holding my own. I was never a Comp player nor am I super serious about the Meta. Well recently I’ve started to dabble again here and there and I’m still at Tier-2. What’s the problem with that? I’m a Tier-2 Potato.
I’ve lost the gameplay skills I once had. Just as with any skill based ability, if you don’t practice it, you will lose it. Now I’m not crying over this, it is what it is and I expected the face stompage upon my return. It just never fails to get me, that the current ranking system doesn’t have a mechanic to degrade the players Tier standing during a period of prolonged inactivity. Is this idea too much? I certainly don’t think so. Imagine how many T1 and T2s we have out there who’ve left the game because of X, Y and Z and have come back a little more rusty then they’d like to admit, but still getting thrown in with T1 matches.
With a degradation system in place, If a T1 player has been away for a 12 month period, maybe now he is performing at T2 or 3. That is where I find myself personally. I’m a T2 who is really performing at T4/5 just because of that time away. If the returning player is still that good, they’d make short work on the lower tiers to get back into his ranking. In my case I made a new account to practice with and I went from T5 to T3 in 4 or 5 matches?
So what do you all think of that? A degradation system that simply eats away at ranking after a players account shows inactivity after a certain amount of time vs the idea of a complete Tier reset. It would be a way to knock down some of those false T1/T2s who we’ve all seen and said the same thing… how did this guy make it to T1?
#38
-
- Bad Company
- 3 posts
Rookie
Posted 12 September 2017 - 01:00 PM
I purposely played poorly for a lot of games on Saturday in hopes to drop my Tier score down because I am almost to tier 3. Sadly it failed. I am not a bad player, but I am not a great player. This tier system is going to force me to start playing against a level of players I will not be able to keep up with.
If this is the case, I will just stop playing and go elsewhere. And before anyone says anythting I do and have been spending a lot of money on this game. Probably way too much seeing how it is an F2P game.
If this is the case, I will just stop playing and go elsewhere. And before anyone says anythting I do and have been spending a lot of money on this game. Probably way too much seeing how it is an F2P game.
#39
-
-
- The 1 Percent
- 3,108 posts
Member
Posted 12 September 2017 - 01:15 PM
i wouldn't mind this...I don't deserve to be in T2 and edging to T1 all the time.
and this is the problem. It is nearly impossible to go down but super easy to go up.
I mean I went from T3 to T2-1/2 in a month maybe and I am not that good.
Walker Pryde, on 12 September 2017 - 01:00 PM, said:
I purposely played poorly for a lot of games on Saturday in hopes to drop my Tier score down because I am almost to tier 3. Sadly it failed. I am not a bad player, but I am not a great player. This tier system is going to force me to start playing against a level of players I will not be able to keep up with.
If this is the case, I will just stop playing and go elsewhere. And before anyone says anythting I do and have been spending a lot of money on this game. Probably way too much seeing how it is an F2P game.
If this is the case, I will just stop playing and go elsewhere. And before anyone says anythting I do and have been spending a lot of money on this game. Probably way too much seeing how it is an F2P game.
and this is the problem. It is nearly impossible to go down but super easy to go up.
I mean I went from T3 to T2-1/2 in a month maybe and I am not that good.
Edited by Bigbacon, 12 September 2017 - 01:16 PM.
#40
-
-
- The 1 Percent
- 3,851 posts
Member
Posted 12 September 2017 - 03:05 PM
Quote
I purposely played poorly for a lot of games on Saturday in hopes to drop my Tier score down because I am almost to tier 3. Sadly it failed. I am not a bad player, but I am not a great player. This tier system is going to force me to start playing against a level of players I will not be able to keep up with.
*snerk*
He...he thinks they're good in T3!
He thinks T2 means they git gud!
No, the current system constantly pours poorer players into higher tiers. T1 or T2 hasn't equaled "good" for some time. Just "plays a lot". You'll fit in just fine.
Quote
I’ve been on a hiatus from the game for a bit. Last time I played in a semi-serious manner was February-ish. At that point I was squarely into Tier-2 and holding my own. I was never a Comp player nor am I super serious about the Meta. Well recently I’ve started to dabble again here and there and I’m still at Tier-2. What’s the problem with that? I’m a Tier-2 Potato.
And there's plenty of Tater-Tier-2's right there that even do play.
Tier doesn't equal skill. It's an exp bar, rigged to go up unless you literally cannot play the game. There are many just like you, and there will be many worse than you marching up the "ranks".
Edited by Brain Cancer, 12 September 2017 - 03:07 PM.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
