406 replies to this topic

[Prototelis]

Ironic that dude with 20k matches is telling people to go outside and have a life.

[GuardDogg]

Prototelis, on 04 November 2019 - 05:30 AM, said:

Ironic that dude with 20k matches is telling people to go outside and have a life.

I do. Play about 10 matches a day or night, depends on the day of the week. Most matches are about 3-5 mins long from 15.

Edited by GuardDogg, 04 November 2019 - 05:32 AM.

[Curccu]

GuardDogg, on 04 November 2019 - 05:04 AM, said:

I didn't write names. So, move elsewhere. Kudos to you. Be happy, smile. Go enjoy the sun, hug your wife, kids, friends, a community. Their will be days, you will speak for them.

What names? You said you will speak for EVERYONE, which you shouldn't do.

PS. Just took out trashes and nope, no sun.

Edited by Curccu, 04 November 2019 - 05:33 AM.

[GuardDogg]

Curccu, on 04 November 2019 - 05:32 AM, said:

What names? You said you will speak for EVERYONE, which you shouldn't do.

PS. Just took out trashes and nope, no sun.

Not yet. Dark here to. Woke up at early, drove the wife to her job. Have things to do as well later. I care for people. I do not insult and tell people where they should be, or tell people to shut the F up, no one cares. Unless they ask, accept for help. I have sympathy. I make people smile, laugh. I get hugs for no reason for what I do. Many do not on here I have noticed or I would have many sticking up for me. Sorry, that is my life. I used to be a bully, put people in prison, until that one day. That one day will wake you up about life, people, and regrets (lots). So in all, to help end the thread. Many, and I did work up the bars to Tier 1. Had some bad days, and good days. Not in 6 months, their was life situation that did brought me down, re gained my skills, and pulled myself up. I am able to pull off 800 damage once in awhile. Used to be higher before the tiers. I have clutched a few times. I can not carry a team as I would like. I back up team mates, and told on headset, thanks for the great help you did for me GuardDog. So, in damage/match score fluctuates. Sometimes I get 150 ms, and sometimes 450 ms. And the odd time 600+. I dislike the stats system, but it is there. It creates arguments, stress players out, game rage. Calls people out to embarrass. When some couldn't care about stats. Should be when in a competition, that is where stats can come in. So, please do not call me back in a reply. Like a quote, or anything. If you do, you are in just for an argument and enjoying it.

Edited by GuardDogg, 04 November 2019 - 06:03 AM.

[Gagis]

I have some spare time, so...

Hi, you do not win arguments by relentlessly working to get the last word in. You "win" arguments by first figuring out what is true, then accepting it, and lastly expressing it clearly enough others come to understand it as well.

What is true is that the Tier system was inherently flawed and it has resulted in the majority of players being presented to the matchmaker as equal in skill, which leads to effectively random matchmaking and increasingly uneven matches. This is getting closer and closer to being the same as having no matchmaker at all, which makes games less fun, players less likely to play again and sales less likely to happen. It is therefore important that PGI changes it.

The Elo rating system we had before Tiers were introduced was much better than the Tier system, even though it has its own bias as well, so the solution could be as simple as returning to use it. It had a hidden rating and I would prefer a rating I can see for myself, but if knowing how you perform makes people unhappy, I can live with hidden information too.

[K O Z A K]

This thread should be linked for describing the concept of "circular conversation"

Also I identify as tier 0A67Y€@₩¥$%#, I'd like to point out the fact the matchmaker doesn't put me in tier 0A67Y€@₩¥$%# is discriminatory, and my feelings are like super hurt about the matter

[Dimento Graven]

Gagis, on 04 November 2019 - 06:09 AM, said:

...

What is true is that the Tier system was inherently flawed and it has resulted in the majority of players being presented to the matchmaker as equal in skill, which leads to effectively random matchmaking and increasingly uneven matches. This is getting closer and closer to being the same as having no matchmaker at all, which makes games less fun, players less likely to play again and sales less likely to happen. It is therefore important that PGI changes it.

More or less true.

Quote

The Elo rating system we had before Tiers were introduced was much better than the Tier system, even though it has its own bias as well, so the solution could be as simple as returning to use it. It had a hidden rating and I would prefer a rating I can see for myself, but if knowing how you perform makes people unhappy, I can live with hidden information too.

Absolutely false. The 'elo' system was horribad. It was a black box of a poorly thought out band-aid solution.

The 'elo' process can only work reliably when comparing CONSISTENT known quantities.

Unfortunately in the solo/group quickplay queues, you rarely get consistency.

With 'elo' it's whole basis was how the team performed, unfortunately, unless you are ALWAYS running the same exact 12 man, in the same exact 'mechs, 'elo' becomes meaningless. With solo queue, it was an abhorrent mess which led to most matches being complete stomps, which is what hurt the player base. You can't randomly bunch 24 individuals together who have been getting ranked based on team performance, and expect that an 'elo' derived from what happened from the previous 3000 matches of random team building will result in anything 'balanced'.

The Tiering system is supposed to be balancing based on individual performance - BUT - PGI for whatever F'd up reason left in the 'TEAM PERFORMANCE' effect by weighting the scoring based on whether or not your team lost. Furthermore exacerbating the problem by making the boost in PSR higher for being on the winning team.

It's stupid.

The argument could be made that the person on the losing side who did the most damage, got the most KMDD's of the entire match (outscoring everyone on the winning team) deserves a HIGHER PSR boost than the highest scoring person on the winning side. That person on the losing team performed well IN SPITE of having 11 other people who performed poorly.

Likewise, if one person on the winning team and one person on the losing team inflicted the same amount of damage, got the same amount of assists/KMDD's, targeting bonuses, movement bonuses, et al., they should both receive the SAME boost to PSR.

Furthermore, in my opinion, PSR should 'rot'... After one week of no-play the PSR 'score' should start declining at some rate (I have no idea what that rate should be), to reflect the potential 'rustiness' a person gets when they haven't played this game for a while, say at a rate where after 6 months you've lost a Tier or two of ranking.

Anyway, people who said 'elo' was so great clearly weren't being victimized by it.

Before the tiering system, I would regularly be in matches where I'd out score and out kill all 23 other players but the 11 other players on my side would somehow manage to potato their way to a loss. It was incredibly frustrating.

After the tiering system was introduced, while that still could happen, it happened MUCH less frequently (say one out of every 10 losses vs. every other loss as it was in 'elo'), and the margins I'm out killing/damaging the 23 other players was significantly less.

There's been SOME beneficial effect, but, unfortunately with the upward bias of the Tiering it's been slowly trending back to worst days of 'elo', as people who are performing at Tier 3 levels, or worse, have slowly been 'graduated' to higher Tiers.

Edited by Dimento Graven, 04 November 2019 - 07:08 AM.

[Tesunie]

I stopped reading after page 14... I'll try to catch up.

justcallme A S H, on 03 November 2019 - 08:11 PM, said:

If they did improve - it wouldn't be a problem. They would need to improve to, IMO, at least 300 average match score at a bare minimum.

That is if PSR was more than just a mass-games-played bar.

More like a "W/L average, with a slightly touch of match score involved". It gauges wins so heavily that a win with anything more than a "I barely did anything" (match score under 100) you'll go up. But on a loss, you need a crazy match score (sometimes) to stay even or forbid going up (250-300ish to stay even, more to go up on a loss). It's already harder to get match score on a loss, depending upon how bad of a loss. (Don't know about others, but I've had some matches where I did 500+ damage and because no one on the enemy team died still got squat for match score.)

Either way, this isn't ranking skill, nor just a "matches played" progression bar. (Which I know you mentioned a few posts later.)

justcallme A S H, on 03 November 2019 - 08:55 PM, said:

Roughly it should work like this:

150 Average or below - Tier 5
190 Average or below - Tier 4
191 - 240 Average - Tier 3 (approx 15,000 players)
241 - 310 Average - Tier 2
311+ - Tier 1.

That allows for a broad distribution of players across Tier 3, so all Tiers get matches easily. and without issue because the currentoy formula is Tier +/- 2 - for a match sum. Of course the above is only rough, it would need a bit more math behind it before it was viable but 15k players (out of 28k a month) is about right for the middle range.

This would place me roughly in T2, which I think is where I actually should belong. However, I do want to mention a slight flaw in your thinking: In theory with higher player skill goes increased match difficulty. This means that as you gain in PSR rank and face more challenging opponents, it should become harder to continue to meet "the same average match score" without continuing to improve your own skills. So, on average, if everyone was constantly facing opponents of equal skill they should still be getting average match scores. If you are being over challenged, you should no longer be able to achieve said average match score, and same in reverse.

Thus, when speaking about averages, for the most part all players should be achieving the "same" average match scores if properly matched against opponents of "equal" skill values.

Thus why I mentioned that PSR should be ranked more like:
0-149 match score results in PSR down. (Lower the match score, the more PSR you lose.)
150-249 match score results in PSR not changing (or if it does change it would be very small amounts, depending upon how many "steps" you want to add).
250+ match score results in PSR increase, the higher the score the more PSR you can gain.
(Of course, all match score numbers are shown as example brackets and may not represent any final brackets.)

This follows the theory that, if players are within the proper tier, they should have average match scores between roughly the same numbers. If you over perform often enough, you'd face more challenging opponents because your PSR ranking would increase.

I also believe that PSR should adjust more quickly than it currently does. Say, over perform in 20-50 matches in a row and you could possibly achieve the next rank. Do abysmal in the same number of matches and you may drop a rank. This is compared to the current "hundreds of matches", which means some people have improved, but don't face stiffer competition until "much" later... (Once more, number of matches is a rough estimate to show a point. Not exact figures.)


Final note, this is my opinion on the subject.

[Horseman]

GuardDogg, on 03 November 2019 - 07:55 PM, said:

Why do not guys disapprove some players (including myself) being in T1? Ever thought some players improve in time.

Because their ranking should go hand in hand with progression in their ability. You don't get promoted to major leagues in sports "because you might improve in time", you get there when you're ready or not at all.
And right now T1 is chock full of players who "might have improved with time" but never did.

The moment it's evident there are players who got to T1 but still have substantial room for improvement, it's clear that the PSR system failed hard. Players who "might be able to get to T1 but have room to improve" should be in T2 at best, depending on how well they do.

GuardDogg, on 03 November 2019 - 09:32 PM, said:

If it was that way, guys making a MS of 311+ would be darn lonely from the salt, and bickering. Making new accounts like crazy to hold at a Tier, not to be in T1.

Actually not, because seal clubbing simply isn't fun for people who aren't stuck with the mentality of a playground bully.
As for the saltiest, most toxic people on comms? Look them up on the leaderboards later. Routinely they're the underachievers with delusions of superiority - delusions fed by the faulty system putting them in T1 and giving them the impression they already know everything there is to know about the game.

GuardDogg, on 03 November 2019 - 10:29 PM, said:

People playing MWO have made the bars to T1. And if others who are saying they shouldn't be there. Then they are discriminating.

The ranking system is faulty. That is fact, not discrimination.
The faults in this system push players upwards into ranks they're not prepared for. That is fact, not discrimination.

Quote

They improved themselves to be with others who are just as good.

GuardDogg, on 04 November 2019 - 04:56 AM, said:

Same like those in the Tiers. Writing "Should be in the lower tiers", from the "Pros". That is discriminating. They are also Pro's.

False. You're in T1. I'm in T1. Ash is in T1.
And it's pretty evident that we are not "just as good" as each other:
https://leaderboard....ustcallme+A+S+H
If the rating system considers players as different as the three of us to be interchangeable, that's clear evidence that the system has holes big enough to drive an Atlas through.

GuardDogg, on 03 November 2019 - 10:46 PM, said:

The pilots should feel good where they are, not lesser of themselves.

Nobody is entitled to reaching - or holding - a rank.
A player shouldn't feel good about holding a rank, but about how much they've improved from where they started.
A system that gives them a false impression of improving faster than they actually did (if they did at all) is demeaning and patronising. So is the fact that the same system gives them a false impression of reaching highest level of competence about the game when they didn't.

These lies may "feel good" to someone, but they're actively harmful both to the player and to the community.

GuardDogg, on 04 November 2019 - 04:56 AM, said:

So, if I write "You have a lower IQ from the higher IQ" (although you do not), how would you feel?

We are not here to discuss your wounded pride. It's clear you're too attached to your perceived entitlement to holding a top rank to discuss the matter rationally.

[Tesunie]

GuardDogg, on 04 November 2019 - 04:56 AM, said:

So, if I write "You have a lower IQ from the higher IQ" (although you do not), how would you feel? Pretty offended correct? Same like those in the Tiers. Writing "Should be in the lower tiers", from the "Pros". That is discriminating. They are also Pro's. I am admitting, that I do feel intimidated (touched a nerve) when people write that. It is offenses, discriminating. I am a pro mech pilot, not for match/damage score. And their are others who are in T1, the same.

The problem isn't often with the word being used (otherwise most of any language would be redacted due to ability for a word to be used "offensively"), it's how it's used. In your above example, making the claim of "you have lower IQ than Einstein" wouldn't be offensive... it's a fact.

Now, saying "Your IQ is so low, it can't be calculated" or "My cat has a higher IQ than you" are not just false statements, but also offensive uses of the word.


In the case of PSR tiers, there should be no slight, no insult and no offense with where PSR has placed a player. There are different levels of play. I myself bounce between serious play and casual play. When I'm serious, I can be in the top 20% of players according to the Jarl's list (and I was only serious for half a month of play). My average though is often lower because... It's a game and I play to have fun. I have a pension for build and weapon experimentation, and that takes it's toll on my stat line averages.

PSR should be seen as nothing more than a system for placing you in matches that should be engaging for yourself at your personal skill level averages. When someone is giving advice, their PSR tier should not be relevant, besides as an indication of the fact that their advice is possibly more relevant to their specific level of play. When providing a "this is the technical specs for how something works in game", it should have no relevance. I say this as someone who has found players of higher Jarl's Listing to sometimes provide incorrect or out of date information. It happens to everyone.

If anything, I believe that the seasonal leaderboards should be something to opt out of, similar to how you can hide your own PSR tier from others and yourself... I didn't show my PSR on the forums for a long time to avoid my ranking (even if it was T1) from "contaminating" advice and technical information I may provide. Sadly, hiding it seemed to have produced the opposite effect than I had intended too often... So for some people, no shown ranking is "guilty", like pleading the 5th tends to make people presume you are guilty...

[GuardDogg]

Horseman, on 04 November 2019 - 07:32 AM, said:

Because their ranking should go hand in hand with progression in their ability. You don't get promoted to major leagues in sports "because you might improve in time", you get there when you're ready or not at all.
And right now T1 is chock full of players who "might have improved with time" but never did.

The moment it's evident there are players who got to T1 but still have substantial room for improvement, it's clear that the PSR system failed hard. Players who "might be able to get to T1 but have room to improve" should be in T2 at best, depending on how well they do.
Actually not, because seal clubbing simply isn't fun for people who aren't stuck with the mentality of a playground bully.
As for the saltiest, most toxic people on comms? Look them up on the leaderboards later. Routinely they're the underachievers with delusions of superiority - delusions fed by the faulty system putting them in T1 and giving them the impression they already know everything there is to know about the game.
The ranking system is faulty. That is fact, not discrimination.
The faults in this system push players upwards into ranks they're not prepared for. That is fact, not discrimination.

False. You're in T1. I'm in T1. Ash is in T1.
And it's pretty evident that we are not "just as good" as each other:
https://leaderboard....ustcallme+A+S+H
If the rating system considers players as different as the three of us to be interchangeable, that's clear evidence that the system has holes big enough to drive an Atlas through.
Nobody is entitled to reaching - or holding - a rank.
A player shouldn't feel good about holding a rank, but about how much they've improved from where they started.
A system that gives them a false impression of improving faster than they actually did (if they did at all) is demeaning and patronising. So is the fact that the same system gives them a false impression of reaching highest level of competence about the game when they didn't.

These lies may "feel good" to someone, but they're actively harmful both to the player and to the community.
We are not here to discuss your wounded pride. It's clear you're too attached to your perceived entitlement to holding a top rank to discuss the matter rationally.

I am happy. So what about the stats. It should not even exist. But, it is the way the tier system is. Nothing you can do about it, but all I am seeing is discrimination. And you sure are enjoying this. Trying to burn it into my head, that I am not a worthy player. Not going to happen. I am good as everyone else. I am not the match, damage score numbers guy. I do not call people out.

Edited by GuardDogg, 04 November 2019 - 08:05 AM.

[thievingmagpi]

it blows my mind that this is so difficult to understand.

[FRAGTAST1C]

GuardDogg, on 04 November 2019 - 04:56 AM, said:

So, if I write "You have a lower IQ from the higher IQ" (although you do not), how would you feel? Pretty offended correct? Same like those in the Tiers. Writing "Should be in the lower tiers", from the "Pros". That is discriminating. They are also Pro's. I am admitting, that I do feel intimidated (touched a nerve) when people write that. It is offenses, discriminating. I am a pro mech pilot, not for match/damage score. And their are others who are in T1, the same.

Nope, I'm not offended at all. I can admit when someone, who has a higher IQ than me, says that I have lower IQ. But unlike you, I wouldn't talk on behalf of everyone and say that that person shouldn't use the word "Lower". In fact, if I did that, I'd prove to that person that I have even lower IQ than they originally thought

[GuardDogg]

FRAGTAST1C, on 04 November 2019 - 08:05 AM, said:

Nope, I'm not offended at all. I can admit when someone, who has a higher IQ than me, says that I have lower IQ. But unlike you, I wouldn't talk on behalf of everyone and say that that person shouldn't use the word "Lower". In fact, if I did that, I'd prove to that person that I have even lower IQ than they originally thought

I made a point, "Lower" vs "Pro". You are having trouble grasping it. You were not to be offended. Only to understand. If the Tier system had us in places we should be, then I can accept. But stating from players on the outside of the system, "You should be in a lower Tier", "You do not belong there", laughing at players stats, can be insulting. I will not let this go, until it is accepted. I earned my place.

Edited by GuardDogg, 04 November 2019 - 08:13 AM.

[FRAGTAST1C]

GuardDogg, on 04 November 2019 - 08:06 AM, said:

I made a point, "Lower" vs "Pro". You are having trouble grasping it. You were not to be offended. Only to understand.

No, I perfectly understood what you said. It's just that I can admit when another person is better than me and I wouldn't be offended by their words 'cause... yep, you guessed it. "Context". In fact, I'd try to get better by asking how I could improve and it is a safe assumption to go by that the said person would actually help me in doing just that.

[GuardDogg]

FRAGTAST1C, on 04 November 2019 - 08:11 AM, said:

No, I perfectly understood what you said. It's just that I can admit when another person is better than me and I wouldn't be offended by their words 'cause... yep, you guessed it. "Context". In fact, I'd try to get better by asking how I could improve and it is a safe assumption to go by that the said person would actually help me in doing just that.

I have improved over the years, from bad times. I am a skilled pilot. We have bad days, and we have good days.. Their is players that will always be better than the other. Their is a lot of pilots better than myself. People are always learning, no matter how skilled they are. Even top pilots will keep learning. Their is no limits.

Edited by GuardDogg, 04 November 2019 - 08:19 AM.

[Tesunie]

Horseman, on 04 November 2019 - 07:32 AM, said:

A system that gives them a false impression of improving faster than they actually did (if they did at all) is demeaning and patronising. So is the fact that the same system gives them a false impression of reaching highest level of competence about the game when they didn't.

I've also seen this system hurting players in the opposite way. I know of some players (whom I play GP with) who have improved massively since they started playing/I started playing with them. They should be T3 by now, but because they play "in the deep end of the pool" with me from GP, they are still in T5. When they play in QP, they do excellent However, because GP is more challenging, when they play with me they tend to slip in tier.

Because they are my friends, they enjoy the game more when playing with me in a group, so they are rarely progressing by PSR. They are, because of the manner of the system, trapped in PSR tier. Unable to progress due to the increase challenge of GP, but able to progress if they play solo they could improve the ranking but they don't like playing solo that much...

[Dimento Graven]

GuardDogg, on 04 November 2019 - 08:02 AM, said:

...

So what about the stats. It should not even exist. But, it is the way the tier system is. Nothing you can do about it, but all I am seeing is discrimination.

...

But at issue is what's best for the longevity of the game, what probably should have been done to keep the game as fun for everyone as possible.

For the average person, losing match after match after match after match after match is just not fun, or at least not very fun for long, especially when a significant number of the losses are completely one sided stomps.

That's where a HEALTHY, NON VINDICTIVE, 'discriminative' set of rules should be applied to keep players of like, or nearly like skills, only facing each other, and away from players that are too poorly skilled to defend themselves, or from players that are too highly skilled to be defended against.

To me it 'feels' like you're trying to not so subtly introduce emotional trigger words to either veer the conversation in a specific direction, or to maybe gain support from people weak minded enough to be distracted by such.

Yes, please, if the only reason I've reached T1 is because I just happened to play enough matches where I didn't do too poorly, PLEASE discriminate my butt right out of T1 into whatever Tier I'd be the best fit for.

ULTIMATELY, had we had the population to support it, It should have been T5's only facing T5's, T4's only facing T4, etc., at that point we probably would have had the most best matches possible, you'd have people who were motivated to actually working at improving their skills to earn a higher rank.

As it is now from what I see in matches, you see the same potatoes making the same potato mistakes as have they been doing for the past several years.

Very frustrating, and I'll admit, makes me quite salty when I'm forced to play with these people.

Edited by Dimento Graven, 04 November 2019 - 08:27 AM.

[Dee Eight]

Y E O N N E, on 03 November 2019 - 10:12 PM, said:

Because the game, which sees Bows3r and bear_cl4w on the other team, will put you on my team because it thinks you are a Tier 1 pilot and thus, with me, we make two Tier 1 pilots that can combat those two Tier 1 pilots.

I am not even a match for one of them, and you are not a match for me. Do you see the problem, now?

If the game were to actually place players according to skill, it can more properly place the correct distribution of skill on each team. A match will never be all T1, but at least the number of T1s on each side will be representative of performance.

The "Tier" is not supposed to be a reward. You aren't supposed to get into Tier 1 without having performance that is worthy of being in Tier 1. If you are in Tier 1 before you can display that performance, you should not be in that Tier because it undermines the ability of the match-maker, which uses Tier in determining pilot allocation to the team, to properly distribute the skill across both sides.

To expand on that, a lot of folks will go look at Jarl's as its a quick reference to the Quickplay leaderboard data going back to July 2016, but they'll only use the "overall" numbers usually when trying to disparage / attack someone on the forums. They'll conveniently choose to omit mentioning whether or not someone's play has shown consistent improvement for months, years, whatever. If you played 10,000 bad matches over a year, and then had 2,000 good matches over the following year, you're overall score is still being dragged down by those earlier 10,000 games. There's that expression "git gud" some love to throw out on comms / chat, but they never will admit when someone actually has. If someone has reached tier 1 and they have 16 consecutive months of killing enemies more often than dying and average match scores higher than their "overall" average, then they probably deserve to be there a lot more than someone who's never shown any signs of improvement and who've been playing the game far more often.

Also as far as the average match scores themselves are concerned... when did any improvement in them begin to occur in a player's results and was it merely an accidental bonus of PGI changing the formula used in the scoring ? Everyone who regularly mounts an AMS equipment on their mechs saw an increase in average match score after the April 2017 patch when PGI finally added shooting down missiles into the match score formula. They've also at times added other things into the formula and reduced how much of it comes from damage scored. Using UAV's regularly will also improve your average match score. So does merely having an active probe and countering enemy ECM.

[K O Z A K]

Dee Eight, on 04 November 2019 - 08:39 AM, said:

To expand on that, a lot of folks will go look at Jarl's as its a quick reference to the Quickplay leaderboard data going back to July 2016, but they'll only use the "overall" numbers usually when trying to disparage / attack someone on the forums. They'll conveniently choose to omit mentioning whether or not someone's play has shown consistent improvement for months, years, whatever. If you played 10,000 bad matches over a year, and then had 2,000 good matches over the following year, you're overall score is still being dragged down by those earlier 10,000 games. There's that expression "git gud" some love to throw out on comms / chat, but they never will admit when someone actually has. If someone has reached tier 1 and they have 16 consecutive months of killing enemies more often than dying and average match scores higher than their "overall" average, then they probably deserve to be there a lot more than someone who's never shown any signs of improvement and who've been playing the game far more often.

Also as far as the average match scores themselves are concerned... when did any improvement in them begin to occur in a player's results and was it merely an accidental bonus of PGI changing the formula used in the scoring ? Everyone who regularly mounts an AMS equipment on their mechs saw an increase in average match score after the April 2017 patch when PGI finally added shooting down missiles into the match score formula. They've also at times added other things into the formula and reduced how much of it comes from damage scored. Using UAV's regularly will also improve your average match score. So does merely having an active probe and countering enemy ECM.

Which is why jarls weighs later seasons more heavily