97 replies to this topic

[Tarl Cabot]

Remember, it is an overall average. In games they win, that MS may be higher because the player was carried. For the those with low scores, their avg Win/Loss ratio was 0.8..+.

Essentially when their team wins they are doing enough. The one of the players I track has bounced back and forth between Tier 1 and Tier 2, has over 28K games played. For 2 months he had an avg 222 and 235 MS, total of 1600+ games. Play enough and in good games where he is being carried and does not die early one can rack up points, especially if crit components, especially ammo, and they balance out the games where he makes no movement or the team loses.

The lack of consistency, especially when under pressure which can happen for different reasons, from being a bad player, reaction time (health reasons), playing a potato or a combination of it all. That the player is persistent, wished we had more. It is unfortunate though that PGI has rigged the PSR/Tier in its current. How many players, both high end, midway and below the curve, have left due to that setup? There are definitely several reasons but that could certain be the straw that broke things for many.

Sniper09121986, on 24 March 2020 - 09:33 AM, said:

Do tell.



One answer may be that person was having a bad game (maybe a first game of the day), so some degree of warm-up can be expected. What cannot be explained (and that includes your explanation above) is how such people advance in tiers if 180 really is their AVERAGE match score throughout their CAREER. The picture kindly provided by Tarl Cabot states that 180 score players tend to lose their PSR faster than they gain it. So, if anything, these guys would actually move down through tiers and never end up in our games, yet here they are. This is the point I raised in that thread. Either way the system is broken as all f#ck.

[Tarl Cabot]

Or another way to put it for avg Match Score

On wins, player avgs 300 MS across 1000 games, avg 100 MS across 1500 games and avg 180 MS across 3000 games. That would give a player an avg 180 MS.

Or 375 MS vs 50 MS / or 255 MS and 130 MS - this keeps the player medium rise both ways. Then a mix of circling around 180 MS mark.

avg 297 MS - 2K games
avg 150 MS - 4k games
avg 105 MS - 1.5K games

That averages out 180.2 MS. Mix that up on win/loss column.. iie, I will let someone else try to calculate the other by giving PSR values and put that into a formula...

Remember though, avg 180 MS player in Tier 1 or 2 will likely have 25K+ games total. Of the above, the player was okay for 2K out of 5.5K games And damage generated, half of it counts towards the MS. So anywhere from 100 to 400 damage pts but likely being generous.

[Kodyn]

VonBruinwald, on 25 March 2020 - 09:46 AM, said:

Last season you scored 72% which is your highest rated season since Jun '18 (79%). Your tattery goodness is nothing to be ashamed of.

I view my older stats as trash lol, that's why I'm looking forward to seeing it match up more with my recent gameplay. I'm as average as average can be for MWO, but at least I can maintain my mediocrity when I actually try. I don't let myself fall under 1.0 WLR and KDR anymore, my days of leveling and testing builds nonstop have waned. As long as I can maintain positive stats though really, I'm happy.

To the Nascar discussion...I was one of those that hated it as well, but over time just kinda fell into line. When a competent player calls for a different strat and there's enough names I recognize on the team to make it work- it's nice to sometimes counter push or set up in a good location. Most matches however are small talk and Nascar, followed by the first few dead guys with no damage blaming the team for not helping them in whatever way they felt they needed to be helped. I find it's best to just go with the flow, perform the best you can, and move on. If Nascar is the meta, then Nascar it is.

It's pretty clear the overall player-base isn't really interested in doing much else, anyway. Just look at how often the smallest maps offering the quickest matches get voted on. I tend to vote the opposite, but I also tend to just lose and rack up multiplier much of the time. My MWO sessions are usually dominated by endless stretches of Mining, Solaris and the godawful Classic maps that we should never have had to see again. It's like players log on just to get matches over and done with as quickly as possible, don't actually want to be bothered to play the game. I'm not saying everything has to be walking for minutes across Polar looking for the other team, but there could be a middle ground if we chose different maps. We don't. We apparently get the most enjoyment from running around in a circle as quickly as possible in the smallest space possible as many times as we can manage in a day. I'm just here to shoot mechs, so whatever.

[VonBruinwald]

Kodyn, on 26 March 2020 - 02:48 PM, said:

I'm as average as average can be for MWO,

Preaching to the choir there

https://leaderboard....%0AVonBruinwald

[martian]

Kodyn, on 26 March 2020 - 02:48 PM, said:

...
Just look at how often the smallest maps offering the quickest matches get voted on. I tend to vote the opposite, but I also tend to just lose and rack up multiplier much of the time. My MWO sessions are usually dominated by endless stretches of Mining, Solaris and the godawful Classic maps that we should never have had to see again.
...

I hate getting Canyon Network / Hibernal Rift ten times in a row, especially since it is the same map, just with different textures.

I can earn 8-10 vote multipliers quite easily, just thanks voting for any other map than these two aforementioned ones.

... And then comes the time when I say: "Terra Therma it is!" and I nuke the voting with my 12 multiplier ...

[Vxheous]

martian, on 26 March 2020 - 11:28 PM, said:

I hate getting Canyon Network / Hibernal Rift ten times in a row, especially since it is the same map, just with different textures.

I can earn 8-10 vote multipliers quite easily, just thanks voting for any other map than these two aforementioned ones.

... And then comes the time when I say: "Terra Therma it is!" and I nuke the voting with my 12 multiplier ...

I love canyon network, just not in yolo queue (which is all that exists now)

[martian]

Vxheous, on 26 March 2020 - 11:53 PM, said:

I love canyon network, just not in yolo queue (which is all that exists now)

I have nothing against playing on the Canyon Network from time to time, but it gets boring running ten times around the same central rock a game after game.

[C H E E K I E Z]

Every time these kinds of topics are made, i will refer to the drunken night a master tactician decided to show you how to deal with the 2 most argued topics in the game.

THE LORDS COUNTER TO NASCAR

(the map is sulfur rift, if you couldnt figure out by the giant volcano in the center, and the color of the map.







The SECOND IS THE COUNTER TO GEN A GEN RUSH

[C H E E K I E Z]

justcallme A S H, on 25 March 2020 - 07:45 AM, said:

Absolutely I'm arrogant. I'm also far above your level it's almost sad. I'm one of the best players still playing - I'm also one of the players that understands this game to the most tiny of details. You don't even know how the data pull works????

I played 53 games in Feb, in Quick Play. Do you not understand how to read the public data API? How can you claim I played "none in Quickplay" when that is all the API reports on - QUICK PLAY?

Once again you are showing your absolutely disgracefully low level of understanding when it comes to ANYTHING to do with MWO.



I never said it was unhackable. I said that no one was actively using cheats/hacks.

You have claimed this. Therefore the onus is on YOU to prove/back up your claim. Thus far you're just making everything up.



I played 53 games. Won 6.5 games for every 1 lost. I assure you had plenty of fun. The stats I produce is what most players can only dream of.



So you really do think Jarls List records Faction Games...

lol. It only records QUICK PLAY. There is no API for Faction Play data.

The more you type the dumber you make yourself out to be.

If the jarls list took faction play data, i know a lot of players that would be 99.999999.

[VonBruinwald]

C H E E K I E Z, on 27 March 2020 - 06:00 AM, said:

If the jarls list took faction play data, i know a lot of players that would be 99.999999.

It depends how you factor in that 4 'mechs per match.

It's a shame we don't have a separate Jarl's for each mode. It would be interesting seeing the stat discrepancy from certain players between the 3 modes (QP, GP, FW).

[Kodyn]

VonBruinwald, on 27 March 2020 - 06:48 AM, said:

It depends how you factor in that 4 'mechs per match.

It's a shame we don't have a separate Jarl's for each mode. It would be interesting seeing the stat discrepancy from certain players between the 3 modes (QP, GP, FW).

I feel like it'd be fairly predictable in a lot of cases, but yeah, that would be interesting to see for sure. I know for a fact for instance that my GQ stats when I was in a unit were much much worse than my QP, because damage and kills were more evenly spread across the team. On the other hand, I had pretty inflated FP stats by comparison I think because I took it quite seriously and ran really optimized setups for damage and kill farming in FP. I have a feeling most people who are in unit's GQ/QP would be a bit like that- higher KDR solo than Group, etc.

[C H E E K I E Z]

VonBruinwald, on 27 March 2020 - 06:48 AM, said:

It depends how you factor in that 4 'mechs per match.

It's a shame we don't have a separate Jarl's for each mode. It would be interesting seeing the stat discrepancy from certain players between the 3 modes (QP, GP, FW).

The game does that for you...every time you die you lose a massive chunk of your match score.

The reason im saying everyone would be 99% would be....

take this game, its an old one, but i did very very marginal in it. 2.6k dmg, is nothing special in cw. most regular players that i play with can do 2.5k in their sleep.


AVG matchscore of 460 would put me at rank 20 on the Jarls. This would mean either A, no ever reason to play QP, which id be 100% fine with.

or B, Jarls becomes even more worthless than it is now.

Why? because of games like this.



People could just stack teams and cheese the leaderboards. (i know that happened a lot in group Q). But not to the effect that it would boost ur stats in CW.

Edited by C H E E K I E Z, 27 March 2020 - 10:39 AM.

[martian]

Kiran Yagami, on 25 March 2020 - 06:25 PM, said:

Everyone claims they hate NASCAR, but then HPG or Mining Collective comes up and you guys can't vote for it fast enough. Don't pretend to hate NASCAR. You just hate it when you're the team who loses.

First, usually I do not vote for the HPG Manifold or Mining Colective.

Second, I am bored with nascaring even if my team wins. I vote for Conquest or Incursion when they show up.

[martian]

AirShaman2, on 28 March 2020 - 03:42 AM, said:

https://leaderboard....earch?u=martian

Thank you for posting my profile.

The difference between you and me is that I do not accuse other MWO players of cheating, but since I have returned I work on improving my gameplay.

AirShaman2, on 24 March 2020 - 02:37 PM, said:

Also so many cheat and hack daily like all is ok and normall ... looks like PGI cares about quantity not quality .... as long as money flows in then all is good is that it? But that way so many good people are pushed away from the game , i wonder if the only ones spending money are the toxic players ...

And you still have not managed to show us any proof of recent widespread cheating in MWO ...

If "so many cheat and hack daily", I would expect that you have a lot of various proofs of cheating.

[Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie]

AirShaman2, on 28 March 2020 - 03:42 AM, said:

https://leaderboard....earch?u=martian

Dear AirShaman,

if you would spend half the time you make accusations here on improving yourself,
*being REALLY nice and polite*
you had better stats and a better understanding of the game.

[Kubernetes]

I died twice yesterday.

I blame cheaters.

[Horseman]

AirShaman2, on 28 March 2020 - 03:42 AM, said:

https://leaderboard....earch?u=

Here's the thing, bud... posting that Jarl's profile doesn't prove any of your outrageous claims. Statistically, the guy is barely above average.

It's exactly as Brauer said - to a sufficiently bad player, any competence looks like cheating. Not all of us are so bad that there's a statistically significant correlation between our presence on a team and reduction of that team's likelihood of winning the match, you know.

[Horseman]

Michelle Branch, on 28 March 2020 - 12:17 PM, said:

Edit - Wait, is this his proof? LOL

From the context, apparently it was supposed to be.