849 replies to this topic

[MrMadguy]

Aivazovsky, on 28 May 2020 - 03:20 AM, said:

I hope Paul Inouye read this post...

Many people don't understand, that there is difference between MM and Leaderboard. MM compares you with other players, not with some "target". It's not higher "target", that should limit your progression - it's higher skill of your opponents. And this limit should be natural - not artificial. Otherwise MM won't work.

[Horseman]

Pure_NZ, on 27 May 2020 - 04:01 PM, said:

The missile mania, 240missiles in 1 ton(4kg/missile???)

That's only with MRMs.

Quote

MRM 120 mechs

Which are not heat efficient.

Quote

7xSRM pylons

There are exactly four such chassis. And -surprise - boating mass tubes usually isn't very efficient on them

Quote

7-8x Ballistic hardpoints

There is only one IS mech with more than six ballistic points, AND THAT'S A FLEA.

Quote

4xIS-Large Laser can fire at the same time with 30% heat generation

Ha ha ha, no.

Quote

1xIS-Large Laser can rip 2% armor from a Clan assault at 1500m

You have 70 tonners that can out-trade IS 85-tonners. Use that.

Quote

7-8 IS lasers can be fired without significant heat generation

Not in an alpha.

Quote

Assassin mechs don't feel three shoots from a twin Clan LB20X and can rush Clan Assault squads without loss despite they are 2 classes lighter

That's actually known as "stop missing your shots"

Quote

Complete IS-AMS boats can be built

Only one, and that's on a 95 ton mech that is otherwise rather bad. Clans can do 4xAMS on a 20-tonner - which IS can't - and have both 3xAMS chassis that exist in the game.

Quote

There are no role specific Clan mechs

There very much are, you're just not looking for them.

Quote

An IS mech has 20% more structure points than a 10tons heavier Clan mech(MAD/MADIIC for instance)

And the Clan mech will often both outgun and outrun the IS mech.

Quote

It is a waste of time because all of you know what I am talking about.

Yes, it is a waste of time because it's clear you are either deliberately downplaying your preferred techbase's advantages or are outright unaware of them

D V Devnull, on 27 May 2020 - 04:29 PM, said:

Match Score/Outcome	Win	Tie	Loss
426 and up	PSR Up 4	PSR Up 2	PSR Up 1
341 to 425	PSR Up 3	PSR Up 1	No PSR Change
256 to 340	PSR Up 2	No PSR Change	PSR Down 1
171 to 255	PSR Up 1	No PSR Change	PSR Down 2
86 to 170	No PSR Change	PSR Down 1	PSR Down 3
0 to 85	PSR Down 1	PSR Down 2	PSR Down 4

...which I happen to be basing on a 'factor of 85' for the notches because of several things. Just for starters, it pushes the bar up a little for a Loss, and requires as equally that reasonable effort is put in on a Win to have a PSR gain. I've also defined ones for a Tie, because it should behave in-between a Loss and a Win, and not act like one or the other. But at the same time, these numbers also allow for a sharper swing directly based on a player's performance if they choose to really put effort into things, or manage to somehow suddenly screw things up really badly. On top of that, it also fits within the current Match Score ranges that I usually see on the battlefields, and therefore what people can currently earn from various actions during the kinds of Match modes that they can play.

Thing is, your brackets would fail in the same manner as the current system. The average match score is in the 225 range globally (you can see this on Jarl's), so the "neutral" range should be tuned around that point: a player who performs average should neither decline nor advance.

Dubious Squirrel, on 27 May 2020 - 05:24 PM, said:

Jarl's is good, about as good as it gets for an indicator. But it's not the whole story. Some people are much better than their Jarl's rating suggests because they're often running around in silly QP builds, playing drunk, etc. Others are worse, because they spend all their time farming in lurm boats, or something like that.

If someone is not playing to the extent of their ability, why should they not be ranked according to how they usually perform?

Javajoe42, on 27 May 2020 - 06:50 PM, said:

I vote NO RESET. I have played 4 years now and I am Tier 2 with how many thousands of hours of play just to freaking be put back all over again.

I will put it this way: I have an alt that got to T1 within half a year of only playing during events - and I'm not a very good player. If it took you so long to get to T2 with the current system's built in upward bias, then chances are you do not belong in T2.
And your stats support that notion: https://leaderboard....rch?u=Javajoe42
Your performance has plateaud at a sub-average level back in 2017, with a drop in May 2019 (which tells me that that was the most likely point when you hit T2). Overall, you're losing more often than you win, which means the current matchmaker has overvalued your capabilities - and that would only get worse if you grind your way to T1 (which in the present state you inevitably would, as far, FAR worse players have done it with sheer number of matches).

Quote

I m mean the player population has dropped drastically already and I am one not looking to spend another 4 years trying to get back to Tier 2. I would think that if the reset is done you will lose a large percentage of players and all you will have left are basement dwellers who never go outside who play this game. I all for helping balance but a PSR reset is the few things players have left to look at what they have accomplished so far.

PSR is not an accomplishment, it's a happy little lie to keep you complacent. 62% of the playerbase is in T1 right now.

Javajoe42, on 27 May 2020 - 07:26 PM, said:

I am sure this all coming across as facetious, but hey PGI, lets start the WHOLE thing over again.

Javajoe42, on 27 May 2020 - 07:56 PM, said:

I would even go as far as coming up with a scaling system to earn mechs. I know this idea will sound like I am in a looney bin but lets say you win 20 matches with a minimum match score of say 300. Then you get to earn the right to buy another mech. So we all start with the same mech and have to earn to get another mech. I am sure this goes back to some kind of stomping but might make it more interesting of a slog for this game. For example we all start in a Trebuchet(s). Once you meet that goal, you can earn the right to buy the next available mech, say a hellbringer. May it takes a month of playing all the time to earn one assault but with each heavier mech class the more games and higher the match score you must meet in order to buy another mech. I am sure this idea is nutty but I am throwing it all out there just for the hell of it. Plus you dont get to choose the weapons. Weapons are prebuilt and once you have hit the top of TIER 1 and stay there for say a year before you have the right to added and change weapons on your mechs

Those are some of the worst, most backwards ideas I have ever seen. You earn no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.
And tech trees can go sod off back to World of Tanks, kthxbai.

DeadWeight18, on 27 May 2020 - 10:26 PM, said:

I guess we could skip all that Tier discussion if Tier would not be perceived as an honour but as a handicap. Assuming we implement the new tiering system.
If it would serve to balance = nerf the higher Tier players (like higher levels in a single player game) against the lower Tier players than it could create more fun / challenge for all.

Simply put, no. Tier is already supposed to be a handicap in that the higher you go the better opponents you're supposed to play against. The reason that doesn't work properly right now is that PSR prograssion is garbage and allowed too many sub-par potatoes to rotate their way into T1 by sheer number of matches played.

Knight Captain Morgan, on 28 May 2020 - 02:21 AM, said:

Why not do a PSR reset? But considering that if you just wait a minute all valves open and Tier5's are fed to Tier1's to be roflstomped anyway, why bother?

A better formula that would allow the matchmaker to balance the teams more accurately. It's less of an issue if T5s are in same match with T1s if both are evenly distributed across teams.

Edited by Horseman, 28 May 2020 - 05:02 AM.

[Khale MacGregor]

Here is an Idea.... instead of resetting the PSR

Get rid of the bloody PSR Completely!

This is NOT fortnite, Minecraft, FO4, or anything else. This is MechWarrior! PSR should only matter in the Solaris mode, which we all know WAS/IS an Epic Failure! Which hey get rid of that **** in the punchbowl too. Get Rid of it completely.

Why? because I have seen the best T1 players die with in the first 3 minutes of the game after doing little to no damage, no kills, barely 1 or 2 assists.

A long time ago I made a post about what people thought was their best experience with MWO, and the majority said "Closed Beta". I started playing not too long after closed beta, and Even then, MWO was a hell of a lot better than it was now. You wanna bring back the player base, go back to Closed Beta. or the 2014-2015 Era.

You want to know why your player base is declining Paul, Russ and the rest of PGI? because instead of actually listening to your player base, you just wanna do your own thing.

Players want balance! Players want CW/FW to come back hard and heavy. Easiest way to bring balance to this game, Given the Year in the game, Allow Loyalist IS players to use clan mechs in their drop decks. and Loyalist Clan players to use IS mechs in theirs during CW/FW.

But FFS Get rid of the PSR completely, PSR means absolutely nothing!

And I do agree with getting rid of CryEngine as well!

Edited by Khale MacGregor, 28 May 2020 - 05:00 AM.

[Gladiolix]

Do the reset and give everyone "Tier 1 btw" decal as a compensation for losing their exp bar

[Aidan Crenshaw]

Khale MacGregor, on 28 May 2020 - 04:52 AM, said:

[snip]

Call me ignorant, but what has the discussion about PSR to do with Faction Play? It's a metric used for quickplay...

[OneTeamPlayer]

1. I think players vastly overestimate the skill level in the game based on the extreme outliers at the top.

While there are some great players, the Jarls graph posted earlier shows that the game is mostly on a natural bell curve with a majority of people in the center. I see quite a few people saying Tier 1 should be the top xy or z stats without taking into account that by their metrics the number of people in said group would be unable to start matches consistently and would get merged with another tier anyway.

2. I see a lot of assumptions that PSR will be a static number in the same way the current XP bar tier is.

Again, arguments that people with x/y/ or z stats shouldn't be in the new tier one when in reality, if PGI is doing what i hope they are tier is not distinct breakpoints on accumulation of a certain number of points (i.e. if you have over 1000 PSR you are always tier 2 or above) but rather based on comparison (if you are in the top 20% of players you are tier 1 no matter the accumulated points, if you are bottom 20% you are always tier 5 no matter the accumulated points).

If the system isn't made as a comparative scale then it will just fall into the same issue as seen now over a few months span of time.

Thoughts on Reset

Wholly support PSR reset, wholly support zero-sum, wholly support tiers cut into 5 20% chunks of the population.

While some people have argued for 10 or more tiers the fact that a developer has outright said the playerbase is too small for ambitious matchmaking is telling (as companies almost never flat out say "our game is getting long in the tooth" in such an open way).

With only 5 tiers spread properly the need to "open valves" and mix any tiers should decrease in all instances except in massive off hours.

Observations on Current Matchmaker

As a differing viewpoint to those saying stomps are down- i played quite a few matches last evening and out of about 15 matches 12 were stomps of 12-3 or worse in one way or another. The day before that I went on an 8 game stomp streak (most of them 12-0) and by "I" went on a streak i mean matchmaker went on a streak because that type of winning has nothing to do with personal skill.

Last night i played matches where my teams "group lance" was entirely urbanmechs and the enemy teams group lance was assaults with predictable results given that the teams were "balanced" at 5 lights and 1 assault on our team and around 5 assaults with or 2 light on theirs.

It's great that some people are experiencing no issues at all with Matchmakers as it stands, but many of us are seeing absolute ridiculousness so the faster this Tier issue can get fixed (thereby leading to closer matches) the better.

Request for Initial Phase of Tier Reset

Please turn off solo/group queue mix for the initial ranking period of the reset.

For obvious reasons a person who goes through initial ranking in a group will have vastly different results than a person who goes through solo rendering placements moot if all one has to do to place higher is ensure s/he is in a competent group.

Putting group in solo queue would give certain players an unrealistic advantage over solo players in an event that has the stated goal of leveling the playing field in order to place everyone in a skill area in which they can best and most enjoyably contribute and improve.

During the reset ranking the metric should be how individuals can work together to improve their teams performance, not whether one's team has a high ranking set of 4 players in assault mechs versus a medium ranking set of 4 players in urbanmechs.

Since everyone will be tossed into the same pool for reset matching the "group effect" will be magnified multiple-fold as in the first days literally everyone in game will be in the same tier for at least a day or so.

If we're going to level the playing field, let's completely level the playing field and let the chips land where they may.

I'd imagine after a single week the tiers would have settled enough to reintroduce groups into the solo queue with the caveat that no player can make initial ranking progress in a group (stops people from sitting out the first week then cheesing with a group when they are reintroduced).

Otherwise, if they don't separate the queues, the smartest course of action for solo players would be to simply avoid playing until the dust has settled and the top tier groups have tiered up before entering the fray as a legitimate solo player.

Edited by OneTeamPlayer, 28 May 2020 - 05:20 AM.

[Raptoroz]

I am for a full reset, it needs to happen badly, but also they need to fix the reason why it needs to be done.

As while i am currently labelled a tier 1, realistically i am probably tier 2 or so, maybe even a tier 3 player skill wise.

Overall i regret the day the game put me in tier 1, as the game moved from fun to a grind.
And i feel that is the main reason i recently stopped playing so much of the game, as i had no way of realistically getting game to recognise my correct player skill level, as the game only seems move you up.

For the last week i have played an 2nd account to see what the lower tiers were like, and overall i have found it to be a lot of fun, so much so that i wish my main account was not tier 1.
The main reason i think it was actually fun to play, was mainly because the games were a lot more dynamic in play, and quite often used areas of the map you never even see in a tier 1 game, and matches were still hard fighting, as it was regularly in taking place in smaller 4-6 player skirmishes in some random location.
Even i regularly have a bad game and but my team wins so i still move the tier rating quickly.

An idea might be the have your gain/loss based on the match score, compared to all the players in the match and scaled to the other players tier level, so if you do well in your match, score wise compared to a higher tier player, you would move up, but if you do really bad compared to a lower tier player, then you move down rank wise overall.
Yes overall its probably a flawed idea as well as it does not take into account stupid things like bad luck or bad fit outs, but overall i feel you would probably move long term to were you should be overall skill wise compared to the best players in the game.

If they do not want to fix the current PSR for a better system, then another option would be to somewhere on the website to have the option of request a player tier reset for the account, as i think that would be awesome long term feature.

[FRAGTAST1C]

Andrzej Lechrenski, on 28 May 2020 - 02:20 AM, said:

I have friends who are T5 pugs. When they group with me, our team is in T1 matches. As we should be. I brought the pug; it's my fault if he messes the floor.

I don't dispute that at all. But I'm wondering if the 98% player who has 60% players in the group will find an evenly matched opponents or will he get only 98% opponents? If it's the latter, then it's fine but if it's the former, then there are some things to consider, yes? It's why I'm placing my concern on how PGI assesses the threat value of a group. So far, they have not even acknowledged this issue.

[PeeWrinkle]

I am not sure about this. I have not been playing much lately so my opinion may not or should not matter. But I do have an issue with zero sum.
On the one hand you have to win to get better, on the other hand your team can often times win despite a units terrible play. That unit would still benefit. The reverse is true. You can have the best match of your life and loose because of poor team play and be penalized, or at least not rewarded.
It also would discourage players from playing pug matches while grinding PSR as it will heavily reward the better units/groups.

That said maybe that is what is desired. If you play regularly with a team you will quickly rise, if you play regular in solo pug mode, then you will most likely never get above tier 3. After all this is a team based game.
I can see the befits of that for competitive play but I can also see it discouraging the casual player.
I think it needs to be a system that rewards good play. If you win you don't automatically go up, you have to achieve certain stats. If you achieve certain stats in a loss you should go up as well.
And like it or not this game needs all the players it can get.

Edited by PeeWrinkle, 28 May 2020 - 05:42 AM.

[Der_Elch]

Just Do It.

[Weagles]

Mr.Wrong, on 26 May 2020 - 06:40 AM, said:

reset the tiers on a regular base so they actualy mean something

An Annual reset with a cockpit hanging item representing year and tier would be cool.

[McGosy]

uh ya, please reset.
(btw: we dont need Rift-map, please delete^^)

[Anomalocaris]

MrMadguy, on 27 May 2020 - 09:20 PM, said:

Also real reason, why AvgMS correlates with skill now - because MM doesn't actually work at all. I.e. AvgMS would represent skill in "All vs All" situation. That's, what we actually have now. Once MM will start to work again - AvgMS won't correlate with skill.

Sure it will, because you'll start by seeding everyone the same. A current Tier4 player playing against Tier1s during seeding will see his match score drop pretty precipitously. While the Tier1 will go up. As the Tier4 ends up settling to his appropriate level he'll face more similar players and his match score will stabilize.

Remember there is only so much match score to go around in a given round of play.

[Jesse Custer]

Yeah, PSR reset and zero sum (aside from not punishing the top 2 or 3 players on a losing side). PSR being an XP bar that you can fail upward in just because you weren't the worst player on a winning team is horrible.

[bilagaana]

That Mech, on 25 May 2020 - 09:11 PM, said:

A loss should always result in loss of PSR, regardless of how well you do. Same goes for a win = increase. Why bother making it overly complicated to the point where it doesn't measure skills correctly?

I frequently see support for this notion and am baffled at the rationale. Perhaps, if teams were static--i.e., the same members each match--it might be useful as one out of several indicators of skill. However, teams (at least in QP) are not static. In fact, let's be honest: QP teams are more often than not absolute cr*p. It is entirely possible for a skilled player to individually perform well in terms of damage and kills and still be on a losing team, sometimes in multiple matches. Why should such losses, the result of ineffectual teams, effect such a player's overall skill ranking? There's a logical disconnect in that argument that I am not following.

Edited by bilagaana, 28 May 2020 - 07:58 AM.

[Belorion]

Pure_NZ, on 27 May 2020 - 04:01 PM, said:

We can choose from two options: Bad and worse. All your decisions can be derived from Russ Bullock's IS worship. You can't build a house on bad basics. The basic properties are the main problems:
The missile mania, 240missiles in 1 ton(4kg/missile???)
The overtuned IS weaponry

Grim has 7 IS mechs in the S tier and 10 Clan mechs in the S tier...

Jesse Custer, on 28 May 2020 - 07:17 AM, said:

Yeah, PSR reset and zero sum (aside from not punishing the top 2 or 3 players on a losing side). PSR being an XP bar that you can fail upward in just because you weren't the worst player on a winning team is horrible.

Again this could be handled with the 8 go up, 8 go down, and 8 stay the same mechanic.

[Erik T]

For me reset it, please.

David Sumner, on 28 May 2020 - 01:47 AM, said:

Just as an example from my last match.

This is me and a team mate in a PUG drop. and that team mate was in a group of 4.

https://leaderboard....%0D%0Azfailboat

one of us ranks 66% the other ranks 98.6%

Should we be in the same match?

Yes, why not, as long as there is someone in your team with the same skill as Zfailboat, for me no proplem.

Z Paradox, on 28 May 2020 - 03:16 AM, said:

TIER is not a reward system it is more of a player skill lvl and it should make you play with same lvl players. At the moment you get tier up even if you suck at playing game.
you Mechdocdie is T1 with W/L Ratio of ~0.90 and K/D Ratio of ~0.70 you shod be T3 or T4, You think I want to have you in my Tier and my team ???

and with current setup Tier is useless system... so yes reset it

What do you expect from the reset?
That you only can play with people from your skill level?
Why you are going to QP? Is Comp not the place for this?


I love matches with the really good players in it, even when they erase me, i just hate the games where several of them are on one Team and non of them is in the other Team.

Edited by Erik T, 28 May 2020 - 08:15 AM.

[Z Paradox]

Erik T, on 28 May 2020 - 08:13 AM, said:

What do you expect from the reset?
That you only can play with people from your skill level?

I expect to have less T4 and T5 and more real T1 and T2 in future games.

[C337Skymaster]

Tarl Cabot, on 27 May 2020 - 03:06 PM, said:

If a player is hitting between 250 MS to 399 499 MS on a loss, would not their Winning MS meet or exceed that? Again.. overall average 171 MS to 190 MS players hitting a min of 250 MS on a loss but cannot break the bank on a win?

I agree on the other points, at least with a win the PSR thresholds, the MS need to be higher. But mind you, Paul's post pointed out that moving up with a loss on 400 MS is the culprit.... And remember how PGI usually operates...

You just popped that balloon with a porcupine quill. Yes, I'm aware of how PGI usually operates, and if that's "the culprit" then nothing changes, realistically. The CULPRIT, is not having the zero-movement match score target be the same for a win or loss. Though I guess that completely eliminates win/loss from PSR... so make it count much less? That'd bring the targets closer together, at least...

I'll say from personal experience, as a 193 MS average pilot after almost 5 years: I've gotten 250 on a loss and 100 on a win before, in the same day, in back-to-back matches. It comes down to a couple of factors. First, while I didn't start out this way, I've spent the last couple years reverting everything back to stock 'mechs, just for the challenge and the Lore of it. I'll tell you: leveling up a stock Inner Sphere 'mech from 0 XP is rough. Thankfully I was usually able to give myself a 20 SP boost to start, but even so. Second, I'm definitely guilty of quitting when I die, grabbing another 'mech, and jumping quickly into another game, and when I get frustrated, I get impatient, YOLO, and game-hop. If I realize I'm dying in the first minute, I'll try to calm down, and often concentrate on staying behind my team for awhile, which will improve my score. Third, I rarely carry, and frequently get carried, so my win/loss depends a lot on my team, and not solely on my own performance (yes, my performance counts, but it's not 100% on me).

So you add all that together, and I'll be leveling one stock 'mech that's pretty good, and I'll do well (Wolfhound), but I'll die and get bored of spectating and hop into another 'mech that needs leveling. The next 'mech might royally suck (Flea, Grasshopper), and I'll do absolutely terrible, but my team will win, and I've earned JUST enough XP for another skill point to keep the progress going. I've been looking at my Jarl's list stats, since someone linked them to me, and last month I ranked 83rd percentile, while for all the preceding months, I've been in the 30's and 40's, percent-wise. I don't think the population dropped THAT much in a single month, but I did just finish leveling my last 'mech, and have gone back to playing my favorite mastered 'mechs (Timberwolf-D). That, and every time they run a 500 match score challenge, I'm out there trying to get the best match score I can, which artificially boosts Jarl's List temporarily. I tend to use LRMs for those challenges, and I wind up with a LOT of 450 match score matches before I finally get 500. (I feel like I wind up with a lot of 100 match score matches, too, though..... SO much AMS!!!).

[Storky]

Here is my word.

1. Reset tier (optional, for better 2.)
2. For skill calculations:
GOOD players have bonus on heavier mechs and penalty on lighter
vice versa
BAD players have bonus on lighter mechs and penalty on heavier
3. very slow mechs light like urbie or fast assaults like victor with 385 must count as medium and heavy.

Explanation:
Skill and firepower do not matters much if mech is outpositioned. Fast mechs help to get better postion and forgives mistakes about that.
BAD playes can't convert speed in survival, but they not much less dangerous on heavier mechs wth more hp and guns. Also they often have initial good aim from other games.