379 replies to this topic

[Squibert]

Gagis, on 06 July 2020 - 02:21 AM, said:

Tiers were never supposed to be a reward. They were supposed to be a way for matchmaker to balance teams, but since most active players made it to Tier 1 regardless of their actual ability, the matchmaker failed, which was the single largest flaw driving players away from MWO. Lack of matchmaker in Quick Play almost killed the entire game.

I am afraid that the data doesn't support your statment.

Paul Inouye, on 23 June 2020 - 05:12 PM, said:

So here's what we're trying to fix. This image below is a data pull of active players in the last 3 months and the current Tier distribution (How many players are currently in each Tier):

I don't see a majority of players in T1.

Gagis, on 06 July 2020 - 02:21 AM, said:

A reset was absolutely necessary, and had been for years. An improved PSR formula is just icing on the cake. The formula would not even need to take match score and other details of individual matches into account to function, but now you at least can feel good about gaining rating on a loss where you struggled hard. How Match Score is calculated was not changed with the PSR system, so that part gives you exactly the same feedback it always has.

What about the PSR loss on a win where you felt you did good and got an average 250 or so score? Yes the way MS is calculated is the same, however what the PSR dose with those scores is way different.

Do you have data to support your statements?

I don't disagree that a good MM is important to any multiplayer match game. I just get the impression that you believe the information you are giving is to be taken as absolute truths with little or no support for the clams. If they are your opinions that is great everyone should have them. Just state it as such.

[Squibert]

OwO Kewensky, on 06 July 2020 - 06:07 PM, said:

Let me put it bluntly to you - with the avg MS of 210 you do not belong to T1. With the majority of active players around 200 MS, that's should be T3.

Overall 0.9 WLR and 0.71 KDR by no means make you a 'competative' player. By these stats and your own admission, you constantly dragging your team down by bringing bad builds that can't contribute much to the match outcome - yet you feel entitled to be in T1. What make you feel so?

Sorry I don't agree with what you are saying at all. I get the impression that you are making major speculations and assumptions about a person that you have little or no information on. If you just got your information from the leader boards, remember they are reset regularly. The current leader board doesn't show the same information as previous leader boards.

If people are having the same experience that I have been having (I am assuming they are) then matches since this last update have been all over the place. I haven't been getting my "average" MS at all. It has been all over the place both high and low, because a lot of the score you get dose depend on the team and match that you are playing with. If anyone says it doesn't, then they don't understand that this is a team game, and what you and your team-mates do alongside of each other has a big impact on MS and game outcome.

OwO Kewensky, on 06 July 2020 - 06:07 PM, said:

That is a very selfish statement.
Your presence in T1 was leading to unbalanced matches as the match maker was unable to tell the difference between you (60% player) and a someone in 99%.
You want to be in T1 at the cost of enjoyment of better players. That was one of the reasons many top tier players retired - it was not fun for them either seal clubbing potatoes or seeing their efforts being trashed by players with 120 avg MS who grinded their way to T1 over thousands of matches.

And your have absolute data that what you are saying here is correct? Every match has many unknown variables that can lead to different MS. It's not a 2+2=4 type of system. No one can assume that any particular player is always unbalancing things or pulling other people down or making something fun or not fun.

Did you talk to all or many of top players that quit and confirm that they reason they quit was because of a lack of challenge? Can you quantify that statement?

I have seen stated in many different posts in this thread that everyone was making it to T1. Thatt it made no difference on how you played the game you were going to get to T1. The data that has been shown doesn't support this. Read the very first post!

From my personal experience most players that were in T2 and T1 were veteran players and understood how to play the game to get the best chance to win the match. They did have over all higher average match scores but not always. They were more often organized and worked as a team but not always.

OwO Kewensky, on 06 July 2020 - 06:07 PM, said:

With the new PSR, you will stay in T3 and get more balanced matches mes, just wait till everyone get into their actual tiers.
If you feel you're competitive player, you will be able to carry more games and get into T2.
If you want to constantly experiment with builds you will slip into T4 where your builds will be matched by equal skills.

Assumptions and more assumptions. What if they get better or learn how to manipulate the MS better? What if as you say when every one gets sorted into their actual tiers they get higher MS and move to T1? If I am understand the new system and how it works, or how the developers are hoping it works it will be a more fluid system with movements back and forth between tiers.

If you have been playing MWO for any length of time you know that no 1 player can carry a team. Can 1 player have a great match and get a high match score? Absolutely, but not every time or even the majority of the time.

Everyone experiments with builds from time to time. One type of build on a specific Mech and model will work for some people but a different one will work for others. There is no 1 meta setup for every Mech.

We should all try and give our opinions and experiences with out inferring or attacking other people, and their view point. Everyone believes they are in the right it is every one else that is wrong. All we can do is except each other for what they bring to the table and learn what we can from it. Be that a little or a lot. Ease up in the response.

[Gagis]

Squibert, on 11 July 2020 - 09:41 PM, said:

If they are your opinions that is great everyone should have them. Just state it as such.

Having opinions that are mismatched with reality is a bit iffy tho.

But I do have some data. A bit tricky data tho. You'd have to have checked individual players on Jarl's list to see that players with high number of matches played were almost certain to be in tier 1 regardless of their statistics. You could have sorted by matches played to find players with subpar statistics in tier 1 or by statistics to find poorly performing players who are in tier 1 regardless simply as a consequence of their total number of games played.

Giving examples however would go against the Name and Shame rules of the forums. There have been countless examples of uneven matches where you can check the team composition to find that the matchmaker has divided 24 Tier 1 players into two teams of 12 in such a way that there are a number of top performing players in one team and none in the other, instead there being some players performing significantly below average as their counterweights on the other team. Prior to the reset, the matchmaker simply could not see the difference.

If one would have investigated this prior to the reset, they'd have certainly found that the lower tiers were mainly populated by players who have never played much. MWO playerbase has a lot of people who play only a handful of matches per month, and those players moved from tier to tier extremely slowly.

The cross-season statistics is also why Mr. OwO Kewensky was able to make statements about a player's average contribution up there. The more matches you have played, the more reliable the statistics on your average performance are and once enough data has accumulated, you absolutely can make statements about what any player brings to the team.

[Squibert]

Gagis, on 11 July 2020 - 10:57 PM, said:

Having opinions that are mismatched with reality is a bit iffy tho.

But I do have some data. A bit tricky data tho. You'd have to have checked individual players on Jarl's list to see that players with high number of matches played were almost certain to be in tier 1 regardless of their statistics. You could have sorted by matches played to find players with subpar statistics in tier 1 or by statistics to find poorly performing players who are in tier 1 regardless simply as a consequence of their total number of games played.

Giving examples however would go against the Name and Shame rules of the forums. There have been countless examples of uneven matches where you can check the team composition to find that the matchmaker has divided 24 Tier 1 players into two teams of 12 in such a way that there are a number of top performing players in one team and none in the other, instead there being some players performing significantly below average as their counterweights on the other team. Prior to the reset, the matchmaker simply could not see the difference.

If one would have investigated this prior to the reset, they'd have certainly found that the lower tiers were mainly populated by players who have never played much. MWO playerbase has a lot of people who play only a handful of matches per month, and those players moved from tier to tier extremely slowly.

The cross-season statistics is also why Mr. OwO Kewensky was able to make statements about a player's average contribution up there. The more matches you have played, the more reliable the statistics on your average performance are and once enough data has accumulated, you absolutely can make statements about what any player brings to the team.

If you say so. I will have to take your word on it as you haven't provided any links or anything official to say one way or the other. I'm personal not familiar with Jarl's list. Let alone how or where it gets it data. I would guess that if it was an official source then that same data would be on an official forum or a link to it would be somewhere on the forums from the developers or moderators. I haven't see it but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Also opinions are just that opinions they have nothing to do with fact's or reality. They can show what person believes reality or facts might be, but in and of them selves they are only what is on a persons mind.

[Gagis]

You can browse the statistics via https://leaderboard.isengrim.org/

The data there is aggregated from the official leaderboards on this site and MWO API, and just delivered in a form that is easier to navigate than the official source.

[OneTeamPlayer]

Squibert, on 11 July 2020 - 09:41 PM, said:

I am afraid that the data doesn't support your statment.



I don't see a majority of players in T1.



What about the PSR loss on a win where you felt you did good and got an average 250 or so score? Yes the way MS is calculated is the same, however what the PSR dose with those scores is way different.

Do you have data to support your statements?

I don't disagree that a good MM is important to any multiplayer match game. I just get the impression that you believe the information you are giving is to be taken as absolute truths with little or no support for the clams. If they are your opinions that is great everyone should have them. Just state it as such.

I would like to point out for a simple point again.

The data given in this chart shows that there are 47 thousand "active" players. In the same series of discussions about MM Paul admitted that they struggle to make 1K players on the weekdays primetime and 1.5K players on the weekends primetime.

Put simply if you believe that Paul was telling the truth about struggling to retain indie-release player count then you would have to realize that the definition of "active" had to be exceptionally broad to claim 47K "active" players.

In short that graph of "active" players showing a ton of T5 cannot possibly be accurate or is "accurate" in that way that cities finesse their crime stats so that technically an armed robbery wasn't a violent crime or an sexual assault wasn't their statistic because the guy was arrested in a different county.

I wouldn't use that particular chart to prove any points, if i were anyone interested in legitimate discussion of the recent changes.

Edited by OneTeamPlayer, 12 July 2020 - 08:02 AM.

[Tarl Cabot]

Squibert, on 11 July 2020 - 09:41 PM, said:

I am afraid that the data doesn't support your statment.

For the data, recall PGI noted it was pulled from the previous 2 months where players dropped into combat. And since PGI did not stipulate anything, many of those Tier 5 were likely new accounts who did not play at least 10 games to even register for the leadership boards.... And PGI did not say if it were players who played BOTH months or simply in dropped into a game in one of those months.

And what the graph does not show is the avg Matchscore ranges for X amount of months.... players who have an avg 200 MS or less but played a ton of games were in Tier 1. The lowest MS I and others were aware of, the player has a avg 171 MS, who for a few months bounced back and forth between Tier 1 and Tier 2, and with a 0.82 W/L Ratio. Below is the original PSR thresholds.

PGI first revision was to flip the winning PSR values for the losing side.

Player LOSES:

Match Score: 0-100 goes down in PSR by -2

Match Score: 101-250 goes down in PSR by -1

Match Score: 251-400 does not move.

Match Score: 401+ goes up in PSR by +1

Player WINS:

Match Score: 0-100 does not move.

Match Score: 101-250 goes up in PSR by +1

Match Score: 251-400 goes up in PSR by +3

Match Score: 401+ goes up in PSR by +5

As for PGI showing a Player's Tier, it was essentially an experience bar and setup to separate new players from the experienced players and not be instantly killed.

[Troglodyte74]

Any chance we will get to SEE the change/score in the PSR now? Just saying it would be lovely to know if I drop a little, shoot up a lot, etc. Arrows are nice and all, but not really informative.

[Fleeb the Mad]

When they introduced small groups to the solo queue I managed to round up a few people from our old group who hadn't touched the game in a couple years to have another go at it.

We'd stopped playing despite having thousands of matches in because the group queue had just become too punishing for your filthy casual types who just want to goof off and have fun.

There was a problem though. When we played the solo + group queue for the first time we were matched against the same enemy group 4 games out of 5. Call it small population or tier imbalances, but the games were rather lopsided. Nobody wanted to go back for a second attempt.

With a PSR change there may be a second chance, since there are some odds that we'd see different people and out of practice individuals with high tier ratings wouldn't needlessly drag the group against the same set of high tier opposition time after time.

[OneTeamPlayer]

Fleeb the Mad, on 12 July 2020 - 10:27 AM, said:

When they introduced small groups to the solo queue I managed to round up a few people from our old group who hadn't touched the game in a couple years to have another go at it.

We'd stopped playing despite having thousands of matches in because the group queue had just become too punishing for your filthy casual types who just want to goof off and have fun.

There was a problem though. When we played the solo + group queue for the first time we were matched against the same enemy group 4 games out of 5. Call it small population or tier imbalances, but the games were rather lopsided. Nobody wanted to go back for a second attempt.

With a PSR change there may be a second chance, since there are some odds that we'd see different people and out of practice individuals with high tier ratings wouldn't needlessly drag the group against the same set of high tier opposition time after time.

I'm sorry, but unless group and solo queue are separated again I hope all the people who were excited about the merge who are now getting stomped by other groups stay gone.

Groups ruined our queue so hearing that yet another group has left is like music to my ears.

I'd be glad if they all moved on- then we'd have our functional solo queue again.

[John Bronco]

Big-G, on 11 July 2020 - 08:23 PM, said:

So effectively... playing the game objectives... are frowned upon...
Supporting the team... is frowned upon...

This "way" totally ignores the roles aspect of mechs...

The best thing you can do to support your team is to shoot and kill enemy mechs. This both increases your chances of winning the match and decreases the chances of you and your teammates dying. The role of all mechs is to fight the enemy mechs.

Now go be a team player and kill some mechs.

[Big-G]

BlaizerP, on 12 July 2020 - 01:34 PM, said:

The best thing you can do to support your team is to shoot and kill enemy mechs. This both increases your chances of winning the match and decreases the chances of you and your teammates dying. The role of all mechs is to fight the enemy mechs.

Now go be a team player and kill some mechs.

I wouldn't make assumptions...

[nopempele]

I just wondered, did anyone manage to get into their "comfort level" with the new PSR system?

I've been playing for some time now and each match I still get a good portion of absolutely terrible players. Fresh noobs, AFKers, YOLO kamikazes, solo campers, casuals - all with sub 100 dmg and being a burden to the team. But I must say I encounter "unicorns" with 1000 dmg, too.

I don't remember the game to be consistently that bad in terms of balance. Alright, maybe Faction Play was even more terrible but still. It's like the system picks a 1000 dmg "unicorn" player and 3 no-good 100 dmg with "faces rolling on the keyboard" ones, throws them into a single team and considers it "balanced". That is not very fun to play with.

So how long until I get to play with people mostly at my (mediocre) level?

[Xaat Xuun]

i don't think the MM is on at the moment, I'm seeing names, that should not be against cadets, The names I am seeing are pilots that can reach Tier 2 within a day of a new created pilot , So I'm sure they're Tier 1 now (again) , but yet seeing them playing against Basically Tier 5's.

looks like the MM is just considering everyone Tier 3

not sure how MM is matching in Groups yet

[Aidan Crenshaw]

Well, a new account starts in T3 at the moment...

[OneTeamPlayer]

Can you imagine any company making a change this large, seeing this many concerns from its community, and not making any sort of post about the situation in nearing two weeks?

[apcboss]

last but not least the new system is against teamwork bottom line that was the only ting that i loved for so many years i dont like to do this but sorry Piranha Games you end up like a PUBG distortion not what us old guys are loving about the game

[apcboss]

being slingshot out of tier one doesnt hurt my pride i really dont care but if i can only advance in the game by pure greed for damage ?????i am not satisfied im a headhunter and i kill with least damage at least the other system thanked me for that and piggi eye get your balls back into your pants and take this **** like men as a mishap

[50 50]

Big-G, on 05 July 2020 - 04:46 AM, said:

I just feel the new setup is punishing players who try their best but aren't able to carry weak/disorganized/lazy teams.

Efeljay, on 06 July 2020 - 02:27 AM, said:

Further, the new psr system is worse.
I had a couple matchs where i had a couple kills, no team damage, had flanked the enemy to get them to turn so my team could push in, but had low damage and although we won and i definately played a role in the win, my psr dropped...
thats weaksauce.
thumbs down on the new psr rating and reset.
I was planning on contributing financially again in the future when i was able to, but that motivation and thought has been destroyed.
If i was head of this company some people would be getting fired and a better team rebuilt.
No reason why this game is where its at with the pottential it has.

The scoring of the matches hasn't changed though, correct?
So the various points rewarded for our actions in the game are the same as they have always been.

The calculation for determining the change to our PSR has which means that it is now actually possible to lose enough PSR to actually drop in tier and it is going to highlight aspects of how that match score is calculated.
Whether or not those calculations need to be tweaked is up for discussion, we know they are heavily weighted towards damage done. Roles, like scouting, do have set rewards but in a game that is all about destroying the enemy they are overshadowed.
Role warfare seemed like a great idea but it never really quite got there in the way many would have been thinking.

Prior to this change it was possible to have a match score of 100 on the winning team just being silly and get an increase.

^^ That should not happen.

But if the community feels that the way the match score is calculated needs to be reviewed, open a new thread and get a vote going.
Paul put up a list of the various match rewards for us.

[Sawk]

this new system is not working and not helping guys level up, the old system was better, all you needed to do was change the damage, old system was 400,, change that to say 300 damage your bell curve will show up.

Sawk