28 replies to this topic

[VikingN1nja]

The game only rewards those who primarily farm damage and win. You can put a ton of effort into a match get kills, the highest damage etc. and still get negative.

Also, why are assaults, heavies, mediums and light mechs being compared in overall score in regard to PSR together? It's wrong, how do you expect a 25-30 ton to score against a Direwolf etc.

I know how it works, don't need a video from YouTube. IMO It's not scoring fairly, does nothing besides favor those in groups who can role solo players over and over, farming damage in 2 minute stomps. If you get stuck with lesser experieced solo players and get stomped, doesn't matter how good you are you are getting RIP'd.
It also promotes for a selfish play style where you use the team as meat shields and farm damage from behind.

Take the attached screenshots as an example, the team got its *** kicked.

Myself in the Piranha, low damage, but worked my butt off had some amazing kills, and get negative score.



The other match low damage, no kills but positive PSR? How..this was an awful game LMAO.

Edited by omegaorgun, 07 December 2021 - 10:34 PM.

[martian]

omegaorgun, on 07 December 2021 - 10:31 PM, said:

The game only rewards those who primarily farm damage and win. You can put a ton of effort into a match get kills, the highest damage etc. and still get negative.

...


Take the attached screenshots as an example, the team got its *** kicked.

Myself in the Piranha, low damage, but worked my butt off had some amazing kills, and get negative score.



The other match low damage, no kills but positive PSR? How..this was an awful game LMAO.

The next time post both the Mission Summary Team Table and the Mission Summary Player Table, please.

Without the Mission Summary Team table, it is impossible to judge your performance relative to the other players.

Posting only your personal stats is pointless.

omegaorgun, on 07 December 2021 - 10:31 PM, said:

Take the attached screenshots as an example, the team got its *** kicked.

Myself in the Piranha, low damage, but worked my butt off had some amazing kills, and get negative score.

The first screenshot shows that you did just 195 damage and got one Solo kill. Where are those "amazing kills" of yours?

Those 25 points of friendly damage were not exactly helping too. They would not be critical if you did more damage, but with 195 points of damage ... Maybe that friendly damage lowered your Match Score just enough to get you that red arrow.


The second screenshot is pointless if we can not see how the other players of your team fared. The players of the winning team get a small PSR bonus, so maybe just thanks that bonus you got the green arrow.

[Aidan Crenshaw]

Sigh. Another thread about PSR by someone who doesn't get the fundamentals.

Here, I know you think you don't need a YT video, I think otherwise.

[Saved By The Bell]

You did terrible in both fights.

[justcallme A S H]

Sigh.

Once again not showing the full end of round screenshot.


Thread is therefore completely useless until they are provided.

[PocketYoda]

Op nothing will change the game no longer gets large overhauls. So no matter which party is right or wrong nothing will change either way.

[GoodTry]

We keep having these threads. PSR is not a "reward" or a judgment on your play. More PSR just means more difficulty for your matches. Unless your complaint is that your matches are too easy, there is no reason for you to want to have a higher PSR.

[pbiggz]

PSR is a means to an end, not an end unto itself. The number shouldn't even be visible. You don't get different rewards for being low or high tier. It literally does nothing except allow the match maker to form matches based on a collection of players' average performance. It's useless to you personally, and it should be. All the confusion surrounding it entirely comes from its visibility. Tier 5 gets you a blue badge. Tier 3 gets you a brownish badge. Tier 1 gets you a gold one. Obviously when you communicate a system like that people will think they're being punished when their number goes down.

Edited by pbiggz, 08 December 2021 - 06:48 AM.

[martian]

pbiggz, on 08 December 2021 - 06:48 AM, said:

The number shouldn't even be visible.

I am not quite sure.

If someone gives me the advice regarding 'Mech loadout, tactics, spending MCs or C-Bills, what to do or what to avoid in the game, etc.,
for me it is good to know if that advice comes from somebody with badge or with badge.

[pattonesque]

martian, on 08 December 2021 - 09:38 AM, said:

I am not quite sure.

If someone gives me the advice regarding 'Mech loadout, tactics, spending MCs or C-Bills, what to do or what to avoid in the game, etc.,
for me it is good to know if that advice comes from somebody with badge or with badge.

it's this. Usually if I don't know them I'll look them up on Jarl's. It's like ... if I'm trying to fix my baseball swing and some dude I know who plays in the local beer league says to do something weird with it, he might be right. But if I ask Mike Trout and he says the same thing, he's much more likely to be right.

[Kanil]

I don't think having tier be visible is particularly important, we'd still have the leaderboards to figure out who actually knows what they're talking about. Back when you could just grind to tier 1 and half the playerbase was tier 1, you'd just check Jarls anyway.

Of course, knowing half the playerbase was tier 1 was an important motivation for the community to get PSR fixed, so having it visible has some purpose.

[pbiggz]

martian, on 08 December 2021 - 09:38 AM, said:

I am not quite sure.

If someone gives me the advice regarding 'Mech loadout, tactics, spending MCs or C-Bills, what to do or what to avoid in the game, etc.,
for me it is good to know if that advice comes from somebody with badge or with badge.

pattonesque, on 08 December 2021 - 09:45 AM, said:

it's this. Usually if I don't know them I'll look them up on Jarl's. It's like ... if I'm trying to fix my baseball swing and some dude I know who plays in the local beer league says to do something weird with it, he might be right. But if I ask Mike Trout and he says the same thing, he's much more likely to be right.

I'd only push back on this by saying people who know what they're talking about, but dont necessarily play very often (old friends of mine for example who are excellent at the game, but not frequent players of it) often stay in tier 4 or 5, simply because they dont play enough matches to climb the ranks, whereas people who dont know what they're doing, but run match-score farming LRM or AMS boats, can climb into at least lower tier 1. So in a way this kind of backs up my point. The gold badge isn't a simple indicator that someone should be taken seriously, but by dint of being gold, people think its some kind of status symbol. I frankly think its kind of harmful to have it visible to players at all.

Kanil, on 08 December 2021 - 10:34 AM, said:

I don't think having tier be visible is particularly important, we'd still have the leaderboards to figure out who actually knows what they're talking about. Back when you could just grind to tier 1 and half the playerbase was tier 1, you'd just check Jarls anyway.

Of course, knowing half the playerbase was tier 1 was an important motivation for the community to get PSR fixed, so having it visible has some purpose.

IIRC tier only became visible in the first place because people kept asking for it. Kind of a "you don't know what you're asking" scenario, but since it doesnt directly impact gameplay, i guess there are more serious priorities.

[Sjorpha]

Kanil, on 08 December 2021 - 10:34 AM, said:

I don't think having tier be visible is particularly important, we'd still have the leaderboards to figure out who actually knows what they're talking about. Back when you could just grind to tier 1 and half the playerbase was tier 1, you'd just check Jarls anyway.

Of course, knowing half the playerbase was tier 1 was an important motivation for the community to get PSR fixed, so having it visible has some purpose.

You sometimes get people with new accounts who are just decent at videogames shooting up to high rankings on Jarls while they are farming tier 5-3, so if you go by Jarls you have to make sure there is enough games played. I think Jarls should have a default cutoff before it shows new players.

[Brauer]

Sjorpha, on 08 December 2021 - 11:59 AM, said:

You sometimes get people with new accounts who are just decent at videogames shooting up to high rankings on Jarls while they are farming tier 5-3, so if you go by Jarls you have to make sure there is enough games played. I think Jarls should have a default cutoff before it shows new players.

Jarl's substantially penalizes accounts with low numbers of games. This penalty is in play up until 500 matches, but it depends on the number of matches played. A player who is truly farming T4/5 should get out of those tiers well before Jarl's stops penalizing them (say within 100 matches), and would (if their trajectory keeps up) get to T1 within something like 150-300 matches.

[Sjorpha]

Brauer, on 08 December 2021 - 12:03 PM, said:

Jarl's substantially penalizes accounts with low numbers of games. This penalty is in play up until 500 matches, but it depends on the number of matches played. A player who is truly farming T4/5 should get out of those tiers well before Jarl's stops penalizing them (say within 100 matches), and would (if their trajectory keeps up) get to T1 within something like 150-300 matches.

There are players in the top 20 with less than 1000 games. Several around 500 and even one with less than 300. I think that penalty is insufficient however it works. IMO it would be better to simply not show players with less than 1000 games or something like that (or have an optional filter to cut off players below X games).

Edited by Sjorpha, 08 December 2021 - 12:17 PM.

[martian]

pbiggz, on 08 December 2021 - 10:52 AM, said:

I'd only push back on this by saying people who know what they're talking about, but dont necessarily play very often (old friends of mine for example who are excellent at the game, but not frequent players of it) often stay in tier 4 or 5, simply because they dont play enough matches to climb the ranks, ...

If they play so infrequently that they are still in T4 or T5 one and a half year after the "great Tier reset", then what validity their opinions can hold? I mean, after all those weapons properties changes and game patches, after so many 'Mech quirks changes, after all those deep map reworks, etc.?

Personally I am more inclined to listen to the active skilled players known to me from the game than to the players who last dropped in the game in meaningful number of missions many months or years ago.

pbiggz, on 08 December 2021 - 10:52 AM, said:

... whereas people who dont know what they're doing, but run match-score farming LRM or AMS boats, can climb into at least lower tier 1.

I would say that it is like history than some typical experience these days.

LRMs can still be useful let's say in T3 (since you can usually expect that the enemy team will have at least some players who do not know how to protect themselves against LRMs), but in T2 their use and general usefulness diminishes.

And you can hardly farm LRMs with your AMS boat, if there are no (or only a small number) LRMs in the game.

Plus, the most LRM-friendly map (the original Polar Highland) has been removed from rotation.

pbiggz, on 08 December 2021 - 10:52 AM, said:

So in a way this kind of backs up my point. The gold badge isn't a simple indicator that someone should be taken seriously, but by dint of being gold, people think its some kind of status symbol.

I would say that when it comes to discussion about game mechanics and similar things, Tier badges can serve as a useful indicator.

pbiggz, on 08 December 2021 - 10:52 AM, said:

I frankly think its kind of harmful to have it visible to players at all.

Anyone can hide his Tier badge and ignore all visible Tier badges displayed by other players.

[pbiggz]

martian, on 08 December 2021 - 12:27 PM, said:

If they play so infrequently that they are still in T4 or T5 one and a half year after the "great Tier reset", then what validity their opinions can hold? I mean, after all those weapons properties changes and game patches, after so many 'Mech quirks changes, after all those deep map reworks, etc.?

Personally I am more inclined to listen to the active skilled players known to me from the game than to the players who last dropped in the game in meaningful number of missions many months or years ago.



I would say that it is like history than some typical experience these days.

LRMs can still be useful let's say in T3 (since you can usually expect that the enemy team will have at least some players who do not know how to protect themselves against LRMs), but in T2 their use and general usefulness diminishes.

And you can hardly farm LRMs with your AMS boat, if there are no (or only a small number) LRMs in the game.

Plus, the most LRM-friendly map (the original Polar Highland) has been removed from rotation.



I would say that when it comes to discussion about game mechanics and similar things, Tier badges can serve as a useful indicator.



Anyone can hide his Tier badge and ignore all visible Tier badges displayed by other players.

If you're good at clicking heads, you're good at clicking heads. Whether you play once a day or once a year. I don't know what to tell you except that I stand by what i've said. Tiers should be invisible, and you discounting peoples opinions because of it proves my point. There are undeserving players who use the gold badge for clout, and very intelligent, introspective players whose opinions are ignored because they have the blue badge. I don't think you're trying to be dismissive, but you are being dismissive.

[Brauer]

Sjorpha, on 08 December 2021 - 12:15 PM, said:

There are players in the top 20 with less than 1000 games. Several around 500 and even one with less than 300. I think that penalty is insufficient however it works. IMO it would be better to simply not show players with less than 1000 games or something like that (or have an optional filter to cut off players below X games).

Sounds like you're talking about one of my alts XD

Let me just say, I took an account from T5 to maxed T1 quite rapidly and it continues to farm. Forcing it to complete 500 matches to get full credit really won't change much of anything. Anyone farming hard enough to make waves in Jarl's should be in T1 quickly enough for this edge case to not matter a whole lot.

Not showing a player until they get 1000 games under their belt would mean an average player would need about 10 months to show up on Jarl's. That doesn't make any sense imo.

Why do you think Jarl's is so important?

[martian]

pbiggz, on 08 December 2021 - 12:42 PM, said:

If you're good at clicking heads, you're good at clicking heads. Whether you play once a day or once a year.

I do not think that the reflexes, map knowledge, situational awareness and the understanding of the underlying game mechanics gained from the everyday play are the same for a player who drops every day and for a player who drops once a year.

pbiggz, on 08 December 2021 - 12:42 PM, said:

I don't know what to tell you except that I stand by what i've said. Tiers should be invisible, and you discounting peoples opinions because of it proves my point.

I prefer learning from the elite players who prove their worth every day rather than from T5 players who play once a year.

pbiggz, on 08 December 2021 - 12:42 PM, said:

There are undeserving players who use the gold badge for clout,...

It is automatic process that assigns all badges. If those players fullfilled required conditions, they deserve the badge.

pbiggz, on 08 December 2021 - 12:42 PM, said:

... and very intelligent, introspective players whose opinions are ignored because they have the blue badge. I don't think you're trying to be dismissive, but you are being dismissive.

Yes, maybe they have opinions. That's perfectly okay. But it is actual game results that truly matter and that demonstrate the real understanding of the game.

[GoodTry]

Brauer, on 08 December 2021 - 12:03 PM, said:

Jarl's substantially penalizes accounts with low numbers of games. This penalty is in play up until 500 matches, but it depends on the number of matches played. A player who is truly farming T4/5 should get out of those tiers well before Jarl's stops penalizing them (say within 100 matches), and would (if their trajectory keeps up) get to T1 within something like 150-300 matches.

Yes, I tracked progression from start up to tier 1 recently. Here is the breakdown of games:

Tier 4: About 5 games (didn't track)
Tier 3: Hit at 48 games
Tier 2: Hit at 128 games
Tier 1: Hit at 213 games

So 213 games total for start->tier 1. I agree a better player could probably do it in 150. The weird thing, though, is that PSR gains seem to cap out. I had some 800+ or 900+ match score games in there, and I'm pretty sure you gain the same amount as you do in a normal win.