356 replies to this topic

[ScrapIron Prime]

Two posts in the last two pages excoriating someone for daring to express an opinion when they're not T1.

My advice... statements like those really undercut the argument that said players are not elitist.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

ScrapIron Prime, on 12 January 2024 - 09:03 AM, said:

Jumping back to this for a second...

https://mwo.nav-alph...8ca3b50b_HBK-4J

You comment on it contains "The 4J for example doesn't need medium lasers when small lasers work just fine". That right there tells everyone that you've never played a mech like this. Small lasers, even ER ones, don't have much of an overlap with the usable range of LRMs. You can't often fire both at the same target at the same time and do more than just tickle with the lasers.

No, it just tells me you don't know what you are talking about. Back before small lasers were even that great, players like HBK-4Jman were using smalls to cover the min range so they could do at least some damage to lights. It isn't about overlap, because honestly if you are using medium lasers and LRMs together, you've etiher done something wrong or are trying to play at a range that has way better weapons for the job. Just cuz it's quirked for that doesn't mean you have to use the quirked weapons. There are some mechs you probably should just ignore the weapon specific quirks on.

That said, the HBK-4J is a shell of its former self. Honestly given the hitboxes are with that thing anyway, you are probably better off with something like this: edit(forgot BAP): https://mwo.nav-alph...c2cc0b53_HBK-4J

Or if you really want to merge direct fire and LRMs: https://mwo.nav-alph...2c92d64c_HBK-4J

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 12 January 2024 - 09:40 AM.

[Luminios]

ScrapIron Prime, on 12 January 2024 - 09:12 AM, said:

Two posts in the last two pages excoriating someone for daring to express an opinion when they're not T1.

My advice... statements like those really undercut the argument that said players are not elitist.

The problem is not them expressing an opinion as a T3 player, but claiming to know better than everyone else while being factually wrong. The outcome would have been the same had they been T1.

[Shineplasma]

Luminios, on 12 January 2024 - 09:18 AM, said:

The problem is not them expressing an opinion as a T3 player, but claiming to know better than everyone else while being factually wrong. The outcome would have been the same had they been T1.

Precisely.

I thought my post made it fairly clear that being in T1 was irrelevant.

[The Brewer]

Luminios, on 12 January 2024 - 09:18 AM, said:

The problem is not them expressing an opinion as a T3 player, but claiming to know better than everyone else while being factually wrong. The outcome would have been the same had they been T1.

18 pages has come to this. The patch hasn’t even dropped yet.

I believe I said “thoroughly vetted” earlier… some of y’all looking at numbers and ain’t understanding the point.

Oh, and as someone who’s a professional mechanic and has done some race driving in their time… claiming one or the other to be “more intelligent” is absolutely absurd. At the highest level the drivers play a role in engineering as well. How about that?

[Navid A1]

The Brewer, on 12 January 2024 - 09:28 AM, said:

18 pages has come to this. The patch hasn’t even dropped yet.

I believe I said “thoroughly vetted” earlier… some of y’all looking at numbers and ain’t understanding the point.

Oh, and as someone who’s a professional mechanic and has done some race driving in their time… claiming one or the other to be “more intelligent” is absolutely absurd. At the highest level the drivers play a role in engineering as well. How about that?

In Motorsports, drivers are often the main source of information engineers look towards. And changes to the car systems and controllers are made based on their feedback, to the point that is physically or technically possible.

Numbers by themselves don't mean anything. What matters is the end result performance.

[Shineplasma]

the check engine light, on 12 January 2024 - 09:39 AM, said:

And what role do the lower tiers play? I am assuming T1s report the most relevant performance data and are more qualified to weigh in and give feedback so I am confused by the relevance here.

To protect the same people who would be most affected/punished by LRMs being over-buffed from being farmed by Bassault's Annihilator.

The tiers/matchmaker keep T5 and T4 (literal newblood pilots) out of games with experienced players.

Outside of that, they don't do much, truth be told, but it is an important function and the tier system + matchmaker mostly does a good job of protecting those players, which is a good thing!

If the game had a larger playerbase, either PSR would be uncapped + "finer" matchmaking would be possible or there would be more lower tiers, or there would be a Diamond/Master/Challenger equivalent for MWO instead of mixing so many disparate skill levels into Tier 1.

Edited by Shineplasma, 12 January 2024 - 09:49 AM.

[Bassault]

MechMaster059, on 12 January 2024 - 03:05 AM, said:

Bassault is stating that if a weapon "takes no skill to use", then it's acceptable for it to be INEFFECTIVE. I'm not misconstruing his words am I? I'm not exaggerating right?

No, I never said that. I said they shouldn't be as effective as the weapons that do take skill to use. Not useless. Not totally ineffective, but less effective. The Cauldron agrees with me on that, they said it in this thread, but they are making balance changes to make LRMs more consistent to use. You should be happy.

MechMaster059, on 12 January 2024 - 03:05 AM, said:

Makes post after post claiming LRMs are easy mode, then acknowledges that holding a lock on a light mech is "not really possible in most circumstances".
You just said in your previous sentence that holding a lock on a light mech was "not really possible in most circumstances". Which is it?

I'm sorry but these aren't mutually exclusive. The limitations of the weapon prevent it from being able to do some things, and these limitations are not really able to be avoided by the player. Many people would agree that using SRMs is relatively easy compared to other weapons. But SRMs can't fire past 310m. Does that mean SRMs are not easy to use and take immense amounts of skill to use? No, they're still easy to use. It's just that they have limitations as to what they do and how they do it.
LRMs are easy mode because your gameplay options are severely restricted and you don't have to aim. You don't need to position as much because your LRMs shoot over terrain and with great range. You don't need to aim because the LRM just does it for you. You don't need to think about anything besides "where am I" and "fire at locks". Other mech archetypes have to worry about so much more and constantly manage so much more while aiming difficult to use projectiles or keeping lasers steady.
Think about this. A heavy PPC has low velocity but it hits hard. If you land every shot with it, your effectiveness is great, but getting to a point that you can land every shot on the same component of your enemies takes a load of skill. Does that mean that heavy ppcs are easy to use because if I land every single shot with them in the head or CT I can win almost every game? No. There many things in many games outside of MWO that are really hard to pull off, but once you master it, you are far more effective than if you did easier to perform actions. That does not mean that those easier to perform actions all the sudden "take more skill." If I headshot everyone in the match does that mean that what I did was easier and took less skill than whatever you did before you died? Am I getting through to you?
Higher rewards for a weapon that's harder to use. It's the same principle with LRMs, make it a contrapositive. If a weapon is not harder to use, then it should not have higher rewards.

MechMaster059, on 12 January 2024 - 03:05 AM, said:

No way this guy has played an LRM mech any time recently. Holding the targeting reticle over a light mech maneuvering in the heat of combat below 300m is not easy at all. I'm not saying it's the hardest thing in the game, but it certainly isn't "trivial" as Bassault glibly claims it to be.

I haven't but my friend and teammate Chickenman919 did. He was laughing the entire time saying how braindead and easy it was to play while doing 800-1000 dmg per game.

MechMaster059, on 12 January 2024 - 03:05 AM, said:

Proclaims I don't understand how the game works even though I reached Tier 2, have used every weapon, and played/own every different role of mech for over a year.
Ignores the fact that 2 change....(blah blah blah)

I'm sorry to bring you the bad news, but tier 2 is not any particularly noteworthy or impressive, and it doesn't really indicate that you know how to play MWO particular well. There are people who have gotten on a new account and played pre-buff spiders exclusively and have gotten to tier 1 in less than 200 games. Also, using every weapon doesn't mean you have an understanding on how they work in a match and how to play them correctly, and this has to be the case for you because you keep saying that LRMs take skill to use.

MechMaster059, on 12 January 2024 - 03:05 AM, said:

Then asks me what makes me think I should be consulted for balancing the game. This kids arrogance is through the roof. It's OK Bassault, I know someone who's full of themselves can't help but be condescending.

You see, when you say things that make absolutely no sense, then I see your stats and I see that you don't know what you're doing when you play the game, it is clear to me that you do not have a sufficient understanding of the game and how to play it in order for me to take your balance suggestions seriously. You should go to the Cauldron Feedback discord server, and make your case there, I'm sure you'll learn something from it as well, and it's a lot faster than this back and forth in this antiquated forum.

MechMaster059, on 12 January 2024 - 03:05 AM, said:

You get to mindlessly drive around the track in your Stone Rhino AKSUM

I have 4 games in the Aksum.

MechMaster059, on 12 January 2024 - 03:05 AM, said:

I'm well past the "learning how to play" phase thank you. It's in the nature of the arrogant not to give proper credit where it's due and to look down upon the people around them.

No you aren't, you aren't good at the game yet and you're making ridiculous balance declarations that only someone who doesn't know how to play would make.

MechMaster059, on 12 January 2024 - 03:05 AM, said:

I've seen Bassault in game. Not just once or twice, but probably about a dozen times. He's always piloting a heavily armed dakka/sniper assault mech. I've never seen Bassault pilot a light mech. None of the statements he makes or attitudes he displays surprise me. He fits every negative stereotype you'd expect of an assault sniper that thinks their style of play takes the most skill.

Actually, I don't snipe in quickplay very often at all, I find it boring, it's way more interesting and skill intensive in competitive play. I mostly play Uac10 uac5 Annihilators, Gaussvomit Annihilators, and Gaussvomit dire wolves in quickplay. I used to be named "I LOVE ANNIHILATORS," it's just what I love to do. The Annihilator isn't exactly the sniping mech of choice...
I also have played lights and mediums before, I just don't find them as enjoyable. Here are some examples.






(event queue has skewed some of the mechs stats like time played but the point remains that I do fine with them)

MechMaster059, on 12 January 2024 - 03:05 AM, said:

Let me clearly state that the sniper role is THE EASIEST and LEAST SKILLED way to play the game. I know this for a fact because the mech I used to grind up to Tier 2 was a Night Gyr HAG20 Sniper.

Effectiveness =/= Least amount of skill required. Remember what I said earlier. A weapon can be easy to use, but limited in it's effectiveness.
But I will agree to an extent that sniping in NA time quickplay is incredibly easy and yields wins quite easily. Players in this timezone for some reason like to poke outside of their range and die to snipers. I don't know why. But try sniping in EU time, it's almost impossible, the NASCAR is ceaseless. This discrepancy in how strong snipers are depending on the time zone makes me reluctant to say if they are OP in quickplay or not.

MechMaster059, on 12 January 2024 - 03:05 AM, said:

The reason I lost so much rating is that I got tired of grinding with the Night Gyr and had wanted to play some other mechs... blah blah blah cope cope cope

Plenty of people experiment and play weird and dumb builds but they still do fine in quickplay.

MechMaster059, on 12 January 2024 - 03:05 AM, said:

I can unload a 64 damage alpha in 1 second through a key hole out to 550m with this build

I highly doubt that you have that capability, even if the mech is standing still.

MechMaster059, on 12 January 2024 - 03:05 AM, said:

Since you think you're more qualified to make balance suggestions Bassault, lets have a little design session here. What are your answers to the follow questions:
spam

I don't know what any of these number **** is and I don't have the answers to these, but I don't think many of them are particularly important, especially in this conversation. Furthermore, I am not afraid to admit that there are things I don't understand as well as others. One thing I do understand however, is that LRMs take no skill, and thus should be limited in their capacity to be effective.

edited for formatting.

Edited by Bassault, 12 January 2024 - 09:56 AM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Luminios, on 12 January 2024 - 09:18 AM, said:

The problem is not them expressing an opinion as a T3 player, but claiming to know better than everyone else while being factually wrong.

This is indeed a problem in terms of having a relevant discussion, however ...

Luminios, on 12 January 2024 - 09:18 AM, said:

The outcome would have been the same had they been T1.

... since this indeed represents the exact same problem, then why exactly do so many participants go with the argument ad hominem fallacy of rejecting all opinions of non-Tier 1 players based on the status of being non-Tier 1 and not on based on the actual merrits of what the opinion is based upon?

*****************************************************************

Shineplasma, on 12 January 2024 - 09:44 AM, said:

To protect the same people who would be most affected/punished by LRMs being over-buffed from being farmed by Bassault's Annihilator.

So the underlying truth is that even Bassault would go with the (alleged) "no skill weapons" if those somehow were overall on par with lasers and ballistics?

Luminios, on 12 January 2024 - 09:18 AM, said:

The tiers/matchmaker keep T5 and T4 (literal newblood pilots) out of games with experienced players.

I'm not quite sure if labelling T5 and T4 (or T3 for that matter) as "literal newblood pilots" is that "factual" and I'm also not quite certain if that is indeed the intended functionality of these Tiers or the matchmaker. The devli as always is in the details.

Luminios, on 12 January 2024 - 09:18 AM, said:

Outside of that, they don't do much, truth be told, but it is an important function and the tier system + matchmaker mostly does a good job of protecting those players, which is a good thing!

So let me ask you some questions - based on something that we both hopefully can agree upon.

This is the current distribution of average match points on Jarl's for retired and active players and is often referenced as a metric (if not "the metric") that expresses player skill levels.

The "interesting" part about this distribution - at least to me - is that it pretty much confirms the expected nature of a "normal distribution" for pretty much any human skillset and as with any such normal distribution we could a ) overlay a bell curve and b ) then also mark the percentiles from left to right.

So here are my questions to you (or anyone else willing to answer them):

1. How do you think do the PSR tiers of MW.O overlay with that bell curve and those derived percentiles and thus the skill levels of the players involved?

2. How do you think that the PSR tiers should overlay with that bell curve in order to allow the matchmaker to do its job?

3. What exactly does the level of gameplay skill (as represented by those averages and those derived percentiles) reflect the actual (intellectual) understanding of the game mechanics by an individual players of any percentile and thus their ability to provide sound opinions on how this game should or should not be balanced?

4. Is there really a sound expectation that a player who has plateaued his individual gameplay skill level that puts them somewhere in the 201 to 275 range would actually ever be able to rise to tier 1 (at least now that PSR is no longer more of an XP bar)?

5. With 3. and 4. in mind: How solid are "arguments" that you have to "git gud" a.k.a. reaching tier 1 before an opinion is truly considered? Because that's what at least some in here have argued

6. Also with 3. and 4. in mind: How solid are "arguments" that if a player truly had reached their individual maximum or the actual maximum of understanding of the game mechanics they would not be in any other tier but tier 1? Because that's also how at least some in here have argued.

(Repeated) "Bonus" question for the fun of it: Im still waiting for someone trying to guess my current tier based on my jarls's stats (ideally considering when the last reset happened and how I performed since then but even the lazy approach of just going by the "overall value") and then I'd also like to hear in which tier I'd be supposed to be in under ideal conditions.

Edited by Der Geisterbaer, 12 January 2024 - 11:21 AM.

[Bassault]

Der Geisterbaer, on 12 January 2024 - 11:09 AM, said:

So the underlying truth is that even Bassault would go with the (alleged) "no skill weapons" if those somehow were overall on par with lasers and ballistics?

No, if the weapon was boring or I didn't like it I wouldn't play it. I also don't see how that's relevant to what shineplasma said. He was saying that tier gates exist so I don't farm new players and the very low skilled players.

Der Geisterbaer, on 12 January 2024 - 11:09 AM, said:

I'm not quite sure if labelling T5 and T4 (or T3 for that matter) as "literal newblood pilots" is that "factual" and I'm also not quite certain if that is indeed the intended functionality of these Tiers or the matchmaker.

That's where they all are at least.

Der Geisterbaer, on 12 January 2024 - 11:09 AM, said:

1. How do you think do the PSR tiers of MW.O overlay with that bell curve and those derived percentiles and thus the skill levels of the players involved?

I would guess 276-401 is tier 1.

Der Geisterbaer, on 12 January 2024 - 11:09 AM, said:

2. How do you think that the PSR tiers should overlay with that bell curve in order to allow the matchmaker to do its job?

I think it's pointless to have this conversation since the matchmaker will never get fixed. But I think tier 1 should be 350 and above. Are there enough players in the game for that? No, so this question is pointless. Also matchscore is not the best indicator of performance. Lights usually get a bit less matchscore than other mechs do but that does not represent how effective they are when played correctly, so my 350 ms requirement for tier 1 is a bit arbitrary.

Der Geisterbaer, on 12 January 2024 - 11:09 AM, said:

3. What exactly does the level of gameplay skill (as represented by those averages and those derived percentiles) reflect the actual (intellectual) understanding of the game mechanics by an individual players of any percentile and thus their ability to provide sound opinions on how this game should or should not be balanced?

Sometimes it isn't just intellect that determines if you can be a good judge of game balance. It's ability as well, because it happens that a lot of balance is determinant on the ability of players. Is the velocity of a certain weapon making it too easy to use or too hard to use? If you suck too much at aiming, you may find yourself more often than not say it is too hard.

I also believe that the best players, even if their aim isn't that good, reach the top if they have the brains. This game is much more forgiving to someone who may not have twitch reflexes but is smart and can be in the right place at the right time because you take so long to die, and you usually have to retaliate when shot at instead of dying instantly like in other shooters. There are cauldron members who are not as good as the top players but are still very knowledgeable, and there are top players who are not that good at aiming but have incredible awareness and know-how. I believe all this is represented with good in-game performance.

Now this doesn't mean that I don't think someone who is not good at the game can say something reasonable that makes sense. If I did not make that clear earlier, I would like to make it clear now. However, the majority of the time, they do not make good balance suggestions because they simply don't understand enough because they haven't reached the level of understanding and seen what's *really* possible when you are good enough.

Der Geisterbaer, on 12 January 2024 - 11:09 AM, said:

4. Is there really a sound expectation that a player who has plateaued his individual gameplay skill level that puts them somewhere in the 201 to 275 range would actually ever be able to rise to tier 1 (at least now that PSR is no longer more of an XP bar)?

I suppose it depends on the person. I've personally taught some players to get better than they were before by giving them better builds and coaching them over a period of time. Some get better, some do not. That's also how I went from 270 avg scores to 450's now, someone picked me up and played with me and taught me everything.

Der Geisterbaer, on 12 January 2024 - 11:09 AM, said:

5. With 3. and 4. in mind: How solid are "arguments" that you have to "git gud" a.k.a. reaching tier 1 before an opinion is truly considered? Because that's what at least some in here have argued

Well if you can't git gud don't act like an expert, try to learn from those who are.

Der Geisterbaer, on 12 January 2024 - 11:09 AM, said:

(Repeated) "Bonus" question for the fun of it: Im still waiting for someone trying to guess my current tier based on my jarls's stats (ideally considering when the last reset happened and how I performed since then but even the lazy approach of just going by the "overall value") and then I'd also like to hear in which tier I'd be supposed to be in under ideal conditions.

Tier 3

[ScrapIron Prime]

the check engine light, on 12 January 2024 - 11:49 AM, said:

Newblood or can not reasonably be expected to be capable of challenging (x tier)?

Sure they can, but that means they'll rise in tier fairly quickly.

The population being discussed in the argument are the ones who have played for years and are not Tier 1. The contentious opinion is that these people do not know enough about a game they've played for years to have their feedback accepted.

Gaming is held to a unique standard that way, its all about current ability. For example, I used to scope-solder for years. My hands can't do that anymore. To apply the same logic to that scenario, because my hands shake now I would not be qualified to give advice to someone who is asking about soldering techniques.

Not that I've ever been a rock star at this game. But I love it, and I don't care that people call me ignorant.

[Shineplasma]

Its worth noting that pure match score (jarls % is adjusted avg MS) and psr gain/tier often don't line up cleanly.

It is easier to earn psr on a win than a loss, and there are also ways to farm match score without increasing your winrate.

For example: Our friend MechMaster has a significantly higher Jarls % (72% vs 61%) than my father's account, despite being in a lower tier. Dad is Tier 1 (bar half-full) and mostly solo queues, but despite farming less match score on average, he has a higher winrate than MechMaster and thus gains more PSR per match score earned.

Dad also has a much better grasp on the mechanics of this game and how the weapon systems interact than most, and often gives good comms to his team which result in game-winning plays, which is something that is hard to quantify in a database and really only shows in winrate.

Not knowing the pilot personally can make it hard to gauge the tier of an individual account in the way you are requesting, using raw jarls % alone.

If your account was in T3 it wouldn't surprise me, nor would it surprise me if it was in T1.

[Shineplasma]

As for this:.

---
Shineplasma, on 12 January 2024 - 08:44 AM, said:

To protect the same people who would be most affected/punished by LRMs being over-buffed from being farmed by Bassault's Annihilator.


So the underlying truth is that even Bassault would go with the (alleged) "no skill weapons" if those somehow were overall on par with lasers and ballistics?

---

That's not the point that was being made.

I was trying to state that if lrms were overbuffed again, lower and mid-tier skill players who chose to abuse LRMs would be able to farm helpless new and bottom-tier players much the same way that Bassault or a similar calibre player would be able to do if the matchmaking system regularly matched T1 against T5s.

Like foxes in a henhouse, and it has happened before! The prior LRMageddons were the primary reason for large exoduses of the wider playerbase in the pre-cauldron era of MWO. I was there, it was terrible and I myself was one of the players who quit the game entirely for a few years there.

Knowing Bassault, he would likely rather do almost anything else rather than play LRMs (even if they were OP/solo queue meta) since he finds them extraordinarily boring to play. As do most high tier, comp and 90+% players, in my experience.

Edited by Shineplasma, 12 January 2024 - 12:26 PM.

[Besh]

Curccu, on 12 January 2024 - 12:33 AM, said:

Who is this player base?

I can tell you, the 90-99 percentiles are at max 10% of it ( the Playerbase ).

Edited by Besh, 12 January 2024 - 12:34 PM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Bassault, on 12 January 2024 - 11:44 AM, said:

No, if the weapon was boring or I didn't like it I wouldn't play it. I also don't see how that's relevant to what shineplasma said. He was saying that tier gates exist so I don't farm new players and the very low skilled players.

Interesting ... so if "low skilled" players were to show up in your game due to playing "low skill" but "effective" LRM you'd still expect to be able to "farm" them?

Bassault, on 12 January 2024 - 11:44 AM, said:

That's where they all are at least.

And who else is there?

Bassault, on 12 January 2024 - 11:44 AM, said:

I would guess 276-401 is tier 1.

So you think tier 1 is about a third in witdh of the entire percentile spectrum. Very interesting.

Bassault, on 12 January 2024 - 11:44 AM, said:

I think it's pointless to have this conversation since the matchmaker will never get fixed.

The question wasn't necessarily about fixing matchmaker but okay.

Bassault, on 12 January 2024 - 11:44 AM, said:

But I think tier 1 should be 350 and above. Are there enough players in the game for that? No, so this question is pointless.

It's pointless to you (as expected )

Bassault, on 12 January 2024 - 11:44 AM, said:

Also matchscore is not the best indicator of performance.

So which metric actually represents "player skill"?

Bassault, on 12 January 2024 - 11:44 AM, said:

Lights usually get a bit less matchscore than other mechs do but that does not represent how effective they are when played correctly, so my 350 ms requirement for tier 1 is a bit arbitrary.

Now that's a rather surprising level of self-reflection on your end.

Bassault, on 12 January 2024 - 11:44 AM, said:

Sometimes it isn't just intellect that determines if you can be a good judge of game balance. It's ability as well, because it happens that a lot of balance is determinant on the ability of players.

So you still insist that a player must be "able" (=distinctively above average in terms of gameplay skill / achievements) in order to be able to make judgment on balance (which should typically be done based on metrics and not individual feelings)

Bassault, on 12 January 2024 - 11:44 AM, said:

Is the velocity of a certain weapon making it too easy to use or too hard to use? If you suck too much at aiming, you may find yourself more often than not say it is too hard.

And your personal feeling concerning velocity is "better" (and thus better "balanced") because you have better aim and as such have zero insight on how it feels for someone of mere "average" skill (who actually make up about 66% within whatever normal distribution your looking at) ?!

Bassault, on 12 January 2024 - 11:44 AM, said:

Now this doesn't mean that I don't think someone who is not good at the game can say something reasonable that makes sense. If I did not make that clear earlier, I would like to make it clear now. However, the majority of the time, they do not make good balance suggestions because they simply don't understand enough because they haven't reached the level of understanding and seen what's *really* possible when you are good enough.

You already poisned the well there by making sweeping claims about the inability of players below your previsously not even quantified threshold of "goodness at play". You made it worse with explicit insults. So you'll have to forgive me when I'm taking this statement with heavy loads of salt

Bassault, on 12 January 2024 - 11:44 AM, said:

I suppose it depends on the person. I've personally taught some players to get better than they were before by giving them better builds and coaching them over a period of time. Some get better, some do not. That's also how I went from 270 avg scores to 450's now, someone picked me up and played with me and taught me everything.

It indeed "depends on the person" and the reality of things still is: The normal distribution of skills within human populations simply doesn't allow for more than about 17% to be truly "above average".

Bassault, on 12 January 2024 - 11:44 AM, said:

Well if you can't git gud don't act like an expert, try to learn from those who are.

And another reminder: about 83% of any typical population will never be able to reach the levels that you demand before considering their opinions. They can "try to learn" from guys like you as much as they want the result will still be the same: They suck at the game itself despite having exposed to your "wisdom" about the actual mechanics and balance.

Bassault, on 12 January 2024 - 11:44 AM, said:

Tier 3

No ... btw, is that T3 for both where I'm now and where I'm supposed to be?

Edited by Der Geisterbaer, 12 January 2024 - 12:39 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Shineplasma, on 12 January 2024 - 12:09 PM, said:

Its worth noting that pure match score (jarls % is adjusted avg MS) and psr gain/tier often don't line up cleanly.

It is easier to earn psr on a win than a loss, and there are also ways to farm match score without increasing your winrate.

For example: Our friend MechMaster has a significantly higher Jarls % (72% vs 61%) than my father's account, despite being in a lower tier. Dad is Tier 1 (bar half-full) and mostly solo queues, but despite farming less match score on average, he has a higher winrate than MechMaster and thus gains more PSR per match score earned.

Dad also has a much better grasp on the mechanics of this game and how the weapon systems interact than most, and often gives good comms to his team which result in game-winning plays, which is something that is hard to quantify in a database and really only shows in winrate.

Honestly, this just makes me wish we had ELO back and ditched PSR as a whole. Trying to gauge how you got to a result rather than the result itself just seems backwards. Better players are just going to win more, and this was true even way back when we had ELO (pretty sure Proton and TFun had the highest ELOs leading up to MLMW). Soup queue being the soup queue does complicate that no different than it complicates premier mode ELO in Counterstrike 2 but meh, we already have that problem with PSR/match score and it's not like we have the population to split it out anyway.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Shineplasma, on 12 January 2024 - 12:09 PM, said:

Its worth noting that pure match score (jarls % is adjusted avg MS) and psr gain/tier often don't line up cleanly.

Which makes demands for certain Tiers in order to be recognized even worse (as well as the also derived percentiles).

Quote

Not knowing the pilot personally can make it hard to gauge the tier of an individual account in the way you are requesting, using raw jarls % alone.

That brings us back to why Jarl's stats are so often used to dismiss other players

Bassault, on 12 January 2024 - 11:44 AM, said:

If your account was in T3 it wouldn't surprise me, nor would it surprise me if it was in T1.

I'll not "ruin" the "surprise" not just yet

[Luminios]

Der Geisterbaer, on 12 January 2024 - 11:09 AM, said:

5. With 3. and 4. in mind: How solid are "arguments" that you have to "git gud" a.k.a. reaching tier 1 before an opinion is truly considered? Because that's what at least some in here have argued

I know you have already specified that only some people have argued that point. Anyway, I want to make the case, that even MechMaster059 made a point that almost everyone would agree with - proving that you can make some balance judgments that are respectable, even without having the skills to get into T1: ammo adjustments for ballistics. He stated that he raised that point previously and it got recently adjusted.

That being said, I personally believe that MWO is a game where you really need to at least be in touch with the very highest levels of play to be able to form profound opinions on the balance of the game. Even the cauldron occasionally misses the mark, but I trust their experience and their process to improve upon the game step by step while allowing new content to be added.

[Shineplasma]

---

Interesting ... so if "low skilled" players were to show up in your game due to playing "low skill" but "effective" LRM you'd still expect to be able to "farm" them?

---

Contrary to some of the ridiculous statements in this thread, high tier players would have the easiest time adjusting to LRMs being strong/meta. Many would simply switch to playing true snipers or poptart mechs which can abuse cover effectively.

Some folks earlier said that the cauldron/all us toxic compies have been "keeping LRMs down because they counter their pet sniper meta".

Which is hilarious, because snipers actually dunk on LRM boats in most instances purely due to the fact that they can deal concentrated damage while playing outside the max range of missiles.

I can stand 1100-1400m out and core lrm boats out without ever being threatened by a missile.

Light mechs and poptarts are the true counters to sniper mechs, but most low tier players lack the game sense or mechanics to properly utilize them.

Edited by Shineplasma, 12 January 2024 - 01:30 PM.

[Shineplasma]

Der Geisterbaer, on 12 January 2024 - 12:38 PM, said:

That brings us back to why Jarl's stats are so often used to dismiss other players

I'll not "ruin" the "surprise" not just yet

You say that like its some kind of "gotcha" moment.

I'm gonna share with you folks a concept from the comp community:

"A 99% Jarls may not tell me if you're a good pilot or not, but there are *no* good pilots with a low Jarls."

One of the best players to ever grace this game shared that with me when I was first getting into comp. He's 100% correct.

Sincerely,

- The voice of the sobbing muhjarls death-horn (me)

Edited by Shineplasma, 12 January 2024 - 12:58 PM.