1
ambosen, on 23 March 2024 - 11:48 PM, said:
How many times am I going to have to explain basic math to some of you again?
Averaging is a function of sample sizing. That's how PSR works. They've never pretended otherwise. What this means is that functionally your PSR score is controlled by a combination of how many matches you've played, the few remaining variables they track to determine score, and then derived from an averaging of the two.
What this means is a player with a single game where inexplicably the entire enemy team, or even just a significant percentage of both teams doesn't actually do much can quite easily end up with a high or low match score, and in effect PSR rating in comparison to a user with many more games under their belt, who is going to have a much harder time adjusting their rating. This is one of the reasons why you see a lot of the streamers who genuinely care about this game creating new user names, with stock mechs, and trying to show how quickly or or slowly it can take to change tier status; as far as the direct mechanic utilized applies, newer users are at a marked advantage for obtaining seemingly high PSR ratings. Longer term users are at a marked disadvantage.
Unless there's some sort of magic arbitrary cut off point to when PSR becomes completely fossilized (meaning no data is adjusted by subsequent games) that's set in the first game, whiich many user accounts to this game never get past more then one game played), then as a simple mathematical function, players with more games played literally have a mathematical certaintity of watching their PSR rating decrease after a certain point. Especially when the devs start removing variables that were once considered from the equation, which by the way, they've been pretty open with us have been multiple times.
"Refreshing" by resetting scores every so often actually only makes this issue worse, since now you're just creating even more players at the shallow end of the sampling pool.
But I mean sure, PSR is always a reliable metric of a player's skill, even though the mathematics it's based on have been fundamentally modified several times, and shows a clear statistical bias favoring newer players towards the high end of the chart. Just because people who either don't understand or care how statistics are actually mathematically derived say so. And despite the questionable utility of some tracked metrics or sometimes straight up inability of some quite useful metrics to even *be* accurately tracked to begin with.
Averaging is a function of sample sizing. That's how PSR works. They've never pretended otherwise. What this means is that functionally your PSR score is controlled by a combination of how many matches you've played, the few remaining variables they track to determine score, and then derived from an averaging of the two.
What this means is a player with a single game where inexplicably the entire enemy team, or even just a significant percentage of both teams doesn't actually do much can quite easily end up with a high or low match score, and in effect PSR rating in comparison to a user with many more games under their belt, who is going to have a much harder time adjusting their rating. This is one of the reasons why you see a lot of the streamers who genuinely care about this game creating new user names, with stock mechs, and trying to show how quickly or or slowly it can take to change tier status; as far as the direct mechanic utilized applies, newer users are at a marked advantage for obtaining seemingly high PSR ratings. Longer term users are at a marked disadvantage.
Unless there's some sort of magic arbitrary cut off point to when PSR becomes completely fossilized (meaning no data is adjusted by subsequent games) that's set in the first game, whiich many user accounts to this game never get past more then one game played), then as a simple mathematical function, players with more games played literally have a mathematical certaintity of watching their PSR rating decrease after a certain point. Especially when the devs start removing variables that were once considered from the equation, which by the way, they've been pretty open with us have been multiple times.
"Refreshing" by resetting scores every so often actually only makes this issue worse, since now you're just creating even more players at the shallow end of the sampling pool.
But I mean sure, PSR is always a reliable metric of a player's skill, even though the mathematics it's based on have been fundamentally modified several times, and shows a clear statistical bias favoring newer players towards the high end of the chart. Just because people who either don't understand or care how statistics are actually mathematically derived say so. And despite the questionable utility of some tracked metrics or sometimes straight up inability of some quite useful metrics to even *be* accurately tracked to begin with.
Go on, explain your basic math to us.
It would be really interesting to see your mathematics demonstrating the clear statistical bias that proves how players with more games played literally have a mathematical certaintity of watching their PSR rating decrease after a certain point.
What is the simple truth behind the universe and everything?
Post your verifiable numbers, formulae or your tables!
P.S: Do not forget to post your sources.
Edited by martian, 24 March 2024 - 02:04 AM.
