59 replies to this topic

[martian]

Mkv122, on 03 November 2025 - 12:48 PM, said:

Yeah.
Different modes are meant for variety.
As for damage, this crappy system fails there too.
On Light second place by score, third place by damage in team, 628 damage on Light we lose and only =
screen https://imgur.com/a/IDFGGVg

As a rule of thumb, usually only the best two players of the defeated team get the PSR rise. Being the third best player of the defeated team is often not enough.

Mkv122, on 03 November 2025 - 12:48 PM, said:

I don’t care about your opinion, lmao.

Do not blame me for your sub-optimal in-game decisions. You decided not to engage in MS/PSR boosting actions and yet you keep complaining that did not get MS/PSR boost.

[Mkv122]

martian, on 03 November 2025 - 01:13 PM, said:

As a rule of thumb, usually only the best two players of the defeated team get the PSR rise. Being the third best player of the defeated team is often not enough.

Do not blame me for your sub-optimal in-game decisions. You decided not to engage in MS/PSR boosting actions and yet you keep complaining that did not get MS/PSR boost.

Nope — it’s almost always enough to deal 300 damage for Lights and 450 for others to get green even in a loss.


So you just confirmed it yourself — the rating has nothing to do with actually achieving a win. It’s only about farming rating points.

When the rating system was first introduced, it was different — much fairer and more reasonable.

Edited by Mkv122, 03 November 2025 - 01:37 PM.

[martian]

Mkv122, on 03 November 2025 - 01:31 PM, said:

Nope — it’s almost always enough to deal 300 damage for Lights and 450 for others to get green even in a loss.

No, you are wrong because the MS does not depend on your 'Mech's weight class.

Also, as I said before, there are many other things that you can do in the game and those things can boost your MS/PSR, even though your damage is not especially high. The damage is only a part of your MS.

If you refuse to engage in such actions, do not complain that you have been rated worse than other players who are more active in the game.

Mkv122, on 03 November 2025 - 01:31 PM, said:

So you just confirmed it yourself — the rating has nothing to do with actually achieving a win. It’s only about farming rating points.

No, you are wrong again.

Being on the victorious side gives a player a bonus. But that bonus is usually insufficient to balance bad gameplay - so the worst 2-3 players (who have low damage and no other actions to boost their MS) of the winning team get red arrow.

Your desire, that you can run to the enemy base, cap it and get high MS/PSR rise, is not going to be fulfilled.

Mkv122, on 03 November 2025 - 01:31 PM, said:

When the rating system was first introduced, it was different — much fairer and more reasonable.

No, you are wrong again.

The old PSR system was deeply flawed, since it was based on the wrong premise. It was skewed toward the upwards movement and many low-skilled players eventually moved to Tier 1 or Tier 2 because of the high number games they played.

Therefore, the old system failed in its basic function of separating low-skilled and high-skilled players.

After the PSR change and Tier system reset, some such players ended up in Tier 4 and Tier 5.

Edited by martian, 03 November 2025 - 02:08 PM.

[Ilfi]

To be blunt, the stats you posted in the original post are piss poor and deserving of nothing more than what was already received. 136 damage is equivalent to at most two pulls of the trigger for most Mechs. The PSR is preforming to spec. Gingerly smearing your guns upon a single target and dying immediately after will not suffice, no matter how determined you are to stand in the blinking red square.

To win, you need to kill your opponents. Yes, even in Conquest. Less opponents, less threats, less to worry about. Objectives like Assault and Domination are, as far as the soup queue is concerned, nothing more than a distraction to force your opponent to react. Does matchmaking reward raw damage a little too much compared to KBs and KMDD? Sure. But that doesn't change the fact that it's measuring the most important indicators that distinguish the good players from the bad: the ability to kill the enemy team.

Sometimes I wonder why players are so obsessed about something so objectively worthless as PSR in a game as obscure and decroded as MechWarrior.

[BlueDevilspawn]

Objectives exist in first person pvp shooters (MWO and beyond) to force dynamic movement and engagement. Not to "haha win" without shooting. In any game... Marvel Rivals, BF6, Arc Raiders, etc. they force dynamism so players aren't camped out in the same spots over and over.

That said, the game modes in MWO are not dynamic enough for this to work and so every mode aside from Conquest devolves into Skirmish. There's a reason that only Conquest is used in comp.

A real Assault mode like from other games would have base defenses and respawns (another topic entirely) and a real Domination mode has a circle that changes size and shifts location. None of this is possible (technically or resource-wise with MWO. Therefore, performance in matches is incentivized towards shooting enemies and dealing damage (also the reason why mechs are balance with combat viability as the goal and not objective play utility). Fwiw, damage is not the biggest matchscore boost, it's KMDD and solo kills (kills you do but also do the most damage in). Kills by themselves (kill stealing) is not scored the highest, nor is damage itself. Damage only appears to be the highest because there's so much HP on the field.

So, if you really want the green arrow? Early and mid game strategy is to shoot often/in optimal/effectively. Remove damage dealing potential from the field.

That is as technical and objective an answer as I can give you, and no, giving ms for standing in a box isn't going to change because of the aforementioned heaps of issues i outlined above.

Edited by BlueDevilspawn, 03 November 2025 - 02:23 PM.

[Mkv122]

Ilfi, on 03 November 2025 - 02:12 PM, said:

no matter how determined you are to stand in the blinking red square.

Your opinion doesn’t change the fact that the game’s objective is to capture the base. If directly completing the objective isn’t rewarded, that’s a bad system. That's all. I don’t care about your excuses.

martian, on 03 November 2025 - 02:07 PM, said:

No, you are wrong again.

Only your(and over "pros-player") opinion:D
Ann even in this thread I see who hated this system too

Rating from wins is also nonsense — a player only influences the outcome about 1/12. In soccer, for example, players are primarily evaluated based on actions that lead to victory.
And yes, of course — “capturing 80% of the base” is like scoring at least one goal in a match where your team wins by two or more. Would anyone call a player like that as having played poorly? Of course not — they’re not idiots.

EVEN winrate and kdrate BETTER say about your skill than this system. Not good, but better on long distance and on good(not trash) chasis.

Edited by Mkv122, 03 November 2025 - 02:32 PM.

[pbiggz]

you've been at this for hours. stamping your feet and having a meltdown is not going to do or change anything but it will make people stop listening to you. move on.

[Mkv122]

pbiggz, on 03 November 2025 - 02:32 PM, said:

you've been at this for hours. stamping your feet and having a meltdown is not going to do or change anything but it will make people stop listening to you. move on.

No, you’ve been trying for several hours to justify this system just because you don’t like wins through base capture.







Dude, I don’t care — I’ve already figured it out for myself, and that’s it.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Mkv122, on 03 November 2025 - 02:26 PM, said:

Your opinion doesn’t change the fact that the game’s objective is to capture the base. If directly completing the objective isn’t rewarded, that’s a bad system.

BlueDevilspawn, on 03 November 2025 - 02:19 PM, said:

Objectives exist in first person pvp shooters (MWO and beyond) to force dynamic movement and engagement. Not to "haha win" without shooting. In any game... Marvel Rivals, BF6, Arc Raiders, etc. they force dynamism so players aren't camped out in the same spots over and over.

Objectives are to force engagements like Blue mentioned. For those of us that remember playing MW4 "competitively" in a TDM manner, anti-camping rules were both hard to prove and essential to not have to play find the enemy for 30-60 minutes. However as we've seen in earlier days of MWO, cap wins where barely anyone shot or playing a game of "chase the enemy" on large conquest maps (old Polar comes to mind) like it was an even worse game of "chase the light" in skirmish all suck to play. Ultimately the CORE gameplay loop is mech on mech combat, and objectives are there to incentivize that, not disincentivize.

Good no respawn game modes do exactly that, they shouldn't make it easy to just objective win without engagement or incentivizes camping a specific spot (assault/incursion are bad about this in the they actually incentivizes playing close to your base). PTFO is more valuable for respawn game modes, after all you can't just kill them outright and win because they will respawn (thinking like Battlefield conquest/escalation).

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 03 November 2025 - 03:08 PM.

[Dogmeat1]

Moadebe, on 03 November 2025 - 12:12 PM, said:

Always hated this take. Purely because not even the majority. More 50/50 really.

We are here to play a MechWarrior game in a quasi simulated lance and battle that should have objectives to the mission parameters. Shooting is a means to an end. Sitting around just farming damage and just going to the strong grid is not necessarily an idea of fun either.

Play the objective. Put pressure on the enemy team. Force them outta position by giving urgency. Change up the pace of the match. Yeah sure dealing damage and killing the enemy is one of the biggest draws, but there are other things too that are simply overlooked for the sake of "deal damage only."

MWO is an online PvP game and the objective of every mode is to win. If a player is truly "playing the objective" then they will be taking actions that will contribute positively to their teams chances of winning. The team that wins most trades will also be the team that will generally control a greater percentage of the map and the team with more mechs standing will also cap objectives faster too. MWO is not an exception and this was the same in all previous online versions of mechwarrior and even the tabletop game.

Damage and kills, especially done early in a match, are by far the biggest influences on which team will win. High average damage and kill rates correlate strongly with high winrates whether it is QP, FW, or competitive play. On the other hand players who only focus on things like capping, scouting, and "support" other things almost always have below average winrates. These can be situationally useful but if a player is consistently not helping their team with damage output and map control then in most games they will actually be hindering their teams chances of winning. There is no easy way for a simple algorithm to determine if these actions are beneficial or a hinderance and rewarding negative actions in PSR would only result in increased numbers of mismatches.

Quote

Ive often wondered how bad "good" players would be if we had randomly generated maps and fog of war on the map/minimap, and had to rely on people actually scouting out the enemy, terrain, and objectives.

it would make no difference. Just like when stock mode was tried in the 2018 MWOWC, the exact same players dominated just with less mech variety. That's because the higher ranked players tend to have better mechanical game skills, better map & weapon knowledge, and a greater ability and willingness to learn & adapt.

[Dogmeat1]

Mkv122, on 03 November 2025 - 02:40 PM, said:

No, you’ve been trying for several hours to justify this system just because you don’t like wins through base capture.

Dude, I don’t care — I’ve already figured it out for myself, and that’s it.

PSR gains/losses are based on whether your team wins or loses and your matchscore which in turn is determined by positive actions that increase your team's chances of winning most of the time. It's purely a tool for matchmaking and is not there to make player's feel better. The problem is that if you only focus on capping then more often than not you are putting your own team at a disadvantage. Sitting passively in a circle doing nothing else is not a demonstration of skill and will hinder your teams most of the time. Shooting and controlling the map so that your team can cap or stop caps is skillful play and will result in higher winrates. If actions that correlate strongly with lower winrates were rewarded with PSR gains then they would result in even more lopsided matches as that player gets matched more frequently with higher skilled opponents.

Look at your winrates this year and be honest with yourself; are your actions helping your teams? If you win consistently then your PSR will go up. If you are frustrated and want to win more often then you need take a step back, assess what is not working, then focus on what you can do to improve.

[BlueDevilspawn]

Yeah, let me support a point that was being made.

A change in objective focus will not magically make a Tier 5 player into a Tier 1 player, You won't be magically given something you're "owed" (which you're not). The very best players are already the aggressive, mechanically skilled ones. The funny thing about objectives, even the best players (in this case compies) have it down to a science when to de-cap vs. take a cap, when to fight vs go for caps, how to quickly reposition to take multiple points on a map.

In EVERY PvP single shooter game, not just MWO and MWO is no exception to this rule, objectives force movement for more dynamic SHOOTING gameplay. Games that win by objective typically have a respawn mechanism that results in seesaw battles (best exemplified in drop deck 2000 ticket Conquest Event Queues in MWO) where the primary playstyle is still to KILL other people, even if the timer that dictates the match may end on some sort of objective.

Dogmeat1, on 03 November 2025 - 04:55 PM, said:

PSR gains/losses are based on whether your team wins or loses and your matchscore which in turn is determined by positive actions that increase your team's chances of winning most of the time. It's purely a tool for matchmaking and is not there to make player's feel better. The problem is that if you only focus on capping then more often than not you are putting your own team at a disadvantage. Sitting passively in a circle doing nothing else is not a demonstration of skill and will hinder your teams most of the time. Shooting and controlling the map so that your team can cap or stop caps is skillful play and will result in higher winrates. If actions that correlate strongly with lower winrates were rewarded with PSR gains then they would result in even more lopsided matches as that player gets matched more frequently with higher skilled opponents.

Look at your winrates this year and be honest with yourself; are your actions helping your teams? If you win consistently then your PSR will go up. If you are frustrated and want to win more often then you need take a step back, assess what is not working, then focus on what you can do to improve.

FWIW it is entirely possible for you to go up in PSR even if your team melts. Winning contributes some matchscore but not a huge amount, just enough to probably put you over the performance of over half the lobby. Conversely, it is also possible to win and go down in PSR as shown by OP.

[Dogmeat1]

BlueDevilspawn, on 03 November 2025 - 05:02 PM, said:

FWIW it is entirely possible for you to go up in PSR even if your team melts. Winning contributes some matchscore but not a huge amount, just enough to probably put you over the performance of over half the lobby. Conversely, it is also possible to win and go down in PSR as shown by OP.

Winning is +25 matchscore compared to losing but the point is that the PSR formula itself takes into account whether a player is on the winning or losing side. Players on the winning side are far more likely to get PSR gains overall.

Edited by Dogmeat1, 03 November 2025 - 05:11 PM.

[Saved By The Bell]

Tiers its kind of University degree, which is not the same, like 300 years before. So no need to think about it.

[Mkv122]

These statistics show that there’s no correlation between average damage and wins or K/D — even within the same class.
For example, compare the Stone Rhino and the Bane or Dire Wolf.

https://docs.google....#gid=1582927142

[MrMadguy]

Objectives are not primary goals. They're just points of interest, so players wouldn't be able to hide around whole map and would need to fight for something. Game's goal - is to kill enemy players. Playing shooter and not shooting? Nice idea. These "I want to play capture flag" guys are ridiculous.

[pbiggz]

Mkv122, on 03 November 2025 - 10:34 PM, said:

These statistics show that there’s no correlation between average damage and wins or K/D — even within the same class.
For example, compare the Stone Rhino and the Bane or Dire Wolf.

https://docs.google....#gid=1582927142

what point are you trying to make with this? you aren't owed wins just because you think you play the game right and everyone else plays it wrong.

[Dogmeat1]

Mkv122, on 03 November 2025 - 10:34 PM, said:

These statistics show that there’s no correlation between average damage and wins or K/D — even within the same class.
For example, compare the Stone Rhino and the Bane or Dire Wolf.

https://docs.google....#gid=1582927142

First of all those are comp queue stats which means that particular WLR stat is a reflection of team performance in 8v8 groups. Secondly even those stats when ordered by WLR show a clear pattern that damage and kills are key to winning. The exception being the 20 ton mechs which are being used in very specific ways that only occur in comp play.

The teams that win the most in comp also have the highest average damage and kills but within the distribution for each team, the designated traders will tend to get most of that damage despite all members of that group ending up with the same WLR. Therefore players that are designated to cap control, typically the 20 ton mechs, will have high WLRs but low average damage but this is purely a comp thing and does not reflect the mechs performance in QP, FW, or EQ. If we use the quarterly QP mech usage stats released by PGI we can see that the high WLR lights in comp all have relatively high average damage and kills within the light class when used in QP matches. That's why they were picked by comp teams and damage output is still essential, they just don't get as many chances to shoot in organized 8v8 comp matches compared to regular QP games.

[pattonesque]

Mkv122, on 03 November 2025 - 01:05 PM, said:

No, that’s not right. The rating system in MWO is really bad — extremely skewed and unfair. It rewards mindless damage farming without considering the objective, and it doesn’t reward completing objectives at all.
I’m not interested in the game’s “protection” from its own “players” who have never seen games with proper, thoughtful, and fair systems.
I just wanted to draw attention. Although it’s clear the game is on the brink of death, and no one cared before.
Pointless arguments with the “game dads” don’t interest me.

Standing in a square is not a reflection of your personal skill. All it requires is

a. the decision to stand in the square
b. the ability to take a route to the square
c. having the "accelerate" key bound

That's it. A child could do this. PSR is a reflection of how good you are at the parts of the game that decide the majority of matches -- your ability to stay alive, do damage, and secure kills.

If you consistently received positive PSR for standing in a square and not really firing at the enemy, you would quickly find yourself in tiers where people have object permanence and won't simply let you stand in the square for four minutes. Right now your W/LR is 1.06 -- about close to even. If PSR looked upon your standing in a square favorably, that would dramatically decrease, and you'd be on here complaining about something else.

Additionally I might consider whether you might get more enjoyment out of the game in which giant robots fire huge weapons at other giant robots if you left clicked on the enemy once in a while instead of sprinting to the square, standing in it, and imagining yourself Napoleon.

[BlueDevilspawn]

Also, WLR is VERY skewed by groups (KDR as well but less so). Where you rank in PSR/Tier is still most indicative of how effective you are as a fighter.