Mastery Points should NOT be affected by just a win or loss.

Windoges·Jan 7, 2017·7 votes·796 views

I think it's stupid that the amount of mastery points you get are determined whether you lost or you won.

What if that one person who plays terribly but still wins the game? Their KDA is bad, CS is bad, and they didn't do anything but get carried by their four other teammates.

Or, when you try so hard but the other four people on your team play really badly (hopefully not toxic) and you end up losing. Is it fair to get only 200 points for losing a game that you really tried on?

7 Comments

Dark NephthysJan 7, 20173 votes

Here's my suggestion on it: Make a base amount of points that increases based on how long the game goes. Let's say the Base is 200-300 points (200 Points if the game was 20 mins - 29 Mins (or under 20 mins). 250 Points if the game was 30 Mins - 39 Mins. And 300 Points if the game was 40 Mins +). Then have that base X the rating you got. Using the ratings like.. S = 4 A = 3 B = 2 C = 1

So if you played fairly well (A) and the game was 30 mins long, you'd get 750 Points. If you played very well and got an S for a 30 min game, you'd get 1k points. The highest points you could get would then be 1200 (for 40+ min game with an S) and the lowest would be 200 Points. That way you would get these points no matter if you won or lost the game. That also makes it so if you wanted to get to rank 5 quickly, you had to do well and not just be on the winning side for 21 games.

WindogesJan 7, 20171 votes

Completely agree with this. Although I think the numbers need to be adjusted a little, this is great for a baseline of the multipliers based on your rating.

You're also missing the rating of D c: (yes I've seen people get a D in game)

Dark NephthysJan 7, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Completely agree with this. Although I think the numbers need to be adjusted a little, this is great for a baseline of the multipliers based on your rating.

You're also missing the rating of D c: (yes I've seen people get a D in game)

Ah I didn't know you could get a D for scores, the lowest I rem ever getting was C-. I guess D could also be another 1, Idk if raising up all the other ratings by 1 would be a good idea since S would be 5 and getting 1500 points in 1 game might be a bit much (Though that would mean they got an S on a 40+ min game so 1500 points might be justified.)

I also didn't include - or + in the ratings, probably would be easier to just treat ratings like S-, S and S+ all the same for point wise.

WindogesJan 7, 20171 votes

I think it's justified that if get an S, it means you truly succeeded in winning the game.

For the plus and minus ratings, it'd be .5 or something like that. For instance...

S+ = 5.5 S = 5 S- = 4.5 A+ = 4 A = 3.5 A- = 3 and so on until D(-).

I'm not sure if 3.5 and 3 is right for getting an A/A-, though.

Truly PridefulJan 7, 20172 votes

I love when the game gives me an S in a loss and 'awards' me with a great 150 points. Then I can win a game with a C+ and get 1,000+. Makes a ton of sense.