Okay, I'll start it. (new scoring system)

Thanks for the thoughtful response, OK so about the idea that 'the squad power should b the average power of the squad' I know it seems at first that is intuitive but check it out- strongest squad member is a better reflection of squad power than overall average just like strongest robot in your lineup is better reflection of your power than overall average of your robots, the reason being that not all matches necessarily last the full 10 min- therefore most often it's the strongest bots that ever get a chance to make a difference in a match. In squads, i think the reason it has to count the strongest player more than the average has to do w the fact that ratings aren't entirely about skill, they are about weapon levels. Can I assume your squad is not entirely 12/12? Then even if u have a terrible player, you'll still get bumped to harder matches if they have 12/12 gear.
It also has to weigh strongest player more bc of another reason I'll try to explain: imagine it was your way, squad strength based on average. U go into a match w 5 6/6 members and 1 12/12 member. The other squad therefore imagine if it was 6 members of all equal strength, whatever the average of your squad strength is(presumably it would come out to they would all b slightly stronger than 6/6). Then: u can take the 12/12 guy on a spawn raid mission and knock out a whole red's worth of mechs and start playing 6 on 5 pretty quickly.
Make sense? Did I get something wrong?

Regarding the thing about how u say by my logic beacons shouldn't matter at all- that's not what I'm saying, I'm just saying that leaders in damage for losing matches maybe should have gotten those +points regardless of having lost, bc damage may very well b a MORE important factor than beacons. But it's not the only factor.
I wish they did rank teams at the end based on combination of beacon and damage. Here's what I think the issue is, and y I totally forgive pix for having it this way: by making beacons a gold issue and entirely unrelated to silver (altho they do give a measly 3k ag for a beacon cap I believe?) They create two separate markets of production that forces players to prioritize one or the other, creating the need for greater diversity of behavior therefore creating more purchases. And in the end they want u to chase gold like a demon at first and then realize u run out of silver before the end. But that's OK. I like how it's a free game that way.

To the guy who said 'can we understand the math of the new system and still hate it?' That's cute but I still think in all your calculation and criticism you're missing the point that the structure of the game is not meant to benefit just you per se it's designed to bring in money. I want the focus of the devs to b on cool bots, weapons, landscapes etc not bickering over a fair way to rank people

No problemo.

1st para - So then matches wouldn't be fair to those who'd like to squad and thus discourages it? Nope, my hangars aren't 12/12. And I could debunk that analogy with countless other arguments but I'll just leave it at: I respectfully disagree.
2nd para - But why not factor in beacons along with damage too?
Lastly - About purchases, yep...agreed.

mijapi300
- Pretty much my sentiments about the current squad system. Hence it's inferiority to the old MM.

I can only comment based on my experience so far... a dozen or so games... and i reckon the effect has been nothing but positive.

The new system has CLEARLY changed player behaviour... crew are trying to win first and foremost... the games i've had have been super competitive...

I'm not sure why there has been any negativity toward this change... it may not be perfect, but it is WAY BETTER than the previous iteration.

How do you deal with a whole team that doesn't get one beacon - sucks to be top!!

You obviously did a terrible job and should be punished.

I think something is really wrong with the new system.

Arrived 4th in the losing team and lost -7 points. if i was 1st in the losing team i did get -12.

i don't even understand where is the logic in that.

obviously i got the -7 in the new system, or i wouldn't have wrote about it now...

llama4president please stop losing battles.

i was alone. in my team there were no squads, in enemy team there were squads (2 to 4 members)

it seems that when you lose in battles where you are put against squads the penalty is lower.

So now it seems, if you win, everyone gets rewarded near equally in league points, and if you lose, everyone gets punished near equally.

Because the league points are very similar between the first and last player I guess this alone will no longer serve to incentivize.

Gold will be what players care about. And gold is got through rankings, and ranking method remains the same.

I think all winning players should win a minimum of 1 gold, so that even those players who prefer to play support bots get something for their effort.

I think, and I've posted this on another thread, rankings should be through points. Points should be awarded in reward for damage, kills, beacon liberation beacon capture. I think this method will rank players more in accordance to what is valuable in the game.

The proportion of points to be awarded can be adjusted to reflect the effort, but my suggestion (revised from the other thread is) is: 0.5 per 50k damage, 0.2 per kill, 1 per beacon liberation, 0.2 per beacon capture.

So say a player scores 6 kills, delivers 370k damage, liberates 2 beacons and capture 3. The points system will yield a total of: 3.5 + 1.2 + 2 + 0.6 = 5.5, and this will be used to rank.