54 replies to this topic

[GalaxyBluestar]

Serapth, on 12 March 2013 - 10:38 PM, said:

No, this is mark 2.

Mark 1 worked great.

Mark 2 is ****. Whatever they changed has ruined Elo.

even so plenty of people keepthinking when something new is introduced it's the end game and they are fools. this mark 2 is no different. you really think pgi are going to sit there and say hmmm nice no need for mark 3 through 12 {which is what usually happens building a beta game up}.

just look at ecm for example. when it was first implemented it was an abomination, now that many counters have been placed it's almost bareable and pgi haven't stopped tinkering with it yet.

so doomsayers will you be saying MM is borked in another 2 months time? i doubt it especially not because of elo.

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 12 March 2013 - 11:03 PM.

[Serapth]

GalaxyBluestar, on 12 March 2013 - 11:00 PM, said:

just look at ecm for example. when it was first implemented it was an abomination, now that many counters have been placed it's almost bareable and pgi haven't stopped tinkering with it yet.

... yeah, guess that's where we are going to have to part ways...

I look at ECM as an example. As a game mechanic, it's still stupidly broken. That they have added half counters to a broken system, instead of simply admitting they f'ed it up... not really sure what point I am supposed to draw from this?

[Aethon]

GalaxyBluestar, on 12 March 2013 - 11:00 PM, said:

even so plenty of people keepthinking when something new is introduced it's the end game and they are fools. this mark 2 is no different. you really think pgi are going to sit there and say hmmm nice no need for mark 3 through 12 {which is what usually happens building a beta game up}.

just look at ecm for example. when it was first implemented it was an abomination, now that many counters have been placed it's almost bareable and pgi haven't stopped tinkering with it yet.

so doomsayers will you be saying MM is borked in another 2 months time? i doubt it especially not because of elo.

Just because there is a chance they can make it less bad in the future, that does not mean it was ever a change for the better; if someone starts kicking you in the balls, would you rather they not kick as hard, or would you rather they simply stop?

Again, I have yet to hear a valid argument as to why ELO was such a necessity.

[Feetwet]

Dang I have to agree with you again. The ECM issue remains after all this time. They took out collisions eons ago because it was broken. It still hasn't returned, but ECM for some reason remains. Of course that is probably for the best now that LRMs make a beeline for your CT now.

S

[Malora Sidewinder]

Zoughtbaj, on 12 March 2013 - 09:16 PM, said:

I don't think it has to do with actual matchmaking.

it's not the matchmaking itself that causes this, it's how the games programming is told to handle disconnects.

[Serapth]

GalaxyBluestar, on 12 March 2013 - 11:00 PM, said:

just look at ecm for example. when it was first implemented it was an abomination, now that many counters have been placed it's almost bareable and pgi haven't stopped tinkering with it yet.

Oh, and just looking at my own results illustrates pretty damned well how broken the combination of ECM + no weight matching is in game...



Simply put, as the game stands right now, there are basically no reasons to not pilot a D-DC. Before at least, you promised that the other team gets an assault as well. Under the current system, you choosing a Spider can result in the other team getting an Atlas.

Now though, the matchmaker just... I dunno, ***** on the floor and tries to figure things out by stain patterns... Under the current system, you are an ***** for not taking your ideal mech. On top, ironically enough, taking an assault mech seems to cut down on Elo stacking your team with mouth breathers.

Edited by Serapth, 12 March 2013 - 11:32 PM.

[KinLuu]

During primetime, elo matchmaking works good, sometimes even great.

Outside of primetime, elo matchmaking works horrbily bad. The matchmaker prioritizes fast matchmaking to much.

[GalaxyBluestar]

Serapth, on 12 March 2013 - 11:29 PM, said:

that looks like a support for ecm being broken rather than matchmaker, a d-dc being good surprise surprise. are you suggesting that BV should be implemented to balance out each piece of equipement deployed along with elo for pilots? cause that's not a bad idea. "invites more flames"

i know i sound like a "match maker's perfect" kinda guy and we all know it isn't if there's not enough players around etc but really i've noticed that the skills displayed in matches are never above your own but the problem is you're always trying to support those under you and the average team score doesn't work if an elite has 5 noobs waying him down against a side full of average players. also elo alone isn't good for changing of the mechs if you're brilliant at one mech {and your elo reflects this} and you want to move onto something totally different. that's where the stomps mostly occour. those are the problems and i'm sure pgi are going to realise when they play the obvious good snipers being mixed with people trying to brawl with lrms is not a good way to balance teams.

so keep flaming about it for all its worth but lets see more in the suggestions forums and not on general as we have enough whining of constants running through it.

btw nice to put your stats up so it's only fair i put up mine.

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 13 March 2013 - 12:19 AM.

[Hammerhai]

Odd ...
My experience with ELO has been pretty positive on the whole.
Yes I would like there to be less 8-2 matches, but I am ok on the whole.
Treat it as FOTM qq topic.
Now where was that ECM thread I was looking for

[Kahoumono]

I am becoming a hater as well. Just got out of an 8v5 match, good times. Fine, the disconnects are a result of programming. A couple of games ago it was a new player on my team in a 3L without ECM standing still in a fire fight. The match maker should surely match people of similar levels out of pools of players, you can't have a game with complete novices dropping with seasoned players. There must be a more granular way of sorting and filling slots for a game.

[Jestun]

Serapth, on 12 March 2013 - 09:00 PM, said:

... that we end up with 3 or 4 players on the team doing well under 100 damage...

And it is completely disregarding mech weight like it is currently...


Why, oh why, did I just have a 8v6 match... again? How hard is it to find players for a match when the criteria seem to be non-existent??? At least pre-Elo you matched based on weight.


Seriously, what happened since last patch... before then, Elo matches seemed quite balanced, I never had a match worse then 8v7, and even the weight mismatches didn't seem quite so bad. The skill balance certainly seemed better. Has the community shrunk so you have so few players to choose from, or does the matchmaking algorithm really suck that bad now?

Damage does not measure one's contribution to a match.

It is a measure which shows part of what someone did, although without linking it to kills you get limited info (you could get 1000 damage without destroying a single mech or component).

[5th Fedcom Rat]

Serapth, on 12 March 2013 - 09:23 PM, said:

Oh god no, there certainly is a problem.

The game needs a matchmaker... it needs to balance out the premade advantage, or remove them from the PUG queue entirely, and it needs to protect the newbs from veterans, or the game will never gain in popularity.

And... it seemed to do this... for a while. Now, its horrifically broken AND weight matching is borked too. So now, can you not only end up with a couple trial mechs on your team, facing a 4 man premade, but that premade could be entirely in Atlases, while your team is mostly Hunchbacks.

Again, before the last patch, other than weight matching, things seemed to be working pretty well over all.

Yeah, I don't know what change PGI made with the last patch, but matchmaking went to hell after the update. I've stopped playing the game entirely while I wait for it to be fixed (and for the Jagermech to be released).

.

Edited by 5th Fedcom Rat, 13 March 2013 - 01:24 AM.

[Jestun]

5th Fedcom Rat, on 13 March 2013 - 01:23 AM, said:

Yeah, I don't know what change PGI made with the last patch, but matchmaking went to hell after the update. I've stopped playing the game entirely while I wait for it to be fixed (and for the Jagermech to be released).

.

The less you play the less accurately the game can rate your skill for any form of matchmaker.

Unless it's a matchmaker which ignores player skill, in which case I really don't see how it would be an improvement as it would not offer matches that were balanced.

[SgtKinCaiD]

Jestun, on 13 March 2013 - 12:58 AM, said:

Damage does not measure one's contribution to a match.

It is a measure which shows part of what someone did, although without linking it to kills you get limited info (you could get 1000 damage without destroying a single mech or component).

Up to a certain point : i admin that for a scout, it's not a prime objectif but when you have an atlas like in the screenshot above doing 18dmg or a cat C1 doing 46 dmg ... come on ... I have scores of screenshots like that.
And doing 1000 dmg and no kills, means you have battered the ennemy mechs so much, they make easy prey for the rest of your team.

I agree with the OP : the ELO ratings is not working properly. Since the last update on it, all I get are sore matchs. When i try a new build, i usually play like 2-3 matchs before switching back to cheese-build just to have a decent match. Your natural answer will be "play in group then" as i see all around the forum. Guess what ? I have to be picky on the friends i play with just to have a decent match.

Plus the principle of having only ranked matchs in a game where you have to test different builds in battle, farm cbills and grind xp is utter nonsense.

[Jestun]

How easy it is to blame everyone else when your team loses.

:Edit:

But if it happens often enough to make a thread about it, perhaps the common factor is the person complaining?

Edited by Jestun, 13 March 2013 - 01:55 AM.

[SgtKinCaiD]

Jestun, on 13 March 2013 - 01:55 AM, said:

How easy it is to blame everyone else when your team loses.

:Edit:

But if it happens often enough to make a thread about it, perhaps the common factor is the person complaining?

And seeing scores of different players complaining on the exact same problem is not worthy enough for you then ?

Then let's make a deal Jestun : i will add you as a friend and you will drop with me. Only a few matchs and your opinion will change, i assure you. What's your time zone ?

Edited by SgtKinCaiD, 13 March 2013 - 02:17 AM.

[Jetfire]

The new MM is limited to a maximum search time of 2 minutes, so it is possible for there to simply be no other players in queue unmatched at that point which are alone or in small enough groups to fill.

Elo broadens the net over that 2 minute window at unknown increments, it is possible that only the last minute or 30 seconds are actually broad enough to just say "take anybody". That is a small enough window in a game that doesn't constantly have millions of people on it that you will occasionally not have enough.

I have only seen a handful of 7v8's and one 4v8 since MM3 launch.

[Dvergar]

Weight matching is the biggest long term issue. If Elo works perfectly (stiffle your laughter, I said if). There will be 16-24 people of equal skill playing. Who do you think is going to be better off, the team who ran all cheese mechs, or the team who is just leveling sub-par variants? Even if they're playing with something they enjoy, the massive difference between weights lopsides skill-balanced fights.

You cannot have a weight free for all if you intend all players in a match to be of even skill. 12 assaults will kick the crap out of 12 mediums, there is simply no way around that. Even having a preponderance of one against the other is enough. When I get 8 mechs all mediums and heavies, and I see the opponent has 3 stalkers and 2 DDCs, I know we're screwed.

In addition, groups need to be matched. Twice recently I've been in games where 8 pugs get put up against two 4-mans. How is that remotely good game design? Group drops should be mirrored. 2man/6pug v 2man/6pug, 4man/4pug v 4man/4pug, 4man/2man/2pug v 4man/2man/2pug, etc.

[Aym]

Aethon, on 12 March 2013 - 09:36 PM, said:

ELO was not the answer, though. It was never needed. I do not need or want some computer artificially regulating my win/loss ratio, just to hold everyone's hand.

You do indeed need it. Sorry you don't enjoy fair matches in chess or starcraft, but IF Elo worked in MWO properly you'd have no valid complaints, just a buised ego.

[Feetwet]

Ok that's great Thornton, then how do you explain the difference. Either they tweak something last patch that threw off the matchmaker or I alone or with my team played so extraordinarily well in the even matches before the last patch (w/l around 50/50) that starting exactly Tuesday night last week we are experiencing way more slaughters (w/l around .35 ratio). Whatever these guys may quote, we have seen in the past unexpected consequences of their changes.

S

Just to add I'm not a great player so maybe I'm getting caught in the net, either way something is amiss.

Edited by Feetwet, 13 March 2013 - 05:09 AM.