Jump to content

Matchmaking Is Garbage In This Game


50 replies to this topic

#1 Paladin IIC

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Carnivore
  • The Carnivore
  • 118 posts

Posted 15 September 2014 - 08:03 PM

I tend to play in a small group, usually 2 or 3 people including myself on this game. Every single match, maybe minus a handful, our group gets put onto a team with a bunch of small groups like our own, while the enemy team is almost completely comprised of a 10 or 12 man group. As you can assume, we usually lose because our splintered small groups can't compete against an organized group as large as that. That's not counting the times we're placed in different lances as well.

Instead of putting small groups into the same matchmaking queue as large groups, why not make a different matchmaking list for small groups instead? Or just have them randomly thrown into games with PUGs. Both of those make more sense and are more balanced than having small groups stuck fighting entire clans at some points and losing every other game.

#2 Garandos

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 196 posts
  • Locationgermany

Posted 15 September 2014 - 08:46 PM

We had groups, even small ones, mixed with pugs, never worked.

A third que, for small groups? Then you by chance wait 30+ minutes for a game to start.

#3 IraqiWalker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 9,682 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 15 September 2014 - 08:50 PM

View Postsabre wulf, on 15 September 2014 - 08:03 PM, said:

I tend to play in a small group, usually 2 or 3 people including myself on this game. Every single match, maybe minus a handful, our group gets put onto a team with a bunch of small groups like our own, while the enemy team is almost completely comprised of a 10 or 12 man group. As you can assume, we usually lose because our splintered small groups can't compete against an organized group as large as that. That's not counting the times we're placed in different lances as well.

Instead of putting small groups into the same matchmaking queue as large groups, why not make a different matchmaking list for small groups instead? Or just have them randomly thrown into games with PUGs. Both of those make more sense and are more balanced than having small groups stuck fighting entire clans at some points and losing every other game.

Too many limitations in terms of splitting the player base some more, dividing match modes between more queues, and then trying to get fair matching for small groups, while trying to do the same thing for the other queues.

All in all, it causes too many issues. We used to have groups of 4 or less mixed in with solo queue. There were many problems with that. Now the same problems are showing up in the group queue in a way.

#4 Darth Futuza

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,239 posts

Posted 15 September 2014 - 09:51 PM

Bring 1,000,000 new players to the game then maybe we can talk about it.

#5 Jorgandr

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 93 posts

Posted 16 September 2014 - 04:34 AM

The Irony here is: since matchmaker is so ridiculously horrible, it is probably losing them a hefty chunk of their new and old playerbase.

Even the PUG queue is still nothing but stomp after stomp after stomp. Granted, you tend to be on the stomping side just as often, or more often if you're good... Still doesnt make for fun games.

#6 The Massive

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 331 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 16 September 2014 - 04:41 AM

Don't agree. Getting many close games (Win/Loss<6) in both group and solo queue. Sure I get the odd run of stomps both in my favour and against, but these are usually down to positioning, organisation and plain old luck.

Given all the variables MM has to deal with I think it does quite well. :)

#7 IraqiWalker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 9,682 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 16 September 2014 - 04:56 AM

One thing you can do to improve your odds of a fair match is to select all three modes, and pick up a variable threat mech.

#8 Asmosis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 2,118 posts

Posted 16 September 2014 - 05:41 AM

4-man teams have gone from being the big fish in little pond to the small fish in big pond. Obviously there is a serious issue to be addressed there, nerf pond and buff fish.

#9 Kjudoon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 7,636 posts
  • LocationWisconsin

Posted 16 September 2014 - 05:44 AM

View Postsabre wulf, on 15 September 2014 - 08:03 PM, said:

I tend to play in a small group, usually 2 or 3 people including myself on this game. Every single match, maybe minus a handful, our group gets put onto a team with a bunch of small groups like our own, while the enemy team is almost completely comprised of a 10 or 12 man group. As you can assume, we usually lose because our splintered small groups can't compete against an organized group as large as that. That's not counting the times we're placed in different lances as well.

Instead of putting small groups into the same matchmaking queue as large groups, why not make a different matchmaking list for small groups instead? Or just have them randomly thrown into games with PUGs. Both of those make more sense and are more balanced than having small groups stuck fighting entire clans at some points and losing every other game.

If you haven't listened to the town hall, you need to. Russ goes into depth as to why it's having problems. We the players are the cause of a lot of our own problems. Not all, but a lot.

Edited by Kjudoon, 16 September 2014 - 05:44 AM.


#10 IraqiWalker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 9,682 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 16 September 2014 - 05:59 AM

View Postsabre wulf, on 15 September 2014 - 08:03 PM, said:

I tend to play in a small group, usually 2 or 3 people including myself on this game. Every single match, maybe minus a handful, our group gets put onto a team with a bunch of small groups like our own, while the enemy team is almost completely comprised of a 10 or 12 man group. As you can assume, we usually lose because our splintered small groups can't compete against an organized group as large as that. That's not counting the times we're placed in different lances as well.

Instead of putting small groups into the same matchmaking queue as large groups, why not make a different matchmaking list for small groups instead? Or just have them randomly thrown into games with PUGs. Both of those make more sense and are more balanced than having small groups stuck fighting entire clans at some points and losing every other game.


That would be this three part video

Link to part one is provided here


#11 MechPorn

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Money Maker
  • The Money Maker
  • 897 posts
  • LocationThe Banzai Institute of Advanced Armored Warfare

Posted 16 September 2014 - 12:26 PM



#12 Dark Jackal

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Vicious
  • The Vicious
  • 187 posts

Posted 16 September 2014 - 01:56 PM

The solo pugging is pretty much works a good 90% of the time. Of course, you get sometimes an unlucky roll and get stomped or a lucky one and you do the stomping. But otherwise I never waited too long as it is right now.

My only grip is that once I die, I drop out and pick another Mech and continue the fun. But, in the middle of doing this the game goes into a waiting loop and stalls. So I'm forced to kill the application due to this.

#13 Clit Beastwood

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,262 posts
  • LocationSouthern California

Posted 17 September 2014 - 01:21 PM

View PostJorgandr, on 16 September 2014 - 04:34 AM, said:

The Irony here is: since matchmaker is so ridiculously horrible, it is probably losing them a hefty chunk of their new and old playerbase.

Even the PUG queue is still nothing but stomp after stomp after stomp. Granted, you tend to be on the stomping side just as often, or more often if you're good... Still doesnt make for fun games.


But *how* is it horrible? Please elucidate.

From my perspective, the matchmaker is fine. Whichever team plays like a team usually wins. Whichever team plays like pugs with walkie talkies usually loses. ELO matching, tonnage matching, etc. - none of that can completely account for:
- player skill
- player situation awareness
- team cohesiveness

Top if off with, once a team loses 2 mechs, the other players (we're talking new guys here) start to panic, switch into "survival" mode (in quotes because "survival" mode usually leads to death). It's that initial 1-2 kills that decides the "flow" for the rest of the drop. Sure there are some last minute clutches, there are some sweet saves, but it's not the matchmaker's fault. There is no fixing it - someone is going to win and someone is going to lose. If your team loses a lot, it might mean the other team was better, it could be luck, it could be that the equally skilled players on your team took stupid builds. You can't completely mitigate any of that. The matchmaker can't make bad players better, it can't make good players worse. All it does is set up a meeting on the battlefield.

Sure, I'd love to see ECM balancing, but that's a minor niggle at best.

#14 FREDtheDEAD

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 406 posts
  • LocationSouth Autstralia

Posted 19 September 2014 - 03:57 AM

I think their balancing algorithm of trying to match pairs of players or pairs of groups is awful. You need to look at the whole of each side.

#15 Widowmaker1981

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Widow Maker
  • The Widow Maker
  • 5,030 posts
  • LocationAt the other end of the pretty lights.

Posted 19 September 2014 - 04:17 AM

news just in: player lost game, therefore matchmaking is horrible

in fairness, small groups are not in a good place, optimum (casual) group size for winning games is 8 ive found.. any more and you run into too many 12 mans that actually practice together and get roflstomped. Thing is, 3 queues wouldn't work out in terms of queue times, and its less unfair like this than if small groups are allowed in the solo queue. Nothing PGI can do about it, sorry.

#16 Kjudoon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 7,636 posts
  • LocationWisconsin

Posted 19 September 2014 - 05:18 AM

I would go so far to say it is balance on size of groups that matters too. Small groups beat up solos, large groups beat up small groups. That is why you need a 3 queue solution regardless of how small it's going to slice the queues.

#17 DeathlyEyes

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Messenger
  • 940 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationMetaphorical Island somewhere in the Pacific

Posted 20 September 2014 - 12:49 AM

Removing Elo and instituting tighter chassis and group size matching restrictions would do wonders.

#18 Appogee

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 10,966 posts
  • LocationOn planet Tukayyid, celebrating victory

Posted 20 September 2014 - 01:31 AM

I have an idea...

Replace the current individual Elo, which is calculated on how often their team wins and loses,
with
New Elo, based on personal kill/death ratio and personal average damage per match.

Your individual contribution to a game, in terms of personal kills and damage you cause, is a better indication of your skill, than whether you were or weren't grouped with or against a bunch of randoms.

#19 IraqiWalker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 9,682 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 20 September 2014 - 01:37 AM

View PostDeathlyEyes, on 20 September 2014 - 12:49 AM, said:

Removing Elo and instituting tighter chassis and group size matching restrictions would do wonders.


yes, because we don't already have a lot of new players thrown into the shark pit with 3000+ games played guys like myself. You want a tier system. Kind of like the ones in LoL, StarcraftII ... etc. Where Bronze players are matched against only bronze players (maybe low silver with high bronze) ... etc. No Diamond players matched against bronze players. That can help with the MM a bit.

However, we have too many modes for the current player base. If this game had a player base of over 1 million, maybe. Right now, we have almost 600,000 registered members, and we know for a fact not all of them are still playing this game.

View PostAppogee, on 20 September 2014 - 01:31 AM, said:

I have an idea...

Replace the current individual Elo, which is calculated on how often their team wins and loses,
with
New Elo, based on personal kill/death ratio and personal average damage per match.

Your individual contribution to a game, in terms of personal kills and damage you cause, is a better indication of your skill, than whether you were or weren't grouped with or against a bunch of randoms.

queue even more rushing to get kills, and even stupider mistakes made in the name of trying to bump Elo up. Not to mention that K/D isn't a good description of your contribution in a game. Nope, assists, ECM coverage, TAGing, NARCing, Spotting covering wtih AMS ... etc. are better descriptors of your contribution to your team, instead of individual glory hounding.

#20 Sarlic

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Hearing Impaired
  • Hearing Impaired
  • 4,519 posts
  • LocationEurope

Posted 20 September 2014 - 02:25 AM

View PostRuss Bullock, on 19 September 2014 - 10:46 PM, said:

Thanks for your post.

Of course we don't like seeing this but it really is a form of trade off for the &quot;groups of any size&quot; feature the community was asking for.

Our next step and I really need to get around to posting a command chair about this is the removing of the hard stop options. I mentioned this in the town hall, our game offers too many hard stop options for match making and it is very difficult for the MM to do a better job than it is doing without removing some player options.

I want to change the game mode selector from a hard stop to a &quot;vote&quot; this way it is more possible for the match maker to match that 12 man up against another 12 man. Since it is possible that while you were playing, the MM actually had another 12 man to put them up against but one of those 12 mans said they wanted to play Conquest only, where the other 12 man said no to conquest. You see in this case I feel it is much more important to make the best match possible even if the votes are tallied and one of the 12 man groups plays a game type they didn't desire.

It won't make it perfect but it will help, I want to get this into the Oct 7th patch but I need to remember to poll the community, would anyone really vote against best match possible if it meant playing any game mode?


http://mwomercs.com/...se-group-drops/

Read this.

Edited by Sarlic, 20 September 2014 - 02:26 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users