25 replies to this topic

[Grim Omens]

So maybe this is a glitch and it is not supposed to be this way but, while I was in a game today I took note that my team composition was: 1 light, 5 mediums, 1 heavy and 1 assault. The enemy had a different team composition which was: 1 light, 4 heavies, 3 assaults. According to the Elo system, if our average is all the same then it would make sense to pair us against each other. However, this is my major issue, most of those heavies we were fighting had AC/20 cats and with the latest patch to say the game was one sided is an understatement.

So my question to PGI is, was this intended? In one sense, the game has become more based around lance setup. But in another sense, the game has became unbalanced for four mans/pugs. Before, the weight match up at least guaranteed an even fight. Now... It's more big guns and more stress towards voice communication which has ~YET~ to be implemented.

Lastly, I just want to know if anyone has been experiencing this. Or... Do you like the new Elo system?
This is a suggestion, rather than having an Elo rating for your general skill level - why doesn't PGI make it so that each weight class an Elo rating specifically tuned to your account? This would even out the matches more so than before because someone who may suck at playing mediums may be amazing at assault. So rather than sending the player through heck and beck, the specific Elo rating to the weight class would balance it out per se.

Edited by Grim Omens, 21 February 2013 - 04:03 PM.

[Davers]

I like the new Elo system.

The Elo system will be tweaked with different parameters so matches will be more even over the next few patches. I suggest the OP reads the Command Chair section about matchmaking.

[Tasorin]

Davers, on 21 February 2013 - 03:35 PM, said:

I like the new Elo system.

The Elo system will be tweaked with different parameters so matches will be more even over the next few patches. I suggest the OP reads the Command Chair section about matchmaking.

Let me translate that for you.

ELO is broken, like almost every other game mechanic that PGI has put out on there first attempt.

Remember AMS bringing down their servers? How about ECM on patch day, what did that last, all of 2 hours?

Basically all ELO did for those of us with an extremely high score is tell us we can't play Mediums and Lights in 4 mans anymore because if we do we are going to get out tonned by ~200 tones almost every match until PGI can figure out how to cure world hunger...er I mean fix ELO.

Just give us a lobby system and let the community run the match making ad-hoc and give Solo players there SOLO ONLY 8-Man queue that is weight match based and then turn your resources to ACTUAL GAME CONTENT and NETCODE.

[Accused]

Yeah dude, it's a "feature".

[Lukoi Banacek]

So far I think the Elo system is taking shape nicely. Rickrolls still happen (simply due to spiraling impact of attrition) but fights still feel closer and more tactically challenging. My win rate so far is about 57% so not far off of the intended effect I think, especially since my previous W/L the two weeks prior to Elo implementation on the 20th was about 70-80%.

[RumRunner151]

What part of "it will take weeks not days" for the system to adjust properly. Also how fast did it make that match. You fail to say, but that is extremely important if you know anything about the system you are whining about.

[Signal27]

Despite the occasional mass differences in team tonnages, I much prefer the new Elo matchmaker over the old one.

[Davers]

I like the idea that there is an attempt at balance, even if I really haven't noticed much difference. But I figure I am a middle of the road player and I won't see much change until later in the tweaking when they more clearly define the parameters.

It's better than having no matchmaker for sure.

[Nuwa]

Signal27, on 21 February 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

Despite the occasional mass differences in team tonnages, I much prefer the new Elo matchmaker over the old one.

It is not even occasional. What he is trying to state is that a team with lets say 400 tons vs a team with oh 700-800 tons who has the advantage? And how did this improve the old system? Ive been in matches where we were pretty much all mediums vs all heavys and assaults. Not really a big question who won that match. I would have to say that on either side the tonnage difference is quite vast about 70% of the time.

[Matthew Craig]

Grim Omens, on 21 February 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

why doesn't PGI make it so that each weight class an Elo rating specifically tuned to your account? This would even out the matches more so than before because someone who may suck at playing mediums may be amazing at assault. So rather than sending the player through heck and beck, the specific Elo rating to the weight class would balance it out per se.

As per my earlier command chair post this is how it works, if you suck at mediums and are great at assaults you'll get different match ups when you play each one.

[TB Freelancer]

RumRunner151, on 21 February 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

What part of "it will take weeks not days" for the system to adjust properly. Also how fast did it make that match. You fail to say, but that is extremely important if you know anything about the system you are whining about.

I'll second that....

[Signal27]

Nuwa, on 21 February 2013 - 04:11 PM, said:

It is not even occasional. What he is trying to state is that a team with lets say 400 tons vs a team with oh 700-800 tons who has the advantage? And how did this improve the old system? Ive been in matches where we were pretty much all mediums vs all heavys and assaults. Not really a big question who won that match. I would have to say that on either side the tonnage difference is quite vast about 70% of the time.

Then we both are having massively different experiences. I do notice tonnage differences but not a 300 ton difference. I prefer this new system because I can tell you with absolute certainty that the games I play are much more interesting by virtue of stomps now becoming something that occasionally happens instead of the rule. Most games I play lose plenty of mechs on both sides and the victories are hard-won instead of a "gimmie",

But again, I want to reiterate that these have been my own experiences. If yours differ from mine then you have my sympathies. Nevertheless, if we were to put it to a vote I'd vote to keep Elo.

[Cloudstryfe]

Matthew Craig, on 21 February 2013 - 04:18 PM, said:

As per my earlier command chair post this is how it works, if you suck at mediums and are great at assaults you'll get different match ups when you play each one.

good to know. i will have to start reading more of the command chair posts. i have waaay more fun in lights but i feel like i contribute more when i am in one of my Fatlas mechs.

[Padic]

I think I prefer that matchmaking emphasizes mech weight less now.

It strikes me as more interesting to compare the pro's and con's of your mech against the entire spectrum of mechs and builds in the game, instead of just the most popular mech of the same weight class.

[Grim Omens]

Matthew Craig, on 21 February 2013 - 04:18 PM, said:

As per my earlier command chair post this is how it works, if you suck at mediums and are great at assaults you'll get different match ups when you play each one.

Nuwa, on 21 February 2013 - 04:11 PM, said:

It is not even occasional. What he is trying to state is that a team with lets say 400 tons vs a team with oh 700-800 tons who has the advantage? And how did this improve the old system? Ive been in matches where we were pretty much all mediums vs all heavys and assaults. Not really a big question who won that match. I would have to say that on either side the tonnage difference is quite vast about 70% of the time.

With all notions taken into account including how many days/weeks the fine tuning will take place for the Elo system, the huge gap in weight classes is concerning to say the least. The Devs do deserve credit for working on the system and tuning it. However, if the tuning system with weight class is true then the parameters are set to broad.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

RumRunner151, on 21 February 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

"it will take weeks not days"

so start playing in weeks not days? K Ill remember that

[Warrax the Chaos Warrior]

I've posted this before, but I can't help but think of it whenever someone talks about a new thing vs. as old thing.



Some people are just traditionalists, and would prefer dysentery over change

[mekabuser]

new elo has been amazing so far. tight battles, coming from 100percent pugland its so nice. I know it sounds stupid but its like the people around my elo rating are just cooler.

[Davers]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 21 February 2013 - 04:52 PM, said:

so start playing in weeks not days? K Ill remember that

PGI finally asks us to test something and you don't wanna.

[Nuwa]

I wasnt saying that they didnt do a good job or anything I was just trying to contribute my experience with the new system. I like it and I will say that apart from the uber outweight matches ive had that more games have been closer than pub stomps. But it is still an issue none the less. I love the game and wont stop playing it cause of this its just im not used to guesssing what is gonna be on the enemy team outside of normal 8 mans and we are really well organized in there. Dropping in a medium looking around and seeing a bunch of other mediums then cresting a hill to stare at 4 enemy atlas' just makes me wanna cry though.