104 replies to this topic

[aptest]

ok.

here's a question for you:

do you want builds to have meaning in this game?

if you do, you have to allow a better build to get an advantage over an inferior one and not "force balance".

That in turn means that you as a player have to build in a way that your team can deal with splatcats, l3 ravens and DDCs.

I don't need the game to cuddle me into success with my 4x raven by forcing a balance in which my adversary is prevented from using the 3L. That kind of forced balance makes both my mech choice and the 3L's player's mech choice irrelevant.

If I dare show up on the battlefield with a std100 engine raven packing 2 flamers and an ER PPC, I deserve to get stomped.

(that being said the 3L does merit a nerf)

[KinLuu]

valkyrie, on 26 February 2013 - 11:17 PM, said:

Except ELO doesn't take into account different builds, as has been said, just previous success. So, the moment I step out of a -3L or a Splatcat and go back to running my Cent, my ELO doesn't change. It just assumes "well he's still going to do just fine" and match me up against someone who is either way above my "actual" skill level or equally skilled and has no qualms about using such a build. I then get my face fed to a belt sander by a combination of min-maxers and the pubbies I'm still expected to carry.

You are not expected to carry them. The system tests your competitiveness, it believes you can compete with players of a certain elo. If you cant compete at that level anymore, your elo will drop and the level of gameplay should get easier.

Quote

You also mention how if I want to push my ELO further, I have to use a "viable" build. This is, beyond my personal gripes about how I'm unfairly manhandled for removing my cheese handicap, the ultimate issue. I'm fine sitting at a "comfortable" level when I can dart around in a Cent -AL and get into fun duels with other Mediums. The problem is those Mediums are going to become more and more rare. Why? Because the modern gamer ALWAYS wants to push their "rank" higher. To do this, they're going to run cheese builds early and often to get any edge they can. Who suffers for it? People like myself who refuse to bend balance mechanics to their very breaking point, i.e., most new players and people who don't care about stupid MLG type competitions.

If you do not want to compete at the first place, why complain about not being able to? Just drop to the elo you are comfortable with - if it is among the lowest of the low, so be it.

Quote

You also risk homogenization of 'Mech variety - when a handful of builds do everything better than anything else, why would you ever play anything else? One of the most dynamic MechLabs in the series is effectively rendered moot in a heartbeat, because you have to play flavor of the month to win regularly. People do this in TT with custom builds too. Know what happens to them? People stop playing with them because it's no longer fun. We unfortunately do not have that luxury.

Telling people they have to play "standardized" cheese builds to have a hope of winning regularly is completely wrong on every level, and we all know it.

No. It is completely right.

If you want to play at high elo, you need to play to win. If you do not want to play to win, you do not deserve to be at high elo and the system sorts you out. Working as intended.

[Moromillas]

valkyrie, on 26 February 2013 - 08:17 PM, said:

I think figured out what the single biggest issue with ELO is. Aside from the obvious tonnage matching issue, it's the fact that for mid to high ranked players, it's now become "cheese or die."

PGI really needs to re-evaluate the use of ELO in MWO. The more I play now, the more I realize it's doing far more harm than good. Right now, it's just going to further homogenize 'Mech choice (especially in PUGs), and we all know stagnation is the quickest way to kill a game.

That's odd. I've not had to adjust any of my Mechs.

No, I see the exact opposite happening. Players still pilot Mechs that aren't the best variant, or they're not very good at that variant yet still get to have a decent match with players of their skill level. Meaning players can chose lots of different Mechs and still have fun.

Edited by Moromillas, 27 February 2013 - 03:50 AM.

[Murku]

Over and over in these 'Elo sux' threads I'm seeing comments like 'it's impossible as a team now to casually play and still win'.

Is it just me or is this the 'fluffy kitten' description of PUGstomping? Us lowly PUGers were there for your 'casual team wins'. We were there for them over and over and over. We accepted that your version of casual was the 'right one' and that we were just fillers for your ego.

ELO hurting? My heart bleeds.

Personally, I'm having a blast.

Edited by Murku, 27 February 2013 - 03:52 AM.

[vrok]

Stop pugstomping in 4 mans. Stop running optimal so called 'cheese' builds. Boom, your Elo eventually drops to appropriate levels and you can run whatever sub-optimal build you want with a 50/50 win ratio. This is how Elo works, and should work. It balances out skill and choice of mech to put you with appropriate players. For everyone but 4 man pugstompers inflating their Elo this is a good thing.

The only appropriate fix would be to put 4 mans in a separate queue entirely.

Edited by vrok, 27 February 2013 - 04:56 AM.

[Alvor]

I see the other points on R&R but this would only be part of the solution not "The" solution.. Perhaps down time between missions based on damage taken vs. salvage. If there is not any penalty for careless tactics/suicidal game play it will usually digress into rush over the hill robot bumper cars. Have a better solution? Great! Please state it.

I feel at this point that base cap assault win should be removed and just rely on a game timer & an option for surrender/retreat/eject of players. The team with remaining players who receives the most damage & does not surrender/retreat/eject/dies should have a huge penalty to xp & cbills to those losing players remaining.

To curb suicidal xgamer style alpha dumping players there needs to be a penalty for losing a mech, repairs, & reloads (C-bills or Down Timer after mission)..

This is a problem with most FPS/Sims is that there usually is little consequence for reckless actions and tactics.

In the MechWarrior universe it was common for mechs to retreat from the mission if it was too damaged.

To summarize if using Canon BT/MW:
Enforce the Dispossessed status/penalty & repair/reload costs.

All this information was taken from http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Main_Page which is one of the best resources for Battletech information.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Dispossessed

Dispossessed describes the state of having lost or otherwise not having a BattleMech at one's disposal in the BattleTech universe. It is typically used to contrast against the status of an active MechWarrior (pilot). The word carries a strong stigma. In the feudal societies that had formed after the fall of the Star League, especially in the lostech-ridden final years of the Third Succession War at the beginning of the 31st century, a BattleMech virtually guaranteed its owner wealth and status. In many respects it was the equivalent to a medieval knighthood, and at the same time the actual arms and armor of the MechWarrior. Serving as a MechWarrior could result in a noble title, land grants and fiefs. Often, families or whole fiefs were dependant on the income of a single MechWarrior.
Conversely, losing the 'Mech in battle or to a technical breakdown meant a sudden and drastic fall in social status, causing great grief. Many Dispossessed join conventional military branches (especially infantry or armor units), hoping that one day they can acquire a BattleMech through salvage.
Although typically meant in a permanent sense, the term can also be used to describe a temporary separation of a MechWarrior from his 'Mech, for example because a superior Lord denies the right to pilot a 'Mech (as it happened to Minobu Tetsuhara) or because the 'Mech and its pilot are shipped separately (the reason why Kai Allard-Liao piloted a borrowed 'Mech on Twycross).
The term has also been used to describe aerospace pilots who had lost their fighters.

[Daimonos]

Quote

In essence, the longer I stay out of a CheeseMech, the more my team suffers, because other players of my skill WILL be using them.

I don't agree. As others have said, ELO should push everyone's Win/Loss ratio towards 1.0. Players of your skill that run 'better' mechs should win more than you, have a higher ELO, and so not be matched against you. Your team's average win/loss should not be affected by your choice of mech! If you choose strong mechs, you should win more and your opponents become more challenging. If you choose weak mechs, your team should lose more, and your opponents weaken in response.

I don't agree that ELO is automatically bad for MWO, or that it's going to further homogenize 'Mech choice,- except among the very best, most competitive players. Min/maxing at the top of a game is a general occurrence, and not unique to MWO.

[Paul McKenzie]

We already had a post explaining this, If you are getting beat now it is because you don't belong in the elo bracket you are in. If you are one to complain about cheese, something that absolutely doesn't exist in this game then you DEFINITELY don't belong. you are being beaten because the teams you are playing are better than you.

[OneEyed Jack]

I opted out of reading all the way through the thread, but I thought it prudent to point out that Elo scores, once they have enough games to stabilize, won't move quickly. So unless someone ONLY plays "cheese builds", then their score won't be inflated enough to put them outside the range they'd be playing in, anyway. Similarly, if you mostly play somewhat competitively, then your Elo won't tank because you wanted to spend an afternoon playing a more fun, less effective build. But if those players do play those ways a lot, then their general effectiveness will be reflected in their Elo scores and and it will work out.

The only time Elo will move by much is when a game is weighted very heavily in favor of one team, but the underdogs win. Since this won't happen much, it's not a significant factor. That's also why I don't believe the system can be effectively manipulated. It will simply take too much work for minimal and short-lived gain.

On a side note, I don't subscribe to all the "cheese build" nonsense. Sure there are variants that are just crap (Raven 4X) and many builds that are useless (I'm looking at you 6xLRM5 A1 and 9xFlamer 4P). But so-called "cheese builds" are just very narrow builds that are great in their element and garbage outside it. If you don't let them dictate the terms of the engagement, they don't tend to accomplish much. Of course, plenty of people will call cheese on anything that just killed them.

[Joseph Mallan]

KinLuu, on 26 February 2013 - 11:54 PM, said:

In every elo based game you can only play the stuff that is viable in the current meta, once you reach a certain elo level.

If you play non-viable stuff, you drop in elo - as intended. Elo is a measurement of competitiveness.

Funny. I thought Elo was going to rate MY ability not the builds? I climbed from near dead last (2,900th place), to 98th place in a Atlas with a mix of good and bad equipment.
Good
ER PPC or ER Large Laser
SRM6s
Gauss
ECM
Bad
XL Engine
Gauss

Gauss is listed twice due to its savage damage and non existent heat and its potential to blow up and ruin My XL.
With that build I moved 2800 places handicapped by losing 16 hours of game time due to work and family on top of sleeping 16 hours.

On the flip side my teammate DocBach made 10th place in a (cheesy?) Near stock Centurion. swapping LRM for SRM6s, otherwise Stock AC10 sinks, engine, armor, yaddayaddayadda.

Elo won't force you to play Cheese to win.

Also Is the planned Campaign mode considered competitive? Cause that is what I payed my $60 for. I have no intention of being in EA-Sports MechWarriorOnline, I'm here to play the scenarios that will map out the clan invasion. Knowing that the enemy is supposed to kick my Ash for about 3 years.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 27 February 2013 - 05:56 AM.

[Sol Fin]

Well one way or another ELO is good as long as all means of combat (piloting skills, in-game skills, mech, build) are taken into account. So when the mech build is not taken into account, but affects results (which it is), there will be a problem with switching from "cheese" to "non-cheese" builds. Of course, if player sits on one mech build for a long time - ELO will adapt through results. But build can and often is changed each game. So ELO can't adapt fast enough.

I think the main question is - how big infuence it will have? Which in turn leads to a question - how much a "cheese" build of some sort is better than a "non-cheese" one. Obviously, if pilot has some experience, there will be difference.

But my impression that in PUG games difference is not big enough to lead to a lot of horrible fail matches when you've switched from a "cheese" build. So it's not such a big problem and there's no need to update formulas.

Edited by Sol Fin, 27 February 2013 - 06:05 AM.

[Ghogiel]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 February 2013 - 05:52 AM, said:

Funny. I thought Elo was going to rate MY ability not the builds? I climbed from near dead last (2,900th place), to 98th place in a Atlas with a mix of good and bad equipment.
Good
ER PPC or ER Large Laser
SRM6s
Gauss
ECM
Bad
XL Engine
Gauss

Gauss is listed twice due to its savage damage and non existent heat and its potential to blow up and ruin My XL.
With that build I moved 2800 places handicapped by losing 16 hours of game time due to work and family on top of sleeping 16 hours.

On the flip side my teammate DocBach made 10th place in a (cheesy?) Near stock Centurion. swapping LRM for SRM6s, otherwise Stock AC10 sinks, engine, armor, yaddayaddayadda.

Elo won't force you to play Cheese to win.

Also Is the planned Campaign mode considered competitive? Cause that is what I payed my $60 for. I have no intention of being in EA-Sports MechWarriorOnline, I'm here to play the scenarios that will map out the clan invasion. Knowing that the enemy is supposed to kick my Ash for about 3 years.

Your tourney final position isn't measure of skill.

The only thing close to a skill measurement you can make from those results is, if take your score and divide that by the total number of games played. That's only how well you played (or rather scored) on average in the 'tourney'.

You can't just say I was 98th bestest in assaults because that's what place you bothered to grind to.

[Mxxpower]

Gaan Cathal, on 26 February 2013 - 08:23 PM, said:

Actually, in theory Elo is based on success, not skill. I.e. a higher W/L ratio in a given class of mech gives you a higher Elo score in that weight class. So if you are consistent with your cheese/lackofcheese mech build choices, that should actually be factored in by default, since you would win more with the objectively superior mech (generally, there are skill ceiling issues with some FotM builds). So if Elo is actually working perfectly, then you're better than the Splatcat pilot, he's just being carried by his mech.

This is pure BS... ELO is NOT working this way. Since ELO has been in, I have been playing 3 diff trebs, losing about 75% of my matches, and put against 4 man championship grinders all weekend long.

I hop in my best mech, by best class, the stalker 3f, and I am placed against *******. I might have lost 1 or 2 out 10 or so odd battles. I exclusively pug, and from my eyes, it seems ELO is friggin reveresed.

[KinLuu]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 February 2013 - 05:52 AM, said:

Funny. I thought Elo was going to rate MY ability not the builds?
Elo won't force you to play Cheese to win.

Also Is the planned Campaign mode considered competitive? Cause that is what I payed my $60 for. I have no intention of being in EA-Sports MechWarriorOnline, I'm here to play the scenarios that will map out the clan invasion. Knowing that the enemy is supposed to kick my Ash for about 3 years.

Elo rates your competitiveness, this includes your skill and your build. If you can compete on a certain elo with a terrible build, you will stay on that elo, np.

Community warfare will be minmaxwarrior online. Mark my words.

[Sol Fin]

KinLuu, on 27 February 2013 - 06:17 AM, said:

Elo rates your competitiveness, this includes your skill and your build. If you can compete on a certain elo with a terrible build, you will stay on that elo, np.

Community warfare will be minmaxwarrior online. Mark my words.

It takes time to include your build into your ELO score. That's the thing. Skill don't change that much after first 50 matches. So it's a slow process which allows ELO rating to update correctly. At the same time mech build can influence your results greatly. And you can change your build each match if you want.

[grayson marik]

KinLuu, on 27 February 2013 - 06:17 AM, said:

..snip...

Community warfare will be minmaxwarrior online. Mark my words.

But it would not need to... *sing*lobbysong*sing*

[KinLuu]

grayson marik, on 27 February 2013 - 06:28 AM, said:

But it would not need to... *sing*lobbysong*sing*

CW will not and can not work with a lobby. CW will need to be run via random matchmaking.

[Ghogiel]

grayson marik, on 27 February 2013 - 06:28 AM, said:

But it would not need to... *sing*lobbysong*sing*

resources...?

You'll have to face the cheese unless you want to concede battles before they are even fought. You'll just lose out on resources or whatever we are fighting over.

[Joseph Mallan]

Ghogiel, on 27 February 2013 - 06:00 AM, said:

Your tourney final position isn't measure of skill.

The only thing close to a skill measurement you can make from those results is, if take your score and divide that by the total number of games played. That's only how well you played (or rather scored) on average in the 'tourney'.

You can't just say I was 98th bestest in assaults because that's what place you bothered to grind to.

I was 98th place in around 27 hours. I had reached 103rd place in 6 hours playing a Treb, but since I went back to my assaults fell to 400+. I normally play 40 hours+ of MWO on the weekend. That wasn't a grind for me, it was my normal hours of play. Not to mention I lost 8 hours of play due to being at work Saturday.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 27 February 2013 - 06:45 AM.

[Ghogiel]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 February 2013 - 06:43 AM, said:

I was 98th place in around 27 hours. I had reached 103rd place in 6 hours playing a Treb, but since I went back to my assaults fell to 400+. I normally play 40 hours+ of MWO on the weekend. That wasn't a grind for me, it was my normal hours of play. Not to mention I lost 8 hours of play due to being at work Saturday.

I got to 10th place in the lights after 100 games. I finished 39th just playing Saturday.

still do the math on your score / total games played