205 replies to this topic

[Felbombling]

Serapth, on 14 March 2013 - 11:16 AM, said:

Now its back to the bad ole days, where you have one or two players on the losing team do 300-1000, and the rest doing 0.

When you say 'bad ole days', do you mean for yourself or your competion during the brutal PuGstomp timeframe? We were all seeing results exactly as you describe months ago before ELO. If you were on the winning team the majority of that time, which your elite ELO status would seem to dictate, many people reading the OP are not feeling too badly for your current situation.

Does it suck being grouped with players that do not have the same game understanding as you do? Yuppers. Did it suck for the people just getting started with the game to be matched up against a group of your friends for months and months? Yuppers. I imagine the matchmaker is working things out. Adapt to your current situation... all the Pubbies did to get to this point.

[shabowie]

FerretGR, on 14 March 2013 - 10:58 AM, said:

That's just not true, and it's denied in a Command Chair post I quoted a page back. Here, see for yourself: http://mwomercs.com/...-making-update/

Nothing in the command chair post denies that players are grouped and matched with a target threshold. In fact it says just that early in the post, but the language they use is very vague and does not actually tell you how it works at all later in the post where individual vs aggregate scoring issues are raised.

Edited by shabowie, 14 March 2013 - 11:40 AM.

[FerretGR]

shabowie, on 14 March 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:

Nothing in the command chair post denies that players are grouped and matched with a target threshold. In fact it says just that early in the post, but the language they use is very vague and does not actually tell you how it works at all later in the post where individual vs aggregate scoring issues are raised.

The post explicitly refutes that Elo matchmaking works on averages by team, which is what the poster to whom I responded was claiming.

Trauglodyte, on 14 March 2013 - 11:25 AM, said:

They can quote all that they want to but player perspective begs to differ with it. Then again, I reserve the right to say that you told me so at a later point.

My player perspective doesn't. Based on what I've seen, Elo is working as intended. I'd suggest that, as I mentioned before, players who are seeing something different either have inflated Elos from PUG stomping, or have an inflated sense of their own Elo rating.

Serapth, on 14 March 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

I simply state that the Elo problems, at least for me, dont seem near as pronounced when I pilot a heavy.

There are actually 4 Elo ratings per player, one per class. I'd say that'd part of what's happening.

Edited by FerretGR, 14 March 2013 - 11:48 AM.

[Mister Blastman]

FerretGR, on 14 March 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

The post explicitly refutes that Elo matchmaking works on an average value, which is what the poster to whom I responded was claiming.

Then how are groups of 4 obscenely bad players getting thrown in with my group more than 80% of the time?

Usually the damage spread is...

My four averaging around 400 - 600 damage and the bottom four averaging 50...

How do you explain that? And don't say, "Well maybe you just suck," because that isn't the case.

Something in ELO is b0rked because otherwise, you wouldn't see this sickening discrepancy that we see right now with some of us.

[shabowie]

FerretGR, on 14 March 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

The post explicitly refutes that Elo matchmaking works on an average value, which is what the poster to whom I responded was claiming.

It does not explicitly state anything. After reading it I had no better idea how their system works. It contains no specific examples with theoretical numbers, etc.

Edited by shabowie, 14 March 2013 - 11:52 AM.

[FerretGR]

Mister Blastman, on 14 March 2013 - 11:47 AM, said:

Then how are groups of 4 obscenely bad players getting thrown in with my group more than 80% of the time?

It's not done in an attempt to get to an average Elo.

FerretGR, on 14 March 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

I'd suggest that, as I mentioned before, players who are seeing something different either have inflated Elos from PUG stomping, or have an inflated sense of their own Elo rating.

shabowie, on 14 March 2013 - 11:48 AM, said:

It does not explicitly state anything. After reading it I had no better idea how their system works.

"Q: How does the match maker compose a teams Elo rating, is it average rating or closest to a target?

A: It's closest to a target value..."

Pretty explicit from my perspective. "Is it A or B? It's B." That's as explicit as it gets.

[shabowie]

FerretGR, on 14 March 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

Pretty explicit from my perspective. "Is it A or B? It's B." That's as explicit as it gets.

Yeah. "Target value" of what? If I have 4 players in a group that's a lump sum of talent coming in. The system has to balance out the aggregate talent somehow, there is no specificity in mechanics mentioned, no hypothetical situations given, no math.

[Arete]

Zeh, on 14 March 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

Those opinions are all great and good. But why will anyone not post their stats ALONG with their experience regarding this?

Then we can tell "Oh look, Jack Smith has an 82% win rate and he hasn't played with a bad player in 2 months according to him, and everyone else with a similar win-rate has a similar experience"

But no. We get people complaining about the experience with NO empirical data, or we get a different post saying "post your win-rate", and we get a bunch of win-rates with no insight into how they feel ELO is working.

Frustrating, I tell ya. If you're trying to figure anything out.

Well if we're at win rates and experiences after elo.

I'm currently at 58% win rate since stats, been at about 55%-65% since elo was implemented. I've dropped in all weight classes about as much. Don't know if that's good or not, but I feel it's probably at least in the 60-65 percentile. Mainly solo puging, about 30% of the matches are played with a friend, maybe 6-10 drops as 4-man with shieldwall of rasalhague guys (TS problems has kept me from playing with them :-/ )

Stats just to show generally mixed drops in non cheese mechs:


As for my experience with Elo, it's a _massive_ improvement compared to the old matchmaking. Once in a while it's the odd drop getting matched with newbs in trial mechs, but in general the quality of both opponents and teammates has improved a great deal. Drops with mismatched weights happen also. But what the hell, I like a challenge! :-)


edit: and yes, I have a com-2d aswell. Just don't feel like playing it since everyone else just uses that variant :-P

Edited by Arete, 14 March 2013 - 12:00 PM.

[Trauglodyte]

I don't really have a perspective on ELO because, as they refuse to list what my ELO rating actually is, I have no idea where I am on the ladder. I have about a 50% win/loss record based on an equal amount of solo dropping and grouping. Now, my wins could be because I'm in a group and my losses because when I'm solo I'm really bad. Or it could be that I'm at a threshhold where I should be 50/50. Hell, I don't know. My point being is that I'm as lost within the whole ELO thing as everyone else. The explainations are vague and ambiguous and my evidence is only anecdotal.

[Mister Blastman]

A target value implies an average as a possibility.

[FerretGR]

shabowie, on 14 March 2013 - 11:55 AM, said:

Yeah. "Target value" of what? If I have 4 players in a group that's a lump sum of talent coming in. The system has to balance out the aggregate talent somehow, there is no specificity in mechanics mentioned, no hypothetical situations given, no math.

I can't speak to that. I assume it's something like a schoolyard pick based on closeness to whatever target value the system sets. One good way to do it would be to make the target value the average Elo rating of the group in your situation. My only point is that it's NOT done by averaging the Elo value of the team, which is the mechanism by which this whole "matching 4 scrubs with 4 goods" is supposed to be happening.

[Mister Blastman]

FerretGR, on 14 March 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:

My only point is that it's NOT done by averaging the Elo value of the team, which is the mechanism by which this whole "matching 4 scrubs with 4 goods" is supposed to be happening.

Well it /is/ happening and frequently and this is the point of the thread. Why is it happening? That's what we need to figure out.

[FerretGR]

Mister Blastman, on 14 March 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

A target value implies an average as a possibility.

As a starting point, perhaps, but not something that's used once teams are being picked, as per the Command Chair post. That seems to refute the claims of folks who say the matchmaker is putting extremely low Elo players on their team to balance out their extremely high Elos by way of average.

I don't think the above is happening at all, Blastman. What I think is happening is what I keep saying... folks have either artificially inflated Elos (which will work itself out as they lose), or inflated sense of their own Elo (ie. they're not actually in the top 5% and are probably closer to the scrubs they're complaining about).

Edited by FerretGR, 14 March 2013 - 12:30 PM.

[RussianWolf]

History of ELO

No ELO - "The competition is too varied. It's either 8-0 or 8-1 with teams rolling pugs every game."

New EO - "Wait times are too long. We want to play the game."

Revised ELO - "I'm being teamed with crap players because I'm a god."

Make up your minds.

This game does not have the population to pit 16 high ELO players against each other except on rare occasions. That's the fact. So you will be playing with players lower skilled. Given that noobs are placed in ELO in the middle to start with.

Be thankful there is a Mechwarrior game at all, and pray that it lasts long enough to see your "problems" gone.

Now, continue your crying.

[Budor]

How do you have super high elo when losing 70% of all matches? I am confused...

[WarZ]

I noticed that since that last elo change, im being put on a team as essentially the only good player. The team gets wiped out, I deliver carnage, then get overwhelmed in the end. Its getting old. I like a good match but a forgone conclusion is sad.

For example, went 5 matches in a row doing:
823 damage, 2 kills
915 damage, 3 kills
758 damage 2 kills
1098 damage 5 kills
676 damage, 3 kills
... next nearest teammate in each of those matches did under 270 damage, with 4 of those teammates all doing under 200 damage. Lost all 5. I did not run a missile boat. I'm direct fire by preference, and always in the thick of it.

Soo, for 5 matches in a row I was put in a position where I nearly out damaged my entire team, or came close to it. I did great, but even with all that effort, I get overwhelmed in the end, and suffer a loss.

WTF ???

Now normally I dont suffer that many losses in a row, that was just a very striking example of being saddled with very sub par players constantly. This type of matchmaking is happening constantly. It really is wearing thin.

[Zeh]

WarZ, on 14 March 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

I noticed that since that last elo change, im being put on a team as essentially the only good player. The team gets wiped out, I deliver carnage, then get overwhelmed in the end. Its getting old. I like a good match but a forgone conclusion is sad.

For example, went 5 matches in a row doing:
823 damage, 2 kills
915 damage, 3 kills
758 damage 2 kills
1098 damage 5 kills
676 damage, 3 kills
... next nearest teammate in each of those matches did under 270 damage, with 4 of those teammates all doing under 200 damage. Lost all 5. I did not run a missile boat. I'm direct fire by preference, and always in the thick of it.

Soo, for 5 matches in a row I was put in a position where I nearly out damaged my entire team, or came close to it. I did great, but even with all that effort, I get overwhelmed in the end, and suffer a loss.

WTF ???

Now normally I dont suffer that many losses in a row, that was just a very striking example of being saddled with very sub par players constantly. This type of matchmaking is happening constantly. It really is wearing thin.

You sure it's not your playstyle? Are you LRM boating? That can easily lead to numbers as above, while still allowing your team to get decimated. And if you're the only LRM boat on a group not trying to help you, and you're not trying to adapt to them, you end up losing, and with big numbers, because LRMs do that.

It doesn't necessarily say anything about the ability of the players on your team.

Edited by Zeh, 14 March 2013 - 12:28 PM.

[FerretGR]

I'm glad I'm average, I guess... I've been having tons of fun since Elo was implemented, and as my near .5 record seems to indicate, it's working for me. AVERAGE FTW!

[WarZ]

Zeh, on 14 March 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:

You sure it's not your playstyle? Are you LRM boating? That can easily lead to numbers as above, while still allowing your team to get decimated. And if you're the only LRM boat on a group not trying to help you, and you're not trying to adapt to them, you end up losing, and with big numbers, because LRMs do that.

It doesn't necessarily say anything about the ability of the players on your team.

Did I not state clearly that I was not missile boating ? Read first.

Quote

I did not run a missile boat. I'm direct fire by preference, and always in the thick of it.

With that in mind, please rethink your post.

[FerretGR]

5 matches is far too few to draw a conclusion from. You could roll snake-eyes 5 times in a row, but that doesn't mean it's a likely outcome, that's just how probability works. You ended up on the snake-eyes side of the Elo matchmaker 5 games in a row. That's as likely an explanation as any other.