38 replies to this topic

[Zero Neutral]

Simple poll.

Would you like the option to wait up to 10 minutes to find a match for your ELO rating level rather than broaden the search continuously until, "Somenubone," is found?

Read: "Optional." An option that a player can choose in order to more strictly enforce ELO rating during the match-making process.

Edited by Zero Neutral, 14 March 2013 - 05:05 PM.

[Darkside7777]

10 minutes? No. 5 minutes? Maybe.

[Aethon]

Other:

I would rather go back to the old system, where weights were actually balanced, AND we almost never had to wait long for matches. Better on balance, better on time.

[Kaspirikay]

10 mins is way too long.

[RG Notch]

10 mins? Matches don't average that long. Yeah spending more game time waiting than playing sounds great.

[Zero Neutral]

Darkside7777, on 14 March 2013 - 02:52 PM, said:

10 minutes? No. 5 minutes? Maybe.

RG Notch, on 14 March 2013 - 03:00 PM, said:

10 mins? Matches don't average that long. Yeah spending more game time waiting than playing sounds great.

Kaspirikay, on 14 March 2013 - 02:58 PM, said:

10 mins is way too long.

It was an arbitrary time limit that I pulled out of my arse.

Also read: "Optional," and, "Up to..."

The reason that waits would be longer, if ELO were strictly enforced, is because the players who are at similar ELO levels might already be in game.

Edited by Zero Neutral, 14 March 2013 - 03:11 PM.

[armyof1]

I would not have any problems with an average of 2 minutes of waiting if you really do get more even matches. Most matches now are seldom more even than 8-2 either way and the matching time is usually just 10 secs or so,

Edited by armyof1, 14 March 2013 - 03:10 PM.

[Ialti]

As it stands? No thanks. I'm good with frustrating matches.

[Warrax the Chaos Warrior]

Two things first:

1. Fewer CTD's

2. Find a way to prevent people from tampering with their map files to avoid the maps they don't like.

Games that are 6 or 7 vs. 8 (or worse) are far too common right now to make any generalizations about how well Elo is or is not working.

I'd like to see the weight balancing done a little better, but I don't mind a little uncertainty when it comes to what the OPFOR may or may not have.

As for skill imbalance... I don't think we have enough players to stratify the public queue. The fact that 2-4 man groups are dropping in the public queue complicates things substantially, both for weight and Elo balancing.

Also, 12-mans as a standard will change the matchmaking dynamic substantially. It's coming, and we can't really pass judgement on Elo until it gets here.

[Commander Kobold]

I wouldn't mind the option to wait a little longer to get a better match

[Timuroslav]

To be honest. I had more balanced more fights inPUGs when the tonnage balance was in play. Only when ELO was inserted did I experience people dropping out. Afks were more common though. But the tonnage balance was way more fair.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

Only if it's waiting for a premade vs premade matchup. This premade vs pug BS needs to go. NOW. WHY IS IT STILL HERE?! If team 1 has a 2-4 group, then team 2 should as well! Fix this already!

[Zero Neutral]

Please stay on topic regarding whether or not you would prefer to wait longer in order to ensure a better ELO match up, or not.

I agree with some of the other posts here but those are separate issues.

[Warrax the Chaos Warrior]

Zero Neutral, on 14 March 2013 - 03:41 PM, said:

Please stay on topic regarding whether or not you would prefer to wait longer in order to ensure a better ELO match up, or not.

I agree with some of the other posts here but those are separate issues.

I voted "no".

Not because I don't want better matches (though I do win more than I lose these days), but because I'm not sure that extra time would really help with the system being what it is at the moment.

I could be wrong about that, but there are some changes coming down the pipe (mainly 12v12) that render it a moot point anyway. That is, unless 12v12 gets delayed in a big way, which could happen.

[Merky Merc]

I find that very few of my matches are now steamrolls. It happens occasionally but it's usually 8-4 games either way, or more likely 7-4 because DCs, or for the poor ******** on the other team 4-0. A whole premade dc'd when they saw River city night I guess :/

So no, nothing longer than a minute wait thanks.

Edited by Merky Merc, 14 March 2013 - 03:53 PM.

[TygerLily]

No way. I'm not saying matchmaking is fine as is (it's a work in progress) but I generally don't think things are unfair. I think we've all done 6 or 7 vs 8, or fought a team with 3 Ravens with no lights on the home team, and won. I also think any unfairness is spread among everyone so we're all in the same boat. I'd rather get in the drop, play with what we have, and move on!

[Kobold]

If I had to wait that long to play a single round, I would stop playing MWO.

[Zero Neutral]

Warrax the Chaos Warrior, on 14 March 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

I voted "no".

Not because I don't want better matches (though I do win more than I lose these days), but because I'm not sure that extra time would really help with the system being what it is at the moment.

I could be wrong about that, but there are some changes coming down the pipe (mainly 12v12) that render it a moot point anyway. That is, unless 12v12 gets delayed in a big way, which could happen.

The extra time would only exist because of the same reason that the matchmaker currently broadens the search as time passes: lack of players of similar ELO levels.

[Nathan Foxbane]

This is what happened and worse when ELO first came out. The forums were chaos.

[Eddrick]

Let the player choose how strict they want the ELO filter.