38 replies to this topic

[Warrax the Chaos Warrior]

Zero Neutral, on 14 March 2013 - 04:08 PM, said:

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.

Do you think the pool of players at various levels is large enough in a ~5-10 minute span of time that there would be a significant increase in match quality? Perhaps... but I sort of doubt it, because I don't think relative Elo ratings on their own is the problem.

Elo was designed for 1v1 competition, so the matchmaker is trying to match people 1v1. Adding a premade group to the queue wrecks the equation because 4 people that should be on opposite sides due to their (most likely) similar Elo ratings means that the aggregate Elo for the rest of the their team and the other team becomes a meaningless number.

IDK, maybe I'm having a little trouble explaining myself. Bottom line; the matchmaker needs to take groups into account instead of treating it the same as 2-4 individuals that can't be put on opposing sides. I don't think giving it more time to match people would fix any imbalance issues when the numbers themselves are being skewed by something that is essentially unmeasurable.

Edited by Warrax the Chaos Warrior, 14 March 2013 - 04:30 PM.

[Zero Neutral]

Warrax the Chaos Warrior, on 14 March 2013 - 04:29 PM, said:

Do you think the pool of players at various levels is large enough in a ~5-10 minute span of time that there would be a significant increase in match quality?

Yes.

Eddrick, on 14 March 2013 - 04:19 PM, said:

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

That's what I mean, yeh.

[Khell DarkWolf]

Aethon, on 14 March 2013 - 02:53 PM, said:

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.

[GalaxyBluestar]

[Zero Neutral]

GalaxyBluestar I think that you totally missed the point. In the poll, the choice would be optional to either more strictly enforce ELO or not.

Edited by Zero Neutral, 14 March 2013 - 05:06 PM.

[Eddrick]

Zero Neutral, on 14 March 2013 - 04:51 PM, said:

GalaxyBuster I think that you totally missed the point. In the poll, the choice would be optional to either more strictly enforce ELO or not.

May just need to reword it differantly. The way it's worded right now makes it sound in favor of the people that want ELO enforced farther. Over the ones that want it to stay as is or not enforce ELO at all.

[Odins Fist]

I don't wait ten minutes, not for a beer at the bar, and sure as hell not for a single map/match...

[Zero Neutral]

Eddrick, on 14 March 2013 - 04:57 PM, said:

May just need to reword it differantly. The way it's worded right now makes it sound in favor of the people that want ELO enforced farther. Over the ones that want it to stay as is or not enforce ELO at all.

No, I think that you need to read it more carefully.

[Rayah]

Maybe not ten minutes... but I wouldn't mind a little wait.

[Zero Neutral]

It seems that more people are satisfied with being able to get in to a game quickly vs having the voluntary option to be matched more accurately, if it costs more time. I was just curious. Thanks for voting.

[Warrax the Chaos Warrior]

Zero Neutral, on 14 March 2013 - 06:20 PM, said:

It seems that more people are satisfied with being able to get in to a game quickly vs having the voluntary option to be matched more accurately, if it costs more time. I was just curious. Thanks for voting.

I hate to speak for other people, but it may be that most of us don't have enough faith in Elo as it applies to MW:O to believe that longer wait times would actually fix any issues.

It could also be that many of us are actually getting better games since Elo went into effect, and therefore don't need any changes. Is it that it's mainly the former pub-stompers that are suffering? Perhaps.

[GalaxyBluestar]

sorry if i read wrong or misinterpreted any of the op but simply i think a 2min max wait is good enough, any longer i doubt would result in a better match experience.

you need to rephraise the poll to give us options, at the moment it's just your opinion on what if the mm took ten mins to find you a match, so thats why i posted the memes.

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 14 March 2013 - 09:30 PM.

[Darius Deadeye]

I have no idea why people complain about ELO.

The greatest players can have a horrible match.

The worst players can have a fantastic match.

The ELO in this game is no different from any other game.

People are randomly different and individual, subject to Murphy's law, cause and effect.

All this whining about ELO is pathetic. IMHO.

[Zero Neutral]

GalaxyBluestar, on 14 March 2013 - 09:28 PM, said:

sorry if i read wrong or misinterpreted any of the op but simply i think a 2min max wait is good enough, any longer i doubt would result in a better match experience.

you need to rephraise the poll to give us options, at the moment it's just your opinion on what if the mm took ten mins to find you a match, so thats why i posted the memes.

It says up to 10 minutes as an arbitrary time limit that means nothing in reality... get it through the skull. The entire point is to determine whether or not many players would rather wait X amount of time longer, (OPTIONALLY,) if it ensured a better accuracy of matching ELO levels.

Edited by Zero Neutral, 15 March 2013 - 07:26 AM.

[Bilbo]

Aethon, on 14 March 2013 - 02:53 PM, said:

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.

There was nothing balanced about the old system except weight.

[Gregory Owen]

i couldn't care less about ELO

Edited by Gregory Owen, 15 March 2013 - 06:18 AM.

[Yokaiko]

While ten minutes would likely work..kinda....no.

.......I wish they would give us population numbers, I could explain why.

[Aethon]

Bilbo, on 15 March 2013 - 06:16 AM, said:

There was nothing balanced about the old system except weight.

Weight is all that needs to be balanced, although new players should only be matched against other new players IMHO, so they have a place and time to learn. Similarly, trial mechs should only be matched against other trial mechs, IMHO.

With ELO, there is no need to try to improve your skills; the server will hold your hand, and drop you down with other people who play similarly. If you get better, things will only change for a couple matches, before you are bumped up into a more hardcore group. There is no reward for improving your skills. There is no penalty for slacking off. Which makes the game feel pointless, since we will have an artificially-regulated win/loss ratio.

There is no need for a computer to try to regulate my win/loss ratio. That is nothing but a C-bill income nerf with a nice-sounding name.

[Bilbo]

The computer isn't regulating your win loss ratio, it is regulating the skill of the opponents you are allowed to play against. The weight imbalance issues are being worked on.