Jump to content

- - - - -

Matchmaking Phase 4 - Feedback


233 replies to this topic

#121 Draco Harkins

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 264 posts
  • LocationIn the good part of Battletech, the tabletop.

Posted 13 April 2013 - 02:28 AM

View Postjay35, on 12 April 2013 - 11:54 AM, said:

To be honest, "meh". It's fine and all, but to be honest, I don't really want every match to be close. Close is stressful. I game primarily to have fun. To enjoy the game. Enjoyment naturally comes from winning. And I'm used to winning more than losing when it comes to FPS games. So to reduce my winning, as ELO inherently does by giving better than average players tougher than average opponents, will cause me less than a normal level of enjoyment.
It's not a huge deal. I'm not going to whine because I don't get to crush the enemy every round. But it must be pointed out that you are very directly reducing the fun factor of the game for above average players any time they're looking for relaxation and fun rather than competition and stress.



And this is why this community is as it is now, a twin of the COD community where players are more interested in personnel stats then teamwork. But, to be honest i cant blame this individual, PGI fosters this type of thinking so in the bottom line, Jay is correct to think like this and i'm wrong to ask for more simulator and less arcade, more teamwork and less individualism. And when 3pv comes in to competitive (which they WILL have to incorporate, they will not have enought numbers or the sheer greed will make them so as it did until now) its all over for the sim crowd.

#122 grayson marik

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • 1,436 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 13 April 2013 - 02:55 AM

i can see this working good for pug games without any groups intermingled.

But only if next to this, there are lobbies to group my team AND the opposite team before launch like it was on MSN gaming zone.
So you can have the elo and weight random automation in PUGS and matchmaking to your flavor in the lobbies.

#123 pistolero

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 165 posts
  • Locationnot in MWO

Posted 13 April 2013 - 05:09 AM

just to make sure i did not missunderstand this

"WEIGHT CLASS MATCHING
.....
Fun fact: About 74% of games kicked off are within what we consider tolerable weight matching limits (the difference between a heavy vs. assault Mech on the opposing team).

....
"

does this mean that matching heavys against assaults is within tolerabel weight matching limits ?

extreme examples of this could be

something like 8 Dragon against 8 Atlas in an assault match
or
8 Raven against 8 Hunchback in conquest ?

Is this within tolerabel weight matching limits ? .... or did i not understand it ?

#124 Zyllos

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,818 posts

Posted 13 April 2013 - 05:27 AM

View PostOmid Kiarostami, on 12 April 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:


To clarify, it'll be similar to the forced Weight Class balancing that we used to have. We're not doing any tonnage based matching at this time.


Why are we back to this stupid crap again?...

:P

#125 Yokaiko

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 6,775 posts

Posted 13 April 2013 - 05:35 AM

View PostZyllos, on 13 April 2013 - 05:27 AM, said:


Why are we back to this stupid crap again?...

:P


My thoughts exactly.

#126 Mechwarrior Buddah

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 13,459 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 13 April 2013 - 05:46 AM

View PostDeaconW, on 12 April 2013 - 06:54 PM, said:


This quote should be the example in the dictionary for the word, "Narcissism"...truly unbelievable...as if other players are there just for your personal amusement...Do you listen to yourself? Sheez...


its funny, given the times Ive seen the other players in the game being called "content":

#127 Mechwarrior Buddah

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 13,459 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 13 April 2013 - 05:56 AM

View Postjakucha, on 13 April 2013 - 12:54 AM, said:


If I'm a cheerleader, I hope realize you're no different than what you claim I am.


no, I dont stalk YOUR name and think its ok to post the results on the forums in an attempt to discredit you. That would make me a bad person and get ME banned

#128 PhoenixFire55

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 5,725 posts
  • LocationSt.Petersburg / Outreach

Posted 13 April 2013 - 06:30 AM

View Postjakucha, on 13 April 2013 - 01:01 AM, said:

That's simply not true. Focus firing and/or aiming for cockpit can easily put it in favor of the non-Atlas team, also depends on whether or not they stick together.


Missing the point ... EACH team will focus fire and/or aim for the head and/or stick together. Team of centurions and awesomes has neither speed nor firepower. Team of Atlases and Jenners have both - it can either outgun or outrun (outcap) the other team, whichever tactic they'll prefer. Players 'skill levels' on both teams are equal, combined tonnages of both teams are equal yet one team will always have a very big advantage.

#129 Thedrelle

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 160 posts

Posted 13 April 2013 - 06:44 AM

This sounds amazing. This also would explain why I die so much now.

My KDR was holding steady a reasonable number since i started playing, and once ELO was added, i just started dropping drastically. This fix may address that issue.

#130 Wieland

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 755 posts
  • LocationKitzingen, Bolan Province, Protectorate of Donegal, Lyran Commonwealth

Posted 13 April 2013 - 06:44 AM

So there can still be
a weight imbalance up to 160 tons.
8 ECM mechs vs 8 mechs without ECM.

Or worse, all of it in one match.

#131 Yokaiko

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 6,775 posts

Posted 13 April 2013 - 07:29 AM

View PostPhoenixFire55, on 13 April 2013 - 06:30 AM, said:


Missing the point ... EACH team will focus fire and/or aim for the head and/or stick together. Team of centurions and awesomes has neither speed nor firepower.



Well until they kicked the teeth out of centurions a team of centbombs and awesome -8Rs or 8Vs had a LOT of firepower.

#132 hammerreborn

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 3,063 posts
  • LocationAlexandria, VA

Posted 13 April 2013 - 08:53 AM

View Postpistolero, on 13 April 2013 - 05:09 AM, said:

just to make sure i did not missunderstand this

"WEIGHT CLASS MATCHING
.....
Fun fact: About 74% of games kicked off are within what we consider tolerable weight matching limits (the difference between a heavy vs. assault Mech on the opposing team).

....
"

does this mean that matching heavys against assaults is within tolerabel weight matching limits ?

extreme examples of this could be

something like 8 Dragon against 8 Atlas in an assault match
or
8 Raven against 8 Hunchback in conquest ?

Is this within tolerabel weight matching limits ? .... or did i not understand it ?


It means the total difference in tonnage between teams is somewhere between that of a heavy vs assault, which probably means around 35 tons:

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2220919

Is my (and the communities) data collected over the weekend and if you assume <35 ton difference is their first number the numbers come out roughly equal to what omir said

#133 pistolero

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 165 posts
  • Locationnot in MWO

Posted 13 April 2013 - 09:12 AM

thanks for clearing that up for me guys :P

... and i realy hope that you are right ... :(

#134 Ceesa

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 201 posts
  • LocationBoston, USA

Posted 13 April 2013 - 09:16 AM

I'm glad for these changes because I was starting to notice some problems with the quality of matches. For example, today I dropped with no assaults and 3 lights on my team versus a team with no lights and four assaults. It was horribly lopsided, as expected.

I've also been seeing a pattern of my wins/losses. They go in spurts, with a long string of wins followed by a long string of losses, but very rarely a run of half win/half loss. I feel like these new changes to ELO should help, and I'm looking forward to it. Thanks for the update.

If this negative affects queue times then I'm ok with it. As long as I can drop after <20 seconds of searching, I'm happy as a clam.

#135 Rashhaverak

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 612 posts
  • LocationMajestic Waterfowl Sanctuary

Posted 13 April 2013 - 09:17 AM

MWO Matchmaking should be changed to have the two queues described below.

The first queue is for players that want to play as singles, with four players ( one lance) able to join a group (this is the same as four man is set up today).

The second queue is a team queue for players that want to play with, or play as, coordinated teams. This queue would allow any number of single players or groups to form teams up to eight (and up to twelve when the game switched to 12 vs 12). Players can make a group of 1-8, and any holes in the team would be filled by single players or smaller groups until a team of 8 is created. (This is a variation on how eight man is set up today).

Why change eight man to allow single and smaller groups to join if they wish? There are several good reasons:
  • Some of us players want the challenge and opportunity to play in, and play with, more coordinated teams. We understand that we might be up against a full eight man team, while our own team might be made up of a group of five, a group of two, and a group of one, and we are okay with that. (In fact, we relish the chance to trounce that eight man and knock their ELO down a peg).
  • Single players who want to experience more coordinated team play can do so, while other single players who want to play as individuals against other individuals can do so (without each others choices negatively affecting the other).
  • Single players who want to try and meet other teams and other players will have the ability to do so in the team queue, while teams who are trying to build their ranks can play with, and play against, new talent.
  • Allowing those players who want to play in more coordinated teams but can’t muster a team of eight can do so in the team queue without having to try and “sync drop” into the single player queue. When a sync drop works is isn’t as fun for the pugs, and when it doesn’t work it just frustrates the teams who are trying to sync it.
  • It will help build a stronger MWO gaming community by bring together more teams on the battlefield. Right now I have a great group of friends who I play with, but it can be rare to get a full eight of us together. We end up having to split our friends up into a four man group and a three man group, or splitting into two groups of three, or worse, four in one group and one person doesn’t get to play or has to play alone. That isn’t fun, and isn’t encouraging us to play the game. Instead, it’s encouraging us to play something else that we can play together, or the odd man out end up not playing at all, since they can’t play in the group and don’t want to play alone.
  • It will improve the time, variety and ability of the matchmaker to find and match up in the eight man team groups by increasing the number of players in the team queue. Right now it is not uncommon to match up multiple times with the same team, because at times there is not all that many eight mans out there. Letting the five and three group fill an eight would provide more groups for matching.
  • When 12 vs 12 comes around, it will be even harder and less likely to find a full team of twelve. Changing the team queue to the above will make it much more likely that 12 vs 12 teams can find a match up.
Set up the game so that single player is the default. That way, new players will start play in the single queue while they learn the game, and if or when they want to be a part of a team then they have a place to participate in that dynamic.

#136 jakucha

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 2,413 posts

Posted 13 April 2013 - 09:52 AM

View PostMechwarrior Buddah, on 13 April 2013 - 05:56 AM, said:


no, I dont stalk YOUR name and think its ok to post the results on the forums in an attempt to discredit you. That would make me a bad person and get ME banned


Except I don't stalk anyone.

As for on topic, hopefully the disconnection detection they mentioned will work, that'll improve a lot of games.

#137 Mechwarrior Buddah

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 13,459 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 13 April 2013 - 10:23 AM

View Postjakucha, on 13 April 2013 - 09:52 AM, said:


Except I don't stalk anyone.



except your only retort in the thread at the time was to cyberstalk my Youtube account and post a video you thought would discredit me (me signing cause I suck at it) as your reply in the argument. Because apparently you feel that is a valid topic of debate on an internet forum.
Hey, apparently the devs agree given you never got any kind of punishment for DOING it other than getting five pages around that post deleted and the thread being locked

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 13 April 2013 - 10:24 AM.


#138 Space Odin

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 61 posts

Posted 13 April 2013 - 10:38 AM

All I have to say is thank you.

I feel weightclass balance produced better games in the past than we're experiencing now and im glad PGI is incorporating it with ELO.

#139 Mishatron

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 73 posts
  • LocationLondon, UK

Posted 13 April 2013 - 10:58 AM

View PostYokaiko, on 12 April 2013 - 04:35 PM, said:



[actual tonnage matching is] terribly complicated without a huge number of people in the queue at once.


If you aim for exact tonnage match, then yes, it would be very hard to matchmake. But if you allowed a little wiggle-room, say 20 tons or something, then it could be done.

#140 Yokaiko

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 6,775 posts

Posted 13 April 2013 - 11:10 AM

View PostMishatron, on 13 April 2013 - 10:58 AM, said:


If you aim for exact tonnage match, then yes, it would be very hard to matchmake. But if you allowed a little wiggle-room, say 20 tons or something, then it could be done.



20 is the difference between a single class....as in one.

Basically you are talking to normalize that you are talking an astronomical number of people in the queue, 16 mechs with 12 different weight possibilities, so that means 16 to the 12th power to normalize that. Its a 12 billion to one chance that you get 16 mechs of the same weight in the queue.





10 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 10 guests, 0 anonymous users