Matchmaking Phase 4 - Feedback
#21
Posted 12 April 2013 - 11:58 AM
With 12v12 I guess it will be 4man or 12man or go home? Nothing inbetween? Give me a break.
#22
Posted 12 April 2013 - 11:59 AM
jay35, on 12 April 2013 - 11:54 AM, said:
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.
Since none of the queues are ranked yet why worry, just play for fun.
If you really need to roll some newbs start a "smurf" account, if you haven't heard of those just make a secondary account with base Elo so you're not worried about trashing your "main's" with "just having fun".
#23
Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:00 PM
#24
Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:01 PM
King Arthur IV, on 12 April 2013 - 11:59 AM, said:
imo anywhere between 100 tons and 1 would be better. i hope we wont get stuck in match making for a very long time or is it going to be like elo? the longer we wait the greater the difference in weight? if this is the case why not just set the tolerance higher..... between 1-100? (im guessing its tons)
Why would you want a 100 ton split when they said that 74% matches already <20-30 tons (depending on what heavy to assault means), and they want all matches to be like that.
#25
Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:01 PM
King Arthur IV, on 12 April 2013 - 11:59 AM, said:
imo anywhere between 100 tons and 1 would be better. i hope we wont get stuck in match making for a very long time or is it going to be like elo? the longer we wait the greater the difference in weight? if this is the case why not just set the tolerance higher..... between 1-100? (im guessing its tons)
I'll hazard a guess and say that there will be some "funky" bad math going on with this because we do have missing tonnages involved (45 [BlackJack], 55, 75 [Orion], 95) so there may be some more noticeable "tendencies" to predict what mechs will drop on the field.
Edited by Deathlike, 12 April 2013 - 12:02 PM.
#26
Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:05 PM
Omid 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.
Ah, so top-of-their-weight-class 'mechs are still ruling the roost. Gotcha.
Why even bother having 'mechs that are not top of their weight class if you're going to do this to them?
In the words of Custom3173:
Custom3173, on 12 April 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:
/a sad Commando pilot.
Edited by stjobe, 12 April 2013 - 12:06 PM.
#27
Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:07 PM
If so:
Goodbye Marik Civil War. You had a good run.
Edited by 3rdworld, 12 April 2013 - 12:07 PM.
#28
Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:08 PM
stjobe, on 12 April 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:
Why even bother having 'mechs that are not top of their weight class if you're going to do this to them?
In the words of Custom3173:
/a sad Commando pilot.
As long as the skill comes into play the top of the weight class doesn't really matter. In my data the heavier team actually won slightly less games on average than the lighter team (probably more around 50/50 if you discount all equal tonnage games).
#29
Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:10 PM
#30
Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:10 PM
#31
Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:12 PM
There are very few teams online anyways, and you would need to match those teams exact weight class to drop against them?
Impossibru
Edited by 3rdworld, 12 April 2013 - 12:13 PM.
#32
Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:14 PM
hammerreborn, on 12 April 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:
Why would you want a 100 ton split when they said that 74% matches already <20-30 tons (depending on what heavy to assault means), and they want all matches to be like that.
Deathlike, on 12 April 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:
I'll hazard a guess and say that there will be some "funky" bad math going on with this because we do have missing tonnages involved (45 [BlackJack], 55, 75 [Orion], 95) so there may be some more noticeable "tendencies" to predict what mechs will drop on the field.
i should of read before i posted but apparently its not based off tons. i would of liked it to be based of tons but if its based off tons and the tolerance is 0, it would be very odd because finding perfect matches would be hard.
btw where did i say 100? i said between 1-100, they could set the tolerance to 2 for all i care. looks like im not the only one that doesnt read. huehuehuehue but its not tons so meh
Edited by King Arthur IV, 12 April 2013 - 12:22 PM.
#33
Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:20 PM
MadPanda, on 12 April 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:
ELO much? Should take care of some of that.
Your also assuming that the DC is built correctly, and not just as terrible as the trial awesome. Again, if the player ELO is similar, then the match up will be similar ... after all, how many people actually use the awesome anyways? not going to be that many so they won't show up that often :-)
#34
Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:21 PM
I wished ELO was based on the mech VARIANT, which would make comparisons to ELO from a Raven 2X or 4X DIFFERENT from a Raven 3L. They should be different, but they are valued the same, which, they are clearly not by design or balance.
#36
Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:22 PM
#38
Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:27 PM
stjobe, on 12 April 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:
Why even bother having 'mechs that are not top of their weight class if you're going to do this to them?
In the words of Custom3173:
/a sad Commando pilot.
This
With tonnage matching (+ keeping equal numbers, but ignoring actual classes) there's so much more value in bringing low-end mechs than there is currently. Without tonnage matching, you're just going back to the place where the fellow who brings a Dragon just give the opposing team a 3D or dual AC20 Jager, etc. Awesome vs. Atlas, etc.
(Don't get me wrong, I love dragons, but... yeah.)
With tonnage matching, things are so much more interesting.
#39
Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:30 PM
Deathlike, on 12 April 2013 - 12:21 PM, said:
I wished ELO was based on the mech VARIANT, which would make comparisons to ELO from a Raven 2X or 4X DIFFERENT from a Raven 3L. They should be different, but they are valued the same, which, they are clearly not by design or balance.
No, absolutely not.
Because most players don't play a lot of matches - I seem to remember... Garth? saying 6 matches/day was the average. At 6 matches per day, your Elo score will take months to settle unless you always play with the same mechs. Even assuming it was done by mech type not variant, it would still take ages, and change extremely slowly.
It's a balance between adjustment speed and accuracy. Weight class is really the best way to do it IMHO.
(Edit: to calculate Elo, that is)
Edited by Wintersdark, 12 April 2013 - 12:31 PM.
#40
Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:32 PM
jay35, on 12 April 2013 - 11:54 AM, said:
Let the whining begin!! I for one welcome our new matchmaking overlords. It is about freaking time they finally are attempting a fix to the B$ matchmaking as it is now.
I may just have to buy something to congratulate them....nah, never mind.
Edited by Hellen Wheels, 12 April 2013 - 12:34 PM.
4 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users