33 replies to this topic

[Koujo]

"Match maker phase 4" can't get here quick enough. I'm still skeptical about ELO however. Just did a PUG drop and wound up with a team with the the top heaviest mechs being an Awesome, Catapult and 3 dragons vs ECM Atlas, ECM Atlas, Awesome, and 2 Raven 3Ls. Of course the other teams was kind enough to blame our tactics when I stated what a failure MM was. I halfway think it was a premade to top it all off.

Why they couldn't just make 4 mans play against 4 mans and institute some form of weight balance mystifies me.

[TruePoindexter]

Koujo, on 15 April 2013 - 12:55 PM, said:

"Match maker phase 4" can't get here quick enough. I'm still skeptical about ELO however. Just did a PUG drop and wound up with a team with the the top heaviest mechs being an Awesome, Catapult and 3 dragons vs ECM Atlas, ECM Atlas, Awesome, and 2 Raven 3Ls. Of course the other teams was kind enough to blame our tactics when I stated what a failure MM was. I halfway think it was a premade to top it all off.

Why they couldn't just make 4 mans play against 4 mans and institute some form of weight balance mystifies me.

Why are you comparing weight/mech match making to ELO? They're not the same thing. ELO is a rating that assigns a chance to win independent of you or your opponent selecting an inferior mech.

[Roadbeer]

Awesome = 80 ton
Catapult = 65 ton
Dragon = 60 ton x 3
Described weight = 325 ton

Atlas = 100 ton x2
Awesome = 80 ton
Raven = 35 tonx2
Described weight = 350 ton

So, the problem? Seems pretty close to me.

[Koujo]

They had heavier mechs in there also. I just mentioned the ravens to show they also had 4 ECM mechs to our 0. And you forgot an Atlas. They had two.

Edited by Koujo, 15 April 2013 - 01:02 PM.

[Phaesphoros]

I think OP's blaming ELO because ELO currently is preferred over weight (both are factors actually). Before, it was solely weight matching.

Though I think that uneven matches enhance game play (consider perfect weight matching, i.e. Atlas vs Atlas, COM vs COM.... boring....), I guess that in order to do a weight matching that feels right, you'd to consider the weight spread, aka standard deviation. It tells you how much the weight of a team is distributed around the average value.

example: AS7 + COM = 125 t = CTPLT + DRG, but the standard deviation is different (from 125 t/2 = 62.5 t)

Edited by Phaesphoros, 15 April 2013 - 01:04 PM.

[Roadbeer]

The weight balances out to being pretty close, and WTF does ECM have to do with it. They're supposed to sort out by equipment too?

THEY HAD MORE COOL SHOT 9X9 THAN WE DID!

and I didn't forget the atlas, it's in there... see the x2

Edited by Roadbeer, 15 April 2013 - 01:04 PM.

[One Medic Army]

Roadbeer, on 15 April 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

Awesome = 80 ton
Catapult = 65 ton
Dragon = 60 ton x 3
Described weight = 325 ton

Atlas = 100 ton x2
Awesome = 80 ton
Raven = 35 tonx2
Described weight = 350 ton

So, the problem? Seems pretty close to me.

The problem is what would you rather have as your team, a bunch of Dragons and an Awesome, or several Atlases and 3Ls...
The problem is that all variants are not created equal, and some of the best ones (Raven-3L, Jenner-F, Jenner-D) are much less tonnage than some of the worst ones (Hunch-G, Dragons in general).
Balancing by total tonnage only works when mechs are all roughly of equal power, or when heavier mechs are better.

[Koujo]

TruePoindexter, on 15 April 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

Why are you comparing weight/mech match making to ELO? They're not the same thing. ELO is a rating that assigns a chance to win independent of you or your opponent selecting an inferior mech.

So you're saying the whole match making system totally ignores mech weight? Or just that they're two different systems. Either way it does seem to totally ignore weight quite often.

[Willie Sauerland]

Roadbeer, on 15 April 2013 - 01:02 PM, said:

The weight balances out to being pretty close, and WTF does ECM have to do with it. They're supposed to sort out by equipment too?

THEY HAD MORE COOL SHOT 9X9 THAN WE DID!

P2W?

However,

I have seen high ELO players

matched up with a bunch of low ELO players

to even out the match...

Which doesn't...

[Phaesphoros]

Koujo, on 15 April 2013 - 01:05 PM, said:

So you're saying the whole match making system totally ignores mech weight? Or just that they're two different systems. Either way it does seem to totally ignore weight quite often.

Guessing from this Command Chair on MM stage 4, weight seems to be a factor, but the tolerance might be a bit high.

[Zylo]

Koujo, on 15 April 2013 - 12:55 PM, said:

"Match maker phase 4" can't get here quick enough. I'm still skeptical about ELO however. Just did a PUG drop and wound up with a team with the the top heaviest mechs being an Awesome, Catapult and 3 dragons vs ECM Atlas, ECM Atlas, Awesome, and 2 Raven 3Ls. Of course the other teams was kind enough to blame our tactics when I stated what a failure MM was. I halfway think it was a premade to top it all off.

Why they couldn't just make 4 mans play against 4 mans and institute some form of weight balance mystifies me.

It was stated in ATD #34 answers that most players group in MWO - http://mwomercs.com/...evs-34-answers/. For this to be true the average match would probably have at least 2x pre-made groups. There is a good chance a pre-made group existed on both teams and the tonnage difference decided the fight.

Edited by Zylo, 15 April 2013 - 01:10 PM.

[Chavette]

Its weight CLASS not WEIGHT balanced.

[Roadbeer]

Tonnage difference is completely irrelevant in the way he describes the teams.. they're only 25 tons apart.

[Koujo]

Roadbeer, on 15 April 2013 - 01:02 PM, said:

The weight balances out to being pretty close, and WTF does ECM have to do with it. They're supposed to sort out by equipment too?

THEY HAD MORE COOL SHOT 9X9 THAN WE DID!

and I didn't forget the atlas, it's in there... see the x2

Yeah you're right. It's perfectly fine to put 4 ECM mechs on one team and 0 on the other. This is probably more a equipment balance problem than a MM problem but it still contributes to overly lopsided matches.

[Roadbeer]

Chavette, on 15 April 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:

Its weight CLASS not WEIGHT balanced.

Um, no... it isn't.

Koujo, on 15 April 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

Yeah you're right. It's perfectly fine to put 4 ECM mechs on one team and 0 on the other. This is probably more a equipment balance problem than a MM problem but it still contributes to overly lopsided matches.

Right or not... equipment isn't factored into the equation.

[Koujo]

Roadbeer, on 15 April 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

Um, no... it isn't.



Right or not... equipment isn't factored into the equation.

If it's not right then why are you comparing it to something as trivial as coolshot?

[Chavette]

Roadbeer, on 15 April 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

Um, no... it isn't.

Quote

WEIGHT CLASS MATCHING

We're adding the ability for us, the developers, to adjust our weight matching tolerances on the fly. This is giving us a controlled way to tighten up the weight imbalance between teams that players are experiencing.

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). Of the remaining 26% of matches, about 7% are what we would call "horrendously bad" (i.e., they carry the weight difference of one or two full assault Mechs between teams).

When we tighten up the Weight Matching, we're going to drop our weight tolerance to 0 and see what happens. Teams will be almost equally built in terms of weight class, though they will draw from a wider skill range of players to compensate.

Care to elaborate?

[Willie Sauerland]

Koujo, on 15 April 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:

If it's not right then why are you comparing it to something as trivial as coolshot?

Really isn't that trivial.

Chavette, on 15 April 2013 - 01:14 PM, said:

Care to elaborate?

That is coming.

As in,

not in it yet.

Or significantly flawed

as to be seen as

not in it yet.

[Roadbeer]

Koujo, on 15 April 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:

If it's not right then why are you comparing it to something as trivial as coolshot?

Because you're saying that the MM system shouldn't have put 4 ECM on one team, I'm saying that MM doesn't even look at it, so complaining about ECM is like complaining about the other team having more coolshot or arty/air than you did.

Chavette, on 15 April 2013 - 01:14 PM, said:

Care to elaborate?

I have a suspicion that (Like in other instances) that their choice in words is going to come to bite them in the ***.
If the new system is going to match assault/assault and heavy/heavy (Weight Class Matching)... great, I'm all for it.
But if... like it's doing now and getting the weight of the teams close, regardless of Light, Medium, Heavy or Assault (Weight Matching), You're going to have a lot of QQ because of a poor choice of words.

[One Medic Army]

Roadbeer, on 15 April 2013 - 01:20 PM, said:

I have a suspicion that (Like in other instances) that their choice in words is going to come to bite them in the ***.
If the new system is going to match assault/assault and heavy/heavy (Weight Class Matching)... great, I'm all for it.
But if... like it's doing now and getting the weight of the teams close, regardless of Light, Medium, Heavy or Assault (Weight Matching), You're going to have a lot of QQ because of a poor choice of words.

If you check the official feedback thread they've already clarified it's going to be by weight class rather than by weight total.