85 replies to this topic

[Zerberus]

Glythe, on 01 May 2013 - 09:35 PM, said:

Having Elo at all in this game is hell.

Random match maker made for better games.....

Just put all the trial mechs and people with less than 50-100 games together and everything would be fine.

... and watch many of the same people who complain about Elo and matchmaking being broken create 2-3 alt accounts /week just so they can stomp newbies in matches they consider "fair"

Edited by Zerberus, 02 May 2013 - 06:27 AM.

[RickySpanish]

Zerberus, on 02 May 2013 - 06:27 AM, said:

... and watch many of the same people who complain about Elo and matchmaking being broken create 2-3 alt accounts /week just so they can stomp newbies in matches they consider "fair"

There will always be dicks like that who re-roll smurf accounts just to take on the little guys. Once CW comes along this might be minimized a bit by offering incentives to players to continue playing their main accounts that currently don't exist. The meta is so boring right now that I can't really fault people for starting new characters to give them a brief respite from the poptart spam infesting the "higher" (ha) ranks of matchmaking. Personally I'm giving the game a break to do more interesting things until CW is introduced, which will hopefully happen in a few months.

[Sephlock]

[Prophetic]

Lefty Lucy, on 01 May 2013 - 10:14 PM, said:

How you you run 4 JJ highlanders and level mechs in the same match?

We are facing 4 JJ Highlanders while we level random mechs every freaking time. I should have worded that better.

This leads us to run a sniper setup like everyone else instead of trying to level sub par mechs, i.e ones with no pilot xp or random experiment builds. Which is less fun because those other factors are not taken into account.

[Rackminster]

A new dash on ELO Hell - I get paired with people so new, they Alpha me in the back, removing my rear armor so the skilled enemy scout can just core me quickly.

... and two rounds earlier, I was in a team with people so good they worked like a well oiled team despite not being grouped.

I'm just not diggin' it.

[Dexee]

Here's another prime example of how ELO and the current state of Matchmaking sucks:



8 ASSAULTS versus 3 assault, 2 heavy, 3 medium. Don't know if this is sposed to work like this, but I'm sure this is wrong. Doesn't help that I also dropped an 8 assault match in a Jenner not too long ago. Dead just as quick as this match had gone for most of us.

[Belorion]

I am not fond of easy mode, I prefer being closer matched to my opponents.

[Aaron45]

I have to many matches with 8:0 loss or win. I dont think Elo is working great

[Rackminster]

Legolaas, on 05 May 2013 - 08:20 AM, said:

I have to many matches with 8:0 loss or win. I dont think Elo is working great

I think the "balanced" rounds I have are ELO being confused as to what it needs to do to me - so I end up in a match that can go either way and we maybe win with 5 or 6 losses, or maybe they win with 5 or 6. The next round, however, ELO knows just what to do with me...

If I won my last round, I'm paired with people who are all very poorly favored on score. If I lost my last round, I'm paired with people who are all strongly favored by score.

I imagine that the only way to combat this is to team up exclusively in 4-mans - which, from what I hear, have devolved into PPC/Gauss sniper matches with Jump Jets because this offers both numeric superiority in pinpoint alpha damage and the added bonus of exploiting the netcode's handling of damage around JJ's.

So if I want to play my brawling Atlas - and I do - I have to suffer through a constant stream of "One Up, One Down".

This isn't good. Someone at PGI needs to start letting me be genuinely challenged in each and every match with players of similar skill levels. I shouldn't be facing people who can't aim properly or teamed with people who don't know how to avoid shooting me in the back.

Would it be so hard to build tiers of players based on skill, and you only get nudged up a or down a rung if the game can't find a relatively quick match to put you in...

Maybe how it could work:

1. I start off with a score of zero. I'm lumped immediately in with the Newbie League.
2. After 10 rounds of scoring in the top 4 ranked Newbies, I get nudged into the Rookie League.
3. After 10 rounds of scoring in the top 4 of the Rookies, I get nudged into the Regular League.
4. After 10 rounds of scoring in the top 4 of the Regulars, I get nudged into the Veteran League.
5. Etc etc.
6. If at any point I land in the bottom 4 of any league for 10 consecutive rounds, I get dropped down a league.

This isn't a "per chassis" method, either. If I'm a good pilot, I should be able to swing a Light into the Regular matches even if I worked my way there with an Assault.

This seems like a very straight-forward method and works within the rankings the game already uses - and would keep me constantly challenged. In order to move up, I have to become a better player. As I evolve as a player, I'm pitted against people of similar skill.

Why is that hard?

Edited by Rackminster, 05 May 2013 - 11:38 AM.

[Aaron45]

Rackminster, on 05 May 2013 - 11:34 AM, said:

I think the "balanced" rounds I have are ELO being confused as to what it needs to do to me - so I end up in a match that can go either way and we maybe win with 5 or 6 losses, or maybe they win with 5 or 6. The next round, however, ELO knows just what to do with me...

If I won my last round, I'm paired with people who are all very poorly favored on score. If I lost my last round, I'm paired with people who are all strongly favored by score.

I imagine that the only way to combat this is to team up exclusively in 4-mans - which, from what I hear, have devolved into PPC/Gauss sniper matches with Jump Jets because this offers both numeric superiority in pinpoint alpha damage and the added bonus of exploiting the netcode's handling of damage around JJ's.

So if I want to play my brawling Atlas - and I do - I have to suffer through a constant stream of "One Up, One Down".

This isn't good. Someone at PGI needs to start letting me be genuinely challenged in each and every match with players of similar skill levels. I shouldn't be facing people who can't aim properly or teamed with people who don't know how to avoid shooting me in the back.

Would it be so hard to build tiers of players based on skill, and you only get nudged up a or down a rung if the game can't find a relatively quick match to put you in...

Maybe how it could work:

1. I start off with a score of zero. I'm lumped immediately in with the Newbie League.
2. After 10 rounds of scoring in the top 4 ranked Newbies, I get nudged into the Rookie League.
3. After 10 rounds of scoring in the top 4 of the Rookies, I get nudged into the Regular League.
4. After 10 rounds of scoring in the top 4 of the Regulars, I get nudged into the Veteran League.
5. Etc etc.
6. If at any point I land in the bottom 4 of any league for 10 consecutive rounds, I get dropped down a league.

This isn't a "per chassis" method, either. If I'm a good pilot, I should be able to swing a Light into the Regular matches even if I worked my way there with an Assault.

This seems like a very straight-forward method and works within the rankings the game already uses - and would keep me constantly challenged. In order to move up, I have to become a better player. As I evolve as a player, I'm pitted against people of similar skill.

Why is that hard?

cool story bro

[Rackminster]

Legolaas, on 05 May 2013 - 11:55 AM, said:

cool story bro

It's good to see such a bright, insightful post so laden with thoughtful counter-arguments and littered with detail. I was beginning to think the interwebs couldn't regurgitate inane asininity on schedule, but you've saved us all from that horrific fate.

[Mister Blastman]

The underhive and ELO hell IS real. More evidence:

[Roadbuster]

Mister Blastman, on 30 April 2013 - 07:10 PM, said:

OMG. It's the steering wheel underhive!

To be honest. It's true that they should tighten the relevant ELO score for matchmaking to prevent putting really bad players (no offense) in the same group as very good players who will just be frustrated by the sheer stupidity or of their teammates.
New players should be put in a seperate group for some matches.
And there should be a maximum of 4 players in a premade group and the other 4 players should always be random.

Worst thing I've experienced so far was a match where half of our team was dead before we even had one enemy on the radar.
Another match we were a group of 2 players+randoms vs 2 groups of 4 players...

[TruePoindexter]

Zerberus, on 02 May 2013 - 06:27 AM, said:

... and watch many of the same people who complain about Elo and matchmaking being broken create 2-3 alt accounts /week just so they can stomp newbies in matches they consider "fair"

MWO's Eli doesn't work like that. New players start at an intermediate elo and o up or down from there.

[Shakespeare]

Mister Blastman, on 06 May 2013 - 04:42 PM, said:

The underhive and ELO hell IS real. More evidence:

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o232/Mr_Blastman/MWOClient_2013_05_06_20_42_10_216_zpscfafe143.png

I just had about 3 of those out of my last 6 games. I can't make much of a real guess on my 'bracket', but what I have figured out, is that if I have to wait more than 20 seconds for a match, I'm probably going to be the only one on my team to break 200.

This whole averaging thing is bizarre - it doesn't differentiate between a team of mostly ok players, and a team with 1 high-level player and 7 window-lickers.



I don't mean any offense, I'm sure they're new, or new in that chassis. But for the love of God, every time I finish a MM- range-stretching match, I get rolled by a competent team whilst my team is too busy urinating on the buildings. I mean, what the hell? Who adjusted the max range for this damn thing?


Now, I don't have a great sample size for this stuff, since after a match like that, and ESPECIALLY after 2 in a row, I'm done for the day. Like today. But the way it feels to me is, if I have a night with my friends where we do well, say 7/10 victories, some hard-fought, and some total rolls, then when I go off on my own the next night, I can expect to be leading the headdesk brigade for at least a few matches, like penance.



I don't mind losing. I lose plenty, and lots of those were good games. I mind facing a team, without having one of my own ( team queue pls?). I mind watching either the weight limits, or especially the player competency/experience rating, skew so far afield that I don't even get a good fight before the game ends. It's like when wal-mart says that their average pay is $12 an hour - average, and median, are not the same. Quit averaging me by dumping lobotomy patients in my lance, as though that's the same as being a little under-tonned, or having a few newbies.

This is not the most reasonable feedback I've ever given. I just needed to rant, and this seems like the only ELO discussion thread that makes any sense.

Edited by Shakespeare, 04 July 2013 - 02:57 PM.

[PEEFsmash]

Mister Blastman, on 01 May 2013 - 06:43 AM, said:

It isn't?

Well then Sherlock, how does THIS happen?




... And it happens far more often than not. THAT people, THAT is ELO hell.

By far the best example I have ever seen or probably ever will see of the good player + bad players vs average team phenomena that happens at top Elos.

[Amsro]

The tolerance for Elo average needs to be dropped instead for a Max/Mix Elo range.

Once you win enough matches in your Elo bracket you move up.

Have them 1-10; 1 being fresh trial mech cadet bonus players. Obviously 10 being competitive lances and teams essentially.

As it is now just grabbing any player to fill the Elo average hole is laughable.

[Victor Morson]

Rackminster, on 01 May 2013 - 06:38 AM, said:

Is this what happened to me? I got "good enough" to start seeing all these damned purple Highlanders?

My first few days back, everything felt really good and I was having a lot of fun. Two nights ago I ran into a wall of camping snipers and matches that were less fun. They haven't relented, but I'm finding ways around them. The players behind those Mechs really only seem to know how to use them one way. Even on flat ground, I had a guy last night that kept jumping up and putting his feet in front of my Atlas. I ended the fight by ripping his legs off in mid-jump as they came back into view.

You've reached middle ELO: Meta builds with mixed pilots.

Edited by Victor Morson, 04 July 2013 - 04:01 PM.

[Aim64C]

IceSerpent, on 01 May 2013 - 07:08 AM, said:

You are describing how it's supposed to work (according to PGI). In reality it can instantly (no "time goes by" part) put you on a team with much higher or much lower Elo than yours, as well as against a team with a very different Elo rating. Which kind of defeats the whole purpose of the exercise.

That's assuming you "create" a game when you push "launch."

The game has already been created and seeks to populate it with people who have pushed the "launch" button. The longer the created game sits, the less picky it gets in picking people who are in the launch queue.

As for the OP, I imagine there are almost kind of "bands" in the ELO continuum. I'm not so certain that ELO is actually a single numerical ranking... because there is rarely such a thing as "completely better in every way." A number of different proprietary third-party ELO systems have been developed for handling games - and while some might stick to the ladder-like ranking... in a game like MWO - there are a lot of different factors involved.

Which is why I think there are "bands" - areas where the jump snipers are competitive... and then there's probably a band 'above' them - where people run optimized builds, but are able to compete strongly against players who are just good at shooting high alphas. And then there's a 'band' that likely exists above them.

Basically - ELO should stratify, quantize, or bracket - though some of those layers, while 'higher' than others, would see competition from 'lower' brackets based on strategies.

Which is why I don't think any useful ELO system would consist of a single metric. A relative assignment to a quantized group with a rating for cross-bracket competitiveness would be more effective at building teams.

But I doubt our player base is really large enough to be able to see that develop.

[Stoicblitzer]

i don't even know. there are so many factors and who knows if the system is working as intended? I am just sick of talking about it. i'm sick of tryharding every single game. i like winning as much as the next guy but i just can't do it anymore. where did the fun go? i win and i don't really feel like i had fun.

Edited by Stoicblitzer, 04 July 2013 - 04:44 PM.