125 replies to this topic

[Hammerfinn]

Given that all Devs apparently like to play stock or UP but entertaining builds in the face of the ******* min/maxers, I would agree that Mike must be some sort of advanced posting AI.

[Voridan Atreides]

Click all the checkboxezz!!!!

[Mike Forst]

Hammerfinn, on 09 May 2013 - 09:46 PM, said:

Given that all Devs apparently like to play stock or UP but entertaining builds in the face of the ******* min/maxers, I would agree that Mike must be some sort of advanced posting AI.

Wrong

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Hammerfinn, on 09 May 2013 - 09:46 PM, said:

Given that all Devs apparently like to play stock or UP but entertaining builds in the face of the ******* min/maxers, I would agree that Mike must be some sort of advanced posting AI.

I got the feeling (before they started announcing ecm changes) all the devs play non LRM mechs so thats why they thought ECM was dine, because its SEP
(Someone Else's Problem)

[Willie Sauerland]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 10 May 2013 - 10:33 PM, said:

I got the feeling (before they started announcing ecm changes) all the devs play non LRM mechs so thats why they thought ECM was dine, because its SEP
(Someone Else's Problem)

Since Mike's post seems relevant here...

Mike Forst, on 10 May 2013 - 08:49 AM, said:

Wrong

[Ryvucz]

I still ******************* hate ELO.

[Hammerfinn]

Because you are either better or worse than you think?

That is the only true reason anyone would hate Elo.

Also: not ELO. Elo. Named after the inventor of the system, not an acronym.

[Ryvucz]

Hammerfinn, on 24 May 2013 - 01:00 AM, said:

Because you are either better or worse than you think?

That is the only true reason anyone would hate Elo.

Also: not ELO. Elo. Named after the inventor of the system, not an acronym.

Considering how ELO (I caps it, due to it being a system, regardless of who it is named after) was designed for win/loss of SINGLE CHESS players, it does NOT convey one person out of 8 on a single team.

"No one that likes ELO doesn't suck".

As a solo player, I do not like being stuck in a group that has a 200 ton weight deficiency not including the two disconnected players on my "team".

You can call me bad or that I suck all you want.

ELO is a **** system for multi-player.

[SPencil]

Ryvucz, on 24 May 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

ELO is a **** system for multi-player.

So, can you come up with a better system that won't cause an avalanche of QQ?

[Mike Forst]

OP: have you tried not losing?

[blinkin]

SPencil, on 24 May 2013 - 01:07 PM, said:

So, can you come up with a better system that won't cause an avalanche of QQ?

the answer is no, because EVERYTHING causes an avalanche of QQ. truisms aside, i think ELO is a good system in general. there are plenty of wrinkles to iron out, but the basic principle seems solid.

[Hammerfinn]

Ryvucz, on 24 May 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

Considering how ELO (I caps it, due to it being a system, regardless of who it is named after) was designed for win/loss of SINGLE CHESS players, it does NOT convey one person out of 8 on a single team.

"No one that likes ELO doesn't suck".

As a solo player, I do not like being stuck in a group that has a 200 ton weight deficiency not including the two disconnected players on my "team".

You can call me bad or that I suck all you want.

ELO is a **** system for multi-player.

First, it's still Elo, not ELO. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpad_Elo

Second, I didn't say that you were bad, I said that your Elo has not yet placed you at a level where you will hit evenly matched games. There's a difference. You could be an awesome player, but it's too low, so you get paired with noobs who die. Or you could be a decent player, but a couple lucky games bounced your Elo high, so you're getting matched against incredible players and losing. Saying that your Elo isn't where it's supposed to be says nothing about your skill.

Third, DCs and weight-matching have nothing to do with Elo. They are separate gripes. The weight-class matching doesn't guarantee even tonnage, it guarantees and even number of same-class mechs. That means it could evenly match by class, and your team could be as much as 200 tons down. However, pilot skill matters more than mech tonnage, so tonnagte differential doesn't necessarily mean you automatically lose. All other things equal, it can give an advantage, but not a particularly significant one.

In short, your problems with Elo aren't actually problems with Elo at all, but rather with other aspects of the matchmaking system.

[Ryvucz]

Hammerfinn, on 25 May 2013 - 12:31 AM, said:

First, it's still Elo, not ELO. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpad_Elo

Second, I didn't say that you were bad, I said that your Elo has not yet placed you at a level where you will hit evenly matched games. There's a difference. You could be an awesome player, but it's too low, so you get paired with noobs who die. Or you could be a decent player, but a couple lucky games bounced your Elo high, so you're getting matched against incredible players and losing. Saying that your Elo isn't where it's supposed to be says nothing about your skill.

Third, DCs and weight-matching have nothing to do with Elo. They are separate gripes. The weight-class matching doesn't guarantee even tonnage, it guarantees and even number of same-class mechs. That means it could evenly match by class, and your team could be as much as 200 tons down. However, pilot skill matters more than mech tonnage, so tonnagte differential doesn't necessarily mean you automatically lose. All other things equal, it can give an advantage, but not a particularly significant one.

In short, your problems with Elo aren't actually problems with Elo at all, but rather with other aspects of the matchmaking system.

ELO

Mike Forst, on 24 May 2013 - 01:17 PM, said:

OP: have you tried not losing?

How do?

[SPencil]

Ryvucz, on 25 May 2013 - 02:20 AM, said:

How do?

Firing your weapons is usually a good start.

[Ryvucz]

SPencil, on 25 May 2013 - 10:46 AM, said:

Firing your weapons is usually a good start.

It generates too much heat to shoot, so I just ram things.

[SPencil]

So I guess you get a lot of your kills by legging 'em.

I'd ask about how that's going for you, but considering the thread...yea...

[Ryvucz]

You can kill mechs by legging them?

I always aimed for the cockpit.

I shall re-adjust my newly acquired tactic of legging while ramming versus face munching.

[Mike Forst]

Ryvucz, on 25 May 2013 - 02:20 AM, said:

How do?

I don't know I can't teach it

Just do better I guess

[Ryvucz]

Mike Forst, on 28 May 2013 - 10:34 AM, said:

I don't know I can't teach it

Just do better I guess

That's too vague.

I shall blame ELO instead.

[Mike Forst]

If that's what works for you then by all means