We Urgently Need A More Intelligent Matchmaking System
#1
Posted 13 September 2013 - 04:30 PM
Does the community agree with my thoughts on matchmaking? Any suggestions/flaws with my reasoning? Lets hear it!
#2
Posted 13 September 2013 - 04:31 PM
#3
Posted 13 September 2013 - 04:36 PM
Mcchuggernaut, on 13 September 2013 - 04:30 PM, said:
Definitely. It is waste of my time and their time when I'm killing trial Cicadas standing still trying to itch me with MGs. I think the best way to avoid this is to seperate the queue; <500 matches as the noob queue and >500 vet queue.
#4
Posted 13 September 2013 - 04:42 PM
I see absolutely no reason for the change to some kind of nebulous win/loss ratio as the base mechanic.
You want some fine tuning use your win/loss ratio, but it should always be secondary to tonnage.
#5
Posted 13 September 2013 - 04:43 PM
Elo wasn't meant to work in multiplayer games. ESPECIALLY in 12v12 format. A player has a one twentyfourth the impact on the outcome of a game, but faces the full Elo shift, regardless of personal success in the match.
So... what do you base your matchmaker on?
#6
Posted 13 September 2013 - 04:44 PM
There should be bonuses for the higher level queue... but I'm not entirely sure how that should be applied.
#8
Posted 13 September 2013 - 04:56 PM
#9
Posted 13 September 2013 - 04:59 PM
Its a trade off and I like how fast things are now. I don't want to wait forever when the average game is 7 minutes long.
I feel your pain trust me I guess the best thing to do is play with 3 other people who are close to your skill level.
#10
Posted 13 September 2013 - 05:03 PM
Anyway, these are still just my views and I am open to comments/suggestions/criticism. If I'm wrong, I want to be corrected, and if I have good ideas I hope it benefits the game.
Edited by Mcchuggernaut, 13 September 2013 - 05:10 PM.
#11
Posted 13 September 2013 - 05:08 PM
LethalRose, on 13 September 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:
It probably wouldn't be that bad if some latitude was given for a rank or three either way being acceptable. There needs to be a middle ground like in all things. Would you be willing to wait 3 minutes for a much more balanced game that still wasn't quite perfect but was as good as reasonably possible? A better balance would probably also mean longer games, too...
#12
Posted 13 September 2013 - 05:23 PM
Mcchuggernaut, on 13 September 2013 - 05:03 PM, said:
Anyway, these are still just my views and I am open to comments/suggestions/criticism. If I'm wrong, I want to be corrected, and if I have good ideas I hope it benefits the game.
Your reasoning is based on a broken matchmaker though. My idea, (EMA on 32 game period win/loss, ranking system) would be responsive. Keep winning games and you keep going up in rank fairly quickly. It reinforces teamwork because doing 750 damage but losing shouldn't be rewarded that much IMO.
Dropping in rank wouldn't be so horrible either because you could gain the rank back fairly quickly. If you got steamrolled 10 times in a row you'd drop so low that if you had any skill you'd probably kill half the enemy team yourself on the next game.
Note that's how I think it should be for PUGs. Premades should have a less responsive matching system (SMA over 64 games for instance) that rewards a long history of wins or punishes a long history of losses by making it harder to gain or lose rank.
Edited by xenoglyph, 13 September 2013 - 05:31 PM.
#13
Posted 13 September 2013 - 05:25 PM
xenoglyph, on 13 September 2013 - 04:51 PM, said:
Exponential moving average of win/loss ratio for last 32 games on a per weight class basis.
You're still using a system that places full responsibility for 23 other players on the shoulders of one. And EMAs are NOTORIOUS for their glacial pace.
#14
Posted 13 September 2013 - 05:38 PM
Now what if I told you that the lighter team won... by killing everything.
L2P
kk thx bai o/
#15
Posted 13 September 2013 - 05:38 PM
The Boz, on 13 September 2013 - 05:25 PM, said:
It encourages proper teamwork and since it's responsive it's less punitive.
The Boz, on 13 September 2013 - 05:25 PM, said:
What are you talking about? You tailor the EMA equation to be exactly as responsive as you want it to be. An EMA over 256 periods would of course be a lot different than one over 16.
Edited by xenoglyph, 13 September 2013 - 05:39 PM.
#16
Posted 13 September 2013 - 05:41 PM
And some will shoot you if you try.
#17
Posted 13 September 2013 - 05:48 PM
#18
Posted 13 September 2013 - 05:52 PM
#19
Posted 13 September 2013 - 05:56 PM
But that was before 3PV. Since then they have said that 12 mans will be 1PV only so that removes them from being brought back into the general queue. Does that mean they are scrapping the tonnage limits? Are they still removing the group limits on 2-11 and just leave 12mans as is? I don't know, PGI hasn't decided say how the changes are affecting their plans.
#20
Posted 13 September 2013 - 05:59 PM
Edited by Mechsniper, 13 September 2013 - 06:01 PM.
5 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 5 guests, 0 anonymous users