268 replies to this topic

[FREDtheDEAD]

The matchmaker could always do a balance pass after 24 players have been picked and put into teams. The imbalances caused by limited selection time could be mitigated by swapping a few players just before the match begins.

[Agent 0 Fortune]

Villz, on 18 September 2013 - 11:13 PM, said:

Still failing to find match solo queing even with the extended wait times ....

wtf is my elo ? 10 billion ?

Oddly enough it isn't you, it is your opponents. If you ELO was really high, the matchmaker could give you a low Elo team to compensate. but if you are fighting a high Elo opponent, then the matchmaker has to find players equal or better than you to make a match.

Where this breaks down is pre-made teams. They paint the matchmaker into a corner, where one side is comprised of high Elo premade groups, and there are not enough solo players with a high enough Elo to join the match.

[Roland]

Quote

If you ELO was really high, the matchmaker could give you a low Elo team to compensate.

I think Matt Craig said this is no longer the case.

Which is good, because that solution was terrible. Good players really don't want to have the steering wheel underhive players on their team, and dying instantly can't be fun for those players.

[Boris Javorina]

It can not be said often enough: The community really appreciates you feedback Matt. I know it is hard work reading the forum and answering, it is time consuming ... but it is worth! Improve that type of communication.

[The Basilisk]

The problem clearly isn't the ELO of a player but most likely the wight class of his/her Mech
Simply try it.
In a light mech I wait around 0 to 45sec to find a match depending on daytime.
In a medium mech even less. But when I'm piloting heavy and assault mechs I get lots of couldn't find match or I have waiting times somewhat around two minutes.

[Agent 0 Fortune]

Roland, on 19 September 2013 - 05:56 AM, said:

I think Matt Craig said this is no longer the case.

Which is good, because that solution was terrible. Good players really don't want to have the steering wheel underhive players on their team, and dying instantly can't be fun for those players.

The only issue I have with what Matt (and the patch notes) said, is that I haven't heard any issue from low Elo and Cadet players. Which means the bell curve is skewed, and we have two problems.
1. really good players are so far out on the fringe of the bell curve that they can't find matches
2. really bad players (and new players) are lumped in with much better players.

How to fix?
Well you can't make players better, you can only increase the matchmaker threshold, so the high Elo players will fight weaker oppontents. Or you can address it through game mechanics (nerfs/buffs).

As for the low end of the spectrum. Consider how long it took the top level players to reach the top tier and what their win record was, you can't expect bad players to sit through a massive losing streak to reach the bottom of the barrel, no one is willing to lose match after match for months to finally hit rock bottom before the becomes enjoyable. Basically Elo has to drop much faster than it increases.

This will center the bell curve, which means the low tier players will start seeing the same issues as the top tier (can't find matches) and it can be addressed the same way. Although broadening the search parameters just means more losing matches, so we are back to nerf/buffs. Or weapon tiering, where we have easy to use weapons (LRMs and SSRMs) that offer good benefit for little skill. However this doesn't work when it is even easier to counter low skill weapons (I am looking at you ECM).

[ChallengerCC]

Why not a button:

Yout waited 4min, we cant find an ELO to your skill.
Do you want to play with f. noobs instead? Yes or No (t- 20s).

Edited by ChallengerCC, 19 September 2013 - 07:47 AM.

[Matthew Craig]

Xandre Blackheart, on 18 September 2013 - 05:00 PM, said:

I'm curious if there is indeed an Elo rating for each individual mech that a player has, or if there is a global Elo rating across all the mechs the player has?

I suppose you guys could calculate both pretty easily, maybe that's a way to get a little more granularity for matching players?

Comparing the current Elo for the players mech versus their global Elo might give a better prediction of the player's performance in a particular match.

For example a really good player who doesn't play light mechs very often would have a better chance of getting evenly matched using that type of calculation when piloting light mechs. Or mediums. Or whatever


Conversely a pilot who has terrible performance over most mechs just has the quirk of being a competent dragon pilot. If you matched him just according to his individual performance in the dragon, he wouldn't be matched evenly (he's not that good, just competent). If you compared or averaged his global Elo with his Elo from piloting his dragon he would be more likely to get a more balanced match.

I suppose that brings up issues with how you calculate global Elo for pilots who are still building their mech stable, but it should still work out. If you don't own a particular mech your win loss ratio is 50/50 which is neutral.

Maybe someone has a link to a good explication of how MWO actually does matchmaking at this point?

Yes there is a seperate Elo rating for each weight class

Funkadelic Mayhem, on 19 September 2013 - 02:15 AM, said:

ELO would not be that big a deal if solo and premades dropped in diffident queues. Premades will only fight other premades and solo droppers will only fight other solo droppers.

The downside to this approach is your fragmenting the match maker creating more smaller pools of players which will increase wait times, though it will ensure that solos don't drop against premades.

Doc Andrews, on 19 September 2013 - 02:38 AM, said:

Hey Matt.

I have a third option.

Instead of strictly enforcing the 12 man games (since most of the maps work just fine with 8 players), and allowing players to wait longer if they wish, how about the opposite:

If players choose the 'tighter elo' option, they opt in for drops UP TO 12 players. That means after waiting a reasonable mount of time, if there are at least 8 players per side, they drop. You could have 8 on 8, 9 on 9, 10 on 10, 11 on 11, or 12 on 12 as the result.

It adds a depth that strict numerical limits lack, and a new level of tactics that depend heavily on map and drop numbers.

It reduces overall wait times.

It allows for tighter ELO groupings.

Seems like a win all around.

Not quite as easy as it sounds the dedicated server expects a certain number of players and there is various code that respects those limits they don't fluctuate as easily as you'd expect.

Klaus, on 19 September 2013 - 02:47 AM, said:

I literally can't even get a game in one of my assaults unless it's prime time.

It is early in the morning before I head out while I am posting this, have had failed to find match 20 times now and counting.

We'll loosen the weight class threshold again see if it helps, would appreciate you posting back when you can (or anyone else dropping assaults)

Haakon Magnusson, on 19 September 2013 - 03:44 AM, said:

This is a damn good question, as it seems that now in some matches players are added in last seconds to a team. So I guess it is per team(?)

To me it would seem if it were just trying to pull a group of 24 people first and maybe having to settle for 22-23 (or high/low elo additions) and THEN divide them up according to tonnage and elo so that things might end up more fair. To keep people involved display pool of people in the match already in UI2.0 and after finished split them up and throw them into mechs.

Yes it's a good point I'll ask fairly sure both buckets fill in a seesaw fashion i.e. one premade gets put on one side, then another to balance it on the other then back to the first bucket for the next pick etc.

[Matthew Craig]

Villz, on 18 September 2013 - 11:13 PM, said:

Still failing to find match solo queing even with the extended wait times ....

wtf is my elo ? 10 billion ?

I looked it up and and I'm not telling you exactly what it is but yes you are a high elo assault player, given the current weight and elo restrictions that is probably contributing to your longer wait times.

[C Leche]

I just wanted to briefly comment that I had noticeably better quality matches last night (9pm Pacific Time) playing lights, heavy, and assault weight classes. Thanks for fine tuning this!

[Deathlike]

Villz, on 18 September 2013 - 11:13 PM, said:

Still failing to find match solo queing even with the extended wait times ....

wtf is my elo ? 10 billion ?

Over 9000.

Matthew Craig, on 19 September 2013 - 08:03 AM, said:

I looked it up and and I'm not telling you exactly what it is but yes you are a high elo assault player, given the current weight and elo restrictions that is probably contributing to your longer wait times.

See Villz, he confirmed it!

Now if I could find out my ELO brackets of hell...

Edited by Deathlike, 19 September 2013 - 08:22 AM.

[Divine Retribution]

My only problem is gaming during off-peak hours. I was on from about 11pm to 2am (Pacific Time) last night. At first I could get a match more often then not. I stopped playing once I started to find a match every 3-4 tries. I'm not a fan of spending 9+ minutes to find a match that probably averages 9 minutes to complete.

I doubt I'm alone with that viewpoint, which shrinks the off-peak crowd even more, leading to even longer wait times for those still playing. So I guess my question is: Is it possible to script the matchmaking restrictions based on the number of players online at that time? Or just a basic script that simply sets different match placement restrictions based on set time periods (on-peak and off-peak)? I enjoyed seeing players of a similar skill level when I was placed into a game, but late at night I think the restrictions should be relaxed a bit so players spend more time in game than looking for a game. Just a thought...

Edited by Divine Retribution, 19 September 2013 - 08:26 AM.

[Serapth]

Matthew Craig, on 19 September 2013 - 08:00 AM, said:

The downside to this approach is your fragmenting the match maker creating more smaller pools of players which will increase wait times, though it will ensure that solos don't drop against premades.

Given that many PUGS have literally been screaming for a separate queue since open beta I think this fragmentation is a worthwhile price to pay.

Especially given that you are about to fragment the queues over 3rd person view, something that the vast majority of people have been screaming NOT to have.

Seems like an easy solution to me.

[Woozle]

Hey Matt, do you think it would be possible for us to get some sort of feedback as a player on which way our Elo rating is trending? I understand PGI wanting to keep the actual score hidden, but it would be nice to know if I'm getting better or worse as a player (or even staying about the same). Even something as simple as a + or - indicating a change in Elo over the last 100 games played would be nice.

Personally, I would like to know more, like my win % in games where my Elo goes up if I win. Or better yet, an indicator on the match launch screen telling me that the match I'm about to play would elevate my Elo if I win. It would give some matches real stakes, until CW comes along.

[Matthew Craig]

Divine Retribution, on 19 September 2013 - 08:24 AM, said:

My only problem is gaming during off-peak hours. I was on from about 11pm to 2am (Pacific Time) last night. At first I could get a match more often then not. I stopped playing once I started to find a match every 3-4 tries. I'm not a fan of spending 9+ minutes to find a match that probably averages 9 minutes to complete.

I doubt I'm alone with that viewpoint, which shrinks the off-peak crowd even more, leading to even longer wait times for those still playing. So I guess my question is: Is it possible to script the matchmaking restrictions based on the number of players online at that time? Or just a basic script that simply sets different match placement restrictions based on set time periods (on-peak and off-peak)? I enjoyed seeing players of a similar skill level when I was placed into a game, but late at night I think the restrictions should be relaxed a bit so players spend more time in game than looking for a game. Just a thought...

Thanks for the feedback as mentioned we'll likely loosen it a touch more today and see how that goes.

[Matthew Craig]

Woozle, on 19 September 2013 - 08:36 AM, said:

Hey Matt, do you think it would be possible for us to get some sort of feedback as a player on which way our Elo rating is trending? I understand PGI wanting to keep the actual score hidden, but it would be nice to know if I'm getting better or worse as a player (or even staying about the same). Even something as simple as a + or - indicating a change in Elo over the last 100 games played would be nice.

Personally, I would like to know more, like my win % in games where my Elo goes up if I win. Or better yet, an indicator on the match launch screen telling me that the match I'm about to play would elevate my Elo if I win. It would give some matches real stakes, until CW comes along.

What I think most users are looking for is a way of measuring progress, and I think leaderboards/CW is the intended means of doing this Elo is just an internal metric for the match maker that happens to give you some inclination of how you are doing. I think its safe to say there are other metrics coming that users can use to gauge progress.

[Redshift2k5]

Matthew Craig, on 19 September 2013 - 09:12 AM, said:

What I think most users are looking for is a way of measuring progress, and I think leaderboards/CW is the intended means of doing this Elo is just an internal metric for the match maker that happens to give you some inclination of how you are doing. I think its safe to say there are other metrics coming that users can use to gauge progress.

I'd like to see a 'rank' and some medals to signify personal prowess and progression. Private-Corporal-Sergeant- etc.

[Matthew Craig]

Yeah pretty sure that is coming Redshift

[Pendraco]

Well, not sure it helps.....But apparently my awesomeness is very.......er....average in nature. Not a single "Fail to Find Match" since the last patch. Wait is a little longer..... Dropping in mostly Heavy / Medium mechs.

Edited by Pendraco, 19 September 2013 - 09:42 AM.

[ohtochooseaname]

Divine Retribution, on 19 September 2013 - 08:24 AM, said:

My only problem is gaming during off-peak hours. I was on from about 11pm to 2am (Pacific Time) last night. At first I could get a match more often then not. I stopped playing once I started to find a match every 3-4 tries. I'm not a fan of spending 9+ minutes to find a match that probably averages 9 minutes to complete.

I doubt I'm alone with that viewpoint, which shrinks the off-peak crowd even more, leading to even longer wait times for those still playing. So I guess my question is: Is it possible to script the matchmaking restrictions based on the number of players online at that time? Or just a basic script that simply sets different match placement restrictions based on set time periods (on-peak and off-peak)? I enjoyed seeing players of a similar skill level when I was placed into a game, but late at night I think the restrictions should be relaxed a bit so players spend more time in game than looking for a game. Just a thought...

I played against you quite a bit last night. I find that, even with a high ELO, dropping with a few others greatly increases your chances of finding a match. This is likely due to the fact that effectively 1/6th of the required players for a match are entering the queue together. However, 2 nights ago, when I had much more difficulty finding a match, I was able to get into some matches by grouping with a fairly average player to drop the combined ELO down.