MischiefSC, on 24 October 2013 - 09:50 PM, said:
Yes, it absolutely does given that a 12v12 is correspondingly going to result in even wider swings on quality and caliber of players on each team. How about 2 4mans on one side and noobs on the other?
Why would you think that would happen? Elo
isn't the MM. The MM would continue doing what it's been doing, matching up 4-mans, etc.
MischiefSC, on 24 October 2013 - 09:50 PM, said:
There's just no logical value to it. All Elo is doing is attempting to narrow, as much as time permits, all the players in a game to an approximately similar level of skill based on the metrics available. Far from perfect obviously but it's still a billion times better than just throwing random players together.
No, that's not "all Elo is doing". It's "balancing" high Elo players with low Elo players to get to whichever magical target average Elo is set for that particular match. You tend to end up with matches where you have a bunch of above average players on one side, vs a couple great players who's team is then filled out with people on their 26th match.
MischiefSC, on 24 October 2013 - 09:50 PM, said:
Again, we've already done no Elo. It was absolutely terrible. Don't get me wrong; my win/loss and KDR has been slowly and steadily declining. I am consistently playing against better players than I did pre-Elo. Which is exactly as it should be. Elo never was and never could remove steamrolls. It doesn't mean you'll never play with or against new players. It just makes such events less common.
Again, no we haven't done no Elo with 12-mans, under the current rule-set. Let me ask you this: Does your 4-man get 11-12 kills every match? I would bet not. Back in 8-man days, even with Elo, it wasn't too uncommon for a 4-man to get 7-8 of the kills.
In 12v12, a single 4 man
is not the dominant force it was in 8v8.
MischiefSC, on 24 October 2013 - 09:50 PM, said:
What I'm at a loss at is trying to understand where you think removing Elo is going to make it better? What do you think will happen? You think an extra 40 or 50 tons tighter balancing but throwing top tier players with tricked mechs up against people in their first 25 matches in trials is going to produce better, more balanced matches?
What are you thinking is going to happen to make this better?
First off, the "first 25 matches" crowd shouldn't be in with anyone other than each-other.
I expect, that
at worst, what we will see is exactly what we're seeing right now. Where I think it will take us, though, is to a better mix of people who are potentially skilled, learning more because they can actually see real tactics and builds. It will also mean that if you get noobs in your matches, that it is random, rather than by design.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather have the chance to have window-lickers in my matches be chance, rather than by mandate.
RocketDog, on 25 October 2013 - 01:39 AM, said:
But the devs have repeatedly stated that this in NOT how their Elo system works.
It does not try to make a target Elo by lumping together higher and lower Elo players so that the average comes out at the target Elo. It tries FIRST to select players around the target Elo from those in the queue for a match. It then balances wait time against Elo range to select the remaining players for the match.
If you are ending up with lots of trial mechs and new players on your team it means that either i) your Elo is not particularly high and this is where you actually belong (not likely for an experienced player) or that ii) there just weren't enough players available at that time in the target Elo range to make up the teams so that it has had to broaden the Elo range for inclusion.
So the MM having to team together good and bad players is a final desperate attempt to give you any match at all, rather than the starting point. MWO is a minority-interest game so there will be many times when the MM just doesn't have many players to chose from and you will end up with more diverse teams. However, the only alternative is to up the wait times - perhaps significantly - or even to return "Match not found".
The MM has to strike a balance between Elo scores and waiting time. In my experience, the MM gets it right more times than it fails.
Jeebus, man, do you even read threads before commenting?
Asakara, on 23 October 2013 - 10:40 AM, said:
Matthew Craig, on 07 August 2013 - 11:10 AM, said:
Technically the match maker will consider it a 'good' game if both teams were matched by having 1 high elo and 1 low elo player on both teams just as much as putting 2 average players on both teams.
The match maker can only work within the ranges given to it though and currently the ranges can be too large i.e. the matchmaker can drag in a high elo player to balance out a few low elo players, when we start to reduce the range what we should see is that the match maker will wait longer to create a 'good' game i.e it will have to wait for a player with a more average elo to show up (as the high elo player will be out of range). In the extreme case the match maker will simply give up and say it couldn't find a good game, this can potentially be seen as a good thing as you didn't want to play that game anyhow.
As mentioned we'll be monitoring carefully and we suspect we can tighten the ranges without having a dramatic impact on average wait times and failed matches, we can also adjust the timeout up from 2 minutes to compensate. Hopefully that answers your question.
Edited by Kunae, 25 October 2013 - 05:16 AM.
1
