167 replies to this topic

[WVAnonymous]

Victor Morson, on 09 November 2013 - 10:30 PM, said:

If Matchmaker is to blame, Matchmaker at this point has rendered everyone's ELO score moot through months of bad matching anyway, though.

I find this statement intuitively appealing.

[kapusta11]

Victor Morson, on 09 November 2013 - 11:44 PM, said:

Calculating individual PLAYER worth based on TEAM outcomes is a flaw in the very basis of everything you are saying

This^^
However, there is one individual stat - accuracy (damage per hit for lasers).

[Too Much Love]

Victor Morson, on 09 November 2013 - 11:44 PM, said:

Calculating individual PLAYER worth based on TEAM outcomes is a flaw in the very basis of everything you are saying, which renders all the rest of it entirely moot. You cannot gather clean data about individual player performance from a completely random team, with every single other random factor (such as tonnages) further muddying the water.

Don't know how anybody can argue with this. It's absolutely clear and obvious.

It is bad, but at least possible in some way to calculate individual player skill level on his\her permanent team performance, but estimate player's ELO on random team results is a complete madness.

To make really effective ELO they should make some formula, that includes KDR, wn\loses, number of matches played, dmg per match etc. - all the stats we already have in the game! So, IMHO, it's just a matter of will to do that.

[Diablobo]

Victor Morson, on 09 November 2013 - 05:21 PM, said:

Plus even if you two were totally right, and that you can totally one-man Rambo the entire enemy team... you just gave a win stat to 11 other people who may well be terrible, further coming full circle to the original problem anyway.

That's the other thing....why do the terrible players who don't even get 100 damage get the exact same credit that the good players do?

[John MatriX82]

Wispsy, on 09 November 2013 - 08:12 AM, said:

Silly question but you were not grouped with anybody except perhaps other new accounts right? I did not experience this on my new accounts unless I was grouped with people much higher. Not everybody was some drooling ***** but I saw quite a few trial mechs and lots of very inefficient custom mechs, not necessarily running into walls (very often) but not necessarily making the right or the smart decisions in regards to what was going on in the battle, with amazingly poor aim on almost everybody.

It's a legit question mate , but nope, I purposedly pugged all the time and purposedly avoided any syncdrop or eventual syncdrops with anyone of my corp (and indeed I didn't ran into anybody, apart a couple of times when I ran into other italian players who aren't "corp'd").

I've instead experienced to run into horrible builds in very high elo drops, often matched up in my teams. I still can't forget a guy with an Atlas running dual ALRM10s + dual LLs without even a TAG in an AS7-D, trying to lock them on Proton I think xD

[Hauser]

Diablobo, on 10 November 2013 - 01:49 AM, said:

That's the other thing....why do the terrible players who don't even get 100 damage get the exact same credit that the good players do?

Because it's a team effort and damage isn't a good measure of performance. You can come up with scenarios where you don't do damage and still win the game.

You also shouldn't see Elo as a credit, or reward, its just a measure of how good you are at winning the games you play compared to all other players. It's a long term statistic measure, its not accurate on game by game basis but on the long run you'll trend towards the right value.

If those players on your team actually weren't that good they'll fall down soon again on their next random game. If you're good you maintain your position. Not because you'll win or lose the obvious ones, but because for you as a better player there are more opportunities where your performance will flip the result of a match.

Wispsy, on 09 November 2013 - 06:24 PM, said:

However I have a lot less of those then most people due to the effort I put in. I am not saying you are going to win every game, but if you do not believe you can win every game you are going to lose a lot more when you just give up on your team instead of really trying to use it.

MischiefSC, on 09 November 2013 - 06:06 PM, said:

All that balances out. What doesn't balance out is YOU. We are, each one of us, the only consistent variable in every match we play.

KinLuu, on 09 November 2013 - 02:41 AM, said:

The only constant factor in your team, is you.

All this really.

The only reason some people have a w/l that is much higher then 1.00 is because there aren't enough players with similar Elo to match them against. Even a perfect matcher maker can't match you against players that aren't playing.

[Aaron45]

Agreed with the OP. Win loose is not a good indicator to see wether a team /player is good or not. Other wise i could cap all the time with my locust 4 man group and it would make us look shiny.

What we really need is a system which counts your performance in a match like the Match score.

Dont make stuff too complicated Pgi so at the end it doesnt works. Just give us the regular Match score as a pKinda Elo System. Thats all we need

[Hauser]

Aaron45, on 10 November 2013 - 04:22 AM, said:

Agreed with the OP. Win loose is not a good indicator to see wether a team /player is good or not. Other wise i could cap all the time with my locust 4 man group and it would make us look shiny.

How is this an argument against Elo? You're doing things that make you win consistently (grouping up, capping) and as a result you're get a higher Elo rating. A higher rating indicates you're better at winning. Everything seems to work right?

Also keep in mind that your Elo isn't influenced by your win loss ratio but rather by winning matches you aren't expected to win and losing matches you aren't expected to lose (essentially the matchmaker correcting its assumptions about you).

Aaron45, on 10 November 2013 - 04:22 AM, said:

What we really need is a system which counts your performance in a match like the Match score.

Dont make stuff too complicated Pgi so at the end it doesnt works. Just give us the regular Match score as a pKinda Elo System. Thats all we need

Matchscore is based on team work. For example when playing a Jager I tend to score most assaults on my team. Yet if it wasn't for those assaults absorbing all the damage I wouldn't be able to apply mine. The assaults contribution should be valued equally to mine.

Now you might suggest adding more variables to the way we determine scores but you'll soon have system that is more complex then Elo. After all Elo only has three variables, your Elo, that of your opponent, and the outcome of the match and only one of these is external to the system.

Edited by Hauser, 10 November 2013 - 07:31 AM.

[Caspian111]

An ELO system would make sense ONLY with a good matchmaking including a tonnage limitation.

[Sybreed]

yup, ELO is dumb in a 12 vs 12 scenario. You could be the best player in the world, if you're constantly stuck with 11 idiots, you're gonna lose all the time.

[Wispsy]

Sybreed, on 10 November 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

yup, ELO is dumb in a 12 vs 12 scenario. You could be the best player in the world, if you're constantly stuck with 11 idiots, you're gonna lose all the time.

Unless you are also stuck against idiots constantly as well, at which point, you being the best player in the world will consistently win more then you lose as it is idiots vs idiots + you, giving your team the advantage, until your Elo is high enough to be matched (as much is possible) with better people.

[Wispsy]

Caspian111, on 10 November 2013 - 10:06 AM, said:

An ELO system would make sense ONLY with a good matchmaking including a tonnage limitation.

No but it would make even more sense if the game was actually balanced, because yes as it is now you can lose a game simply because the enemy was much heavier then you, regardless of player skill, because it is simply that imbalanced. Limiting tonnages will not make it any better, you would just be rolling who got the good assault lance and who got the trial assault lance and Elo (players ability to influence the game and bring their team victory) would have less of an impact whilst luck would have even more.

[Ghogiel]

Sybreed, on 10 November 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

yup, ELO is dumb in a 12 vs 12 scenario. You could be the best player in the world, if you're constantly stuck with 11 idiots, you're gonna lose all the time.

You assume that idiots are only ever on your team. Fact is you are also matched against idiots.

Over time your ***** ratio averages out between your own team and the opposing team and then it becomes moot.

[wirikidor]

I hate the current system. My last game I just got 5 kills and did over 800 damage and my team still lost. My K/D ratio for most of my mechs are awesome, my W/L ratio is terrible...

[Roland]

Wispsy, on 10 November 2013 - 10:31 AM, said:

Unless you are also stuck against idiots constantly as well, at which point, you being the best player in the world will consistently win more then you lose as it is idiots vs idiots + you, giving your team the advantage, until your Elo is high enough to be matched (as much is possible) with better people.

This is true, although it is possible that individual performance metrics for much of the game's population are insignificant enough in a 12v12 environment that they are lost in the statistical noise.

I suspect that the best players impact the game outcome enough that they do in fact rise to the top, but for the rest of the population of the game their ranking may be far more random. And since you don't actually have enough good players to fill out the high ranking games, it ends up being something of a crapshoot in terms of who you get paired with.

[Deathlike]

John MatriX82, on 10 November 2013 - 02:14 AM, said:

I've instead experienced to run into horrible builds in very high elo drops, often matched up in my teams. I still can't forget a guy with an Atlas running dual ALRM10s + dual LLs without even a TAG in an AS7-D, trying to lock them on Proton I think xD

Perhaps my ELO is dropping, but I started watching this Atlas D-DC pilot in a few matches come in a 2 PPC+LRM10+2 LRM5 build and... he kept trying to shoot me with PPCs < 90m (I was in a Commando). Suffice it to say, I ignored him and he eventually died.

[Sarsaparilla Kid]

Deathlike, on 10 November 2013 - 10:48 AM, said:

Perhaps my ELO is dropping, but I started watching this Atlas D-DC pilot in a few matches come in a 2 PPC+LRM10+2 LRM5 build and... he kept trying to shoot me with PPCs < 90m (I was in a Commando). Suffice it to say, I ignored him and he eventually died.

Witnessed something similar in a Twitch stream, and apparently there's a pilot out there that is managing to end up in high-Elo matches always piloting an Atlas, yet does very little damage and usually dies first. I obviously can't mention his name, but because of his moniker, I almost wonder if PGI is experimenting with an AI bot as a match filler. If that's not the case, MM is really borked to be consistently putting him in such high-end matches as a solo player.

I felt bad for the D-DC on the losing side here (not related to the above Atlas)...he couldn't carry hard enough despite his score, possibly due to the 6 v 3 assault ratio, which lowered his Elo to some degree as a result:

Edited by Sarsaparilla Kid, 10 November 2013 - 03:23 PM.

[Tooooonpie]

I agree completely - ELO should be based on damage done and capping, since those are the two things that directly contribute to both objectives in both gametypes

I'm not in a clan/lance yet, so all I do is pug - I just had 8 games in a row in my dakka hawk, 600+ damage most times, each one: lost

Does that mean I'm a bad player, or does that mean I was unlucky to be put with bad team mates?

[Wispsy]

Tooooonpie, on 10 November 2013 - 03:35 PM, said:

I agree completely - ELO should be based on damage done and capping, since those are the two things that directly contribute to both objectives in both gametypes

I'm not in a clan/lance yet, so all I do is pug - I just had 8 games in a row in my dakka hawk, 600+ damage most times, each one: lost

Does that mean I'm a bad player, or does that mean I was unlucky to be put with bad team mates?

Damage is overrated. L2Accuracy!

[MadcatX]

Tooooonpie, on 10 November 2013 - 03:35 PM, said:

I agree completely - ELO should be based on damage done and capping, since those are the two things that directly contribute to both objectives in both gametypes

I'm not in a clan/lance yet, so all I do is pug - I just had 8 games in a row in my dakka hawk, 600+ damage most times, each one: lost

Does that mean I'm a bad player, or does that mean I was unlucky to be put with bad team mates?

Neither.

It means quit hitting everyone's arms for 50+ damage and start coring them instead.