298 replies to this topic

[Odin]

ELO problems must be seen under consideration of the matchmaker.
Personally, I wouldn't mind anything, if ELO and the MM would lead me to challenging, meaningful engagements.
But it doesn't. The long term experience is (solo) you don't accomplish anything. You have to endure the same old mistakes made over the same old maps, with unskilled or unexperienced pilots, that wears you down.

PGI seems paralyzed. Or else.... I may loose my patience?
Still premades are aloud to compete with total and randomly generated groups.

Premades on the other side still are limited to 4 or 12. I hope a real voice communication helps at least with some of the difficulties here.

[Macbrea]

Do you want a game in which your faction wipes out all the other houses? The answer to that I guarantee is no. I am betting you want a game in which each planet is hard fought over many months. That eventually one side will take away from the other and the house that owns it will have a huge battle to get it back.

If every game is matched as if it's a 50/50 win lose +/- 3% then the Inner sphere map will generally stay the same, with fluctuating borders. The matchmaking system can even cheat Elo wise in order to give planets back to the right faction eventually by pairing say a 1500 average team vs 1800 teams. It's not fair, but it can insure the map stays the inner sphere.

And how do you balance Clan tech? Make it very similar but pair 10 v 12 with clan always made up of 100 higher Elo rated players

[KinLuu]

Odin, on 18 November 2013 - 04:35 AM, said:

ELO problems must be seen under consideration of the matchmaker.
Personally, I wouldn't mind anything, if ELO and the MM would lead me to challenging, meaningful engagements.
But it doesn't. The long term experience is (solo) you don't accomplish anything. You have to endure the same old mistakes made over the same old maps, with unskilled or unexperienced pilots, that wears you down.

This is completely unrelated to the matchmaker, or elo.

The only way to fix this, is running organized 12v12.

[Joseph Mallan]

Macbrea, on 18 November 2013 - 04:45 AM, said:

Do you want a game in which your faction wipes out all the other houses? The answer to that I guarantee is no. I am betting you want a game in which each planet is hard fought over many months. That eventually one side will take away from the other and the house that owns it will have a huge battle to get it back.

If every game is matched as if it's a 50/50 win lose +/- 3% then the Inner sphere map will generally stay the same, with fluctuating borders. The matchmaking system can even cheat Elo wise in order to give planets back to the right faction eventually by pairing say a 1500 average team vs 1800 teams. It's not fair, but it can insure the map stays the inner sphere.

And how do you balance Clan tech? Make it very similar but pair 10 v 12 with clan always made up of 100 higher Elo rated players

Then you are already wrong. I would love to assist the Lyran government to universal domination. I also hope it gets to a point that my side suffers little to no casualties.

[Odin]

KinLuu, on 18 November 2013 - 04:26 AM, said:

Oh?

So now you admit, that your personal performance does have an influence on your teams chance to win?

Ghogiel takes aim, Ghogiel scores. 1:0

No Sir.

If you drop and don't do anything, well, thats that then. What would that proof? One needs some sense for logic here. My team may win or loose, and? Your not a part of it and what ever comes up as your ELO rating is, in fact generated by the folks shooting.

Surely you see, the only predictable or sense here, would be to assume it'll go down.
Which in turn and by no means provides any proof. I am questioning whether current ELO reflects my true performance or not, based on the MM randommess. Not if I have any influence or not.

Edited by Odin, 18 November 2013 - 04:59 AM.

[Odin]

Joseph Mallan, on 18 November 2013 - 04:50 AM, said:

Then you are already wrong. I would love to assist the Lyran government to universal domination. I also hope it gets to a point that my side suffers little to no casualties.

Nothing to add here

[Odin]

Macbrea, on 18 November 2013 - 04:45 AM, said:

Do you want a game in which your faction wipes out all the other houses? The answer to that I guarantee is no. I am betting you want a game in which each planet is hard fought over many months. That eventually one side will take away from the other and the house that owns it will have a huge battle to get it back.

If every game is matched as if it's a 50/50 win lose +/- 3% then the Inner sphere map will generally stay the same, with fluctuating borders. The matchmaking system can even cheat Elo wise in order to give planets back to the right faction eventually by pairing say a 1500 average team vs 1800 teams. It's not fair, but it can insure the map stays the inner sphere.

And how do you balance Clan tech? Make it very similar but pair 10 v 12 with clan always made up of 100 higher Elo rated players

No.
I don't need to dominate others. I leave clan tek and CW to PGI. Thats not in question here.

[Joseph Mallan]

Odin, on 18 November 2013 - 04:50 AM, said:

No Sir.

If you drop and don't do anything, well, thats that then. What would that proof? One needs some sense for logic here. My team may win or loose, and? Your not a part of it and what ever comes up as your ELO rating is, in fact generated by the folks shooting.

Surely you see, the only predictable or sense here, would be to assume it'll go down.
Which in turn and by no means provides any proof. I am questioning whether current ELO reflects my true performance or not, based on the MM randommess. Not if I have any influence or not.

If we are actually balanced we are each responsible for 8.333% of any victory. So if we kill one enemy, we did our part.

[FerretGR]

MischiefSC, I don't know how you do it. You're an Elo saint.

[Odin]

Joseph Mallan, on 18 November 2013 - 05:07 AM, said:

If we are actually balanced we are each responsible for 8.333% of any victory. So if we kill one enemy, we did our part.

I can't share your altruistic view Mallan, but I like it anyway.

[Joseph Mallan]

Not many can Odin

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 18 November 2013 - 05:13 AM.

[Odin]

Joseph Mallan, on 18 November 2013 - 05:13 AM, said:

Not many can Odin

Hm, I ever held you in high regard, to be brutal honest.
So, after all, I may was a liar.

Edited by Odin, 18 November 2013 - 05:23 AM.

[FerretGR]

What you're trying to argue is silly, though, Odin. You're saying you sit on the sidelines and you end up in the same place, Elo-wise, as you would if you put in effort. Ask anyone who has dropped with an AFKer; having someone drop on your team who doesn't do anything has a significant impact on your win chances. Every individual does indeed have an impact on the final outcome.

Your Elo will certainly be affected by your non-participation. Is that reflective of your "true performance"? Well, yes: you've done zero damage and gotten zero kills for a string of games, and your Elo has suffered for it.

I don't know how anyone can argue that an individual's performance has no impact on a team's performance. Every single point of damage done (or not done, in Odin's case) makes a difference.

[Joseph Mallan]

Odin, on 18 November 2013 - 05:21 AM, said:

Hm, I ever held you in high regard, to be brutal honest.
So, after all, I may was a liar.

Hey I was only posting the stats. If everything is balanced PERFECTLY. We are only going to provide just over 8% of a victory. Anything above that and balance is off. I don't even know how many games I won or lost this weekend, I just know I enjoyed playing the game and laughed a lot with my team mates.

[Odin]

FerretGR, on 18 November 2013 - 05:23 AM, said:

Your Elo will certainly be affected by your non-participation. Is that reflective of your "true performance"? Well, yes: you've done zero damage and gotten zero kills for a string of games, and your Elo has suffered for it.

I don't know how anyone can argue that an individual's performance has no impact on a team's performance. Every single point of damage done (or not done, in Odin's case) makes a difference.

You got it all backwards, or didn't listen.
I am not complaining about me.

Joseph Mallan, on 18 November 2013 - 05:26 AM, said:

Hey I was only posting the stats. If everything is balanced PERFECTLY. We are only going to provide just over 8% of a victory. Anything above that and balance is off. I don't even know how many games I won or lost this weekend, I just know I enjoyed playing the game and laughed a lot with my team mates.

Yes.
I still play this game. Simulation. Thing.
And love it.

[FerretGR]

Odin, on 18 November 2013 - 06:02 AM, said:

You got it all backwards, or didn't listen.
I am not complaining about me.

Not at all. Here's what you said:

Odin, on 18 November 2013 - 04:50 AM, said:

I am questioning whether current ELO reflects my true performance or not, based on the MM randommess. Not if I have any influence or not.

In wording it like that, you're saying that individual performance has no impact on Elo, on whether a team wins or loses. Ghogiel quite rightly points out a situation where your Elo would sink based on your "true performance." In the extreme, of course (the extremes are sometimes good places to point out where someone's logic fails). Ghogiel's extreme example of an AFK highlights the problem in your argument that Elo isn't reflective of your "true performance", and your refusal to link your "true performance" and your Elo. Let me go through it for you.

If your "true performance" was a string of zero-damage, zero-kill games, you'd negatively impact your team. We can all admit AFKers negatively impact the team, right? Okay. If your team is impacted negatively by your non-participation, it makes logical sense, then, to conclude that they're impacted positively by your participation, right? It's doesn't just follow logically, it's a given.

You say that you're arguing whether Elo reflects your "true performance", and not if you have any influence. What you're not getting is that the two are intrinsically linked. If a player can have influence, than that player's Elo is linked to their performance.

You admit that your participation or lack thereof has an influence in the match. If you can influence the match, you are by definition either influencing it toward a win for you or a loss for you. Either of those conditions will affect your Elo. So if you have an influence, your "true performance" is reflected.

And I hear what you're saying, you wish things like "damage" and "kills" were included. You want your "true performance" to have a larger impact on your matchmaker rating. In all honesty, I don't think basing your rating on these factors would improve anything. They're no more indicative of "true performance" than W/L. We can all provide examples of folks vomiting out massive damage with "spready" systems like LRM and still not contributing to any significant degree, and of low-damage, zero kill players who turned the tide through clever capping or flanking strategies. Low damage could mean bad play, or it could mean pinpoint accuracy. Kills could mean team-leading play, or it could mean right place, right time.

There are issues with any system that you can dream up. Elo isn't perfect, but there isn't a perfect system.

Edited by FerretGR, 18 November 2013 - 06:38 AM.

[FrDrake]

Good post Ferret, for the reasons you outline about capping and flanking leading to wins I agree that individual stats inside the game can't be used, and that W/L is the best we are going to get as a yardstick.

[Odin]

FerretGR, on 18 November 2013 - 06:34 AM, said:

Not at all. Here's what you said:



In wording it like that, you're saying that individual performance has no impact on Elo, on whether a team wins or loses. Ghogiel quite rightly points out a situation where your Elo would sink based on your "true performance." In the extreme, of course (the extremes are sometimes good places to point out where someone's logic fails). Ghogiel's extreme example of an AFK highlights the problem in your argument that Elo isn't reflective of your "true performance", and your refusal to link your "true performance" and your Elo. Let me go through it for you.

If your "true performance" was a string of zero-damage, zero-kill games, you'd negatively impact your team. We can all admit AFKers negatively impact the team, right? Okay. If your team is impacted negatively by your non-participation, it makes logical sense, then, to conclude that they're impacted positively by your participation, right? It's doesn't just follow logically, it's a given.

You say that you're arguing whether Elo reflects your "true performance", and not if you have any influence. What you're not getting is that the two are intrinsically linked. If a player can have influence, than that player's Elo is linked to their performance.

You admit that your participation or lack thereof has an influence in the match. If you can influence the match, you are by definition either influencing it toward a win for you or a loss for you. Either of those conditions will affect your Elo. So if you have an influence, your "true performance" is reflected.

And I hear what you're saying, you wish things like "damage" and "kills" were included. You want your "true performance" to have a larger impact on your matchmaker rating. In all honesty, I don't think basing your rating on these factors would improve anything. They're no more indicative of "true performance" than W/L. We can all provide examples of folks vomiting out massive damage with "spready" systems like LRM and still not contributing to any significant degree, and of low-damage, zero kill players who turned the tide through clever capping or flanking strategies. Low damage could mean bad play, or it could mean pinpoint accuracy. Kills could mean team-leading play, or it could mean right place, right time.

There are issues with any system that you can dream up. Elo isn't perfect, but there isn't a perfect system.

Standing back?

Read my postings. Don't add your own schemes.

[Joseph Mallan]

FrDrake, on 18 November 2013 - 06:45 AM, said:

Good post Ferret, for the reasons you outline about capping and flanking leading to wins I agree that individual stats inside the game can't be used, and that W/L is the best we are going to get as a yardstick.

How is MY performance based on a stat that is only 8% of my doing? If my 8%, kills 4 and delivers 600+ damage and loses v my doing 26 damage and wins Why should my Elo suffer from a team's loss or victory? If I win cause the team picked up my slack Is it right I get bumped up in Elo? If I lose and put in a spectacular game, should I get lowered because the team failed to pull their weight? W/L is not the correct way to judge individual performance

[FrDrake]

Joseph Mallan, on 18 November 2013 - 07:18 AM, said:

How is MY performance based on a stat that is only 8% of my doing? If my 8%, kills 4 and delivers 600+ damage and loses v my doing 26 damage and wins Why should my Elo suffer from a team's loss or victory? If I win cause the team picked up my slack Is it right I get bumped up in Elo? If I lose and put in a spectacular game, should I get lowered because the team failed to pull their weight? W/L is not the correct way to judge individual performance

I play conquest, so maybe assault is different, but there are plenty of times the game is won on the back of the guy with the least amount of damage on the team.