72 replies to this topic

[FerretGR]

You were playing Captain Obvious the moment you started this thread. There are literally 5 threads JUST LIKE IT on the first page of this forum. Does posting a 6th fall under the category of useful for you?

[Joseph Mallan]

Max Genius, on 22 November 2013 - 11:22 AM, said:

Seriously? An ounce? Try over 300 tons - that's over 3 Atlases. Yes I'm playing Captain Obvious here because sarcastic trolling like yours is soooooo useful. Move on.

That big a disadvantage and you almost kicked their can! I would drop underweight with your group any time!

[Mystere]

Almond Brown, on 22 November 2013 - 11:01 AM, said:

You sure did. And who in the f*ck exactly are you again?

The person who calls it right ... time and time and time again?

And it's par for the course as far as I am concerned I guess, because even at work, people have been warned time and time again not to do certain things and yet they do them anyway. Then I have to come in -- again -- to fix the problem -- again -- at a cost of huge amounts of time and money -- again.

But then again, it keeps me very well paid I guess.

Edited by Mystere, 22 November 2013 - 11:38 AM.

[Tombstoner]

AC, on 22 November 2013 - 10:49 AM, said:

Your lucky you got a game with how few people are playing right now.

This would be at the heart of the MM issue. it can only do what it can with the people playing. people chose the mechs they play with. The devs had to decide if longer que times are worth imbalances in ELO or tonnage. if its better to get a game that your destined to loose or sitting in a que waiting for it to time out.....

[Joseph Mallan]

Mystere, on 22 November 2013 - 11:30 AM, said:

The person who calls it right ... time and time and time again?

And yet you are still a Mystere to us... Mr E. Come on you missed that?

[Lefty Lucy]

Outweighed by 300 tons, with a DC player, and you still managed to kill 6 of them, which in an MWO match is actually a very even game. If anything this is evidence that the MM works. Which it does.

The MM is way better now than it ever was in CB.

[Cyberiad]

I don't think its the matchmakers fault as PGI have stated before that the matchmaker was patched to match according to tonnage to tighter constraints. However, if there aren't that many people playing it's impossible for the matchmaker to match according to the constraints so it does the best job it can do. I think you just played a game when there were very few players online at the time. I only have 1 real life friend who also plays mechwarrior online and I know hes playing not through the friend list, but when I see him in my game, so I do think a lack of players is the real problem with the matchmaking, not the matchmaker itself.

[Mystere]

Joseph Mallan, on 22 November 2013 - 11:33 AM, said:

And yet you are still a Mystere to us...

That's exactly just the way it should be.

Joseph Mallan, on 22 November 2013 - 11:33 AM, said:

Mr E. Come on you missed that?

Uh! Oh! Did I just make an embarrassing and mental boo boo?

Edited by Mystere, 22 November 2013 - 11:46 AM.

[Sandpit]

I'm still curious. If the OP thought it was wrong or broken, did you send in a ticket to support@mwomercs.com?

[Max Genius]

FerretGR, on 22 November 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:

You were playing Captain Obvious the moment you started this thread. There are literally 5 threads JUST LIKE IT on the first page of this forum. Does posting a 6th fall under the category of useful for you?

And you're still Major Useless. Like I said, move on. No one asked you to read it. If you've already read other threads like it then why read again? And considering how many people are discussing it, yes we find it useful. Move on.

[Trauglodyte]

Here is the thing: You're upset that you got beat, and based on damage you almost won, and we get that. You were down 1 mech due to a d/c and that is hard enough without factoring in the weight discrepancy. Said weight discrepancy was due to a premade. That begs the question:

How do you provide equally balanced weight matching and equally balanced skill weighting (ELO) all while allowing people to play with their friends?

I've got friends in this game that I enjoy playing along side which is the premise of massive player games. Should I have my enjoyment delayed because the MM gets all jacked up in the presence of premades? By the way a lot of people on this board post, there hsould be a queue for single PUGers, one for 4 man premades, and one for 12 mans. All that does is continue to fragment the player base while extending the wait times for games. And, that doesn't take into account any sort of population fluctuation (say that 5 times fast) on the match maker.

What really needs to happen is multi-mech queueing. I should be able to go into my mech bays, click on all of the mechs that I want to actually play in, and queue up. Doing so would expand the number of mechs in the game as well as expanding the possible ELO combinations. That, in turn, would allow the MM to be more flexable due to having more to pick from which would all but eliminate these kinds of situations.

[Max Genius]

SiliconLife, on 22 November 2013 - 11:39 AM, said:

I don't think its the matchmakers fault as PGI have stated before that the matchmaker was patched to match according to tonnage to tighter constraints. However, if there aren't that many people playing it's impossible for the matchmaker to match according to the constraints so it does the best job it can do. I think you just played a game when there were very few players online at the time. I only have 1 real life friend who also plays mechwarrior online and I know hes playing not through the friend list, but when I see him in my game, so I do think a lack of players is the real problem with the matchmaking, not the matchmaker itself.

If matchmaker was working better, it should have evened out the mechs by weight class at least. Using the match I played, there were 6 assaults - so put 3 on each team instead of 5 on a team.

[Mystere]

Roland, on 22 November 2013 - 11:06 AM, said:

The problem is that the fear of "premades" caused PGI to adopt a flawed Elo implementation that tries to evaluate skill and then uses that in addition to tonnage, rather than just using tonnage as the matchmaking determining factor.

The end result is that skill on both teams still tends to be poorly matched, especially on the edges of the Elo range, and you also enable gross tonnage mismatches.

The reality is that this is a straight up downgrade to pure tonnage matching.

While some folks will complain if they lose a match with equal tonnage, those folks are generally the same folks who are going to complain about any loss, no matter what.

If you have a match with equal tonnage, then it's FAIR. If one team is better than the other, and wins with equal tonnage, then that is GOOD. That is how fair games work. If two teams have "equal skill", but one outtons the other, then that match is inherently UNFAIR. And unfair games are NOT FUN. They make people quit. This is like rule #1 of game design. People don't like feeling like they're being cheated.

Bingo! You nailed it! For which you deserve a whole lot of

[Max Genius]

Trauglodyte, on 22 November 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

Here is the thing: You're upset that you got beat, and based on damage you almost won, and we get that. You were down 1 mech due to a d/c and that is hard enough without factoring in the weight discrepancy. Said weight discrepancy was due to a premade. That begs the question:

How do you provide equally balanced weight matching and equally balanced skill weighting (ELO) all while allowing people to play with their friends?

I've got friends in this game that I enjoy playing along side which is the premise of massive player games. Should I have my enjoyment delayed because the MM gets all jacked up in the presence of premades? By the way a lot of people on this board post, there hsould be a queue for single PUGers, one for 4 man premades, and one for 12 mans. All that does is continue to fragment the player base while extending the wait times for games. And, that doesn't take into account any sort of population fluctuation (say that 5 times fast) on the match maker.

What really needs to happen is multi-mech queueing. I should be able to go into my mech bays, click on all of the mechs that I want to actually play in, and queue up. Doing so would expand the number of mechs in the game as well as expanding the possible ELO combinations. That, in turn, would allow the MM to be more flexable due to having more to pick from which would all but eliminate these kinds of situations.

Slight correction, I'm happy to have a good fight, win or lose and we weren't premades, we were all pugs.
But your second point is interesting.

[Mercules]

Max Genius, on 22 November 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:

...we weren't premades, we were all pugs.

The only time I have seen weight imbalances I know I was playing with at least 1 pre-made.

[MischiefSC]

Mystere, on 22 November 2013 - 10:56 AM, said:

How many times will I tell you people: I TOLD YOU SO!

A long, long time ago, I warned against demanding a "real" matchmaker and just keep the old, and very simple, class-based system. But, no, you folks just had to cry to the high heavens that you wanted one. Well, you have one now. Deal with it.

By the way,

I TOLD YOU SO!

I would play with 300 ton mismatch every single game to avoid the miserable, utterly imbalanced, group for teh UBERSTOMPS system we had before.

When this happens 1/10th as often as the crushing mistmatched tryhards vs cadet matches we used to have lemme know. This sort of mistmatch isn't new though, nor unique to the new MM.

[Pafsanias]

Please fix the MM. I had ten battle today where the opposite team had 4+ Atlases DDC. Already 10 out of 15 people we joined together have left the game :/.

[Roland]

Lefty Lucy, on 22 November 2013 - 11:34 AM, said:

Outweighed by 300 tons, with a DC player, and you still managed to kill 6 of them, which in an MWO match is actually a very even game. If anything this is evidence that the MM works. Which it does.

The MM is way better now than it ever was in CB.

Yeah, cause it's totally cool to be demonstrably more skilled than your opposition, and lose anyway because they had more tonnage.

Because that's totally fair, right?

This is why so many players just abandon medium mechs and take assaults, because then it's less likely that the matchmaker can just screw you over.

No one wants to play a game where the system forces you to lose by handicapping you.

[Jman5]

I'm just as frustrated as anyone else about weight mismatches, but it's going to be fixed shortly after UI 2.0 arrives. In fact here was a tweet by Russ today.

https://twitter.com/...970978973110272

Until then we are just going to have to grin and bear it. One suggestion though for people who don't like being on the receiving end of a weight mismatch. If you are running a 4-man DO NOT RUN 3-4 lights in assault mode and expect weight parity. You can call it unfair or lame all you want but this is the reality until the UI 2.0 weight restrictions come into the game. The heavier your premade runs the more likely you will be the team with the weight advantage.

[Mercules]

Jman5, on 22 November 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:

The heavier your premade runs the more likely you will be the team with the weight advantage.

Unfortunately I suck in Assaults. My 78KPH Jagger is about as heavy and slow as I can manage.