Posted 23 December 2013 - 10:43 AM
@Joseph,
The point of this discussion is not winning and losing. The point is the matchmaker is not attempting to make a balanced game. It is not using some of the most important things that should be included when setting up a match. When one side has a 300 ton advantage, that is the same as having three extra Atlas mechs. Now, instead of the weight advantage, there would be no argument if in fact one side did have 3 xtra Atlas mechs drop instead of the tonnage advantage. \
Tonnage does not need to be exact, but should be less than 100 tons total in every match. Equipment value and values of mechs used should be close in every match, not equal but close. Say within 5 million cbills. That way you do not have trial mechs facing elite mechs. You have near equal tonnage and near equal mechs and equipment including modules. So far the above two would go a long way to leveling the playing field.
Then all you have left is player experience and skill and the ability to build an efficient killing machine in the mech lab. There is nothing to whine over, because the game started balanced. If you lose when this occurs you have nothing to blame but yourself and your teamwork. Which is what I am hoping PGI is trying to do.
But currently the matchmaker does not do this, it does not even attempt to do this because the above two things are not part of ELO. They are not even a small part of it. PGI has decided to go the route of everyone gets a ribbon for participating by manipulating win/loss records so nobody can brag about their amazing skills on the forum. Instead you get this horrible matchmaker that literally stacks most games for oneside to win. Giving them more 4mans, giving one side better mechs, giving one side more tonnage. All based on win/loss ELO of pilots in that mech.
Sorry, win/loss k/d is not how to rate a pilot especially when there is no tonnage matchmaking or mech/equipment/module matchmaking. How much skill do you have when you are in a 12 man with all assaults/heavies vs another 12 man in lights and mediums? None, sorry no skill involved when you beat up 5 year olds. Or literally come to the fist fight with a machinegun.
The entire point of this post is to point out PGI has utterly failed in matchmaking. The games and drops are not balanced, and therefore not fun whether winning or losing. a 12-0 is not fun. Its easy and stat padding. Its ok for people that like beating up on 5 year olds but for serious competitive players the current matchmaker is a joke and just like getting a ribbon at school for participating its worthless and really doesn't feel like anything important was accomplished when you win vs a team that had 4 trial mechs and you out weighed by 300 tons.
PGI needs to either completely scrap the current matchmaker or add the things I have been saying as well as many others. BV or Battle Value from tabletop works for equipment and mechs, but would need to be reworked since PGI has changed so many values. Plus BV has a rating for pilots based on table top skill levels which would not work in MWO. So a system for evaluating the skill of a pilot would be needed.
I do not think win/loss or even k/d work as a value for pilot skill. Why? Because currently those marks were earned under a system that does not evenly match mech vs mech on a ton or equipment basis. If every game a pilot had played up till now had been against other teams evenly tonned and evenly equipped then win/loss and k/d would be a valid part of an equation to rate a pilot. But that is not the case at the moment. The only thing I think that could be used at this point is to actually count total games played.
Meaning you rate pilots by experience, with experience being how many missions/drops they have made. You would then have rookie (still on first 25 missions); green (26-100), regular (100-500); veteran (500-1000) and elite (1000+) drops. This gives you an idea of how many times a player has played. You can do the same with mech based on type of equipment used. A mech with standard equipment, meaning no double heat sinks, no endo, no FF, no artemis, no tag, no ecm, no bap, no command module, no ams, no XL engine, no ER weapons, no pulse weapons, no streak, no gauss.
Give each piece of upgraded equipment a value, add that to the tonnage of the mech, given a number, do this with every mech in a 12 man and then attempt to find equal value opponents for them. So tonnage and equipment are easily figured, just some math and a discussion of PGI devs to decide what equals what. Then a simple rating system for pilots based on drops and not win/loss or k/d. Because if mechs are near equal and tonnage is near equal. I am ok facing a far superior pilot and eating a loss because his skill was better than I am facing a near certain loss because my team is out tonned and out gunned from the beginning.
I am not really asking for much, just a system that means matchmaking actually tries to make even matches. Not to manipulate win/loss records so every body has better self esteem. I know Canadians are nice and polite, but this game is about killing the other guy. Not feeling good because you participated. Give us near even equipment and let the bodies fall where they may.
Chris
2
knightsljx, on 22 December 2013 - 05:52 PM, said:
