1911 replies to this topic

[Karl Berg]

MischiefSC, on 07 September 2014 - 01:25 PM, said:

Seriously Karl, can't say enough how much we appreciate your time here. I debate the mm topic often and this sort of stuff is invaluable to know.

So on Elo variance and the like how much benefit would it be to remove game mode selection?

Is the primary issue the 2k+ folks?

What it game mode was more a preference than a hard restriction? The problem I see with high/low to target involving 300+ variance on Elo on a team is it starts to make Elo progression exponentially more difficult the further up the curve you go. Part of the perk of an Elo progression is a gradual curve on improvement at an individual level even if your actual position on the curve is dramatically steep. If movement out of majority ranking involves heavy carry every match you're going to get stuck in the middle.

This gets more problematic when you account for us not knowing if this match is a gain or loss opportunity for us. I agree we don't need to see our Elo scores but can we see the projection for the match?

Also opting in and out of Elo matches. If I'm getting basics in a nova I'm not performing at expectation. Mm performance is going to skew match results.

Opt out out Elo, or opt in. Game mode a preference not a limit. Wouldn't that give better overall match results and more accurate Elo?

And now Russ has spilled the beans on easing game mode filters Yes, the high-elo players frequently restrict their filters, but in general very few players have all gamemodes selected by default. Russ has been asking me to run these numbers for a while now, I just haven't had much chance with everything else going on. I *still* haven't run the numbers unfortunately, but he's escalated this task on my priority list significantly. So, hopefully I'll have a much better answer for you shortly.

Opting out of Elo adjustments for a time could potentially help convergence; I can see the case your presenting. Honestly, Elo adjusts slowly to begin with. Our k-factor is currently set to 20, which means for a single match the most your Elo can change would be 20 points if you won a game you were predicted 100% to lose, or vice versa.

Part of my MM rewrite involved running simulations for many different k-factors, as well as different team Elo calculations to determine which strategies might provide the quickest convergence. Unfortunately I haven't finished all of this experimentation either.. :'( Soon tm.

[Karl Berg]

Sarlic, on 08 September 2014 - 12:08 AM, said:

Question: did you enjoy your day off? Sometimes you get some fresh (atleast i get it) idea's on your day off.

Why yes I did! Thanks very much for asking Although it ended up involving a whole lot of grocery shopping and cleaning up.

[Karl Berg]

Modo44, on 08 September 2014 - 12:15 AM, said:

You want a number of brackets with the same number of people in each, not static Elo ranges. Trying to satisfy the tiny outliner groups will probably never be possible, but you can make matches a lot more sensible for almost everyone. Make the bracket borders variable, and adjust periodically to account for Elo moves.

That is, essentially, the current approach; although the range of brackets is continuous instead of quantized. As matchable player count increases, Elo variance will decrease rapidly, as games launch faster and with much tighter search ranges. In this light, the point of static brackets would simply be to prevent the matchmaker from adjusting as much as it currently can, and to not allow matches to form if we determine the quality level to be too low. I would love to provide strict quality guarantees! But not necessarily at the cost of a players ability to find a match,

[Karl Berg]

Steinar Bergstol, on 08 September 2014 - 12:26 AM, said:

Seriously, Karl, I think this thread and your efforts here have done more good for PGI's PR and standing among the playerbase than anything else since closed Beta. Thank you for being a virtual patron saint of patience and putting up with us and our questions. My hat would be off to you, sir, if I had a hat.

Thanks for the kind words sir, o7.

[Karl Berg]

Mawai, on 08 September 2014 - 06:25 AM, said:

To be honest ... I am not sure that MWO has ever had more than 6 developers or so working on the project code so I have no idea how they can possibly support development of MWO in conjunction with a new project without additional resources. I am seriously dubious about any claims they will make at the moment since their past track record is ridiculously bad. (The classic CW within 90 days of open beta comes to mind).

Here is a post from Karl outlining the status of engineering resources on 8 may 2014 ... at that time there were only 8 engineers working on the game ... "That said there are 3 systems engineers, 3 gameplay, and 2 UI."

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3360690

How can 8 people ... only 3 of whom are gameplay engineers ... actively develop two major titles? MWO development is already too slow in the view of many players ... how can it do anything but slow further if engineering resources are diverted onto a new project?

Well, I was specifically asked for numbers on full-time gameplay, systems, and UI I prefaced the comment that resources were cross-trained, and could be reallocated to a certain extent. I later listed, in that same post, additional engineering resources that were not 100% dedicated to either gameplay, systems, or UI.

That said, we are a smaller team, no doubt. We've found ways to cope with the workload, and improve our efficiency; and I think we have some super cool stuff coming out these next couple months that will really change the game significantly.

[Karl Berg]

Gyrok, on 08 September 2014 - 10:23 AM, said:

How often were the Clans the higher ELO? What impact would that have on the results of the matching?

If you can give me even rough estimates off the top of your head that would be great.

Also, another point about 10 vs. 12.

You do not have to make clans 1.2 only 1.16-1.17.

This is predominantly because you would be balancing 5 vs 6. I think a balance approach that revolves around focusing on the possible total output of the team of 12 versus the team of 10 is a more prudent approach versus trying to balance on a 1 to 1 level.

When I did some balance work in the past on powerset systems, I, personally, found it easier to balance something as a sum of the parts in a case like this, versus trying to balance something on an individual case by case basis.

The one drawback there is that you do have to take into consideration that minor adjustments will have a bigger impact on the overall performance of the team in general. This often presents itself in ways that would not be immediately evident when making adjustments, and does require LOTS of playtesting to get right. Basically, we used to run a LOT of test server time for players to be able to test out new builds and provide feedback. I personally feel that this type of development where a build with some adjustments can be hot fixed to the test server to gauge the results of the adjustments would be a more beneficial model for MWO as a whole.

10 vs 12 can be done, I think people may be looking at it from the wrong angles though. If you are curious, I would be more than happy to bounce some ideas your way and you guys can use any of them if it contributes to a 10 vs 12 environment that the playerbase as a whole is happy with and your development team sees no issues with.

Let me know on that end if you want any of those ideas. Because I would be willing to help out in any way I could on a volunteer basis...

Hey Gyrok,

Hopefully I've answered some of your questions here: http://mwomercs.com/...19#entry3696819

Without me going back and doing some concerted data-analysis on the telemetry we gathered during the last tests, I can't really give you even a respectable answer right now. When these tests were being run, I was deeply involved with Unit work. The problem is, on a game by game basis, the matchmaker is simply trying it's hardest to balance the two teams, within the range of Elo's that it is currently allowed to examine for that game. This tends to mask trend data in noise.

Visually, from the command center, I did notice much greater variation between team Elos almost immediately when the test was being run. Specifically I do know that the convolved average delta between team Elo's climbed by a good 50 to 60 points. Those high-level analytics are all designed for day to day operations though, and so I didn't have real-time faction specific analytics on hand.

[Karl Berg]

Lordred, on 09 September 2014 - 11:42 AM, said:

Just imagine this, with more detail.

No updates on this as of yet. I would still really love to see this released soon though. There's some logistics we need to work out, in terms of patching and content delivery first; but the artists have already done their part.

[Heffay]

Karl Berg, on 10 September 2014 - 09:23 PM, said:

but in general very few players have all gamemodes selected by default.

This surprises me. But then again, I like being surprised, which is why I leave all modes checked.

[Bilbo]

Heffay, on 11 September 2014 - 07:57 AM, said:

This surprises me. But then again, I like being surprised, which is why I leave all modes checked.

I haven't played assault since shortly after turrets were introduced. One of these days I'll recheck the box.

[Void Angel]

Heffay, on 11 September 2014 - 07:57 AM, said:

This surprises me. But then again, I like being surprised, which is why I leave all modes checked.

I don't play Conquest, because I like C-bills. ;] I don't play enough these days to have an unlimited supply, so maximizing my income to afford new 'Mechs as they come out requires that I drop Conquest maps from the rotation - I can't imagine I'm alone in this, as I know some of my guildies do the same.

[Valore]

Karl is by far the best guy on the PGI team. Appreciate that he still gives us his time with all the other stuff going on.

Hi Karl, I have a quick question for the next time you happen to be around, is there something that needs to be fixed with HSR/hitreg at the moment?

I play with high ping of around 250-300, and recently in the past 2 weeks or so, I've been forced to lead people with lasers to hit them. Its slightly annoying, more so because the month before we've had good performances with hitreg, one of the main reasons I started playing again after a year long hiatus, and forked out for a Clan pack.

Have there been any red flags up on your end serverside, or is this not been an issue that's been raised significantly?

[ApolloKaras]

Karl Berg, on 10 September 2014 - 11:05 PM, said:

No updates on this as of yet. I would still really love to see this released soon though. There's some logistics we need to work out, in terms of patching and content delivery first; but the artists have already done their part.

This has to be the most exciting news. I want to see a shadow hawk with the upgrades textures :-D

[Mawai]

Bilbo, on 11 September 2014 - 07:59 AM, said:

I haven't played assault since shortly after turrets were introduced. One of these days I'll recheck the box.

I usually just play skirmish or assault ... I find both to be good ... and the added threat of a base cap in Assault can add some spice to what turns into just a direct deathmatch. The turrets generally prevent light mechs from running in to cap immediately ... and if a team does decide to do a cap rush then there is often time to get back and fight them off. Some of the most fun matches I have had were preventing a base cap and having my team successfully counter attack.

I don't usually turn on conquest ... mostly because I often play a light mech and in conquest, win or lose, lights get shafted for rewards. They are the best mechs to run around doing the logistical base caps and they get no reward at all in return ... no damage, no kills, no assists, no spotting. In addition, the longer timers make it much easier to identify where the enemy is and interdict them ... it takes so long to cap or re-cap, even with the module, that the person capping just doesn't get into the fight.

In addtion, often it is the initial cap is usually all that is needed to put some pressure on the other team ... then the rest turns into some chaotic deathmatch variant.

If they improved the conquest mode I would likely play it ... but at the moment it just isn't much fun.

[Bilbo]

Mawai, on 11 September 2014 - 09:35 AM, said:

I usually just play skirmish or assault ... I find both to be good ... and the added threat of a base cap in Assault can add some spice to what turns into just a direct deathmatch. The turrets generally prevent light mechs from running in to cap immediately ... and if a team does decide to do a cap rush then there is often time to get back and fight them off. Some of the most fun matches I have had were preventing a base cap and having my team successfully counter attack.

I don't usually turn on conquest ... mostly because I often play a light mech and in conquest, win or lose, lights get shafted for rewards. They are the best mechs to run around doing the logistical base caps and they get no reward at all in return ... no damage, no kills, no assists, no spotting. In addition, the longer timers make it much easier to identify where the enemy is and interdict them ... it takes so long to cap or re-cap, even with the module, that the person capping just doesn't get into the fight.

In addtion, often it is the initial cap is usually all that is needed to put some pressure on the other team ... then the rest turns into some chaotic deathmatch variant.

If they improved the conquest mode I would likely play it ... but at the moment it just isn't much fun.

When I quit playing it the lrm turrets locked through ECM and discouraged maneuver in general. I hear it's better now. I just haven't bothered to try it yet.

[Heffay]

Bilbo, on 11 September 2014 - 10:00 AM, said:

When I quit playing it the lrm turrets locked through ECM and discouraged maneuver in general. I hear it's better now. I just haven't bothered to try it yet.

It's much better. Turrets are relatively easy to take down, and ECM works on LRMs. They are still annoying on maps like River City where you can get into LRM range really quickly, but far more manageable.

[Cimarb]

Void Angel, on 11 September 2014 - 08:23 AM, said:

I don't play Conquest, because I like C-bills. ;] I don't play enough these days to have an unlimited supply, so maximizing my income to afford new 'Mechs as they come out requires that I drop Conquest maps from the rotation - I can't imagine I'm alone in this, as I know some of my guildies do the same.

The majority of our Clan feel the same way. Assault/Skirmish are the only modes chosen in 99% of the drops, and that 1% is because we had a change in leadership and the new leader forgot to check his drop settings before launching, lol...

[aniviron]

Bilbo, on 11 September 2014 - 10:00 AM, said:

When I quit playing it the lrm turrets locked through ECM and discouraged maneuver in general. I hear it's better now. I just haven't bothered to try it yet.

You really should; I much prefer assault to the hide-fest that is Skirmish or the "oh god charlie lance has decided life isn't worth living fest" that is conquest. The turrets are now soft enough that a decent pilot in a medium can take down all the turrets on his/her own, providing they're not engaging other enemies at the same time.

They're finally working as a deterrent to slow down baserushing, without impeding the ability of a team that is determined to cap, or providing more than rudimentary defense for a last few crippled mechs; nothing that the other team can't overcome.

[Lordred]

Karl, thank you so much for responding to the question.

I am however an evil, and vile person and will ask you another related question.

Do you know if there are any plans to normalize textures prior to a high res pack? as it currently stands our texture resolutions are a little all over the place.

[Kmieciu]

Void Angel, on 11 September 2014 - 08:23 AM, said:

I don't play Conquest, because I like C-bills. ;] I don't play enough these days to have an unlimited supply, so maximizing my income to afford new 'Mechs as they come out requires that I drop Conquest maps from the rotation - I can't imagine I'm alone in this, as I know some of my guildies do the same.

I thought exactly the same, before I took at my stats. It seems I win Conquest 44% more often than Skirmish, therefore I get more C-Bills on average (something around 108K and I don't use premium)

Probably because all the good teams avoid it and it became an easy mode for our regiment.

Edited by Kmieciu, 11 September 2014 - 11:43 PM.

[Dimento Graven]

Karl,

Please provide an option that can be set by the player that if a match isn't found in 3 minutes, instead of being jammed into what will probably be the 'short bus' team, it just reports "no match found".

I'm getting kind of tired of waiting 3 minutes to get jammed into a match, only to find that the rest of my team are piloting trial 'mechs and haven't yet figured out that pulling the trigger and wiggling like mad is NOT an actual 'good' skill.

Or worse, are so anxious to fire their weapons will do it as soon as the match starts, right into the back of the 'mech(s) in front of them.

Please.

Pretty please.

I'd rather search 5 times for a match among my peers, rather than be forced to play with people on my team who haven't yet got the experience to play 'well'.