633 replies to this topic

[MrMadguy]

I wanna ask PGI only one question: after buying new mechs (which caused some changes of my ELO, I guess) how many matches in row I should be roflstomped in 2mins by premade teams, before they would stop putting me into complete dumb teams vs premades? Yesterday I've played barely 5 good matches - in all other I was simply roflstomped.

I understand, that developers are trying to cater to their premades, trying to form opposite team as fast as possible, but this is wrong and games with much more longer history and bigger experience already proved it. I mean in Wow for example Blizzard completely got rid of premades on random BGs - there is separate format for premades, where they can fairly compete with each other. Putting premades vs random players is just unfair - it gives premades unreasoned advantage due to faster farming of CB and EXP and or course it puts randoms into unreasonable disadvantage - i.e. slower progression. Premades should be put only against premades. If queue will be too long for them in this case - then it's THEIR PROBLEMS.

They have an alternative to join queue as randoms. If developers think, that offering enjoyment to their premades will bring them more money - then they're mistaking. I've bought Jester several days ago, but, I swear, I won't invest a penny more into this game, if developers won't stop this roflstompting in a nearest future. If they want to force me to do paid EXP conversion or spend my MC, I've prepared to buy camo for my next mech, on premium time due to too slow EXP income - then they are making big mistake. I've already paid this stupid 20$ for your Jester. What else do you want from me?

Edited by MrMadguy, 23 January 2014 - 11:10 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

MischiefSC, on 23 January 2014 - 04:30 PM, said:

So... and I want to get clear on this...

All the statisticians at MIT, all the literally worlds greatest experts on predictive statistical analysis who've helped create these systems and use Elo as the basis of every serious matchmaking calculator in existence....

they're all just wrong? Because you just 'feel' that way?

Please, stop for a moment. Seriously, stop and think about what you're saying. Drill down on the basis from which you are making that assumption because it's a big assumption you're making here.

This is exactly why 'common sense' isn't that common. What you're talking about here isn't 'common sense', it's you attempting to assert that your opinion is more valid and reliable than mathematical formula and scientific analysis.

Not trying to be mean here or insulting but.... really. That's exactly what you're saying. I'm not going to be able to sum up years of courses in mathematics or statistics or condense the published works on statistical analysis that support just exactly how and why Elo works for you, not in a small enough bite to be useful here.

The gist of what you're saying though just blows me away though. It's like saying you've seen birds flying so clearly gravity doesn't really work on birds unless they want it to. I'm not really sure where to even begin fixing everything that's wrong in that.

It is a "common sense" thing, so to speak. "I don't understand it, so no one can understand it" "If I don't know, it's probably impossible to know."

Unfortunately, I don't know what to do in such cases. (Commiting the same fallacy: "No one knows what to do, it's impossible to help these people!") Maybe you can only highlight there are experts in the world, t hat actually know stuff you don't know, and they didn't know at some point either, but after years of education and research they figured somethnig out that not everyone knows, but they still can use that knowledge and it has real world applications - even in the virtual worlds of games.

[MustrumRidcully]

100mile, on 23 January 2014 - 04:36 PM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...79-matchmaking/ <<<<<Go to this link and read, don't skim it...actually read it...

You wrote this, didn't you:

Quote

Here's the problem with this whole thread.....Your ELO is not based on win loss only.....It's based on how many kills you get, how many assists and who you kill...If you kill a player with a higher ELO it boosts your ELO more than if you kill one with a lower ELO...etc. etc etc....

You claim there that Elo is not based on win or loss, but on kills or assists. But in the post you are referring to, you can read this:

Quote

Case 1: 1350 Player WINS over 1410 Player

"WIN" is not kill or assist.

[Abivard]

If you set a dozen monkeys down at a dozen typewriters, and they randomly tapped the keys, sooner or later they will produce the complete works of Shakespeare.

Which will come first, my Elo in MWO's implementation of it, reaching true value or the first complete play by the Monkeys?

[ReXspec]

Joseph Mallan, on 23 January 2014 - 04:13 AM, said:

A team based Elo would work fine I think, IF the team was the same drop after drop. Same players same Mechs Same builds every drop. You would have a sample that has meaning. But, dropping with random players time after time increases our probabilities instead limiting them.

Battle Value acting as a base for matchmaking would work better... and would aid in curbing lob-sided matches that are currently determined by weight class.

[PhoenixFire55]

I like fancy math and theory just as much as the next guy.

But when I see that opponent team has two 4-man premades with people I very well know from tournaments top 10 leaderboards and my team has 8 people who stand still in the open and try to snipe pop-tarting Highlanders with medium lasers from 600m out ... I know its just not working.

GG Close.

[Joseph Mallan]

ReXspec, on 24 January 2014 - 12:07 AM, said:

Battle Value acting as a base for matchmaking would work better... and would aid in curbing lob-sided matches that are currently determined by weight class.

Battle value is easier to game though since everyone would need to know how to lower their BV to get the most bang for our Buck.

I can build a Stone Rhino that can have a 3 Gauss, a 1P/1G and cost less BV than an Atlas!

[Nik Van Rhijn]

PhoenixFire55, on 24 January 2014 - 02:32 AM, said:

I like fancy math and theory just as much as the next guy.

But when I see that opponent team has two 4-man premades with people I very well know from tournaments top 10 leaderboards and my team has 8 people who stand still in the open and try to snipe pop-tarting Highlanders with medium lasers from 600m out ... I know its just not working.

GG Close.

But thats not due to Elo, its down to the way the matchmaker is working. Also the fact that PGI is no longer doing anything about synch dropping etc.

[PhoenixFire55]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 24 January 2014 - 06:33 AM, said:

But thats not due to Elo, its down to the way the matchmaker is working. Also the fact that PGI is no longer doing anything about synch dropping etc.

Elo by itself is irrelevant in this topic. It is always Elo as in Elo-matchmaker.

[Fate 6]

It's not necessarily just that it's teams, it the size of the teams. 11v12 is winnable (though hard), which means a dud 12th man can be carried. I rarely see new players doing much in a match, but they will still win if the team wins.

If you look at my stats, you'll see that I have fewer wins than losses. Elo should eventually make it so I'm 50/50, however I haven't gotten any closer to that mark. I often get great damage and many assists but no kills in my mediums. Shouldn't matchmaker take that into account?

[Khobai]

Quote

Battle value is easier to game though since everyone would need to know how to lower their BV to get the most bang for our Buck.

Battle value would still be a better way to balance things because it accounts for factors that ELO alone just doesnt. An ideal system would use both battle value and elo... because that would take into account mech tonnage, mech equipment, as well as player skill.

Edited by Khobai, 24 January 2014 - 07:44 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 24 January 2014 - 07:42 AM, said:

Battle value would still be a better way to balance things because it accounts for factors that ELO alone just doesnt. An ideal system would use both battle value and elo... because that would take into account mech tonnage, mech equipment, as well as player skill.

With that I might be able to agree. But the skeptic in me thinks that we gamers are better at breaking a system that the folks are at building them.

[Khobai]

Quote

With that I might be able to agree. But the skeptic in me thinks that we gamers are better at breaking a system that the folks are at building them.

Battlevalue could work the same way as elo, and have a dynamic value. For example, the more games a particular mech or weapon wins, the higher its battlevalue becomes. So youd get battlevalue that autoadjusts over time based how successful mechs/weapons are in the game. Itd be pretty difficult if not impossible to game that type of system.

[RichAC]

Battlevalue is a horrible idea, because some people will still suck no matter what loadout or mech they are using, and they should not get a higher elo because of it.

Its really baffling how more people are voicing in favor of battlevalues rather then stats + wins? When stats are how professional athletes are rated, and how PGI already defined player performance with Cbills. And is how most players judge their own performance and the matchmaker.

Did you ever think that some guys are better in mediums then assaults? So why should they have a higher rating with their assault mech?
Alot of people are also gonna be faced with reality, when they realize that because we are being matched by skill rating or ELO, weight limits will not make that much of a difference for them. Not having premade lances in public CW might make the biggest difference.

But I still predict alot of syncdropping will be going on.

Edited by RichAC, 24 January 2014 - 08:45 AM.

[RussianWolf]

Fate 6, on 24 January 2014 - 07:23 AM, said:

Elo should eventually make it so I'm 50/50, however I haven't gotten any closer to that mark.

I remember this being stated too. I had fewer wins than losses when they implemented ELO, so theoretically I should never be able to approach the 50/50 mark. Yet, I'm making headway daily. I don't know what to make of it, but it doesn't appear to be working. As said, I'll let you know once I even out.

[Joseph Mallan]

RussianWolf, on 24 January 2014 - 08:45 AM, said:

I remember this being stated too. I had fewer wins than losses when they implemented ELO, so theoretically I should never be able to approach the 50/50 mark. Yet, I'm making headway daily. I don't know what to make of it, but it doesn't appear to be working. As said, I'll let you know once I even out.

How long has it been since Elo? I have a pure PUG Alt that I created after Elo. 6 months later I was still 60%/40% W/L...

[Roadkill]

RichAC, on 23 January 2014 - 05:42 PM, said:

You basically said you want to know your personal elo rating, so you can &quot;game&quot; it... is the word you used. no further comment dude....shame on you.

You are free to hobble your own performance by not using all of the information that is available if that's what gives you the most enjoyment out of the game.

I'm going to use every bit of information that I can in order to perform at the highest level that I can. If you want to switch to a system that can be easily gamed, then you can be absolutely certain that I (and many, many others) will do exactly that.

You're free to call it "cheating" if you want. I call it playing smart. If you want to ostrich your head into the sand even further and pretend that it isn't going to happen, well then you're just going to get frustrated and quit when you can't keep up. /shrug

(For the record, I don't always play like that. If I'm just grinding or playing with friends, I just play. But in a competitive situation, I'll use every possible advantage that I can to win the match. And I fully expect that my opponent is doing the same.)

[RichAC]

Nightfire, on 23 January 2014 - 10:03 PM, said:

And thank god we are rid of them! This junk can stay on the console! Personally I use the console for Fight games, it's a better fit for them controller wise and socially. It's a poor argument to say that games made for the only viable platform at the time have moved to a better suited platform that wasn't around when the game genre began.

So you hate sports, but have the nerve to post in a thread about sportsmanship. And then people wonder about the sad state of this industry.... No way was tiger woods only viable on the console. A Golf Game in 1986 is what started the pc revolution and proved that pc's were just as viable for sports games. It was EA sports before they were called EA sports. I've posted about it on these forums before. That same game was built upon and went through many evolutions, until 2008 when it was pulled from the PC. Golf Games were always the games to first showcase the new graphics engines. People were golfing with people from around the world on the pc buddy.

Quote

Uh huh ... PC Gaming is dead. Sure.

MWO will be soon too at this rate.

Quote

• No idea where you are in North America ... I could and still can find a good game of BF3 on Texas servers. BTW, I live in Australia so that's a bit of a long haul for me and no, I didn't have to go to NA to get a game. I played there as a middle ground with some American friends.
  
• So the new shiny BF4 comes out and you can't find a good BF3 server so PC gaming is dead and BF4 is a deserted wasteland? Not from my experience, plays a little differently to BF3 but I've never had trouble finding a server. Damn, I even have local servers in my state ... haven't seen those since BF2! Face it, the majority of players left the old version (BF3) and went to the new version (BF4).

A dozen large conquest servers in all of North America, hardly screams big online playerbase for me. And we are only talking a year after release. The country that always has the largest playerbase is Germany. They would have 100 servers in comparison. But that is because they are the preferred host site for all of Europe. And they do have the biggest gaming communities by far. Gotta love those Germans.

Quote

Unfortunately I'd have to agree with you there.

• Blizzard may surprise you. They are already dabbling in F2P. Who knows where that will go?
  
• World of Warcraft is hemorrhaging players, down to 7.6 Million (from 12+ million in Wrath). From Blizzard's own last 10-K Annual Report: "A further decrease in the overall subscription base of World of Warcraft could substantially harm our operating results. If consumer demand for World of Warcraft games continue to decline and we do not introduce new MMORPG products or add other sources of revenue, our financial condition could suffer. Additionally, if new technologies are developed that replace MMORPGs, consumer preferences trend away from MMORPGs or new business models emerge that offer online subscriptions for free or at a substantial discount to current MMORPG subscription fees, our revenue and profitability may decline." So much for World of Warcraft going strong ...
  
• Warframe seems to be doing well as a games designed to be F2P from the outset. Seems not all F2P games are failing IPs.

I'd be surprised if it went F2P to be honest. I still don't see them having any competition, or any MMO with a 1/10th of their playerbase.

Quote

I'm not sure about the most popular but they are definitely popular. I'll be honest, I'm a FPS man myself and I'm far from seeing gaming dying ton the PC. (Additionally, FPS gaming on the console is a JOKE! and a bad one at that!). With Elite: Dangerous and Star Citizen just around the corner ... the future is looking very rosy on the PC.

Counterstrike still has more players then TF2 imo. A 15 year old game. Other fps games are dead in comparison. Including battlefield unfortunately. I agree FPS gaming on the console sucks without mouse and keyboard. But doesn't change the fact they are now more popular on the console. I also hear the new consoles let you use mouse/kb for BF3? Not sure if its true yet, but it will be eventually. I keep hearing about this star citizen lmao from these forums. Ya we'll see...

Quote

and the stats I saw showed that PC gaming is in a recovering upward trend. Hmmm, Steam OS looks nice!

This is the most quoted stat. Have you played any of those games on steam? I downloaded Age of Conan after it went free. Guess what....its empty.... Again these companies posting their sales stats only reminds me of Enron. I only care about how much of a playerbase is playing online. Start posting those stats... You use to have xfire, steam and gamespot. Gamspot no longer posts such stats for some mysterious reason. Xfire and steam are all we have to go on, but not everyione uses xfire, and steam player could be playing singleplayer for all we know.

I go by what I see in the games I play, there is no other reason to look anywhere else. Especially since I've played most of them.

Quote

Very little obviously.
I've been hearing that PC gaming is dying for nigh 30 years now. Granted there have been slumps but I can easily see the signs of developers returning to the PC. Maps in BF too large for Consoles to handle. Space Sims making their return. PC optimized games rather than clunky Console ports!

It started dying in 2004. So in reality, you've been hearing about it for 15 years. Before that it was gaining in poularity for 20 years.

Quote

The only real debate is, why have this debate?

we have this debate constanlty on these forums, because people want to know why MWO has a very small playerbase. I bet according to you its thriving.....

Quote

You're not only Orwellian ... you're downright depressing!

The truth hurts. But when that time comes, it will be a happy time for gamers. You should only be worried about that if your malicious hacking cheater.

Edited by RichAC, 24 January 2014 - 09:08 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Battlevalue is not a horrible idea, it improves the parameters that the Mm has available in setting up the match. Skill will count for more even then. Two teams equally matched in skill, one with fully elited min/maxed mechs, the other in "stock".
Which would you expect to win the vast majority of the time?
Contrary to some people, the purpose of playing games is to have fun, not neccessarily to win at all costsStrangely, many people find getting killed rapidly most/all of the time to be the opposite. I have no problems in losing if I felt the team had a chance.
For some people the journey is more important than the destination.

[Roadkill]

Fate 6, on 24 January 2014 - 07:23 AM, said:

If you look at my stats, you'll see that I have fewer wins than losses. Elo should eventually make it so I'm 50/50, however I haven't gotten any closer to that mark. I often get great damage and many assists but no kills in my mediums. Shouldn't matchmaker take that into account?

Incorrect. Elo will never make it so that your win/loss ratio is 50/50. Elo has nothing to do with your win/loss ratio.

PGI's matchmaker attempts to use Elo to set up fair matches. If the matchmaker is doing its job properly, your win/loss ratio should converge on 50/50.

People just need to forget that Elo exists. It's just a rating system. All of the perceived problems that people have with MWO matches come from the matchmaker, not from Elo ratings.