152 replies to this topic

[VXJaeger]

SgtKinCaiD, on 10 February 2014 - 05:12 AM, said:

• seeing new players getting pulled in match way out of their league and getting crushed on their first mistake is not fun and it's not a great way to get more people play this game. I've stopped trying to introduce friends to this game some time ago because of that.

Indeed, if I go pugging alone this is my impression 'bout 90% of the games.

Edited by VXJaeger, 10 February 2014 - 06:52 AM.

[SgtKinCaiD]

@ Wendigo : the MM is not trying to make you lose to attain a 50/50 win/loss. The MM is putting teams so they that they have the same chance to win the match. So in the long term (several thousands of match), you should attain a 50/50 win/loss ratio.

The problems lie in how the MM is setting up the teams to have what it considers a 'fair fight' :

• new players starting with a ELO score way to high,
  
• ELO score based on win/loss only,
  
• the fact that for the MM, two teams are balanced as long as the sum of the ELO scores from both team is equal, even if one team is composed of a few high elo players and a flock of low elo payers, and the other team is composed of average elo players.

What the MM consider as a fair fight is in fact a one-sided match.

And the introduction of tonnage limits will not magicaly resolves thoses problems.

Edited by SgtKinCaiD, 10 February 2014 - 07:54 AM.

[Kjudoon]

The idea that 1-4 very high Elo players counters out the other 8's bad Elo when facing off versus a more balanced 12 players will lead to much frustration. Honestly, the Elo might do better as long as you keep Elos of individuals (except when dealing with premade lances) within a percentage of each other.

[MischiefSC]

Wendigo Garou, on 10 February 2014 - 06:08 AM, said:

To the best of my knowledge, tonnage was no longer taken into account when they implemented the Elo system. Regardless, we have been informed several times in the "Patch Feedback" forum that it is not taken into account at this time but they plan to implement it in April...a couple of months away now.

can you link me an example? Everything I can find shows that it's still balancing for weight between teams, generally within 100 tons or so.

Wendigo Garou, on 10 February 2014 - 06:08 AM, said:

Officially? It probably hasn't. A lot of us have noticed that our stats have been borked, however. If you check your "mode" stats, you'll see that you've played an equal amount of Assault, Conquest and Skirmish matches (which is odd because since Skirmish came out, I haven't played anything else....except 1 round of Conquest when I forgot to pick Skirmish on accident). Assuming that our 'Elo' is based on previous performance, this could be considered a "reset," I guess. It all depends on whether they actually screwed up the information they have stored or if it's just a glitch in the website reporting stats.

Huh. Mine seem fine.
Game Mode Statistics

Mode Name Matches Wins Losses Ratio XP Earned CB Earned Assault 2,374 1,249 1,119 1.12 1,501,438 213,468,850 Conquest 1,569 885 684 1.29 1,160,948 160,656,479 Skirmish 200 114 86 1.33 200,041 24,063,931

That seems about right.

Wendigo Garou, on 10 February 2014 - 06:08 AM, said:

Ok, assuming this is the case, then there is a very obvious problem here. According to what we've been told, a "new player" starts off with an Elo of 1300 and it is modified +/- for every fight. So, it's entirely possible that those of us that have been playing a while and have had our score shift up and down are ending up with a 1400-1600 while the guy that started 10 minutes ago is within our range for no effort on his part, whatsoever. Perhaps they're starting new players with too high a score.

But, then again, that brings up yet another problem. If they were to start the new players at a lower score, they'd NEVER find a match because of the small sampling of the player base. People are leaving this game in droves due to (fill in the blank...the reasons are too numerous to mention here). PGI doesn't seem to mind that they're losing players daily or, rather, they're not communicating any concern to the rest of the community...not as long as the cash flow continues, I guess.

New players start, and most remain, around 1300. You may be at 1800 and still get matched with people at 1300 however. Suppose the match target Elo is 1600, it would be you with one 1400 Elo player to make 1600 on your team. Make sense? That unless your Elo is literally 2400-2800 you are theoretically still going to end up with new players sometimes. This is a GOOD THING. They need to play with experienced people. They're as likely to be on your team as the other team though. This is better for player retention than locking all the new kids in a pen with the disabled kids and letting them get in spit-fights. Practice your pug-wrangling I do, it helps.

Wendigo Garou, on 10 February 2014 - 06:08 AM, said:

As for the tonnage part, again, PGI has stated that it's not even considered part of the matchmaker now. Nor is any form of equipment such as ECM.

It takes tonnage into consideration but no equipment or builds or the like. Just tonnage. If that's changed, please link me to it or point me somewhere? I've scoured the forums and can't find a dev post to that effect.

Wendigo Garou, on 10 February 2014 - 06:08 AM, said:

It's possible, but I doubt it. More on this at the bottom.

Again, that may be your opinion, but there are many of us that feel differently. Perhaps you have a higher Elo than us and are ending up in better matches. Perhaps you play at a specific time of day where some of us play at all hours of the day. Who knows? I could just as easily say "It seems to me that the Matchmaker is purposely putting together teams designed to be a Roflstomp every single match" and I'd get just as many people to agree with that statement as yours. It's all a matter of perspective and unless either one of us are actually developers working on the project, all we can do is conjecture.

Here's the thing. It's not a matter of opinion - the matchmaker doesn't know you, or anyone else. It certainly doesn't design matches to be stomps; stomps are a product of specific behaviors within a match. Generally 'one team sticks together, one team scatters' or 'one team has a plan, one team just stands somewhere and waits'. You're as likely to be on one team as the other. With larger team sizes the odds of a one-sided match increase because the odds of disproportionate encounters increases. You get 4 or 5 encounters of 6 vs 2 and suddenly the match is 7-0 and at this point it's just a slaughter. It's a byproduct of pinpoint damage meta, concentration of fire has an exponential advantage.

All the matchmaker does is try to get equal Elo levels on both teams. I'm the first to say matching for a range, even if there's a bigger total point discrepancy between teams, is better than trying to match high/low to a target. One high Elo player can't carry the weight of two low Elo players. Again though, we're all swimming in the same water. It's not an opinion thing. It certainly is a perspective thing - people have a tendency to view things a certain way and remember negative experiences way longer than positive ones. Stomps are more impactful so people remember them.

Wendigo Garou, on 10 February 2014 - 06:08 AM, said:

Again, we will have to agree to disagree. The Battlevalue system not only works, it works well. Granted, however, it is a system used to keep teams somewhat even for Tabletop Battletech.....but, Elo is for Chess so...whatever.

The BV point value is based on a total of your Defensive and Offensive totals. I'm not going through all the math here, but I'm going to give you a couple of "for instances."

One guy has an Atlas D-DC with 2x LL, 2x UAC5, AMS, ECM, STD325
The other guy has an Atlas D with 2x LRM20+A, 1xAC20, 4xML, STD 285

Which one is going to have the higher BV? I don't even need to do the math to tell you. The D-DC will. It gets BIG Defensive points for having AMS and ECM. The STD325 makes it faster and speed is a multiplier.

Even though it doesn't really factor (although it could), the D having 2 LRM20s and only 10 tubes to support it takes away from it's offensive value. Lack of anything defensive (AMS, BAP) kills it's rating as well.

So, from a player's perspective...they both weigh 100 tons but are they actually "equal?" From a player's perspective, absolutely not. I'd MUCH rather have a guy with ECM and close brawling weapons than an Atlas LRM boat wannabe.

From a BV standpoint, are they equal? Not even close.

Keep in mind that this is a "bare bones" approach to Battlevalue. Certain eccentricities of MW:O do not necessarily apply as they stand (example: TAG, Narc, BAP shut down ECM but do not in BT and should be considered both offensive and defensive, modules do not exist in BT, etc). But, mathematically, it wouldn't be too difficult to assign them a value and put them into the system.

Don't misunderstand, tonnage balancing will go a LONG way toward getting more even teams but, Battlevalue DOES work.

LB10X has a higher BV than an AC10, etc. etc. etc. Also some of the best designs in the game rely on AC5s and PPCs. I could take a Shadowhawk with a standard engine, put two PPCs on it and an AC5, have a rock-bottom BV and still do alright. A mouth-breathing window-licker can put an XL in a Stalker and 6x ERPPCs and be nothing but an expensive target.

BV is easy to game and manipulate. Elo represents your ability to help your team win matches - that includes your skill at fielding good builds of mechs. With a tonnage limit in place the 'everyone in Highlanders' problem solves itself. At this point you trust that people know how to maximize the value of the tonnage they field at their given Elo level. I'd rather face Wispy in a Battlemaster or an Awesome than in a Jenner. Skill skews the value of tonnage and equipment. There are plenty of people who can sit in a Jenner with 6MLs, a 300XL, DHS and a couple JJs and kill 4 or 5 people per match. People who can pair up in Cataphract 3Ds with 2xPPC and an AC10 or UAC5 and get 4 kills each.

I'm all for changes, the best ones however would be along the lines of, for example, the TrueSkill system. For MW:O that would look like modifying your Elo based on your performance in a given chassis, given loadouts and against other setups. Maybe you don't do well against LRMs, if you're dropped in a team against an LRM heavy group who are good with LRMs your relative Elo would be estimated downward. Maybe you do great in an AC40 Jag. Even if you go Catapult K2 with AC40 it gives your Elo a bump because it knows you do well with paired AC20s.

Elo is the basis for modification based on how you have performed historically with specific builds while playing alongside specific builds and against specific makeups of teams. It can get incredibly accurate.

To get there though we need to see how tonnage is going to play out and CW. Elo matching is about keeping games challenging for everyone, regardless of skill level. CW is about screwing challenge in favor of winning. An improved Elo system will be great for any future tournament system. CW though.... well, I'm not sure we WANT a skill-based matchmaker for CW. If you're the biggest, baddest mercenary corps out there and ruthlessly expanding your holdings then it's up to your enemies to find a means to challenge and stop you. Not just the matchmaker.

So part of it as well is intelligent use of resources. We want UI 2.0 fixes, tonnage limits and CW. Some of that is going to skew the crap out of the matchmaker. It's also more important for the games future, so lets get those done and then revisit what direction the MM needs to go.

[Willard Phule]

SgtKinCaiD, on 10 February 2014 - 07:51 AM, said:

The problems lie in how the MM is setting up the teams to have what it considers a 'fair fight' :

• new players starting with a ELO score way to high,
  
• ELO score based on win/loss only,
  
• the fact that for the MM, two teams are balanced as long as the sum of the ELO scores from both team is equal, even if one team is composed of a few high elo players and a flock of low elo payers, and the other team is composed of average elo players.

What the MM consider as a fair fight is in fact a one-sided match.


And the introduction of tonnage limits will not magicaly resolves thoses problems.

I absolutely agree and that's what I've been trying to get at.

Yes, tonnage equality will go a long, long way toward making things closer to "fair," and that's also the point, Mischief.

There's never going to be an "even" match....nor should there ever be. "Fair" would be closer to a realistic term, I suppose.

Let me use an example of what happens when we play TT here. My buddy plays IS (with a smattering of clantech), I tend to play Clan based technology. We use the BV system and try to make our teams as close as we can to equal as far as the BV is concerned.

When we get the 'mechs put on the table, are they even by tonnage or even number of 'mechs? Not by a long shot. How does the match go? Unable to tell until the final dice roll. Sure, he's got either numbers or tonnage (or sometimes both) but I've got the range and firepower (since all my stuff weighs less and reaches further). There are so many variables involved it's hard to predict.

Why is that? Because the BVs are close to even. If we said "ok, this drop is a 450 ton limit" and did our thing, I'd win every single time.

I'm not saying that BV should be used INSTEAD of tonnage limits, I'm saying it should be used IN CONJUNCTION with it.

It's that whole Atlas D-DC, Atlas-D thing again. Sure, they're both 100 tonners but not even close to equal in 'value' to their team.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is the process itself.

First, the MM grabs 24 people of what it considers to be 'equal-ish' Elo scores, then it assigns them to their respective teams based on tonnage and BV (keep in mind that the BV system would be perfect for this because you could assign a static value for premade groups. Let's say, 250 per person in the group. That means a 4 man group is worth the BV of their individual 'mechs PLUS 1000 points....meaning that the other team gets an extra 1000 points to make up for not having a 4 man)

[p4r4g0n]

I would not be surprised (assuming there are in fact more uneven match ups compared to the recent past) if the greater number of such matches are directly due to the bigger ELO range used for matchmaking which was implemented as a result of many complaints of players not being able to find matches which was possibly due in turn to a reduction in the playerbase in the last couple of weeks / months due to seasonal fluctuations and/or recent developments.

The uneven matches are very likely NOT due to any changes in the matchmaking systems other than the expanded ELO range / threshold. The solution to these uneven matches will NOT come from introducing more variables into the matchmaker at this time as this would make the situation even worse. I very much doubt that PGI will confirm or deny this as they have made every attempt keep information about playerbase numbers strictly confidential.

Based on what I think is happening the choices at this time are either to accept more "no matches found" or uneven match ups at least until the playerbase increases to a more optimal size. For some, neither option will be acceptable.

When or if the playerbase will ever increase to a size that permits all the variables that have been discussed to be introduced into the matchmaking system is debatable. IMO, Whoever has been calling the shots on certain questionable decisions in the past has screwed the pooch and this project no longer has the luxury of re-visiting some of the most fundamental flaws in the new player experience but that is a discussion for some other time.

Edit: I was initially against the idea of using Battle Value as suggested by Wendigo Garou but used in conjunction with ELO ratings, it would definitely appear to take into account all the modules & modifications to the mechs which tonnage ignores. Having said that, could TT Battle Values be imported whole sale into the game? If not, it would appear to be a massive exercise to assign values to each mech, equipment, weapons and modules which I doubt PGI is in any position to do right now seeing as how they are now under the gun so to speak.

With respect to the matchmaking process, I believe Karl Berg has confirmed that it fill the teams one lance at a time and goes back and forth between the two teams until it is filled but other than that not much detail has been provided by the Dev team as far as I know. You can find the post through one of Helmer's recent summaries of Dev posts on the Developer Tracker thread.

Edited by p4r4g0n, 10 February 2014 - 09:32 AM.

[Hellen Wheels]

Was waiting for Taco Cat. Leaving satisfied.

[Almond Brown]

Hopefully, those who have designs to play CW will be able to leave this little MM hate fest behind. Then it becomes, you bring yours and we will bring ours, weight and win condition in hand. Then if a stomp happens, it won't be worthy of a "make-no rant", it will just be considered a Contract loss. Now if a team were to Lose enough Contracts, that may make it get harder to acquire more and new Rants will surface but just "sucking" at MWO will be the true and known reason for those "make-no" type rants.

P.S. Was the OP's issue a "Winning" all the time or a "Losing" all the time, type rant/QQ?

Edited by Almond Brown, 10 February 2014 - 11:06 AM.

[Sandpit]

Let me sum up the entire thread

"I don't like the MM, I've been experiencing more stomps"

"I like the MM, I've been experiencing less stomps"
(debates ensue)

Really the best thing you can do is track your matches and give PGI feedback instead of trying to convince each other that we're "right". We have many players who have many different experiences in this game. Also, don't get so butt hurt when someone doesn't agree with you or like your idea.
Plus don't expect everyone to have the same experience that you do

[p4r4g0n]

LOL. You should template that and post it in every "MM is screwed up" thread

Edited by p4r4g0n, 10 February 2014 - 07:20 PM.

[JSparrowist]

Sandpit, on 10 February 2014 - 12:20 PM, said:

Let me sum up the entire thread

Sandpit and his goons maintain the status quo by having no life which allows them to accumulate 6000+ posts and drive out all new blood and squash opinions that differ than theirs.

I hope you're proud of yourself. You are killing this community.

Helmer, on 09 February 2014 - 12:40 AM, said:

It's easy for some of our long time forum members to forget that not everyone is an alternate account, troll, or is constantly reading the forums.

[Kjudoon]

JSparrowist, on 10 February 2014 - 05:40 PM, said:

Sandpit and his goons maintain the status quo by having no life which allows them to accumulate 6000+ posts and drive out all new blood and squash opinions that differ than theirs.

I hope you're proud of yourself. You are killing this community.

I thought you rage quit and asked to be banned. Was I wrong on that?

[Sandpit]

JSparrowist, on 10 February 2014 - 05:40 PM, said:

Sandpit and his goons maintain the status quo by having no life which allows them to accumulate 6000+ posts and drive out all new blood and squash opinions that differ than theirs.

I hope you're proud of yourself. You are killing this community.

TL;DR
[citation needed]

[Kjudoon]

Sandpit, on 10 February 2014 - 05:59 PM, said:

TL;DR
[citation needed]

I lost it.

[Nick Makiaveli]

JSparrowist, on 10 February 2014 - 05:40 PM, said:

Sandpit and his goons maintain the status quo by having no life which allows them to accumulate 6000+ posts and drive out all new blood and squash opinions that differ than theirs.

I hope you're proud of yourself. You are killing this community.

Umm...I am not a goon. If I was, I would be my own goon. Second, I don't have 6K posts. Also, how do we maintain the status quo when we aren't mods?

How do we squash other opinions? Yes we do squash blatant nonsense, and debate opinions we disagree with.

Oh and if someone posts a thread that calls this game a pile of shit, and repeats this behavior over and over, that isn't driving away new players? But calling them on their BS is?

Oh and how many posts do you have answering questions in the New Player section? I am no Koniving or Redshift2K, as I've said multiple times, but I do help where and when I can. You?

You there's a saying that goes something like Just because you are offended, it doesn't make you right. Well guess what? Just because you believe something, doesn't mean you are right. If you are proven wrong, admit it and move on. If you can't successfully defend your point, resorting to insults doesn't change the fact that you lost the debate. If you still believe you are wrong, check your facts and seek out more evidence and try again.

You see we are reasonable people. If you make a reasonable argument, we will respond in kind. Try it sometime....

[Noesis]

Nick Makiaveli, on 10 February 2014 - 07:33 PM, said:

Umm...I am not a goon. If I was, I would be my own goon. Second, I don't have 6K posts. Also, how do we maintain the status quo when we aren't mods?

How do we squash other opinions? Yes we do squash blatant nonsense, and debate opinions we disagree with.

Oh and if someone posts a thread that calls this game a pile of shit, and repeats this behavior over and over, that isn't driving away new players? But calling them on their BS is?

Oh and how many posts do you have answering questions in the New Player section? I am no Koniving or Redshift2K, as I've said multiple times, but I do help where and when I can. You?

You there's a saying that goes something like Just because you are offended, it doesn't make you right. Well guess what? Just because you believe something, doesn't mean you are right. If you are proven wrong, admit it and move on. If you can't successfully defend your point, resorting to insults doesn't change the fact that you lost the debate. If you still believe you are wrong, check your facts and seek out more evidence and try again.

You see we are reasonable people. If you make a reasonable argument, we will respond in kind. Try it sometime....

I tried this recently, to make a rational discussion about the status of Lone Wolf catagories as defined by PGI.

I was told I took drugs.

I was told I was calling you elitist.

I was told many things I actually didn't say or infer as being what I had said.

I guess I was insulted by these fabrications being made about me, and yet seemingly trying simply to have a rational discussion about things.

Subsequently you admitted you were wrong despite these efforts to undermine my views, though halfheartedly I guess.

I would beg to differ that my experience was anything like enjoyable and if anything I found unwarranted treatment with the use of ad-hominem attacks against the points I made quite unpleasant. Especially considering they weren't nonsense.

So for my point that wasn't nonsense how does that excuse all of the commentary you applied here. And yet now you feel advocated as a useful contributor to the forums ....... ok.

---

Despite that I don't think you understand the hypocrisy that insulting others because they aren't showing good behavior as you would see it as being helpful or constructive or in any way a useful corrective measure by demonstrating poor behavior simply because you might not agree with them. Even if you might consider it to be a point of education.

In short just because someone else is being a douche canoe doesn't mean you can be one also, and it doesn't help the forums of promote a healthy forum experience. And in some cases you might actually learn something yourself, but seemingly too quick to judge something as nonsense and invalidate others viewpoint.

Nick Makiaveli, on 09 February 2014 - 03:51 PM, said:

Lastly, why should Road (or Sand or myself) not mock and belittle people who respond to our factual statements and arguments with nonsense, or insults? If someone like Mycrus was liking my posts, i would feel ashamed. He's pretty much a troll here, and rarely makes any serious posts, just wants to encourage people that take on those that have trashed him the past to the point where he is afraid to debate anyone anymore.

Really, you think you are being constructive and helpful?

This all seems more concerned with trying to control posting behaviour or the posters than being concerned with the actual points themselves. And I still don't understand where anyone can consider they can sit in judgement of others on this forum and dispense their own justice when the idea of moderation should be left to IGP and appointed mods.

And as such as a paying contributor to MWO using the forums available to players, I'm concerned that players feel entitled to exercise their own brand of vigilante justice when their stance in relation to others is very subjective and should be considered as valid as others subject to the ToS and CoC.

Edited by Noesis, 10 February 2014 - 08:55 PM.

[Nick Makiaveli]

I tried to be reasonable with you but if you are going to lie and misrepresent what was said, I am done. Have a nice day.

[Noesis]

Nick Makiaveli, on 10 February 2014 - 08:48 PM, said:

I tried to be reasonable with you but if you are going to lie and misrepresent what was said, I am done. Have a nice day.

Really. You feel this entitled to make more fabrications after the above treatment of myself. Figures you'd run away.

One example from the thread about infering I use drugs:

Nick Makiaveli, on 09 February 2014 - 12:57 PM, said:

Holy mother of god.....what the **** kind of drugs are you on?

You brought the topic of elitism to the table as a need to be defensice. Your assumption and projection for which I cannot be quoted once of calling you this.

Nick Makiaveli, on 08 February 2014 - 03:32 PM, said:

That's it. No judgement, no elitism etc.

For which I asked why you even considered this as being the case. This statement below describing how "you" arrived at this conclusion:

Nick Makiaveli, on 09 February 2014 - 11:04 AM, said:

You brought elitism because you think I am relegating LW to the background as if they are second class citizens.

Though the above being your interpretion of events and not based on something I had said in this context. And I even confirmed this wasn't the case.

---

Most of the rest of the postings with you trying to infer I knew nothing about what I was talking about but offering no evidence to the contrary other than stating things as so.

You also didn't even bother to back up your original point that PGI created the Lone Wolf category for arbitrary game play reasons despite being a valid faction in canon and that PGI could in fact have created it as a valid faction. Especially as this was done well before CW details were even being finalised and sufficient examples existent in lore. In fact you simply tried to deflect the point of needing to substantiate your points with any burden of proof.

---

So no facts, plenty of conjecture and fabrications of how I think and the points I was trying to put across being ad-hominem attacks. Presumably as you are equally a coward to admit you are wrong.

You haven't proved my points to be nonsense and therefore even by your own vigilante standards presumably unable to apply justification to why you treated me as you did. And yet being insulting and trying to undermine my position with your fabrications in the process. Even when I was trying my best to be a civil as possible with this kind of treatment.

And now you feel the victim? Get real.

Edited by Noesis, 10 February 2014 - 09:47 PM.

[Kjudoon]

Nick Makiaveli, on 10 February 2014 - 07:33 PM, said:

Umm...I am not a goon. If I was, I would be my own goon. Second, I don't have 6K posts. Also, how do we maintain the status quo when we aren't mods?

How do we squash other opinions? Yes we do squash blatant nonsense, and debate opinions we disagree with.

Oh and if someone posts a thread that calls this game a pile of shit, and repeats this behavior over and over, that isn't driving away new players? But calling them on their BS is?

Oh and how many posts do you have answering questions in the New Player section? I am no Koniving or Redshift2K, as I've said multiple times, but I do help where and when I can. You?

You there's a saying that goes something like Just because you are offended, it doesn't make you right. Well guess what? Just because you believe something, doesn't mean you are right. If you are proven wrong, admit it and move on. If you can't successfully defend your point, resorting to insults doesn't change the fact that you lost the debate. If you still believe you are wrong, check your facts and seek out more evidence and try again.

You see we are reasonable people. If you make a reasonable argument, we will respond in kind. Try it sometime....

Stupid common sense and logic. You fiend.

[p4r4g0n]

Guys, can you please not drag your previous altercations discussions from one thread to the other? Please?

You guys are killing off perfectly good threads with this behaviour.