152 replies to this topic

[Willard Phule]

Sandpit, on 09 February 2014 - 02:02 PM, said:

SO you think forcing them to play through "boring" (because lets face it, we had literal rage threads over a 60 second timer) tutorials before playing? I just don't see that being well received.

If you drop them into their own queue, have vets who apply and are approved drop with them on a volunteer basis and offer advice and tips while playing along side them, they would learn a LOT more than a tutorial in my opinion. They'd also be safe from dropping against vets

Separate queues would work as well, especially if you had some kind of "Drill Sergeant" tag for people to drop with them. At least it keeps them out of the live games until they've had some training (this doesn't address whether or not new players are allowed to drop with veterans until they receive some kind of tag themselves or, if so, who approves it).

I guess it comes down to a matter of "ease of implementation."

Your idea of trainers in a training queue would give the best "hands on" type of training and would produce well trained players, ready to take on the world. The only problems I see are lack of volunteers (remember, it's not just you volunteering...people from all time zones play and would require trainers as well) and some kind of "congratulations, you are ready to play with the big boys now" sort of award that lets them into the more advanced queues.

The idea of Tutorials is rather simple. Once you successfully complete a tutorial, it unlocks an achievement in your "Cadet Tree" and you can move on to the next. Once you've completed them all, you can join in a live game. Granted, this isn't the best training but it's probably easier to implement.

[Sandpit]

Darth Bane001, on 09 February 2014 - 02:06 PM, said:

op why dont you just stop playing for a while then? Why waste your time trying to help out pgi when based off their track record in their time as game developers it wont to shit? Look at the games they have made....why the **** did you put down so much money and faith in them? Obviously you did not do your research on this team and it's quality of making games. Thats your fault alone, why would after so many terrible games they suddenly get this one right because it's a free to play? That makes no sense. You fools who invested several triple A title games worth of money a dozen you say? Sorry that makes you an idiot for you to be complaining this late into this game having been online for so long.

I myself dont really play this game much anymore, I play on my xbox one, ps4, or 360 with my brother, my pc is no longer next gen material and frankly tired of having to spend so much money on the pc, I just use it for steam anymore for cheap near free games that offer quality product.

Either stop playing the game stop spending money you look like an idiot when this late into the game you complain about something like matchmaker when you have a gold founders on your avatar....sad.

Didn't you quit?
again?

[Nick Makiaveli]

Sandpit, on 09 February 2014 - 02:02 PM, said:

SO you think forcing them to play through "boring" (because lets face it, we had literal rage threads over a 60 second timer) tutorials before playing? I just don't see that being well received.

If you never played during the 60 second timer period, you just don't know how bad it was. People were literally cussing people out at the 45 second mark, and god forbid your pc lagged and you didn't load in till 30 seconds.

So yea, mandatory tutorials for teh uberl33t crowd won't work....

Sandpit, on 09 February 2014 - 02:02 PM, said:

If you drop them into their own queue, have vets who apply and are approved drop with them on a volunteer basis and offer advice and tips while playing along side them, they would learn a LOT more than a tutorial in my opinion. They'd also be safe from dropping against vets

This might work but what if there are only 18 newbies online? None of them get any matches? Or only 46? Then a bunch have to sit and wait and hope to win the lottery for the next round. Great way to alienate players.

Sandpit, on 09 February 2014 - 02:02 PM, said:

and meanwhile during an actual constructive conversation, we get a couple of trollmercial breaks. Thank you for your wonderful feedback regarding MM there

LOL trollmercials......totally stealing that one!!

[anonymous161]

Ah yes typically troll response. Yes I did but I do from time to time log on to see if anything has improved. As usual nothing has changed, that doesn't mean I'm a bad player and poor in skill quite the opposite, that doesn't mean I cant go on the forums.

Why aren't you in the middle of a game if you love it so much? All those precious few cbills you are losing per match!

[Sandpit]

Wendigo Garou, on 09 February 2014 - 02:09 PM, said:

Separate queues would work as well, especially if you had some kind of "Drill Sergeant" tag for people to drop with them. At least it keeps them out of the live games until they've had some training (this doesn't address whether or not new players are allowed to drop with veterans until they receive some kind of tag themselves or, if so, who approves it).

I guess it comes down to a matter of "ease of implementation."

Your idea of trainers in a training queue would give the best "hands on" type of training and would produce well trained players, ready to take on the world. The only problems I see are lack of volunteers (remember, it's not just you volunteering...people from all time zones play and would require trainers as well) and some kind of "congratulations, you are ready to play with the big boys now" sort of award that lets them into the more advanced queues.

The idea of Tutorials is rather simple. Once you successfully complete a tutorial, it unlocks an achievement in your "Cadet Tree" and you can move on to the next. Once you've completed them all, you can join in a live game. Granted, this isn't the best training but it's probably easier to implement.

I'm not saying dont' ahve tutorials, I'm just saying we have tutorials now, and forced tutorials aren't going to do the job alone.

My idea has always been putting new players in their own queue. They play through xx matches and are required to play a minimum number of matches in each weight class before they can graduate. This gives them a little experience in every weight class and gives them a general idea of some of the differences in the classes.

Then you have an approval process for vets that want to volunteer with them. They drop with the new players and offer advice, tips, etc. (My personal idea was to give drill instructors a Chameleon to drop in but that's neither here nor there) The drill instructors can have a cool badge and/or cockpit item for their time but don't earn any experience while in that queue. (They'd still earn cbills but at a reduced rate, this would help separate those who genuinely want to spend time helping new players from those that just want to stomp on noobs)

After the players complete their cadet training they're given a lump sum of all their rewards and a cool "diploma" cockpit item.

I think in conjunction with some good documentation and tutorials this would be a much better way to improve the new player experience

[MischiefSC]

In reading here I'm curious to see a few things -

When did the MM stop taking tonnage into account? It's always attempted to match tonnage.

When did Elo get reset? My understanding is Elo did NOT get reset (yet) but that when no match is available that you'll fit into within 180 seconds it broadens the target in order to find a match and do so more quickly.

Currently, at least as of Jan 23, threshold is 1400 for Elo - as in it'll grab people within a max range of 1400 Elo of each other. IMO way, way too wide but I'm not holding the data showing populations and average time to find a match. Currently the average difference (as of Pauls post from 1/21/2014) was ~175 points of Elo difference between teams. Average tonnage mismatch is ~100 tons or less, most within 50 tons. There are certainly outliers.

Again, I'm all for matching all players on both teams within a range and not high/low to target even if that gives a larger total deviation between teams; one player with a high Elo can not as easily carry 2 or 3 players with a low Elo.

The fundamental issue to that is how many other people are hitting 'launch' within 180 seconds of when you hit 'launch' who fit the criteria for both Elo and weight matching.

Weight limits are going to change that metric dramatically. I'm curious to know how that's going to be implemented - your Elo score is tied to the weight (mech class) of the mech you're bringing so you can't match teams for Elo then let them pick mechs.

Next, the game does not try and force you into a 50/50 win/loss. This has been explained a lot of times but I'll do so again just because it comes up, gets answered, then doesn't show up for a couple of these same threads, then comes up again.

Elo does NOT try to force anyone to a 50/50 win/loss. The matchmaker uses Elo and weight matching to try and put players in as even a match as possible in any given match but that can vary - sometimes there just aren't 23 other players in your same Elo range and in the right balance of mechs to make two split teams with balanced Elo and tonnage who hit 'launch' within 180 seconds of each other. So it builds as balanced a match of teams as it can, then based on the variance predicts who it expects to win. Then it alters the awards for winning and losing accordingly. If you're predicted to win because you had the advantage in that match you gain little if any Elo. The loser loses little if any. If it's an upset the matchmaker recognizes that the people in that match were either better or worse than predicted and gives them an adjustment up or down of between 0 and 50 points based on the difference in their scores.

If you win some matches the matchmaker does not put you in a difficult match to make you lose. That's absolutely false. It does try to consistently make challenging matches for you based on your performance in previous matches - what skill level of people do you beat consistently, who do you have trouble beating.

In April a huge shift in matchmaking is (hopefully/theoretically) going to be introduced in weight limits for matches. This will likely make a dramatic change in matchmaking. Ideally the goal is to reduce the need to match teams by weight; the weight limit will help do that, allowing the matchmaker to focus more on matching to Elo score. This will provide better matches by widening the pool of potential candidates for each match.

If someone has a 2/1 win/loss, that means they're winning two matches for every match they lose. Winning two out of three matches. That's phenomenal, doing so consistently over ~100 matches (depending on the composition and Elo of your opponents) could throw you all the way to 2800 Elo if you do so in the same weight class. Now, it could be that you only win in matches where you have a significant advantage and lose any time you get a real challenge but by dropping regularly in 4mans you keep your 'average' up. This results in your wins being worth little point gain and your losses dropping your Elo more significantly. Winning 2 out of 3 games might mean you're gaining 5 points on each win but losing 10 points on each loss.

Which is still correct; the point of Elo is to help predict your odds of winning in a given match. The point of the matchmaker is to make consistently challenging matches to the best amount possible with the players available to meet that criteria in tonnage and Elo in any given 180 second increment.

For some people though the fun of the game isn't challenges, it's winning. Not winning because you're getting consistently better but winning because you feel you deserve to win. The matchmaker can't fix that.

What the matchmaker does do however is make consistently challenging matches and it does it vastly, vastly better than it did pre-Elo.

Battlevalue is skewed and unreliable. Tonnage is important but secondary to skill. Ideally the matchmaker would match players to as close a relative skill range as possible in the mechs they're in. I'm the first to say there's room for improvement but that without question the introduction of weight limits is going to utterly change the matchmakers required tools and weighting and trying to alter anything in a big way before then would be precipitous.

[Sandpit]

Nick Makiaveli, on 09 February 2014 - 02:11 PM, said:

If you never played during the 60 second timer period, you just don't know how bad it was. People were literally cussing people out at the 45 second mark, and god forbid your pc lagged and you didn't load in till 30 seconds.

So yea, mandatory tutorials for teh uberl33t crowd won't work....



This might work but what if there are only 18 newbies online? None of them get any matches? Or only 46? Then a bunch have to sit and wait and hope to win the lottery for the next round. Great way to alienate players.



LOL trollmercials......totally stealing that one!!

I was here for it. I remember all the rage over it. That's why I know mandatory tutorials (or at least a good indication) wouldn't go over well.

Granted there are tech difficulties to solve but I have faith it could be done. Between the drill instructors and new players I doubt there'd be a problem but there would definitely have to be something in place for new players that join during "off times" so they aren't forced to sit around and wait. Any ideas?

You're welcome to it sir lol

just a quick note Mischief, MM never took tonnage into the equation. it just tried to match up weight classes. Altas = Awesome in that case so there were still weight discrepancies, they just weren't a wide as we have now sometimes (Unless I'm remembering it wrong?)

[Roadbeer]

Darth Bane001, on 09 February 2014 - 02:14 PM, said:

Ah yes typically troll response.

Think you need to learn more about trolling.
See, technically, you were the troll, coming in with your exgf abuse post, that does nothing for the conversation other than rub your butthurtedness.

What was done to you is counter-trolling. Where the troll is mocked/trolled.
I have Heffay's pamphlet on the subject around here somewhere... no, maybe not. Anyway, if you'd like to learn more about trolling and the interwebz, I suggest you visit your local library, or, you know, Google.

[Nick Makiaveli]

Sandpit, on 09 February 2014 - 02:23 PM, said:

I was here for it. I remember all the rage over it. That's why I know mandatory tutorials (or at least a good indication) wouldn't go over well.

Exactly.

Sandpit, on 09 February 2014 - 02:23 PM, said:

Granted there are tech difficulties to solve but I have faith it could be done. Between the drill instructors and new players I doubt there'd be a problem but there would definitely have to be something in place for new players that join during "off times" so they aren't forced to sit around and wait. Any ideas?

I think the idea of trainers is a good idea and could help. A hidden element to the MM that tries to put newbies in with other newbies as a priority and uses low Elo players as filler might work. However, I think it's risky to implement, and I suspect the numbers don't support it which is why PGI has never commented on it, not even a "We will think about" type response.

Sandpit, on 09 February 2014 - 02:23 PM, said:

You're welcome to it sir lol

Thank you!

Sandpit, on 09 February 2014 - 02:23 PM, said:

just a quick note Mischief, MM never took tonnage into the equation. it just tried to match up weight classes. Altas = Awesome in that case so there were still weight discrepancies, they just weren't a wide as we have now sometimes (Unless I'm remembering it wrong?)

I think that may be why so many people think it used to factor in tonnage. I took a break early on as before my MB died and the subsequent upgrade (using spare and scavenged parts) I was barely able to run it. Where's muh dual core optimization PGI!!! Anywho....that's probably why I don't remember that particular piece of history....

[Willard Phule]

Sandpit, on 09 February 2014 - 02:16 PM, said:

I'm not saying dont' ahve tutorials, I'm just saying we have tutorials now, and forced tutorials aren't going to do the job alone.

My idea has always been putting new players in their own queue. They play through xx matches and are required to play a minimum number of matches in each weight class before they can graduate. This gives them a little experience in every weight class and gives them a general idea of some of the differences in the classes.

Then you have an approval process for vets that want to volunteer with them. They drop with the new players and offer advice, tips, etc. (My personal idea was to give drill instructors a Chameleon to drop in but that's neither here nor there) The drill instructors can have a cool badge and/or cockpit item for their time but don't earn any experience while in that queue. (They'd still earn cbills but at a reduced rate, this would help separate those who genuinely want to spend time helping new players from those that just want to stomp on noobs)

After the players complete their cadet training they're given a lump sum of all their rewards and a cool "diploma" cockpit item.

I think in conjunction with some good documentation and tutorials this would be a much better way to improve the new player experience

Ah...Documentation and Tutorials. Ayup. Even the Army has plenty of Documentation (ARs, TMs) and "Tutorials" (ok, Basic Training and AIT...call them 'Tutorials' because they have about as much to do with the real Army as Tutorials do in this game).

Dude, I'm on board with you as far as the whole 'training period' thing goes but....and I'm playing Devil's Advocate here...what, exactly, is the vetting process going to be for PGI to assign someone as a "Drill Sergeant?"

So, you volunteer and PGI gives you the "DI" tag. You're allowed to drop with the Short Bus and teach them how to play. Then...one day....some underage girl sends a ticket to PGI saying that you approached her in an indecent manner or said something that offended her or used foul language or whatever. They gave you authority, they're responsible for your actions. What're they doing to do to discipline you, ban your account?

Holy crap. The amount of time it would take you to set up a new account named "SandPit01" would be astronomical. First you'd have to....oh, nevermind, we both know it'd take you 30 seconds. There's NO downside to the "volunteers" if they screw up. I'm not saying you would but the sheer number of 'volunteers' to undertake such a thing virtually guarantees that there's going to be a bad apple or two...and the lawsuits that would ensue would simply bankrupt PGI. (Keep in mind that I am DEFINITELY NOT looking out for their best interests...I'm sure they could beat a sexual harassment suit with a couple of mech sales alone)

Tutorials, as much as you dislike the idea, absolve them of any liability. Unless you try to sue them because Bitching Betty said "sensors online" and you took it as a sexual connotation, they're probably safe (and you'd probably end up in a nuthouse).

Look. I hate to be an insensitive ***** but having been an NCO in the Army...I'm kind of an insensitive ***** by definition.

There are 3 things that a 'new player' needs to know to be semi-effective, or at least not a detriment, to his team:

- How to move without walking into a wall and looking like a complete moron.
- How to lock targets, period. If you don't lock them and the rest of your team doesn't have line of sight, they won't know they're there.
- How to group your weapons and/or manage heat (oddly enough, once you figure out how to group them, managing heat comes fairly easy)

All 3 of these things can be taught in a tutorial. I know, you've got a list of other things they need to know that is as long as I think my genitals are....but, basically, if they know these three things, they'll survive long enough to pick up on some of the subtler things. Or at least hang around long enough to get recruited by a group that'll teach them those things.

Ok, done ranting. Beer to be drunk, noobs to be clubbed and all.

[Nick Makiaveli]

Destined, on 09 February 2014 - 04:03 PM, said:

Hi guys. Don't be bad!

(Kthnxbye)

Who? Us? Nah....no worries!!!

[Sandpit]

Wendigo Garou, on 09 February 2014 - 03:46 PM, said:

Ah...Documentation and Tutorials. Ayup. Even the Army has plenty of Documentation (ARs, TMs) and "Tutorials" (ok, Basic Training and AIT...call them 'Tutorials' because they have about as much to do with the real Army as Tutorials do in this game).

Dude, I'm on board with you as far as the whole 'training period' thing goes but....and I'm playing Devil's Advocate here...what, exactly, is the vetting process going to be for PGI to assign someone as a "Drill Sergeant?"

So, you volunteer and PGI gives you the "DI" tag. You're allowed to drop with the Short Bus and teach them how to play. Then...one day....some underage girl sends a ticket to PGI saying that you approached her in an indecent manner or said something that offended her or used foul language or whatever. They gave you authority, they're responsible for your actions. What're they doing to do to discipline you, ban your account?

Holy crap. The amount of time it would take you to set up a new account named "SandPit01" would be astronomical. First you'd have to....oh, nevermind, we both know it'd take you 30 seconds. There's NO downside to the "volunteers" if they screw up. I'm not saying you would but the sheer number of 'volunteers' to undertake such a thing virtually guarantees that there's going to be a bad apple or two...and the lawsuits that would ensue would simply bankrupt PGI. (Keep in mind that I am DEFINITELY NOT looking out for their best interests...I'm sure they could beat a sexual harassment suit with a couple of mech sales alone)

Tutorials, as much as you dislike the idea, absolve them of any liability. Unless you try to sue them because Bitching Betty said "sensors online" and you took it as a sexual connotation, they're probably safe (and you'd probably end up in a nuthouse).

Look. I hate to be an insensitive ***** but having been an NCO in the Army...I'm kind of an insensitive ***** by definition.

There are 3 things that a 'new player' needs to know to be semi-effective, or at least not a detriment, to his team:

- How to move without walking into a wall and looking like a complete moron.
- How to lock targets, period. If you don't lock them and the rest of your team doesn't have line of sight, they won't know they're there.
- How to group your weapons and/or manage heat (oddly enough, once you figure out how to group them, managing heat comes fairly easy)

All 3 of these things can be taught in a tutorial. I know, you've got a list of other things they need to know that is as long as I think my genitals are....but, basically, if they know these three things, they'll survive long enough to pick up on some of the subtler things. Or at least hang around long enough to get recruited by a group that'll teach them those things.

Ok, done ranting. Beer to be drunk, noobs to be clubbed and all.

i agree 100%
there are those that don't though. I mean Road is destroying the game, I'm a newb hunter, and you'll prob be a baby seal noob clubber now.

as far as the underage girl scenario? volunteer not employee. also that's no different than false reports now. Proof or [citation needed]

hi destined

[Dudeman3k]

Rebas Kradd, on 08 February 2014 - 07:12 PM, said:

It's an unfinished game, not a bad game. That alone invalidates a massive swath of the hate.

lol, oh right! It's a released unfinished game... silly me, here I thought it was still in Beta. That makes it even worse. That's directly comparable to serving half cooked chicken to fully paying consumers.

Statistical numbers still doesn't account for grossly over toning / under toning teams.

what it seems to be doing really well at, is what wiiogre is saying. It does seem to be matching strictly off of W/L alone, with little attempt at balance anywhere else.

You can throw more numbers at what matches look like, but it still doesn't help the argument of MM being "unbalanced".

The balance of each match is truly determined with what you bring to the table (battle value wise).... not the W/L ratio. Just take the Superbowl game if you REALLY need an example.

Edited by Dudeman3k, 09 February 2014 - 04:40 PM.

[Nick Makiaveli]

Dudeman3k, on 09 February 2014 - 04:31 PM, said:

lol, oh right! It's a released unfinished game... silly me, here I thought it was still in Beta. That makes it even worse. That's directly comparable to serving half cooked chicken to fully paying consumers.

Statistical numbers still doesn't account for grossly over toning / under toning teams.

what it seems to being doing really well at, is what wiiogre is saying. It does seem to be matching strictly off of W/L alone, with little attempt at balance anywhere else.

You can throw more numbers at what matches look like, but it still doesn't help the argument of MM being "unbalanced".

The balance of each match is truly determined with what you bring to the table (battle value wise).... not the W/L ratio. Just take the Superbowl game if you REALLY need an example.

First off the MM isn't using W/L, it's using Elo. Which uses the W/L, so not quite the same thing. Therefore it's not as bad as you make it out to be.

Tonnage limits are coming...what else is there to say? Let's what till then to complain about ok?

Oh and the Super Bowl is a perfect example of two teams that had similar records, etc and yet it was a complete and utter wafflestomp.

They've also had 48 years to work on the system, so I am willing to cut PGI some slack

[p4r4g0n]

Sandpit, on 09 February 2014 - 02:23 PM, said:

-snip-

just a quick note Mischief, MM never took tonnage into the equation. it just tried to match up weight classes. Altas = Awesome in that case so there were still weight discrepancies, they just weren't a wide as we have now sometimes (Unless I'm remembering it wrong?)

Unless something changed in the almost 1 year I've been away, this is correct.

Nick Makiaveli, on 09 February 2014 - 02:33 PM, said:

-snip- I suspect the numbers don't support it which is why PGI has never commented on it, not even a "We will think about" type response.

Many of OP's suggestions about matching teams, etc to have more closely balanced teams were brought up in the forums prior to ELO launch. I suspect none of them were implemented for the same reason the range was increased i.e. playerbase numbers. Every additional element that is added to the matchmaking process is going to make harder to build closely matched teams UNLESS the game has a growing or already massive playerbase.

I don't think you're going to see many separate queues any time soon and won't be surprised if they remove the 12 v 12 queue after they roll out private matches. Guess what's going to happen to the 4 member group restriction?

My personal rule of thumb to determine if teams are going to be imbalanced - time how long it takes to find a game. The longer the time, the likelier it won't be balanced. Thankfully my ELO is probably neither high / low enough that I end up in too many mismatched games.

[Mystere]

As I mentioned in another MM thread, there is one thought that has been bugging me with all of these calls for matchmaking "balance".

What is the point of Community Warfare? Are we supposed to invade and defend territories using "balanced" forces? Really? If so, we should probably just keep MWO as the pure arena-style game it already is and just forget about CW altogether.

Also, between Community Warfare and lobbies, what's the point of even creating that "perfect" matchmaker? I'd rather PGI spend their time working on missing features instead of wasting time on something that will be eventually unused anyway.

[Kjudoon]

MM cannot stop derpy play, bad mech design or stupid tactical decisions not to mention just plain dumb luck. It also can't help when HSR craps out on you, or scenery suddenly develops holes, discos and bad connections while the other team has no problems for some bizarre reason.

These factors all affect the outcome.

Some days you're the dog, others you're the hydrant.

[Reitrix]

This kind of stupid post is exactly why we need to add in integrity percentiles on the victory screen.

12 - 0, but the winning side has 11 'mechs at sub 50% integrity? GG
12 - 0, But the winning team is 90%+ integrity on all 'mechs? Yeah thats a stomp.

Without knowing how badly torn up the enemy team is, you cannot, ever, say that every 12 - 0 game is a roflstomp.
And the MM does its job sometimes, Hell i had a match earlier that was 12 - 11, Which was lost mostly due to some bad play by the remaining Battlemaster on our side.

[Kjudoon]

Reitrix, on 09 February 2014 - 06:00 PM, said:

This kind of stupid post is exactly why we need to add in integrity percentiles on the victory screen.

12 - 0, but the winning side has 11 'mechs at sub 50% integrity? GG
12 - 0, But the winning team is 90%+ integrity on all 'mechs? Yeah thats a stomp.

Without knowing how badly torn up the enemy team is, you cannot, ever, say that every 12 - 0 game is a roflstomp.
And the MM does its job sometimes, Hell i had a match earlier that was 12 - 11, Which was lost mostly due to some bad play by the remaining Battlemaster on our side.

Good point. I wish we could see the ending condition percentage of mechs at the end match stats. There are times you just can't for the life of you land that killing blow but they can. And don't forget MM is based on total TEAM Elo added together. So you can have a few good gamers drag many more up too high for their ability.

Edited by Kjudoon, 09 February 2014 - 06:04 PM.

[Rebas Kradd]

Dudeman3k, on 09 February 2014 - 04:31 PM, said:

lol, oh right! It's a released unfinished game... silly me, here I thought it was still in Beta. That makes it even worse. That's directly comparable to serving half cooked chicken to fully paying consumers.

I agree, PGI made a mistake releasing a game after 2.5 years. Partially because it made the haters feel that they had a relevant point.

The F2P landscape is being pioneered right now and both sides have things to learn.