152 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

Mystere, on 09 February 2014 - 11:24 AM, said:

Then the whining is going the wrong direction. People should whine that 100% random drops be brought back. Also, use the KISS principle for justification.

I do want 100% random drops. WHy wouldn't I want to play the game against everyone in the community??

[wwiiogre]

Nick,

saying it has been mentioned that very few players visit the forums is anecdotal. Meaning, it has not weight in a debate.

UNTIL PGI releases player numbers and real data neither side in this debate can quote numbers. What we can do however is quote personal experience. And since I am nearing 4000 drops I have alot of it. I also track my matches religiously. I also drop solo more than 50% of the time and at one point it was 95% of the time.

I also drop in light, medium, heavy and assault mechs in mostly equal proportion. I also play every game mode in mostly equal proportion. So overall I have a good amount of data that pertains to the entire MWO community. Especially since I continually drop in new mechs. So mechs without upgrades or modules. I have never used trial mechs and probably never will. I just love mech lab and the ability to adjust my mech, whether I do it or not, I just like to know I can. Plus I like to know every drop matters for experience and cbills.

So back to the reason for my original post.

What does PGI's matchmaker do?
What doesn't PGI"s matchmaker do?
Does PGI's matchmaker make balanced games?
How could it be improved?
Should there be multiple ques for games based on premades, new players?
Should tonnage be used or just class?

These are the things I am trying to debate? Yet, once again people come in here and insult, and divert.

So stick to the talking points. Or please delete your posts and move along.

Chris

[Joseph Mallan]

Those are actually good questions to discuss Ogre. We should be looking at them with a critical eye. Sorry if I gave you any guff over them.

[wwiiogre]

Joseph,

Then how are they incorrect? How is allowing a 400 ton or even a 100 ton advantage correct for a matchmaker if it is trying to balance sides so each side has a 50/50 chance of winning? Which in the end is my point, PGI's matchmaker is not trying to balance sides, it never has tried to balance a game. It merely attempts to manipulate win/loss. And then bases player rating on the manipulated win/loss. I have shown and know that dropping in hvy/assault and in 4mans can skew these results. I do it nearly every week. My win/loss is still around 2/1. My k/d is still around 2/1. 3500+ drops since last wipe.

I would like a matchmaker that allows you to choose whether to be in a balanced match, choose whether to face premades, choose if you are a new player whether to drop against experienced players. In other words I would like a real matchmaker, not a self esteem Canadian socialism experiment gone awry.

A correctly coded matchmaker would never have an anomaly. Never as long as there are enough players, then there will never be an anomaly. The fact it happens even once, means it is not trying to make balanced matches. And unless PGI gives us there data on player numbers. We will never know for sure. And it doesn't just happen once, it happens every day, all the time. The screen shots that keep appearing are not in doubt are they?

Your statements once again are not part of the debate. Stick to the point Joseph, or you are breaking the code of conduct of this forum.

Once again I say, PGI's matchmaker does not attempt to balance sides in any way other than win/loss. Which means by my definition it is not a matchmaker. It is a self esteem builder and a lame excuse by PGI to say there is no problem. And once again because CW is not available, we are screwed. We had better matchmaking in the beginning of closed beta when tonnage was strictly enforced. We had better matchmaking when there were no premade groups and tonnage was enforced. We had better matchmaking when just class size was enforced.

But, the clubbing noobs mob wants to say there is no problem. And will insult, distract and do anything to not have to discuss the issue.

Chris

[Sandpit]

wwiiogre, on 09 February 2014 - 11:47 AM, said:

But, the clubbing noobs mob wants to say there is no problem. And will insult, distract and do anything to not have to discuss the issue.

As will the "they only want to club noobs" crowd. It works both ways sir

[KharnZor]

Sandpit, on 09 February 2014 - 11:51 AM, said:

As will the "they only want to club noobs" crowd. It works both ways sir

There's a noob clubbing crowd? news to me.

[wwiiogre]

Thanks Joseph,

I want fun close games. I do not want stomps or roflstomps. They should be the exception. How can stomps be made the exception. By all the ways I have mentioned in my previous posts. Has any of this been attempted? Yes some of my suggestions are things done in closed beta. And it worked, at least in my own personal experience. So what changed since closed beta to skew so many games in to total stomps/roflstomps.

I can list a few things that make a huge difference. No voip in game. It immediately gives non voip players a disadvantage against players using voip. That is entirely PGI's fault. Originally they could claim they didn't have enough staff or money to deal with this issue and I gave them a pass. But now, they have no excuse. VOIP should be in game for every player.

Tonnage is easy to code for and was coded for in closed beta. So once again there is no excuse for it not being a part of matchmaker. Or at least using tonnage classes. Yet, here we are, without it in game. Why? I can only hazard a guess, but I would say it was a marketing choice. PGI makes more money by selling mechs for higher mc values including hero and champion mechs that can only be bought with real money. If the game is skewed by rewarding more cbills and experience etc to damage done over role warfare then guess what kind of mechs will be used and bought. I could be wrong and very cynical on this point, but so many choices made by PGI, fit in this shoe, and they are wearing it proudly.

Now, why does PGI throw new players to the proverbial sharks? That one I completely do not understand. Easy to code for, they already code in cadet bonus for first 25 matches, you think they could code in a way to place new players against relatively new players and not force them to face 4man premade, cheese built hvy/assault teams. It really is like jr. high vs college or pro teams.

So I am at a total loss as to why PGI has chosen this route. They can justify it by claiming they have statistics that show that x amount of people fit into the win/loss average of the bell curve. Which if you know statistics means absolutely nothing. Statistics is the tool of the advertiser attempting to sell something. It is a tool, it can be grossly misused to show anything you want it to show. If only a single parameter is manipulated going into the equation, all data is erroneous coming out. Garbage in equals garbage out.

So, what is PGI's elo matchmaker, what does it do?
What doesn't it do?

I have shown what it doesn't do. It does not even attempt in any known rational way to make a balanced match.
I have shown what it does do, by paraphrasing and quoting PGI's own words about their matchmaker. And their responses to complaints about it.

I love MWO, and think it is the best mech game to date. But, I want it to be better in so many ways. Collisions, melee, combined arms. Less consumable modules or none at all. A real matchmaker that tests skill and teamwork by evenly matching in every way possible while giving every player voip.

I only want everything and get to eat it to. I have put my own money up so this can be possible. I bought Founders legendary, I bought Phoenix Overlord, I bought Sabre, I have bought so much MC its obscene, I even bought my first Hero Mech (damn you FD for making such a beautiful Firestarter). I will not buy clan mechs but if I do it will be the $240 version. Why not clans, because I do not know that if I buy them, when CW comes will I get to play both my clan mechs and my IS mechs? Because why by something you can't use? So before PGI separates me from my money for clan, I want written assurance I can use them in every facet of the game. Either a joint account that lets me play both sides of CW, but in separate areas where my play for clans has no interaction with my play for IS (no meta gaming say like in Eve by Goonswarm). Otherwise no money for clan. Since I prefer the harder road in the IS and the underdog role. Might be why I am a glutton for punishment and still drop in light mechs. Including my beloved Ember, which cannot get past basic right now and will not for at least 3 more months I am guessing.

Chris

[Joseph Mallan]

wwiiogre, on 09 February 2014 - 11:47 AM, said:

Joseph,

Then how are they incorrect? How is allowing a 400 ton or even a 100 ton advantage correct for a matchmaker if it is trying to balance sides so each side has a 50/50 chance of winning? Which in the end is my point, PGI's matchmaker is not trying to balance sides, it never has tried to balance a game. It merely attempts to manipulate win/loss. And then bases player rating on the manipulated win/loss. I have shown and know that dropping in hvy/assault and in 4mans can skew these results. I do it nearly every week. My win/loss is still around 2/1. My k/d is still around 2/1. 3500+ drops since last wipe.

I would like a matchmaker that allows you to choose whether to be in a balanced match, choose whether to face premades, choose if you are a new player whether to drop against experienced players. In other words I would like a real matchmaker, not a self esteem Canadian socialism experiment gone awry.

A correctly coded matchmaker would never have an anomaly. Never as long as there are enough players, then there will never be an anomaly. The fact it happens even once, means it is not trying to make balanced matches. And unless PGI gives us there data on player numbers. We will never know for sure. And it doesn't just happen once, it happens every day, all the time. The screen shots that keep appearing are not in doubt are they?

Your statements once again are not part of the debate. Stick to the point Joseph, or you are breaking the code of conduct of this forum.

Once again I say, PGI's matchmaker does not attempt to balance sides in any way other than win/loss. Which means by my definition it is not a matchmaker. It is a self esteem builder and a lame excuse by PGI to say there is no problem. And once again because CW is not available, we are screwed. We had better matchmaking in the beginning of closed beta when tonnage was strictly enforced. We had better matchmaking when there were no premade groups and tonnage was enforced. We had better matchmaking when just class size was enforced.

But, the clubbing noobs mob wants to say there is no problem. And will insult, distract and do anything to not have to discuss the issue.

Chris

They are correct, strictly cause the matchmaker is a RNG. It has restrictions on it, and presently tonnage isn't one of them. SO it uses the paramiters it is allowed to use. W/L And Elo. A 400 ton mismatch is perfectly resonable with those guidelines MM uses. A 100 ton advantage is mearly 8 tones extra per enemy... That is not a big advantage to over come at all.

I am more than happy to take games as they come right now. Why? Cause we are not playing MW:O. If I am not fighting to protect Coventry from the Jade Falcons, Dropping with Capellians, Kuritans, and Free Worlders (all enemy of my prefered House. How can I possibley be playing MW:O? I am playing a combat generator, and to be honest If I drop vs a Clan Wolf Assault Trinary. I expect them to be big and heavy. If I am s 10th Lyran Gusrd you should expect us to be. That is something that will be coming I frikkin hope. If The Law chooses to be a Battle formation or an Assault formation we should be comprised accordingly. And not influenced by how Ogre battalion is built... and vice versa.

[Sandpit]

I still don't understand something

All these altruistic players (no, this isn't directed at you Wii, I don't agree with everything you say but I think you've got some good ideas and are a pretty reasonable guy) wanting the MM fixed to help new players.

Yet not one of them has given any credence or support to placing new players into their own queue while they're learning the game and going through the cadet period. That's the easiest way in the world to prevent new players from getting stomped or being outgunned by vets with customized mechs.

[Willard Phule]

Sandpit, on 09 February 2014 - 12:37 PM, said:

I still don't understand something

All these altruistic players (no, this isn't directed at you Wii, I don't agree with everything you say but I think you've got some good ideas and are a pretty reasonable guy) wanting the MM fixed to help new players.

Yet not one of them has given any credence or support to placing new players into their own queue while they're learning the game and going through the cadet period. That's the easiest way in the world to prevent new players from getting stomped or being outgunned by vets with customized mechs.

I disagree. Implementation of "mandatory" tutorials prior to being allowed to play live would go much further toward improving their skill and survival than any tweaking of the matchmaker or arbitrary nerfs of mechs and/or weapons.

Most of us "old timers" that started out back in MW2, MW3 or MW4 all played the 1-player campaigns extensively before ever going online and playing against other people. Those games also had EXTENSIVE tutorials....often the first few missions of each campaign.

Players new to MW:O don't have that luxury. Most ignore the one minimal tutorial that's available to them (they don't have to do it if they don't want to...I, on the other hand, force people I teach to do them and to goof off in the testing grounds before letting them go online) and just jump right in...often hampering whatever team is unlucky enough to get them.

Not that we'll ever see anything like this. Instead of implementing something that forces new people to go through some rudimentary form of training, we'll just see everything get nerfed to the point that new players are automatically competitive with everyone else, regardless of time played or experience gained. Such has been the trend so far, at least.

[Nick Makiaveli]

wwiiogre, on 09 February 2014 - 11:35 AM, said:

Nick,

saying it has been mentioned that very few players visit the forums is anecdotal. Meaning, it has not weight in a debate.

UNTIL PGI releases player numbers and real data neither side in this debate can quote numbers. What we can do however is quote personal experience. And since I am nearing 4000 drops I have alot of it. I also track my matches religiously. I also drop solo more than 50% of the time and at one point it was 95% of the time.

I also drop in light, medium, heavy and assault mechs in mostly equal proportion. I also play every game mode in mostly equal proportion. So overall I have a good amount of data that pertains to the entire MWO community. Especially since I continually drop in new mechs. So mechs without upgrades or modules. I have never used trial mechs and probably never will. I just love mech lab and the ability to adjust my mech, whether I do it or not, I just like to know I can. Plus I like to know every drop matters for experience and cbills.

So back to the reason for my original post.

What does PGI's matchmaker do?
What doesn't PGI"s matchmaker do?
Does PGI's matchmaker make balanced games?
How could it be improved?
Should there be multiple ques for games based on premades, new players?
Should tonnage be used or just class?

These are the things I am trying to debate? Yet, once again people come in here and insult, and divert.

So stick to the talking points. Or please delete your posts and move along.

Chris

First off, do I need to submit proof that I am a person? That I am indeed using a computer to post this? No, I don't because somethings are just accepted to be facts.

It's an known fact that most players don't visit the forums. Maybe every single one of your friends do. Guess what? None of mine do. Well the the ones I've met on the forums do obviously, but the ones I've met in RL avoid the forums like the plague.

But let's set that aside.

You are ONE player. So ALL your evidence is anecdotal by definition because YOU are NOT a representative sample. All your data is corrupted by the fact that you are the only player tracked, it's highly suspect that you played at all hours of the day etc, that you tried it on different PCs, that you are able to play both as a complete noob and as a top tier elite player.

As to your debate list, we have a decent idea of how the MM works, well those of us who have read up on how it works. Tonnage limits are coming, so how about we wait to see how that pans out, as I highly doubt PGI will listen to feedback on something that hasn't happened yet.

Balanced games? Not going there as that is a matter of opinion.

Pre-mades? The game is designed to played as a team and they have already split off 12 mans and made it so that you can only drop with 4 friends. Greedy much?

Newbie queues? Sure, let's give the trolls a chance to create alt accounts and murder the newbies. What could possibly go wrong?

[KharnZor]

Nick Makiaveli, on 09 February 2014 - 01:30 PM, said:

Newbie queues? Sure, let's give the trolls a chance to create alt accounts and murder the newbies. What could possibly go wrong?

That would be great. First 25 games at 0 elo then after that set the elo to whatever they scored during those games and let em work upwards from there.
I'd like to think people wouldn't do that but I'd most likely be wrong unfortunately

[Nick Makiaveli]

KharnZor, on 09 February 2014 - 01:36 PM, said:

That would be great. First 25 games at 0 elo then after that set the elo to whatever they scored during those games and let em work upwards from there.
I'd like to think people wouldn't do that but I'd most likely be wrong unfortunately

Not sure I follow you. You think that newbie queues are great, but that trolls murdering them would be good too?

The main problem I have with newbie queues is that we don't know if they show up in sufficient numbers to make matches. You think losing a match drives away players, how about not even getting a match at all???

I think that's the same reason they don't have extremely low starting Elo scores.

[Willard Phule]

KharnZor, on 09 February 2014 - 01:36 PM, said:

That would be great. First 25 games at 0 elo then after that set the elo to whatever they scored during those games and let em work upwards from there.
I'd like to think people wouldn't do that but I'd most likely be wrong unfortunately

And THAT makes a heck of a lot more sense than starting them "in the middle of the bell curve" like they have been.

[FenrisUlf]

Problem is simple game is losing alot of players that's why matchmaking is bad.

it will keep getting worse until September this year when they get out CW.

[Willard Phule]

FenrisUlf, on 09 February 2014 - 01:43 PM, said:

Problem is simple game is losing alot of players that's why matchmaking is bad.

it will keep getting worse until September this year when they get out CW.

hahahahaha....I can see you've never spent time in the military. That's so far out on the calendar that there's NO WAY they're going to make that deadline.

Heck, they're supposed to add weight balancing to the already messed up matchmaker in APRIL (that's two months away)...and I'd put cash money down that they're gonna blow that one, too.

Historically speaking, they're going to roll something halfway finished and horribly broken out on the deadline then make some excuse like "we've been burning the midnight oil to add two and a half lines of code. It's not completely finished, but we promised we'd get this out, so here it is. Feel free to flame away and tell us how to fix it, we're going to ignore you but we'll make all the appropriate noises and facial gestures to make you think we're paying attention. By the way, we're releasing a new 'mech and there's a new sale going on. Fork over your money."

[Nick Makiaveli]

Wendigo Garou, on 09 February 2014 - 01:48 PM, said:

hahahahaha....I can see you've never spent time in the military. That's so far out on the calendar that there's NO WAY they're going to make that deadline.

Heck, they're supposed to add weight balancing to the already messed up matchmaker in APRIL (that's two months away)...and I'd put cash money down that they're gonna blow that one, too.

Historically speaking, they're going to roll something halfway finished and horribly broken out on the deadline then make some excuse like "we've been burning the midnight oil to add two and a half lines of code. It's not completely finished, but we promised we'd get this out, so here it is. Feel free to flame away and tell us how to fix it, we're going to ignore you but we'll make all the appropriate noises and facial gestures to make you think we're paying attention. By the way, we're releasing a new 'mech and there's a new sale going on. Fork over your money."

It's too far away to make the deadline???

Granted the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, but companies, like people, can and do change, especially when money is the table.

Speaking of which, when they come out with a new mech and say fork over your money, grow a pair and say no. Problem solved.

[Sandpit]

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

FenrisUlf, on 09 February 2014 - 01:43 PM, said:

Problem is simple game is losing alot of players that's why matchmaking is bad.

it will keep getting worse until September this year when they get out CW.

Simply unfounded. This is what I'm talking about when I'm pointing out how statistics work, persona bias, anecdotal evidence, etc. (No this isn't an attack you you Fen, you just happen to be a good example)

Wendigo Garou, on 09 February 2014 - 01:48 PM, said:

hahahahaha....I can see you've never spent time in the military. That's so far out on the calendar that there's NO WAY they're going to make that deadline.

Heck, they're supposed to add weight balancing to the already messed up matchmaker in APRIL (that's two months away)...and I'd put cash money down that they're gonna blow that one, too.

Historically speaking, they're going to roll something halfway finished and horribly broken out on the deadline then make some excuse like "we've been burning the midnight oil to add two and a half lines of code. It's not completely finished, but we promised we'd get this out, so here it is. Feel free to flame away and tell us how to fix it, we're going to ignore you but we'll make all the appropriate noises and facial gestures to make you think we're paying attention. By the way, we're releasing a new 'mech and there's a new sale going on. Fork over your money."

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

[anonymous161]

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.

[Roadbeer]

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.

And now for the weekly "You're a horrible person" call to his exgirlfriend...
#onetrickpony