34 replies to this topic

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

Current matchmaker functionality is built around a serialized process whereby one team is completely filled.

Whomever joins after the first team is filled, is assigned to the remaining team.

Its analogous to a game of basketball where there are two team captains.

One team captain selects their team of 12.

The remaining team is comprised of whoever -*randomly*- arrives after that point.

This leads to imbalance due to the matchmaker's inability to shuffle players in order to retain balance after the first team has been completely filled.

The way to achieve team balance is to have both teams fill in parallelized fashion, with the matchmaker assigning new arrivals to one team or the other based on available metrics.

The first player to click the *launch* button would be assigned to Team A.

The second player to click the *launch* button would be assigned to Team B.

If at that point, Team A's average performance metrics were higher than Team B's, the matchmaker would assign joining players with better stats to Team B, or vice versa if needed, until their average metrics were as near to equal as possible.

Both teams would fill simultaneously, with a continuous effort made to balance things out until both teams are completely filled.

Rather than one team being completely filled & the other team being stuck with whoever randomly *shows up* afterward?

Edited by I Zeratul I, 15 March 2014 - 02:23 AM.

[Nick Makiaveli]

First that isn't how it works. The second team is filled with players chosen to match the first team. Also, as long as there are plenty of people playing, the teams will be relatively even.

Second, they just recently tweaked it, and with the new limits on weight coming, I don't see them coding a new system until they test what they have.

So I think we need to wait and see what happens...

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

Nick Makiaveli, on 15 March 2014 - 09:56 PM, said:

First that isn't how it works.

I've joined games where the entire first team was filled.

The opposing team had 3-4 players on it.

All new arrivals were simply assigned to the last team to fill in an effort to make it 12 vs 12.

Once the first 12-16 players, or whatever the minimum quota number of players is has been reached, the first team to fill is locked and can't be changed to prevent imbalance.

There also isn't a mechanism by which dissconnects can be ejected and replaced with fresh players.

Not that it matters. I guess I've seen an over abundance of complaining and impotent rage lately and I just had to go with the flow. :T

[Roadbeer]

Did it ever occur to you that that is just what you're seeing and not actually what is happening.
Or did you just assume that your team always fills first?
I guess that the people on the OP4 are picked by alphabetical order too.

[Saiphas Cain]

Any system involving weighting would be nice. I just had a match I suspected was a bit unbalanced, mainly because all I saw on the enemy team was medium and heavier mechs, and all I saw on my team runnning like crazy were lights. I did the math and it was 570 tons to 765 tons. The enemy team was literally 1 1/3 X as heavy as my team. They were 33% heavier. That's like them having 4 mechs for every 3 of ours. That is nowhere even laughably balanced. THIS is why people have been complaining about balancing weights. I saw a dev post about the MM having a mass difference limit and after doing the math on this match I KNOW that thread was 100% bullshit.

[Saiphas Cain]

In fact, while we're at it is the next patch going to make it so I can exit game without it hanging? It's bad enough the odds are so heavily stacked against me that I can do 190 damage average in a Locust and my team has already lost by the time I'm killed on a consistent basis. Does anyone from PGI actually play this in anything but Atlases? I don't see how a "random" matchmaker can possibly put me at such a disadvantage so consistently that I have a 36% win rate. The matchmaker in WoT is random with no ELO and it does a far better matching job without even trying to balance things!

I guess the moral of this story is PGI, STOP HELPING! YOU'RE MAKING IT WORSE!

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

Roadbeer, on 15 March 2014 - 10:45 PM, said:

Did it ever occur to you that that is just what you're seeing and not actually what is happening.
Or did you just assume that your team always fills first?
I guess that the people on the OP4 are picked by alphabetical order too.

.

#1 New players and beginners are assigned to the last team to fill far more often than they are to the first team.

#2 Every game I've seen where the final outcome was 12 - 1 or one team won by a significantly overinflated value was a result of four or more players failing to do more than 50-80 damage before dying. Its usually a result of the last team to fill having a significantly higher number of beginners / new players in contrast to the first filled team. Look at post game stats if your team wins by a significant margin. You'll see it probably wasn't a result of skill, but rather a result of multiple new players being assigned to the same team.

#3 Its common to wait 20+ seconds for last team to fully fill. Sorting algorithms on modern day hardware aren't slow enough for the delay could be attributed to computation. There aren't that many variables present. You won't experience 20+ seconds of lag while a server statistically calculates which team you belong on. The wait time is a result of waiting for new players to join, not a result of game balancing equations.

#4 One team filling fully, while the other team retains open slots is an inflexible approach that limits options.

ZzzZzZzzZ

.

Edited by I Zeratul I, 16 March 2014 - 12:17 AM.

[That Dawg]

Nick Makiaveli, on 15 March 2014 - 09:56 PM, said:

First that isn't how it works.

Actually, he's closer than anything I've seen so far. Unless you're a horrible player (not you, whomever) and simply can't realize you're getting tossed around by the most simplistic/easy to program match maker, then, yeah, ELO hands you a win, OR a loss.
IF his thinking was incorrect, they why the hell do I (we, I'm not the only one) do we see matches where there are so many trials on one side, or so many lights, assaults etc.
You wouldn't see matches that are almost complete rolls if any form of match maker were working.
They will lock the thread and mumble something about use the report system, or run the repair tool

[Evil Ed]

I don't think any player connects and see the pre-match screen before both teams are filled. Teams are made during the searching...-phase. The fact that people seems to be added to the rosters on premade screen is because of difference in time to sync with the server.
Your observations about many trial on one side has statistical reasons + the fact that new players do start with a fairly (too) high ELO.

[Bobzilla]

I've wondered about this. The other team always is full, so it must just seem that way or I would have a full team sometimes (conspiracy theories aside). I do notice the other team has players with 0 ping, which i'm guessing are empty slots to them, but is only 1 or2

[Mcgral18]

Bobzilla, on 16 March 2014 - 01:19 PM, said:

I've wondered about this. The other team always is full, so it must just seem that way or I would have a full team sometimes (conspiracy theories aside). I do notice the other team has players with 0 ping, which i'm guessing are empty slots to them, but is only 1 or 2

Yep, these slots are people who fail to connect (in my case, memory allocation errors) and for the allied team, you see a blank space, for the enemy team they see 0 ping.

Not always the case though, since if you haven't connected yet and the commander changes the lances around, the person who hasn't connected yet will spawn and be thrown into a 4th lance, with 4 "no player" in the lance box, and only 11 people on the score board. Otherwise, they play normally. I've dubbed it Ghost Lance, or Ghost Player, whichever you choose.

Edited by Mcgral18, 16 March 2014 - 01:42 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

You bring your best We'll bring ours. Best team wins.
Whats wrong with that balancing?

[Willard Phule]

Joseph Mallan, on 17 March 2014 - 03:52 AM, said:

You bring your best We'll bring ours. Best team wins.
Whats wrong with that balancing?

Nothing, as far as CW is concerned...and we both know that.

But, look! Yet another string that says:

"PGI, please pay attention to me! I'm not happy with the product you're putting out! It's not enjoyable!"

Yeah, I get it...personal opinions are just that, opinions. All White-Knighting and Doomsaying aside, exactly how many people are going to have to start a string on the forums with regard to the MM and the Elo system before someone sits up and says "Gee, there might be a problem here....I either need to fix it or get on Twitter and let the White Knights massage my Ego!"

Zeratul has been playing since September 2013. That's when it went into...came out of....Open Beta. I think. It's really hard to tell. They had a big launch party where nothing changed. Whatever. The dude's been playing for 7 months now. He wasn't here during Closed Beta (neither was I) or Open Beta...so, his experiences are coming fresh from the "our game is ready to launch, enjoy!" timeframe.

If HE's seeing problems, maybe there IS something wrong here. He hasn't been standing in the forest for as long as we have...maybe he can still see the trees.

[Davers]

I Zeratul I, on 16 March 2014 - 12:16 AM, said:

.

#1 New players and beginners are assigned to the last team to fill far more often than they are to the first team.

#2 Every game I've seen where the final outcome was 12 - 1 or one team won by a significantly overinflated value was a result of four or more players failing to do more than 50-80 damage before dying. Its usually a result of the last team to fill having a significantly higher number of beginners / new players in contrast to the first filled team. Look at post game stats if your team wins by a significant margin. You'll see it probably wasn't a result of skill, but rather a result of multiple new players being assigned to the same team.

#3 Its common to wait 20+ seconds for last team to fully fill. Sorting algorithms on modern day hardware aren't slow enough for the delay could be attributed to computation. There aren't that many variables present. You won't experience 20+ seconds of lag while a server statistically calculates which team you belong on. The wait time is a result of waiting for new players to join, not a result of game balancing equations.

#4 One team filling fully, while the other team retains open slots is an inflexible approach that limits options.

ZzzZzZzzZ

.

1. How do you know which team is the last team? All the players are already 'picked' before the team screen comes up. Some people just load into the game faster.

2. People die doing low damage for a number of reasons, not just because they are 'new'. Ever get head shot from an arty strike?

3.Dropping in a premade, I have noticed that some players just load in much slower. Had a guy I was dropping with last night and he loaded a good 10-15 seconds after the rest of us.

4. Open spaces are players that failed to load into the match. Not the MM being unable to find players.

[Joseph Mallan]

Willard Phule, on 17 March 2014 - 06:01 AM, said:

Nothing, as far as CW is concerned...and we both know that.

But, look! Yet another string that says:

"PGI, please pay attention to me! I'm not happy with the product you're putting out! It's not enjoyable!"

Yeah, I get it...personal opinions are just that, opinions. All White-Knighting and Doomsaying aside, exactly how many people are going to have to start a string on the forums with regard to the MM and the Elo system before someone sits up and says "Gee, there might be a problem here....I either need to fix it or get on Twitter and let the White Knights massage my Ego!"

Zeratul has been playing since September 2013. That's when it went into...came out of....Open Beta. I think. It's really hard to tell. They had a big launch party where nothing changed. Whatever. The dude's been playing for 7 months now. He wasn't here during Closed Beta (neither was I) or Open Beta...so, his experiences are coming fresh from the "our game is ready to launch, enjoy!" timeframe.

If HE's seeing problems, maybe there IS something wrong here. He hasn't been standing in the forest for as long as we have...maybe he can still see the trees.

I would assume it depends on how many people are on each side Phule. If there are 50 Naysayers Doomsayer and 48 White knights the battle lines are pretty even... Which group should PGI placate?

Edited cause Phule's right... it sounds better!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 17 March 2014 - 09:38 AM.

[Willard Phule]

Joseph Mallan, on 17 March 2014 - 07:25 AM, said:

I would assume it depends on how many people are on each side Phule. If there are 50 Naysayers and 48 White knights the battle lines are pretty even... Which group should PGI placate?

Neither. The White Knights and Doomsayers (I like that better than Naysayer, thank you very much) are no longer "new players." We've seen the changes as they've happened and have developed our own opinions about which way this thing is headed.

Who should PGI placate? It's less a matter of placating and focusing on your market...the people that pay your bills. It ain't us. It ain't the White Knights or the Doomsayers...or the middle of the road guys like you. It's the New Players.

I'm not gonna drop $50 bucks on this game again...at least, not until I feel it's worth it. But a new guy that's been rolled repeatedly since his Cadet Matches might...he might be deluded enough to drop the cash on a Hero Mech because he thinks that'll change things for him. He'll be wrong but...he'll be paying PGI's bills.

THAT's the group they need to be paying attention to. We're all looking at this MM/Elo/Balance situation from the top down....they're looking at it from the bottom up. They don't want to be stuck with us any more than we want to be stuck with them, apparently.

[Joseph Mallan]

I've never been called a Middle Roader before...

[Willard Phule]

Joseph Mallan, on 17 March 2014 - 09:40 AM, said:

I've never been called a Middle Roader before...

Would you prefer "Speed Bump" or "Pot Hole?"

[Joseph Mallan]

Willard Phule, on 17 March 2014 - 09:41 AM, said:

Would you prefer "Speed Bump" or "Pot Hole?"

At my size... Speed Bump please!

[Sandpit]

Joseph Mallan, on 17 March 2014 - 09:40 AM, said:

I've never been called a Middle Roader before...

You're one of the more reasonable people in this community Joe.