202 replies to this topic

[aniviron]

Deathlike, on 06 April 2014 - 07:25 PM, said:

I will say that going solo with high Elo is asking for trouble. It will pull out more of the "underhive" than you'd want.

Going with 3 other people, you'll have "the group average" to save you a bit, but yet on the other hand, the roflstomps tend to go both ways with indifference to much generally speaking. I guess losing as a team is fine... as long as I'm not stuck on Mordor... (except there was this one night well I ended the night playing Mordor the last 6 out of 7 matches).

Tangentially related to the matchmaker; I too feel like when it rains it pours in regards to maps. Most nights I play, I get about 6-7 games, and at least four or five will be on the same map, almost without fail. What map that is changes randomly, but if I start the night off with one map, I'm going to keep dropping on that map over and over, it seems. Does anyone else get that?

[Ordellus]

Roland, on 06 April 2014 - 07:07 PM, said:

Yes, one of the critical faults of the implementation of matchmaking in this game is the fact it tries to average out elo ratings...

However, your notion of it trying to make you lose is clearly false.

I haven't seen anywhere that it's "clearly false".

Show me, and I gladly change my mind.

[Davers]

If you play 12 mans you will often find yourself facing the same opponents, often with the same mechs in multiple battles. One match it will be a 12-1 stomp, the next 12-11. Often it comes down to who gets the first 2-3 kills. Just because your team did not do well doesn't mean they were all incompetent noobs.

[meteorol]

Playing solo usually ends up like this for me:

1. Press launch and literally wait 3-4 minutes to find a game.
2. Dropped into alpha lance as solo player -> at this point i know the game is lost.
3. Getting crushed horribly, like total obliteration. A minimum of 5 players on my team scoring below 100 damage..
4. Repeat step 1-3. 4 to 5 times.
5. Close the game, don't play it again until someone of my buddies has time to play.

I did some solo dropping yesterday, and have seen a match that made it sure i will not solo drop again until they release the new launch module. (Maybe things will get better then)

Alpine dirt, usual business, waiting 3 minutes to get a game, be in alpha, getting crushed. But boy did we get crushed. Oh my god. I had a really good game for what i had to play with (506 damage, 3 kills 0 assists, because noone else killed someone), but what i had to see there? Damn.

The last guy alive was a trial victor. Played with arm lock, was probably one of his first games. He was totally undamaged because he was wandering around somewhere at the corner of the map, like 2km away from the rest of the team. A jenner found him, but didn't shot him, it seemed like he wanted to killfeed his lrm buddy. So he ran circles around the victor, tagging him while the lrm guy rained lrm on him.
The guy in the victor was turning, trying do shoot that jenner, but couldn't turn fast enough. He didn't thought of changing the direction he turned, just standing there, spinning around in the same direction, unable to ever catch the jenner.
I was unsure if i should laugh or cry, it was like watching a dog chasing his own tail. He was unable to hit the jenner one single time before he went down.

When watching the stats screen at the end of the match i was like: ok, that is it, i will never drop solo again. Took a picture with my mobile because it was hard to believe.

Damage counts, listed from highest to lowest:
506, 448, 190, 151, 91, 74 , 68 , 62 , 48 , 22 , 2 , 1 (the trial victor did hit someone that match?).
That is 367 damage for 8, EIGHT guys.

Something like that happens if the matchmaker puts to many new guys on one team, against veterans on the other. It's neither fun for veterans who are crushed together with the new players, nor for the new players. It simply shouldn't happen. You can't blame new players for not being better. That poor victor probably didn't even realized what happend to him. New guys with trial mechs are matched up against veterans. I see alot of guys scoring below 100 damage (like 5 each solo drop, like i said), and most of them are using trial mechs. They shouldn't even play against guys like me to begin with.


Seriously, atleast guys in their cadet phase need a seperate queue. I'm playing since CB. At no time should a guy in his cadet phase be forced to play against me (or i shouldn't be forced to play with him for that matter).

Edited by meteorol, 07 April 2014 - 01:13 PM.

[Mazzyplz]

Profiteer, on 05 April 2014 - 03:03 AM, said:

So I play a bunch of games and stomp the enemy 12-0, 12-1. It's fun for a few games, then boring. (zero challenge)

All of a sudden the MM decides I've won too much and puts our 4-man with 8 complete newbs. No amount of carrying is enough, we get smashed.

Rinse and repeat.

I'm lucky to get 1-2 games out of ten that resemble anything like a good fight.



I DON'T WANT TO PLAY WITH OR AGAINST NEWBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



I've been playing over a year and consider myself a good pilot. I should not have to put up with casuals, newbs, etc (no offense) in my games. It's BS.

There should be tiers: Soldier, Veteran, Elite, to separate players.

Don't give me "there aren't enough people playing", if the community is that small is time to close shop.

I just want good fights with/against people of a similar skill level as me.

i was rolling on the floor laughing at the op because it's all true!
why are the new players even allowed with seasoned vets - the only good comeback i heard is because some vets could get a 2nd account and abuse the newbs either way - maybe it could be managed by player IP account instead of player account.

[EgoSlayer]

Ordellus, on 06 April 2014 - 09:06 PM, said:

I haven't seen anywhere that it's "clearly false".

Show me, and I gladly change my mind.

It's clearly false because what you are proposing implies malice and a programming effort to accomplish. The match maker is looking at your Elo score, not your history. It doesn't care if you just lost your 100th match in a row. Your current Elo score is X. If X is higher than the opposing team average you are expected to win. If X is lower you are expected to lose. It really is that simple and there isn't much more programming to it than that. There is much more in the amount your score changes based on this, but in a nut shell if you are higher you are expected to win and lower you are expected to lose.
http://mwomercs.com/...65#entry1626065

If you really think that anyone, PGI especially, devoted significant logic and programming effort to create a malicious match maker to "make sure you lose enough", then no amount of discussion about programming, elo, and logic is going to convince you otherwise. No elo system ever created has been programed to make sure you lose enough. Find one system that is written that way. You say that is what this does, where is your proof?

Edited by EgoSlayer, 06 April 2014 - 11:30 PM.

[Abivard]

Ordellus, on 06 April 2014 - 09:06 PM, said:

I haven't seen anywhere that it's "clearly false".

Show me, and I gladly change my mind.

EgoSlayer, on 06 April 2014 - 11:16 PM, said:

It's clearly false because what you are proposing implies malice and a programming effort to accomplish. The match maker is looking at your Elo score, not your history. It doesn't care if you just lost your 100th match in a row. Your current Elo score is X. If X is higher than the opposing team average you are expected to win. If X is lower you are expected to lose. It really is that simple and there isn't much more programming to it than that. There is much more in the amount your score changes based on this, but in a nut shell if you are higher you are expected to win and lower you are expected to lose.
http://mwomercs.com/...65#entry1626065

If you really think that anyone, PGI especially, devoted significant logic and programming effort to create a malicious match maker to "make sure you lose enough", then no amount of discussion about programming, elo, and logic is going to convince you otherwise. No elo system ever created has been programed to make sure you lose enough. Find one system that is written that way. You say that is what this does, where is your proof?

I AGREE!

I would like to emphasize something here, this is PGI we are talking about, there is no way they would spend the cash or effort to do that, nor would they have the skill to even accomplish it.

Nope, it is all pure failure on PGI's part, dropping solo lets you see the very worst of it, grouping in premades makes things better by orders of magnitude for each player added to your premade, then if you are on voice comm's that is a force multiplier that PGI CAN NOT account for.

Good, well fought and matched drops are a simple matter of chaos theory and probability, it has not a single thing to do with MM's efforts, thank you very much!

[Joseph Mallan]

Profiteer, on 05 April 2014 - 03:03 AM, said:

So I play a bunch of games and stomp the enemy 12-0, 12-1. It's fun for a few games, then boring. (zero challenge)

All of a sudden the MM decides I've won too much and puts our 4-man with 8 complete newbs. No amount of carrying is enough, we get smashed.

Rinse and repeat.

I'm lucky to get 1-2 games out of ten that resemble anything like a good fight.



I DON'T WANT TO PLAY WITH OR AGAINST NEWBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



I've been playing over a year and consider myself a good pilot. I should not have to put up with casuals, newbs, etc (no offense) in my games. It's BS.

There should be tiers: Soldier, Veteran, Elite, to separate players.

Don't give me "there aren't enough people playing", if the community is that small is time to close shop.

I just want good fights with/against people of a similar skill level as me.

If you are playing PUG worry less about your W/L and more about your K/D.

Seriously, if you are dropping with 11 random people you have no idea what their fighting style will be, What weapons they will bring, or how cooperative they are. Expecting to have a fair fight under those conditions is like walking into a boxing ring with a Blindfold on.

[Charons Little Helper]

Ordellus, on 05 April 2014 - 05:39 PM, said:

Actually it doesn't. No matter how well a person does, someone else could completely throw the game which would affect their ranking despite their performance.

Elo is for a one on one game, in which both sides are forced to play by the same rules every time.

This is a game where the entire point is to bend the rules so that your enemy doesn't get to fight back.

Actually - it does.

I didn't say that every match will be a good one.

In part - the nature of a game where you don't respawn and it takes multiple hits to die will inherently not seem as close as it might actually be.

But Elo still works nonetheless.

Law of large numbers - look it up.

[cleghorn6]

If you're seriously ONLY seeing 12-0 or 12-1 matches, either way, here's what to do.

Screenshot your basic stats, screenshot every match end screen for however long, 10, 100 matches, whatever you like, then screenshot your basic stats again, post the whole lot up here.

THEN I will believe what you're saying.

Elo works. The end. This does not mean every match will be close, nor does it mean 12-0 stomps will never occur. Even with a perfectly evenly matched set of 24 players, playing the same game over and over, you would still see 12-0 matches. Some of you have a laughable understanding of the maths, which is fine, but you're spewing misinformation over the forums and giving people the wrong impression.

The core concept that you're not grasping is as follows: random events are random. This does not mean evenly distributed.

Elo works fine, the matchmaker is fine (could be better, yes, but really we're just quibbling over which setting we'd tweak which way. It works fine for me and I have the stats to prove it). If you want to prove different, show me.

I apologise that this post is a bit all over the place but there are so many fundamental misunderstandings of what's going on, it's hard to know where to start.

[Roadkill]

CCC Dober, on 05 April 2014 - 04:58 AM, said:

Of course it can work in multiplayer games, if you consider 1vs1 a multiplayer game and leave it at that.

I'm curious what kind of assumptions were made to "prove" that ELO works past that point. Don't be shy, please do share with us.

No assumptions made at all. Elo is a pretty simple system.

It's been argued far too much here, and the people who claim it doesn't work for multiplayer games just ignore the evidence that's presented to them. In the last such thread we presented research papers explaining that it does, in fact, work. But some people would just rather rant about something and seem to think that denying facts over and over will disprove them.

The fact is that Elo works for multiplayer games. It just takes a little longer for your rating to stabilize.

The problem in MWO is PGI's matchmaker, not Elo.

[Roadkill]

WarZ, on 06 April 2014 - 04:28 PM, said:

So your quoted player is right, and you're wrong. The elo system is broken and producing bad matchmaking.

Rationalizing how it might be happening, does not excuse the fact that it is happening. Most matches. All day long.

And you are wrong.

Elo works. It's mathematically proven. People have PhDs proving that Elo works.

PGI's matchmaker is the problem. Elo ratings are just part of what it tries to use to set up matches.

It is perhaps too subtle of a distinction for some people, but Elo and PGI's matchmaker are not the same thing. The former works; the latter doesn't.

[Joseph Mallan]

I gotta disagree with you on this one Road. The problem with MW:O is (for the most part) the players and not the game's MM. I don't worry to much about getting rolled. cause sooner or later I will be the one ding the rolling rather than being rolled. And since my Matches where I am doing less than 250 damage and getting a kill or assists is roughly 30% I figure I'm having fun. Win or lose. Its the radio silence that kills the game... for me.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 07 April 2014 - 08:01 AM.

[Roadkill]

I'm really only talking about the Elo argument, Joe. Overall I do still find the game fun and agree with you that it's mostly the players that cause "un fun" issues.

[Jman5]

Another problem people have is that the kill count score doesn't always tell the full story. I was playing a match the other day where we were getting our butt kicked pretty hard until it was down to me and another guy vs a whole lot of them. However, it turned out that all them had less than 20 hp left on some critical component. I proceeded to one-shot mech after to mech with my ac/20 until finally it evened up to 11 kill on both sides. I still lost, but if I had died without getting those 5 or 6 extra shots in the game would have looked like a roll.

I wish we could look at surviving player's paper dolls at the end of each match.

[Zerberus]

These Elo /MM whinethreads are a prime example of the prophetic nature of the film "Idiocracy".

"I don`t understand it"
"Then it must suck"
"No, and here`s why"
"OH AND it`s got electrolytes"

That is seriously how these threads read... *facepalm*

Edited by Zerberus, 07 April 2014 - 10:52 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Zerberus, on 07 April 2014 - 10:47 AM, said:

These Elo /MM whinethreads are a prime example of the prophetic nature of the film "Idiocracy".

"I don`t understand it"
"Then it must suck"
"No, and here`s why"
"OH AND it`s got electrolytes"

That is seriously how these threads read... *facepalm*

[Roland]

It's got what plants crave.

[Abivard]

Roadkill, on 07 April 2014 - 08:00 AM, said:

And you are wrong.

Elo works. It's mathematically proven. People have PhDs proving that Elo works.

PGI's matchmaker is the problem. Elo ratings are just part of what it tries to use to set up matches.

It is perhaps too subtle of a distinction for some people, but Elo and PGI's matchmaker are not the same thing. The former works; the latter doesn't.

Elo works in one on one or static team games where the players already know the rules of the game.

It does not work in randomly assigned team multiplayer games. This is fact, not opinion, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts!

Match Maker also does not work, the main reason it does not work is it is trying to match players using the FLAWED implementation of an Elo rating to balance matches.

Shit in shit out.

Elo works for what it was intended for, with some modification it can be applied to other games of competition. It can even work with SET teams, although it really starts dropping the ball with teams as they add more people to the team. So a small set team of players could use an Elo system after a fashion.

Can it work in MWO's setting, absolutely NOT!

The evidence is in the way it is performing, or rather not performing as intended! Also I would like to point out that all of the 'Higher' Elo crowd has hi Elo because they premade their way to it. It is almost impossible for a solo player to advance their Elo very much past the center due to the minimal impact a single player has on their team.

This ignorant talk about it simply requiring many games to settle out is a myth. It will NEVER settle out! IT can not except as a matter of random probability. for each person that arrives at their true rating, several million, perhaps billions(if that many would play) would be not even in the ball park of their true rating.

That is the essence of FAIL!

[Abivard]

Elo makes certain assumptions in order to work, in a nutshell it assumes everything except the players SKILL is equal.

In MWO NOTHING is equal! NOT ONE SINGLE THING IS CONSISTENTLY EQUAL!