Jump to content

Russ On Matchmaking


136 replies to this topic

#41 Prezimonto

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 2,016 posts
  • LocationKufstein FRR

Posted 23 May 2014 - 05:06 AM

View PostPrawfut Bludskin, on 22 May 2014 - 07:35 PM, said:


The better way for groups is group only que. group sizes of 2-10 and matched # of groups 2+10 = 6+6, 4+8 = 3+9 (sorry if that screws people who have 11 friends but its much better than 4)

That also gives the solo pug drop guys their "solo only" que that they have been wanting.


Honestly, I don't care how they do it. I've learned that ideas here are rarely taken seriously for, probably, a variety of reasons. I do know that not having groups larger than 4 and less than 12 should have been a short term solution for a matchmaker problem in a team game.

They could split queues, they could rewrite the match maker code to take more teams into account, they could institute a lobby along with private matches. That's 3 ideas, and I'm sure there are more. All I care is that it gets done.

#42 Bagheera

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,920 posts
  • LocationStrong and Pretty

Posted 23 May 2014 - 05:09 AM

View PostTekadept, on 22 May 2014 - 08:26 PM, said:

So you always knew you had to rewrite the MM to support CW, yet all the times you were 90 days away from CW you had not thought to rework the matchmaker that was required for said CW as it sounds like it was yet another "bottleneck"?


Just take a game developer and remove logic and accountability. ;)

#43 Hordamer Mendelbaum

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 2
  • Mercenary Rank 2
  • 42 posts

Posted 23 May 2014 - 05:12 AM

Put properly: Past poor programming practice prohibits proper player picking. Patience, please.

#44 Zolaz

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 3,510 posts
  • LocationHouston, Tx

Posted 23 May 2014 - 05:17 AM

You are telling me Russ didnt listen to the community and forged ahead with whatever he thinks is right? Hmmmmm. You are saying that there wont be any development towards team play in the MM? Hmmmmmmm. You are telling me that MM and CW will be written for PUGs and not large scale battles of teams and units? Hmmmmm.

Doesnt sound like anything new to me.

#45 mariomanz28

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 188 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationForest VA US

Posted 23 May 2014 - 05:30 AM

View PostBartholomew bartholomew, on 22 May 2014 - 07:12 PM, said:

Solo puggers are not going to do CW anyways.


Glad you aren't making this decision for me. Anyone who doesn't play CW will be missing out on the meat and potatoes of the game. It would be akin to buying any of the previous MW titles and only playing Instant Action and never playing the Campaign.

So yes, I WILL most definitely be playing CW, come hell or high water.

#46 Appogee

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 10,966 posts
  • LocationOn planet Tukayyid, celebrating victory

Posted 23 May 2014 - 05:31 AM

View PostSmurfOff, on 23 May 2014 - 04:31 AM, said:

It takes a thick skin to ignore veterans, public test server data, feedback, and logic in a quest to develop their vision.


Or, narcissistic levels of self-delusion.

#47 Chrithu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 1,601 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 23 May 2014 - 05:39 AM

View PostTekadept, on 22 May 2014 - 08:26 PM, said:

So you always knew you had to rewrite the MM to support CW, yet all the times you were 90 days away from CW you had not thought to rework the matchmaker that was required for said CW as it sounds like it was yet another "bottleneck"?



Nah that's not quite fair. All the times they were just 90 days away from CW they did not even have designed a single part of it so they did not know that they'd actually need to change MM for it. The Fish is stinking from the head downwards and I pitty every single one of PGI's coders that have to put up with the abysmal job their higher ups are doing.

At least they now communicate preemptively and honest. That's a big plus in my book.

#48 Jody Von Jedi

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 1,551 posts
  • LocationNorth Carolina

Posted 23 May 2014 - 06:01 AM

View PostSgtKinCaiD, on 23 May 2014 - 03:45 AM, said:

The current matchmaker only consider the ELO sump up of each team to balance a match. <= BAD


I want to see this in print somewhere. The way I understand the MM works today, is it matches Elo 1st and then makes up teams from players with similar Elo. If it can't find enough, to make a team, the bracket widens until it can get 24 players.

Prove me I'm wrong with a quote from a dev or Russ.

#49 Zolaz

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 3,510 posts
  • LocationHouston, Tx

Posted 23 May 2014 - 06:06 AM

Believing what Russ says is just setting yourself up for disappointment. I am sure he means well. But, Russ' word is not his bond.

#50 WarHippy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,834 posts

Posted 23 May 2014 - 06:17 AM

View Postmariomanz28, on 23 May 2014 - 05:30 AM, said:


Glad you aren't making this decision for me. Anyone who doesn't play CW will be missing out on the meat and potatoes of the game. It would be akin to buying any of the previous MW titles and only playing Instant Action and never playing the Campaign.

So yes, I WILL most definitely be playing CW, come hell or high water.


I'm a solo as well that would like to participate in CW, but let me ask you something. Do you honestly feel that us random solo players should have any real effect on the fate of a planet, or should it be decided by the groups/teams fighting for control with our assistance? For me the idea that a faction could win or lose a planet on the actions of 12 random Rambo's that may or may not work well together is absurd.

#51 Cimarb

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Caladbolg
  • Caladbolg
  • 3,912 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationA hop, skip and jump from Terra

Posted 23 May 2014 - 06:28 AM

View PostPrawfut Bludskin, on 22 May 2014 - 07:35 PM, said:


The better way for groups is group only que. group sizes of 2-10 and matched # of groups 2+10 = 6+6, 4+8 = 3+9 (sorry if that screws people who have 11 friends but its much better than 4)

That also gives the solo pug drop guys their &quot;solo only&quot; que that they have been wanting.

I am primarily a solo pug dropper, but I prefer as many groups in the match as possible, as it dramatically increases the quality of the match 99% of the time.

While I am not opposed to a "solo only" queue, I will not be in it unless I have no other choice - I want to drop with the groups, whether I am grouped myself or not!

View PostWarHippy, on 23 May 2014 - 06:17 AM, said:


I'm a solo as well that would like to participate in CW, but let me ask you something. Do you honestly feel that us random solo players should have any real effect on the fate of a planet, or should it be decided by the groups/teams fighting for control with our assistance? For me the idea that a faction could win or lose a planet on the actions of 12 random Rambo's that may or may not work well together is absurd.


Yes, we should all have a real effect on the fate of the planet. Read some of the BT novels for inspiration, as many of them are about single individuals that dramatically influence the universe by their actions, with or without their official unit/affiliation.

#52 Bilbo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nimble
  • The Nimble
  • 7,864 posts
  • LocationSaline, Michigan

Posted 23 May 2014 - 06:37 AM

View PostWarHippy, on 23 May 2014 - 06:17 AM, said:



I'm a solo as well that would like to participate in CW, but let me ask you something. Do you honestly feel that us random solo players should have any real effect on the fate of a planet....

In short, yes.

#53 Rayne Vickers

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Ardent
  • The Ardent
  • 115 posts
  • LocationVickers Mining Co. Trellshire Province, Lyran Commonwelth. Hollers, Derf

Posted 23 May 2014 - 06:40 AM

View PostWispsy, on 22 May 2014 - 07:03 PM, said:

Why does 3-3-3-3 get top priority taking months of time from people who could be doing real useful stuff ;)


Because some of us are *this* (tiny fingers measurement) close to quitting if they don't actually fix this? I can't stand dropping in public matches in a medium (or even most heavies) in the current state, I would like some incintive to use my favorite weight classes, this gives it, and actually makes matches balanced and fun.

#54 SgtKinCaiD

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 1,095 posts
  • LocationBordeaux

Posted 23 May 2014 - 06:47 AM

View PostJody Von Jedi, on 23 May 2014 - 06:01 AM, said:


I want to see this in print somewhere. The way I understand the MM works today, is it matches Elo 1st and then makes up teams from players with similar Elo. If it can't find enough, to make a team, the bracket widens until it can get 24 players.

Prove me I'm wrong with a quote from a dev or Russ.

Will dig ... but here already is the post of Matthew Craig about mixing player of different ELO level : http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2633230

#55 Pyrrho

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 854 posts

Posted 23 May 2014 - 06:53 AM

What I think is a bit interesting (as others have said) is that the community has begun to balance weight class dropping on their own, once the queue counter was added. The matchmaker isn't even utilizing 3/3/3/3 but so long as there is a little pop-up that says "Wait times shortest in X 'mech weight!" the players seem to want to take that advice.

#56 WarHippy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,834 posts

Posted 23 May 2014 - 06:55 AM

View PostCimarb, on 23 May 2014 - 06:28 AM, said:

Yes, we should all have a real effect on the fate of the planet. Read some of the BT novels for inspiration, as many of them are about single individuals that dramatically influence the universe by their actions, with or without their official unit/affiliation.

View PostBilbo, on 23 May 2014 - 06:37 AM, said:

In short, yes.

Sorry, but neither of you are Aidan Pryde or any other lore character in a novel that are shown having performed amazing feats that have an effect on the universe for dramatic effect while telling a story. We are all just nameless grunts. That being said from a gaming perspective things effecting your faction shouldn't be decided by random individuals, but rather by the organized effort of the units representing your faction. Sure, you can be praised for your individual actions, but your individual actions are no more than one tiny piece of a much bigger puzzle.

#57 Wesxander

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Raider
  • The Raider
  • 311 posts

Posted 23 May 2014 - 06:56 AM

I for one will be happy to see 3/3/3/3. Tired of getting in games and finding SUPRISE your side has 2 assaults and the enemy has 9 in skirmish mode. The one night 3 by 4 was up. Yes it was up for one night in MWO all the games were close. The best stomp I seen about 40 games was 12 to 5 deaths. Not like the stuff we seeing now 12 to 2, 12 to 0, 12 to 1.

Bit tired of match maker letting in 4 man assault teams. Let's see our atlas sacrificed himself to off 2 their atlases WTH YOU SAY THEYGOT 3 LEFT and we only had 3 assaults total....

Sometimes you get just the opposite though rare. Here comes that 2 lance of swarming lights with streaks, ecm, beagle probes..... Oh look the rest the team is just over the hill might as well be range 900 once 9 lights tear into you. ETA till death even with decent armor 30 seconds....

As I said please do bring back 3 by 4

#58 EVA1313

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 33 posts
  • LocationBolivia

Posted 23 May 2014 - 06:59 AM

Not a programmer my self and at best a casual player I look forward to CW. I am part of a unit and I hope that either my efforts or those my team can have some effect on or game play (tax collection, protection, assault, what ever). I won't deny that I am getting a sick of the three drop options and the lack of a back story...
Is the game perfect NO nor did I expect it to be. It has come a long way could it have come further... I wish I knew.

Hopefully the are some programmers out there that can let guys like me know if this is progressing or falling behind.

#59 Jody Von Jedi

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 1,551 posts
  • LocationNorth Carolina

Posted 23 May 2014 - 06:59 AM

View PostSgtKinCaiD, on 23 May 2014 - 06:47 AM, said:

Will dig ... but here already is the post of Matthew Craig about mixing player of different ELO level : http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2633230


But even that post says MM starts by trying to match Elo for every player in a match within a given range on both teams before widening the range. I've seen veterans and new players in matches together too. But without specific details about what the current ranges are, it's just speculation on our part.

#60 Wesxander

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Raider
  • The Raider
  • 311 posts

Posted 23 May 2014 - 07:04 AM

Match maker has bad habit of putting 2 experienced pilots with 10 non experienced then dropping 8 expert pilots on the other side. To make things worse you have some players sync dropping who miss their drop end up on the wrong side then intentionally help the enemy by "accidentally" alpha striking you at start match then reporting on your teams locations and plans in team speak. ADD in rest of world players who don't speak English slang at all and PUG are often little to no team work or ability to issue commands that every one can understand.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users