140 replies to this topic

[Willard Phule]

Duke Nedo, on 03 September 2014 - 10:30 AM, said:

...still, that does not include a mechanism that can give streaks, only uneven matches. What could give a streak I guess, is if one suddenly could jump +1000 elo and end up where there are very few players, then you could expect to be balanced by several bad players several matches in a row. Otherwise, by slowly gaining elo nothing like that should happen. Still curious what is going on....

ps. elo for each chassi would mean that you would have to play all those hundreds of games for each chassi to arrive at your elo level... I guess that's why they settled for classes. To isolate your individual contribution to the result in a 12 v 12 game takes many games....

That doesn't make any sense, really, considering how they automatically give you a 1700 in every weight class the moment you're done with your first 25 matches. So, if nothing else, you start at a 1700 for each chassis...and then move up or down, depending on how you play.

[Sandpit]

Willard Phule, on 03 September 2014 - 10:30 AM, said:

What would go hand in hand with that is a different balancing system than 3/3/3/3. Under the current system, an Awesome or Battlemaster is considered the same as a Dire Wolf. It needs to be split into 20 ton (or less) brackets.

well therein lies the other piece of the problem. An 80-ton assault is treated the same as a 100-tons assault. A 20-ton light the same as a 35-ton light.

Now you combine those discrepancies with the Elo implementation and it just compounds the issue making it even worse. Then you throw in the fact that PGi considers anyone who has played 25 games a "vet" and you have 3 separate issues that combine to give you what we currently have in the MM.

Many tried to herald 3/3/3/3 as the "fix" to a lot of this along with mech variety, when we tried to point out that it wouldn't help or fix any of these problems we were labeled "malcontents" and "trolls".

[MrMadguy]

I really doubt, PGI will do something about their MM, cuz they completely stopped to fix even simple bugs, like green smoke in thermal vision mode, at the moment, when they started to develop clan packs. I guess, they are developing completely pointless CW now, just because they promised it, which will split players and make matchmaking harder even more.

Edited by MrMadguy, 03 September 2014 - 10:57 AM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Are these threads ever not one sided? anyways

Sandpit, on 03 September 2014 - 10:53 AM, said:

well therein lies the other piece of the problem. An 80-ton assault is treated the same as a 100-tons assault. A 20-ton light the same as a 35-ton light.

Now you combine those discrepancies with the Elo implementation and it just compounds the issue making it even worse. Then you throw in the fact that PGi considers anyone who has played 25 games a "vet" and you have 3 separate issues that combine to give you what we currently have in the MM.

Many tried to herald 3/3/3/3 as the "fix" to a lot of this along with mech variety, when we tried to point out that it wouldn't help or fix any of these problems we were labeled "malcontents" and "trolls".

The MM never touched mech variation and everyone that tried to make the case of it limits mech selection had no basis. Also the MM is not going to pool the same mechs and get perfects matches so the 80 has to be treated as a 100 if nothing else can be found. The MM cant know who is bringing what It can only try to match as close as it can. If it cant find a good fit it has to loosen the restraints till a match can be found. Sometimes that can lead to uneven teams but It has to do that in order to get people in the game.

Bhael Fire, on 02 September 2014 - 07:38 PM, said:

Each player really should have two sets of Elo scores; one for solo playing and one for when they in a group. This would help get more accurate matchings.

However, they really messed up by basing their matchmaker on the Elo rating system in the first place — it's a system that works much better in a persistent 1 vs 1 environment or one where the team members remain relatively the same on regular basis.

Removing groups from the solo queue was huge step in the right direction, but there's much more work to be done before MM will be able to perform well consistently.

Elo is what Elo does I suppose

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 03 September 2014 - 11:02 AM.

[Sandpit]

Duke Nedo, on 03 September 2014 - 10:30 AM, said:

...still, that does not include a mechanism that can give streaks, only uneven matches. What could give a streak I guess, is if one suddenly could jump +1000 elo and end up where there are very few players, then you could expect to be balanced by several bad players several matches in a row. Otherwise, by slowly gaining elo nothing like that should happen. Still curious what is going on....

ps. elo for each chassi would mean that you would have to play all those hundreds of games for each chassi to arrive at your elo level... I guess that's why they settled for classes. To isolate your individual contribution to the result in a 12 v 12 game takes many games....

"streaks" are a byproduct and luck of the draw. It's the same reason two players can use a UAC5 and while one player has a "streak" of jams, the other player rarely sees them.

Another example is map rotation. People complain regularly about map rotation and bias. They get "runs" on a map of multiple times in a row, which creates a perception that they play that map a substantial amount of times over every other map. yet, when they show their map stats, the map stats show that the rotation is actually quite "even". They might get short-term runs on a single map like that but long-term their maps are "balanced" as far as rotation goes.

It's the same with the MM, when you combine all the factors I mentioned you get what we have now with the MM. it's not a singular thing causing this issue (much like with other areas that need some improvement) it's more of PGi's implementation than anything else

[Kubernetes]

StandingInFire, on 02 September 2014 - 08:48 AM, said:

Seriously can people stop saying it adds bad players to balance good players, PGI showed screenshots of the ELO system the way it works is it takes AVERAGE with LOW VARIANCE (square distance from average) meaning it groups players of about the same elo on the same team.
.

Who are you going to believe, PGI or your own in-game experiences? Screenshots? Bwahahahaha!

Here's what I've experienced: drop into HPG, notice that two of my teammates are recognizable names from the Worthy Adversaries leaderboards. Oh good, I think. Game's going okay. I get a kill. I die. I spectate between the two Very Very Good players. It's a treat. Damn, they die. All we have left is an Atlas RS(C).

Oh damn, this guy is in a trial mech. And he's running into walls. And he's not even locking targets for his LRMs, just dead-firing. And his Gauss ammo is still at max--- He Doesn't Know How To Charge His Gauss. And he's shooting his MLs at enemies 600m away.

Where do you think that dude's ELO stands? Is he anywhere close to a top level player? Or even myself, who is probably above-average, with 1000s of drops under my belt (Hey, I just achieved Rich as Blake)?

PGI can claim all it wants about MM, but I am still seeing true noobs (no insult or hyperbole) dropping with certifiable badass veterans. It's terrible. I'd rather have competitive 8 vs 8 back than do 6 vs 6 + 12 cannon-fodder targets.

Edited by Kubernetes, 03 September 2014 - 11:09 AM.

[Sandpit]

Bhael Fire, on 02 September 2014 - 07:38 PM, said:

Each player really should have two sets of Elo scores; one for solo playing and one for when they in a group. This would help get more accurate matchings.

They do, groups have their Elo artificially inflated as a handicap and the group's Elo is averaged between all players in that group, then it's averaged against the other groups on the same team for a team Elo.

[Sandpit]

Kubernetes, on 03 September 2014 - 11:07 AM, said:

Where do you think that dude's ELO stands? Is he anywhere close to a top level player? Or even myself, who is probably above-average, with 1000s of drops under my belt (Hey, I just achieved Rich as Blake)?

PGI can claim all it wants about MM, but I am still seeing true noobs (no insult or hyperbole) dropping with certifiable badass veterans. It's terrible. I'd rather have competitive 8 vs 8 back than do 6 vs 6 + 12 cannon-fodder targets.

I explained that above, it's a symptom of the implementation of the Elo system

[Bhael Fire]

Sandpit, on 03 September 2014 - 11:11 AM, said:

They do, groups have their Elo artificially inflated as a handicap and the group's Elo is averaged between all players in that group, then it's averaged against the other groups on the same team for a team Elo.

I know group Elo is aggregate.

I meant each player should have two sets of Elo scores; one for their solo drops and one for their group drops.

It should not be artificially inflated; it should just be rated separately from their solo matches altogether. There's no reason to inflate it in the first place, because only groups are allowed in the group queue and groups are not allowed in the solo queue.

So it would make more sense to just rate the scores separately.

[Tarl Cabot]

Sandpit, on 03 September 2014 - 07:52 AM, said:

Here's the thing (that most people forget or don't understand regarding Elo and MM)

You go on a nice winning streak. You eventually begin facing opponents of higher skill level. It's not the MM or Elo trying "even out" your W/L records, it's simply your Elo on a steady increase until eventually you're playing against opponents "better" than you skill wise.

.....

These are the problems with how PGI has implemented Elo, not with the Elo system itself.


yes they stated that

Just commenting on the bold piece. If you go on a winning streak and your team was expected to win, your Elo does not change nor does the other team's Elo. The only way for your Elo to change is if your team had been slated to lose but instead your team won.

Now, you could say that the better opponents that started to show up were on teams that were predicted to win but instead they lose, dropping their Elo enough to start showing up in your combat drops. Your Elo had not changed but theirs did.

The Elo changes only when the player/team goes against the win/lose prediction.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 03 September 2014 - 11:40 AM.

[Sandpit]

Bhael Fire, on 03 September 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

It should not be artificially inflated; it should just be rated separately from their solo matches altogether. There's no reason to inflate it in the first place, because only groups are allowed in the group queue and groups are not allowed in the solo queue.

you are the first person to understand that. They spent time, money, and resources on this for what? You just artificially inflated group Elo (which happened AFTER queue splits) so they could face other groups who have theirs inflated as well...? Just another example of PGI leadership having poor organizational skills.

[Budor]

Its the way of the PUG, after a good win streak the next team is bound to be worse than base turrets. I tell myself not to rage but it gets me everytime ^^

Just had a match on frozen city where i tell bros to not let red rush C3 after we take eps, bros agree on piling C3 and pushing ridge together if its clear. After Epsilon is fortified bros do their pug thing running "somewhere", red pushes C3 and rolls em. Sometimes its bound to happen.

Edited by Budor, 03 September 2014 - 12:23 PM.

[Sandpit]

Tarl Cabot, on 03 September 2014 - 11:39 AM, said:

Just commenting on the bold piece. If you go on a winning streak and your team was expected to win, your Elo does not change nor does the other team's Elo. The only way for your Elo to change is if your team had been slated to lose but instead your team won.

That's not how it works (at least as far as I've seen, read, and PGi has stated), if you're placed in a match with another team that you should win against your Elo moves very little. If you win a game you're supposed to lose (which essentially means the other team's average Elo was lower than your team's average Elo), then your Elo moves in larger increments. Vice versa, if you lose a game you were supposed to win (based on the team Elos) your Elo moves down in larger increments.

Again, this has to do with PGI's implementation of Elo, not the Elo system itself. Elo is designed to ensure you always face an opponent equal (or very similar) to your individual skill level. That's specifically what it is designed to do. When you start mucking about with generalizations (IE weight class instead of individual) and averages (IE team Elo vs. individual Elo), you start screwing with the very core of what Elo is designed to do.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Sandpit, on 03 September 2014 - 12:17 PM, said:

That's not how it works (at least as far as I've seen, read, and PGi has stated), if you're placed in a match with another team that you should win against your Elo moves very little. If you win a game you're supposed to lose (which essentially means the other team's average Elo was lower than your team's average Elo), then your Elo moves in larger increments. Vice versa, if you lose a game you were supposed to win (based on the team Elos) your Elo moves down in larger increments.

Again, this has to do with PGI's implementation of Elo, not the Elo system itself. Elo is designed to ensure you always face an opponent equal (or very similar) to your individual skill level. That's specifically what it is designed to do. When you start mucking about with generalizations (IE weight class instead of individual) and averages (IE team Elo vs. individual Elo), you start screwing with the very core of what Elo is designed to do. If i am missing something point that out, I know as far as MM goes its ELO,3's, Exact matching of tonnage if possible, and maybe I am missing something.

You do understand when elo was designed that it was based of of chess games. Arpad Elo was a chess champion and thefore The ELO systems he made reflects that. The MM has to match players based on ELO, and weight class(3's), not only that i tries to match up similar tonnage. The very core of ELO didnt have Online games like MWO in mind at the time of design.

Take Chess as an example, the Elo system would work almost Flawlessly, because it only has to take into account the 2 players. Take a game Like SC2 when matching players, the MM only has two take into account the players. The units are meant to be unbalanced to give factions flavor but if a unit is OP then it is balanced to not break the game; However none of that even affects how the MM finds a match, unlike MWO.

Different games have different Restrictions. PGI has not done much to deviate from what Elo is supposed to do.

The point is unless they can find a way to make it just so that Elo comes into account when matching and nothing else interferes just like how the Core of elo was meant to do then we just might have a better MM in some regards.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 03 September 2014 - 12:58 PM.

[Willard Phule]

Sandpit, on 03 September 2014 - 10:53 AM, said:

well therein lies the other piece of the problem. An 80-ton assault is treated the same as a 100-tons assault. A 20-ton light the same as a 35-ton light.

Now you combine those discrepancies with the Elo implementation and it just compounds the issue making it even worse. Then you throw in the fact that PGi considers anyone who has played 25 games a "vet" and you have 3 separate issues that combine to give you what we currently have in the MM.

Many tried to herald 3/3/3/3 as the "fix" to a lot of this along with mech variety, when we tried to point out that it wouldn't help or fix any of these problems we were labeled "malcontents" and "trolls".

For what it's worth, the 3/3/3/3 thing did fix quite a bit...at least, in the solo queue. I mean, granted, it's not perfect but at least you're not running into Steiner Scout Lances all in D-DCs anymore.

It's a shame they can't work the MM to operate in 10 ton increments (ie: 20-25, 30-35, 40-45, etc) and couple that with the 3/3/3/3 thing. Probably too complicated for them to code and it would add time to finding a match...and we can't have that.

BLOOD WOLF, on 03 September 2014 - 12:37 PM, said:

You do understand when elo was designed that it was based of of chess games. Arpad Elo was a chess champion and thefore The ELO systems he made reflects that. The MM has to match players based on ELO, and weight class(3's), not only that i tries to match up similar tonnage. The very core of ELO didnt have Online games like MWO in mind at the time of design.

Take Chess as an example, the Elo system would work almost Flawlessly, because it only has to take into account the 2 players. Take a game Like SC2 when matching players, the MM only has two take into account the players. The units are meant to be unbalanced to give factions flavor but if a unit is OP then it is balanced to not break the game; However none of that even affects how the MM finds a match, unlike MWO.

Point taken, but I'd like to point out a couple of glaring problems with the Elo/Matchmaker system we have here in MWO :

1 ) Elo was designed to work with a stable player base. It's been used in Chess, Football, Hockey, etc...but, in all those instances, the players participating are fairly stable. Not a lot of turnover there. Some come in, some go out, but it's still pretty stable.

We don't have that here. We get new graduates of Sucklamore and The Nooblering every month or so. They stick around long enough to drop some money on cockpit items or a Hero 'mech, then they ragequit and leave. Then, we get another graduating class toward the beginning of the next month (the one department at PGI that truly does it's job well is the Marketing department).

2 ) This whole thing was put together by Developers that have so far managed to break more than they've fixed in the two plus years they've been putting this thing together. You'll pardon me if my confidence in their abilities to make ANYTHING work correctly in the first twenty tries is somewhat less than that of a White Knight.

BLOOD WOLF, on 03 September 2014 - 12:37 PM, said:

Different games have different Restrictions. PGI has not done much to deviate from what Elo is supposed to do.

And yet, the solo queue is absolutely choked with veterans that are required to carry new players all day, every day. Oh, and I'd really like to point this one out to you....the whole concept of PGI giving people still in their "Cadet Matches" a low enough Elo score to remove them from the general populace is complete hogwash. The matchmaker WILL scrape them into general pop to put a team together. I can attest to that from personal experience....just this morning, in fact.

So, unless the Elo system was designed to put rank amateurs up against significantly better players on a constant basis, then it's completely broken. The Elo system used in Chess and sports certainly isn't designed to do that. Perhaps, PGI's system is designed to do this...it IS PGI, after all.

BLOOD WOLF, on 03 September 2014 - 12:37 PM, said:

The point is unless they can find a way to make it just so that Elo comes into account when matching and nothing else interferes just like how the Core of elo was meant to do then we just might have a better MM in some regards.

The point is, unless PGI can somehow manage to separate people based on their relative skill levels, we are going to continue to see the same kind of "carry harder" roflstomps in the solo queue.

Which, upon reflection, sort of makes sense. We, the unwashed heathens of the solo queue, are NOT the target audience for PGI. The organized groups and leagues are obviously the people they care the most about. Those people are most likely to continue to spend money on a half-finished, broken product. In essence, their money is worth more than ours. This has been a fact for a very, very long time.

And, before you say it, I simply do not wish to join a group. "But, what about Phule's Company?" Phule's company consists of myself, my son (who no longer plays) and my best friend (who cannot play until his computer gets fixed). We're not organized or part of a league, nor do we want to become part of one. I fail to see how PGI can marginalize us because we're not part of their "target audience," but there it is.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Willard Phule, on 03 September 2014 - 01:26 PM, said:

And yet, the solo queue is absolutely choked with veterans that are required to carry new players all day, every day. Oh, and I'd really like to point this one out to you....the whole concept of PGI giving people still in their "Cadet Matches" a low enough Elo score to remove them from the general populace is complete hogwash. The matchmaker WILL scrape them into general pop to put a team together. I can attest to that from personal experience....just this morning, in fact.

So, unless the Elo system was designed to put rank amateurs up against significantly better players on a constant basis, then it's completely broken. The Elo system used in Chess and sports certainly isn't designed to do that. Perhaps, PGI's system is designed to do this...it IS PGI, after all.



continue to see the same kind of "carry harder" roflstomps in the solo queue.

Just like you said the MM will scrape somebody up if they are needed regardless of Rating. At times it can not always find good matches. Nor will it always match vets with vets and noobs with noobs. Sometimes it will just take what it needs. This is not so much PGI's Fault as it is the MM's, but a brilliant system that wasn't perfect to begin with. I stress that it is not perfect, many matches and rarely do i ever get stuck with new players. Just because it happens ever so few or even too often just means that It can not always find a good match. it does not always mean its a failure of the MM nor is it a failure of PGI. The ELO system was made beforehand, they just have to consider the mechanics and extra features of their game to work with the ELO system. They do have control over the constraints of what the MM can look for and the ranges it can take, so I have to rescind what i said, PGI is at fault for some things There is no such thing as PGI's system as they did not create their own system of matchmaking, rather they added that the MM account for Tonnage,class, and Elo(am i missing something). ELO is a basic system, but the more parameters you add the more Complex it gets. At times their is a chance of over-complicating your system.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 03 September 2014 - 02:02 PM.

[Willard Phule]

BLOOD WOLF, on 03 September 2014 - 01:44 PM, said:

Just like you said the MM will scrape somebody up if they are needed regardless of Rating. At times it can not always find good matches. Nor will it always match vets with vets and noobs with noobs. Sometimes it will just take what it needs.

The problem with this is that you make it sound like completely unbalanced matches are infrequent but inevitable. They're not. They're CONSTANT. Constant meaning "every single match." At least in the solo queue they are.

BLOOD WOLF, on 03 September 2014 - 01:44 PM, said:

This is not so much PGI's Fault as it is the MM's, but a brilliant system that wasn't perfect to begin with. I stress that it is not perfect, many matches and rarely do i ever get stuck with new players. Just because it happens ever so few or even too often just means that It can not always find a good match.

Ok, look at it through the eyes of a new player...not someone like me that hates being saddled with them.

First of all, it's EVERY SINGLE MATCH in the solo queue. It may only be one or two...or it may be ten. Either way, there are ALWAYS "fodder" players on each team. The winner is the team that carries it's bads the best.

BLOOD WOLF, on 03 September 2014 - 01:44 PM, said:

it does not always mean its a failure of the MM nor is it a failure of PGI. The ELO system was made beforehand, they just have to consider the mechanics and extra features of their game to work with the ELO system. They do have control over the constraints of what the MM can look for and the ranges it can take, so I have to rescind what i said, PGI is at fault for some things There is no such thing as PGI's system as they did not create their own system of matchmaking, rather they added that the MM account for Tonnage,class, and Elo(am i missing something). ELO is a basic system, but the more parameters you add the more Complex it gets. At times their is a chance of over-complicating your system.

How can you say that?

It's their system. Their game. Their matchmaker. Their version of Elo. No, I hate to be the one to take a leak on your White Knight flag, but it's all PGI.

Look, it's fairly obvious to me that you simply don't play in the solo queue much. I'm happy that you're happy that the Group Queue is working well. Especially for you.

Come down in the gutter with us for a while. Play with the recent graduates of the Nooblering Academy. Try to carry 6-8 people that can't shoot unless they stand still and zoom in....or the LRM boats that refuse to do anything unless you lock targets for them and don't understand why you can't give them easy kills because the enemy has lots of ECM.

Dude. It is what it is, but don't defend PGI. They're the ones that designed this thing.

[Sandpit]

Willard Phule, on 03 September 2014 - 03:22 PM, said:

The problem with this is that you make it sound like completely unbalanced matches are infrequent but inevitable. They're not. They're CONSTANT. Constant meaning "every single match." At least in the solo queue they are.



Ok, look at it through the eyes of a new player...not someone like me that hates being saddled with them.

First of all, it's EVERY SINGLE MATCH in the solo queue. It may only be one or two...or it may be ten. Either way, there are ALWAYS "fodder" players on each team. The winner is the team that carries it's bads the best.



How can you say that?

It's their system. Their game. Their matchmaker. Their version of Elo. No, I hate to be the one to take a leak on your White Knight flag, but it's all PGI.

Look, it's fairly obvious to me that you simply don't play in the solo queue much. I'm happy that you're happy that the Group Queue is working well. Especially for you.

Come down in the gutter with us for a while. Play with the recent graduates of the Nooblering Academy. Try to carry 6-8 people that can't shoot unless they stand still and zoom in....or the LRM boats that refuse to do anything unless you lock targets for them and don't understand why you can't give them easy kills because the enemy has lots of ECM.

Dude. It is what it is, but don't defend PGI. They're the ones that designed this thing.

Which could easily be solved with two VERY simple solutions

1.) New players don't magically have their Elo boosted after 25 matches. They start at the bottom of the Elo bucket and have it raised naturally as they win games. Then once they hit their plateau they're naturally where they should be regarding Elo. (good luck getting PGI to understand this)


2.) Do NOT use averaged Elo for teams. 3600 team Elo is NOT the same as 12 players with 300 Elo each.As I pointed out earlier that's one of the biggest culprite behind the mismatches in player skill.

If you and I join up together and my Elo is 100 while yours is 700, that averages to a 400 Elo each. That means you should be stomping opponents at or below that Elo while I will be getting stomped as I play well above my Elo.
It wouldn't completely prevent them but it WOULD make them much more seldom while improving the NPE and preventing vets from getting frustrated at having to carry team derp.

Alternatively, players could opt in to "help" carry lower level players like that if they opt in to play at higher levels. Then both know exactly what they're getting into and also get a bigger challenge (as some like this sort of thing)


Both of those provide players with more options, improve the game with relative ease, and make sense though so don't expect PGI to accept it any time soon.

[Willard Phule]

Sandpit, on 03 September 2014 - 03:34 PM, said:

Which could easily be solved with two VERY simple solutions

1.) New players don't magically have their Elo boosted after 25 matches. They start at the bottom of the Elo bucket and have it raised naturally as they win games. Then once they hit their plateau they're naturally where they should be regarding Elo. (good luck getting PGI to understand this)


2.) Do NOT use averaged Elo for teams. 3600 team Elo is NOT the same as 12 players with 300 Elo each.As I pointed out earlier that's one of the biggest culprite behind the mismatches in player skill.

If you and I join up together and my Elo is 100 while yours is 700, that averages to a 400 Elo each. That means you should be stomping opponents at or below that Elo while I will be getting stomped as I play well above my Elo.
It wouldn't completely prevent them but it WOULD make them much more seldom while improving the NPE and preventing vets from getting frustrated at having to carry team derp.

Alternatively, players could opt in to "help" carry lower level players like that if they opt in to play at higher levels. Then both know exactly what they're getting into and also get a bigger challenge (as some like this sort of thing)


Both of those provide players with more options, improve the game with relative ease, and make sense though so don't expect PGI to accept it any time soon.

Normally, I hate you and everyone that looks like you, but on this we agree.

Granted, I'm a solo queue only guy...I don't know what it's like in the Group Queue. I only hope it's half as bad.

It's all good. One thing that makes me smile, even a little, is that I still clear over 175k per match...win or lose. I can tell if my mouthbreathing team is going to make a Derp of it and go headhunter. Oh well. I'm good enough to still get 2 or 3 kills and at least 6 assists (assuming we actually kill 6). Thank god they got rid of the arty/air strike thing...I make more money with a well placed UAV now.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Willard Phule, on 03 September 2014 - 03:22 PM, said:

The problem with this is that you make it sound like completely unbalanced matches are infrequent but inevitable. They're not. They're CONSTANT. Constant meaning "every single match." At least in the solo queue they are.

I am not saying whether they are frequent or not, Just that they are bound to happen, and more often than one wants. its entirely impossible using an Elo system with a complex MM to be able to have perfect matches. This is why the simpler the game the easier. If ELO was the only thing the MM had to account we would see better results.

Willard Phule, on 03 September 2014 - 03:22 PM, said:

Ok, look at it through the eyes of a new player...not someone like me that hates being saddled with them.

First of all, it's EVERY SINGLE MATCH in the solo queue. It may only be one or two...or it may be ten. Either way, there are ALWAYS "fodder" players on each team. The winner is the team that carries it's bads the best.

In the eyes of a new player you would expect to be able to play at your level. Its no fun if you get stuck with Daimond player......err. srry my starcraft 2 days. So I do see what you are saying.

Willard Phule, on 03 September 2014 - 03:22 PM, said:

How can you say that?

It's their system. Their game. Their matchmaker. Their version of Elo. No, I hate to be the one to take a leak on your White Knight flag, but it's all PGI.

Look, it's fairly obvious to me that you simply don't play in the solo queue much. I'm happy that you're happy that the Group Queue is working well. Especially for you.

Come down in the gutter with us for a while. Play with the recent graduates of the Nooblering Academy. Try to carry 6-8 people that can't shoot unless they stand still and zoom in....or the LRM boats that refuse to do anything unless you lock targets for them and don't understand why you can't give them easy kills because the enemy has lots of ECM.

Dude. It is what it is, but don't defend PGI. They're the ones that designed this thing.

I am sorry I am not outright attack PGi for the sake of but sometimes things are not what they seem to be.

I do play solo, I was playing for at least an hour today and my matches reflect what I write. I do understand what your saying and it is a problem they have to deal with. However it is not an easy solution and From what I know no game has gotten it 100% down. I play MWO, SHOGUN 2 TOTAL WAR, STARCRAFT 2, ROME 2. None of their MM works perfectly but follows the ELO system. they have something In common, they dont have as complex a MM as MWO. Yes the more players the MM needs to match makes it harder but all they need to do is match players. You have to take into account the extra parameters the MWO MM has to follow.

It will take A champion mech if A. there is nothing else, B, its trying to match as fast as possible.

actually I can use the starcraft 2 MM as a good example. The MM just grabs people if their is nothing it can find that fits, the longer you are waiting the more it will loosen the restrictions.

I only refer to the MM as being complex for MWO because it takes into account more things than just ELO.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 03 September 2014 - 04:25 PM.