125 replies to this topic

[Einaescherin]

3*4 player grps vs 12 player grp
or
10player grp + 2 player grp vs 4 *3player grps

Is it to difficult to make the teams even in the matchmaker?
Then don't implement futures your not able to handle!
4 times in a row get rapped by a 12 player grp cuz of low developer skill is disgusting!!!

[Monkey Lover]

Destructicus, on 21 September 2014 - 12:17 PM, said:

You blame the devs because you lost?

Most the time I blame my team , tell them they suck and then jump out the window

[Bront]

Sometimes? Yes.

If after 3 minutes (estimate on my part) there's only 1 10 man team in queue, the matchmaker starts to do it's best.

I've been in a 4 man vs a 12 man (and won). It happens on occasion. Usually, the group sizes are similar.

[JackPoint]

Anyone actually thought it might be the player base that's shrinking, ergo you will get 12man drops versus pugs or 2-3 player unit drops. That's my theory anyway after todays few games, 12 games 1 win.

[Mawai]

Organize your team better ... it can be done.

There is another similar thread on this topic. The issue is really how long should the matchmaker wait to fit two large groups against each other. Is there a 12 man, 9man and 3 man with the CORRECT mech and ELO values in the queue at the present time? It is a jigsaw puzzle that gets harder to put together the larger the groups are. Personally, I think large groups should have a larger time window for match formation in order to try to match large groups against each other preferentially ...

However, it gets MUCH harder to find matched weight class groups for large groups ...

A 12 is automatically 3/3/3/3 ... while a 10 lacks two mechs and to form a 12, they need 2 more mechs of specific weight classes that are also grouped ... how long do you need to wait to get a group of 2 with the needed specifications? Never mind the ELO. On the other hand, maybe the matchmaker should take any group of 2 that is at or above the missing weight classes ... though that again leaves out ELO.

Anyway, it isn't an easy problem ... personally, I think the large groups should have to wait longer and should be able to settle for less even matches depending on what is available in the queue. The matchmaker should try to avoid 12 vs 3x4 ... but if that is all that is available within the time window then that is what will happen.

[Mech79]

OMG you lose so you don't blame your teammates for not working together. Instead you cry and blame the Devs. I have played in a 2 man and won the match when score was 10-4. We played properly and worked as a team to kill the other team. Matchmaking works well, a little slow but just fine for me. What we need in in game chat for communications for such a case you are talking about. Make the odds a little better in a teams favor when small separate groups are involved.

[Mawai]

Jackpoint, on 21 September 2014 - 12:35 PM, said:

Anyone actually thought it might be the player base that's shrinking, ergo you will get 12man drops versus pugs or 2-3 player unit drops. That's my theory anyway after todays few games, 12 games 1 win.

You don't get 12 man drops vs pugs anymore ... they split the solo and group queues ... you will get 12s vs some number of groups ... but every person on both teams is in some kind of group.

[JackPoint]

yeh that Mawa, thx for clearing my mistake up:)

[STEF_]

I think it should be an easy solution to implement 4 vs 4 or 8 vs 8 group matches

[Jonny Taco]

While the OPs post is a little... Rough? I certainly agree that 12 mans should not be fighting 3x 4 man lances. IMO the matchmaker should have a hard limit on which groups fight each other within the group que. The ideal goal would be for 12 mans to fight other 12 mans and in the case another 12 man is not searching, the mm looks for a 10 man and a 2 man.

Edited by lartfor, 21 September 2014 - 05:18 PM.

[Einaescherin]

Destructicus, on 21 September 2014 - 12:17 PM, said:

You blame the devs because you lost?

Don't you realize the matchmaker is fail? ....okay

Destructicus, on 21 September 2014 - 12:17 PM, said:

You lost not "cuz of low developer skill"

No **** Sherlock????

Destructicus, on 21 September 2014 - 12:17 PM, said:

You lost because you group probably sucked.

And who mad this groups pairing? There is a Rating .... try to find it out of your own....

Destructicus, on 21 September 2014 - 12:17 PM, said:

You should complain more, that'll fix it.

Noone would belive that you could fix anything.....

But you can add youtube videos to your posts... awesome, you recive 10 Trollpoints for this.

Edited by Einaescherin, 21 September 2014 - 01:15 PM.

[IceSerpent]

Einaescherin, on 21 September 2014 - 12:08 PM, said:

3*4 player grps vs 12 player grp
or
10player grp + 2 player grp vs 4 *3player grps

Is it to difficult to make the teams even in the matchmaker?
Then don't implement futures your not able to handle!
4 times in a row get rapped by a 12 player grp cuz of low developer skill is disgusting!!!

No, it's not difficult. The way it should work is to only match large team vs. large team within a given threshold. For example (assuming threshold of 2):

Groups in the queue: 12-man, 10-man, 2 x 6-man, 2 x 4-man, 2 x 2-man
Matching:
- take the largest group, check if we have a match (second largest one) within threshold - we do (12 and 10)
- put largest group into team A and matching one into team B - we have 12 v 10 at the moment
- fill second group with the first 2-man and we're done (12 vs. 10 + 2).

What if we don't have a matching second largest group? I.e. no 10-man in the previous example.

Groups in the queue: 12-man, 2 x 6-man, 1 x 4-man, 4 x 2-man
Matching:
- take the largest group, check if we have a match (second largest one) within threshold - we don't (12 - 6 > 2)
- skip the the largest group (leave it in the queue), start with second largest (I'll call it "largest" from now on) - we have a match (6 and 6)
- put largest group into team A and matching one into team B - we have 6 v 6 at the moment
- fill team A with a next largest group - we have 4-man, now we're at 10 (6+4) v 6
- fill team B with a next largest group , we have 2-man - now we're at 10 (6+4) v 8 (6 + 2)
- fill team A with a next largest group - we have another 2-man, now we're at 12 (6+4+2) v 8 (6+2) and team A is good to go
- fill team B with a next largest group - we have another 2-man, now we're at 12 (6+4+2) v 10 (6+2+2)
- fill team B with a next largest group - we have another 2-man, now we're at 12 (6+4+2) v 12 (6+2+2+2), we're done.

To summarize the algorithm:

The "core" (largest) teams on each side are always within the given threshold.
The remaining slots on both teams are filled with the largest group that fits there, alternating between teams - add group to team A, then add group to Team B, the n add group to team A, etc.
Smaller teams get the fastest MM, as they can be added to larger groups and can be the "core" themselves (if the largest team in the queue is 4-man, it becomes a "core").
Larger teams may have to wait for another sufficiently large team to get into the queue.
Scenario where 12-man is matched against 6 x 2-man can never happen, the worst discrepancy can be the "filler" part ending up with 6-man on one side and 3 x 2-man on the other when "core" is 6-man vs. 6-man.

The difficult part is to convince PGI to implement someting like this.

[Tezcatli]

I believe a dev addressed the issue. And they're going to try to improve it.

[CocoaJin]

Einaescherin, on 21 September 2014 - 12:08 PM, said:

3*4 player grps vs 12 player grp
or
10player grp + 2 player grp vs 4 *3player grps

Is it to difficult to make the teams even in the matchmaker?
Then don't implement futures your not able to handle!
4 times in a row get rapped by a 12 player grp cuz of low developer skill is disgusting!!!

Sometimes you have to accept that the MM has to do the best it can with the queued groups available at the time. In the meantime, recruit more people, make more friends, play in bigger groups...I'm not saying this as if it's easy...just what needs to be done on your part to improve your experience. Or you can just suck it up and take on the challenge like a man.

[IceSerpent]

CocoaJin, on 21 September 2014 - 01:43 PM, said:

Sometimes you have to accept that the MM has to do the best it can with the queued groups available at the time. .

Except that current MM is nowhere close to "doing the best it can".

[Mawai]

IceSerpent, on 21 September 2014 - 02:19 PM, said:

Except that current MM is nowhere close to "doing the best it can".

Interesting.

I haven't seen any numbers on group drop rate
I haven't seen any numbers on the number of groups of various sizes dropping at different times of the day
I haven't seen any numbers on selected game modes for groups
I haven't seen any numbers on large group drop rates
I haven't seen any numbers on the mech class distribution in groups
I haven't seen any numbers on the ELO distribution in groups
I don't have any idea how the release valves work in group match making ... whether it can relax mech composition, ELO, or groups size for opposing teams, which of these gets released and how fast.

However ... this is all the information needed to make a judgement about whether the current matchmaker "is doing the best it can".

Since, in order to make this statement, you MUST have these numbers ... can you pass them along to the rest of us? I really want to know whether the matchmaker is doing the best it can given the state of the queues at any given time and the desire to limit wait times. Please post the numbers for the rest of us

[Mawai]

IceSerpent, on 21 September 2014 - 01:16 PM, said:

No, it's not difficult. The way it should work is to only match large team vs. large team within a given threshold. For example (assuming threshold of 2):

Groups in the queue: 12-man, 10-man, 2 x 6-man, 2 x 4-man, 2 x 2-man
Matching:
- take the largest group, check if we have a match (second largest one) within threshold - we do (12 and 10)
- put largest group into team A and matching one into team B - we have 12 v 10 at the moment
- fill second group with the first 2-man and we're done (12 vs. 10 + 2).

What if we don't have a matching second largest group? I.e. no 10-man in the previous example.

Groups in the queue: 12-man, 2 x 6-man, 1 x 4-man, 4 x 2-man
Matching:
- take the largest group, check if we have a match (second largest one) within threshold - we don't (12 - 6 > 2)
- skip the the largest group (leave it in the queue), start with second largest (I'll call it "largest" from now on) - we have a match (6 and 6)
- put largest group into team A and matching one into team B - we have 6 v 6 at the moment
- fill team A with a next largest group - we have 4-man, now we're at 10 (6+4) v 6
- fill team B with a next largest group , we have 2-man - now we're at 10 (6+4) v 8 (6 + 2)
- fill team A with a next largest group - we have another 2-man, now we're at 12 (6+4+2) v 8 (6+2) and team A is good to go
- fill team B with a next largest group - we have another 2-man, now we're at 12 (6+4+2) v 10 (6+2+2)
- fill team B with a next largest group - we have another 2-man, now we're at 12 (6+4+2) v 12 (6+2+2+2), we're done.

To summarize the algorithm:

The "core" (largest) teams on each side are always within the given threshold.
The remaining slots on both teams are filled with the largest group that fits there, alternating between teams - add group to team A, then add group to Team B, the n add group to team A, etc.
Smaller teams get the fastest MM, as they can be added to larger groups and can be the "core" themselves (if the largest team in the queue is 4-man, it becomes a "core").
Larger teams may have to wait for another sufficiently large team to get into the queue.
Scenario where 12-man is matched against 6 x 2-man can never happen, the worst discrepancy can be the "filler" part ending up with 6-man on one side and 3 x 2-man on the other when "core" is 6-man vs. 6-man.

The difficult part is to convince PGI to implement someting like this.

LOL

You know ... this is pretty much exactly how the group matchmaker already works

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3696769

However, the group matchmaker is not just doing group size but mech weight class balancing and ELO as well. When these other factors are included the process is not nearly as simple in terms of what groups are available in the queue. Do you make matching large groups the priority and ignore ELO and mech class?

Is a high ELO 12 man better against a low-ELO 10 man and a random 2 man group or against 3 high ELO 4 man lances?

[Project_Mercy]

The MM works OK, other than it's a bit too eager to loosen restrictions to speed up matches so you can get to being rolled faster by 12-mans.

The larger issue has to do with how ELO is computed and/or used. I'm not sure what the calcuation does, but it appears to be based loosely off KDR and W/L and damage done. Which means if you're a newer player, not only do you have to deal with the "Tax" which is everyone else using strikes and UAVS every single match and having elited out mechs while you have some crap mech with no modules, in addition if you accidentally do well for a few games, you spend the next 2 weeks in hell.

Time played and total XP across all mechs/GXP should be the largest determinate. Newer players should be matched with newer players, and veterans should be matched with veterans.

As it is, right now I get stuck in matches with people playing for 2 years. Despite my founder's tag, I've only actually been playing for two weeks. So I basically get the "priviledge" of losing over and over and over and over again because a.) I'm not that good and b.) because the game is CONVINCED I'm awesome because the ELO calculations somehow place me on par with people from Lords, 226, ACES, etc.

And if losing repeatedly wasn't "fun" enough, I get the extra bonus of getting insulting comments directed at me from all the veterans. And honestly, they're probably justified in their anger (if not maybe the verbage), because why am I even in their games?

For a game that has on-boarding issues, let me suggest that getting yelled at every single match and losing repeatedly does NOT really entice someone to want to spend money on your game.

Edited by Wraeththix Constantine, 21 September 2014 - 03:45 PM.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

I ran into a 12 man team, twice in a row.

Beat them twice as a pug in the solo queue.

I'm surprised they didn't make a thread complaining about the matchmaker pitting their 12 man team against a team with me on it.

Because, that's so unfair man!

[Mystere]

That's the problem when people very loudly demand "fair" and "balanced" matchmaking based on a whole set of parameters ... in a game that does not have the numbers to support such demands.

Just imagine how long wait times would be if people's extremely loud demands for the inclusion of ECM and LRM in the matchmaker is taken in consideration.

Edited by Mystere, 21 September 2014 - 04:10 PM.