259 replies to this topic

[SgtKinCaiD]

Mawai, on 22 September 2014 - 01:27 PM, said:

I am sure there are lots of folks who can correct your misunderstanding.

The matchmaker does NOT insist on keeping you at a 1.0 W/L rate. NOT at all. In NO way shape or form.

What does the matchmaker do?

It TRYS (not always successfully) to put you in matches with more or less equally skilled team mates and opponents.

What does this mean? This means that your chances of winning or losing the match are about 50%. It is up to YOU (and your team) to actually win or lose. The matchmaker doesn't dictate anything. It doesn't give you a harder match on the next match after a win or an easier one after a loss. Your rating may or may not change after a match depending on what the expected outcome was and whether you fulfilled it or not. If you are expected to win or lose and you do ... your rating doesn't change. If you don't meet the expectations ... your rating changes and the maximum change in one match is 20 points ... I have no idea what the median change is but it is probably far less than this.

Furthermore, if you get better then you will tend to win more matches and your rating goes up until you are matched with players of comparable skill ... at which point you will find that you win about half.

I don't know if they have separate group and solo ratings now but it used to be that playing in a group would tend to drive up your rating due to the team work giving you wins ... then playing in the solo queue these folks would be handed a bunch of losses as their rating dropped since it was then based on individual and not group performance.

But the bottom line is that the matchmaker dictates nothing except the teams and map ... winning or losing is up to the players.

I do agree with you : the MM doesn't force a 1.0 W/L ratio. It tries to setup match where both team have a 50% chance of winnning.

Now the problem lies in what the current MM considers a fair match. Actually only the ELO sum up of each team is taken into account meaning that for the MM, a team A composed of 12 average ELO players is equivalent to team B compose of 4 average ELO players, 4 high ELO players and 4 low ELO players. But guess what ? It's a 12 vs 8 match. The 4 low ELO players are just here to be a hindrance to their team : they won't break 100 dmg but they will block allies lign of fire or allies movement. They are free kills for the ennemy.

If you read all the threads about the MM and the quality of match, it's the common factor : the MM is giving you teammates you have to carry. When you see the last post of Kiiyor about (C) trial mech, it's terrible, i don't understand why there are still put in regular match while they don't know how to drive a mech and won't understand why there are getting killed so easily.

That's why i asked several times to reintroduce ELO buckets : use the player ELO score to determine in which bucket he is and put him with and against players of the same bucket. While the ELO sum up of each team will not be as close as before, the match will be better balance because every player in both team will have roughly the same skill.

[Husker Adama]

SgtKinCaiD, on 22 September 2014 - 12:41 AM, said:

I voted NO because as Kamenjar said, this is the real problem : stop mixing veterans with new players in order to have an average ELO which is easier for the MM to work with.

PS : i forgot something : your ELO score should not be based on W/L only, it should take also your participation in the match (aka your match score) into account.

voted no for the same reason.

[Hillslam]

Russ, are we ever going to get to a place where we can definitively pick the map we drop to?

Asking as a customer who wants to enjoy the product they've paid for. Not as a competitive contestant, or a roleplayer, or lore historian, but as someone who wants to enjoy matches and who feels the map is the biggest factor to that (MM, ELO etch notwithstanding).

[Jacob Side]

Well from the look of how this vote is going we're going to lose the choice of picking what game type we like to play.
Good job guys

Edited by Jacob Side, 23 September 2014 - 08:04 AM.

[Bront]

geodeath, on 22 September 2014 - 07:27 PM, said:

There is, go back to pure ELO for matchmaking. 3/3/3/3 is ruining the game for all of us. This entire discussion is a direct result of forcing the 3/3/3/3 system on the community.

Nah, the 3/3/3/3 drop limit has some issues, but in general, I prefer that over getting matched to a team with 6 assaults with only 1 on my team, and it's asking for huge issues in the group queues (Imagine 12 Timberwolf drops)

[Bront]

I find it interesting the vote is 80% for yes, but the posts here are almost entirely people voting No.

I'm also saddened that most people hate conquest, and I do get it, conquest mode could use a little more love, and rewards need to be adjusted in all modes so Skirmish (my least liked mode for most maps) isn't the default cash farming mode.

[Jon Phoenix]

Why do we have to choose between game mode or a competitive match?

Why can't we have public lobbies where the players balance the matches on their own? Players could join a lobby, know what the game mode is, know what map is going to be played in the next match, and know whom they're playing (or choose not to play them). Just about every other multiplayer game uses a system like that. Surely, there has to be a way to make that work in this game.

I don't mind playing 12-man teams with a mixed team of smaller groups if the match is competitive. Random drops make the chance of the matches being competitive completely unknown. My unit has never fielded a 12-man (yet) but we've been in plenty of matches against 12-man teams and beaten them. Still, we do find ourselves against certain 10-12-man teams and we get stomped, as many here complain about (solidarity, brothers). I just think those stomps are entirely unnecessary unless players wish to take that risk. It might be nice to play against the same competitive 12-man team over and over with the same opfor in order to improve as players. Public lobbies can afford that experience. Give the players that choice and that control.

-Jon (adds $.02)

Edited by Jon Phoenix, 23 September 2014 - 10:19 AM.

[elengil]

If active player base is low enough that game type selection is preventing matches to be made then match maker has found its limit. Removing my ability to know what game type I am going to play should not have to be the solution. All that accomplishes is letting match maker consolidate too small pools of players to keep limping along. As it is I am NOT getting competitive matches and I do NOT appreciate loosing the little control I recently gained via game type selection.

This poll is a limited choice fallacy. That is why you are seeing the difference between the vote and the opinions expressed.

Provide the ability for lobbies and if you have to keep match maker around put it in the corner with a lamp shade over it. If someone still loves it fine, good luck with that. But stop trying to make it work. It has failed.

[Jemima]

For me it's just an irrelevant question - my answer to it is definately NO. That has nothing to do with my mode-preferences - mostly I play skirmish, but I like to choose my options - we only have 3 game modes and each one of them has its entitlement - but it absolutely makes no sense to take the possibility to choice out. Everybody's raging about the random maps, so why do you want random game modes? I don't understand that, and it makes thinking about the right configuration a joke. When I change the mode, I'll have to change your loadout, and I would do the same, if we could choose the map we're playing in.

[AZA311]

I voted NO

You cannot guarantee a competitive match but you can guarantee a game mode

[TWIAFU]

I do not envy you in your task of getting the MM to work so matches are fun and competitive.

However, until something changes with the game mode Conquest, I will never play it. Just HATE this game mode. Hate with a passion.

I do, however, appreciate the efforts you all are making in adjusting the MM and the communication.

[TWIAFU]

Bront, on 23 September 2014 - 08:11 AM, said:

Nah, the 3/3/3/3 drop limit has some issues, but in general, I prefer that over getting matched to a team with 6 assaults with only 1 on my team, and it's asking for huge issues in the group queues (Imagine 12 Timberwolf drops)

If the rule of threes was removed, it would be 12 v 12 Dire Whales and only the side that brought the most Whales would win.

The drop limit MUST stay.

[Mystere]

PUG queue, group queue, who the hell cares! Community Warfare should be where it's at.

And before I forget, here's my obligatory:

**** eSports

Edited by Mystere, 23 September 2014 - 10:00 AM.

[Sardauker Legion]

I still vote NO.

If you do change it, we need the possibility to choose mech AFTER we know game mode.
Instead of stripping the Random of the maps, put on random on Game Mode?
aaaaaaaaaAaAaAaAaAaAAAAAAAAAAA (Serious Sam: headless kamikaze)

[Jon Phoenix]

elengil, on 23 September 2014 - 08:57 AM, said:

Provide the ability for lobbies and if you have to keep match maker around put it in the corner with a lamp shade over it. If someone still loves it fine, good luck with that. But stop trying to make it work. It has failed.

The MM has definitely outlived its usefulness and practicality. MWO has grown beyond it a long time ago. I can't think of any viable means of giving solo, small group, and large group players what they desire through the MM system. I don't think there's any means of tweaking the MM so that it provides the experiences that all types of players are looking for. It's far too limited and would require such enormous complexity that's just not necessary.

[Voivode]

Gyrok, on 22 September 2014 - 08:29 AM, said:

See, I feel exactly the same about Conquest...I abhor conquest and I hope I never have to play it again...

Frankly, I hate assault as well.

I hate capping modes...they are boring and predictable.

If you HAVE to come kill me, then you will do so by engaging me, and not win by capping a base even though we killed most of your team, or by cap points because you had more/faster light mechs.

Where as if you can win by cap, then the modes default to the most crucial cap points on the map and have no other interesting or dynamic outcomes.

That's the theory for Skirmish but the reality is you may as well have all the mechs turn in their legs at the start of match cause aint nobody using 'em.

[Voivode]

TWIAFU, on 23 September 2014 - 09:52 AM, said:

I do not envy you in your task of getting the MM to work so matches are fun and competitive.

However, until something changes with the game mode Conquest, I will never play it. Just HATE this game mode. Hate with a passion.

I do, however, appreciate the efforts you all are making in adjusting the MM and the communication.

I feel the same way about Skirmish. I love conquest because both teams have no choice but to move. Skirmish is turtle up and poke at each other from range, nobody moves. My play style is mobile so as soon as the team goes to ground I won't accomplish a thing and even if my team wins, the match is unsatisfying.

[Thorn Hallis]

No.

If the MM ever puts me into Conquest I'll leave the match immediately, with a flying f' about the consequences.

[Creovex]

I voted yes in support of PULLING people from Conquest games and giving Skirmish and Assault more viable matches. However, pulling people into Conquest games will ruin the game mode.

I have seen it happen plenty where players get in a Conquest game and have ZERO desire to cap or play that style of tactical game and just skirmish thus ruining the game for the players who want to play that mode.

Bottom-line: Do NOT PULL players into Conquest games please.....

[Wildflame]

I am generally indifferent as to game mode, though I occasionally run assault/conquest when pugging and tend to join groups who run assault or assault/skirmish.

I do want to avoid a situation where I am never able to play conquest because the people who do want to play conquest are always being pulled to fill in spots in assault or skirmish matches. But I also understand that with limited population, switching from a hard opt-in to a vote system would increase the MM's flexibility.

As for map voting, I'd prefer it be three votes for or against, similar to SC2's veto system for maps, done at the front end. The MM would simply weight vetoed or voted maps differently in selecting a map, while not eliminating any maps from the rotation. That would hopefully prevent the excessive dropping on one or two maps that is a consequence of lobbies with "vote-for-out-of-three-choices". Halo:Reach and Sword Base... *shudder*

Making game mode vetoing premium-only is also an option. That way those who are supporting the game financially can exercise full choice, while those who are f2p will have to put up with the occasional drop on a gametype they dislike.

That said, the concern raised about people just disconnecting from drops they dislike is also pertinent. How would you deal with this?

It is probably worthwhile looking again at the rewards for assault and conquest matches (especially conquest). I think a lot of people play skirmish only partly because it ensures a big scrap, but more because if they're saving up for the Timber Wolf release for c-bills or a new module, all else being equal, people will select modes that have a higher payout for time invested. Try doubling conquest rewards, and you might find fewer people playing skirmish only. Increasing rewards for capping in assault might help too - with the interesting side effect that encouraging capping will also increase the prospect of a fun fight at one team's base.

Higher rewards in conquest/assault might also reduce the incentive to quit out of those matches.

Cap times are also an issue, especially in conquest. One thing that would help conquest would be to weight cap speed by mech class so larger mechs cap faster, compensating for their lower speed.

Edited by Wildflame, 23 September 2014 - 12:40 PM.