972 replies to this topic

[Victor Morson]

The big problems:

• ELO is not effective.At all. Because it is basing on win/loss in a team based environment, is is pretty much throwing a coin toss, unless you stick entirely with pre-made players to help each other keep a high ELO. A new player could take a locust into every match, die immediately, and would still have a very reasonable chance of ending on a positive ELO for the day.
  
• Weight Class matchmaking is not effective. All "heavies" are not equal. Not even all 70 tonners are equal. Matchmaker would be far better off matching based on a value determined from the player's equipment than ever even remotely considering ELO as a major factor.
  
• There is no way to select a variant after launch. Until the proposed feature where you can have four 'mechs ready and pick one once you realize the map/game mode occurs, some game modes will simply screw certain players if they come up, period. This feature would add more tactical depth (Ice planet? Hot mech! Hot planet? Cool mech!) but also allow for people to have a "conquest" 'mech handy if the matchmaker stays as is.

I really do emplore you to look at a complete re-thinking of your matchmaking system. It really is not hard to derrive a player value based on their 'mechs/weapons as the first priority, and to grouping teams of similar values together.


The artifical forcing of lights/mediums (rather than the natural one) is part of why there are so many problems.

Edited by Victor Morson, 07 October 2014 - 08:35 PM.

[That Guy]

ERMEGERHD! i haff to play a gahm mote that is only slighty different than the one i whant!

seriously dudes, you realize you can just kill all the things anyway right? thats like how 90% of all matches end anyway (and its only 90% because capping in assault is so damn rare)

[Darian DelFord]

Yeah, this poll is only 1 question eh?

[Mech79]

What about puting a note up when first signing into mechlab that lets people know this Poll is available.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Again....

Wouldnt an in game poll be better than polling the admitted minority as to where the game should go?

[Shredhead]

I have not seen any improvement whatsoever on the quality of matches in group queue. On the other hand we had more conquest games than usual (mode select on any). So, if it helps someone else maybe a little, just keep it.

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 07 October 2014 - 08:37 PM, said:

Again....

Wouldnt an in game poll be better than polling the admitted minority as to where the game should go?

Dude, they're working on it already, how often does he have to repeat this? Don't you have any patience?

Edited by Shredhead, 07 October 2014 - 08:39 PM.

[PappySmurf]

Victor said (The big problems:

• ELO is not effective.At all. Because it is basing on win/loss in a team based environment, is is pretty much throwing a coin toss, unless you stick entirely with pre-made players to help each other keep a high ELO. A new player could take a locust into every match, die immediately, and would still have a very reasonable chance of ending on a positive ELO for the day.
  
• Weight Class matchmaking is not effective. All "heavies" are not equal. Not even all 70 tonners are equal. Matchmaker would be far better off matching based on a value determined from the player's equipment than ever even remotely considering ELO as a major factor.
  
• There is no way to select a variant after launch. Until the proposed feature where you can have four 'mechs ready and pick one once you realize the map/game mode occurs, some game modes will simply screw certain players if they come up, period. This feature would add more tactical depth (Ice planet? Hot mech! Hot planet? Cool mech!) but also allow for people to have a "conquest" 'mech handy if the matchmaker stays as is.

I really do emplore you to look at a complete re-thinking of your matchmaking system. It really is not hard to derrive a player value based on their 'mechs/weapons as the first priority, and to grouping teams of similar values together.



The artifical forcing of lights/mediums (rather than the natural one) is part of why there are so many problems)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


OMG me and my brother have been saying this for almost 3 years and someone understood us on this one idea !!!!

OMG I think im going to cry im so happy someone else has the same opinion.

Edited by PappySmurf, 07 October 2014 - 08:38 PM.

[Kiiyor]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 07 October 2014 - 08:14 PM, said:

*screams* IPBOARD!!!! *runs back in with a ratchet to resolve this*

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 07 October 2014 - 08:26 PM, said:

... (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

[Darth Futuza]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 07 October 2014 - 08:37 PM, said:

Again....

Wouldnt an in game poll be better than polling the admitted minority as to where the game should go?

That'd require a patch, one on the launcher would not though! Hooray for RSS feeds!

[Russ Bullock]

Victor Morson, on 07 October 2014 - 08:32 PM, said:

The big problems:

• ELO is not effective.At all. Because it is basing on win/loss in a team based environment, is is pretty much throwing a coin toss, unless you stick entirely with pre-made players to help each other keep a high ELO. A new player could take a locust into every match, die immediately, and would still have a very reasonable chance of ending on a positive ELO for the day.
  
• Weight Class matchmaking is not effective. All "heavies" are not equal. Not even all 70 tonners are equal. Matchmaker would be far better off matching based on a value determined from the player's equipment than ever even remotely considering ELO as a major factor.
  
• There is no way to select a 'mech after launch. Until the proposed feature where you can have four 'mechs ready and pick one once you realize the map/game mode occurs, some game modes will simply screw certain players if they come up, period. This feature would add more tactical depth (Ice planet? Hot mech! Hot planet? Cool mech!) but also allow for people to have a "conquest" 'mech handy if the matchmaker stays as is.

I really do emplore you to look at a complete re-thinking of your matchmaking system. It really is not hard to derrive a player value based on their 'mechs/weapons as the first priority, and to grouping teams of similar values together.


The artifical forcing of lights/mediums (rather than the natural one) is part of why there are so many problems.

I don't disagree on the ELO win/loss aspect - I have never liked it. I am more of a player that might get 400-500 damage and 8 assists but rarely get a kill. I am not really rewarded in game for what I feel in many matches is above average play yet when I lose my ELO goes down. Something in discussions for a long while yet. Time in our only enemy.

The weight classes are actually matching up to a fairly large degree, at least the MM tries. It won't wait around for it, but if the MM has a 75 ton mech it will indeed look to see if there is one for the other side. This aspect works fairly well in the solo queue in fact our tonnage difference per team averages very low like ~20 tons difference.

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 07 October 2014 - 08:37 PM, said:

Again....

Wouldnt an in game poll be better than polling the admitted minority as to where the game should go?

Yes I don't have that functionality yet. I also do not want to remove any resources from CW to accommodate this poll. We need to live like this for a while longer.

[Jman5]

How is this a debate? Do what you have to do to make Elo close.

Keep it as it currently is.

[Sir Roland MXIII]

Gratz on breaking the last Poll Niko...

Said it before I'll say it again. Polls as critical as this are absolutely pointless on the Forums - they absolutely NEED to be in-game polls so people who don't even know there's things like this on the forums, much less where to find them, can put their votes in. I mean for the love of God, start asking the actual PLAYERS for info like this rather than just the forumites.

Note that I am not discriminating against forumites, they are just a minority and talking to JUST them get's you nothing but knee-jerk reactions like this poll rather than a viable cross-reference of the PLAYERBASE.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Russ Bullock, on 07 October 2014 - 08:39 PM, said:

I don't disagree on the ELO win/loss aspect - I have never liked it. I am more of a player that might get 400-500 damage and 8 assists but rarely get a kill. I am not really rewarded in game for what I feel in many matches is above average play yet when I lose my ELO goes down. Something in discussions for a long while yet. Time in our only enemy.

The weight classes are actually matching up to a fairly large degree, at least the MM tries. It won't wait around for it, but if the MM has a 75 ton mech it will indeed look to see if there is one for the other side. This aspect works fairly well in the solo queue in fact our tonnage difference per team averages very low like ~20 tons difference.



Yes I don't have that functionality yet. I also do not want to remove any resources from CW to accommodate this poll. We need to live like this for a while longer.

Im kind of thinking that ppl werent quite realizing what you were asking as far as this idea and so failed to select what they really wanted OR never saw the poll in the first place because they play the game but dont play the forums. There needs to be a way for those other ppl to know these things exist and/or have in game polls instead of just having them here

[Rufus Ingram]

Monky, on 07 October 2014 - 08:23 PM, said:

POLLPOCALYPSE 2014

I vote yes under the assumption we're talking group queue only. Group queue needs tighter elo somehow, even if it means having to put up with conquest every now and then. The wording is unclear on the question if this is what is meant however, I don't support the voting for solo queue since it isn't evidenced to improve elo spread.

This poll is addressing solo and group queues.

[Mystere]

That Guy, on 07 October 2014 - 08:35 PM, said:

ERMEGERHD! i haff to play a gahm mote that is only slighty different than the one i whant!

seriously dudes, you realize you can just kill all the things anyway right? thats like how 90% of all matches end anyway (and its only 90% because capping in assault is so damn rare)

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

[VanillaG]

If this gets reverted, please make it so a player/team can only exclude ONE game mode. That way they can be matched on the 2 other modes.

[Sovery_Simple]

Random Wanderer, on 07 October 2014 - 08:27 PM, said:

I have not seen any measurable proof that this actually gives us a more balanced match experience. I have encountered just as many stomps after this was implemented as I did before. However, I think most people are coming in here and voting yes simply because it says it will improve ELO, and not caring what it has to do to do so. It could be "would you give us all your money, sacrifice your firstborn child, and shove your genitals into a meat-grinder in order to improve ELO" and I believe a large number of people would say yes, because they don't pay any attention to anything other than the words "in order to improve ELO."

This is a very strange method to go about trying to improve ELO: a proper tier system based on player statistics would be far more effective. And this change causes a great many more problems than the one thing it is ostensibly trying to fix. A player in a Dire Wolf could, would, and has suddenly be forced to drop into Conquest, where they are completely useless. The rest of their team will abandon them, and the player will die when the other team comes upon them in a horde.

Along that line of thought, when players find themselves in a game mode that they cannot enjoy, the immediate (and in my opinion, proper) response is to simply not play it. Yet we are threatened with banning if we do so. You call it griefing. I'm sorry, but we are not just logging in and then leaving to try and earn XP or c-bills, nor are we doing it to just laugh at a team who is now short one player. We are legitimately trying to play something we can enjoy, yet you are forcing us to essentially torture ourselves. And if we try to leave so that we can try again to play the game we actually like, you threaten to kick us out forever. We are not griefing people. You, sirs, are griefing us!

Already have you quoted above in like the fourth post guy, no worries.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Sir Roland MXIII, on 07 October 2014 - 08:41 PM, said:

Gratz on breaking the last Poll Niko...

Said it before I'll say it again. Polls as critical as this are absolutely pointless on the Forums - they absolutely NEED to be in-game polls so people who don't even know there's things like this on the forums, much less where to find them, can put their votes in. I mean for the love of God, start asking the actual PLAYERS for info like this rather than just the forumites.

Note that I am not discriminating against forumites, they are just a minority and talking to JUST them get's you nothing but knee-jerk reactions like this poll rather than a viable cross-reference of the PLAYERBASE.

Russ Bullock, on 07 October 2014 - 08:21 PM, said:

We had a little over 10K people opt in to the tournament. As we know a majority of players do not come to the forums.

They know that too

Russ Bullock, on 07 October 2014 - 08:39 PM, said:

Yes I don't have that functionality yet. I also do not want to remove any resources from CW to accommodate this poll. We need to live like this for a while longer.

so why is this poll a thing?

If it cant be fixed due to CW bottleneck, then why are we voting? For after CW?

[VanillaG]

Russ Bullock, on 07 October 2014 - 08:39 PM, said:

Yes I don't have that functionality yet. I also do not want to remove any resources from CW to accommodate this poll. We need to live like this for a while longer.

Could you make it like one the adds that pop up before you launch the game? That would at least drive some traffic to the forum so people could vote.

[Kiiyor]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 07 October 2014 - 08:37 PM, said:

Again....

Wouldnt an in game poll be better than polling the admitted minority as to where the game should go?

+1! Vote for Pedro?



I think it would be a nice addition after CW, especially seeing how mind-blowingly awesome the new spirit of dev communication is.