198 replies to this topic

[Eddrick]

Praetor Knight, on 08 October 2014 - 11:02 PM, said:

But yeah, by variant would be best, I wonder what amount of coding that could take to get that going.

Depends a little on how it is written. It can be as easy as changing one variable to include all variants or have to write it out for each variant, individually.

I would hope, it's the former. The later shows it was not made to allow change.

[Soulscour]

How many more bad assault pilots do you really need to watch to realize that a Battle Value system is no where near better than a elo system which I admit is not perfect.

[L Y N X]

Karl Streiger, on 08 October 2014 - 11:04 PM, said:

Anyhow - Matchscore is not a good mark - for efficency - quite the oppostie to be efficent means you automatically get lower matchscore - because a huge chunk of matchscore is damage dealt.
You can shoot with 1 LRM 20 at 12 targets - and your matchscore is would be bigger as shooting as hitting 3 targets with 4 gauss rounds each in the CT.

Match score is not perfect but if PGI were to change MM from ELO to Average Match score then it would be much, much easier task to change how match score is calculated to account for efficiency better. Such as figuring % of damage done to a mech to kill it, and total damage to kill a mech vs the size. Extra Points for headshots etc... Much easier to tweak on PGI's end w/o any patching. You cannot work ELO that way. And you make some great points why ELO is not a good solution for team Match Making.

Edited by 7ynx, 08 October 2014 - 11:18 PM.

[Fire and Salt]

Actually, ELO works quite well in this game - perhaps too well *more on that later.

Every few days I seem to see someone suggesting a different way of calculating player skill, rather than basing it off of wins and losses.

The most common argument seems to be of the form:
"I did 900 damage, but we lost - why should my ELO go down."
or the converse:
"Someone does 10 damage but their team wins, why should their ELO go up"



Well, what the matchmaker is trying to make a game where each team has a fairly equal chance of winning.
Guess what predicts future wins best: Past wins. That's right, I said it.

Given a large enough sample size, actual wins will predict future wins better than any ridiculously complex formula that you could even dream of building.

Consider the badass NARC mech, who can turn the tide of a battle while dealing a mere 100 damage. But it's not just the NARC assists, its more. This little badass narcs the biggest threat. Not just the most dangerous mech, or the most dangerous pilot - but a true reading of all the factors. Its not the (NARC assist damage) * (Enemy Player ELO rating) ratio, its better than that. He knows that even the most notorious badass of a pilot may not be the biggest threat when they are in a build not suited to the map. He knows enemy psychology too. Enemy players fall off the hill in fear, almost as if the narc was stuck directly to their fragile egos.
Now tell me, how the hell are you going to calculate this based on his average damage of a couple hundred per match?
I'll tell you how - he wins all the time. Hes so damn good that LRM noobs break their own personal best just by virtue of his presence.
You can tell because whenever he is around, the red team seems to crumble and fail.

What about the pilot that boldly charges in and causes chaos behind enemy lines. Sure, her Jenner often gets toasted early on, and she is seldom the last one alive... but how many mechs get shot in the back by the assault mechs on her team, because they were fixated on the jenner instead of the 500 tons of mechs just behind a ridge.
Is she the same as the other pilot who averages the same 350 a game by hiding until then end and cleaning up damaged mechs? How do you quantify her skill?
Maybe is the fact that any team with her on it is that much more likely to win.

What about that basass sniper who does clean damage, and only clean damage? You know this guy. He's the one who shoots the leg off your stormcrow with 3 back to back gauss shots. Funny thing is, he doesn't finish you. He's above that, and he knows it. There are plenty of scrubs on the team with bad aim that will be totally sufficient to finish off a 'crow with a broken wing. He's never killed a stick mech unless its the only target in sight, either, except that ******* that was spotting him. Is he not as good as the bullet-hose wielding pilot next to him, who spreads damage all over and overheats to kill an unarmed 'mech while another enemy decimates his nearby teammate? They score similar damage, and have similar numbers of kills and deaths, even though the other player steals his kills and hides to protect his KDR. How can you mathematically separate these pilots?
You can tell easily. The Sniper... HE WINS!





Now granted, if your first match is a 900 pointer and you lose, it would probably be safe to say that you are better than someone who won with 100. But this is an extremely temporary phenomenon which basically disappears once there is a sufficient sample size.

Something like this could probably be implemented to help slightly speed the convergence of a newly joined player to their actual ELO score. But it could only make things worse for us seasoned vets with 100s of games in each weight class.

Same thing for weight classes - nothing predicts assault performance like assault performance, but for the 2.0 win/loss ratio heavy pilot, it would probably be safe to assume that his first match in an assault 'mech will be a little more impressive than the average pilots first foray into the 80+ ton range.

But get 100 assault samples under the pilots belt, and you will have an even better idea. Certainly it is doubtful that the assault 'Mech tourney champion will be an inept noob in any chassis, but light mechs might not be his thing.







Unfortuately, unified ELO across a weight class is the cause to the issue where good players feel that they NEED to take "carry mechs".
ELO is expecting them to be a major force in the game... unfortunately, when your ELO is based on a Banshee, bad things might happen to your team when you step down to an awesome.

I know I feel this one when I try to pilot my X5. ELO, let me assure you that your expectations for me are perhaps a bit high.

There is, however, a reason that ELO is tracked for 4 classes rather than for each chassis. It helps resolve the problem of needing a large-ish sample size for a bunch of different mechs, which would add unwanted variation. Also, consider the case of a new pilot who starts off in a Shadowhawk, and then puts it away for awhile while grinding his X5. By the time he goes back to the Shadowhawk, not only is he far more skilled, but his shadowhawk actually has a lower ELO than his X5. All the sudden he thinks he has found the greatest shadowhawk build ever... until ELO catches up.

The best solution to this would perhaps be to implement some sort of modifier to ELO based on chassis weight relative to the weight class.

The purpose is to acknowlege that the following is not actually a fair matchup:

Team A: (Heavy ELO 1300 pilot in a Cataphract + Heavy ELO 500 pilot in a Dragon) total 130 tons, 1800 ELO
vs.
Team B: (Heavy ELO 500 pilot in a Cataphract + Heavy ELO 1300 pilot in a Dragon) total 130 tons, 1800 ELO

Team A is going to win more often, because the Cataphract is more likely to be an influential mech.


But what if the dragon multiplied elo by .8 since it is a lightweight in its size bracket?

Team A: (Heavy ELO 1300 pilot in a Cataphract + Heavy ELO 500 pilot in a Dragon adjusted to ) total 130 tons, 1700 ADJUSTED ELO
vs.
Team B: (Heavy ELO 500 pilot in a Cataphract + Heavy ELO 1300 pilot in a Dragon) total 130 tons, 1540 ADJUSTED ELO

Now that the matchmaker is actually making a better guess - it may realize that there is actually a closer match available.







Another thing is that people view 12-0 games as beling a blatant indicator of a matchmaker failure.
I just want to point out: I have been in a 12 man and wiped another team 12-0, and we get matched against them again in the very next match and it comes down to a 1v1 duel at the end. MWO is no respawn, failures cascade.

Also, in the group queue there is the additional concern that the "closest match" may not be that close at all.







And here comes the *

ELO has actually been bouncing around in my head a lot in the last few days.

I signed up for the last tournament, with no intention of trying to win. I had a lot of stuff to do over the weekend, but I signed up just for the chance to earn 10million cbills.
Getting 20 qualifying wins actually took me quite some time. Well, I was toying around in my Cicada X5 which is by no means a mdium class tournament winner... and I tried some CTF-4X builds thatI wanted to test... jumped over to a Dire for a few games and then played a decent amount in a Timberwolf just so I could be sure to get my 20 qualifying games.
It wasn't terribly difficult to get qualifying wins but it took maybe 10 total hours of gaming over the weekend... I had a lot of good games that ended in a loss...



On monday night I decided to try and use the tourney to grind some cbills to spend on a blood officer account (which had a total of 0 games so far) FYI, if you see a blood officer account, they are basically used by clans that conduct anonymous trial duels, etc. because MWO does not allow you to hide names, even in private lobbies. There are actually a lot of these floating around... I know because the first one I tried to sign up for was actually taken! (And no, it wasnt something obvious like Blood Officer 007)

Here is a timeline of events for that night as best as I can recall:
Game 1: Trial Nova - WIN - see a bunch of players I never heard of. Get the Hat Trick Acheivement.
Game 2: Trial Nova - WIN - see a bunch of players I never heard of
Game 3: Trial Nova - WIN - see a bunch of players I never heard of
Game 4: Trial Nova - WIN - see a bunch of players I never heard of. I actually ot blowed up on this one. Spectate an Ember pilot who doesn't seem to know how to use his arms. He machine guns a kitfox, but he's lasering the dirt. Again. And again. LOL.
Game 5: Trial Nova - WIN - see maybe a few players I have seen with my main account, but no-one of 'legenday' status
Game 6: Trial Nova - WIN - see maybe a few players I have seen with my main account, but no-one of 'legenday' status
Game 7: Trial Nova - WIN - see maybe a few players I have seen with my main account, but no-one of 'legenday' status
Game 8: Trial Nova - WIN - see maybe a few players I have seen with my main account, but no-one of 'legenday' status
Game 9: Trial Nova - WIN - see maybe a few players I have seen with my main account, but no-one of 'legenday' status
Game 10: Trial Nova - WIN - see a player who actually got 1st in this tourney
Game 11: Trial Nova - WIN - by this point I have gotten 7 qualifying wins, see first Lord
Game 12: Trial Nova - I think this was the first loss. Abandon my attempt to get knight errant (25 games) with all wins. Resume BANZAI style of gameplay. (True story about Fire and Salt... if the team doesn't push, I get bored and go and die alone. Save 5 minute sandoffs for league play. Yea, I'm undisiplied, sue me.)
...
Game ~15: See a few players that are epicly skilled. See first SJR. Feel a lot better about the guy I saw in game 10. Acually, the playerset looks like one that I may actually see with my main account.
Game ~16: More Noobs - OK, so I clearly don't have as high of an ELO as I do on my main account, but I atleast have as high of an ELO as someone I might actually see from my main account.
...
Game ~18: Get the bad company acheivement. Yep, still facing occasional teams of noobs who can't aim, but I am now occasionally seeing high ELO players (Who are probably thinking: oh, look, scrubs! upon looking at the player list. Scrubs being relative, of course.)
...
Game ~21: Trial Nova - WIN - by this point I have gotten around 10 qualifying wins, and my total losses are now up to 3 or 4
Game ~22: Buy A Nova
Game ~25: Pimp Nova out, at this point I probably have 11ish qualifying wins.
...
Game ~27: Forget that I switched back to the trial nova. Alphastrike on my very first shot of the game. Die before powering up with about 75 damage (which was all done to a summoners CT, who was noobishly standing still. But who am I to judge LOL.)
...
Game ~29: Remember mid-game that I am aupposed to use an ERLL to farm assists
Game ~30: Qualifying win. Use ERLL to farm assists. 2k 10a or something like that.
Game ~31: Qualifying win. Use ERLL to farm assists.
...
Game ~33: Qualifying win. Use ERLL to farm assists.
...
Game ~35: Qualifying win. Use ERLL to farm assists. Realize that I cracked the top 100 in mediums in slightly less than 3 hours of gameplay. Apologies to anyone I knocked down a slot... Vow to complain about ELOs impact on tournaments. Decide that I will start farming cbills with a different mech if I get to close to the top 15. Don't want to knock someone off the bord who isn't in easy mode.
Game ~35: Make noob mistake. Get pwned. Screw it, go to bed, feeling just a little dirty. Ended up with 15 qualifying wins... mostly in a trial mech. Finished in 65th place for a measly 3:00 of gameplay (in game time) with a score of just over 1900





My conclusion is that ELO actually converges reasonably quickly. For the case of tourneys, however, it is unreasonably slow. I knew that tourneys were slightly unfair to high ELO players, but I didn't realize it was so blatant.

For the sake of tourneys, all players that opted in need to get thrown in one big bin together. Form the matches such that the best players are mixed in with the noobs as far as the 24 total players go and THEN try to balance by ELO.

Basically what we have now is:
Total ELO 2000 team vs Total ELO 2000, noobs all around
and
Total ELO 8000 team vs Total ELO 8000, vets all around
This is BAD

For tournaments those same 48 players need to be suffled so that its:
Total ELO 5000 team vs Total ELO 5000, each team is a mix of noobs alongside vets
and
Total ELO 5000 team vs Total ELO 5000, each team is a mix of noobs alongside vets
This is GOOD

I think it would be WAAAAY to easy to use a new account to win a tourney. Especially if you bought one of the mastery packs and a small cbill package. Imagine starting that first game with a fully kitted out machine with a MC arty strike (so as to be equal to the cbill one that requires grinding)

Also, I tried to win games even when I knew I wasnt going to get a good match score. I won my first 11 games, but surely I could have slowed my ELO progression if I wanted to be sheisty, by deliberately doing poorly as soon as I realized I wasn't going to output a tournament winning game.








Tournaments aside, ELO seems to work quite well. I think the matchmaker fails are frequently cascading failures due to a no respawn game, as well as simple cases of not enough suitable players available at a given time. ELO is not to blame as much as people think it is.

[Thrudvangar]

Eddrick, on 08 October 2014 - 10:57 PM, said:

Personally, I liked it being totally random without Elo.

This! ... and nothing else. No experiments with any other "matchmaking" or comparison systems, just put the people random together, at least in PUGs, team queue 12 vs 12 should be handled in another way. It works good in other PvP games, why not here?!

[Karl Streiger]

Fire and Salt, on 08 October 2014 - 11:28 PM, said:

* AWESOME

Thanks for the insight.
Really interesting the first "wins"
You made 11 wins....when start ELO is 1300 - and the average ELO difference between teams is low 0-50 - you should get a increase of 21-28 (25 average) per win. so after 11 games you have to be near 1550. Mabye more mabye less.

But also the "intro" was great - I'm no sniper - but I kept the bad closed beta habbit call it stupid "knighthood" if you like - that i do not shot at an unarmed foe.

Quote

Tournaments aside, ELO seems to work quite well. I think the matchmaker fails are frequently cascading failures due to a no respawn game, as well as simple cases of not enough suitable players available at a given time. ELO is not to blame as much as people think it is.

It think its really important that people start to understand that.
I have lost battles that were finished 6:12 - but they war bad - both side make grave mistakes. The side that had the major tactical advantage did win (but they should have wiped us out - in no time - attacks from 3 angles)

On the other hand you may face defeat 1,2-12 - and its a battle of equals and in the end - the standing enemys are serve damaged all below 50% some even below 30% - a lance of stock centurions could harvest them.
But thanks to the game there is no fourth lance - and of course the victor will no see how costly the victory was - because they don't have to pay the repair.

7ynx, on 08 October 2014 - 11:18 PM, said:

Match score is not perfect but if PGI were to change MM from ELO to Average Match score then it would be much, much easier task to change how match score is calculated to account for efficiency better. Such as figuring % of damage done to a mech to kill it, and total damage to kill a mech vs the size. Extra Points for headshots etc... Much easier to tweak on PGI's end w/o any patching. You cannot work ELO that way. And you make some great points why ELO is not a good solution for team Match Making.

OK - it would be a more complex calculation and you still won't get those players - that don't waste shots...for example - my Misery is not build to kill a mech with a deep red CT - its an overkill - my AC 20 or PPCs will put to much damage to finish him of - so i shot at other targets.
As said before bad habit - but i was in premade teams since my very first moment in MWO.

But there is another flaw in you logic.
Matchscore depends on situation.
High Matchscore is for those that survive long enough. So a Matchscore ranking will split the community into two parts:
the team player and the ego gamers.

Or in other words - timmy and his younger brother used the money they get from their grandparents for hollydays to buy DireWhales - they fit them with 6 Ultra AC 5s.... even when TopTier Players use them - its a shite build that doesn't need much to work adequate.
And thogether they rip targets of arms, legs, spread damage - average of 400dmg per kill - and get high matchscores.... but soon they will find them selves in a group of other "HIGH" Matchscore players - all with DireWhales....not so good.

Hm my exampl

Edited by Karl Streiger, 09 October 2014 - 12:10 AM.

[Lily from animove]

wow so any other game using elo rankings working fine do it wrong too? LOL. elo is to rate a player and try to give him a proper setup. otherwise you will try to make a heavy weight champion boxer match vs a newbie amateur. And this will hardly make sense.

Battlevalue will not help to make lower skilled player reach a good ones EVER. But putting both constantly vs each other will definately make sure the low skilled player will one day be gone. This is not the sense of gaming and spending your free time. And even high skilled palyers will hardly have fun in constantly stomping over helpless opponents. Except a few caring about their k/d and ego who do not care except stomping others.

Edited by Lily from animove, 09 October 2014 - 12:47 AM.

[MischiefSC]

Topics like this are why you absolutely can't decide everything in the game by voting. Most people don't understand stuff well enough to have a useful opinion.

I'm all for someone putting up an actual mathematical proof for why Elo doesn't work for 'this sort of game'. Elo isn't magic - it's a set of equations for solving for your impact on the odds of a binary proposition (win/loss) relative to other people in the same environment i.e. MW:O.

There is no more valid method of determining your odds of driving a win than... your history of driving a win. You establish that by seeing what caliber of people you're likely to win against most often.

Could it be more precise? Absolutely - drill down on how your mech/chassis/loadout and your team composition and opposing team composition impacts your win/loss records. They've already got the telemetry for that; look under your stats.

It's just that it would have a very, very minimal impact on actual matchmaking without a significantly deeper population pool. Like triple or more.

MW:O isn't like other games - you've got to match for mech weights in addition to Elo. It's got a lot more criteria and as such could, in theory, stand a much more complex mm equation. The problem is that unless you've got a thick enough population to pull from to flesh out that better seated data (for example balancing ECM/LRMs/TAG/NARC and peoples relative performance history with those loadouts) then it's irrelevant.

So how about this as a question - the highest ranked players in the game, are they better than the average players? The people who play really well, do they win more often? The people who are terrible, do they win less? Does every single player in the game have an average win/loss of between 0.98 and 1.02? No? Conversely how many people with 500+matches in a weight-class have a win/loss of either 0.5 or 5.0?

That's because Elo works. Does exactly what it's supposed to do. The big problem is that most people are only average and really, really want to believe they are not and that the only thing keeping them from being top 1% is 'that matchmaker sticking them with other average people. Doesn't it know they are SPECIAL?'

So we'll hit this one again -

1. Show a mathematical proof that Elo doesn't work for a 12v12 or bluntly any value for that matter. If you want to see one that says that it does, please google 'statistics how to solve for x' or 'statistics how to solve for a variables impact on performance'.

2. What to see that Elo works? Ask any top-player in the game what his win/loss is. Then compare it to yours.

3. Realize that you not understanding something or how it works isn't the same as that thing not being understandable or not working.

[Fire and Salt]

Karl Streiger, on 08 October 2014 - 11:51 PM, said:

Thanks for the insight.
Really interesting the first "wins"
You made 11 wins....when start ELO is 1300 - and the average ELO difference between teams is low 0-50 - you should get a increase of 21-28 (25 average) per win. so after 11 games you have to be near 1550. Mabye more mabye less.

Note that many of those early wins were also stomps... 12-2 and 12-0 both happened in the first 3 I think. Only one of the first 5ish was even close.

I actually don't know the exact details of how fast ELO is allowed to move for MWO, never bothered to look into it.

Towards the end of my winning steak, they started getting a bit closer.




FYI I won clan lights in the previous tournament. So I'm presumably reasonably good at such things. But that was really challenging, and I was seeing top players in the majority of my matches. It felt well earned.

Even in a trial this seemed waaaaaay easy.

I can't imagine how good my first game or five could have been if i was using a 'mech that... you know.... had a heat efficiency rating higher than .8 and a few MC consumables...

[MischiefSC]

Also keep in mind that you don't gain Elo on every win - only when you win in a match the MM predicted you would lose. So your actual average gain per win is significantly lower when compared to your total wins. Same with losses; you only lose Elo when the MM predicted you would win and lost anyway.

This is why a perfectly matched game doesn't work - you only improve when you win something that you were expected to lose or lose a match you were expected to win. It's also what makes Elo a brilliant and effective system; it is simply an equation for a self-balancing measurement. You look at a match, you predict a winner based on past performance of all the participants. If you are correct you nod to yourself, everything stays the same and you move on. If you were wrong you slightly adjust your calculations and try again.

Also... there is a losing team every match. Nobody likes to lose but half the players are going to lose every game, even if they played well. Ask any sports team. You can have a receiver never miss a catch and run like he's Hermes with his ass on fire but his team can still lose. That doesn't mean he's bad or even that his team is bad - just that in that instance the other team was still better.

[Karl Streiger]

THX.
Mischief....your last statement was the last piece i did need. all my calculations are in vain

Thought that if you loose - even if you should loose also had impact.
In the other cases its more complex to calculate a ELO - because you can not predict if you should loose or win.

So your elo rises and falls in much smaller steps than i had expected.

[Ertur]

I think the elo should change based on match score not just win/loss. Win/loss already factors into the match score, anyways, so it would still be a factor, just not the only factor.
If I get match score of 80 on the losing side, while another player gets a match score of 20 on the winning side as it is now his elo goes up and mine goes down. And that's silly.

[Karamarka]

ranks plox

new players have no place starting at mid elo

[Lily from animove]

Karamarka, on 09 October 2014 - 12:39 AM, said:

ranks plox

new players have no place starting at mid elo

new palyers should be compared in their performance wiht the ones they play their first games. then they get put into where theay stand after maybe 20 matches or such.

[Karl Streiger]

Ertur, on 09 October 2014 - 12:35 AM, said:

I think the elo should change based on match score not just win/loss. Win/loss already factors into the match score, anyways, so it would still be a factor, just not the only factor.
If I get match score of 80 on the losing side, while another player gets a match score of 20 on the winning side as it is now his elo goes up and mine goes down. And that's silly.

Same argument as before.

But to make it simple - you get your 80 scores while shooting at the guy with 20 points - and while you shot at that guy - you loose the game.

[L Y N X]

Yes, ELO is used in Competitive MP games, but look at what it was designed for...
Also please note that in most instances were ELO is used in Team Sports, it has either been replaced by better systems or is unofficial. Just because it can be done, does not make it a good idea to do so.

http://bzstats.stray...fo/elo/?lang=en

http://en.wikipedia....o_rating_system

7ynx
<p class="author_info">

Member

• 
  
• [color=#ffcb18]Legendary Founder[/color]
  
• 
  
• 472 posts

• LocationPlanet Outreach

Sent 07 October 2014 - 01:21 PM
Russ,

Have you ever considered using a player's average match score instead of their ELO rating as a rating to match players in MM?

Simply put, I suggest Average Match Scores are a better metric, since it can further distinguish between those players that make a an overall greater average contribution to a match regardless of the outcome.

Right Now, MM still matches one team up with a bunch of lesser skilled players often just on one side.

ELO based on a team's win/loss record is less telling about individual player contributions to the match, whereas, Match score is more telling.

Please consider this for future MM balancing. But please first priority needs to be CW.
Russ Bullock
<p class="author_info">

President

• 
  
• [color=yellow]Staff Moderator[/color]
  
• 
  
• 712 posts

Sent 07 October 2014 - 06:27 PM
I agree with many of your thoughts - I have never liked the ELO going up solely based on win or loss.

This isn't something I can do quickly but were making strides to improve the match maker one step at a time.

[Victor Morson]

Been saying this since the start. There are too many random variables in a team game like this to do ELO for anything other than absolutely competitive matches, to be honest.

You could do a 1:1 ELO even if the conditions weren't 100% even (it'd just make the margin for error worse). If you always had full team X vs full team Y, that could be tracked to.

Tracking it for individual pilots is absolutely worthless.

An experiment: Go grab a Locust. Go play 20 games. Charge in and die. You have a 50% chance of ending up with a positive ELO from that anyway.

It's the worst possible thing to track for matchmaking purposes, in particular when dealing with individual pilots. The only pilots who can jump in and go "But I have a super duper ELO and huge win percentage, you all must suck!" are omitting the fact that 99% of that is from running with groups, which weight the whole system, and ruin it even more.

ELO does work in the right environment. It'd be perfectly fine for, say, Street Fighter or Starcraft. But it is an absolute joke with 11 other players factoring in - any individual pilot makes up less than 10% of the team.

Edited by Victor Morson, 09 October 2014 - 02:13 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

You don't get Matchscore for dying
You don't get much Matchscore when you bind 4 or 5 targets at once - at your own
You don't get much Matchscore when you concentrate your fire on the DDC in the enemy center and take out his ECM - before you die.

At the moment I can't imagine any algorithm that may result in a better estimation of a players ability - that is not already included in the w/l.

Every argumentation to "evaluate" single player abilitys - could be read - my team loose but its not my fault - i killed half the enemy team at my own.
(The question is - when did you start shooting - did you arrive when you buddies were dead?)

W/L is not the best solution but all others are even worse.

To have a perfect evaluation - you need to analyze every battle.
Find the cause for the loose on one team and the win for the other. Find the pilot who did the mistake or the pilot who show good actions.
But that means you need very very good intelligence behind.

I can only speak for my self - once a team did lose because of my actions - nothing big - just a misstep and my Centurion fall from a hill - in the open - i get lurmed and died. But it was the Centurions firepower that was missed in the end.
How can you evaluate this - properly? Non of my comrades get much matchscore - it did look like a stomp with 3:12 but it wasn't - it was my mistake - nothing else.

Victor Morson, on 09 October 2014 - 02:11 AM, said:

It's the worst possible thing to track for matchmaking purposes, in particular when dealing with individual pilots. The only pilots who can jump in and go "But I have a super duper ELO and huge win percentage, you all must suck!" are omitting the fact that 99% of that is from running with groups, which weight the whole system, and ruin it even more.

True - but you can fix that with a group size ELO modifier - so that average players in huge groups are matched vs very good players in small groups.

[Triordinant]

The Devs have said there will NOT be any Elo matchmaking in Community Warfare.

[Lily from animove]

7ynx, on 09 October 2014 - 02:02 AM, said:

Yes, ELO is used in Competitive MP games, but look at what it was designed for...
Also please note that in most instances were ELO is used in Team Sports, it has either been replaced by better systems or is unofficial. Just because it can be done, does not make it a good idea to do so.

http://bzstats.stray...fo/elo/?lang=en

http://en.wikipedia....o_rating_system

7ynx
<p class="author_info">

Member

• 
  
• [color=#ffcb18]Legendary Founder[/color]
  
• 
  
• 472 posts

• LocationPlanet Outreach

Sent 07 October 2014 - 01:21 PM

Russ,

Have you ever considered using a player's average match score instead of their ELO rating as a rating to match players in MM?

Simply put, I suggest Average Match Scores are a better metric, since it can further distinguish between those players that make a an overall greater average contribution to a match regardless of the outcome.

Right Now, MM still matches one team up with a bunch of lesser skilled players often just on one side.

ELO based on a team's win/loss record is less telling about individual player contributions to the match, whereas, Match score is more telling.

Please consider this for future MM balancing. But please first priority needs to be CW.
Russ Bullock
<p class="author_info">

President

• 
  
• [color=yellow]Staff Moderator[/color]
  
• 
  
• 712 posts

Sent 07 October 2014 - 06:27 PM

I agree with many of your thoughts - I have never liked the ELO going up solely based on win or loss.

This isn't something I can do quickly but were making strides to improve the match maker one step at a time.

Wait a moment, what you and russ discsussed has nothign to do directly with ELO, it ahs to do with the factors influencing the elo rating.

Yes we could change elo rating not only based on wins. We could give oints for this like:

assist 10 points, kill 20 points, narc 1 point, spot 1 point, win 50 points. And then we compare every match participants gathered points and current elo to decide if his elo drops or raises.

Thsi would smooth the elo ratings, good palyers losing would not drop so much. bad players beign carried would not raise so much. And by this elo is changed softer giving people more of a realistic rating.