Jump to content

Matchmaker Is Op


68 replies to this topic

#1 Mister Blastman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 8,444 posts
  • LocationIn my Mech (Atlanta, GA)

Posted 12 November 2014 - 09:51 AM

This isn't a joke. I'm not being sarcastic. I'm being totally serious, I promise. And constructively speaking, I truly believe the matchmaker is OP.

*The crowd moans*

I know, I know! We've all had it with these OP this, OP that threads. I have too! But whatever, it has been weighing at me greatly, lately.

If there is anything that makes me grit my teeth before I fire up the game--anything at all lately, it is the Matchmaker.

Russ has done a fantastic job with the Inner Sphere quirks. Granted, there are some that leave room to be desired--and some contentious ones, but, for the most part, they are a welcome addition to the game and remove some of the balance issues between Clan and Inner Sphere robots.

I also enjoy the renewed interest from the development team in listening to us and steering the game in a direction that we'd like to see it go. This is amazing. Keep it up. A year ago the number one thing that made me cringe was balance. These days weapon balance is probably in the best state it has been since at least shortly after fall of 2012. I still miss my oldschool SRMs, but, well, I can't complain because I'm seeing far more diversity now than in the past. There's still a meta of sorts, there always will be, but at least I'm seeing more than hill humping and jumping slinging PPCs everywhere.

With that said, the matchmaker is OP. Why is it OP? The whole Elo thing, frankly, does not belong in a team based game like this. The way the matchmaker works currently is that it does its best to make sure your Win/Loss ratio is as close to 1.0 as possible. When you win too much and your Elo rises (during those few matches you win that you were supposed to lose), it punishes you by putting you on a team doomed to fail. Now I know PGI insists the spread is pretty narrow--but they are missing an important point... Which has been beaten like a dead horse but whatever, I'll say it again...

You can't put a couple high Elo players on a team and expect them to carry ten really bad players versus a team full of average to above average players.

It doesn't work. It leads to angst, frustration and irritation in the playerbase. Do people really wonder why we have 12-0, 12-2, 12-3 stomps so often? It is because of this Elo mess of attempting to punish the players that do well and reward the players that do bad by giving them easier games.

It sucks!

It leaves a bitter taste in my mouth repeatedly when I try to play, being forced to lose/carry/whatever. I'd much rather see Elo removed entirely and players thrown in randomly. The good players would probably see their win/loss increase substantially and the bad players would see theirs plummet.

"Oh, but Blastman, that would discourage people from playing!"

That depends, really. It depends on who you want playing the game. Because how it stands right now the better players want to play less because it is so painful to be punished for doing well at the game. If you want to encourage lesser players to play, keep doing it. You'll just push away the players that are less casual.

Maybe that's what the goal is? I don't know. But it would be refreshing to see everyone have an equal shot at a win, every single drop, without meddling of the matchmaker behind the scenes.

So my number one improvement to the game at the moment would be removal of Elo calculations for the sake of the PUG queue. That's where I play mostly, lately so after a few months of it, I can finally comment objectively about how I feel with it. I don't like it.

Shouldn't the goal for everyone in life be to better one's self? The only way you know you need to improve is to be shown your faults, flaws and failures. If you try to prevent people from failing... they never know their problems and weaknesses, right? From my point of view, the matchmaker doing just that right now--trying to prevent people from failing. It breeds bad things by trying to artificially equalize everything.

Edited by Mister Blastman, 12 November 2014 - 09:52 AM.


#2 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 12 November 2014 - 09:56 AM

View PostMister Blastman, on 12 November 2014 - 09:51 AM, said:

Shouldn't the goal for everyone in life be to better one's self? The only way you know you need to improve is to be shown your faults, flaws and failures. If you try to prevent people from failing... they never know their problems and weaknesses, right? From my point of view, the matchmaker doing just that right now--trying to prevent people from failing. It breeds bad things by trying to artificially equalize everything.
QFT!

#3 Malcolm Vordermark

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,520 posts

Posted 12 November 2014 - 10:11 AM

View PostMister Blastman, on 12 November 2014 - 09:51 AM, said:

The way the matchmaker works currently is that it does its best to make sure your Win/Loss ratio is as close to 1.0 as possible. When you win too much and your Elo rises (during those few matches you win that you were supposed to lose), it punishes you by putting you on a team doomed to fail.


Please do not spread this misconception further. What you are talking about is the fact that playing people of equal skill will lead you to win about as often as you lose. The matchmaker does not say "oh hey, this guy is on a winning streak, better rig this this game to screw him over."

#4 Mister Blastman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 8,444 posts
  • LocationIn my Mech (Atlanta, GA)

Posted 12 November 2014 - 10:21 AM

View PostRouken, on 12 November 2014 - 10:11 AM, said:


Please do not spread this misconception further. What you are talking about is the fact that playing people of equal skill will lead you to win about as often as you lose. The matchmaker does not say "oh hey, this guy is on a winning streak, better rig this this game to screw him over."


So... pray tell, how does it decide to put you on a team slighted to win and other times one slighted to lose? It isn't random.

Also... equal skill =

Team 1: 2100 Elo per player x 12 = avg of 2100 (25,200/12)
vs.
Team 2: 2100 Elo per player x 12 = avg of 2100 (25,200/12)

Not...

Team 1: 500, 500, 700, 200, 2600, 2600, 800, 1300, 1100, 1000, 900, 1000 = avg of 1100 (13,200/12)
vs.
Team 2: 1100 Elo per player x 12 = avg of 1100 (13,200/12)

Sorry. Team 1 and Team 2 are comprised of substantially different player sets where 8 of the 12 players in Team 1 have a proven track record of losing with four players carrying the other end, of which, only three of them win more than not... Whereas 2 is comprised of average players who win some, lose some, but at least are competent at the game.

What happens with Team 1 is you have the two really good players and the single decent player go out and try to carry the team only to find either...

a. Their teammates hide behind rocks
b. Their teammates play cards, dice and marbles waiting for their impending doom
c. Their teammates see a squirrel in the heat of battle and run off leaving their higher Elo doods to get slaughtered
d. Their teammates running out into the open, one by one only to get picked off leaving the last couple of minutes to be ten to twelve enemies versus three to four remaining Team 1 players.

That's not balance, unless you admit to being insane. It also isn't equal skill versus equal skill.

Edited by Mister Blastman, 12 November 2014 - 10:22 AM.


#5 Ultimax

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 6,979 posts

Posted 12 November 2014 - 10:23 AM

MatchMaker – monstrous
and empty,
you whirling wheel,
you are malevolent,
well-being is vain
and always fades to nothing,
shadowed
and veiled
you plague me too;
now through the game
I bring my bare back
to your villainy.

#6 Walluh

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Territorial
  • The Territorial
  • 682 posts
  • LocationLovingly stroking my Crab Waifu

Posted 12 November 2014 - 10:23 AM

It doesn't throw you into a bad game because you're on a winning streak. That's called bad luck, or just your team getting outplayed, not that the matchmaker is evil and is out to ruin your fun. Nor is it out to keep your w/l at 1.0. All it does is try to match people around the same skill level based on w/l, and tries to stay close to 3/3/3/3. Nothing more, nothing less.

#7 Revorn

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Patron
  • 3,557 posts

Posted 12 November 2014 - 10:27 AM

I realy dont have any intrest in playing against High Elo Player to teach me how bad i am at Play. Sry. iam fine with the MM as it is now. I have my Wins and i have my Losses, and my Fun, :P without the High Elo Class.

I Realy dont need em. If they so hard want to get better, they should play against themselfs and not stomping low Elo Players. Imho

#8 Malcolm Vordermark

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,520 posts

Posted 12 November 2014 - 10:40 AM

View PostMister Blastman, on 12 November 2014 - 10:21 AM, said:


So... pray tell, how does it decide to put you on a team slighted to win and other times one slighted to lose? It isn't random.

Also... equal skill =

Team 1: 2100 Elo per player x 12 = avg of 2100 (25,200/12)
vs.
Team 2: 2100 Elo per player x 12 = avg of 2100 (25,200/12)

Not...

Team 1: 500, 500, 700, 200, 2600, 2600, 800, 1300, 1100, 1000, 900, 1000 = avg of 1100 (13,200/12)
vs.
Team 2: 1100 Elo per player x 12 = avg of 1100 (13,200/12)

Sorry. Team 1 and Team 2 are comprised of substantially different player sets where 8 of the 12 players in Team 1 have a proven track record of losing with four players carrying the other end, of which, only three of them win more than not... Whereas 2 is comprised of average players who win some, lose some, but at least are competent at the game.

What happens with Team 1 is you have the two really good players and the single decent player go out and try to carry the team only to find either...

a. Their teammates hide behind rocks
b. Their teammates play cards, dice and marbles waiting for their impending doom
c. Their teammates see a squirrel in the heat of battle and run off leaving their higher Elo doods to get slaughtered
d. Their teammates running out into the open, one by one only to get picked off leaving the last couple of minutes to be ten to twelve enemies versus three to four remaining Team 1 players.

That's not balance, unless you admit to being insane. It also isn't equal skill versus equal skill.


The match maker does not say "lets stack the deck against this guy" because it would have to do that for 24 people each game. That would put incredible strain on a system that already has team elo, weight class, and weight as factors to consider. Instead, after it builds the teams a close as possible it guesses who will win based on those teams. If the match plays out like it guesses ratings won't change much, if the match maker guessed wrong ratings will change more.

Elo works by increasing your score as you win and decreasing it as you lose. When you start facing opponents of equal skill you will begin to win as often as you lose. So your rating will remain the same. This has been misconstrued by people as saying it forces you lose if you start winning too much. I never said anything about the way this game uses those ratings to build matches.

I think would prefer more of a league system where the best players are all grouped together rather than mixed it with lower skilled players to achieve a certain average rating.

#9 Mister Blastman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 8,444 posts
  • LocationIn my Mech (Atlanta, GA)

Posted 12 November 2014 - 10:43 AM

View PostRouken, on 12 November 2014 - 10:40 AM, said:


The match maker does not say "lets stack the deck against this guy" because it would have to do that for 24 people each game. That would put incredible strain on a system that already has team elo, weight class, and weight as factors to consider. Instead, after it builds the teams a close as possible it guesses who will win based on those teams. If the match plays out like it guesses ratings won't change much, if the match maker guessed wrong ratings will change more.

Elo works by increasing your score as you win and decreasing it as you lose. When you start facing opponents of equal skill you will begin to win as often as you lose. So your rating will remain the same. This has been misconstrued by people as saying it forces you lose if you start winning too much. I never said anything about the way this game uses those ratings to build matches.

I think would prefer more of a league system where the best players are all grouped together rather than mixed it with lower skilled players to achieve a certain average rating.


Do you comprehend what you just said?

Quote

Instead, after it builds the teams a close as possible


Is what I just illustrated in my previous post with Team 1 and Team 2 comprised of the same average but largely different components...

And it does do what I illustrated. It does this time and time again. This is why the higher your Elo, the longer your wait times in the queue to find a drop. This is a proven fact. It does indeed occur. I also theorize the lower your Elo the same will apply, also, as you'd be on an opposite extreme and the matchmaker would need more time to slot you into a group to provide a similar average.

#10 Mcgral18

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • 17,987 posts
  • LocationSnow

Posted 12 November 2014 - 10:53 AM

I don't always mind. When you get just the right amount of derp on your team, you can get ridiculous damage and kills.

Though, there might be some pain and suffering inbetween those matches.

#11 Malcolm Vordermark

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,520 posts

Posted 12 November 2014 - 10:56 AM

View PostMister Blastman, on 12 November 2014 - 10:43 AM, said:

Do you comprehend what you just said?



Is what I just illustrated in my previous post with Team 1 and Team 2 comprised of the same average but largely different components...

And it does do what I illustrated. It does this time and time again. This is why the higher your Elo, the longer your wait times in the queue to find a drop. This is a proven fact. It does indeed occur. I also theorize the lower your Elo the same will apply, also, as you'd be on an opposite extreme and the matchmaker would need more time to slot you into a group to provide a similar average.


I'm not arguing in favor of how the match maker works. I'm telling you that your implication that the match maker punishes people that win is incorrect. It does not and cannot intentionally stack the deck against you. Only the very top players will ever see such lopsided team distributions and whenever I watch them they still win.

Edited by Rouken, 12 November 2014 - 11:00 AM.


#12 FupDup

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 26,888 posts
  • LocationThe Keeper of Memes

Posted 12 November 2014 - 11:05 AM

I think one of the issues is that it tries to create an average Elo for each team. By virtue of being an average, it just so happens to get skewed by outliers.

So, somebody with high Elo (i.e. our friend Blastman here) may end up pulling his team's Elo upwards, therefore increasing the likelihood of his team getting matched against a really good team. Therefore, ggclose.

Conversely, a "Steering Wheel Underhive" player like Fuddy Duddy (:P) with lower Elo may drag his team's average downwards a bit, which reduces the likelihood of his team being matched against a good team (okay, maybe I'm not actually a Steering Wheel player if that's the case...).


To help keep the team's Elo from being pulled way up or way down by outliers, using the median Elo for the team's members instead of the average might have better results.

#13 LauLiao

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,591 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 12 November 2014 - 11:26 AM

View PostMister Blastman, on 12 November 2014 - 10:43 AM, said:

Do you comprehend what you just said?
.


Not sure if he does, but I know you don't.

View PostMister Blastman, on 12 November 2014 - 10:21 AM, said:


So... pray tell, how does it decide to put you on a team slighted to win and other times one slighted to lose? It isn't random.
.


I have never once been insulted, disrespected, or overlooked by the matchmaker.

The word you're looking for is "Slate" or slated.

#14 MischiefSC

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 16,697 posts

Posted 12 November 2014 - 12:28 PM

The point of the mm isn't punishing anyone - quite the opposite. What it's doing is removing the shelter. You get better and it gives you better people to play against. It doesn't reduce the caliber of people on your team; it increases the caliber of your opponents.

Skill is a curve. Sub par players are just as uncommon as exceptional players. Most are average. What you are saying is that you don't want to play against increasingly not skilled opponents, you want to be able to get a little above average and farm noobs and then never have to improve because as soon as you're 10% better than average you are going to beat the majority of others and rarely meet a challenging opponent.

You're not asking for more challenge, you are asking for less. Like80%of players in most matches are average. A couple will be above average, a couple below. You are saying you don't like the mm ensuring that there are players as good or better than you always on the other team. That it ensures that every match is at least potentially a challenge. That is all Elo does.

#15 Adiuvo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 2,078 posts

Posted 12 November 2014 - 12:33 PM

View PostMischiefSC, on 12 November 2014 - 12:28 PM, said:

It doesn't reduce the caliber of people on your team; it increases the caliber of your opponents.

It really doesn't. You just get progressively worse and worse people on your team, at least with where I'm at.

#16 Kvaneal

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 43 posts

Posted 12 November 2014 - 12:45 PM

I'm really not trying to support the OP here because this

Quote

Shouldn't the goal for everyone in life be to better one's self?


is a two way street that the OP is only seeing one side of...however

I managed only 330 damage in a DWF yesterday. Dead in about a minute. I felt bad and stuck around to observe, hoping the team would be fine despite me. The scoreboard ended up showing a teammate with 318 damage. The rest of the team couldn't manage even HALF of 318. Where were the 2600 elo players on that team! We had a total team damage of @2000. Matchmaker has a problem, no doubt. Perhaps they should tighten the range some. Or at the very least do as suggested above and switch from avg to median.

#17 MischiefSC

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 16,697 posts

Posted 12 November 2014 - 02:31 PM

View PostAdiuvo, on 12 November 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

It really doesn't. You just get progressively worse and worse people on your team, at least with where I'm at.


End of the curve. You're a statistical anomaly. The difference you actually ARE a statistical anomaly, most people just think they are. The difference that no Elo would create for your though is just lower average skill on the other team. Your team mates wouldn't change significantly. People who are way below average are just as uncommon as way above average; skill is a curve not a slope.

The problem is that most players are not that good and those who are above average still have not good days. The "glory days" people remember were a product of being able to play against pugs while running a 4man in 8v8. Half your team was on coms with you and knew their ****. The breakdown of skilled players as a population was the same, just your experience was colored by control of 1/2 your teams population.

That isn't an Elo issue though. Elo is just making sure there isn't a huge skill disparitydisparity between teams.

#18 Jonathan Paine

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 1,197 posts

Posted 12 November 2014 - 02:55 PM

I am a huge proponent of Elo to balance matches, but I am not certain that PGI quite knows what Elo us supposed to do. Every time Ross posts ~200 point difference as if that is not a bad thing, I cringe.

From: http://www.bobnewell....php?itemid=279
"Theoretical Probability of Winning Based on ELO Ratings



[color=#000000]Your rating: [/color]2800[color=#000000] Opponent's rating: [/color]2600

[color=#000000]Probability of winning: [/color]0.759746926647958"

If that was too complicated, here is a calculator that deals only with the difference in Elo level:
http://www.dirtychess.com/tools.php
(spits back win probability of 0.76 or 76% if you prefer)

Matchmaker seems more in a need of a buff than a nerf - nerf the performance delta between teams!

#19 Mister Blastman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 8,444 posts
  • LocationIn my Mech (Atlanta, GA)

Posted 12 November 2014 - 05:03 PM

View PostLauLiao, on 12 November 2014 - 11:26 AM, said:

Not sure if he does, but I know you don't.


Me understanding what he said and being in complete disagreement are mutually inclusive in my case. Try again, Sir.

Quote

I have never once been insulted, disrespected, or overlooked by the matchmaker.

The word you're looking for is "Slate" or slated.


Contextually speaking I meant it as said. It is a slight in every degree to be denigrated through charity by the matchmaker or likewise pissed upon in advance to lose.

#20 Mister Blastman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 8,444 posts
  • LocationIn my Mech (Atlanta, GA)

Posted 12 November 2014 - 05:16 PM

View PostMischiefSC, on 12 November 2014 - 12:28 PM, said:

What you are saying is that you don't want to play against increasingly not skilled opponents, you want to be able to get a little above average and farm noobs and then never have to improve because as soon as you're 10% better than average you are going to beat the majority of others and rarely meet a challenging opponent.


Not at all. A fair challenge is a similar grouping of players versus a similar grouping of players.

An unfair challenge is a jilted mess of extremes versus a solid average.

Think about it for a moment... If you have 3 goods, 1 average and 8 bads on one team versus 12 average on another, the 8 bads will die quickly and you'll be left with four players versus 8 - 10 average players. Focus fire is focus fire. It takes you down.

So what some of us are frustrated with is being stuck with so many bads, watching said bads die incredibly quickly and then facing off against an almost entire team that focus fires the crap out of us. Right now the matchmaker seems to do this. It pairs up the extreme fringes together with each other to lower the average down to the opposing team's Elo. That doesn't make for good, balanced gameplay. It makes for problematic matches that are frustrating beyond belief for both the winners and the losers.

The winners get bored because it is too easy while likewise the losers get mad because it feels like they are carrying the weight of the world on their backs.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users