251 replies to this topic

[Zeece]

Russ Asked me to Pose this Questions to the Community during last nights Townhall so that he could get honest and open feedback from y'all on it.

To give context to his question.

Do you want full choices of Mode and Maps at the Expense of Less Competitive Matches (because every choice shrinks the size of the pool of players that the Matchmaker can choose opponents from which means it will have to expand the ELO range to fill a match)

or

Do you want the most Competitive(closet ELO) Matches but at the cost that you can no longer choose maps or modes?

Reference: Current Solo Queue ELO difference 38... Current Group Queue ELO difference 183

[Mister Blastman]

12-2 drops are competitive?

Forced stacking of terribads on your team is competitive?

[El Bandito]

I want 8v8 back for Solo-Q, for better hit reg, better FPS, and better matchmaking reasons. Group-Q can retain 12v12.

That is all.

Edited by El Bandito, 20 February 2015 - 07:56 AM.

[Mister Blastman]

El Bandito, on 20 February 2015 - 07:54 AM, said:

I want 8v8 back for Solo-Q

This would be huge. And good.

[FupDup]

El Bandito, on 20 February 2015 - 07:54 AM, said:

I want 8v8 back for Solo-Q, for better hit reg, better FPS, and better matchmaking reasons. Group-Q can have 12v12.

That is all.

Just so long as the rewards were increased to their pre-nerf levels (before 12v12 brought them down).

[Grandpaw]

Much rather be able to choose maps and modes myself,if I have to play matches that I hate whats the point of playing this game at all?

[MechWarrior414712]

El Bandito, on 20 February 2015 - 07:54 AM, said:

I want 8v8 back for Solo-Q, for better hit reg, better FPS, and better matchmaking reasons. Group-Q can retain 12v12.

That is all.

[El Bandito]

FupDup, on 20 February 2015 - 07:56 AM, said:

Just so long as the rewards were increased to their pre-nerf levels (before 12v12 brought them down).

Of course. However, I can't bring myself to trust Paul not to rip us off again in such scenario...

[Impossible Wasabi]

The Space Pope would rather not have the game/matchmaker try to make "fair matches" beyond trying to balance tonnage or BV.

ELO is mostly annoying and in the end it still doesn't save players from seeing completely lopsided matches.

Edited by The True Space Pope, 20 February 2015 - 08:05 AM.

[Haipyng]

What we want is games that rack like skilled players on the same team and the opposing team.

Considering ELO is something originally used for competitor-versus-competitor games, it's use in team based play seems wrong or ill advised. Loss or win streaks on the order of many at a time are simply frustrating. ELO calculation would seem impossible when considering that practiced 8+ man groups are going to better coordinate than 4 three man groups that perform like PUGs.

The only fix I see is 4 man and below queue and a 5 man and above queue with opt in from smaller groups or singles. More choice is better. Take away choice and you will encourage players to drop at the beginning of a match they don't like.

[Mechteric]

I'll take 8v8 also for solo queue. Would also be nice to allow groups of only up to 2 players into the solo queue.

[RedDevil]

ELO, or other metric ranks do work better than randomly mixing teams. The most popular games in the world use these systems for their match making and games are very competitive ie DOTA2 or LoL. A similar system was also used on a very competitive NetMek server I used to frequent and from experience I can say it was quite accurate.

Back to the original question, choice is always important, but it doesn't have to be 0% choice or 100% choice. I would lean towards competitive matches being more important, but in a more 30/70 weight in favour of quality, competitive matches.

[Haipyng]

Zeece, on 20 February 2015 - 07:51 AM, said:

Do you want the most Competitive(closet ELO) Matches but at the cost that you can no longer choose maps or modes?

And just to reiterate...take choice away you will unbalance matches by people dropping as soon as they figure out it is a type they don't like. Bad, bad idea.

[Felio]

You can tell him I refuse to answer until he tells us how well Elo spread predicts kill spread.

I'm annoyed because we've been down this road before with game mode choice and he still hasn't disclosed it.

Edited by Felio, 20 February 2015 - 08:23 AM.

[RG Notch]

Zeece, on 20 February 2015 - 07:51 AM, said:

Russ Asked me to Pose this Questions to the Community during last nights Townhall so that he could get honest and open feedback from y'all on it.

To give context to his question.

Do you want full choices of Mode and Maps at the Expense of Less Competitive Matches (because every choice shrinks the size of the pool of players that the Matchmaker can choose opponents from which means it will have to expand the ELO range to fill a match)

or

Do you want the most Competitive(closet ELO) Matches but at the cost that you can no longer choose maps or modes?

Reference: Current Solo Queue ELO difference 38... Current Group Queue ELO difference 183

So Russ can't deign to come to his own forums to ask....

[NeoAres]

Haipyng, on 20 February 2015 - 08:13 AM, said:

And just to reiterate...take choice away you will unbalance matches by people dropping as soon as they figure out it is a type they don't like. Bad, bad idea.

Well, whoever said we need more than one gametype anyway? Are there people around literally thirsting for Conquest? Other than that, Assault and Skirmish are, in practice, pretty identical.

[Metus regem]

Honestly? I'd like Company (3 Lances) vs Binary (2 Stars) for IS vs. Clans... or hell even 2 Lances vs 1 Star

Then again, this would mean that the clans might need a slight power increase...

I would also like to see Elo only be in use for group que, it's somewhat pointless in solo que, as all it takes is having some one from 228th on your team, and you are going to have a bad time as the red team is going to get one or two guys like that to make up for the gap.

NeoAres, on 20 February 2015 - 08:22 AM, said:

Well, whoever said we need more than one gametype anyway? Are there people around literally thirsting for Conquest? Other than that, Assault and Skirmish are, in practice, pretty identical.

I like conquest... Then again I play fast mechs and try to get caps, they pay out well....

[Haipyng]

reddevil, on 20 February 2015 - 08:13 AM, said:

ELO, or other metric ranks do work better than randomly mixing teams. The most popular games in the world use these systems for their match making and games are very competitive ie DOTA2 or LoL. A similar system was also used on a very competitive NetMek server I used to frequent and from experience I can say it was quite accurate.

ELO works great on 1v1 metrics...or "okay" when pulling single players to form a team, ala solo queue (although you will hear about a players with high ELO getting stacked with newbies that they then attempt to carry against a medium ELO opposing team- dunno how 'balanced' that is beyond numbers on a spreadsheet).

What it doesn't work at, is placing pre-made groups of varying size because it has no way to quantify how those people play together as a group. If those premades are playing complimentary builds like ECM, AMS, LRMs, Brawlers, Ranged, etc, into fire teams and they are practiced at playing those roles together, that team is usually a deadly force and ELO has no way to account for that type of game play beyond their individual ELO numbers.

[Insects]

I think they should try a no Elo day and see what happens.
Match mechs for the day instead of players. Tonnage is simplest metric for a quick trial, but if it was a successful trial it can become more sophisticated (eg ECM valuable, Flamer Stalker worthless).

[Vassago Rain]

They already tried this once, and it didn't work.

Stop trying to strip out choice from videogames.