144 replies to this topic

[Apnu]

AccessTime, on 29 May 2015 - 10:54 AM, said:

I agree, but I also don't believe the game as described would be commercially viable. But if I could make any battletech game and didn't need to worry about profit, that's how I'd run it too. But the reality is that, you cannot have a game that supports only the interests of the top players b'cos there will be no middle or bottom players to profit off. The main problem with modern games is this is almost always an exponential curve. What I mean is, you might have 100 top-level players, 1000 mid-level players, and 10,000 bottom-level players.

In other words, the game can't live without a strong middle class and upward mobility.

Which I totally agree with. The game is a for-profit enterprise and basic economics apply here. Trickle Down Economics doesn't work in real life, it doesn't work here too.

[I R O N Patriot]

SilentWolff, on 29 May 2015 - 08:58 AM, said:

That's right, I said it. This is a PvP game after all. You play to win and test your skill against your enemy, so why are we hand holding the bads that complain they can't compete?
I can see a separate queue for the first 25 games for your cadet bonus, but after that, the big boy pants need to be put on.
For me, the biggest issue is you actually punish the higher ELO players.
Why should I have to wait 10 minutes in the group queue to get a game?
Why should I have to be in a group of 6 or more to compete because the MM thinks I should be able carry the whole team while leveling a non elited, non meta mech?
Why does the MM pit groups of 2 and 3 high ELO players against 8, 10 or 12 man comp teams? And how is getting rolled by those group of comp teams any different than a new player getting rolled by veteran players?

So yeah, the MM needs to go.
/rant off

yes Lobby system only please and ty!


http://orgieklock.corgiorgy.com/

[Apnu]

SilentWolff, on 29 May 2015 - 02:14 PM, said:

The fact I've never seen you in game means your obviously not a higher ELO and really dont know or understand how the MM works at higher ELO's. People in higher ELO's are punished for it, period. Thats a fact whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.
For the record I do just fine in the higher ELO bracket and I enjoy the challenge. What I dont enjoy is being pigeon holed into one playstyle because other playstyles arent as effective, even if they are more fun to play.

This a team game. Your fortunes are tied to the rise and fall of your team. High Elos are not based on solo performance alone. How effective a player is to the team and how he/she elevates the team is key. AFAIK Elo is still based on W/L ratio. If I get 6 kills in a match but still lose, my Elo for that class takes a hit.

I R O N, on 29 May 2015 - 02:39 PM, said:

yes Lobby system only please and ty!

Yes please! For a ton reasons I'll not bring up now.

[Evan20k]

So realtalk time. Regardless of your feelings on the matchmaker, if this game goes to Steam without dedicated server support, it's going to be torn to shreds. Dedicated servers are nearly a requirement of shooters in this day and age, and the people on Steam won't be swayed by things like BT Nostalgia nor seeing how much better PGI is doing after cutting off their publisher and cutting them some slack for it.

Edited by Evan20k, 29 May 2015 - 02:46 PM.

[Bilbo]

Apnu, on 29 May 2015 - 02:43 PM, said:

This a team game. Your fortunes are tied to the rise and fall of your team. High Elos are not based on solo performance alone. How effective a player is to the team and how he/she elevates the team is key. AFAIK Elo is still based on W/L ratio. If I get 6 kills in a match but still lose, my Elo for that class takes a hit.

Not based on the ratio itself but the general idea is right.

Evan20k, on 29 May 2015 - 02:45 PM, said:

So realtalk time. Regardless of your feelings on the matchmaker, if this game goes to Steam without dedicated server support, it's going to be torn to shreds.

I doubt we will see dedicated server support. If they were going to do it, I think they would have done so long ago.

[PhoenixFire55]

My god ... are we really again even considering group size limits??? You want to kill the game once and for all then sure, go for it.

This is a TEAM game, good TEAMS will prevail. You don't want to be on a team, go play solo queue. You want to casually play with 1-2 friends, go to group queue and play casually just for the fun of it, winning or losing, doesn't matter. You want to make a big group, go for it, but don't be surprised that a better organized group will roll over you.

I'm not even going to go back to horror stories about 4-man max group size matchmaking we had when three top-tier 4-mans were being placed into same team against bunch of casual 2s and 3s.

For f***'s sake play the game the way you want and let others do the same. I understand that making a major f*** up and then willingly repeating the same f*** up is a new trend, but comeon now, really?

Whine less, practice more, play better ... problem solved.

[Apnu]

Bilbo, on 29 May 2015 - 02:46 PM, said:

Not based on the ratio itself but the general idea is right.

You are right. I don't know the exact specifics at this moment, but, in general the team's win or loss is the main factor in the Elo rating. It's rudimentary at best, PGI threw it together in a month and haven't revisited it since it was implemented, they have System Engineer bandwidth issues. The MM and Elo and the Public Queue in general hasn't been the main focus for a while now. Sadly 80% of MWO's population lives the PQ life.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Elo is irrelevant when the bucket is 1000 deep to start off and gets bigger when it struggles to match players. In essence, it's perfectly normal for the MWO MM to put a brand new user in a match with a Lord, SJR, or EmP player because of their atrocious bucket size.

[Bilbo]

Apnu, on 29 May 2015 - 02:52 PM, said:

You are right. I don't know the exact specifics at this moment, but, in general the team's win or loss is the main factor in the Elo rating. It's rudimentary at best, PGI threw it together in a month and haven't revisited it since it was implemented, they have System Engineer bandwidth issues. The MM and Elo and the Public Queue in general hasn't been the main focus for a while now. Sadly 80% of MWO's population lives the PQ life.

They actually rebuilt the mm from scratch a while back. I wouldn't doubt that they made adjustments to the equation too. This thread has some good info if you are interested:
http://mwomercs.com/...courtesy-phone/

[Damocles]

I R O N, on 29 May 2015 - 02:39 PM, said:

yes Lobby system only please and ty!


http://orgieklock.corgiorgy.com/

Yes, I think this guy is on to something.

[Tarogato]

I'm totally in favour of removing Elo matchmaking just to see what would happen and how it would pan out. Just do it for a week, let everybody get a chance to see what it's like.

[Bilbo]

Tarogato, on 29 May 2015 - 03:24 PM, said:

I'm totally in favour of removing Elo matchmaking just to see what would happen and how it would pan out. Just do it for a week, let everybody get a chance to see what it's like.

We had that. Most people didn't care for it. There was even an general forum outcry about leaving beta without it if I recall correctly.

[PhoenixFire55]

Tarogato, on 29 May 2015 - 03:24 PM, said:

I'm totally in favour of removing Elo matchmaking just to see what would happen and how it would pan out. Just do it for a week, let everybody get a chance to see what it's like.

[oldradagast]

First, if you want to see how much "fun" comes from no matchmaker, check out the dusty ruinscape of CW. Please avoid the cobwebs and beware of ghost drops that haunt the night... but at least you'll never have to worry about overpopulation!

Second, every competitive game out there uses some form of match-making. They either do it up front (chess with ELO), or after the results of the first round estimate relative skill levels (Magic: The Gathering), or use a mix of other balancing factors, such as professional sporting teams that offer higher draft positions to lower-ranked teams while also using a match-maker of sorts in the finals.

The basic reality is that without a match-maker, the game is a pointless free for all. It boggles my mind how people can complain about "carrying low skill people" - nevermind the questionable nature of that claim - and then somehow think removing all matchmaking will make things better. It won't. First, you'll probably still get about the same number of low-skill people since most people aren't particularly great at this game - simple numbers. But worse is that the skill level of your opponents will now vary wildly, resulting in far more one-sided games. This is the same crap we see in CW and a good part of the reason most people have left that format. There's no reason to duplicate its mistakes in the Public queue.

Now, arguments could be made that the match-maker is poor, and the huge range of what it considers "comparable skill" is laughable, but it is still better than absolutely nothing - which is one of the core failures of CW.

Edited by oldradagast, 29 May 2015 - 03:35 PM.

[Remains Intact]

Eli is extremely important to make sure low end players are only exposed to midgrade players at worst. I let my ELO degrade due to getting bored for 6 months now and then.

Before leaving I'm averaging 400 damage a game. When I come back and get to play against lower ELO players I never score below 500 damage. And get a 1000+ damage game every 3rd game or so. Then ELO settles out within a day or two and the 1000 damage games become very rare.

[Johnny Z]

PhoenixFire55, on 29 May 2015 - 03:30 PM, said:

Nice. Very funny.

[Scyther]

The argument of "I don't like the matches the MM puts me in, why should I have to fight against bad odds because MM" and the whole "lets not handhold bads, put on your bigboy pants" seem an odd match to me.

While not perfect, I certainly prefer the current system to the old solo-pug vs 8-mans roflstomps... which were way more common than now. I only solo PUG though so can't really speak to the problems ELO causes for group or high ELO players.

A MM should focus on 'making enjoyable matches' as opposed to 'being a statistically sound system'. Sometimes simpler is better.

3/3/3/3 is a concern (with the overweight on heavies), as is NPE, as is 'good matches with variety' overall.

If I was to design one, I would probably have it build a match by:

- Match 8 of the 12 players as 'like' players, either 'up to 50% win rate/first-100-matches' or 'above 50% win rate' (could be player overall, but would be more 'customized' if it was 'in that mech').
- Toss in 4 more players random, but favoring longest wait time.
- Build a 2/3/3/4 match with the 2 from the least-number queue and 4 from the most.

Given that basis, I think it would be fine to allow 2-man teams into the 'solo pug' queue, so long as they were also balanced (equal # groups on each side).

That allows friends to play together, mentors to play with trainees, a variety of skill matches without excessive steamrolls, and allows everyone to start new mechs without getting nuked by their 'rating'. It should also allow for faster match search.

There is a group-queue issue of 'big groups vs. a mashup of small groups' which I am not experienced in, but it seems a similar 'like-sized groups' system should apply.

Edited by MadBadger, 29 May 2015 - 04:21 PM.

[Carcass23]

Why not a separate que labeled, INSTANT ACTION? No MM, you click and you drop against whoever else is brave enough to be in there. No need for team que. Just PUG? I am with the crowd that was at the onset, against MM being implemented. I fully recall the crying about the ROFLstomps (which still happen because PUGlife)

So yes, keep the kiddie pool and add another que. Any problems with that?

[Void Angel]

SilentWolff, on 29 May 2015 - 02:14 PM, said:

The fact I've never seen you in game means your obviously not a higher ELO and really dont know or understand how the MM works at higher ELO's. People in higher ELO's are punished for it, period. Thats a fact whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.
For the record I do just fine in the higher ELO bracket and I enjoy the challenge. What I dont enjoy is being pigeon holed into one playstyle because other playstyles arent as effective, even if they are more fun to play.

The fact that you're trying to claim unassailable authority based on a game rating you can't see - and on totally subjective memory - without actually dealing with any of the objections means that you're obviously not conversant with the requirments of making a claim, and are unused to people who aren't distracted by personal attacks, red herrings, and self-serving, made-up "facts." If you're going to try such audaciously dishonest tactics, at least do me the courtesy of not misspelling "you're," and knowing that Elo is not an acronym. You're not even trying, here: D minus.

[Bilbo]

Carcass23, on 29 May 2015 - 04:24 PM, said:

Why not a separate que labeled, INSTANT ACTION? No MM, you click and you drop against whoever else is brave enough to be in there. No need for team que. Just PUG? I am with the crowd that was at the onset, against MM being implemented. I fully recall the crying about the ROFLstomps (which still happen because PUGlife)

So yes, keep the kiddie pool and add another que. Any problems with that?

No problem with that. I'll stick with the queue that at least makes an attempt to match me with people of near equal skill whatever that may be.