39 replies to this topic

[CDLord HHGD]

Wintersdark, on 31 July 2015 - 11:03 AM, said:

Not the lack of will to enforce it. They cannot enforce it, because populations just don't allow it.

The failure, though, is properly incentivizing playing less played weight classes. You can't force people to play the right weight classes, you need to make them want to.

But even if the queues where filled with an even distribution of players, you'd STILL have severe troubles getting 3/3/3/3 in group queue matches for the reasons I said in my post above - having to Tetris groups into sets of 12 players is extremely hard even with the other restrictions. It's just not going to happen unless we have orders of magnetude more players...


...or players start accepting the reality that we need to have soft game mode select to have decent matchmaking. But we the players said hard game mode select was more important than 3/3/3/3 or Elo, so that's that.

Indeed, but we've been saying since it's inception (hell, since it's conception) to dynamically incentivise players to play the lesser played classes (based on the hour's average). This too isn't perfect, but it's at least something....

[Wintersdark]

Jman5, on 31 July 2015 - 11:01 AM, said:

And just to add, MM does try to give you those perfect 3/3/3/3 games if it can. But it's juggling a lot of other constraints such as Elo and available people searching. So it often times has to make concessions. If PGI had a more dynamic limitation based on group size (2-4 man groups restricted to 1/1/1/1, 5-8 man group restricted to 2/2/2/2, 9-12 man 3/3/3/3), it could hit 3/3/3/3 almost every time. Unfortunately it seems a lot of people are against that so we wind up with these ridiculous match ups.

This. It's our choice.

It's not really a matter of matchmaker coding at all, it's simple math. The more restraints we place on the matchmaker, the worse match quality or time to make a match is.

If we agreed to soft game mode select and tighter weight class restrictions on groups, we'd have much better match quality (as there's a fixed target for matchmaking time).

Allowing solo players to opt-in to the group queue would help, too; though to what degree depends on how many solo players want to opt in.

[Appogee]

Wintersdark, on 31 July 2015 - 10:59 AM, said:

Group queue it's simply not possible to have 3/3/3/3. If you start working out the math, it's really painfully obvious,

No math requires there to be 5 Assaults vs 1.

[DAYLEET]

Wintersdark, on 31 July 2015 - 11:03 AM, said:

Not the lack of will to enforce it. They cannot enforce it, because populations just don't allow it.

The failure, though, is properly incentivizing playing less played weight classes. You can't force people to play the right weight classes, you need to make them want to.

But even if the queues where filled with an even distribution of players, you'd STILL have severe troubles getting 3/3/3/3 in group queue matches for the reasons I said in my post above - having to Tetris groups into sets of 12 players is extremely hard even with the other restrictions. It's just not going to happen unless we have orders of magnetude more players...


...or players start accepting the reality that we need to have soft game mode select to have decent matchmaking. But we the players said hard game mode select was more important than 3/3/3/3 or Elo, so that's that.

Increase the population 10x and you still have 50% heavy queue. Numbers of player isnt a problem imo.

[Wintersdark]

cdlord, on 31 July 2015 - 11:05 AM, said:

Indeed, but we've been saying since it's inception (hell, since it's conception) to dynamically incentivise players to play the lesser played classes (based on the hour's average). This too isn't perfect, but it's at least something....

Yeah... Even back in early 2013, I argued for that. Have c-bill and xp rewards scale in accordance to queue population. We couldn't see the relative populations then, but it was still obvious. Low current queue usage, bonus cbills and xp.

People are encouraged to play lesser played weight classes as opposed to penalizing or not allowing some players arbitrarily to play the classes they want.

That's been resisted from the get go, though, for reasons I can only attribute to Paulconomy even though(because Paul) overall cbills per hour don't increase.

Appogee, on 31 July 2015 - 11:09 AM, said:

No math requires there to be 5 Assaults vs 1.

Yeah, there is. Players available in the correct group sizes to make teams of 12.

[Jman5]

Appogee, on 31 July 2015 - 11:09 AM, said:

No math requires there to be 5 Assaults vs 1.

It could be that this was the best skill-match available. Putting some of those assaults on your team might have imbalanced the match dramatically. I mean even with your weight disadvantage you played it to 9-12.

Edited by Jman5, 31 July 2015 - 11:15 AM.

[Wintersdark]

DAYLEET, on 31 July 2015 - 11:10 AM, said:

Increase the population 10x and you still have 50% heavy queue. Numbers of player isnt a problem imo.

If you read my posts here, I've said clearly that player distribution is a major problem too. But that wasn't Appogee's issue.

Number of players IS the problem for group queue matchmaking. If there are enough players, it's much easier to get the right groups together at a lower cost in matchmaking time/quality. In the current system, there simply are not enough players given the restrictions. This is why you get 5 assaults vs. 1.

Ultimately, with a 50% Heavy queue, matches will be primarily Heavy based, but with a larger population they'd have even distribution between the teams. With the lower concurrent player count we have and the other restrictions, it's very easy to have one team heavily outweigh the other team.

[Ultimax]

You should tweet this to Russ - it's good to show huge tonnage disparity like this, because the MM is supposed to be balancing tonnage across teams as best it can.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 31 July 2015 - 01:05 PM.

[bad arcade kitty]

what's the problem, i heard 100 ton assaults are bad in soloq

[That Guy]

WarHippy, on 31 July 2015 - 09:58 AM, said:

Personally I would like to see the complete abandonment of 3/3/3/3, tonnage, and BV as concepts and just let people play want they want without interference.

we called this "closed beta". and lets just say there were a few good reasons why it was abandoned

[Deathlike]

Ultimatum X, on 31 July 2015 - 01:05 PM, said:

You should tweet this to Russ - it's good to show huge tonnage disparity like this, because the MM is supposed to be balancing tonnage across teams as best it can.

The valves break @ 4mins or so (aka best possible matching under worst case scenario - get screwed).

[R Razor]

DAYLEET, on 31 July 2015 - 10:54 AM, said:

3/3/3/3 isnt a failure, the lack of will to enforce it is. Most people can't be bothered to play something else than a heavy with the flavor of the month/meta loadout. They don't want a fun or fair game.

And they don't believe that they should have to maybe wait a few extra minutes to get into a match while playing the FOTM build.......after all, this is THEIR game and to hell with any efforts at balance and any effort at allowing anyone else to enjoy the game.

[Summon3r]

3-3-3-3 needs a players to implement properly

[Kiiyor]

Appogee, on 31 July 2015 - 09:13 AM, said:

5 Assaults vs 1 ...?

There wasn't a long wait for my team of 4 to get into this match.



GG Matchmaker close.

Wow, i'm surprised you did as well as you did, Every scrap of my science points towards you hurtling towards a loss if you're out massed, and you're almost certainly going to lose if you're out DireWolved.

People blame the MM for some pretty arbitrary things, but being out tonned or our meta'ed is a completely valid complaint.

Still, I've found it isn't quite as bad in the group queue as it is in pugland. At least you made a fight of it. That would have been a 12-0 three minute stomp in the pug queues.

[PurpleNinja]

It's about time.

[JediPanther]

When they first had it come out and did enofrce it the disconect rate skyrocketed then blew up like the challenger space shuttle. I uploaded two screen shots of seven (7) disconects per side in one match. The remaining mech saw this and we acually came to a cese fire.

[El Bandito]

RoboPatton, on 31 July 2015 - 09:29 AM, said:

I wonder how long we would wait for PUG drops if it stayed strictly 3333.

On the other hand, maybe more people will play Lights.

[Khobai]

3/3/3/3 made queue times ridiculously long.

because they tried to force people to play weigh classes no one wanted to play

PGI was told 3/3/3/3 would never work unless they fixed role warfare so lights/mediums were every bit as good as heavies/assaults but they chose to blatantly ignore us.

[Wintersdark]

Deathlike, on 31 July 2015 - 01:20 PM, said:

The valves break @ 4mins or so (aka best possible matching under worst case scenario - get screwed).

And it's important to point out that those valves are breaking at 4 minutes since the MM started making that match, NOT since your group clicked "PLAY".

The MM may have been making that match for 4.5 minutes already, and pulled your group of 4 into it the moment you hit play just to make it happen.


Remember: The MM takes the oldest group (or player, in case of the solo queue) in the queue to seed the next match it's building.

Edited by Wintersdark, 01 August 2015 - 08:28 AM.

[Iskareot]

Another fail.. that concept at least seemed logical.