41 replies to this topic

[Gut]

Here's the idea:

• Players select mechs, enter open queue.
  
• PGI's elo list is queried.
  
• Take the top 24 elo, place them in a lobby together, repeat for each following 24 players.
  
• Separate team in lobby immediately to match mech weight.
  
• Elo determines which team should win, considering both elo and mech weight.
  
• Players vote on the game mode. Maximum of 1 minute vote time. (5 and 6 could be swapped)
  
• If vote is tied, coin is flipped.
  
• Players drop into the match and play, elo ratings applied as per win/loss.

Notes:

Elo should be based on individual chassis. This is a no brainer.
Server choice should be entirely up to the player for general game play purposes.
This happens once every "x" amount of minutes, to allow more people to be matched more closely. I recommend 3 minutes.
I'm also for a ranked/unranked queue instead of flat player choice on game mode. This would allow more game modes and less "buckets."


Originally posted here, and discussed many times before it as well:
https://www.reddit.c..._choice/ctzhp90

[ApolloKaras]

how long is your wait time now when you click Play Now Gut?

[Wintersdark]

It'd be fine. Just having game mode voting vs. Hard game mode select cuts Elo spread by a massive amount.

But people just have to have their hard game mode selections, even if that means match quality goes down the toilet.

[Deathlike]

This won't happen.... because reasons™.

[Scandinavian Jawbreaker]

That would be a good change. But then again we have the group queue that is totally broken atm. So I'd suggest revert back to max groups of 4 with separate queue for 12-man (who can also play CW) and apply the OP suggestion.

Edited by ugrakarma, 13 August 2015 - 03:14 PM.

[Gut]

It's not about match time as much as making better matches on pretty much every account!

[Kiiyor]

ELO per chassis is a great idea, but the matching by tonnage would seal the deal for me.

I'm really getting over seeing the assault bracket filled out in one team with two DireWhales, and an Awesome and a Victor in the other team. There aren't even alternate realities where they are competitive.

I think addressing that kind of mech imbalance will go further towards closer matches than just about anything else I've seen proposed.

[Gut]

ugrakarma, on 13 August 2015 - 03:12 PM, said:

That would be a good change. But then again we have the group queue that is totally broken atm. So I'd suggest revert back to max groups of 4 with separate queue for 12-man (who can also play CW) and apply the OP suggestion.

I'm not sure what the perfect group queue implementation would be, but this seems like a pretty perfect solo system.

[Deathlike]

ugrakarma, on 13 August 2015 - 03:12 PM, said:

That would be a good change. But then again we have the group queue that is totally broken atm. So I'd suggest revert back to max groups of 4 with separate queue for 12-man (who can also play CW) and apply the OP suggestion.

Anything like this will cause a massive exodus (or tiny, since it's not like this game is WoW or anything of the sort).

Been fighting this for a while because not playing with friends doesn't help for team building.

Private matches don't count when you need to make money.

[Chados]

You know, I don't mind it when you drop and you get the two Dire Wolves vs Victor and Awesome in the assault lances. Even when I'm on the weak side. You don't get that routinely and a brace of good AC pilots will do for those DWs. In a combat drop in BT, knows what the match ups would be? It puts the weak team to the test and I've been on the weak team...which was competitive because there was a handful of l33t pilots directing the flow of all U.S. rabid PUGs and it ended up not a bad outcome.

[Gut]

Chados, on 13 August 2015 - 05:32 PM, said:

You know, I don't mind it when you drop and you get the two Dire Wolves vs Victor and Awesome in the assault lances. Even when I'm on the weak side. You don't get that routinely and a brace of good AC pilots will do for those DWs. In a combat drop in BT, knows what the match ups would be? It puts the weak team to the test and I've been on the weak team...which was competitive because there was a handful of l33t pilots directing the flow of all U.S. rabid PUGs and it ended up not a bad outcome.

Not saying that's not good sometimes, but for trying to even out matchmaking as much as possible, at least in solo queue, I believe what I have posted is far superior.

[Duke Nedo]

Gut, on 13 August 2015 - 02:29 PM, said:

Here's the idea:

• Players select mechs, enter open queue.
  
• PGI's elo list is queried.
  
• Take the top 24 elo, place them in a lobby together, repeat for each following 24 players.
  
• Separate team in lobby immediately to match mech weight.
  
• Elo determines which team should win, considering both elo and mech weight.
  
• Players vote on the game mode. Maximum of 1 minute vote time. (5 and 6 could be swapped)
  
• If vote is tied, coin is flipped.
  
• Players drop into the match and play, elo ratings applied as per win/loss.

Notes:

Elo should be based on individual chassis. This is a no brainer.
Server choice should be entirely up to the player for general game play purposes.
This happens once every "x" amount of minutes, to allow more people to be matched more closely. I recommend 3 minutes.
I'm also for a ranked/unranked queue instead of flat player choice on game mode. This would allow more game modes and less "buckets."


Originally posted here, and discussed many times before it as well:
https://www.reddit.c..._choice/ctzhp90

I have a feeling that poor MM:ing in the solo queue is mainly a case of "shite in, shite out"... Russ even said that solo players generally have average Elo, the ones that have high Elo are the ones thta regularly drop as large groups in the group queue. That's the place where you can reliably build a high Elo. Solo queue only is a rollercoaster and it's hard to significantly affect your Elo as one player out of 24.

There was talk about separating Group Elo from Solo Elo, IMO that would be step 1 towards better match-making. There was talk about it, they didn't do it did they? Then, you'd probably need to help Elo migration along by in one way or the other have the match score affect it a little bit. As it is now, being only 1/12th of your team contribution you'll need somewhere in the hundreds to thousands of games to rise above the noise and really home in on your true Elo. Too many factors at play to allow your individual skill to stand out...

The actual matchmaking itself I believe would work quite OK the way it is if Elo had been an accurate description of each players contribution in the match to come. Always room for improvement for sure, but I think the main problem is Elo accuracy.

One thing that I have suggested before is a round of reshuffling the players between the teams after the 24 are selected to distribute tonnage or mech tiers or things like that between the two teams to see if teams can be improved (while this time ignoring Elo, assuming all 24 are close enough not to matter). A few iterations of that would only take milliseconds as long as it's limited to the selected 24 players only. In a way that is similar to what you suggest here, looking at tonnage after player selection. That part I think is key, fully support that!

[Speedy Plysitkos]

most players have average elo, so youll meet 80% of all mwo pop there. truth is, sometimes, it get 12 rambos against 12 relativly organized players, and then it turns into 12-2

[MechWarrior3671771]

I don't like the idea of mob rule determining my game mode. If I want Assault, I pick assault.

[Gut]

Fenrisulvyn, on 14 August 2015 - 12:00 AM, said:

I don't like the idea of mob rule determining my game mode. If I want Assault, I pick assault.

And you're okay with the majority of games being 12-4 or worse, and also playing with players way outside your skill level on a regular basis?

Duke Nedo, on 13 August 2015 - 10:39 PM, said:

I have a feeling that poor MM:ing in the solo queue is mainly a case of "shite in, shite out"... Russ even said that solo players generally have average Elo, the ones that have high Elo are the ones thta regularly drop as large groups in the group queue. That's the place where you can reliably build a high Elo. Solo queue only is a rollercoaster and it's hard to significantly affect your Elo as one player out of 24.

There was talk about separating Group Elo from Solo Elo, IMO that would be step 1 towards better match-making. There was talk about it, they didn't do it did they? Then, you'd probably need to help Elo migration along by in one way or the other have the match score affect it a little bit. As it is now, being only 1/12th of your team contribution you'll need somewhere in the hundreds to thousands of games to rise above the noise and really home in on your true Elo. Too many factors at play to allow your individual skill to stand out...

The actual matchmaking itself I believe would work quite OK the way it is if Elo had been an accurate description of each players contribution in the match to come. Always room for improvement for sure, but I think the main problem is Elo accuracy.

One thing that I have suggested before is a round of reshuffling the players between the teams after the 24 are selected to distribute tonnage or mech tiers or things like that between the two teams to see if teams can be improved (while this time ignoring Elo, assuming all 24 are close enough not to matter). A few iterations of that would only take milliseconds as long as it's limited to the selected 24 players only. In a way that is similar to what you suggest here, looking at tonnage after player selection. That part I think is key, fully support that!

Agreed, solo and group queue should be separated as well.

[Summon3r]

you need a population in game for any type of MM'ing to happen, im not sure id call whats active much of a population (especially on NA server)

[Gut]

You do not think my method would be superior especially considering the lower pop?

[MechWarrior3671771]

"And you're okay with the majority of games being 12-4 or worse, and also playing with players way outside your skill level on a regular basis?"

That already happens to me in solo que.

And I'm on a comp team that's way better than me, so when we drop together, I'm getting thrashed by likes 228 etc. Although its helped me improve faster - there are things I can get away with at my normal ELO that just don't fly against comp teams.

But also I enjoy Conquest most. More lance vs lance which is easier on a light, more fighting on parts of the map I never get to see, more tactics and flanking and such. But I'm an outlier, the "crowd" doesn't like Conquest so it would always be Skirmish or Assault, which are now somewhat boring to me.

[Gut]

Fenrisulvyn, on 14 August 2015 - 11:07 PM, said:

"And you're okay with the majority of games being 12-4 or worse, and also playing with players way outside your skill level on a regular basis?"

That already happens to me in solo que.

And I'm on a comp team that's way better than me, so when we drop together, I'm getting thrashed by likes 228 etc. Although its helped me improve faster - there are things I can get away with at my normal ELO that just don't fly against comp teams.

But also I enjoy Conquest most. More lance vs lance which is easier on a light, more fighting on parts of the map I never get to see, more tactics and flanking and such. But I'm an outlier, the "crowd" doesn't like Conquest so it would always be Skirmish or Assault, which are now somewhat boring to me.

It always happens to you, you say?

Wouldn't this system make it a much closer match most of the time?

[Jman5]

Gut, on 14 August 2015 - 06:18 PM, said:

And you're okay with the majority of games being 12-4 or worse, and also playing with players way outside your skill level on a regular basis?

I don't think we are ever going to get away from lopsided results. Even against similarly skilled teams you will have blow outs for one side, then blow outs for the other side a game later. It's just the nature of this game.

For example, the MLMW finals with your team SJR vs EMP. On the same map in the same game mode, It went to 5 games 3-2. Game 1, EMP got blown out 12-4. The very next game they blew SJR out 12-2. Then it went 9-8 resource win, 12-7, and finally 12-6. So despite the fact that both teams were pretty even in skill you both had a match where you blew the other away decisively in kills and there was really only one round that was close in kills.

A couple of simple mistakes or a clever move can snowball an entire game out of control even if in the grand scheme of things the two teams are fairly even.