Savage Wolf, on 29 February 2016 - 02:12 AM, said:
There is big and easily distinguishable difference between snowball effect due to some noobish players dying early and coordinated stomp. In first case you lose due to some players dying early, but you feel, that remaining players have done everything, they could do. In second case you simply feel, that the difference in team skills is so enormous, that nobody on your team could do anything. For example your entire team just hides or plays too passively - you shoot at enemies and they just stand behind and do nothing, so you're 1vs12, and enemy team really looks like coordinated premade - it pushes, flanks, surrounds, ambushes. And when you get into such skilled team - you feel, that they could win this match even without you. You just stood behind deathball and fired some lurms - haven't even shot any 'Mech via direct fire. That's what my screenshot shows - two Assault 'Mechs were AFK for 90% of match duration, but enemy team sill was stomped. Snowball effect happens, cuz 1-2 enemy 'Mechs die early? Yeah? And snowball effect can't happen with enemy team, when 2 Assault are AFK on yours? Right?
p4r4g0n, on 29 February 2016 - 02:56 AM, said:
The fact that you can make tons of money if you create a perfect player rating and matchmaking system would appear to be a great incentive to do so but I still have not heard of any game / competition that has attained this goal.
Maybe that is a clue that it is not "simple"?
Yeah, see my sig too. The fact, that you don't like solutions, doesn't mean they aren't exist.
Sjorpha, on 29 February 2016 - 03:09 AM, said:
The strange thing is that people here don't understand how measuring trends through isolation of constants work, and are stuck in a delusion that winning and losing can't be used because they are staring themselves blind looking at specific match screens thinking "I shouldn't go down/up in this match, omg!" without understanding how completely irrelevant it is.
They also don't seem to understand that using wins and losses to measure trends is completely different from win/loss ratio, and therefore believe that since win/loss ratio is a bad metric therefore wins and losses must also be bad for measuring skill trends.
Making both or either of these mistakes of course makes it impossible to understand how ELO, PSR or any other matchmaking system works, which is why we get the ******** comments like "It measures wins not skills!!!" and other such nonsense all the freaking time.
I have tried to explain this to no avail, and so far I haven't heard many answers showing any semblance of understanding these relatively simple math, except from people who already understood it before, and this is why PGI should completely ignore any and all forum discussions on this subject.
And this is wrong. Matchmaker is intended to provide as balanced matches, as it can, with/against players, who have as close skill levels to yours, as possible. W/L = 1 means nothing, because 10 stomp wins + 10 stomp loses => W/L = 1 too, while proper MM should provide 20 balanced 50/50 matches instead. It allows players to carry and to be carried. You perform poorly, but your team still wins. Tier 1 + Tier 3 vs Tier 1 + Tier 3 match seems to be balanced. But not for Tier 3 players - Tier 1 players are those, who determine the results of match and for Tier 3 players their W/L stops representing their real skill level - they start to be just punching bags, being carried towards Tier 1 by Tier 1 players.
Performance of 'Mechs, I've been playing recently:
P.S. Why do I have to explain and prove it in every single thread, that appears every day?
Edited by MrMadguy, 29 February 2016 - 03:52 AM.