I disagree with Mischief and favor Tarogato's multivariate approach. Here are some quote snippets:
MischiefSC, on 22 January 2018 - 10:35 PM, said:
@tarogato;
Your w/l is based on the average impact of your performance on w/l.
If you attempt to include anything other than w/l in a matchmaker designed to match teams ability to win or lose matches you are designing a flawed matchmaker. If you want to match teams for build types or sniping maps or around some other criteria than their odds of winning vs each other then great - use other factors.
However if you include any other factors in it then your matchmaker is bad and the data unreliable.
W/L only. Or it's going to be as bad (potentially worse) than PSR.
MischiefSC, on 23 January 2018 - 12:38 AM, said:
At this point we're just trying to make it clear that win/loss history is all you take into account when building a matchmaker to predict peoples odds of winning or losing a match. Adding k factor and how it's computed can come after we are clear on what a matchmaker is even trying to do.
KDR, damage, match score, kills per match, favorite color and anything else has no place at all in the calculation process for predicting win/loss in this sort of environment. Until we can get even just the smart people (and I count Tarogato high on that list) to understand the how/why of that we're going to end up with stuff like PSR, which may as well split players up by total matches played in the last rolling 365 day cycle.
MischiefSC, on 23 January 2018 - 01:08 AM, said:
Well aware of of the difference; the point is that your winning (and losing) is the basis of a matchmaker that doesn't suck. Not even going to say a 'good' matchmaker, just any matchmaker that isn't terrible.
Also that at no point does damage/KMDDs/whatever else come into it as useful for matchmaking.
If we had group/pug queue scores split.
As a counterpoint to the "WLR only" approach, here are examples:
1) Team A is Tier 4, average WLR 1.2. Team B is Tier 1, average WLR 1.2. Team B is inherently advantaged because they have more experience, and they fought tougher opponents to get that 1.2 rating. This is why sports analysts look at strength of opponents in predicting match or fight outcomes.
2) Team A is average WLR 1.2, piloting 12 Vindicators. Team B is average WLR 1.2, piloting 12 Deathstrikes. Team B is at an advantage because they are in superior mechs. This is why there is so much emphasis on tonnage and mech balance in the game.
3) Team A is average WLR 1.2, piloting 12 Deathstrikes that they just bought on sale. They have no skill points, their loadouts aren't optimized (not sure if I need dual NARCs?), and they're used to piloting light mechs. Team B is average WLR 1.2, piloting 12 Deathstrikes that they've used since launch.
4) Team A is average WLR 1.2. They have s o l i t u d e with his 8.5 WLR and 11 potatoes with 0.5 WLR. Team B has 1.2 WLR for each player on the team.
5) Team A are completely PUGs and Team B has several players sync dropped as a unit.
6) It's Terra Therma. Team A are laser boats and Team B are dakka.
And so on. I agree that WLR is very important, but it shouldn't be the only predictor.
Edited by Growlly, 24 January 2018 - 07:24 AM.
12
