227 replies to this topic

[H I A S]

I mean look at all the sub 250 MS sub 1,5 KD guys at Tier1. How can a MM create good games for the low percentage of decent Players with so much terribadness around?
From my experience the average MWO Player is unskilled at videogames. Maybe because they simply dont play any other competitive PvP games and they are here for their BT fix?
A Part of the Com says "We only want hard competitive matches and play the best of the best". In the meantime they curbstomp Tier5 Pugs at CW and refuse to participate in ranked Mode.
It's so sad.

Maybe just make the MM random.

Edited by H I A S, 24 September 2017 - 02:25 PM.

[KeeningBanshee]

you know you are a bittervet when you are still calling it CW

[Cloves]

Neah, they just need to toss the truly bad PSR and set the tiers by strict W/L. Divide the population by fifths and place them in tiers based on their last 100 games, those with less than 100 games start in 5. Simple leaderboard stuff.

[justcallme A S H]

WLR is not how you set a matchmaker.

[Bombast]

No, but PSR is.

[Cloves]

Why not judge players by their ability to win?

[Ruar]

The problem with the match score is it is primarily based on damage. A mech who leads a push, and dies early because of it, could be the key to the team winning, but that player will have a low score due to low damage.

Which causes so many people to play with damage as the primary motivator which leads to losses but higher scores.

What really needs to happen is more emphasis on support actions with less on damage. They should really add in some kind of reward for having % armor stripped from your own mech, showing skill in taking damage, yet staying in the fight.

As long as the MM is based on the current PSR and match score drivers then we will never have close to balanced teams.

Cloves, on 24 September 2017 - 02:33 PM, said:

Why not judge players by their ability to win?

Because in 8 or 12 man teams there is too much reliance on everyone else in your team. At the 4 man level you could get a pretty good idea of skill based on W/L ,but with the bigger numbers becomes more and more dependence on your teammates to play well. When the MM slots you with poor teammates and you lose then it isn't showing your skill, it's showing the MMs skill.

[Cloves]

Yes there is reliance, however, you are judged by your average, not any particular win or loss. If you can get 12 players to win more than lose, the difference is YOU. If you think you are some sort of awesome player that "always get put on the losing team" I would take a closer look at how much you are contributing to the win.

[H I A S]

Elo aka WL is the best Skillrating, but even back in these days the MM wasnt perfect (but way better).
But thats not the question of this topic.

[Ruar]

Cloves, on 24 September 2017 - 02:38 PM, said:

Yes there is reliance, however, you are judged by your average, not any particular win or loss. If you can get 12 players to win more than lose, the difference is YOU. If you think you are some sort of awesome player that "always get put on the losing team" I would take a closer look at how much you are contributing to the win.

First, I don't think I'm awesome, so maybe chill with personal attacks.

Second, the fact you think you are so good that you can sway the fight against 12 other people shows your bias. The most effective one person can be is using the mic and helping coordinate the team. Individual mech skill isn't going to let you carry match after match. If you are carrying every match then the MM is the reason because you are being slotted lower than your skill.

Edited by Ruar, 24 September 2017 - 02:41 PM.

[Trissila]

Ruar, on 24 September 2017 - 02:35 PM, said:

The problem with the match score is it is primarily based on damage. A mech who leads a push, and dies early because of it, could be the key to the team winning, but that player will have a low score due to low damage.

Which causes so many people to play with damage as the primary motivator which leads to losses but higher scores.

What really needs to happen is more emphasis on support actions with less on damage. They should really add in some kind of reward for having % armor stripped from your own mech, showing skill in taking damage, yet staying in the fight.

As long as the MM is based on the current PSR and match score drivers then we will never have close to balanced teams.



Because in 8 or 12 man teams there is too much reliance on everyone else in your team. At the 4 man level you could get a pretty good idea of skill based on W/L ,but with the bigger numbers becomes more and more dependence on your teammates to play well. When the MM slots you with poor teammates and you lose then it isn't showing your skill, it's showing the MMs skill.

Yeah. When you get placed on a team where you're top damage/match score by a LONG shot in a Raven 3L and the team loses, it's not due to lack of skill on your part. One person's shoulders can only be so broad. If you're nailing 500~600 match score while all four of your team's assaults struggled to do 200 damage, you're not a bad player on account of being unable to carry 400 tons of deadweight.

[Cloves]

Sorry you took that as a personal attack.

You truly feel no one person can be a positive or negative influence on 11 others? Or say tip the balance and start the snowball?

[H I A S]

Ruar, on 24 September 2017 - 02:40 PM, said:

First, I don't think I'm awesome, so maybe chill with personal attacks.

Second, the fact you think you are so good that you can sway the fight against 12 other people shows your bias. The most effective one person can be is using the mic and helping coordinate the team. Individual mech skill isn't going to let you carry match after match. If you are carrying every match then the MM is the reason because you are being slotted lower than your skill.

Kaffe proofs you wrong with his two other Accounts.
Btw you guys are allready off topic.

[Cloves]

Firstly, my stats suck, I am a bad player.


And this leads to my logical point ( trying not to attack anyone)...

If you sit back and snipe all your games and have a W/L of less than 1 in that mech in that role, I would argue that you are not a net positive to your team statistically.

[Ruar]

Cloves, on 24 September 2017 - 02:43 PM, said:

Sorry you took that as a personal attack.

You truly feel no one person can be a positive or negative influence on 11 others? Or say tip the balance and start the snowball?

You didn't say positive or negative, you said get 12 people to win more than lose.

An individual can absolutely have a positive or negative influence, and there will be the rare match where one person pretty much is the reason the team won, but on average it's the combination of 4-6 people who really make the team win or lose.

One big factor is mech choice. I have a higher positive effect in my Quickdraw than I do in an Enforcer or Assassin. Someone else might get better results in a Mad IIC instead of a Pirates Bane. Some mechs are just better than others and a skilled pilot in a good mech will have more influence than in a poor mech.

As long as the MM is using bad information to create teams then the balance will be bad. Mechs need a battle value and players need an effective PSR to create balanced teams. You have to have both.

[Cloves]

Ruar, on 24 September 2017 - 02:51 PM, said:

You didn't say positive or negative, you said get 12 people to win more than lose.

An individual can absolutely have a positive or negative influence, and there will be the rare match where one person pretty much is the reason the team won, but on average it's the combination of 4-6 people who really make the team win or lose.

One big factor is mech choice. I have a higher positive effect in my Quickdraw than I do in an Enforcer or Assassin. Someone else might get better results in a Mad IIC instead of a Pirates Bane. Some mechs are just better than others and a skilled pilot in a good mech will have more influence than in a poor mech.

As long as the MM is using bad information to create teams then the balance will be bad. Mechs need a battle value and players need an effective PSR to create balanced teams. You have to have both.

I agree wholeheartedly with you!

I feel that the current system is very flawed.

I was proposing a simple fix, not the most accurate one.

Ideally you would have a raking in every build of every mech with every skill layout, but this is unlikely to happen. Hell, you could even have it go down as you play because you are losing focus and getting tired.

A simple fix, that would be fairly difficult to "game"...

[Ruar]

Cloves, on 24 September 2017 - 02:57 PM, said:

I agree wholeheartedly with you!

I feel that the current system is very flawed.

I was proposing a simple fix, not the most accurate one.

Ideally you would have a raking in every build of every mech with every skill layout, but this is unlikely to happen. Hell, you could even have it go down as you play because you are losing focus and getting tired.

A simple fix, that would be fairly difficult to "game"...

All they really need is each chassis, which should have plenty of data over the years to provide. New mechs would have to be tweaked, but most will be easily to assign a value.

Then they just need to adjust the PSR so that it resets each quarter using the previous standings to seed the new list, with mor emphasis on support actions over damage. Things like lance in formation, scouting, flanking, hit and run... those things that are already in the game but don't get much notice. Make those things the items that determine your match score as much as damage. If you have to use damage then use kill most damage dealt for ranking since it's more accurate then just damage over all.

[C E Dwyer]

I really don't care about the opinion of a person that's not even featuring on the leader board.

However everyone whom has been around knows that PSR is bad, and will remain so all the time P.G.I refuse to remove the upward trend of the system.

expect wait times to increase when they do though

[Kiiyor]

The MM does what it does just fine. The issue is that it uses tiers to balance teams - when a high tier is more often an indication of time invested rather than individual skill. It's too easy to move upwards in tier, and significantly harder to move down.

Even with a decent skill rating system, people would still place far too much blame on the MM for a loss, when its only a small factor. It's just near impossible for the average player to look to their own failings. Team positioning, and whatever the hell people do in the mechlab before clicking launch have a FAR larger impact on the outcome of a battle than the matchmaker does.

Incorrectly gauging the level of commitment your teammates have into following you into a stupid idea is also a significant contributor.

[Cloves]

He is on the leader board, just not yet this month.