37 replies to this topic

[Tier5 Kerensky]

So yeah, MM is not perfect. Yeah stomps happen. We all know that, sure.

But I think there's something strange going on. These are my last 12 games, after looking at the really low damage numbers of the enemy team I stated to check back and that's nearly constantly happening.

And these are all in row, except one of the games I didn't have a screenshot. So 12 games, 11 screenshots. It ended maybe 12:9 with our last guys really beat up.

That doens't seem normal, to have such a row of stomps. I would not definetly be surprised if PGI annouced few days later that they've again made some changes to MM. I've never had this kind of row of mostly stops. Some of those were a bit more fair, but way too many stomps.

Spoiler

[Bombast]

Perhaps related: I haven't played many games since the FP event dropped, but when I have, I've been facing off against people I've never seen before. People that have been smashing my face in with relative ease. For a month there were a bunch of people I recognized, a steady loop of familiar names, but they've all been replaced with strangers that seem a lot better than what I usually face.

Is it possible that the MM is fine, and the FP event has just stripped a certain kind of player out of QP, and this is the result?

[justcallme A S H]

I saw people saying "Praise Russ" basically for the MM changes and that games were more balanced.

To be honest - I have seen zero evidence of this in game. Still the same old 12-0 / 12-3 rolls going on game after game.

So not sure what games/matches they are playing in because it's just like shooting fish in a barrel, same as it was before. BoringAF given the player base is dropping and it's the good players that are leaving... There isn't much competition floating around these days.

[Asym]

Don't think so, although, events always create QP messes....

I'm with the OP: a long string of stomps since the last change.

Today was no exception. The only win I've seen was when I just happened to drop with a highly rated comp team in FP and did absolutely nothing.......1 kill and 645 in damage. They were not interested in any help and said so !! That was the only win in two and a half days ! Good grief.

What's the point anymore?

[Johnny Z]

Quickplay matches have been fine. Except in the early hours of the morning which have always been bad. Really bad.

Faction play matches have not been to bad except for these recent events which have been very bad. Extremely bad at times to be clear. Although playing Inner Sphere is always a challenge for events.

This is what I have seen in simple words.

This topic while relevant wont say anything more than what the scores will clearly show.

Edited by Johnny Z, 03 October 2017 - 04:20 PM.

[MadRover]

The matchmaker has improved somewhat. At least I see a lot more 12-8s than rofl stomps. Last night for me was an exception though since it seemed everyone went full potato for some reason.

[Tier5 Kerensky]

Now that I'm looking at it, I can see certain players are nearly in all these games. Normally you don't see several same players in different games. At least not enough to notice it. Maybe the QP playerbase is really low right now due to event.

[MischiefSC]

What you're seeing is the result of a narrower population. So if the times you play have a bunch of bads (like mornings PST) you'll see them a lot. They likely got to T1 by don't of a lot of matches and shouldn't be there.

XP bar for the win.

[Judah Malganis]

Last week was full of stomps and teams with almost no lights, but I figure that was due to people trying out all their ballistic weapons for the events. It seems to have normalized this week and the games are much better.

[UnofficialOperator]

Lol yeah last week I had a long series of stomps which actually moved my lifetime kdr. Went like 15-2 win streak with scores like 12-1 to 12-3 etc.

Seems back to normal during the weekend crowd though.

[El Bandito]

I am having closer to 1:1 WLR in Solo-Q (I rolled face before that), so it seems the MM is better than before. At any rate, I am having much harder time to get into the match due to tightened MM, so that is a big minus for me.

[Ted Wayz]

27 losses in a row, mostly stomps, is the worst string. I just went with it to see how long it would last.

For the most part after 4 or 5 I used to log off then on and it would break the streak. MM does not self correct on its own, it has no concept of consecutive W or L.

Funny thing is I have never had 27 wins in a row. Most I think is 11.

[justcallme A S H]

You've never had 27 losses in a row?

This surprises me.

[Kiiyor]

Teer Kerensky, on 03 October 2017 - 03:01 PM, said:

So yeah, MM is not perfect. Yeah stomps happen. We all know that, sure.

But I think there's something strange going on. These are my last 12 games, after looking at the really low damage numbers of the enemy team I stated to check back and that's nearly constantly happening.

And these are all in row, except one of the games I didn't have a screenshot. So 12 games, 11 screenshots. It ended maybe 12:9 with our last guys really beat up.

That doens't seem normal, to have such a row of stomps. I would not definetly be surprised if PGI annouced few days later that they've again made some changes to MM. I've never had this kind of row of mostly stops. Some of those were a bit more fair, but way too many stomps.

In all honesty, I think it's probably coincidence. I've had runs like that in the past too.

Turn the problem on it's head a little, and imagine if you were coding the MM, and tried to design it to single someone out and produce a run of losses like that - or to behave nefariously in any way at all. The amount of effort it would be pretty staggering - effort that would be far more likely to be spent actually improving the MM.

It's easy to blame the MM for MWO's woes, but I don't think it deserves the hate it gets plastered with. While it could be (lots) better, I think the answers aren't nearly as simple as everyone seems to claim they are, yet there's bandwagons everywhere full of people claiming the MM is responsible for all their ills, and that fixes would be easy.

There's a whole lot that goes on in your average match that the MM has little control over, and there's warehouses full of of variables influencing the outcome of a match before the first mech gets it's metal boots on the ground. I'm struggling to think of any other shooter with as many moving parts as MWO. The speed of your mech, the position you start in, the mind numbing number of weapon and loadout combinations available... i'd hate to try and match all that coherently between two teams.

Even the server you play on has an influence; I find EU players to be more cautious and great in defence, whereas those on the NA servers are noticeably more aggressive and excel at pushes (except when they don't). In fact, some of my worst fights are those parts of the day where timezones align and teams are mixed with them - the differing playstyles don't seem to work well together at all.

I think the biggest step towards improving the MM would be the hardest; by scoring and grading loadouts. A BV system would be a good start, but flat rates for equipment and mechs (like in TT) would not work at all, IMHO, as mechs in MWO are deadly because of the combinations of weapons they carry. Teams are deadly because of the combinations of mechs they have.

Coding that would be a nightmare. Having to change it as meta emerges would be a nightmare. Having to change it after balance adjustments would be a nightmare you could never wake up from. And even if they do manage to get all that sorted, I don't think it would have the effect people think it would.

[FupDup]

Kiiyor, on 03 October 2017 - 06:35 PM, said:

-
I think the biggest step towards improving the MM would be the hardest; by scoring and grading loadouts. A BV system would be a good start, but flat rates for equipment and mechs (like in TT) would not work at all, IMHO, as mechs in MWO are deadly because of the combinations of weapons they carry. Teams are deadly because of the combinations of mechs they have.

Coding that would be a nightmare. Having to change it as meta emerges would be a nightmare. Having to change it after balance adjustments would be a nightmare you could never wake up from. And even if they do manage to get all that sorted, I don't think it would have the effect people think it would.

Well, in theory a player's performance is influenced by the loadout they're using. All else being equal, Bob using a bad mech will probably get lower performance than Bob using a good mech. Thus, you might not have to score the loadout at all, but rather focus on figuring out what exact player performance metrics you want to use because those are directly affected by the loadout anyways. Cut out the middleman.

Another thing to consider is that some players do badly despite using a good mech, while some people in bad mechs can still rock it. If the loadout had too much influence, there could be severe skill mismatches and people deliberately using bad builds just to fight potatoes.

[Kiiyor]

FupDup, on 03 October 2017 - 06:44 PM, said:

Well, in theory a player's performance is influenced by the loadout they're using. All else being equal, Bob using a bad mech will probably get lower performance than Bob using a good mech. Thus, you might not have to score the loadout at all, but rather focus on figuring out what exact player performance metrics you want to use because those are directly affected by the loadout anyways. Cut out the middleman.

Another thing to consider is that some players do badly despite using a good mech, while some people in bad mechs can still rock it. If the loadout had too much influence, there could be severe skill mismatches and people deliberately using bad builds just to fight potatoes.

Exactly.

The thing is, I just think that adds more complexity, more variables, because the player is the biggest unknown quantity in the whole equation.

Some players need a few matches in a mech to get their eye in - especially when moving between weight classes. Some people play the one mech and loadout over and over until they come close to perfecting it - and struggle when moving out to unfamiliar builds.

And then there's the synergy with other players - some fight much better in trading matches, and do well when surrounded by like minded pilots, yet perform poorly in more aggressive fights. Some players with poor situational awareness need light mechs to harass the enemy so they can focus on the task at hand, and struggle without them, without even realizing they need that security, and blaming the team for their own issue.

Writing to cater for people's playstyles when they likely don't understand what they do to produce results would probably lead to more frustration.

And, like you said, players can tank their stats. They can have bad games. They can be drunk! They can be angry and frustrated. Or, the planets can align, and enemies can walk directly of their crosshairs, ignore them, present their backs to them, and inflate the warrior's view of their own capabilities through sheer dumb luck. Or they can have a good understanding of their own capabilities and the game itself, yet still struggle because they have to cater for 11 other guys who might not.

Loadouts and equipment are fixed variables though.

*Ron Perlmen voice* "Equipment.... equipment never changes."

Well, except when it does. The impact of equipment with fixed stats is easier to predict, if you set your mind to predicting it. People are chaos.

[MischiefSC]

FupDup, on 03 October 2017 - 06:44 PM, said:

Well, in theory a player's performance is influenced by the loadout they're using. All else being equal, Bob using a bad mech will probably get lower performance than Bob using a good mech. Thus, you might not have to score the loadout at all, but rather focus on figuring out what exact player performance metrics you want to use because those are directly affected by the loadout anyways. Cut out the middleman.

Another thing to consider is that some players do badly despite using a good mech, while some people in bad mechs can still rock it. If the loadout had too much influence, there could be severe skill mismatches and people deliberately using bad builds just to fight potatoes.

Elo for player, Elo for mechs, Elo modifier for weapons. Average, or however player performance measure vs mech value.

Just got out of a match where as guy in an LRM Atlas with 2 erppcs and possibly an XL was saying we should have "waited for him so he could..." could what?

That guy was dead weight out if the gate. We also had a guy in a nova with 12 flamers. No MGs even, just 12 flamers and 3 AMS. I don't care if they were EmP alts, those builds were dead weight.

[Kiiyor]

MischiefSC, on 03 October 2017 - 07:13 PM, said:

We also had a guy in a nova with 12 flamers. No MGs even, just 12 flamers and 3 AMS. I don't care if they were EmP alts, those builds were dead weight.

The MM should have an extra tick box option before any fight.

"Did you make your current loadout because you're bored/drunk? YES/NO"

If you click yes, you get dumped into chaos land with all the other yessers.

Heh, I actually think there would be some awesome fights there.

[Asym]

I hear and agree with what many of you have said....

Unfortunately, this is a game and as a game it has to have a "fun" component...... Not for the niche players who read all of the MW books, studied lore or adhear to MW traditions.......but, for new players who haven't read, studied or would ever think to do any of the above. We, MWO must, have a method of capturing "new" players and then, keeping them....

Or else, all of the above discussion is moot; because the only people left will be the niche players and they will all be T1's and there will be so few T5's that the experience will be so caustic/toxic that none of them will stay and MORE IMPORTANTLY, those departing NOOBs will depart with a negative perception and that, is the real danger to MWO;......especially, with the "like" generation.... They avoid all or most forms of toxicity and migrate to areas of less danger and more fun.

MWO is in the process of eating their own; and, forums are wondering why?

I hope for the best and accept what is......but, I hope we as a group can change where we are.....even if that is one player at a time.

Edited by Asym, 04 October 2017 - 07:02 AM.

[Tarl Cabot]

Remember PGI may have tighten up the MM parameters but it did not change the current PSR parameters that covers a long period of time without any sort of reset/realignment.

But really, how is this really different from Competitive play and their lopsided wins there, and not just this year but last year? Actual teams where both sides are not bringing joke builds, most are CLAN mechs, communication and some sort of gameplan on both sides, one less lance on each side, etc?

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 05 October 2017 - 03:20 AM.