138 replies to this topic

[El Bandito]

Nightbird, on 10 June 2018 - 07:00 PM, said:

Maybe if I asked a different question

a ) Suppose you're dropping in a strong team of 8 winning most of your matches in 12vs12 by rolling your opponents 12 to 0/1/2. Would you enjoy a scenario where the MM created a 10vs14 match to challenge you?

b ) Suppose you're in a group of intermediate pilots, losing many matches 0/1/2-12 against the strong teams that roam QP GQ. Would you enjoy a scenario where the MM took that into consideration and put your group into a reinforced group of 15 if your opponent is a strong team of 9?

For that to happen, PGI will need to come up with dynamic reward system--something they REALLY do not wish to touch. Heck, PGI already thinks static 8v8 reward change is gonna be big overhaul.

[Nightbird]

El Bandito, on 10 June 2018 - 07:25 PM, said:

For that to happen, PGI will need to come up with dynamic reward system--something they REALLY do not wish to touch. Heck, PGI already thinks static 8v8 reward change is gonna be big overhaul.

Why does there need to be a dynamic reward system? I understand if base and turret health needs to be dynamic... etc. Sorry if I missed something here.

[El Bandito]

Nightbird, on 10 June 2018 - 07:28 PM, said:

Why does there need to be a dynamic reward system? I understand if base and turret health needs to be dynamic... etc. Sorry if I missed something here.

Assuming MM thinks 6 pilots from 228 BW equals to 12 mixed group pilots, I didn't queue for 5 minutes in GQ just to fight only 6 mechs from 228, and get such low amount of rewards for it, even if our side wins. You get it?

Dynamic team numbers will shaft lesser players more, if there is no dynamic reward system, cause they will fight lesser number of mechs for lesser potential rewards, while having the same, or more wait time.

Edited by El Bandito, 10 June 2018 - 07:40 PM.

[Nightbird]

You'd get more in a win than today if you're getting rolled 2-12 and earning 50-60K C-bills? Isn't that enough for a benefit?

Maybe put differently, you're right in that yes, in an even match, you'd have the possibility to earn more... BUT... if the MM is creating a 6vs12 match with your 6man in the 12, then no you never had a ghost of a chance to those c-bills.

Edited by Nightbird, 10 June 2018 - 07:45 PM.

[El Bandito]

Nightbird, on 10 June 2018 - 07:41 PM, said:

You'd get more in a win than today if you're getting rolled 2-12 and earning 50-60K C-bills? Isn't that enough for a benefit?

That's still not fair. Why should one side be paid less if the MM deems you to be equals? I know I would complain.

[Nightbird]

Well people complain about everything If all those MM sucks, my team sucks threads changed into I'm always placed into big teams I should earn as much as those guys in the little teams, I would mark that up as a win for MWO of the highest order.

IMO, in a real 8vs16 match, I think both sides couldn't care less about the c-bills and it's all about the challenge ahead of them. If the 8 man wins, they've earned the c-bills cuz think about how often today you overcome a 0-6 deficient. If the 16 man brings down a top team, they'll be ecstatic as well.

Lastly, a C-bill adjustment is easy. If doing a 8vs16 instead of 12vs12, divide 12 by 8 and give the 16 players 50% more c-bills for the in match actions. In comparison, the MM is infinitely harder to do.

Edited by Nightbird, 10 June 2018 - 07:56 PM.

[Mystere]

El Bandito, on 10 June 2018 - 07:32 PM, said:

Assuming MM thinks 6 pilots from 228 BW equals to 12 mixed group pilots, I didn't queue for 5 minutes in GQ just to fight only 6 mechs from 228, and get such low amount of rewards for it, even if our side wins. You get it?

Dynamic team numbers will shaft lesser players more, if there is no dynamic reward system, cause they will fight lesser number of mechs for lesser potential rewards, while having the same, or more wait time.

And therein lies the problem: playing for rewards. Whatever happened to just simply playing to win?

I think people have internalized this mercenary thing more than what is considered healthy.

Worst case, just make the rewards for winning generous.

Edited by Mystere, 10 June 2018 - 08:23 PM.

[El Bandito]

Nightbird, on 10 June 2018 - 07:48 PM, said:

Well people complain about everything f all those MM sucks, my team sucks threads changed into I'm always placed into big teams I should earn as much as those guys in the little teams, I would mark that up as a win for MWO of the highest order.

I think you are too naive to assume MM issues will be solved just like that. There will be just as many threads about "my teams suck", as now, with the addition of "my payment sucks" threads.

Mystere, on 10 June 2018 - 08:22 PM, said:

And therein lies the problem: playing for rewards. Whatever happened to just simply playing to win? I think people have internalized this mercenary thing more than what is considered healthy. Worst case, just make the rewards for winning generous.

I play to win rather than rewards, but that's also because I have over 120 mechs + 300 million C-Bills stashed away. MWO is grindy towards those who are trying to get more mechs and skilling them up. If time played does not reward much C-Bills, then many players will quit playing GQ under Nightbirds's system.

As for giving more rewards for the winning side I have no issue with that, but you gonna have to convince Russ that such system will not be detrimental to MWO's economy.

Edited by El Bandito, 10 June 2018 - 09:21 PM.

[Nightbird]

Don't get distracted by cbill earning, if earning per min is negatively affected it can be fixed with a % modifier. The MM is the mountain, the mole hills are easy peasy.

[Asym]

MWO can't be fixed: if it was economical to fix, we'd have those fixes versus MW5. As many of us said in early 2017, PGI was headed away from MWO and teams.... The concept "just didn't work" for a huge list of reasons. S7 was an easier fix as a band-aid till the corporation reverts back to safe revenue territory: where it came from: single player as it was before....

I don't think PGI will close down MWO at first......depends on MW5 ! Think about it this way: everyone above has brought up a lot of great ideas BUT, we seem to agree that PGI "can't fix this".... Occam's razor: what is the choice with the fewest assumption is most likely the best solution: single player, stock builds, traditional MW format.....

[Nightbird]

Asym, on 11 June 2018 - 05:02 AM, said:

MWO can't be fixed: if it was economical to fix, we'd have those fixes versus MW5..

Can't and won't are different things. Most people want to be fit, but don't put in 30mins to an hour at the gym every day. It's not that they can't be fit, but won't be. With the MM, I'd posted in various cases I'd crunch the data for free, they'd just need to implement the formula.

Edited by Nightbird, 11 June 2018 - 11:47 AM.

[Nightbird]

Any comments on one queue Solaris?

[El Bandito]

Nightbird, on 11 June 2018 - 04:07 PM, said:

Any comments on one queue Solaris?

One queue? I'd personally prefer weight class based divisions so that matches will be somewhat even. One thing I hate about Solaris is that I have to plod around in an assault mech to chase a Light, and there is very little I can do to prevent a draw if the light mech pilot chooses to. I'm sure light mech pilots also hate big mechs hiding in a corner.

[Nightbird]

Nightbird, on 09 June 2018 - 11:24 AM, said:

...continued from last post

Why is it clear from Solaris that people want balanced play more than having a 'mode' of play? For one, Solaris is a new mode. For another, think of what people say about Faction Play, and the reality that by comparing the Faction Play war log and the Solaris queue numbers, it is clear there are fewer people playing Solaris than Faction Play.

So what are the problems with Solaris? From reading the various threads regarding it, the two main ones are 1) there are too many buckets (14 divisions, for solo and group) that split players meaning there isn't enough people in one bucket to make good matches based on Elo, and 2) the mechs in each division offer only a few mechs and load-outs that are competitive, if you don't choose those you're playing with two arms tied behind your back. Elo assumes that both players start with the same pieces, it doesn't apply to MW.

This is because Mechwarrior has always been about the pilot and the mech, not just the pilot. There are no pilots skilled enough that can make any mech stand a chance against any other mech. Ball-parking mechs into 7 divisions doesn't change this, and suggestions about making divisions based on mech weight class wouldn't change this either. The reality is every mech and every loadout has a significant modifier on the effectiveness of a pilot... depending on the opponent they are facing. Any MM that doesn't take this into consideration will not create equitable matchs and therefore forces everyone into the few top mechs and loadouts and otherwise quit Solaris altogether.

How would a new MM benefit Solaris? (Obviously dynamic team numbers doesn't apply here) Quite simply because in addition to pilot skill, not only can a statistical model assign a value to his mech and loadout, the model can also assign a modifier based on his opponent's mech and loadout. A Streak Maddog will be given a tremendous value against a laser/MG Firestarter, and a pitiful value against an AC20/SRM Atlas. The performance values of all the pilots with their mechs in queue can be evaluated based on all the possible opponents and their mechs, and fair matches made. A less skilled pilot with a stronger mech can be matched against a better pilot with a weaker mech. The best pilots in the best mechs that do not have an appropriate opponent will simply sit in queue until a worthy opponent arrives, or until they switch to a less strong mech choice to intentionally lower their total value.

The benefits to this MM are: 1) all the queues can be combined into one (one solo and one 2-man group) for better wait times AND better matches, and 2) you can bring any mech and any loadout you want, and be paired with a fair opponent.

to be continued...

[50 50]

Nightbird, on 10 June 2018 - 07:00 PM, said:

Maybe if I asked a different question

a ) Suppose you're dropping in a strong team of 8 winning most of your matches in 12vs12 by rolling your opponents 12 to 0/1/2. Would you enjoy a scenario where the MM created a 10vs14 match to challenge you?

b ) Suppose you're in a group of intermediate pilots, losing many matches 0/1/2-12 against the strong teams that roam QP GQ. Would you enjoy a scenario where the MM took that into consideration and put your group into a reinforced group of 15 if your opponent is a strong team of 9?

I can see what you are getting at here and believe I'm understanding it.
Still not too keen on having two differently sized teams in a match facing off regardless of skill difference.

For quick play, the tier matching should be working to try and get two teams of approximately the same skill fighting each other.
With the groups it should be using an average but overall it should work out the same.
Where it feels like it gets let down is when there is simply not enough people playing in a particular queue to make the most balanced match it can.
That's not to say it would prevent a stomp, we only need to look at things like the MRBC or WC matches to see that it can still happen where the skill level of both teams should be fairly equal. Maybe more so.
So I'm going to disagree on the option to have uneven team sizes as I feel this doesn't address the primary issue of 'not enough players' which affects wait times and then impacts on matching up teams that may not be as evenly matched.
Hence pushing to allow teams to shrink on both sides in an effort to tackle the wait times and look at the flow on effect for matching teams by skill and see if that improves.

Faction Play being more of an open slather can't have (due to population), and maybe shouldn't have, the matching by tier.
But it could benefit from allowing reduced team sizes to again tackle the wait times.

That said, I could see a bit of an incentive put in that might be beneficial for the inexperienced players which is to provide a bigger reward.
A bit like a bounty system really.
The tier is meant to represent our experience level, not really skill though we might be able to determine another value using tier * how long it took to get there..... maybe.
Anyway, if we matched up a lance of Vets who's average tier in the group was 1 and they fought a lance of trainees averaging tier 5 we could assume a very one sided battle so providing the more inexperienced team with a bonus equal to the difference might be something to consider.
eg:
Subtract the average tier of each group from each other.
Team A, tier 1 - Team B, tier 5. = -4. Make that a 0% modifier so the team isn't penalized but simply paid to complete the mission and that's that.
Team B, tier 5 - Team A, tier 1 = +4. They get a 40% modifier (just a figure I've made up) for literally being thrown to the wolves.
Could chuck in a bit of immersion around that with a pre-mission briefing for fun:
"A veteran lance of enemy mechs had dropped into the vicinity. You're all we've got to hold the line so I don't care what you smell, get in there!"
etc
etc

Nightbird, on 11 June 2018 - 04:07 PM, said:

Any comments on one queue Solaris?

Could do something similar.
Even with the smaller team requirements it sounds like it is still hard to get a match.
I mean.... 14 queues?
So, given the mechs themselves have ranks/tiers it could be combined into a single queue and have that same payout bonus.
Feel ballsy enough to take your rank 7 mech against a rank 1 mech? Well, if you do well you could get 6x times the payout.
Think I'd like to see a free for all option added.... the battle royal/king of the hill.... open play to drop in and out of a match and winnings based on time survived as well as the other bits.
Not that I play Solaris but that's my take on it.

[Cloves]

Problem with using payouts to incentive-ize a huge skill spread is nobody wants to be on the rookie team, and the vets will still earn far more due to the continuous stomps. Players would rather have an even w/l than be stomped into the pavement while having a juicy carrot forever out of reach, it will just make them salty and want to quit.

[Nightbird]

50 50, on 11 June 2018 - 08:17 PM, said:

I can see what you are getting at here and believe I'm understanding it.
Still not too keen on having two differently sized teams in a match facing off regardless of skill difference.

For quick play, the tier matching should be working to try and get two teams of approximately the same skill fighting each other.
With the groups it should be using an average but overall it should work out the same.

It's putting the cart before the horse. Yes, 10x pop would make the current MM work, but as the current MM creates a toxic player experience, players are leaving as fast as they enter. The question is what is more important, good matches or enforcing 12 players on each team? We know the experience that comes with the latter, and it ain't changing unless the goal posts shift to what is actually important.

Edited by Nightbird, 12 June 2018 - 06:40 AM.

[Nightbird]

While I think many people agree that the matchmaking is bad, I'm surprised there is so little energy left to discuss how to make it better. The best I can do is pledge 1k$ usd if PGI goes with this MM suggestion for QP, FP, and Solaris. Going forward, I'll just bump this thread everytime there is a MM complaint thread. I'll reply if there are questions, but I won't if someone just makes a statement like 'this can't be done'. It can be, it's just math.

Let's start with:
https://mwomercs.com...s-balance-that/

[Nightbird]

https://mwomercs.com...nce-on-tonnage/

The proposed MM will at a minimum statistically compute a value for every chassis and.. resource permitting... per loadout. It will combine this with pilot skill values to create balanced teams.

[Nightbird]

https://mwomercs.com...ps-are-garbage/

Proposed MM will only put a king crab and stormcrow together if the stormcrow pilot is sufficiently more skilled.