Jump to content

Wanted: A Fair Match Maker And Dynamic Teams


138 replies to this topic

#1 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 7,518 posts

Posted 06 June 2018 - 08:03 PM

-Updated 6/7

MWO today has many game modes with unique fight sizes, from 1vs1, 2vs2 in Solaris to 4vs4 in FP scouting and 12vs12 in QP and FP (4 spawns). A common feedback across all these modes is that the teams are not fair, one side often starts with an overwhelming advantage in skill or mech choice or both, and this does not lead to a fun match. People want fair, balanced matches where they feel challenged when winning, and feel they had a chance when losing. This is important to enjoying any game.

The reason the teams tend to be unbalanced is how the Match Maker (MM) creates teams. The MM uses a Tier system which doesn't accurately reflect a player's skill. It does not look at mechs or loud-outs selected, it does not consider the map or mode, it does not look at synergies between group members, and in the case of Solaris it does not give any consideration to the relative strengths and weaknesses of a match-up. The bottom-line is that it is not putting teams together smartly.

To fix this problem once and for all, I want two changes:

1. A Match Maker that looks not only at a pilot's past performance, but also the mech selected (it's load-out, armor, skill status, heat efficiency, effective range), how this mech+load-out performs on the current map, how large a group the pilot is in and their synergy together.

2. Dynamic team numbers, so that for QP and FP, the Match Maker is allowed to make teams of greater than or less than 12 in order to create balanced matches in a reasonable amount of time. This may mean updating maps so that turret and base health or capture time can be dynamically adjusted to team size.

The impact I expect to see in QP and FP is that teams are much more balanced because the MM knows not only how skilled a pilot is, but also whether they are using a good or bad mech whether it performs well on the current map. In group queue, a team of 8 great pilots can be matched against 16 intermediate pilots if that is what it takes to create a fair match. (If 12vs12 can be done, the MM will still do so, but its hands are no longer tied to 12 players per team nor 24 players in total)

The impact I expect to see in Solaris is that all these division of mechs that don't really work can be re-merged into one. The MM knows if two mechs are a really bad match-up, for example, a locust with a streak maddog, or a streak maddog with an atlas, or an atlas with a locust. It will take both mech chassis and load-out into consideration to avoid making lopsided matches. Matches with clearly a stronger mech versus a weaker mech would only be made if the MM sees a sufficiently more skilled pilot in the weaker mech.

As far as whether this MM is even possible to implement, it is. It requires a statistical general linear model with all of the predictors listed above, and it will figure out how much to weigh each of the predictors in a way that allow an MM to assign a value to each pilot and mech. This is something I do every day at work, even if you don't understand it, only the programmer implementing it needs to.

Discuss?

Edited by Nightbird, 14 June 2018 - 03:23 PM.


#2 Odin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 498 posts

Posted 06 June 2018 - 08:53 PM

8vs8? Boring again?
Obviously its not team numbers. Problem, as OP said might be a bad match making. Why would 8vs8 be any better then 12vs12? For gods sake down grading is not a solution. How we access pilots skill is what is essential here. Smart math might even help, agreed.

After a 4 years hiatus, I am back to find I am tier 5 nowadays LOL .....

Edited by Odin, 06 June 2018 - 08:58 PM.


#3 justcallme A S H

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • 8,987 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, AU

Posted 06 June 2018 - 09:35 PM

You don't have to rename anything. PSR should do this - rate pilots based skill.

The fact it is does an absolutely abysmal job, in fact I'll go far so as to say the values that are in it are almost completely wrong based on the fact Tier 4 players make it into Tier 1. And it sees all "Tier 1" as equal, another gaping flaw.

If you recalculate so that each individual player has their own PSR within a Tier, matched against other players then the MM has a relatively easy job then of balancing teams once a pool of 24 players is filled as the job is mostly done. It doesn't require a ground up rebuild or any such extensive effort.


As for Dynamic team numbers that is an entirely different discussion. Going off Pauls post -->HERE<-- he either doesn't understand or it is too hard basket. I mean honestly, if you can make a 'instant' ceasefire work and it resets in Faction Play then you can do it for documented low pop times for QP. It might need more structure rather than fully dynamic, either/or - it is possible, we know that much.

#4 El Bandito

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 26,736 posts
  • LocationStill doing ungodly amount of damage, but with more accuracy.

Posted 06 June 2018 - 10:16 PM

Dynamic team number is a nightmare to balance. Not even big multiplayer arena game companies dare to do it. PGI certainly can't. As for reverting back to 8v8 in QP, I'm all for it. It has more pros than cons.

#5 SFC174

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Pharaoh
  • The Pharaoh
  • 695 posts

Posted 07 June 2018 - 04:55 AM

A good post OP, and logical. It's hard to disagree with anything you wrote. There are some semantics to hash out maybe, but....

Anyways, the only issue here is PGI. And while dynamic team sizing does make sense in times of low pop, like others, I just don't see it happening. Not only do I see it being a major technical hurdle for PGI to do right, but going to smaller team sizes is going to require mode/map changes in concert to make things work right.

For example, if you get stuck with Escort, how much do you reduce the health of the VIP? (shouldn't be that hard, but how long will it take to figure it out?)

Or if you go down to 6v6 do you just scrap certain modes like Conquest where 6v6 might just result in no combat at all?

That might actually be the answer - if you dynamically downsize, the smaller the teams the fewer maps/modes available. Skirmish or Domination work with almost any team size. Other modes less so.

#6 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 7,518 posts

Posted 07 June 2018 - 06:26 AM

There's definitely some things to be hashed out with dynamic team sizing. Some of it, like drop ships, conquest point positioning, environment hp, etc, have to be changed with 8vs8 anyhow. If it takes 4 months to do 8vs8, and 6 months to do this, then the question is really how well 8vs8 will be received. If people buy into my argument that people will not like it anymore than 12vs12, then it becomes a waste. Why not do this?

The point about asymmetric teams is well taken, but it's not really optional if we want better gameplay experiences for everyone. This is why 8v8 is being considered right? The reason I see the merging of group queue and solo queue being necessary is that GQ can be a pretty bad experience. Skill/tiers is basically not considered there because not only is pop low, but you have to fit these group sizes together. This means novice teams get put against the best teams. Boring for one side, frustrating for the other. Even if skill levels are measured correctly, you won't get better matches in GQ unless you up wait time, a non-starter. The reason that SQ and GQ was separated in the first place is that organized teams are more effective than solo players, but if we can measure that effectiveness we can balance it. If a 8 man top team is in queue, and along with a 4-man top team and a 5-man mid team, and a 8-man novice team. The MM in 8v8 will just put the top team against the novice team. What I'm proposing is that the 8-man top team is put against the 4-man top team + 5-man mid-team if the math works out. 8vs9. If it doesn't, solo pugs can be grabbed to create a balanced match as 8vs10 or 8vs11 all the way up to 8vs16. It becomes infinitely easier to create balanced matches.

I'm not saying this would be easy, but MWO can't rely on huge pop to solve problems. This solution will enable better matches today, why not work on this than something people will grow sick of in a week and beg for 12vs12 to come back or yikes ask for spliiting the pop again to 8vs8 and 12vs12?

Edited by Nightbird, 07 June 2018 - 06:33 AM.


#7 MTier Slayed Up

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 717 posts

Posted 07 June 2018 - 06:39 AM

RANKED

QUE

#8 Spheroid

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 5,064 posts
  • LocationSouthern Wisconsin

Posted 07 June 2018 - 08:35 AM

Listen they have had the ability to add a more comprehensive match maker for years and have not.

Ask yourself why does each mech variant not have a independent psr, elo, tier, etc?


The limiting factor must be cost or technological. It is the only rational conclusion. Increasing variable complexity would increase the database size exponentially. Its quite sad really. Its 2018, servers should really not have any problem regarding the issue.

Edited by Spheroid, 07 June 2018 - 08:38 AM.


#9 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 7,518 posts

Posted 07 June 2018 - 08:51 AM

As someone who builds and uses databases to do analyses every day (I am literally looking down from one now to my phone), it's not that complex. It would be more complex, in that for something of MWO's minimal complexity it would take two days instead of one for me. (I work projects that take months)

I do feel like PGI listens to the community, if anything they listen too hard and don't do enough cost-benefit analysis. Many people wanted Solaris, many people didn't want Solaris. Arguments were presented for both sides. The customer's always right, but which ones? Unfortunately, we can't all be right and PGI has to weigh the arguments. I'm pretty sure someone at PGI will read this thread if I keep it bumped for a week, if the arguments are good, I hope they'll realize why all the bucket changes we've been doing have had us moving sidewise and not forward.

#10 Spheroid

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 5,064 posts
  • LocationSouthern Wisconsin

Posted 07 June 2018 - 09:01 AM

Why do they not do as you suggest then? MWO only has a skeleton staff bereft of programmers? If it is not a technical problem the only other explanation is lack of personel.

#11 Scyther

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,271 posts
  • LocationOntario, Canada

Posted 07 June 2018 - 09:04 AM

'Pilot skill' isn't a single value. You might have a pilot who is amazing in lights, good in mediums, always out of position in heavies and assaults. Myself, I tend to do slightly better in the heavier weight classes, I'm not very skilled in hit-and-run for lights and mediums.

You also have issues like: does well with Clan laser vomit, is bad with Clan Dakka, is good with IS Dakka but bad with IS energy. Does well in maxed-out, full skilled, tweaked build mechs, does poorly in brand new mechs with few skills/little familiarity.

We also need to worry about balancing mixed tech/builds/pilot skills because we do still have issues with tech balance and Mechlab build quality. Take two teams of perfectly equal PSRs, but one team has their maxed out meta builds and the other team has their 'just bought mechpack X' builds, you're not going to get an equal match.

You can actually have a pretty simple algorithm that takes pilot skill (as expressed by Match Score relative to the mean), Mech build and quality, and builds either a 12v12 or 8v8 depending on the queue size/wait times. It would also help cut down Solaris divisions because you could make more flexible matches.

I suspect PGI will go with the 'that's not possible', 'everyone would hate it', or 'it's too untested' answers to any significant changes in MM however. They're much more focused on minimal, one-shot changes rather than actually re-coding something to take a new approach.

To be fair, we made these same points for years in World of Tanks, and their final solution was "we reduced the tier spread on matches, and reduced MM wait times". Which is pretty close to what MWO has recently done.

#12 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 7,518 posts

Posted 07 June 2018 - 09:19 AM

MadBadger - agree with all your points. I did say combine pilot value with mech value in some way, i.e. accounting for strengths or weaknesses in certain chassis, and accounting for loadout is possible but complex. It would not be necessary to do it all in the first iteration to see a huge improvement, especially if it means it's implementable whereas the perfect system is not. Don't want to let the perfect get in the way of the good.

Spheriod - I don't want to speculate

#13 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 7,518 posts

Posted 07 June 2018 - 03:54 PM

View PostEl Bandito, on 06 June 2018 - 10:16 PM, said:

It has more pros than cons.


We'll revisit this 2 weeks after it is implemented heh heh heh Posted Image

Edited by Nightbird, 07 June 2018 - 03:54 PM.


#14 El Bandito

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 26,736 posts
  • LocationStill doing ungodly amount of damage, but with more accuracy.

Posted 07 June 2018 - 05:01 PM

View PostNightbird, on 07 June 2018 - 03:54 PM, said:

We'll revisit this 2 weeks after it is implemented heh heh heh Posted Image


If it ever gets implemented. PGI likes to pussyfoot around. Posted Image

#15 Hayato Mori

    Member

  • Pip
  • 17 posts

Posted 07 June 2018 - 08:04 PM

MM would not be an issue if players were opting into pre-made, team oriented game modes... but they instead are opting to avoid it. FW is near dead. Solaris is worse off. If MWO does not have the game play to keep more than a few hundred players around the world interested in it from a competitive standpoint, reworking casual queue with the fantasy of making it more competitive seems destined for failure.
May leaderboard saw a near 20% increase in players post BattleTech release(10+ games, not just logging in for free mech) and there is a very real chance that the vast majority of this player base is only interested in the game as BattleTech nostalgia.

Edited by Hayato Mori, 07 June 2018 - 08:05 PM.


#16 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 7,518 posts

Posted 08 June 2018 - 06:28 AM

Why Tiers don't matter: suppose there are two players with a 'true' skill rating of 100 and 120 respectively. The 120 player would be in a higher tier right? Not necessarily. If the 120 player only played 1000 game, he might only be in T2, whereas the 100 player is in T1 because he played 5000 games. The Tier system and the MM doesn't understand that, and treats the T2 player as worse than the T1 player.

Every such mistake creates an unbalanced match and it would only get worse not better in 8vs8. To be continued...

#17 Electron Junkie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 192 posts

Posted 08 June 2018 - 07:15 AM

Could always do dynamic team size and just switch to the old smaller maps

#18 Lances107

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Commander
  • Nova Commander
  • 291 posts

Posted 08 June 2018 - 08:08 AM

The tier system can be farmed via cadet bonus to quickly move you up or being a with people that run nothing but group q, and use other exploits.

You are ultmately missing the point? What kills teams in quick play? It is not balance between the skill level of players.
- Too many people showing up with LRM assaults
- Too many people not understanding the basics of stay together
- Too many people running a IS/clan assault just standing in front of the fire, not shielding, not poking, and not positioning themselves properly
-Too many people using bracket builds
- Too many people staying in the rear, and waiting to the last minute of a fight to engage.
What I named above is what kills teams. I doubt you listen. A guy in tier one can pull off one of these stupid moves, as much as a guy in tier five can.

Oh and I am in no way shape or form advocating, that the game should be dumbed down. This would kill and ruin the game.

Edited by Lances107, 08 June 2018 - 08:10 AM.


#19 Luminis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Predator
  • The Predator
  • 1,434 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 08 June 2018 - 08:09 AM

Here's the "quick and dirty" solution:

Just remove the matchmaking altogether. The way it currently is, is might as well not exist. The bar to get into the highest rated matches - Tiers 1 to 3 - is so low all but the very worst players get there, anyway.

Just balance the teams.

Assign those 24 random players so both teams have roughly equal average match score totals.

That's not perfect, but the only thing I perceive as feasible, knowing MWO, PGI and the player base.

#20 WildeKarde

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Corsair
  • The Corsair
  • 487 posts

Posted 08 June 2018 - 09:03 AM

I'd like to see the options for match choice to have 4 or 8 or 12 in a team. For quick play you won't know till you drop.

If you want to rate a player then each variant could be given a match value based on your personal stats in the mech. Multiply it by your overall KD / WL / No. Matches as a score to get a MM rating. Matchmaker uses that to balance teams.

This variant value will change as your stats do in that mech. A run of wins in a certain build will move you up.

The MM rating is invisible to players but leave the tiers for anyone just wanting arbitrary number to show off.





3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users