178 replies to this topic

[Nightbird]

dario03, on 17 December 2020 - 10:19 AM, said:

iirc the current system was supposed to have 3 or 4 parts to it. Only the first part has been done.

And even with only the first part implemented, here is the difference in results between the group's proposal and my proposal, as was predicted 5 months ago.

Nightbird, on 26 November 2020 - 12:33 PM, said:

Since we're way past the promised update, here's the 240 games comparison. I missed the snapshot for 240 exactly so I had to use the full season 51 data, which puts us 15 games over.



The accuracy in the fringes are a bit lacking but the main columns in the center are much closer to the prediction than I hoped for. I predicted 44.6% in the center 3 columns, and the result is 44.2%. Even the shape holds true.

If anyone forgot why we're using average games instead of total games, the reason was posted here: https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__6340950

https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__6361878

Another blinded-folded dart throwing session wouldn't change things for the better.

[Gagis]

Lockheed_, on 17 December 2020 - 09:46 AM, said:

Why not give groups a collective SR rating and place them in matches accordingly. that would take care of the 4 stack roflstomp groups as well as those who are dragging down their team with weird flanks and other zimbabwe maneuvers.

My guesstimate would be that itd be a lot less swingy if groups were evaluated as if the entire group had the psr of its highest ranking member.

But I still dont know if thats how its currently done already. Theres probably some sort of averaging going on, but who knows.

[dario03]

Nightbird, on 17 December 2020 - 10:24 AM, said:

And even with only the first part implemented, here is the difference in results between the group's proposal and my proposal, as was predicted 5 months ago.



https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__6361878

Another blinded-folded dart throwing session wouldn't change things for the better.

Perhaps. And saying you believe it will fail and showing evidence for it is fine. But saying it has failed isn't accurate, it hasn't been done yet, since only part of it was put in.

[Nightbird]

dario03, on 17 December 2020 - 10:46 AM, said:

Perhaps. And saying you believe it will fail and showing evidence for it is fine. But saying it has failed isn't accurate, it hasn't been done yet, since only part of it was put in.

If you can look at the graph comparison of the experiences people could have had today, and claim the blue choice is not an abysmal failure, then I have nothing more to add.

Gagis, on 17 December 2020 - 10:42 AM, said:

guesstimate

Yes, we want moar guesstimates from the community and PGI. Death to math!!!!

Edited by Nightbird, 17 December 2020 - 11:01 AM.

[dario03]

Nightbird, on 17 December 2020 - 10:54 AM, said:

If you can look at the graph comparison of the experiences people could have had today, and claim the blue choice is not an abysmal failure, then I have nothing more to add.

Thats not what I'm talking about. You stated that the other groups plan failed. The other groups plan was only partially implemented, aka not done. In a case like this, a plan that hasn't actually been done can not have failed.
It would be like if you call out a plan at the beginning of a match. Only one lance follows the plan. But then everybody says your plan failed when you lose.

[Nightbird]

dario03, on 17 December 2020 - 11:08 AM, said:

Thats not what I'm talking about. You stated that the other groups plan failed. The other groups plan was only partially implemented, aka not done. In a case like this, a plan that hasn't actually been done can not have failed.
It would be like if you call out a plan at the beginning of a match. Only one lance follows the plan. But then everybody says your plan failed when you lose.

[Meep Meep]

I'm doing just fine in solo play. Win some lose some just like in any online game with random teams. Concentrate on doing damage and getting kills and lasting till the end of the match and your win rate will climb as you are more productive to your team. but even the most skilled players are going to lose no matter how well they perform.

[dario03]

Nightbird, on 17 December 2020 - 11:15 AM, said:

[Nightbird]

dario03, on 17 December 2020 - 11:30 AM, said:

Which part? The part where my entire proposal takes less effort to implement than the group's proposal part1, is within scope, or has no part 2, 3, 4 needed to work?

Or the part where the group's proposal has no math to back up its suggestions, made no promises/metrics to actually improve things, and apparently can't function without parts not even written in the proposal?

Edited by Nightbird, 17 December 2020 - 11:38 AM.

[dario03]

Nightbird, on 17 December 2020 - 11:31 AM, said:

Which part? The part where my entire proposal takes less effort to implement than the group's proposal, is within scope, or has no part 2, 3, 4 needed to work?

The fact that you think I'm comparing the proposals shows that you need to reread all of it.

I have only stated that it is inaccurate to say a plan failed, when that plan wasn't actually done.

[Nightbird]

dario03, on 17 December 2020 - 11:41 AM, said:

The fact that you think I'm comparing the proposals shows that you need to reread all of it.

I have only stated that it is inaccurate to say a plan failed, when that plan wasn't actually done.

Hear that? The roaring sound of applause from people happy with the current MM and PSR? No? That is the sound of failure.

[dario03]

Nightbird, on 17 December 2020 - 11:45 AM, said:

Hear that? The roaring sound of applause from people happy with the current MM and PSR? No? That is the sound of failure.

You didn't reread... So instead a question

Have all of the parts of the other groups proposal been implemented?

Edited by dario03, 17 December 2020 - 12:01 PM.

[Nightbird]

dario03, on 17 December 2020 - 12:00 PM, said:

You didn't reread... So instead a question

Have all of the parts of the other groups proposal been implemented?

Here it is:

https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__6337266

Point out to me part 2, 3, 4 for me. Thanks.

TL:DR for the rest of you, just a wordy proposal unsubstantiated with any math or logic.

[Jiro Yamada]

Nightbird, on 17 December 2020 - 11:45 AM, said:

Hear that? The roaring sound of applause from people happy with the current MM and PSR? No? That is the sound of failure.

I mean... you are aware that people happy with the current set up are unlikely to take the time to take to forums and comment on it, right? Negative feedback is always amplified.

For what it's worth, I used to play solo and recently came back to the game since the queue merge literally because groups were now more reasonable to play with without getting roflstomped every game and it made introducing the game to new players much easier that way. Personally I've found matchmaking to be better than my old solo days, and none of the six or seven people I've introduced to MWO over the last couple of weeks have had any complaints about it, and they've traditionally been pretty sensitive about MM fairness in other games.

[dario03]

Nightbird, on 17 December 2020 - 12:11 PM, said:

Here it is:

https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__6337266

Point out to me part 2, 3, 4 for me. Thanks.

TL:DR for the rest of you, just a wordy proposal unsubstantiated with any math or logic.

iirc part 2 was the match score adjustments that never happened. Others were adjusting the amount of tier movement after the MS change but again that never happened.

[Nightbird]

dario03, on 17 December 2020 - 12:25 PM, said:

iirc part 2 was the match score adjustments that never happened. Others were adjusting the amount of tier movement after the MS change but again that never happened.

I didn't see any part of Jay Z's proposal that said: WARNING DOES NOTHING WITHOUT MATCHSCORE ADJUSTMENTS

Even if the adjustments happened though, there would still be no improvements, since the entire approach was wrong in the first place.

[Nightbird]

Jiro Yamada, on 17 December 2020 - 12:24 PM, said:

I mean... you are aware that people happy with the current set up are unlikely to take the time to take to forums and comment on it, right? Negative feedback is always amplified.

For what it's worth, I used to play solo and recently came back to the game since the queue merge literally because groups were now more reasonable to play with without getting roflstomped every game and it made introducing the game to new players much easier that way. Personally I've found matchmaking to be better than my old solo days, and none of the six or seven people I've introduced to MWO over the last couple of weeks have had any complaints about it, and they've traditionally been pretty sensitive about MM fairness in other games.

If you don't want to refer to the large amount of MM threads we have on the forum, then refer to the graphs showing the quality of matchs pre and post MM update being unchanged.

[dario03]

Nightbird, on 17 December 2020 - 12:30 PM, said:

I didn't see any part of Jay Z's proposal that said: WARNING DOES NOTHING WITHOUT MATCHSCORE ADJUSTMENTS

Even if the adjustments happened though, there would still be no improvements, since the entire approach was wrong in the first place.

Probably because the post from Paul talked about changing MM and how match score was calculated. Both were supposed to happen, only the MM did.

[Nightbird]

dario03, on 17 December 2020 - 12:45 PM, said:

Probably because the post from Paul talked about changing MM and how match score was calculated. Both were supposed to happen, only the MM did.

Either way, comparing a proposal that was simulated to have improved Matchmaking by 135%, to a proposal simulated to improve Matchmaking by 0%, then having time pass and have the simulated results turn into reality, I find it easy to convince people that the PSR update was a failure. You're welcome to continue arguing otherwise since we're not likely to come to an agreement, something I already stated in my first post in this thread. Those involved in the PSR update fiasco make up a significant portion of people participating in community proposals, and if they are incapable of acknowledging their errors, then everyone should learn to live with the bad MM.

Edited by Nightbird, 17 December 2020 - 12:53 PM.

[dario03]

Nightbird, on 17 December 2020 - 12:50 PM, said:

Either way, comparing a proposal that was simulated to have improved Matchmaking by 135%, to a proposal simulated to improve Matchmaking by 0%, then having time pass and have the simulated results turn into reality, I find it easy to convince people that the PSR update was a failure. You're welcome to continue arguing otherwise since we're not likely to come to an agreement, something I already stated in my first post in my thread. Those involved in the PSR update fiasco are incapable of acknowledging their errors.

You are comparing the proposals. But I am not, and it isn't very relevant to the point I'm making.

You can tell people the current system is a failure, doesn't bother me. You can also tell them that the other groups system would fail, again doesn't bother me. My issue is with you saying the proposals of the other group have failed. Unless I'm wrong and everything Jay wanted put in was put in, this isn't their system, its a different system. You can't say a system failed if the system wasn't actually used. Its the simple difference of "the groups system would fail" and "the groups system has failed".

I basically wasn't involved in the psr update, I commented on a couple of things but that was about it. So your last sentence would only apply to you.

Edited by dario03, 17 December 2020 - 01:07 PM.