MM is far worse than WOT and I thought it was bad.

[brassring39]

The f'ing losing streaks everyday I start out losing 5 in a row and I mean blow out's after blow out's. The other team had 2 DC's in different matches and still won easy. I don't have time to play 15 matches a day in order to get a few wins. It's hard to do anything when 2 players are afk each match for 3-5 mins or so 2 players go off thinking there gonna flank and they are the first 2 dead or the last 2 dead on a losing team.

In wot every once in awhile you would have a 4 or 5 game losing streak but here its every day. It's either a 5 game losing streak with a win in between. Can't get no exp for the mechs and no exp with playing the mechs when you are facing 3 on 1 every match.

Rant off, as a newer player I have to take a break from this game before I uninstall it like I did in WOT. Now WOT MM seams not as bad anymore. I mean at least 5 players with less than 100 in damage in each match ...playing assults and or heavies WTF 2 fire all blast hits gain you around 100.

[Maj_Cyric]

Chocoloco님이 먼저 게시:

This is simply not true. Most online games mm manage to give you a ~50% match winrate. Doesn't mean that every match is perfectly balanced. One side will always be slightly in favour. But the more matches you play, the closer you should come to the 50% mark. If the playerbase is too low , this gets harder and harder to achieve, meaning that the advantage of one side over the other will increase. What is true though, is that in a well working mm, your own performance will always be able to tip the scale. Also, your own performance is largely determined by your mindset, more than most people are willing to acknowledge, so with ops attitude playing the game is pretty much pointless atm. But even with a low playerbase, as long as you keep a fighting mindset, overall you should be able to progress towards the 50% winrate. But the phases of winning/losing streaks become longer so keeping the will to win can become harder. And if you lose your will to fight, the losing rate will increase even more. Then you truly might consider giving up the game completely.

Ummm when it comes to MWO this may or may not be true.. I doubt Russ and his team have the coding skills to code their MM to "help" skilled players from getting a W/L rate higher than 60%.. Now in a game like WoWs... that game has a much more well coded and better MM system then MWO does... They balance on ship tier +/- 2 tiers... meaning a T7 ship can face other ships that are Tier 5,6,7,8,9.. Which does well at placing players of the same tier in a battle... then they also seem to have a 2nd matching system which which adjusts that balacing which is based on your L/W ratio, K/D ratio, and a stat called potential damage, which if a skilled player has good stats he will be what's called Up-Tiered more often, meaning that player in say a T6 ship will face off in games with T8 ship more often then not, to "balance" for that player's skill in the ship he is currently using...

MWO is just very very random in these things... I would suggest that if you are having a losing streak on the NA server that you change your filter for EU only for a few games then back to the NA one (or vice versa).. Sure you'll get a slight higher ping but not that much higher (at least for me with my ISP)

[brucecaron]

it doesn't matter how good you are
if
you got a new mech ,you wont be as good in it
new set up in the mech , you wont be as good in it
if your use to play in a light mech and you jump in a assault you wont be as good
you dont use ppc or gauss you wont be good at it
you have 24 players in one game that mess around with setups
ya you will have lots of ♥♥♥♥ up mach
and thers still lots more you can mess weth in mechs
mech skills tree ,,, weapons modules
testing new tactics .. just not giveing a dam in team work
and ♥♥♥♥ happends

you cant compare this game with other game matchmakers
in world of tanks you dont have as much customize as mwo
one mech can get setup 20 difrent setups

so ya the MM only looks at the psr player skill rating
it dont look at the mech or setup or the mood you in .. for the 24 players its looking for to make a match

some days i get 20 wins in a row .and the next i get 20 loses
it happends

[Maj_Cyric]

brucecaron님이 먼저 게시:

it doesn't matter how good you are
if
you got a new mech ,you wont be as good in it
new set up in the mech , you wont be as good in it
if your use to play in a light mech and you jump in a assault you wont be as good
you dont use ppc or gauss you wont be good at it
you have 24 players in one game that mess around with setups
ya you will have lots of ♥♥♥♥ up mach
and thers still lots more you can mess weth in mechs
mech skills tree ,,, weapons modules
testing new tactics .. just not giveing a dam in team work
and ♥♥♥♥ happends

you cant compare this game with other game matchmakers
in world of tanks you dont have as much customize as mwo
one mech can get setup 20 difrent setups

so ya the MM only looks at the psr player skill rating
it dont look at the mech or setup or the mood you in .. for the 24 players its looking for to make a match

some days i get 20 wins in a row .and the next i get 20 loses
it happends

And that is why a player's ACC and K/D Ratio in the mech they are currently starting a match queue should also be taken into account when balancing them in QP games.. not just a "Player Tier" level..

[HighPlains Drifter]

OP my suggestion to you is this...

Practice, practice, practice... This is not a typical FPS, and playing like it is will cause you to lose. You need to learn the intricate aspects of fighting, and mech piloting.

Also... I'd find a Unit, one that does trainings and has vet.'s to show you the ropes.



Quiting just because you got beaten a few times is not good sportsmanship.

[vandalhooch]

deaconw님이 먼저 게시:

vandalhooch님이 먼저 게시:

The matchmaker is supposed to fill matches up as quickly as possible with as many pilots as possible from similar PSR values. However, it is also supposed to keep relatively new players from dropping with heavily experienced players. That's it.

In other words...it tries to create a balanced match.

No it doesn't. How is "pilots of similar PSR" the same as balanced?

Did the matchmaker take into account mechs? Builds? Map? Experience in each mech? Match up between builds for each side? Match up between each pilot's preferred tactics? Did it match players who use the same tactic to the same team or on opposite teams? In what way is two pilots who have relatively similar PSR "balanced?"

Stop using words that you clearly haven't bothered to define even for yourself.

[vandalhooch]

Chocoloco님이 먼저 게시:

This is simply not true. Most online games mm manage to give you a ~50% match winrate. Doesn't mean that every match is perfectly balanced. One side will always be slightly in favour. But the more matches you play, the closer you should come to the 50% mark.

That's regression to the mean and its the result of having large numbers of matches in a large pool of players. That isn't the result of a matchmaker specifically.

If the playerbase is too low , this gets harder and harder to achieve, meaning that the advantage of one side over the other will increase.

Yes. Except I don't understand what you mean by one side increasing over the other. How does an advantage increase if the players are constantly mixed together in random teams? There are no permanent sides.

What is true though, is that in a well working mm, your own performance will always be able to tip the scale.

Which is also what many of us have already said to the OP.

Also, your own performance is largely determined by your mindset, more than most people are willing to acknowledge, so with ops attitude playing the game is pretty much pointless atm. But even with a low playerbase, as long as you keep a fighting mindset, overall you should be able to progress towards the 50% winrate.

With the smaller player pool in this game the skill disparity between players in a single match can be very large. A W/L ratio of 1.0 is far from guaranteed.

But the phases of winning/losing streaks become longer so keeping the will to win can become harder. And if you lose your will to fight, the losing rate will increase even more. Then you truly might consider giving up the game completely.

[deaconw]

vandalhooch님이 먼저 게시:

deaconw님이 먼저 게시:

In other words...it tries to create a balanced match.

No it doesn't. How is "pilots of similar PSR" the same as balanced?

Hmmm. PSR = "Pilot Skill Rating". PGI uses PSR in the MM to try to put pilots of similar PSRs in the same match. Wonder why they would do that...so hard to figure out....oh yeah, they do it to try and balance the teams by skill, ergo create a balanced match. And they have stated as such. Seriously, are you really this obtuse or are you messing with us? Wait...I already know the answer to that question. Nevermind.

vandalhooch님이 먼저 게시:

Did the matchmaker take into account mechs? Builds? Map? Experience in each mech? Match up between builds for each side? Match up between each pilot's preferred tactics? Did it match players who use the same tactic to the same team or on opposite teams? In what way is two pilots who have relatively similar PSR "balanced?"

Thank you for proving the OPs point and PGI's failure so eloquently! I nor the OP said that PSR was a valid measure of pilot skill...I, and others, are criticizing the MM for many of the reasons you cite. Good job.

vandalhooch님이 먼저 게시:

Stop using words that you clearly haven't bothered to define even for yourself.

Try better reading comprehension and not being so much of an egotistical, narcissistic, condescending blowhard. Oh wait, we all know you'll never change...carry on!

[vandalhooch]

deaconw님이 먼저 게시:

Hmmm. PSR = "Pilot Skill Rating". PGI uses PSR in the MM to try to put pilots of similar PSRs in the same match. Wonder why they would do that

See that last part? That's you putting your idea of what a matchmaker should do into the conversation, not what the developer's want it to do. You are literally make stuff up at this point. You are taking the word "skill" from Pilot Skill Rating as a straight literal interpretation. You think "skill" can be boiled down to a single number. You are the kind of idiot who thinks an IQ score is a measure of someone's intelligence because IQ stands for Intelligent Quotient. You are a moron.

The developers have to call this metric that the matchmaker uses something. They could have called it "Mech Awesomeness Driving" and it would serve the same function. It isn't a measure of "skill" because "skill" is not a fundamental nor derived, objective quantity. Seriously, try to define "pilot skill" in such a way that everyone can agree to it and we can measure it. If you think "skill" is truly quantifiable please explain to us all what the proper SI units for "skill" are. Be sure to show us the dimensional analysis you used to derive it.

...so hard to figure out....oh yeah, they do it to try and balance the teams by skill, ergo create a balanced match.

No they don't. And they have repeatedly said as much. They use PSR to separate new players from experienced players. Do they try to get players in matches with similar experience (similar PSR)? Yes. But more important to the matchmaker is that very experienced players, Tier 1, are not in matches with completely new players, Tier 5.

And they have stated as such.

Prove you aren't lying. Give us the link to such a quote.

Seriously, are you really this obtuse or are you messing with us? Wait...I already know the answer to that question. Nevermind.

So. The matchmaker will sit and wait forever for a "balanced match" then? No?

Then the matchmaker is not designed to make "balanced matches." It's designed to put teams of players who are experienced enough to be in the same match together in a reasonably short amount of time. "Balanced matches" is not it's goal and never has been.

Thank you for proving the OPs point and PGI's failure so eloquently! I nor the OP said that PSR was a valid measure of pilot skill...I, and others, are criticizing the MM for many of the reasons you cite. Good job. :rfacepalm:

I didn't prove the OP's point. You just proved my point. You acknowledge that PSR doesn't take into account everything that would be equated with "skill" in the game. JUST LIKE EVERY SINGLE MATCHMAKER SYSTEM IN EXISTENCE!

Seriously. This "failure" you keep pointing out is the same failure EVERY SINGLE MULTIPLAYER GAME EVER DESIGNED HAS. When you come up with an algorithm for measuring "true player skill" be sure to let us all know so we can invest in your game company that will be set to reap in the cash. Until then . . . stop trying to act like accurately measuring a player's skill is a thing anyone can do.

Game designers want systems that can use quantifiable metrics to approximate a non-quantifiable, multi-faceted and relative property that we mistakenly try to express as a single thing, skill. They want their matchmakers to be "close enough" to make their players feel like they are being matched against others who are equivalent in this ineffable thing called skill.

Look at Xbox Live's Trueskill system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueSkill

It's a modified ELO system. Does it measure a players "skill" at any particular game? No. Is it good enough to give the players the feeling that they are appropriately ranked? Maybe.

Try better reading comprehension and not being so much of an egotistical, narcissistic, condescending blowhard. Oh wait, we all know you'll never change...carry on!

Says the guy who lies in every thread he enters.

Don't think you were dishonest in this thread? Then point to a game that has a matchmaker that measures a player's "true skill" at a particular game.

[deaconw]

Hey, hooch (abuh). Would a post by Russ Bullock do?

https://mwomercs.com/forums/topic/207849-state-of-match-making-in-mwo/page__view__findpost__p__4664843

"to address both wait times and quality of matches"

Hmmm....wonder what he means by "quality of matches"....

And to pre-empt your next red herring....no one ever said wait times weren't also a factor.

" our number 1 priority is the competitiveness of matches weighed against wait times."

Oh...so he does clarify what "quality of matches" means. In fact it's his "number 1 priority". Competitiveness of matches, ergo match balance. Ergo, you are 100℅ wrong. Really, hooch (abuh), Google is your friend, especially if you are going to falsely accuse people of lying. But I appreciate you doing so, I really do. It is so entertaining!

[Shadow of the SPQR]

deaconw님이 먼저 게시:

"quality of matches"....

That could very well refer to not slamming people of immense skill in with a complete novice.

[vandalhooch]

deaconw님이 먼저 게시:

Hey, hooch (abuh). Would a post by Russ Bullock do?

https://mwomercs.com/forums/topic/207849-state-of-match-making-in-mwo/page__view__findpost__p__4664843

"to address both wait times and quality of matches"

Hmmm....wonder what he means by "quality of matches"....

Why are you wondering? He said it very clearly in the beginning of the post: "Certainly more than we ought to have if our number 1 priority is the competitiveness of matches weighed against wait times."

Competitiveness, not balanced. Competitive, not balanced.

Do you need to read it again? Competitive, not balanced.

And to pre-empt your next red herring....no one ever said wait times weren't also a factor.

" our number 1 priority is the competitiveness of matches weighed against wait times."

Oh...so he does clarify what "quality of matches" means. In fact it's his "number 1 priority". Competitiveness of matches, ergo match balance.

No "ergo." Those are not the same thing.

Ergo, you are 100℅ wrong. Really, hooch (abuh), Google is your friend, especially if you are going to falsely accuse people of lying. But I appreciate you doing so, I really do. It is so entertaining!

Try using that Google skill you seem to think you have to find the difference between the terms "competitive" and "balanced."

Hint: I kind of gave it away when I discussed the Trueskill system for the Xbox. I can draw you a Venn diagram if you get stuck on the big words.

You said that PGI said that the matchmaker tries to make balanced matches and you still haven't found a PGI employ saying that at all.

[deaconw]

If you ever wonder what self-delusion and deflection look like...examine hooches (abuh) post above. It is obvious to the casual observer that to have a competitive match, the teams must be balanced. I.e. they can effectively compete with one another on the same level. As for definitions:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/competitive

"well suited for competition; having a feature that makes for successful competition"

People that aren't blinded by their own arrogance know that balanced teams are the primary component of making teams "well suited for competition" with one another.

Of course, I didn't need a dictionary or a Venn diagram to understand Russ Bullocks post...or that the purpose of every matchmaking system (real or virtual) is to put people or teams of equivalent skill levels together so the competition is not one-sided. But keep doubling down on your self-delusion...it is highly entertaining.

Another piece of friendly advice: when you're in a hole, stop digging.

[vandalhooch]

deaconw님이 먼저 게시:

If you ever wonder what self-delusion and deflection look like...examine hooches (abuh) post above. It is obvious to the casual observer that to have a competitive match, the teams must be balanced.

Not true. Is a balanced match competitive? Yes. Can a slightly unbalanced match still be competitive? Yes.

Venn diagram time. The circle for balanced is contained within the circle for competitive.

I.e. they can effectively compete with one another on the same level. As for definitions:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/competitive

"well suited for competition; having a feature that makes for successful competition"

Suited for competition doesn't mean the competitors have to be equal. Is every NFL match up balanced? Heck no. Are most of those match ups competitive? Yep.

People that aren't blinded by their own arrogance know that balanced teams are the primary component of making teams "well suited for competition" with one another.

People who aren't morons and who don't read into things more than is actually there because they have an ulterior agenda can realize that a match can be competitive without having to be completely balanced.

Of course, I didn't need a dictionary or a Venn diagram to understand Russ Bullocks post...or that the purpose of every matchmaking system (real or virtual) is to put people or teams of equivalent skill levels together so the competition is not one-sided. But keep doubling down on your self-delusion...it is highly entertaining.

Go back and reread the post and ask yourself one thing . . . why did he choose to use the word competitive instead of balanced? Not one time in the entire post was the word "balanced" used. Why is that?

You will see PGI use the term balanced in reference to mechs and weapon systems all the time but never in reference to the matchmaker. Why?

Another piece of friendly advice: when you're in a hole, stop digging.

Piece of advice for you, don't condescend to tell me that you are trying to be "friendly" to me. It just reinforces your image of a piece of trash salt merchant.

[Hussar]

You know that perfectly balanced match will end up 12:1-3, maybe 4 in worst case scenario. This kind of games suffer from snowball effect.

And no, neither wot nor wows was rigged. Get over it.

[Maj_Cyric]

Hussar님이 먼저 게시:

You know that perfectly balanced match will end up 12:1-3, maybe 4 in worst case scenario. This kind of games suffer from snowball effect.

And no, neither wot nor wows was rigged. Get over it.

Not always... Games like these one show other wise.. If MWO suffers from anything it's called the "PGI Random Effect"
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=790603542
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=805320332

And those games were great games too.. Lots of fun..