| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aeon Amadi
Chimera Core
8790
   |
Posted - 2015.02.18 14:41:00 -
[1] - Quote
Lots of talk about the Battle Finder, MU, and how teams are selected to fight against one another. Lot of theories as to why stomps still happen even though MU can be of similar value between teams. Someone brought up whether or not total allocated SP is taken into account, and I got to thinking: What if MU is relative?
In that sense, let's say that it's true that every player starts out with the same level. Your MU is set at a certain level when you make the character, you kick butt in Academy where the fights are a bit more fair because everyone is using Militia gear/starter fits, no team coordination, etc.
The MU system thinks you're a solid combatant because you just won 'x' amount of times in the academy, did really well, so your MU shifts based on that performance. Then you get thrown out of the Academy and into the "real world" and the system still thinks you're a damn good player, so it pits you up against other damn good players despite you not being able to compete because of gear, squads, skill levels, etc.
That's the theory, and I decided to do some research to see whether or not that holds true in-game.
Exhibit A: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I95uWEMLzUSnvpnv3xQDfaqA8SNwLfX50awlQdlN1rk/edit?usp=sharing
While the first match showed a pretty even balance between the players as far as Character age... The second got a little worse, and the third match (where I'd actually lost so hard it actually put me on the same team as the guys who just whooped my last team's kittens) shows a pretty significant disparity between the average character age.
In fact, it was about a half-year's worth of disparity between the average character age, with five (5) players on the losing team being <2 months old compared to the winning team's two (2) players under that same criteria.
Personally, I think we need to start considering other factors in how the teams are matched beyond just MU. What do you guys think? Tin-foil hattery?
Have a suggestion for the Planetary Services Department?
Founder of AIV
|
Joel II X
Bacon with a bottle of Quafe
6254
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 16:42:00 -
[2] - Quote
Ouch. Seeing those guys that joined a few days ago hurts.
Anyways, yeah. I think MU accounts for individual players' stats. If no one in the match would be in a squad, then it probably has a better chance of being balanced than not. However, squads can be arguably considered game changers as it allows for a more focused form of communication, organization, and point-earning.
Besides badassery, I think squads should be taken into account.
Side note: for better collection of data, there should be small markers at the EoM leaderboard indicating who was in which squad. |
Stefan Stahl
Seituoda Taskforce Command
990
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 17:39:00 -
[3] - Quote
Small correction: There is no actual matchmaking in public contracts. There's only a teambalancer. That means after Scotty pulls 32 people from the respective game mode's queue he tries to make as balanced teams as possible from that population based on mu. The 32 players are not selected based on mu. They are assigned to the teams based on mu.
That should explain your problem.
Source is here. |
P14GU3
Savage Bullet
1250
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 18:20:00 -
[4] - Quote
How many of those players that have been here for a year or two, are someones 10m sp alt? I see a few guys at the bottom of the list who are roughly 2 years old. I have an alt that is a little over a year that has roughly 10m sp because I almost never play him. I have a hard time believing someone who has been here that long is still doing that badly on a main character..
'Sault AK.0 - Logi AK.0 - Logi GK.0 - Scout GK.0 - 'Mando MK.0 - Masshole in every sense of the word.
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
6757
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 18:34:00 -
[5] - Quote
If Mu is a long-run statistic, I don't think that Academy performance can have any more long-term effect on it than one or two really good matches. In short, any initial inflation is promptly and permanently corrected following the first few post-graduation beatdowns matches.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Aeon Amadi
Chimera Core
8793
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 03:09:00 -
[6] - Quote
Stefan Stahl wrote:Small correction: There is no actual matchmaking in public contracts. There's only a teambalancer. That means after Scotty pulls 32 people from the respective game mode's queue he tries to make as balanced teams as possible from that population based on mu. The 32 players are not selected based on mu. They are assigned to the teams based on mu. That should explain your problem. Source is here.
So then why put five new guys against a team of veterans..?
Have a suggestion for the Planetary Services Department?
Founder of AIV
|
Lorhak Gannarsein
Nos Nothi
4303
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 04:40:00 -
[7] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:Stefan Stahl wrote:Small correction: There is no actual matchmaking in public contracts. There's only a teambalancer. That means after Scotty pulls 32 people from the respective game mode's queue he tries to make as balanced teams as possible from that population based on mu. The 32 players are not selected based on mu. They are assigned to the teams based on mu. That should explain your problem. Source is here. So then why put five new guys against a team of veterans..?
Squads, maybe? Your data is insufficient for me to draw conclusions; I'd want scores, corp names and squad allocations as well to make a proper guess, but my assumption is that all the proto-bears were in the one squad, which has to go on one team. So then they get balanced against six decent (solo) players, and the newbies on the protosquad team get carried while the other team gets stomped.
Well, here goes nothing!!!
|
Aeon Amadi
Chimera Core
8794
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 04:46:00 -
[8] - Quote
Lorhak Gannarsein wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:Stefan Stahl wrote:Small correction: There is no actual matchmaking in public contracts. There's only a teambalancer. That means after Scotty pulls 32 people from the respective game mode's queue he tries to make as balanced teams as possible from that population based on mu. The 32 players are not selected based on mu. They are assigned to the teams based on mu. That should explain your problem. Source is here. So then why put five new guys against a team of veterans..? Squads, maybe? Your data is insufficient for me to draw conclusions; I'd want scores, corp names and squad allocations as well to make a proper guess, but my assumption is that all the proto-bears were in the one squad, which has to go on one team. So then they get balanced against six decent (solo) players, and the newbies on the protosquad team get carried while the other team gets stomped.
I posted EOM pictures...
Have a suggestion for the Planetary Services Department?
Founder of AIV
|
Lorhak Gannarsein
Nos Nothi
4303
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 05:31:00 -
[9] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:Lorhak Gannarsein wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:Stefan Stahl wrote:Small correction: There is no actual matchmaking in public contracts. There's only a teambalancer. That means after Scotty pulls 32 people from the respective game mode's queue he tries to make as balanced teams as possible from that population based on mu. The 32 players are not selected based on mu. They are assigned to the teams based on mu. That should explain your problem. Source is here. So then why put five new guys against a team of veterans..? Squads, maybe? Your data is insufficient for me to draw conclusions; I'd want scores, corp names and squad allocations as well to make a proper guess, but my assumption is that all the proto-bears were in the one squad, which has to go on one team. So then they get balanced against six decent (solo) players, and the newbies on the protosquad team get carried while the other team gets stomped. I posted EOM pictures...
My apologies; was on my phone, apparently my connection dropped out or something; I completely missed those pictures.
So, on the face of it, both sides seemed to have squads in the first match, though by the numbers the other team's squad was much more proficient. Aside from anything else, the warpoint counts seem to bear that out - my assumption here is (I've not read the MU breakdown in quite a while, so bear with me) that squad MU is compared directly to player MU, so squads are matched against each other and then teams subsequently filled out with the remaining players (assuming your squad has a reasonable MU, and you don't have an obscenely proficient solo player on your team).
The second match would appear to be similar - your COALICION LATINA squad was completely outclassed by the T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K group, and you seem to be the only competent player on your side. I think my original conclusion, that the team was carried by the squad, is borne out here also.
And the third match appears to have at least one squad on the other team, too.
So the conclusion I'm drawing here is pretty simple; I'll illustrate it with an anecdote.
My old corp (from nearly a year ago) was decent enough; when we filled up squads we'd win matches pretty consistently. The blueberries on our team would do reasonably well, considering that we were taking most of the hits and dealing most of the damage - they'd benefit pretty heavily from our skill.
Every now and then we'd come up against a squad of FA, or 0.H, or IMPs, or whomever - one of the elite PC corps.
We'd get ground into the dust, and our team would perform even worse. Even when otherwise the team composition was pretty much the same - even including some of the same blues (and reds).
We'd either carry the team, or we'd be carried.
I think the MU teambuilding woes people are having are as simple as that; the more competent you are the more likely you are to be matched against a good squad, simply because there were five guys in the squad on your team, and six in the one on the other side.
PC-experienced vets who've stats carried over from Chrome like yourself will probably suffer the most from this, although you're also the most likely to have decent squads around, I suppose.
Ultimately I think the answer is as simple as 'stack the MU in your favour, or it'll be stacked against you'.
And there's not much you can do about it.
As for the days played thing, all I can think of is that correlation =/= causation, as the saying goes, and that it's simply a coincidence borne of the fact that the longer you play, the stronger your character - you might be FPS-n00b but your proto suit will carry you a little, and your team got fewer of the higher-MU vets.
Guys, we need to stop calling MU a 'matchmaker' when it's actually a 'teambuilder'.
And I want to play FE:A now. Damn.
|
Operative 1174 Uuali
Y.A.M.A.H
455
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 05:32:00 -
[10] - Quote
It's squads. The match can't team balance when premades are mucking it up.
Death is a serious business. So is running a shoddy, half-baked game company.
|
|
|
Lorhak Gannarsein
Nos Nothi
4303
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 05:35:00 -
[11] - Quote
Operative 1174 Uuali wrote:It's squads. The match can't team balance when premades are mucking it up.
And so the best fix I can think of is shrinking the size of squads; Chrome's four-man size seems pretty decent, I think, allowing for some fun tactical play but also not screwing over the teambuilder.
Guys, we need to stop calling MU a 'matchmaker' when it's actually a 'teambuilder'.
And I want to play FE:A now. Damn.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |