PDA

View Full Version : Matchmaking Useful Info: MMR and You



Psyonix_Corey
24th Nov 2014, 18:58
Part of the revamp of Nosgoth's matchmaking is the switch to an MMR (MatchMaking Rating) based system instead of using player level to find and balance matches. Some of you may be familiar with this concept from Blizzard, Riot or Valve's titles.

I wanted to clarify exactly what will be in place for this initial launch because I know you guys will have questions.

What exactly is MMR?
MMR is two numbers: Your "rating" and your "uncertainty". Everyone starts at the same number, and that number goes up or down based on your wins and losses. As you play longer, your uncertainty narrows (because we have a better understanding of your actual skill) and allows us to make more precise matches and balance teams better.

What affects my MMR?
The following are used to calculate your MMR gain/loss when a match ends:
1) Whether your team won or lost
2) The MMRs of your teammates
3) The MMRs of the opposing team
4) How long you were in the match

Winning a game against a team ranked higher than you will cause your MMR to increase more than beating a team ranked lower than you. Conversely, losing to a higher ranked team means you won't lose as much MMR as losing to a lower ranked team.

If you lose a match where the rest of your team is low-ranked, it will not penalize you as much as if you were on a "stacked" team and lost.

If you join a match at the last minute and your team loses, you will not lose nearly as much rating as if you were in the full match.

The following DO NOT affect MMR in any way: Score, Kill/Death Ratio, Assists/Other Stats, Position on Scoreboard, Ping, Level

How is MMR used in Matchmaking?
It's a complex answer, but in short, the matchmaking server initially only looks for games "near" your current MMR. If it can't find a suitable match, it will expand the search over time. It may eventually put you in a game with players further from your skill level, but only once a reasonable amount of time has elapsed. This will get better with time (as we learn more about player skills) and with Open Beta as new players enter the game.

It is important to note that everyone is starting at the default MMR when the system launches! It will take time for things to settle and for "pro" players to move upwards on the MMR scale. We appreciate your patience and understanding if you end up in an imbalanced game while the system learns about all of you.

Why can't I see MMR or player levels in the lobby or scoreboard?
The standard queue MMR is a "hidden" value because it is not meant to rank players or cause unwanted behaviors. You should be able to play standard "Play" matches without worrying about losing rating. It exists to make matchmaking BETTER, not cause stress.

There will be a Ranked queue implemented along with a League System that allows players to see their ranking within divisions as well as a representation of their MMR (Gold - II, Diamond - IV, etc.) in lobbies. This is the first step towards that system. I don't have a date on that launch yet, but it is already in the works. We have to be careful to do it correctly and that our playerbase can support it before we are comfortable launching it.

As for player levels, because they are no longer used in any way for matchmaking or team balancing, they are now only visible to your and your party members.

How does MMR work with Parties?
We are still fine-tuning this aspect but in general, it uses a weighted average to try to estimate the "skill" of a party. Parties are considered higher skill than individuals of same rating matchmaking separately.

Razaiim
24th Nov 2014, 22:13
Thanks for the post and update. My only question is why did you guys choose MMR for the matchmaking? It is almost wholely dependent on wins/losses, and a player can win or lose a match for reasons out of their control, namely teammates. To me it makes more sense to use a rating based on performance, such as mean score per game, with modifiers for win/loss, and match players using that? Not a critique, just curious.

Psyonix_Corey
24th Nov 2014, 22:40
Thanks for the post and update. My only question is why did you guys choose MMR for the matchmaking? It is almost wholely dependent on wins/losses, and a player can win or lose a match for reasons out of their control, namely teammates. To me it makes more sense to use a rating based on performance, such as mean score per game, with modifiers for win/loss, and match players using that? Not a critique, just curious.

It's a standard, even in team games like LoL and DOTA, for a reason. A couple misc thoughts about tying rating to performance:
- It's very hard to build a predictive rating on performance, and you end up spending a lot of time trying to balance out support performance (healing, assists, etc.) vs. pure kill/death types.
- Win/Loss MMR encourages team play over all else which is the goal in a game like Nosgoth. In a ranked match in particular, you should never be chasing K/D or Top Score over a team win, and your rating should reflect that prioritization.
- It effectively discourages an entire class of Abilities in Ranked play that don't contribute directly to your score (and thus, rating).

Khalith
24th Nov 2014, 23:57
Will there be a system in place to prevent things such as win trading or folks intentionally tanking their rating to go pub stomp?

Though I'd only really feel concern about win trading in the eventual ranked queue.

FireWorks_
25th Nov 2014, 00:21
Thanks for the informative post, very appreciated!

I didnt get to participate in the test run, which im very sad about since I was looking for something like that since I joined half a year ago. Cant wait to bomb you again with bug reports, (and the feeling that they are actually processed in the near future).

What I wanted to know point out and ask: Are lobbies broken up after each match now and the players rechecked for MMR? The current system has a big flaw, where a "Monster" gets tojoin into a very weak lobby (for whatever reason) and the MM will look at the low average and put more weak players into it, each following match. Thus this (solo) player gets to stomp each match with lowies while there would already be enough players online to challenge him on his/her skill level.

Second, where is the "default MMR" set? As you know and already stated in previous discussions: The entering phase for a player can be very crucial for him to stick around.
I dont know how this is handled professionally today but setting a new player at the 50% value (median player skill) as described in the MS TrueSkill paper is feeding fish to sharks. Please have a close look at the starting phase of a new player in Nosgoth and dont just trust that it will even itself out via MMR as it can be too late for the player to stay and the wasted time of all players involved.


tl;dr
Pls check MMR each lobby
treat new players with care

FireWorks_
25th Nov 2014, 00:47
Thanks for the post and update. My only question is why did you guys choose MMR for the matchmaking? It is almost wholely dependent on wins/losses, and a player can win or lose a match for reasons out of their control, namely teammates. To me it makes more sense to use a rating based on performance, such as mean score per game, with modifiers for win/loss, and match players using that? Not a critique, just curious.


Say you play solo and own house with 30k damage cause your team sucked and you got to do all the damage. Say next round you got a competent team and get only half the damage, 35% of the score since less multikills and only a few kills. Did you play worse then? Your stats say so, but no, you didnt.

Somebody waits to do all the killshots with his swift bow while you gotta shoot the vamp in your face low, sometimes dying to him since the scout waits for him to be so low to shoot. You got the lower score, less kills, equal damage, worse K/D. Did you play bad or the scout?

You are the backbone of your team, you stand in crucial positions, you use support skills for less score, you dont rambo for a multikill instead you save your teammates ass and allow him to get the kills thus having a higher team points but leaving you low in the scoreboard.

etc etc etc


I guess you can call it the Supporter/Carry - dilemma :D


EDIT:
Score is an ambiguous term... Will the team kills vs team kills of a match have impact? Aka how clear a win was.

GenFeelGood
25th Nov 2014, 05:28
I am curious to see where we place in this new system. I'd give myself a B+/- overall with my function in the team usually being what FireWorks described in the second scenario. My win% has been steady at 47 for a while and I only leave a match if something outside the game needs my attention; but otherwise I consistently finish a match, even when we are losing or I get dropped into nearly finished matches on the losing side with no hope of a turn around.

Shikei001
25th Nov 2014, 09:45
Second, where is the "default MMR" set? As you know and already stated in previous discussions: The entering phase for a player can be very crucial for him to stick around.
I dont know how this is handled professionally today but setting a new player at the 50% value (median player skill) as described in the MS TrueSkill paper is feeding fish to sharks. Please have a close look at the starting phase of a new player in Nosgoth and dont just trust that it will even itself out via MMR as it can be too late for the player to stay and the wasted time of all players involved.


tl;dr
Pls check MMR each lobby
treat new players with care

I played during the Test and this definitely was a Problem, at one Point we were Pubstomping with 4 Lv 40 Player against 3 lower than Lv 10 Player and one higher than 10 ( I asked in the Chat their Lv but forgot their exact answer).
Note: I had a Party with a Friend but the two other 40ies were random.

This lineup is understandable because we all started with the same MMR, but the match ended 6 to 60 or something like that...
So maybe vary the start MMR a bit, my suggetion use the "Win Percentage" and "Time Played".

Vampmaster
25th Nov 2014, 10:19
It's a standard, even in team games like LoL and DOTA, for a reason. A couple misc thoughts about tying rating to performance:
- It's very hard to build a predictive rating on performance, and you end up spending a lot of time trying to balance out support performance (healing, assists, etc.) vs. pure kill/death types.
- Win/Loss MMR encourages team play over all else which is the goal in a game like Nosgoth. In a ranked match in particular, you should never be chasing K/D or Top Score over a team win, and your rating should reflect that prioritization.
- It effectively discourages an entire class of Abilities in Ranked play that don't contribute directly to your score (and thus, rating).

Doesn't this mean your MMR rank can be dragged up or down by your teammates? If that happens a lot, you could suddenly find yourself matched with people who are at a very different skill level than you the next time you play.

Also, showing the experience levels to your teammates could mislead them about your skill level. You could have used a lot of boosters and played a lot of matches, and teammates might not understand the difference between that and being a really skilled player. IMO, anything misleading like that should be hidden to prevent misunderstandings.

Lomonop
25th Nov 2014, 12:08
Just to be sure (as I couldn't find in it Corey's post, but seems fairly obvious): does it matter with how much of a kill difference you win or lose for the amount you rise/descent on the 'ladder'?

lucinvampire
25th Nov 2014, 13:47
My only concern with this - is it sounds like it is based upon the team as a whole - if they win/loose and not so much the individual.

Personally I have experienced a lot of negativity from players already - without stats that affect the future of their play - such as if you're not doing too well you get "slated" in matches - I can see this becoming a lot worse if your skill level starts to affect theirs...or am I just completely not understanding this?

If the above is the case - this is going to be real bad for players that are not as good skilled as the pros - I know over time the pros will end up in their super-lobby and the lower ranks will end up in their own - but it is going to create more unrest if you are not doing well in a match. I think though it could end up stopping people from wanting to play - if you're going to go on and know you're going to get abuse/moaned at if things don't go the way of the team...people will become very protetive their stats and it'll be bad - probably for people and the game...imo.

I would rather this be more about your own skill – though I’m not sure how this can be done – or if it can at all.

Vampmaster
25th Nov 2014, 14:37
My only concern with this - is it sounds like it is based upon the team as a whole - if they win/loose and not so much the individual.

Personally I have experienced a lot of negativity from players already - without stats that affect the future of their play - such as if you're not doing too well you get "slated" in matches - I can see this becoming a lot worse if your skill level starts to affect theirs...or am I just completely not understanding this?

If the above is the case - this is going to be real bad for players that are not as good skilled as the pros - I know over time the pros will end up in their super-lobby and the lower ranks will end up in their own - but it is going to create more unrest if you are not doing well in a match. I think though it could end up stopping people from wanting to play - if you're going to go on and know you're going to get abuse/moaned at if things don't go the way of the team...people will become very protetive their stats and it'll be bad - probably for people and the game...imo.

I would rather this be more about your own skill – though I’m not sure how this can be done – or if it can at all.

Totally agreed. It could have some of each; Something impacted mostly my your personal performance with a bit of influence from that of your team.

A system that allows weak players to drag the whole team down so that the stronger players are matched with weak players again in future matches will only encourage infighting rather than teamwork.

When you're in a team that are much higher skilled than you are, they all plan things out differently than you might and you don't always pick up on where they want you to be or who they want you to target of whether they want you to open or provide cover and all the teamwork in the world won't do any good if you're not a good shot. (I don't mean you Lucinvampire, I mean any player including myself.)

It's much better to encourage teamwork by adding more ways to communicate and then rewarding the teamwork than by singling out the players who aren't as good at the game.

FireWorks_
25th Nov 2014, 14:59
My only concern with this - is it sounds like it is based upon the team as a whole - if they win/loose and not so much the individual.

Personally I have experienced a lot of negativity from players already - without stats that affect the future of their play - such as if you're not doing too well you get "slated" in matches - I can see this becoming a lot worse if your skill level starts to affect theirs...or am I just completely not understanding this?

If the above is the case - this is going to be real bad for players that are not as good skilled as the pros - I know over time the pros will end up in their super-lobby and the lower ranks will end up in their own - but it is going to create more unrest if you are not doing well in a match. I think though it could end up stopping people from wanting to play - if you're going to go on and know you're going to get abuse/moaned at if things don't go the way of the team...people will become very protetive their stats and it'll be bad - probably for people and the game...imo.

I would rather this be more about your own skill – though I’m not sure how this can be done – or if it can at all.

First, I hope this is not even a problem as I hope all 8 players of a match are of similar skill level.
Gotta say though I am not sure if an all bad match is as satisfying as an all highskill match.

BUT there are also implementations that mix best players with worst just for the sake of average score. This is a doomed approach without a lot of extra work in things like player conduct, sanctioning, polling etc


If the second is the case, it would also hold a big chance where I think the key to this is the weight of the bonus/malus.

Will you get a lot more points for winning with a very bad player, than you could lose when losing? This can be a nice motivation factor if its set in the right boundaries.

Vampmaster
25th Nov 2014, 15:43
BUT there are also implementations that mix best players with worst just for the sake of average score.

I know you're probably not saying this, but it sounds like you're saying it's more important to discourage players from playing badly (which might not be their fault) than put them with people of a similar skill level and let them improve their skill in their own time. Wouldn't you prefer to play with people at your own skill level? If someone is intentionally not bothering to play as a team (very unlikely), they'd inevitably get slaughtered and their level would drop and they'd stop being matched with you.

Psyonix_Corey
25th Nov 2014, 18:07
Sorry guys, it will not be based on individual performance. I understand your concerns, but this is a proven system that already works well in heavily team-based games like DOTA 2 and League of Legends. There are too many negative consequences to attempting to translate player performance numbers into skill.

The normal queue matchmaking rating is hidden for this exact reason - so people don't obsess over a 'number' and get upset if it goes down.

I would ask that instead of fearing the worst case, you give the system a few weeks to get released and figure out player skills. If we're still seeing problems, we have metrics and can adjust how things are done. The nice part about the new system is it's all on a backend server and we can tune how you get matched, or how your MMR is calculated, without needing to patch your client.

FireWorks_
25th Nov 2014, 18:20
I know you're probably not saying this, but it sounds like you're saying it's more important to discourage players from playing badly (which might not be their fault) than put them with people of a similar skill level and let them improve their skill in their own time. Wouldn't you prefer to play with people at your own skill level? If someone is intentionally not bothering to play as a team (very unlikely), they'd inevitably get slaughtered and their level would drop and they'd stop being matched with you.

Not sure how you caught the glimpse of the impression of discouraging players. My personal opinion, as stated in the first sentence, is to have all players of the same level. I think thats what you want too.

The thing is, we gotta be careful what we wish for. It could end up, in a snowball of "bad" players only being put with "bad" players ruining eachothers fun. Bad meaning here, skill and behaviour.

I just mentioned the mix model for the sake of discussion. But I start to see why this is implemented in other games like dota or lol. I constantly keep ruining dota matches for others and get a lot of "friendly" comments. Somehow Valve managed to keep me away from players threatening to rape my whole family dead and **** in my head after I died from cancer. This was managed by a lot of reports and polls on "would you like to play with X again? rate 1-5". But that is a lot of work to program and needs a lot of extra thought, not to mention a playerbase to support it. And I still get scolded off harsh a lot.



@Corey
Any word on how the players will be matches? Mixed skill teams (high,med,med,low VS med,med,med,med) or same skill teams (4xlow VS 4xlow)?

Psyonix_Corey
25th Nov 2014, 18:53
@Corey
Any word on how the players will be matches? Mixed skill teams (high,med,med,low VS med,med,med,med) or same skill teams (4xlow VS 4xlow)?

This first implementation looks for matches near your skill level, and then team balances once the lobby is full to try to average out MMRs across teams. It should only create "mixed" matches you describe when there aren't any games near your skill available and enough time passes that it's preferable to put you in a match vs. making you wait longer.

That said, you'll still get this type of scenario:
* 1100 MMR player forms new server.
* Three players begin searching, a 1000 MMR, 1100 MMR, and 1200 MMR player, all with say +/- 100 skill tolerance.

All three join the first server, but we now have a delta rating gap of 200 skill. This isn't a big deal, but it does require the team balance when the match starts to attempt something like:
1200 MMR, 1000 MMR vs. 1100 MMR, 1100 MMR

This IS a 'mixed skill team' per your definition, but it's fundamentally created after matching for skill rather than before, which is an important distinction. By default, the matchmaker will not intentionally create wide skill variance games (even if you can try to "team balance" it) unless there are no other options.

Nurgor
25th Nov 2014, 20:31
Sorry guys, it will not be based on individual performance. I understand your concerns, but this is a proven system that already works well in heavily team-based games like DOTA 2 and League of Legends. There are too many negative consequences to attempting to translate player performance numbers into skill.

First of all i am not a friend of MMR at all, it says not much about your skill as player, more about how much luck you have finding good players to play with, be that premade partymembers or random people. Second, i can't talk about LoL but the MMR in Dota 2 sucks... its the same problem all Team-based games with MMR have, the performance is team-based. You play good, your teammates suck, too bad for you, you loose-->MMR decreases-->Next game you search will therefore most likely have even worse ppl-->Match Loss/MMR decreases again-->etc. a never ending circle of loosing that can rarely be broken.
Also what about new players? Let's assume their MMR gets calculated when they get lvl 10 and start playing TDM, good they start a game with the basic MMR all ppl start with therefore get set up with ppl WAY above their skill from before Open Beta-->they get wrecked-->MMR decreases-->get set up with bad ppl/not much experience themselves-->Match Loss/MMR decreases-->etc. i think you get this neverending down-spiral thing...
Ok let's assume MMR gets calculated when you begin playing/lvl 0, your MMR may get better or worse depending on the ppl you play with not much you can do there, player is still learning, BUT what if better players with experience make smurf-accounts and start at lvl 0 again just with the battle experience? They wreck the new players-->their MMR decreases. That may or may not happen often but well it can happen, anyway lets assume the new player gets a good level but he has not that much Battle Experience, he starts with normal TDM and gets set up with lvl 40's that play since early beginning of Nosgoth-->most likely they will loose hard time-->MMR decreases again-->down-spiral of death happens again xD

Well thats one point of view i have about MMR. Another thing i am concerned with is, that player equipment is not calculated in this, i am talking about the PC-System and internet speed, not the skill/perk/weapon equipment(though that may be a factor for new players as well ^^), people that dont have a good computer dont have good FPS-->they cant play as well as others because of this-->they will loose most likely-->MMR decreases-->spiral of death; Solution for this: Ultra low settings so that ppl with bad/"old" PC's or ppl playing on non-gaming laptops can get 30 fps minimum too(this was talked about earlier in the forum already).
Thats all from me, i dont have much hope for Nosgoth's MMR or MMR in general, but well... xD
lg Nurgor

FireWorks_
25th Nov 2014, 20:31
This first implementation looks for matches near your skill level, and then team balances once the lobby is full to try to average out MMRs across teams. It should only create "mixed" matches you describe when there aren't any games near your skill available and enough time passes that it's preferable to put you in a match vs. making you wait longer.

That said, you'll still get this type of scenario:
* 1100 MMR player forms new server.
* Three players begin searching, a 1000 MMR, 1100 MMR, and 1200 MMR player, all with say +/- 100 skill tolerance.

All three join the first server, but we now have a delta rating gap of 200 skill. This isn't a big deal, but it does require the team balance when the match starts to attempt something like:
1200 MMR, 1000 MMR vs. 1100 MMR, 1100 MMR

This IS a 'mixed skill team' per your definition, but it's fundamentally created after matching for skill rather than before, which is an important distinction. By default, the matchmaker will not intentionally create wide skill variance games (even if you can try to "team balance" it) unless there are no other options.

This sounds solid so far. Thanks for clarifying!

I assume, the whole party concept was reworked too? So you have to form the party before the matching process to avoid scenarios with joiners being out of "acceptable" MMR range? (500 looks for players, 6x500 are found and added, lastly his awesome 2000k friend joins and wipes floors).

I am sure theres other scenarios too, like a substitute player being out of the range. Are lobbies broken up after the match to have a clean slate?

Lomonop
26th Nov 2014, 11:53
You play good, your teammates suck, too bad for you, you loose-->MMR decreases-->Next game you search will therefore most likely have even worse ppl-->Match Loss/MMR decreases again-->etc. a never ending circle of loosing that can rarely be broken.
I'm not too sure about this spiral, the enemy team that you will be matched against will also consist of players with a lower MMR (and therefore hopefully lower skill), making it not that unavoidable to loose.

theMachineGun
26th Nov 2014, 14:33
This system's fine, but I hope there'll be separate ranked matchmaking where you have to be, say, level 40. Obviously it's not possible yet, but in the future once the player base is big enough. Also I'd like to be able to opt out of being sent into unfinished matches, provided that you reduce leaving with more serious consequences. I personally just keep searching until it stops sending me in these unfinished matches.

Right now I just keep looking for matches until I find one with strong players who are usually in a party. I'd rather get stomped than play a match where I'm not challenged in any way, but I guess I'll have to stop doing this for the sake of my mmr. Obviously it would be optimal to have strong players on both sides but that just doesn't happen that often.

Vampmaster
26th Nov 2014, 15:57
If experience levels are to be used as a measure of skill level, boosters should be removed because they would be a way of cheating the system and players experience levels should also drop depending on the number of deaths otherwise simply playing very many matches despite still getting killed more often than your team, would also be a way of cheating this system.

Or we could just do the sensible thing and have experience and skill level remain entirely independent things.

theMachineGun
26th Nov 2014, 16:49
If experience levels are to be used as a measure of skill level, boosters should be removed because they would be a way of cheating the system and players experience levels should also drop depending on the number of deaths otherwise simply playing very many matches despite still getting killed more often than your team, would also be a way of cheating this system.

Or we could just do the sensible thing and have experience and skill level remain entirely independent things.

As far as I understood, rank has nothing to do with this. In my opinion rank should solely show how much experience you have in the game, and that you need certain amount of experience before you're allowed in ranked matches. Kinda like you need to be 18 to be allowed to do some things. Sure boosters would get you in ranked faster but you'd fall in the bottom if you're not good enough and you'd still understand that you play ranked to win.

Without this there'd be players who have bad mmr 'cause they're bad but wanna get better, and there'd be players who have bad mmr 'cause they don't care about winning, just making it worse for those who are actually trying.

Vampmaster
26th Nov 2014, 17:02
you'd fall in the bottom if you're not good enough

No you wouldn't. If you'd played twice as many matches as a person with similar ability and used a 2x booster, you'd be 4 times as high of a rank than them and even more so if you regularly play with a more highly skilled team.

theMachineGun
26th Nov 2014, 17:18
No you wouldn't. If you'd played twice as many matches as a person with similar ability and used a 2x booster, you'd be 4 times as high of a rank than them and even more so if you regularly play with a more highly skilled team.
But boosters or ranks have nothing to do with your MMR.. When the post refers to ranking it's talking about MMR ranking which is kinda like your win ratio but more complex. If you lose it goes down, if you win it goes up and the amount depends on things like the MMR ranking of your team or the enemy team. Playing more just makes your MMR settle faster from the default rank.

I'm pretty sure I understood it well enough even though I didn't bother reading the whole post.

Vampmaster
26th Nov 2014, 17:23
But boosters or ranks have nothing to do with your MMR.. When the post refers to ranking it's talking about MMR ranking which is kinda like your win ratio but more complex. If you lose it goes down, if you win it goes up and the amount depends on things like the MMR ranking of your team or the enemy team. Playing more just makes your MMR settle faster from the default rank.

I'm pretty sure I understood it well enough even though I didn't bother reading the whole post.

I know that, so why would you and others suggest using rank for a measure of skill when MMR is already used for that purpose much more accurately?

theMachineGun
26th Nov 2014, 17:31
In my suggestion I was just saying that the game should require certain amount of experience from players before they are allowed to play in ranked matches. It has nothing to do with using rank as a measurement of skill. There's no sense in letting someone who doesn't even know how the game works play ranked. The lowest ranked players would be a mix of people who don't know how the game works and who aren't skilled at the game.

Another aspect would be smurfs. People will make smurf accounts, give them super mmr and sell them forward. That would be a lot more trouble if they first had to gain some experience for the account.

Vampmaster
26th Nov 2014, 17:35
In my suggestion I was just saying that the game should require certain amount of experience from players before they are allowed to play in ranked matches. It has nothing to do with using rank as a measurement of skill. There's no sense in letting someone who doesn't even know how the game works play ranked. The lowest ranked players would be a mix of people who don't know how the game works and who aren't skilled at the game.

Another aspect would be smurfs. People will make smurf accounts, give them super mmr and sell them forward. That would be a lot more trouble if they first had to gain some experience for the account.

So it's just making sure they've played long enough for the game to get an idea of what their MMR score should be? If that's all you're saying then I'm OK with that. The new recruit lobby could be kept for that purpose.

OnlyLogic
27th Nov 2014, 02:41
I am honestly VERY happy to see this based solely on team play. It really encourages strong team focus over your own KDR and may change the dynamics of the game before matchmaking is even fully implemented.

For those worrying that you'll go down in ranks due to your incompetent teammates, as you get lower down the MMR ranks and your actual MMR goes lower than your believed MMR, your individual skill will be enough to start carrying the team. Not only that but it is likely that the enemy team will have lower MMR, leading to stray players and bad aimers. This will cause you alone to be the deciding factor in climbing MMR, making you feel better about yourself and fitting you in with players more at your level.

Ok, so what about the flip-side? What about the players that go down in MMR due to one bad feeder on the team? Firstly, this is only likely to happen in one game out of many. Secondly, the same MMR situation applies from my previous point. Your believed MMR won't reflect your actual MMR and you'll easily start climbing again. Most importantly, because the other players on your team should also have a higher believed MMR, they'll swing the balance upwards, sometimes even skyrocketing it if you decide to band together again. Now your actual MMR will be lower than your believed MMR and if you get matched against a stacked team at that MMR and likely win, you'll get a huge boost.

tl;dr, although MMR ranks are based on team play, your individual performance very much reflects your MMR, especially when you're wildly out of your believed MMR. I haven't even mentioned your uncertainty that, over time, will secure your matchmaking position in an unexpected win or loss.

0MGTX0
27th Nov 2014, 05:49
It's a standard, even in team games like LoL and DOTA, for a reason. A couple misc thoughts about tying rating to performance:
- It's very hard to build a predictive rating on performance, and you end up spending a lot of time trying to balance out support performance (healing, assists, etc.) vs. pure kill/death types.
- Win/Loss MMR encourages team play over all else which is the goal in a game like Nosgoth. In a ranked match in particular, you should never be chasing K/D or Top Score over a team win, and your rating should reflect that prioritization.
- It effectively discourages an entire class of Abilities in Ranked play that don't contribute directly to your score (and thus, rating).

It is a problem of much strife in DOTA. Please NEVER make it public for solo (or even party) ranked. Valve was initially against public MMR, then added it as a request of the community; sometimes players don't realize what it is they are asking for... ;) As a hidden component, you don't feel as (de)motivated by it when a teammate disconnects and turns the tide of the match or decides to troll for a stream/youtube channel etc. I've seen DOTA become a much more vile place, teammates are defensive, scared you will decimate their MMR (sometimes even on purpose from so much pent up frustration with the system).

MMR does work well for organized teams however, do you plan on making a public Team MMR where you can manage a roster of teammates and that team receives a public MMR?


Another aspect would be smurfs. People will make smurf accounts, give them super mmr and sell them forward. That would be a lot more trouble if they first had to gain some experience for the account.

Isn't MMR going to be private? [Please god keep it private] If so this isn't a problem as they won''t be able to determine the rating, only Nosgoth knows that.

theMachineGun
27th Nov 2014, 14:30
Isn't MMR going to be private? [Please god keep it private] If so this isn't a problem as they won''t be able to determine the rating, only Nosgoth knows that.

They mentioned the league system for ranked matches which would show your MMR in the form of gold, diamond etc. Smurfs would only really be a problem in ranked.

Shutenti
27th Nov 2014, 19:28
Any idea how many matches it will take before the MMR starts to separate players out to something close to balanced? I've had 3 matches so far and every single one has been ridiculously unbalanced in one direction or the other. People are rage-quitting left and right and I can't say I blame them, but presumably their MMR doesn't update when they quit so they'll just keep on getting bad matches until they stop playing altogether.

I'm a bit worried that a quite lot of the playerbase is going to decide it's not worth going through an unknown number of **** matches to get back to the game they once loved and will move on to another game.

I think a banner that said "it will take X matches for your matchmaking ranking to stabilize, we know it sucks but bear with us and play these first ones to the end and things will get better" would help stave off this player attrition.

mauvo58
27th Nov 2014, 22:36
Interesting point, MMR is trying to sort players by skill. I wonder how long the sort will take, it'll be slower because it's based on team results. I'm in favour of the team results approach, but an initial sort based on level might speed it up enormously.

FireWorks_
28th Nov 2014, 08:48
Any idea how many matches it will take before the MMR starts to separate players out to something close to balanced? I've had 3 matches so far and every single one has been ridiculously unbalanced in one direction or the other. People are rage-quitting left and right and I can't say I blame them, but presumably their MMR doesn't update when they quit so they'll just keep on getting bad matches until they stop playing altogether.

I'm a bit worried that a quite lot of the playerbase is going to decide it's not worth going through an unknown number of **** matches to get back to the game they once loved and will move on to another game.

I think a banner that said "it will take X matches for your matchmaking ranking to stabilize, we know it sucks but bear with us and play these first ones to the end and things will get better" would help stave off this player attrition.

Agreed that communication channels could be optimized. Not everyone is following forums, twitter etc. I surely dont.
An ingame message would be helpful, I think.

JohnSGalt
29th Nov 2014, 10:28
Thanks for the post and update. My only question is why did you guys choose MMR for the matchmaking? It is almost wholely dependent on wins/losses, and a player can win or lose a match for reasons out of their control, namely teammates. To me it makes more sense to use a rating based on performance, such as mean score per game, with modifiers for win/loss, and match players using that? Not a critique, just curious.

MMR is just an abbreviation of matchmaking rating/ranking. Which is a general team for your rating/ranking. Maybe you are thinking of Elo which Riot got a lot of flak for because it was made for Chess which is 1v1.

Lyesmyth
30th Nov 2014, 09:05
Hello there i have diffrent question
as i understand my personal performance does not count
but what abaut turns?

for instance i lost as a human, so i lose mmr, i won as vamp, so i gain mmr, but overall i lost, so inthe end i lost even more mmr

or is it just the end resoult?

I also would really like to learn how the system handles afkers and leavers, i know several ppl, who has win ratio of like 80%+ cous they leav as soon as it becomes apparent they gona lose.

Thanks for answers, yours truly Lye

FireWorks_
30th Nov 2014, 15:49
Hello there i have diffrent question
as i understand my personal performance does not count
but what abaut turns?

for instance i lost as a human, so i lose mmr, i won as vamp, so i gain mmr, but overall i lost, so inthe end i lost even more mmr

or is it just the end resoult?

I also would really like to learn how the system handles afkers and leavers, i know several ppl, who has win ratio of like 80%+ cous they leav as soon as it becomes apparent they gona lose.

Thanks for answers, yours truly Lye


For a little more info on the algorithm you can read this True Skill paper. Corey mentioned it a long time ago in the forum and recently confirmed it on a dev stream to be the one for nosgoth.
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/trueskill/
This is the general idea of how it works but also has links to in depth knowledge on implementations.

Taking care of the leaver topic would be the next logic step in my view. The discussions in the forum were pretty furious with very good arguments on both sides and with a lot of bug fixes in the last months, I think we can get to the next step. I wouldnt want to see any negative actions (even minor) against players, where only the game bugs are responsible for.
Now that a lot of crashes, sound loops and network related problems are either fixed or occuring far less, I am personally less likely to not finish a game for whatever reason. If I quit at the moment, it is a concious decision that I am to blame and take responsiblity for.

I dont know how afkers/leavers are handled in the current implementation but the dota approach seems a good way to go. It just provides the player with a default loss (and -MMR) and increases their abandon count. Nothing excessive draconic, but it is a measure most people will like to avoid.

Lyesmyth
1st Dec 2014, 06:48
it doesnt answer my question of rounds

is loosing round will hurt my mmr or is it only the total game lose

FireWorks_
1st Dec 2014, 08:23
it doesnt answer my question of rounds

is loosing round will hurt my mmr or is it only the total game lose

Sorry, I missed that one.

Most likely only a total game loss (rounds would be an unnecessary balance problem)

Lyesmyth
1st Dec 2014, 21:54
I hope so aswell, becous as it happens, i am more proficiant with one faction, so its not uncomon to lose slightly or have a drow in one faction and then totaly stomp as another

i hope someone high ranked can tell me, if this means i am gloryfied noob that shuld be ditched in bronze, or is is actualy a valuable thing for mmr

Sasha_Vykos
27th Dec 2014, 16:08
in my opinion mmr system is at the moment terrible. It was better before; way better. I am continously playing with people that can barely fly with sentinel and use dive bomb vs 4 enemies suiciding 9 times out of 10. The fact that the points/kill ratio/damage don't count are incredible: if I do 2000 points with 15-4 kill ratio and 20k damage but my team loose, the only thing tha really counts is that we lost. I think the game needs some sort of "league" in which people of the same level can play togheter.. at the moment to me is very very frustrating. This is just my feedback after many and many hours played on Nosgoth.

Nordikc
27th Dec 2014, 20:07
I think the bulk of the problem is player count. At certain times of day you don't have enough people to spread the skill around evenly. Ns2 runs into this same problem except it lets you choose your server. Nosgoth has about 500 concurrent players, 1000 peak right now. This is literally the same as ns2 when not just after a sale. Nosgoth is a closed beta though, so low player counts are easily forgiven. I would expect at least double the playercount we now have once shortly after open beta hits. Then hopefully a bit more than that after release.

riccetto80
27th Dec 2014, 21:54
Sorry to say but the new matchmaking SUCKS, i start to miss the old buggy one...

first of all seems to have tendency to put team of 2 good and 2 bad, so the 2 bad destroy the gameplay and the fun of the 2 good, most of the time...

second, majority of match is anyway high unbalanced, i keep or lost match without cannot do **** or win match like 60 to 15... so easy to win is boring to play the match...

high disappointed


The fact that the points/kill ratio/damage don't count are incredible: if I do 2000 points with 15-4 kill ratio and 20k damage but my team loose, the only thing tha really counts is that we lost.

*

me too i dont understand why dont take in account also this...

if a team lost and 2 player do 12.000 dms done and other 2 3.000 only, have to be taken in consideration.


For those worrying that you'll go down in ranks due to your incompetent teammates, as you get lower down the MMR ranks and your actual MMR goes lower than your believed MMR, your individual skill will be enough to start carrying the team. Not only that but it is likely that the enemy team will have lower MMR, leading to stray players and bad aimers. This will cause you alone to be the deciding factor in climbing MMR, making you feel better about yourself and fitting you in with players more at your level.

NOPE

if i do 12.000 damage and rest of my team 3/6.000 i feel bad, frustated, unhappy, and we will lose anyway, this is a teamplay based game, not quake, if im skilled "10" and my teammates "5" most likely we will lost the match, no matther how much good i will play.

not only, often you cannot play good no matter your skill, if your team dont help you, so no matther your skill, if the teammates dont know to play at your level or close, you will die much more and do much less damage and stuff, compared to when the team is able to play decent.

Voxyld
28th Dec 2014, 10:53
Sorry to say but the new matchmaking SUCKS, i start to miss the old buggy one...

first of all seems to have tendency to put team of 2 good and 2 bad, so the 2 bad destroy the gameplay and the fun of the 2 good, most of the time...

second, majority of match is anyway high unbalanced, i keep or lost match without cannot do **** or win match like 60 to 15... so easy to win is boring to play the match...

high disappointed



*

me too i dont understand why dont take in account also this...

if a team lost and 2 player do 12.000 dms done and other 2 3.000 only, have to be taken in consideration.



NOPE

if i do 12.000 damage and rest of my team 3/6.000 i feel bad, frustated, unhappy, and we will lose anyway, this is a teamplay based game, not quake, if im skilled "10" and my teammates "5" most likely we will lost the match, no matther how much good i will play.

not only, often you cannot play good no matter your skill, if your team dont help you, so no matther your skill, if the teammates dont know to play at your level or close, you will die much more and do much less damage and stuff, compared to when the team is able to play decent.


I agree with all that is said in this message, i experienced the same thing. I would just like to add for that line :


if i do 12.000 damage and rest of my team 3/6.000 i feel bad, frustated, unhappy, and we will lose anyway, this is a teamplay based game, not quake, if im skilled "10" and my teammates "5" most likely we will lost the match, no matther how much good i will play.
in these situations (that happens very often due to the new matchmaking) even if you win, it's not very enjoyable. Most of the times you carry like an idiot, are forced to play like you life is on the line and without counting too much on your teammates just to win. In this case winning does not feel good at all. it's not a good way to improve in teamplay anyway. I would much prefer to lose by 3 points a match with all of my team playing WITH me than winninf by 10 points a match where i play "alone" (when i have 10k more dmg than my teammates)

Also i would like to insist on what was said about the way the rating is calculated. The way it is now is obviously lacking, i also strongly agree with what was said about that. I do not want my post to be viewed as a rage post either, just as a reminder that many players are concerned with these issues.

As far as i am concerned, for the topic of punishing leavers, i initially was against it but seeing how the situation change now, i think more and more that this is inevitable.

GenFeelGood
28th Dec 2014, 19:33
Is there an indicator that shows you where you are ranking in the MMR? If not, that would be a nice feature that would allow us to see how we are progressing.

cmstache
29th Dec 2014, 00:36
I think that'd be nice in a profile, if you show it in the lobby then it'll just be people leaving due to levels again.

GenFeelGood
29th Dec 2014, 01:16
I think that'd be nice in a profile, if you show it in the lobby then it'll just be people leaving due to levels again.

Absolutely, your rank is for your eyes only.

riccetto80
2nd Jan 2015, 15:17
Any idea how many matches it will take before the MMR starts to separate players out to something close to balanced? I've had 3 matches so far and every single one has been ridiculously unbalanced in one direction or the other. People are rage-quitting left and right and I can't say I blame them, but presumably their MMR doesn't update when they quit so they'll just keep on getting bad matches until they stop playing altogether.

is my situation, i already play much less lately duo the old bad matchmaking and the continuously bad test for the new one, lately i play even less because when i play i rage quit or i even "bore quit" when my team simple rape the enemy and we are 20-3, so boring and feel sorry for enemy team players i quit this kind of matches too.

Seriously, i will not play again till a patch in matchmaking, the fun is gone, only high unbalanced match, im sick of this, there are no fun anymore in play this game.

snejjjj
4th Jan 2015, 00:23
Absolutely, your rank is for your eyes only.

Do it like csgo!
If you are in a lobby you can see the levels/ranks from players which are steam friends. And at the end of a match you see alle levels and ranks of everyone in the match.

snejjjj
5th Jan 2015, 22:08
Just happend:

Premade:
me lvl 40 + 3x <10

against

premade:
4xlvl40

was fun.

Celeress
7th Jan 2015, 19:37
MMR ranks you by how well you perform with a team; not individual skill level.
Perfect system for a heavily team based game like Nosgoth IMO

You could be an amazing player but if you don't function well in a team it doesn't matter because ultimately, teamwork is usually what decides the outcome of the match. A "lower ranked" but coordinated team could easily win against a "higher ranked" uncoordinated team.

leifstream
8th Jan 2015, 10:42
The system itself might be good, BUT http://steamcharts.com/app/200110
With the amount of players (and it decreases instead of increases) there can't be a match, where the MMR system works, because it needs enough players. So the players will be selected by the nearest rating which can be very different to yourself/teams.

@Psyonix
Is there a statistic for the MMR, how many matches are even or nearly even MMR?
Edit: Addtional you should check how the MMR for <20 LVL is to 40 LVL (or nosgoth played hours, because of the boosters)

I can count on one hand where i had close games, which were fun. I had many matches vs. premade groups (min. 2 players) and i was the counterpart at least for one of them.

Conclusion: It might work with Open Beta and 1000 players, but not now. To the point where open beta is up, all MMR are messed up.

Enlightened_Fool
8th Jan 2015, 15:28
Conclusion: It might work with Open Beta and 1000 players, but not now. To the point where open beta is up, all MMR are messed up.

Yeah I must agree, mmr isn't being very effective due to such a low player base. I honestly thought there were even less players playing for the past few months(feels like even less than 100-500), but I only play on US servers(and curious how many players are playing on each regions servers, I think that there's less playing in US than anywhere else).
I would hope that at a bare minimum when it goes to open beta mmr will be reset again(I'm sure it will), which of course will suck at first for the newer/not as good players, but will work better\etc in the long run with way more players.

riccetto80
9th Jan 2015, 19:48
MMR ranks you by how well you perform with a team; not individual skill level.
Perfect system for a heavily team based game like Nosgoth IMO

You could be an amazing player but if you don't function well in a team it doesn't matter because ultimately, teamwork is usually what decides the outcome of the match. A "lower ranked" but coordinated team could easily win against a "higher ranked" uncoordinated team.

Dear lord how people dont understand is normal and good give high importance to teamwork in a teamwork game, what me and other complain is take ONLY this to create matchmaking is idiotic? and will make the mathmaking learning curve much more long and random?

plus is a no sense, if someone dont play in team cannot be "very good" so will not do 20.000 dmg without work in team.

FireWorks_
10th Jan 2015, 14:23
plus is a no sense, if someone dont play in team cannot be "very good" so will not do 20.000 dmg without work in team.

Wrong. A LOT. You only get 20-30k or more if your team is really bad. Cause you have to do all the work and get the chance to do all the damage. In a working team your mates act in a useful way, meaning they do damage themselves.

If a player does 50%+ of the teams total damage, his team is not up to par and likely has no teamwork at all.

Rago600
10th Jan 2015, 19:19
Wrong. A LOT. You only get 20-30k or more if your team is really bad. Cause you have to do all the work and get the chance to do all the damage. In a working team your mates act in a useful way, meaning they do damage themselves.

If a player does 50%+ of the teams total damage, his team is not up to par and likely has no teamwork at all.

i´ll agree with this :)

snejjjj
12th Jan 2015, 11:54
I didnt read the whole thread, but the lvl or hours played need to included in the MMR.
If i group up with 2-3 rl friends we will have the following levels: 40,13,10,7
We got enemies with 500hr played, a team of lvl 40s an we lost 10-60 4 games in a row.
This is ****, de-motivation especially for new players

Aslanftw
30th Jan 2015, 14:58
Hi,

I started to play Nosgoth 5 days ago. This game is really cool and I do enjoy it a lot. But there is one problem with matchmaking. I really wanna know how teams are made. Curently I'm lvl 15 and almost every game I end up like 15/5/xx always with 2k+ points and usually most damage BUT I still end up losing the game. I always get 1-2 players who end up with less than 1-2 k dmg and around 100 points with 0/10 stats. How is it fair? I thought it's comletely random but now I had like 7/8 games like this - playing like tryhard with a loss as a reward:mad:

So how does it work?

EDIT: my post has been attached to this thread, I've read it verything is clear now. Seems I have to carry my team for better MMR like in DotA...ffs The only reason I've stopped playing Dota 2 now they taking an example from it

Ghosthree3
30th Jan 2015, 17:34
The thing with W/L based MMR is that it takes time to take effect, but once it does take effect it is the most accurate form of rating.

If you do well alone, over all you will cause your team to win more often than not and your MMR will go up, conversely if you play poorly. It's not a quick process but it does work. Have some patience while you and other new player's MMR is to the correct rating and everything will work out in the end. Until then just play as often as you can to speed up the process and improve your skill over all.

Wolf_the_Legend
31st Jan 2015, 04:49
just got teamed up with a guy who did 1000 dmg in hu round and 2500 dmg in vamp round ... while me doing 17k in hu and 13k in vamp round ... mm is not rly working at all ... no wonder ppl leaving if they see ppl doing 100 dmg after 1 minute ...

only build lobbys with high mmr ppl or mid mmr ppl or low mmr ppl, BUT dont mix them up!

or at least send ppl a warning that they will play with far higher or lower mmr so they can choose to leave the lobby ... but thats should only be a work around not a fix.

Wolf_the_Legend
6th Feb 2015, 23:27
In the last 3 days I had a lot of decent games ... seems to be fixed at least for me :D

even lost a 4 stack match god dammit ... gj

Wolf_the_Legend
16th Feb 2015, 21:39
hi guys I played a lot of matches since mmr has been implemented, but still I increase my mmr by ~100 by only winning 1 game^^
and the mmr seems to be capped at 2000 ... I think there is a huge difference between 2000 and 2000 ... http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140219051150/halo/images/a/aa/Neutral-if-you-know-what-i-mean-l.png

Ghosthree3
17th Feb 2015, 07:10
In its final implementation the cap needs to be removed or it won't work.

--Ram--
17th Feb 2015, 18:21
only build lobbys with high mmr ppl or mid mmr ppl or low mmr ppl, BUT dont mix them up!


Mid level MMRs need to be mixed in with 2000 players in order for them to play. The fact that this rarely happens now is the reason I have barely been able to find a game since the 3rd of Feb. If someone is rated at 1600 and can only contribute 100 damage per life, the problem is clearly that they are overrated, not the fact that they have been put in a game with 2000 players.