Frankly I'd like option 2.

While having a match based on equip might seem good, it basically negates any reason to advance in gear. If you're paired in SP then you have a wider variety of play styles to go up against. Maybe somebody put all their SP in Sniper Rifles or they're like me and spread it around. Someone could have put a ton of SP in to a Duvolle Assult Rifle but someone else with a similar amount of SP invested in shielding or what not. Then there isn't such a disparity in skill level or gear. I think that leads to a much more balanced and diverse matchmaking.

4. But weighted significantly on average rank per match. If you're consistently finnishing in the top of your matches then you will play harder opponents; if you're consistently getting your ass kicked you will play easier people. This system will find a natural equilibrium, and will balance itself as people get better gear and improve their game. Also if queues get long CCP can dynamically widen the talent gap. The most important thing is that both teams have roughly equal strength so the matches stay close.

3 Is completely f*cking idiotic. It negates the entire point of gear in the first place and you'll have people going 30 and 2 if they're really good. Dust is a sandbox game, what's the point of having better gear if everyone else does too? That's basically spend the first couple of months grinding up SPs for proto and then you've got "Halo:the proto edition." imagine how much fun that will be in a year when everyone is always wearing proto. It should be about tradeoffs, where people are sometimes willing to risk more expensive gear to get an edge, but can't afford to sustain the practice indefinitely. #4 allows for freedom, and choice-with-consequences. It works great in EVE, and naturally balances itself out.

I'd be willing to bet a lot of ISK that if we could run each option for a month, #4 would by far produce the closest matches, the lowest disparity between the best players on a team and the worst, and the highest player satisfaction/retention rate--especially if proto suits went up 5-10x in price.

Maybe increased payouts for higher tiered matches would incentivise using prototype gear?

In theory, that's what Faction Warfare is for. When PC produces something EVE players really want, there will be plenty of ISK to fund proto in PC too. You don't really need to incentivize proto in pub matches because wearing better gear than everyone else is inherently desirable and fun. If its profitable too (like it currently is) , then everyone will wear it all of the time and it's no longer an expensive tool for important jobs, but the standard tool for all jobs (with all of the lower metas being fairly useless to you).

This is the model of WoW and other MMOs where you reach the next tier and then never use lower tier stuff again. It's the gear treadmill, and its a s*itty model. EVE is so much more elegant. In EVE you can pimp out your fit with several billion ISK modules, but that puts a huge "gank me" target on your back. All but the richest players will have that nervous tingle in their balls when they click the undock button in a ship that pricy. That said, my corp will sometimes go on 1-way roams in the most expensive ships they can afford for ***** and giggles. They fleet up, OK pick a direction in dangerous space and see how far they can get and how many ships they can kill before being decimated. It's a fun waste of ISK. Proto in pub matches should feel like that.

3 I think is best cuz if u love playing with some1 who has a lower sp then u it make it possible to play with that person and win the game and if as u go up from crap gear to proto the isk go's up as well so it'd make ppl want to skill up and to stop ppl from putting proto gear on a bed suit u put a meta lvl on it
like mlt lv 5 or 8 and u go up from there just a geass on how high

The current system which isn't even fixed yet won't do. We need to change it immediately? You could at least give them some time until the current system works as intended before you start a change vote. Fix will be out in about 7 hours.

Option X: Remove the lobby, Open up the planets for walkabouts and ditch the matchmaking system altogether.

This would make an ambush an ambush and allow us to go and find people to shoot. Skirmishes would be attacks on the Infrastructure hubs and require an MCC to be built and piloted to where it was needed to capture the hub as was depicted in Skirmish 1.0. Domination would be a similar attack on a communications link or something similar that would be tied to another battle happening somewhere else on the planet.

We do not need matchmaking we need emergent gameplay, not another version of COD.

Hmm I can see where you are coming from. We at least need a way to get somewhat fair matches, and get a better new player retention. And the K/D option does that, but it takes the skill out of the game as well it evens the playing field with skill. I prefer option 3 because it levels the playing field with gear and allows the truly skilled players to shine, while maintaining a fair game for both the vets and new guys. One could even explain it away with security levels.Why get better if you aren't going to perform any better against the big guys?

Well FW and PC will still be a free-for-all with desirable payouts, similar to the old system(with better ISK) so there is still an incentive to get better. Also players naturally want to improve their rankings for bragging rights and being accepted into the top corps.

Furthermore, in order to keep wait times short there will naturally be a decent size gaps between the best players in any given match, and the law of averages guarantees that half the time you're going to be in the top half of your match and the other half you'll be in the bottom half, so there should still be a fair bit of variability there for people to shine. The system isn't going to be pitting people who just got out of the academy with the top ranked players (unless they're f*cking amazing in MLT/STD gear).

Imagine the game giving each player a "talent score" from 1 to 99. In order to get matches with players in similar regions, similar lag and THE SAME game mode, and within a reasonably short period of time, it may adjust the "talent range" to as wide as 40 or more points. So it's still very possible that you'll see people with a talent score of 70 in the same match with a player who has a score of 40. It will still be a fun match because both sides will have about as many 70s, 60s, 50s and 40s on each team. The match should be fairly close. Also if you're that 40 in the match and had a tough fight against people mostly better than you, it's just as likely that you'll find yourself in a 50 to10 match where you're going go be kicking ass. Peak playing times will see the talent range get smaller with closer matches and 4am matches will probably see a good bit of variety.

Finally consider that no matter how good the algorithm is, it's probably not going to perfectly match your actual ability so you'll still have a mix of talent in every match. It also accounts for good players squadding up with bad ones as it balances the rest of the players to produce a roughly even amount of talent on each side.