DUST Search - Matchmaking Math: Who's to blame?

calisk galern wrote:

I had suggested what you should do to handle match making.

step 1 - remove pub matches in their current form.

step 2 - have the system randomly generate games for players to choose from, the player will look at the open contracts evaluate the pay outs for winning and losing and pick the game they wish to fight in. the higher payout matches should have a lower security rating, this doesn't actually do anything but should help new players understand these fights will have better players.

step 3 - as the games fill up have the system generate more games, this handles low player population making sure theirs exactly enough games for the player base to handle.

side notes and ideas -

1) players should be able to see exactly what the rewards will be, I.E they will know the payout for fighting in X match will be a 350k bonus for winning, and 1 thale for the top scorer. losing will pay out 150k.( this can still be modified by the current system that is applied, via war points, i.e a game may pay out 4 million to the team, the guy who scores 0 wp gets none of it. )

2) joining an in progress match on the losing side will come with bonuses if you win, call it a calvary bonus, you can see the bonus listed maybe it's a balac's gar if you join and the losing team and it results in a win.

this puts match making in the hands of the players, and gives you a lot more control in balancing the games. sure pro players could join a match that is only paying out 50k for the win, but he's not going to get much from it, he could just join the match paying out a million.

it's not perfect but it's a step in the right direction, and you could take further steps in helping that, applying gear restrictions to security rankings, and other stuff to help push pro players into the upper tiered matches.

Pages: 1 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Beren Hurin Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 1973	Posted - 2014.01.15 19:19:00 - [1] - Quote I was wanting to try to figure out about how many people I might be queueing with at any given time so I started making some assumptions and throwing some figures around, so if you don't mind, follow me down the math path... Some data is debatable, but hopefully not too far off. Average Player population: 3,000 Game modes: 5 (Ambush, domination, skirmish, FW MIN/GAL, FW CAL/AMARR) For simplicity of distribution I assumed that the same amount of people would be grouped between the allied factions as were also queued in the other game modes. Could be a high estimate...also I'm ignoring PC Players per game mode: 600 or 20% Now not everyone is in every game mode queueing at the same time. Some are in battle, some are idle, some are queuing. I estimated that on average, 85% of time is in game or match, and 15% is queing or idle. So now what we need to know is how many people could be queing at once. Let's say that half of those players who aren't in game have also just selected to find a battle. So that's 15% of 20% or 3% of all players (45 players). Also, let's assume that there are a chunk of players who have just left a match and are getting ready to re-queue. 85% of these players will immediately re-queue rather than idle around. ...And we will also assume that the size of this group is (game mode population)/(avg. match length)/(avg match queue time)... Since there are 510 players playing at this time, and we'll estimate the average match length is about 10 mins for all modes, and the average wait time is one minute, that means that (510)/(10)/(1) or about 51 players are getting out of battle and immediately queuing. This would be around 10% of the players in a game mode at any time. So with the 51 re-queuers and the 45 players leaving their idle state, that is 96 players or just enough mercs for 3 possible matches in a given mode. That doesn't leave much room for matching squads against each other. In summary: When you select one game mode to play you will queue with: Total Population: 3000 Game mode: 20% of all people in the game (600) Activity rate: 85% of all people logged in the mode (510) Match turnover: 10% of all active people in a specific game mode at a time. (51) Returnees: half of the 15% of people that were idle (45) (96 total players queued)/(32 players per match)= 3 matches Depending on your game mode (like ambush) you might have a few more people to match against, or a few less (like FW) but until we get 5000 to 6000 players, the matchmaker gets extremely limited in the matches that it can make. Bottom line: The only possible better results to matchmaking are longer queues or more players. It cannot possibly do much better with what it's got to chose from right now.
calisk galern BurgezzE.T.F Public Disorder. 1620	Posted - 2014.01.15 19:30:00 - [2] - Quote calisk galern wrote: I had suggested what you should do to handle match making. step 1 - remove pub matches in their current form. step 2 - have the system randomly generate games for players to choose from, the player will look at the open contracts evaluate the pay outs for winning and losing and pick the game they wish to fight in. the higher payout matches should have a lower security rating, this doesn't actually do anything but should help new players understand these fights will have better players. step 3 - as the games fill up have the system generate more games, this handles low player population making sure theirs exactly enough games for the player base to handle. side notes and ideas - 1) players should be able to see exactly what the rewards will be, I.E they will know the payout for fighting in X match will be a 350k bonus for winning, and 1 thale for the top scorer. losing will pay out 150k.( this can still be modified by the current system that is applied, via war points, i.e a game may pay out 4 million to the team, the guy who scores 0 wp gets none of it. ) 2) joining an in progress match on the losing side will come with bonuses if you win, call it a calvary bonus, you can see the bonus listed maybe it's a balac's gar if you join and the losing team and it results in a win. this puts match making in the hands of the players, and gives you a lot more control in balancing the games. sure pro players could join a match that is only paying out 50k for the win, but he's not going to get much from it, he could just join the match paying out a million. it's not perfect but it's a step in the right direction, and you could take further steps in helping that, applying gear restrictions to security rankings, and other stuff to help push pro players into the upper tiered matches. numbers remain the same but higher tiered players would join the games with better pay outs and lower tiered players would join the lower tiered game at least the players not wanting to face proto stompers. the boring nature of pub games is fixed, new players have somewhere to play( especially if gear restrictions are implemented in high security games ), and at the very least it's an improvement.
Ghosts Chance Inf4m0us 811	Posted - 2014.01.15 19:30:00 - [3] - Quote except the main fails of matchmaking are putting multiple squads on the same team instead of opposing sides starting games before teams fill wich causes: one side is full and the other is half empty one side having a massive head start capping most if not all the bases before the opposing team can even spawn in. your analysis fails to take this into consideration.
Beren Hurin Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 1973	Posted - 2014.01.15 19:39:00 - [4] - Quote Ghosts Chance wrote: except the main fails of matchmaking are putting multiple squads on the same team instead of opposing sides starting games before teams fill wich causes: one side is full and the other is half empty one side having a massive head start capping most if not all the bases before the opposing team can even spawn in. your analysis fails to take this into consideration. I don't really think it fails that much. You are in a tryhard squad. The matchmaker will place you in the best match. If your squad just stomped a match and another squad was with you and it got 25% of the points of your squad it would LOOK like it's underperforming against maybe 10 players on the other side, depending on how bad the stomp was. The matchmaker could look at those 10 players and rank them higher than your 2nd squad. Thus dooming the loosing solo players further... When you have any 6 players getting 50% of all WPs awarded to both teams in a game, it then becomes difficult to have some way to determine the next best 6 players' relative value.
Ghosts Chance Inf4m0us 812	Posted - 2014.01.15 19:52:00 - [5] - Quote Beren Hurin wrote: Ghosts Chance wrote: except the main fails of matchmaking are putting multiple squads on the same team instead of opposing sides starting games before teams fill wich causes: one side is full and the other is half empty one side having a massive head start capping most if not all the bases before the opposing team can even spawn in. your analysis fails to take this into consideration. I don't really think it fails that much. You are in a tryhard squad. The matchmaker will place you in the best match. If your squad just stomped a match and another squad was with you and it got 25% of the points of your squad it would LOOK like it's underperforming against maybe 10 players on the other side, depending on how bad the stomp was. The matchmaker could look at those 10 players and rank them higher than your 2nd squad. Thus dooming the loosing solo players further... When you have any 6 players getting 50% of all WPs awarded to both teams in a game, it then becomes difficult to have some way to determine the next best 6 players' relative value. squad > solo players putting two squads on one team and nothing but solos on the other is a guarenteed win for those in the squads... player skill is secondary to this in order of importance
SteelDark Knight Ancient Exiles. Renegade Alliance 210	Posted - 2014.01.15 20:04:00 - [6] - Quote The did not see it mentioned so thought I would bring it up as it probably effects the numbers. What about the different server regions and how that impacts Ambush, Skirmish, Domination, matchmaking as it further splits up the player base in which to pull people from?
The Attorney General 1749	Posted - 2014.01.15 20:05:00 - [7] - Quote SteelDark Knight wrote: The did not see it mentioned so thought I would bring it up as it probably effects the numbers. What about the different server regions and how that impacts Ambush, Skirmish, Domination, matchmaking as it further splits up the player base in which to pull matches people from? Good point. Depending on the time of day, there might only be one battle available in your region. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
Beren Hurin Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 1973	Posted - 2014.01.15 20:06:00 - [8] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: SteelDark Knight wrote: The did not see it mentioned so thought I would bring it up as it probably effects the numbers. What about the different server regions and how that impacts Ambush, Skirmish, Domination, matchmaking as it further splits up the player base in which to pull matches people from? Good point. Depending on the time of day, there might only be one battle available in your region. Yeah I didn't even think about server regions. Good thought. It's likely though that if you are in a sparse region, queue times will be a bit longer to even things out. The thing we don't know is if queue times re-tune themselves based on how lopsided a match is. How would you feel if the reward for a pub-stomp was a +5 minute longer timer to your next queue?
SteelDark Knight Ancient Exiles. Renegade Alliance 210	Posted - 2014.01.15 20:14:00 - [9] - Quote In the end the server region split just adds more validity to your argument. The amount of players online at any given point along with all the different type of game mode and server region splits make matchmaking balance more and more difficult. With that said I believe we have all been in matches were we see a side that has multiple high tier corps squads while the other is brimming with solo NPC corp players and wonder how matchmaking allowed that to happen since it appears players were available to generate a more competitive and balanced match (i.e those squads on opposite sides)
R F Gyro Clones 4u 1049	Posted - 2014.01.15 21:02:00 - [10] - Quote calisk galern wrote: suggestion +1 I call the idea contract matching and base payouts on the security level of the start system the battle is in, but its essentially the same idea. Let the players choose. RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus

Thumb Green Titans of Phoenix Legacy Rising 675	Posted - 2014.01.15 21:26:00 - [11] - Quote I remember I time when there was no matchmaking (less than a year ago actually) and we were all just randomly thrown into matches. During this time we actually had something that resembled balanced teams; of course the queue sync'ers messed it up from time to time but most matches you couldn't tell which team would win just by looking at the player list. During this time matchmaking was in "learning" mode but apparently it learned nothing. So I say just turn off scotty and throw us in randomly as before. Which of course it'll work a little different since squads are a little bigger now but overall I think it'll work out fine. CCP: Is it the most asinine way possible to do this? Yes. Then that's how we're doing it.
Beren Hurin Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 1973	Posted - 2014.01.15 21:31:00 - [12] - Quote I was just brainstorming a kind of system where, if your squad starts to perform pretty highly stomping a few times, it starts to increase it's "Morale Rating". Each individual's morale is tracked. The higher your morale, the more you contribute to a longer queue because the matchmaker is trying to find a harder opponent. But additionally there is a reward of a possible kind of SP boost. I don't know how it would be best to enact, but morale would then have a kind of half life. If you stomp a bunch of matches and get 100% morale, then one of these could be a possibility to implement. Morale would have a half life of 48 hours and would increase as a proportion of the team WP you get in a match. The higher your morale, the longer you contribute to match length, but the greater your SP rewards. You could alternatively make squad morale be the factor that increases SP gain. So the higher the total squad morale is the longer you wait for battle, but the better your SP gains. Ultimately, it would have to be tuned so that the longer wait and the better competition is still worth the increased SP.


Pages: 1 :: [one page]