|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
John Demonsbane
Unorganized Ninja Infantry Tactics
League of Infamy
3565
   |
Posted - 2014.06.27 12:35:00 -
[1] - Quote
Bayeth Mal wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:It saddens me to know that better matchmaking would have helped the game and its new player retention a long time ago. I can tell you though that we are hopefully making some progress on matchmaking, and specifically team making, based on cumulative WP/battlesecond, cumulative KDR is not as good because of snipers, but I hadn't thought of WP/D. We will take a look at how that compares to our other data and calculate the correlation to W/L ratio and see how it performs.
This is independent work from hotfixes and will be deployed when ready.
Matchmaking like this is of course only in random matches, not PC. Yeah but too bad the players never said this. It's not even like there's a place where people post these sorts of things. Like a kind of messaging place, but instead of it being directly between people it kinda goes on this wall where it's open to everybody, and then other people can add their own messages, they could agree or disagree and have conversations about it... ...it'd be really awesome if there was something like that.
So... Much... Truth....
why can't I like this moar?!
(The godfather of tactical logistics)
|
John Demonsbane
Unorganized Ninja Infantry Tactics
League of Infamy
3567
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 15:01:00 -
[2] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:steadyhand amarr wrote:Lack of people is due to lack of isk, the moment you throw in good isk rewards and a FW event it will spring right back Making changes/additions to FW is one thing, I am asking why we should not make the FW sides as equal as possible?
If you gave us team deploy, no problem. Why?
Reason 1: Friendly fire! I do not want to be forced to squad up with any more randoms than absolutely necessary in a game mode where they can kill me and I can't do anything about it unless I want to waste the week or so of effort it takes to regain the standings loss from a TK ban.
Reason 2, 3 and 4: See reason 1.
Reason 5: FW is supposed to be competitive, right? A middle ground between pubs and PC?
So it shouldn't necessarily be treated the same way as pubs. As a competitive outlet, we should be able to q-sync in large groups to do our thing. Matchmaking would thwart that in the absence of a team deploy option.
(The godfather of tactical logistics)
|
John Demonsbane
Unorganized Ninja Infantry Tactics
League of Infamy
3573
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 19:08:00 -
[3] - Quote
Harpyja wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:steadyhand amarr wrote:Lack of people is due to lack of isk, the moment you throw in good isk rewards and a FW event it will spring right back Making changes/additions to FW is one thing, I am asking why we should not make the FW sides as equal as possible? FW teams do need to be as balanced as possible, don't listen to whoever says so otherwise. Because you can choose which faction you're fighting for as soon as one faction is winning, everyone flocks to that faction, e.g. Gal/Cal FW. Rail rifles have been more utilized than plasma rifles (at least before Bravo), yet all the pro players flocked to Gallente. Why? Because it became too reliable that Gallente almost always stomps Caldari. I feel that players don't even play Gal FW for the LP items, but to pad their KDRs against militia newbs on Caldari. Today was particularly awful due to the event, because now it was a bunch of protos redlining Caldari militia almost every match. I actually play Caldari for the LP but I can't get anywhere with 75 LP/battle and 0 standings gains over multiple hours of play. It's so incredibly demoralizing and rage enducing, getting stomped every battle because you're the only player to score over 1000 WP on your team while the second place player doesn't even have 300. Teams need to be balanced. Militia newbs against militia newbs. Stompers against stompers. And people who want to stomp won't be able to because they won't be playing militia newbs. And now there's reason to play Caldari FW, because those who play for LP will face teams of equal opposition instead of playing the demoralizing battles we got currently. I'd be much better for AFK'ing in the MCC than throwing away millions of ISK in hopeless battles.
Balanced teams are fine by me, I just want to be able to play in larger groups. I fight for the Amarr, trust me that I feel your pain of railing against hopeless odds dodging awoxers while randoms spin around in circles shooting the MCC.
(The godfather of tactical logistics)
|
John Demonsbane
Unorganized Ninja Infantry Tactics
League of Infamy
3577
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 22:48:00 -
[4] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Soraya Xel wrote: (Total kills, total war points, kill/death ratio, are all effectively useless measures for a leaderboard) ^ Everyone gets a 1st place sticker AND a participation trophy.
Will there be ribbons? I like ribbons.
I think honestly you could even just make it something very simple like balancing the teams by career WP and it would still be leaps and bound ahead of what we have now.
That might be somethng for you to look into short term, Rattati, until you can build a more sophisticated algorithm.
Otherwise, if you are really forced into using only a single stat, WP/D is probably best, IMO, but if you're really going to do it right, I'm sure some kind of composite score could be made (I'm not heinz doofenshertz so I don't know what the best way to go about that is)
The other, absolutely mandatory condition that should need to be met is that if there is one full squad on team A, then the next squad should always be assigned to team B. For my money thats the single most important thing for a matchmaking system to do, there is literally no reason for one team to have 2 squads and the other to have none, but it happens all the time
The AI should then be able to shuffle the teams at the last second before deploying if a third squad shows up, such that the team with the highest "score" (total or average of whatever primary metric we chose, be it WP/D or something else) is always the one that ends up alone on one side. Invariably the Scrubs inc squad ends up alone on team A while Nyain San and a second squad of Nyain Chan all end up on team B with the current system.
(The godfather of tactical logistics)
|
John Demonsbane
Unorganized Ninja Infantry Tactics
League of Infamy
3582
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 18:59:00 -
[5] - Quote
Jaysyn Larrisen wrote:
Stuff that doesn't actually apply to what I said.
It would appear that you missed my earlier post where I said I don't want this type of system for FW either, I want team deploy.
The post of mine that you quoted applies only to pubs.
(The godfather of tactical logistics)
|
John Demonsbane
Unorganized Ninja Infantry Tactics
League of Infamy
3594
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 23:06:00 -
[6] - Quote
Onesimus Tarsus wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:It saddens me to know that better matchmaking would have helped the game and its new player retention a long time ago. I can tell you though that we are hopefully making some progress on matchmaking, and specifically team making, based on cumulative WP/battlesecond, cumulative KDR is not as good because of snipers, but I hadn't thought of WP/D. We will take a look at how that compares to our other data and calculate the correlation to W/L ratio and see how it performs.
This is independent work from hotfixes and will be deployed when ready.
Matchmaking like this is of course only in random matches, not PC. If sniping is that much more lethal by nature, then kdr mm would correct that. It might mean that career snipers will have to participate in matches where the nature of the match no longer feeds their kdr and they will have to diversify and... adapt... to the changing play field.
*gasp*
(The godfather of tactical logistics)
|
John Demonsbane
Unorganized Ninja Infantry Tactics
League of Infamy
3829
|
Posted - 2014.07.25 19:35:00 -
[7] - Quote
Nothing Certain wrote:Ares 514 wrote:John Demonsbane wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:steadyhand amarr wrote:Lack of people is due to lack of isk, the moment you throw in good isk rewards and a FW event it will spring right back Making changes/additions to FW is one thing, I am asking why we should not make the FW sides as equal as possible? If you gave us team deploy, no problem. Why? Reason 1: Friendly fire! I do not want to be forced to squad up with any more randoms than absolutely necessary in a game mode where they can kill me and I can't do anything about it unless I want to waste the week or so of effort it takes to regain the standings loss from a TK ban. Reason 2, 3 and 4: See reason 1. Reason 5: FW is supposed to be competitive, right? A middle ground between pubs and PC? So it shouldn't necessarily be treated the same way as pubs. As a competitive outlet, we should be able to q-sync in large groups to do our thing. Matchmaking would thwart that in the absence of a team deploy option. Exactly. Do not prevent players from q-syncing FW. But isn't one of the main reasons there is a ten minute wait is because no one wants to play against this? The other issues are ISK and loyalty store being lopsided in value of items.
I highly doubt that q-synching alone has anything to do with low FW participation, at least not in a way that would be substantially improved upon by matchmaking. The high risk low reward payout system is a far bigger issue.
(The godfather of tactical logistics)
|
John Demonsbane
Unorganized Ninja Infantry Tactics
League of Infamy
3830
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 16:29:00 -
[8] - Quote
Onesimus Tarsus wrote:
q-synching: keeping the stomp alive.
I think you're missing a crucial point, this is not intended to facilitate stomping (I have never and do not plan to engage in any pubstomps) This is only FW we are talking about here. When they added friendly fire and the LP standings, the whole point was to create a middle tier of competitive gameplay between pubs and PC, one that would also serve as an ISK sink for the PC rich.
A game mode in which you are unable to deploy in a large group can not serve that purpose. If you take away the ability to q-synch (or again, just give us team deploy, everyone is happy) you're no different than pubs.
On the flip side, if you make FW more attractive, both in terms of competitiveness (team deploy/qsynch) and reward (better scaling of payouts) then you make a clear differentiation. All the people who want to qsynch and get good fights will go to FW.... leaving pubs more open and less stompy. Everybody wins!
(The godfather of tactical logistics)
|
|
|
| |
|