| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 23 post(s) |
|
CCP Rattati
C C P
C C P Alliance
5504
   |
Posted - 2014.08.20 07:36:00 -
[31] - Quote
DeathwindRising wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:SponkSponkSponk wrote:Even a squad of six randoms will consistently beat six unsquadded randoms.
I strongly believe that squad members should get additional mu, that grows more as the squad size grows (i.e. more than linearly) The algorithm we are testing is ==== All squads and solo players are transformed into units Each unit in the 32 man pool is designated with a rank, I am proposing sum of WP/s to be absolutely sure that the biggest squads with the best players are 100% not on the same side. Top rank unit gets placed randomly on Team A or B. Team A in this case. Units are then placed on Team B until sum of Team B exceeds sum of Team A. Now, Units are added to Team A and switched, and so forth until all units are assigned. We may have to increase the pool to 32+ to accommodate differing sizes of squads so we have "filler" solo players to create the 16 v 16 team. Those unfortunate enough to not get added to a team would be pushed back into the queue for the next matchmaking attempt. ==== This algorithm should always get the two best units on either team. It will also always pitch the second best unit and the third best unit against the top unit. If a solo players rank actually exceeds a squads rank, he will be placed above that squad (up to the extent that the top rank is around a 100, which equates to a squad of 6 players with a rank of 14). If top ranked players try to game the system and not join as a squad, they will still end up on opposing teams. What happens when one units value is so high that it cannot be exceeded by the remaining units? Is it one unit vs all others? Is it possible for a unit to be unable to be placed into a match because the unit somehow keeps ending up last in line or always at the bottom of the pool? If units are selected randomly, isn't that a possibility?
Excellent question, however,the logic would fill Team B until it has 16 and the rest would join the super squad's Team.
No, what I want to implement is a failover option that noone needs to wait more than X seconds to get placed int o a match. With this improved logic, most battles should be better than the ones currently, so the super high Mu's might actually have some competition, start losing, which would lower their Mu.
"As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"
|
|
|
CCP Rattati
C C P
C C P Alliance
5504
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 07:37:00 -
[32] - Quote
Cass Caul wrote:Regis Blackbird wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:
We actively calculate each players rank based on the result of every match, and we lovingly call that rank "Mu". Before the first battle, the player is given a rank of 25. That rank is updated after the battle, based on the weighted average of the persons duration in the battle and whether he won or lost. Simplified (the calculation is considerably more complex)
NewMu=OldMu+"Player seconds in Battle/Battle Duration" * Win/Loss
So if you lose, your Mu goes down, and if you win, your Mu goes up.
This is a modified version of elo ranking, used in many competitive sports such as chess, major league team sports and esports. Eventually your Mu will converge and stabilize around your "true skill", which is where you will win and lose equally against either players with the same Mu. However, since this is a team game, convergence will happen slower and you may find that even having the best game of your life, will not influence the match enough to secure a win. I will, however, demonstrate that it works very well to predict player skill.
The underlying problem is that after one match, everyone is very close to 25, and 2 battles, even 10 battles in, only the very best (and worst) have begun to be different from the pack.
That's why it's imperative to find a proxy for Mu for the first battles, which is what comes next in our findings.
It unclear to me if the Mu score (current and future implementation) is calculated over the lifetime of the character or per play session? Perhaps you can clarify? I.e Will I start with Mu of 25 every time I log-in to Dust (before my first battle of the day?) Very interested in this one. As some that's specialized in Scouts since closed beta, I've seen each and every update (be it patch or hotfix) significantly affect the Role's performance. As someone that's had Proficiency V in Sniper Rifles since February '13 I've only seen decline in performance from patch to patch and hotfix to hotfix. [redacted tangential story] IMO Each major Update (patch or hotfix) should reset the value because the nature of the battle fields change so much. Resetting at any earlier point looks like it would take too long to make a difference.
Currently lifetime, but as Sponk says, a more complex system could have a decay methodology. Your Mu is persistent and updated every time you complete a battle. It is only set at 25 upon your very first battle.
"As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"
|
|
The dark cloud
The Rainbow Effect
3983
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 07:48:00 -
[33] - Quote
If we change matchmaking then it should come with team deployment. Not going to take a loss due to some twatts jerking around.
They say when you die you see a white light which then forms the line of:
"GAME OVER! PLEASE INSERT COIN"
|
Haerr
Legio DXIV
1211
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 08:03:00 -
[34] - Quote
Soraya Xel wrote:It's like Christmas.  OMG
Next we will see a reworked EWAR system!  |
shade emry3
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
70
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 08:04:00 -
[35] - Quote
Is their a ratio balance and score adjustment in proportion to the number of active players currently in battle and idle online? this would help equalize matches alot more i would think; if their was some basis of real time calculation with a predicting algorithm that attempts to compensate possible player outcomes with a factor of active playtime being thrown in based with some set global variables.
I.E.: said score would be adjusted if it detected that x number was idle was greater then x number that was active, this then takes in the current mu of the players/squads that are in battles and sends it to the match maker (relationship doctor :) ) calculating weather to place x player in a current battle that has at least an expected 25 percent playtime remaining based on battle time. this is assuming you have a way to track current trends and can place them real time.
something along that nature.
I would also like to ask if Corporations or Alliances have an MU tag to them anywhere to that ranking system.
|
Cass Caul
785
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 08:07:00 -
[36] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:
Currently lifetime, but as Sponk says, a more complex system could have a decay methodology. Your Mu is persistent and updated every time you complete a battle. It is only set at 25 upon your very first battle.
This seems troubling. I've spend a good 6 or more months of the past 20 only playing in Planetary Conquest matches. For my corp's battles alone I could reach the SP cap and not have to play again.
I could see that being a large factor in my Mu rating because it give much more . . . "realistic" stats of how I fare in an even/balanced match.
It could be why a high KDR is so common in public contracts.
I blame her for nova knife kills on tanks
|
shade emry3
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
70
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 08:12:00 -
[37] - Quote
Cass Caul wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:
Currently lifetime, but as Sponk says, a more complex system could have a decay methodology. Your Mu is persistent and updated every time you complete a battle. It is only set at 25 upon your very first battle.
This seems troubling. I've spend a good 6 or more months of the past 20 only playing in Planetary Conquest matches. For my corp's battles alone I could reach the SP cap and not have to play again. I could see that being a large factor in my Mu rating because it give much more . . . "realistic" stats of how I fare in an even/balanced match. It could be why a high KDR is so common in public contracts.
Do you want to see MU rating get mixed with PC or have it only count a bit or none at all? their are players that i see that are GREAT in pc, but really can't do a match at all in a pub match of equal competition. Pc as i see it, is a more "targeted" system in retrospect to who you want to fight on an offensive viewpoint.
for what it count's, i would want to see a separate ranking system for PC , but that is a matter for another thread entirely. |
Vell0cet
Fraternity of St. Venefice
Amarr Empire
2168
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 08:17:00 -
[38] - Quote
I'm very excited about this. I wish we could have had this on 5/14/13. I think things would have gone very differently for DUST if we had. Much love Rattati, for working on this and for the way you're openly engaging the community like you've been. I hope we can have a similar kind of conversation about the academy, and starter fits when the time is right.
One thing I beg of you is to unit test this before it goes live. I remember the matchmaking snafu last summer with broken wait times.
Also, if this ends up working well, I hope the Legion team considers adopting this approach instead of tiered matches based on gear.
Best PvE idea ever!
|
Regis Blackbird
DUST University
Ivy League
376
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 08:18:00 -
[39] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:
Currently lifetime, but as Sponk says, a more complex system could have a decay methodology. Your Mu is persistent and updated every time you complete a battle. It is only set at 25 upon your very first battle.
Then this confuses me even more. "Most" (I guess) Dust players are veterans which means their Mu value would have had plenty of time converging to a reasonable value. Then, how come we have the loopsided matches we have today?
Personally I think it's good to get as far away as possible from Win/Loss ratio to determine player rank, since it does not really work with the current Dust mechanics/mentality. In my experience, the motivation to win is not as high as the motivation to preserve ISK. Since the ISK awards are not that different between winning and loosing, players tend to "give up" using high end gear, and/or switch to redline sniping if they see they are getting stomped, giving further disadvantage to the entire team.
I don't think a loss should give less ISK than today, but there should be further benefits of winning even in public matches. If we get that, I think players will push more for the win.
|
Bayeth Mal
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
1194
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 08:19:00 -
[40] - Quote
I assume you mean ++?
Over all this looks better than I expected, I'm surprised by those correlations.
Is it possible to factor the meta level of specific gear over a small window? Say 2-3 hours? Or maybe the last 5 matches within that window (so it doesn't carry over day to day)?
Somebody who generally runs cheap fits may just decide to splurge or be squadded with proto stompers and go nuts for a few hours. Depending on the Mu window (is it lifetime or what?) that person or a squad doing something similar may be able to completely unbalance the system.
End of match screen shows favourite weapon and suit, is that based on time carrying those items, or kills using them?
Either way you could use the meta level of the favourite suit from the prior 4 matches to tell if they're on a proto stomping binge (which I'll admit I do at times) but those outlier periods may not be picked up and dealt with as it gets buried in the total average.
e.g. When annoyed and just in a "dont give a F" mood I have gone from 0 to cap using all proto in every match. And looking at the weekly leaderboard stats my KD has been quadruple or more than my total KD, which didn't move by even so much as 0.01.
Perhaps add a multiplier: If mean favourite suit meta level from prior 4 matches is >7 -> Mu * 1.25
In my IRL job I deal with some terribad data bases and so never get to do any of the interesting analysis stuff as all I'm ever asked to do is "fix" it, so I'm getting rusty from my uni days. From what I can tell you have a massive but well organised set of data and for over a year now I've been wishing I could take a look and play with it XD
+1 to you good sir.
We'll bang, OK?
|
|
|
shade emry3
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
70
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 08:21:00 -
[41] - Quote
Regis Blackbird wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:
Currently lifetime, but as Sponk says, a more complex system could have a decay methodology. Your Mu is persistent and updated every time you complete a battle. It is only set at 25 upon your very first battle.
Then this confuses me even more. "Most" (I guess) Dust players are veterans which means their Mu value would have had plenty of time converging to a reasonable value. Then, how come we have the loopsided matches we have today? Personally I think it's good to get as far away as possible from Win/Loss ratio to determine player rank, since it does not really work with the current Dust mechanics/mentality. In my experience, the motivation to win is not as high as the motivation to preserve ISK. Since the ISK awards are not that different between winning and loosing, players tend to "give up" using high end gear, and/or switch to redline sniping if they see they are getting stomped, giving further disadvantage to the entire team. I don't think a loss should give less ISK than today, but there should be further benefits of winning even in public matches. If we get that, I think players will push more for the win.
i would have to concur on this :), its a very good view. how would you propose that the winning side gets more? the better question is, do they get more in the form of salvage, mu maybe? |
Vell0cet
Fraternity of St. Venefice
Amarr Empire
2169
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 08:24:00 -
[42] - Quote
Regis Blackbird wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:
Currently lifetime, but as Sponk says, a more complex system could have a decay methodology. Your Mu is persistent and updated every time you complete a battle. It is only set at 25 upon your very first battle.
Then this confuses me even more. "Most" (I guess) Dust players are veterans which means their Mu value would have had plenty of time converging to a reasonable value. Then, how come we have the loopsided matches we have today? Personally I think it's good to get as far away as possible from Win/Loss ratio to determine player rank, since it does not really work with the current Dust mechanics/mentality. In my experience, the motivation to win is not as high as the motivation to preserve ISK. Since the ISK awards are not that different between winning and loosing, players tend to "give up" using high end gear, and/or switch to redline sniping if they see they are getting stomped, giving further disadvantage to the entire team. I don't think a loss should give less ISK than today, but there should be further benefits of winning even in public matches. If we get that, I think players will push more for the win.
While my intuition agrees with you, the data appears to indicate that win/loss is as good a metric as any other one. I'm surprised by that, but it's hard to argue against data.
Best PvE idea ever!
|
Regis Blackbird
DUST University
Ivy League
376
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 08:31:00 -
[43] - Quote
shade emry3 wrote:Regis Blackbird wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:
Currently lifetime, but as Sponk says, a more complex system could have a decay methodology. Your Mu is persistent and updated every time you complete a battle. It is only set at 25 upon your very first battle.
Then this confuses me even more. "Most" (I guess) Dust players are veterans which means their Mu value would have had plenty of time converging to a reasonable value. Then, how come we have the loopsided matches we have today? Personally I think it's good to get as far away as possible from Win/Loss ratio to determine player rank, since it does not really work with the current Dust mechanics/mentality. In my experience, the motivation to win is not as high as the motivation to preserve ISK. Since the ISK awards are not that different between winning and loosing, players tend to "give up" using high end gear, and/or switch to redline sniping if they see they are getting stomped, giving further disadvantage to the entire team. I don't think a loss should give less ISK than today, but there should be further benefits of winning even in public matches. If we get that, I think players will push more for the win. i would have to concur on this :), its a very good view. how would you propose that the winning side gets more? the better question is, do they get more in the form of salvage, mu maybe?
This is a tricky one.
- More salvage is nice, but since we can't sell surplus salvage this might get more annoying then useful.
- Increasing ISK rewards for the winning side might just fuel more proto-gear for the winning side.
- (idea): Increasing the skill point multiplier at the end of game might work, but might also further separate veterans and noobs.
However, it think this is a discussion for another thread. I am very exited about Rattati's proposal and want to see how this conversation progresses  |
I-Shayz-I
I----------I
4610
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 08:55:00 -
[44] - Quote
This looks awesome.
I seriously can't wait for this to be applied, even if it takes months to actually get here...as long as it's in Legion lol
But let me tell you...the Mario Kart 8 matchmaking system is probably the best I've ever seen.
Everyone starts at 1000 VR. You win 1st place, you get points. If you rank very low, (8-12th) you lose points. This is all assuming that the players you are with are at similar values to yours.
I'm currently at 5000 VR and have a hard time progressing any further. At this point I could say that I win about 50% of the time because I am racing against players on the same skill level as I am.
However...this system isn't perfect
___________________________________________________________
Occasionally I will end up in a match against players around 2000 VR. In Dust, this would mean an easy win and rewards given out like normal...however in Mario Kart it's much more of a risk to play like this. If I get 4th or lower in this race, I will lose points. 2-3rd will get me 1-3 points maybe, and 1st will get me 4 or 5 points. The normal win against players your skill level nets you about 20-25 points.
So already the payout is decreased, but here's where it gets worse.
If I place last, or around 8th...I will suffer from a massive decrease in points. We're talking anywhere from 20-30 points...which makes it very unenjoyable to play against these guys. It's like if the blue dots on your team were so bad that they made you lose...and then you actually lost isk and sp.
The point here is that Mario Kart ENCOURAGES you to play with higher leveled players. In fact, if you are at 2000 VR and you get randomly placed with players up at 5000 VR, you will be getting 30+ points per match. If you lose, only 1-3 points are ticked off your score. Heck, getting 6th or higher gives you about 10 points.
______________________________________________________________
While yes, Dust has squads and the current system for matchmaking is kinda weird...I really hope that we can one day see matches that are quite even.
Knowing that WP/s is actually a trackable stat is fantastic. That's probably the best way to judge a player's skills...especially in terms of when they should get out of the academy.
Something like an average of 500 wp per game at least. When I form squads in squad finder, I kick anyone that can't manage that. It's not hard to hack 5 things, get 5 kill assists, and maybe drop some equipment or hack an objective once. The fact that I'm constantly placed with the majority of blue dots earning less than 500 wp in a match is INSANE.
The best matches I've ever had were ones where both teams had the top 8-10 players scoring over 1000 wp. That's how you know it was a good, close game...where everyone is trying to help and doing SOMETHING, rather than sitting in the redline or just running in to die, wasting clones.
As for redliners? You know what...**** em. If they want to redline snipe and get low wp/s to generate their low Mu then let them hunt the blue dots for all I care. It would be better off in competitive matches without them. The real snipers/support players in the redline or in dropships will outshine most players anyways in terms of wp/s...so I don't see it as an issue.
7162 wp with a Repair Tool!
List of Legion Feedback Threads!
|
Bayeth Mal
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
1194
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 09:05:00 -
[45] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:P.S. Those with eagle eyes will notice a weird anomaly in the two lowest Mu brackets for the both WP/Death and K/D ratios, but not for WP/s. My theory, is, and not based on prejudice at all, is redline snipers. My reasoning is that they are able to avoid death rather easily, they will be able to pick off stragglers and low hitpoint suits on a regular basis but sadly, have little to no relevance to the battle result, as they do not hack nor defend objectives effectively. Why their WP/s does not show that, I theorize, is because they spend quite some time getting to a mountain top, and or with a dropship to a tower, and if they die, they are forced to do so again. Feel free to burn me at the stake, and/or voice your alternative theories. 
Redline snipers and redline rail tanks that camp home objectives (and previously sniped).
That's fine, throw them in their own category. They don't want to actually play they can all sit around doing nothing together on an empty map.
We'll bang, OK?
|
Jebus McKing
Legio DXIV
552
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 09:39:00 -
[46] - Quote
Haerr wrote: OMG Next we will see a reworked EWAR system!
Oh come on, you know it's not gonna happen. All ya scouts can't play without your wallhacks.
OP is a kitten.
@JebusMcKing
|
Regis Blackbird
DUST University
Ivy League
376
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 09:40:00 -
[47] - Quote
Vell0cet wrote:
While my intuition agrees with you, the data appears to indicate that win/loss is as good a metric as any other one. I'm surprised by that, but it's hard to argue against data.
I am not so sure.
The Mu distribution of players indicate the majority of the players are between 22,5 and 27,5, thus very close to the initial 25. Unless the sample distribution data is taken from only fairly new players, this means the majority of the Dust vets have not strayed far from the initial 25. Thus your Win / Loss ratio over (long) time is almost equal, or I would say almost random.
Rattati's comparison were Win/Loss vs K/D, WP/s etc, which should correlate nicely (since usually the higher WP and Kill = Win).
In any system where you want to distinguish or separate data (like the matchmaking system), you don't want to see such a major bulk of the players be so close to the initial value. The Mu should be more distributed over the entire graph to really distinguish people.
I would like to see the Win / Loss ratio over entire lifetime of one or several sample characters to see how random it is preferably using older characters. If the system works, you should see a player with final Mu of 27 to have a initial period of primarily Win, which levels out and becomes roughly equal. If it don't work, you will see a very random pattern which overall will be close to 50% Win/Loss.
Just my thoughts. |
Kalante Schiffer
Pure Evil.
691
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 09:42:00 -
[48] - Quote
Pseudogenesis wrote:I'm a statistical cow, mu mu
All this matchmaking talk goes over my head, but I'm glad it's being addressed.
++++++++++++ I keep thing about Mu Shion of Aries
jiffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffmxfffffffoiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifvossssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
2241
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 10:14:00 -
[49] - Quote
Regis Blackbird wrote: In my experience, the motivation to win is not as high as the motivation to preserve ISK. Since the ISK awards are not that different between winning and loosing, players tend to "give up" using high end gear, and/or switch to redline sniping if they see they are getting stomped, giving further disadvantage to the entire team.
I don't think a loss should give less ISK than today, but there should be further benefits of winning even in public matches. If we get that, I think players will push more for the win.
Thank you for rather eloquently pointing out something I have been trying to articulate (poorly) for two years.
In my opinion the rewards for winning are not sufficient to encourage people to go "balls out" with intent to thrash the opposing team regardless of skill level.
Back on topic: Rattati thank you for the data. Will try and see if I can decipher the math and provide input at the level you are already getting.
Is SP level or preferred fit class (heavy, sentinel,assault,etc.) Valuable to this reporting?
One of the issues often reported is spamming certain classes of suit. I wont even bother with loadout, which is too varied.
But having 8 habitual sentinel players in a domination or skirmish on thesame team can seem obnoxious. Especially when you get 4+ logi to complement. |
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
EoN.
3876
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 10:32:00 -
[50] - Quote
Could you not pick a more complicated way for matchmaking?
Thats so long winded and terrible
1st of all you have to match squads with squads so it isnt 2 squads vs academy solo noobs
Really if you want stop proto stomping and level the playing field then you have to match make by gear, its the only way
Basic vs basic etc and have lobbies that limit by gear, even if its 2squads vs solo randoms the gear is similar so its more down to skill and aim
FW/PC would be free for all gear and maybe squads might be more inclined to play those modes since proto vs proto might be empty most of the time because they cannot stomp of milita gear noobs
Problem is vehicles tho by gear since you refuse to give us adv/proto hulls and balance AV with each tier |
|
|
Haerr
Legio DXIV
1213
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 10:55:00 -
[51] - Quote
Jebus McKing wrote:Haerr wrote: OMG Next we will see a reworked EWAR system! Oh come on, you know it's not gonna happen. All ya scouts can 't play without your wallhacks.
Jebus McKing wrote:come on, you know it's gonna happen. scouts can play without wallhacks.
Thanks for the support Jebs! I couldn't agree more. +1
Selective reading skills ftw! :P |
SponkSponkSponk
The Southern Legion
Final Resolution.
1007
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 11:23:00 -
[52] - Quote
shade emry3 wrote:
Do you want to see MU rating get mixed with PC or have it only count a bit or none at all?
PC matches, by their nature of being hand-picked teams, cannot use the matchmaking system. I mean, that's the whole point: you stack your team to deliberately make it an unfair match.
Dust/Eve transfers
|
SponkSponkSponk
The Southern Legion
Final Resolution.
1007
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 11:27:00 -
[53] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:
In my opinion the rewards for winning are not sufficient to encourage people to go "balls out" with intent to thrash the opposing team regardless of skill level.
Maybe not in pub matches, but FW certainly has a strong incentive to go all-in.
Dust/Eve transfers
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
2241
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 11:41:00 -
[54] - Quote
SponkSponkSponk wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:
In my opinion the rewards for winning are not sufficient to encourage people to go "balls out" with intent to thrash the opposing team regardless of skill level.
Maybe not in pub matches, but FW certainly has a strong incentive to go all-in.
Still requires pubgrinding but goddamn the rewards there are a lot more worthwhile. Tripling the LP was a breath of fresh air.
But much as I would like to debate the topic this is matchmaking thread. Lets not derail it since this is pretty much THE community issue along with team-deploy as far as things go. I would like to see where we can go from here.
Any thoughts on filter by role? Filtering by gear would require the matchmaker to check run every single module on every single fit. Best thing would be a separate queue that automatically redlines anything at advanced or proto level. Concord has outlawed the use of extreme levels of military force in humanitarian and danger areas or some such BS |
Coleman Gray
Opus Arcana
Covert Intervention
1116
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 12:11:00 -
[55] - Quote
You openly admitted redline snipers ARE a problem. This is the greatest amount of progress you devs have made ever. Now how you plan on fixing this obvious issue?
If Preparation is half of the battle and knowing is the other half, Then there is no need to fight.
|
Bayeth Mal
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
1197
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 12:38:00 -
[56] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:
PC would be free for all gear
Really? No ****. A situation where people are organising their own teams at the highest competitive level would allow people to use whatever they like. Whooda thunk it.
Why the hell is PC being brought into this discussion?
We'll bang, OK?
|
HowDidThatTaste
Ancient Exiles.
General Tso's Alliance
5186
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 13:10:00 -
[57] - Quote
War points are not the best way to determine a players skill.
True dedicated heavies over a long period of time are war point starved. No equipment for extra points , not exactly speedy to get to the points to hack. So the only wp a heavy gets is from straight killing,
Then you have a logi straight out of academy following that heavy and he gets twice the war points by repping and dropping uplinks ammo. |
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
EoN.
3876
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 13:25:00 -
[58] - Quote
Bayeth Mal wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:
PC would be free for all gear
Really? No ****. A situation where people are organising their own teams at the highest competitive level would allow people to use whatever they like. Whooda thunk it. Why the hell is PC being brought into this discussion? As for meta level cap, unless you have game modes where anything above a certain level is locked out of your inventory it's kinda unfair. I have PC level fits permanently living in my suits list. It doesn't mean I'm going to use them. Match making by total SP means the Omni warriors (those whos sp is spread across all suits and weapons) are at a severe disadvantage and will end up constantly facing maxed out builds. Rattatis plan wouldn't restrict the stomper from stomping, but will force them onto opposing teams so we don't end up with completely one sided matches.
Using it as a comparision you idiot
Gear matchmaking is the only way
SP is ****, ccp idea is ****, rat idea is ****
Why the **** did you even quote me since you have your head up your arse? |
Anarchide
Greedy Bastards
2487
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 13:41:00 -
[59] - Quote
So, no matchmaking for Faction Warfare and Planetary Conquest (git gud).
But a Noob Mode available in Public Matches for those who doesn't like to killed.
Would that silence the angry mob?
Dust Loyalist
Greedy Bastards
|
Brush Master
HavoK Core
RISE of LEGION
1286
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 13:41:00 -
[60] - Quote
Hmm...not sure squads are gonna want a dedicated logi like me in their squad, their mu would be through the roof 
Dust Veteran. June 2012 - ?
True Logi. Flying DS from the start.
@dustreports
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |