DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] Player rank and stats

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Sticky:[Feedback] Player rank and stats

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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 5483	Posted - 2014.08.20 03:28:00 - [1] - Quote Hey players, this is more of a chat and sharing session than anything else, so please treat it as such. To recap some of the things I have shared in the past. 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. Now to the data. I have been working with a big sample of player data, testing multiple theories, some from the forums (WP/Death), the ever classic K/D of course and a time based WP/second and the results are very promising. DATA By creating buckets of Mu, I can calculate the three ratios of the players within each those Mu buckets and create a correlation table against Mu. That Correlation is then shown graphically on the top Chart. Seeing that two of them are obviously logarithmic in nature, I normalize with the log function and get the bottom chart, Normalized Correlation. Calculating and also just analyzing the graphs, we find that the correlation between WP/s and Mu is a towering 99%, and a bit lower for the other two, but still statistically very relevant. It basically means that all of them could be used in place of Mu in the beginning while Mu converges, and even in place of Mu overall. Now, our next step is to implement a better use of this data. One simple way would be to say, instead of exiting the Academy at an earned WP basis, it's not until you actually reach a minimum threshold of WP/s. It is also imperative to utilize this information more during the teambuilding part of the matchmaker. In any sport, if the two best players are on the opposite side, everyone, even the bad players, can have fun and be inspired by the good players. If both of them are on the same side, nobody has fun. I hope you enjoyed this little insight piece 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. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Meee One Hello Kitty Logistics 1000	Posted - 2014.08.20 03:39:00 - [2] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Hey players, this is more of a chat and sharing session than anything else, so please treat it as such. To recap some of the things I have shared in the past. 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. Now to the data. I have been working with a big sample of player data, testing multiple theories, some from the forums (WP/Death), the ever classic K/D of course and a time based WP/second and the results are very promising. DATA By creating buckets of Mu, I can calculate the three ratios of the players within each those Mu buckets and create a correlation table against Mu. That Correlation is then shown graphically on the top Chart. Seeing that two of them are obviously logarithmic in nature, I normalize with the log function and get the bottom chart, Normalized Correlation. Calculating and also just analyzing the graphs, we find that the correlation between WP/s and Mu is a towering 99%, and a bit lower for the other two, but still statistically very relevant. It basically means that all of them could be used in place of Mu in the beginning while Mu converges, and even in place of Mu overall. Now, our next step is to implement a better use of this data. One simple way would be to say, instead of exiting the Academy at an earned WP basis, it's not until you actually reach a minimum threshold of WP/s. It is also imperative to utilize this information more during the teambuilding part of the matchmaker. In any sport, if the two best players are on the opposite side, everyone, even the bad players, can have fun and be inspired by the good players. If both of them are on the same side, nobody has fun. I hope you enjoyed this little insight piece 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. Lol,you said Mu. But seriously wouldn't WP/D end up putting support logis vsing other support logis? Until there are more ways to earn WP,that would be a bad method to use. Was banned for fighting for logistics survival on 7/25/2014 02:11. Logistics will never be respected.
Vell0cet Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 2166	Posted - 2014.08.20 03:43:00 - [3] - Quote This is awesome. Thanks for sharing this! How is each team made up? In other words, say you have 32 players with similar Mu scores, how does it determine which 16 players are on which side? I always scratch my head when Scotty puts 2 full squads of talented players against 16 randoms. Surely it would make for a better match if those squads were on opposite teams, no? Best PvE idea ever!

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 5484	Posted - 2014.08.20 03:44:00 - [4] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: This is awesome. Thanks for sharing this! How is each team made up? In other words, say you have 32 players with similar Mu scores, how does it determine which 16 players are on which sides. I always scratch my head when Scotty puts 2 full squads of talented players against 16 randoms. Surely it would make for a better match if those squads were on opposite teams, no? That's the aspect we desperately need to fix. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Vell0cet Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 2166	Posted - 2014.08.20 03:55:00 - [5] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Vell0cet wrote: This is awesome. Thanks for sharing this! How is each team made up? In other words, say you have 32 players with similar Mu scores, how does it determine which 16 players are on which sides. I always scratch my head when Scotty puts 2 full squads of talented players against 16 randoms. Surely it would make for a better match if those squads were on opposite teams, no? That's the aspect we desperately need to fix. One approach to consider is using social networking algorithms. Are these players frequently squadding together? If so, then they're likely going to be well-coordinated, that should give them a higher weight for deciding teams, as opposed to people who randomly found each other using the squad finder. They would have a much lower frequency of squadding together in their histories, and will likely be less effective as a unit with a correspondingly lower weight for deciding team balance. Edit: Also, at the end-of-match screen are players significantly above or below the median WP score for the match (say by a factor greater than 3)? In these cases it might make sense to make a larger adjustment to their Mu scores. Best PvE idea ever!
iliel 0uter.Heaven 121	Posted - 2014.08.20 04:02:00 - [6] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Hey players, this is more of a chat and sharing session than anything else, so please treat it as such. To recap some of the things I have shared in the past. 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. Now to the data. I have been working with a big sample of player data, testing multiple theories, some from the forums (WP/Death), the ever classic K/D of course and a time based WP/second and the results are very promising. DATA By creating buckets of Mu, I can calculate the three ratios of the players within each those Mu buckets and create a correlation table against Mu. That Correlation is then shown graphically on the top Chart. Seeing that two of them are obviously logarithmic in nature, I normalize with the log function and get the bottom chart, Normalized Correlation. Calculating and also just analyzing the graphs, we find that the correlation between WP/s and Mu is a towering 99%, and a bit lower for the other two, but still statistically very relevant. It basically means that all of them could be used in place of Mu in the beginning while Mu converges, and even in place of Mu overall. Now, our next step is to implement a better use of this data. One simple way would be to say, instead of exiting the Academy at an earned WP basis, it's not until you actually reach a minimum threshold of WP/s. It is also imperative to utilize this information more during the teambuilding part of the matchmaker. In any sport, if the two best players are on the opposite side, everyone, even the bad players, can have fun and be inspired by the good players. If both of them are on the same side, nobody has fun. I hope you enjoyed this little insight piece 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. This all looks great. I don't see why you can't just add the Mu score system into the current mechanics with a (let us call it) Charlie(2) hotfix this coming week so that it can at least begin collecting data. I suspect that, after having the algorithm, you just need to add several 'if-then' statements to scotty. (I'm looking forward to getting caught in infinite loops during matchmaking; it will be refreshing ) Also, just a question: you can actually track each of our WP/s historically since our character was born?
SponkSponkSponk The Southern Legion Final Resolution. 1002	Posted - 2014.08.20 04:11:00 - [7] - Quote 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) Dust/Eve transfers

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 5488	Posted - 2014.08.20 04:35:00 - [8] - Quote 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. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Cruor Abominare Horizons' Edge Proficiency V. 134	Posted - 2014.08.20 04:53:00 - [9] - Quote I certainly don't have the data available to myself that you guys do, but I think you'll generally find that people who squad do it consistently. So I don't see any need to adjust their mu over them squading, its simply a way for them to climb up to a more appropriate rank that refelects their ability in battle which they're generally doing in a group anyways. Even if they change habits and stop squadding their mu would eventually drop to compensate for it. Your match making goal just needs to try to keep the overall mu's close together and I think we as players can tolerate any deviation if the result actually improves the lopsidedness of the game right now. Honestly I'd suggest staring at the sc2 method of "elo" determining. Academy battles simply just try to assign a starting elo group to put them in, then by following what happens in the games afterwards tries to correct any deviation. The highest tiers of course are locked out of you from getting in just your first testing battles but if your system works even if the player is getting stomped just out of acadmey because assigned a false score the system should start dropping them down and fixing the problem. So lets say academy is 10 battles or whatever, you assign a mu score based on how they did with the other guys smurfing or actually starting the game. Their mu score tosses them into a midrange mu score but the next ten battles outsideof that you notice an appreciable difference like their core stats halving or the their kdr going from 2 to .01, then you know to look into readjusting their mu score. So basically so have a system that assigns them an estimated mu just to get them in the general population but checks back at say every 10 or 15 games (or whatever your deviation points are) and reassigns them again if their true mu is too far away from their estimated mu. Eventually on the long run your estimate and true mu should coincide if you've picked functioning systems to base your mu off of.
iliel 0uter.Heaven 121	Posted - 2014.08.20 04:55:00 - [10] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Vell0cet wrote: This is awesome. Thanks for sharing this! How is each team made up? In other words, say you have 32 players with similar Mu scores, how does it determine which 16 players are on which sides. I always scratch my head when Scotty puts 2 full squads of talented players against 16 randoms. Surely it would make for a better match if those squads were on opposite teams, no? That's the aspect we desperately need to fix. One approach to consider is using social networking algorithms. Are these players frequently squadding together? If so, then they're likely going to be well-coordinated, that should give them a higher weight for deciding teams, as opposed to people who randomly found each other using the squad finder. They would have a much lower frequency of squadding together in their histories, and will likely be less effective as a unit with a correspondingly lower weight for deciding team balance. Edit: Also, at the end-of-match screen are players significantly above or below the median WP score for the match (say by a factor greater than 3)? In these cases it might make sense to make a larger adjustment to their Mu scores. I disagree with your first point and probably think the second point be bracketed for the moment. First, I think many players who squad together will have inflated Mu scores. It is much more difficult to run solo. If one or two players squad constantly with two other players who are much better than them, then the prior will appear to be better than they are. I, for one, used to squad with people who had much more SP than I did (still do, in fact) yet was able to use them to score much more warpoints than I would have if I were alone. Would have been a rude awakening when I squadded alone after that. I think such experiences are essential to FPSes. Second, I think that we should implement a ranking algorithm before adding certain provisions to it (such as, a certain player's score in relation to those of other players in a given match implies that this player ought to receive x-times Mu points for it). To me, adding a ranking algorithm at all to Dust will better the experience of the game so much that whether it is rudimentary or not means less than whether it is introduced ASAP.

castba Merc-0107 579	Posted - 2014.08.20 05:03:00 - [11] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Vell0cet wrote: This is awesome. Thanks for sharing this! How is each team made up? In other words, say you have 32 players with similar Mu scores, how does it determine which 16 players are on which sides. I always scratch my head when Scotty puts 2 full squads of talented players against 16 randoms. Surely it would make for a better match if those squads were on opposite teams, no? That's the aspect we desperately need to fix. Give us back the 1 min in Warbarge to make squads. If there are still solo players with 10 seconds left, create and/fill squads randomly. This would ensure there are always 3 squads per side (although it doesn't mean they will work together) and may even lead to developing "friendships", thus aiding player retention, yes?
Vell0cet Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 2167	Posted - 2014.08.20 05:18:00 - [12] - Quote iliel wrote: Vell0cet wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Vell0cet wrote: This is awesome. Thanks for sharing this! How is each team made up? In other words, say you have 32 players with similar Mu scores, how does it determine which 16 players are on which sides. I always scratch my head when Scotty puts 2 full squads of talented players against 16 randoms. Surely it would make for a better match if those squads were on opposite teams, no? That's the aspect we desperately need to fix. One approach to consider is using social networking algorithms. Are these players frequently squadding together? If so, then they're likely going to be well-coordinated, that should give them a higher weight for deciding teams, as opposed to people who randomly found each other using the squad finder. They would have a much lower frequency of squadding together in their histories, and will likely be less effective as a unit with a correspondingly lower weight for deciding team balance. Edit: Also, at the end-of-match screen are players significantly above or below the median WP score for the match (say by a factor greater than 3)? In these cases it might make sense to make a larger adjustment to their Mu scores. I disagree with your first point and probably think the second point be bracketed for the moment. First, I think many players who squad together will have inflated Mu scores. It is much more difficult to run solo. If one or two players squad constantly with two other players who are much better than them, then the prior will appear to be better than they are. I, for one, used to squad with people who had much more SP than I did (still do, in fact) yet was able to use them to score much more warpoints than I would have if I were alone. Would have been a rude awakening when I squadded alone after that. I think such experiences are essential to FPSes. Second, I think that we should implement a ranking algorithm before adding certain provisions to it (such as, a certain player's score in relation to those of other players in a given match implies that this player ought to receive x-times Mu points for it). To me, adding a ranking algorithm at all to Dust will better the experience of the game so much that whether it is rudimentary or not means less than whether it is introduced ASAP. Just to formalize what I was spitballing earlier. HereGÇÖs one algorithm for approaching this problem: Use a second variable (IGÇÖm calling it lambda for no particular reason) 1. All unsquaded players their lambda = their mu 2. For Squaded players: squad_size_modifier = 1 + (player_count_in_squad * 0.05) squad_cohesion_modifier = 1 + (historical_cohesion_of_squad * 2) squad lambda = sum( mu_of_players_in_squad ) * squad_size_modifier * squad_cohesion_modifier [The historical_cohesion_of_squad would be a value between 0.0 (all squad members have never played together before) and 1.0 (squad members very regularly play in the same squad with each other)] 3. The distribution of players would proceed as CCP Rattati described with the squad lambdas being placed first followed by the rest of the players with squads. All of the modifiers could be tweaked of course, this was just a rough sketch to illustrate how this could be done. What I'm describing doesn't actually affect player's Mu score, it's a secondary stat used for balancing who is on what team. I might have a mediocre MU score, but I'm significantly more dangerous to the opposing team if I'm squadded up, especially if I'm squadded up with people I regularly play with. This will help get more balanced fights. Best PvE idea ever!
Apothecary Za'ki Biomass Positive 573	Posted - 2014.08.20 05:24:00 - [13] - Quote i highly doubt this "new" approch will work for matchmakeing.. i have stated several times in several threads the only way to get balance is to.. 1. create an average WP over time leaderboard system. 2. take the player average WP data 3. match players with similar WP averages with others of similar averages. 3.1 players in squads will be matched by "Squad Median" but not including empty slots in the squad, so if there is 4/6 in squad 1 it will only take the median of the 4/4 excluding the remander 2 which would mathmatically be a 0 each(unless populated by members) 4. if all turns out well.. newberrys should be matched more against newberrys while vets/pros/squads should be pit against more vets/pros/squads [[LogiBro in Training]] Level 1 Forum Pariah

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 5494	Posted - 2014.08.20 05:31:00 - [14] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: iliel wrote: Vell0cet wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Vell0cet wrote: This is awesome. Thanks for sharing this! How is each team made up? In other words, say you have 32 players with similar Mu scores, how does it determine which 16 players are on which sides. I always scratch my head when Scotty puts 2 full squads of talented players against 16 randoms. Surely it would make for a better match if those squads were on opposite teams, no? That's the aspect we desperately need to fix. One approach to consider is using social networking algorithms. Are these players frequently squadding together? If so, then they're likely going to be well-coordinated, that should give them a higher weight for deciding teams, as opposed to people who randomly found each other using the squad finder. They would have a much lower frequency of squadding together in their histories, and will likely be less effective as a unit with a correspondingly lower weight for deciding team balance. Edit: Also, at the end-of-match screen are players significantly above or below the median WP score for the match (say by a factor greater than 3)? In these cases it might make sense to make a larger adjustment to their Mu scores. I disagree with your first point and probably think the second point be bracketed for the moment. First, I think many players who squad together will have inflated Mu scores. It is much more difficult to run solo. If one or two players squad constantly with two other players who are much better than them, then the prior will appear to be better than they are. I, for one, used to squad with people who had much more SP than I did (still do, in fact) yet was able to use them to score much more warpoints than I would have if I were alone. Would have been a rude awakening when I squadded alone after that. I think such experiences are essential to FPSes. Second, I think that we should implement a ranking algorithm before adding certain provisions to it (such as, a certain player's score in relation to those of other players in a given match implies that this player ought to receive x-times Mu points for it). To me, adding a ranking algorithm at all to Dust will better the experience of the game so much that whether it is rudimentary or not means less than whether it is introduced ASAP. Just to formalize what I was spitballing earlier. HereGÇÖs one algorithm for approaching this problem: Use a second variable (IGÇÖm calling it lambda for no particular reason) 1. All unsquaded players their lambda = their mu 2. For Squaded players: squad_size_modifier = 1 + (player_count_in_squad * 0.05) squad_cohesion_modifier = 1 + (historical_cohesion_of_squad * 2) squad lambda = sum( mu_of_players_in_squad ) * squad_size_modifier * squad_cohesion_modifier [The historical_cohesion_of_squad would be a value between 0.0 (all squad members have never played together before) and 1.0 (squad members very regularly play in the same squad with each other)] 3. The distribution of players would proceed as CCP Rattati described with the squad lambdas being placed first followed by the rest of the players without squads. All of the modifiers could be tweaked of course, this was just a rough sketch to illustrate how this could be done. What I'm describing doesn't actually affect player's Mu score, it's a secondary stat used for balancing who is on what team. I might have a mediocre Mu score, but I'm significantly more dangerous to the opposing team if I'm squadded up, especially if I'm squadded up with people I regularly play with. This will help get more balanced fights. Edit: So just to clarify: The 32 players are chosen by their Mu scores. the 16 v. 16 would be organized by lambda scores. This is basically the method we are proposing, you are adding a squad bonus modifying parameter which could be useful to tweak the system, and we already have a design for that (I just didn't mention it). "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 5494	Posted - 2014.08.20 05:32:00 - [15] - Quote Apothecary Za'ki wrote: i highly doubt this "new" approch will work for matchmakeing.. i have stated several times in several threads the only way to get balance is to.. 1. create an average WP over time leaderboard system. 2. take the player average WP data 3. match players with similar WP averages with others of similar averages. 3.1 players in squads will be matched by "Squad Median" but not including empty slots in the squad, so if there is 4/6 in squad 1 it will only take the median of the 4/4 excluding the remander 2 which would mathmatically be a 0 each(unless populated by members) 4. if all turns out well.. newberrys should be matched more against newberrys while vets/pros/squads should be pit against more vets/pros/squads While it is very similar to what I laid out, I don't see how this is an improvement to the proposal. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Hubert De LaBatte Prima Gallicus 27	Posted - 2014.08.20 05:36:00 - [16] - Quote The idea is very good. But I play since 3 hours and my squad (3 prima gallicus) are continuely coming into started battles and always with all red and no shield. Every time I say "challenge guys, we return the game!", but the time we are deploying, armor is half of the max. we fight, we take objectives but it seems that all our blues are searching flowers all around the map and we are always the 3 same in the battlefront. So it's clear, the problem is a lot of new players and they are 13 in our team. They don't know the game and what to do on the map. So firstly, push the academy at 20 000 wp. They will have time to learn and the old players will go with new players with a few experience. Not guys who try to find the fire button on the controller.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 5494	Posted - 2014.08.20 05:39:00 - [17] - Quote Hubert De LaBatte wrote: The idea is very good. But I play since 3 hours and my squad (3 prima gallicus) are continuely coming into started battles and always with all red and no shield. Every time I say "challenge guys, we return the game!", but the time we are deploying, armor is half of the max. we fight, we take objectives but it seems that all our blues are searching flowers all around the map and we are always the 3 same in the battlefront. So it's clear, the problem is a lot of new players and they are 13 in our team. They don't know the game and what to do on the map. So firstly, push the academy at 20 000 wp. They will have time to learn and the old players will go with new players with a few experience. Not guys who try to find the fire button on the controller. We will be looking at academy graduation as a part of this, and another problem you mention, i.e. joining "lost" battles is another identified issue we are actively trying to fix. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

SponkSponkSponk The Southern Legion Final Resolution. 1002	Posted - 2014.08.20 05:42:00 - [18] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: This is basically the method we are proposing, you are adding a squad bonus modifying parameter which could be useful to tweak the system, and we already have a design for that (I just didn't mention it). Squad size multiplier does make a difference. I know I perform consistently better in a squad of 6 than in a squad of 2. While long-term, squadding up will increase someone's average WP/minute total, from a match-by-match point of view, the matchmaker needs to detect the difference between three squads of 2 average players, and one squad of 6 average players; all in all, the larger squad will punch above their weight, not least because of scared passive scan and orbital strikes. Dust/Eve transfers

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 5494	Posted - 2014.08.20 05:43:00 - [19] - Quote SponkSponkSponk wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: This is basically the method we are proposing, you are adding a squad bonus modifying parameter which could be useful to tweak the system, and we already have a design for that (I just didn't mention it). Squad size multiplier does make a difference. I know I perform consistently better in a squad of 6 than in a squad of 2. While long-term, squadding up will increase someone's average WP/minute total, from a match-by-match point of view, the matchmaker needs to detect the difference between three squads of 2 average players, and one squad of 6 average players; all in all, the larger squad will punch above their weight, not least because they'll be able to drop orbital strikes first. Using sum instead of median makes sure that squad size is taken into account. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Anarchide Greedy Bastards 2486	Posted - 2014.08.20 05:44:00 - [20] - Quote So, the Mu is the "Meta" level of a player? Dust Loyalist *Greedy Bastards*

Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 3152	Posted - 2014.08.20 05:49:00 - [21] - Quote I have mad respect for Rattati bringing one of the most critical issues in the game design into the public eye. It's like Christmas. Only in August. And I have to work today. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
SponkSponkSponk The Southern Legion Final Resolution. 1002	Posted - 2014.08.20 05:53:00 - [22] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Using sum instead of median makes sure that squad size is taken into account. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if there's a bunch of players joining a battle, wouldn't it end up like so? Step one: rank all the units 1: squad of six @ 25, so rank 150 2. squad of two @ 25, so rank 50 3. squad of two @ 25, so rank 50 4. squad of two @ 25, so rank 50 5. solo player, rank 24 6. solo player, rank 24 7-32. solo players, rank 20 If I understand correctly, the final teams would be: Team A: squad[6] solo 24 solo 20 filling the roster Team B: squad[2] squad[2] squad[2] solo 24 solo 20 filling the roster What I suggest is that the squad of 6 is functionally more lethal than the three squads of 2, even if they contain equal-level players. So if there were a bonus given to squads (let's say modified fibonacci: +1, +2, +3, +5, +8 pts) then the matchmaking would instead end up with the teams: Team A: squad[6] 150pts + 8pt squad modifier solo 20 filling the roster Team B: squad[2] 50pts + 1pt squad modifier squad[2] 50pts + 1pt squad modifier squad[2] 50pts + 1pt squad modifier solo 24 solo 24 solo 20 filling the roster Dust/Eve transfers
Anarchide Greedy Bastards 2486	Posted - 2014.08.20 05:55:00 - [23] - Quote Players' Meta level should take into account: Win/Loss Ratio Kill/Death Ratio War Points/second Levels of Skills Learned Gear owned/used Dust Loyalist *Greedy Bastards*

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 5498	Posted - 2014.08.20 06:08:00 - [24] - Quote SponkSponkSponk wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Using sum instead of median makes sure that squad size is taken into account. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if there's a bunch of players joining a battle, wouldn't it end up like so? Step one: rank all the units 1: squad of six @ 25, so rank 150 2. squad of two @ 25, so rank 50 3. squad of two @ 25, so rank 50 4. squad of two @ 25, so rank 50 5. solo player, rank 24 6. solo player, rank 24 7-32. solo players, rank 20 If I understand correctly, the final teams would be: Team A: squad[6] solo 24 solo 20 filling the roster Team B: squad[2] squad[2] squad[2] solo 24 solo 20 filling the roster What I suggest is that the squad of 6 is functionally more lethal than the three squads of 2, even if they contain equal-level players. So if there were a bonus given to squads (let's say modified fibonacci: +1, +2, +3, +5, +8 pts) then the matchmaking would instead end up with the teams: Team A: squad[6] 150pts + 8pt squad modifier solo 20 filling the roster Team B: squad[2] 50pts + 1pt squad modifier squad[2] 50pts + 1pt squad modifier squad[2] 50pts + 1pt squad modifier solo 24 solo 24 solo 20 filling the roster Yep, this is a case where a squad modifier (that we already have in designs) can make a difference. Even if the unmodified approach guarantees that the sum total difference between the two teams would only be 4/350, so still very efficient. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 3153	Posted - 2014.08.20 06:09:00 - [25] - Quote Anarchide, I don't think gear should actually be involved in matchmaking at all. If everyone in the match is using proto, then it might as well be that nobody is. I don't think that's the point. The point needs to be getting matchmaking to a point where someone running proto costs them more than it benefits them, because their opponents can counter them well in skill level. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Pseudogenesis Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 310	Posted - 2014.08.20 06:10:00 - [26] - Quote I'm a statistical cow, mu mu All this matchmaking talk goes over my head, but I'm glad it's being addressed. ++++++++++++ Stabby-stabber extraordinaire
Regis Blackbird DUST University Ivy League 375	Posted - 2014.08.20 06:35:00 - [27] - Quote 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?)
Cass Caul 785	Posted - 2014.08.20 06:59:00 - [28] - Quote 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. I blame her for nova knife kills on tanks
SponkSponkSponk The Southern Legion Final Resolution. 1006	Posted - 2014.08.20 07:08:00 - [29] - Quote Cass Caul wrote: 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. I think a rolling window and decay function for rating would solve this issue: 1. If you don't play for a while, your rating will decay down to a low-but-not-zero level. This means that if you go away for 6 months, you won't come back and immediately get face punched while your skills are rusty. 2. Your rating only counts the most recent 6 months of battles, so 2-year-old players will change rating just as quickly as 6-month old characters if something radically changes. Dust/Eve transfers
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS 514	Posted - 2014.08.20 07:20:00 - [30] - Quote 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?


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

Syeven Reed Sebiestor Field Sappers 849	Posted - 2014.08.20 14:09:00 - [61] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Vell0cet wrote: This is awesome. Thanks for sharing this! How is each team made up? In other words, say you have 32 players with similar Mu scores, how does it determine which 16 players are on which sides. I always scratch my head when Scotty puts 2 full squads of talented players against 16 randoms. Surely it would make for a better match if those squads were on opposite teams, no? That's the aspect we desperately need to fix. Word Crimes EvE - 21 Day Buddy Trial
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 4305	Posted - 2014.08.20 14:24:00 - [62] - Quote Idea! Experience Pools Pool A (< 10M SP) Pool AA (10M-20M SP) Pool AAA (> 20M SP) * Assumes sufficient populations; adjust brackets as needed. 1. Calculate ++ as previously described, but within the bounds of each experience pool, such that matchmaking not pit members/squads from Pool A against members/squads from Pool AAA (and vice versa). 2. Instruct matchmaking to employ "A Rating" of highest ranked unit in squad, such that Pool A squaddies may face AAA opponents, but only when they choose to squad with a AAA Merc. 3. Add Isk bonus to end-of-match results, such that A Mercs are paid 2x bounty for killing AA Mercs and 3x bounty for killing AAA Mercs. 4. Add filters to Squad Finder, such that a merc only sees squads of an equivalent experience rating to his own. 5. Add experience rating designation in-game, such that players can make informed decisions when squadding. It could be as simple as appending text "(A)" or "(AAA)" to a merc's name or to a string in his "view info" screen. Objective We should strive for a design which protects newbros from the will-shattering shock that follows Academy graduation. Grouping and socializing players of "like type" would give Dust a greater opportunity to set its addictive hooks in newcomers. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Regis Blackbird DUST University Ivy League 379	Posted - 2014.08.20 15:20:00 - [63] - Quote To come back to the proposed matchmaking mechanics using WP/s, I think it's a very good step in the right direction My only worry have already been voiced by others in this thread, which is that this system might give a bias to certain roles, such as the Logi. Since we ARE mercenaries, I wouldn't mind having ISK as a factor in matchmaking. The ability to go ISK positive is a powerful force in players minds, and if one can introduce a factor based on ISK destroyed vs ISK lost would help I think. As hinted before, I suspect the loopy matchmaking is due to the fact that most players seems to reside within the Mu 22,5 - 27,5, which is not a wide enough spread to reflect player skill (Disclamer: statement made without any knowledge how big pool of players CCP Rattati have used for his statistics). My point being; It might be dangerous to try and correlate any new mechanic to this value, as we know it does not work very good to begin with. I would be interested to see how the distribution (of WP/s) would look (recalculated based on the lifetime battles of all players in the statistics, if such data is available) If players are more distributed along the curve, I say we are on the right track.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 5538	Posted - 2014.08.20 15:43:00 - [64] - Quote Regis Blackbird wrote: To come back to the proposed matchmaking mechanics using WP/s, I think it's a very good step in the right direction My only worry have already been voiced by others in this thread, which is that this system might give a bias to certain roles, such as the Logi. Since we ARE mercenaries, I wouldn't mind having ISK as a factor in matchmaking. The ability to go ISK positive is a powerful force in players minds, and if one can introduce a factor based on ISK destroyed vs ISK lost would help I think. As hinted before, I suspect the loopy matchmaking is due to the fact that most players seems to reside within the Mu 22,5 - 27,5, which is not a wide enough spread to reflect player skill (Disclamer: statement made without any knowledge how big pool of players CCP Rattati have used for his statistics). My point being; It might be dangerous to try and correlate any new mechanic to this value, as we know it does not work very good to begin with. I would be interested to see how the distribution (of WP/s) would look (recalculated based on the lifetime battles of all players in the statistics, if such data is available) If players are more distributed along the curve, I say we are on the right track. Sorry, but you are assuming that because matchmaking is not effective currently, then Mu must be inherently wrong. The data says otherwise, KDR and WP ratios verify that Mu correlates with skill, regardless of the matchmaker. Your other point, the distribution around 25, is just the fact that relatively new players outnumber the old players, that's just how the online business is, we have a very long tail, just like EVE, but only a small part of all the new blood retains for years. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Vell0cet Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 2175	Posted - 2014.08.20 15:50:00 - [65] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Your other point, the distribution around 25, is just the fact that relatively new players outnumber the old players, that's just how the online business is, we have a very long tail, just like EVE, but only a small part of all the new blood retains for years. Could we see a distribution of Mu in the playerbase with all players under some lifetime WP amount removed? This would allow us to see how well Mu is distributed when you exclude that large pool of newer players that are skewing the curve? Best PvE idea ever!

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 5538	Posted - 2014.08.20 15:51:00 - [66] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Regis Blackbird wrote: To come back to the proposed matchmaking mechanics using WP/s, I think it's a very good step in the right direction My only worry have already been voiced by others in this thread, which is that this system might give a bias to certain roles, such as the Logi. Since we ARE mercenaries, I wouldn't mind having ISK as a factor in matchmaking. The ability to go ISK positive is a powerful force in players minds, and if one can introduce a factor based on ISK destroyed vs ISK lost would help I think. As hinted before, I suspect the loopy matchmaking is due to the fact that most players seems to reside within the Mu 22,5 - 27,5, which is not a wide enough spread to reflect player skill (Disclamer: statement made without any knowledge how big pool of players CCP Rattati have used for his statistics). My point being; It might be dangerous to try and correlate any new mechanic to this value, as we know it does not work very good to begin with. I would be interested to see how the distribution (of WP/s) would look (recalculated based on the lifetime battles of all players in the statistics, if such data is available) If players are more distributed along the curve, I say we are on the right track. Sorry, but you are assuming that because matchmaking is not effective currently, then Mu must be inherently wrong. The data says otherwise, KDR and WP ratios verify that Mu correlates with skill, regardless of the matchmaker. Your other point, the distribution around 25, is just the fact that relatively new players outnumber the old players, that's just how the online business is, we have a very long tail, just like EVE, but only a small part of all the new blood retains for years. Could we see a distribution of Mu in the playerbase with all players under some lifetime WP amount removed? This would allow us to see how well Mu is distributed when you exclude that large pool of newer players that are skewing the curve? They are not skewing the curve. Their Mu falls exactly where expected on the correlation charts. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 5538	Posted - 2014.08.20 15:53:00 - [67] - Quote Regis Blackbird wrote: To come back to the proposed matchmaking mechanics using WP/s, I think it's a very good step in the right direction My only worry have already been voiced by others in this thread, which is that this system might give a bias to certain roles, such as the Logi. Since we ARE mercenaries, I wouldn't mind having ISK as a factor in matchmaking. The ability to go ISK positive is a powerful force in players minds, and if one can introduce a factor based on ISK destroyed vs ISK lost would help I think. As hinted before, I suspect the loopy matchmaking is due to the fact that most players seems to reside within the Mu 22,5 - 27,5, which is not a wide enough spread to reflect player skill (Disclamer: statement made without any knowledge how big pool of players CCP Rattati have used for his statistics). My point being; It might be dangerous to try and correlate any new mechanic to this value, as we know it does not work very good to begin with. I would be interested to see how the distribution (of WP/s) would look (recalculated based on the lifetime battles of all players in the statistics, if such data is available) If players are more distributed along the curve, I say we are on the right track. I see a third misunderstanding, your last question on lifetime data. This is all based on lifetime data per player, otherwise there would be no correlation as Mu is attained over the lifetime of a player. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Vrain Matari Mikramurka Shock Troop Minmatar Republic 2185	Posted - 2014.08.20 16:00:00 - [68] - Quote Well done Rattati! As important as matchmaking is to DUST, the act of uncovering old and festering wounds that have been killing the game from the beginning is far more important. Sometimes an old merc(or developer) has just gotta take the field dressing off and let the sunshine in. That's us, the forum dwellers...sweet air and pure sunshine ;) PSN: RationalSpark
SHANN da MAN D3LTA FORC3 Drop the Hammer 254	Posted - 2014.08.20 16:22:00 - [69] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Hey players, this is more of a chat and sharing session than anything else, so please treat it as such. To recap some of the things I have shared in the past. 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. CCP Rattati wrote: Sorry, but you are assuming that because matchmaking is not effective currently, then Mu must be inherently wrong. The data says otherwise, KDR and WP ratios verify that Mu correlates with skill, regardless of the matchmaker. The problem with your current Mu calculation is that you are using Win/Loss (a TEAM metric) to calculate an INDIVIDUAL player's Mu. Players have NO ability to control who is on their team (other than the 6 in their squad, and even those aren't the same all the time) and this affects their Win/Loss ratio which in turn affects their Mu. A better way to calculate Mu would be to use WP/Death [or WP/Sec, to keep the resulting calculated number smaller] (Individual Statistic) in place of Win/Loss (Team statistic). This would more accurately indicate a player's INDIVIDUAL effectiveness without being skewed by a TEAM based metric nothing to see here ... move along
Regis Blackbird DUST University Ivy League 381	Posted - 2014.08.20 16:23:00 - [70] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Sorry, but you are assuming that because matchmaking is not effective currently, then Mu must be inherently wrong. The data says otherwise, KDR and WP ratios verify that Mu correlates with skill, regardless of the matchmaker. Your other point, the distribution around 25, is just the fact that relatively new players outnumber the old players, that's just how the online business is, we have a very long tail, just like EVE, but only a small part of all the new blood retains for years. Thanks for the reply I didn't say Mu was wrong, I said I suspected the distribution might not be enough to make a real distinction between the player skill. I guess I expected a much wider distribution of skill in the player base, but it is next to impossible to make a judgement without the source data (which you have). Please don't take my comments the wrong way, as I (and I think we all) very much appreciate that you address this particular issue Keep on the good work!

Regis Blackbird DUST University Ivy League 381	Posted - 2014.08.20 16:28:00 - [71] - Quote SHANN da MAN wrote: The problem with your current Mu calculation is that you are using Win/Loss (a TEAM metric) to calculate an INDIVIDUAL player's Mu. Players have NO ability to control who is on their team (other than the 6 in their squad, and even those aren't the same all the time) and this affects their Win/Loss ratio which in turn affects their Mu. A better way to calculate Mu would be to use WP/Death (Individual Statistic) in place of Win/Loss (Team statistic). This would more accurately indicate a player's INDIVIDUAL effectiveness without being skewed by a TEAM based metric Well, if Rattati introduce WP/s (which is a individual parameter) to complement or even replace Mu, this would solve that issue, right?
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2925	Posted - 2014.08.20 16:39:00 - [72] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: 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 So, as a player with 40+ Million SP, over two years of experience, and runs only Standard gear every match without exception, I should be paired against new players who also only run standard gear (Because that's all they have) and then never get paired against other experienced players who typically run higher level gear? That's what would happen if matchmaking was built around gear alone. It would be like living in the academy, kicking the teeth in of players who don't even know how to play yet. No thanks, that's boring as hell.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 3881	Posted - 2014.08.20 16:47:00 - [73] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: 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 So, as a player with 40+ Million SP, over two years of experience, and runs only Standard gear every match without exception, I should be paired against new players who also only run standard gear (Because that's all they have) and then never get paired against other experienced players who typically run higher level gear? That's what would happen if matchmaking was built around gear alone. It would be like living in the academy, kicking the teeth in of players who don't even know how to play yet. No thanks, that's boring as hell. But you also have lobbies for adv/proto or you could go to FW/PC and also it would be squads vs squads so it would be better than what it currently would be Also academy would be extended by a large amount of WP like 100k or more but dust is easy to learn anyways
SHANN da MAN D3LTA FORC3 Drop the Hammer 254	Posted - 2014.08.20 16:54:00 - [74] - Quote Regis Blackbird wrote: SHANN da MAN wrote: The problem with your current Mu calculation is that you are using Win/Loss (a TEAM metric) to calculate an INDIVIDUAL player's Mu. Players have NO ability to control who is on their team (other than the 6 in their squad, and even those aren't the same all the time) and this affects their Win/Loss ratio which in turn affects their Mu. A better way to calculate Mu would be to use WP/Death (Individual Statistic) in place of Win/Loss (Team statistic). This would more accurately indicate a player's INDIVIDUAL effectiveness without being skewed by a TEAM based metric Well, if Rattati introduce WP/s (which is a individual parameter) to complement or even replace Mu, this would solve that issue, right? I was editing my post to include WP/Sec as an option at the same time as you were writing your response ... nothing to see here ... move along
Vell0cet Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 2176	Posted - 2014.08.20 16:58:00 - [75] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: But you also have lobbies for adv/proto or you could go to FW/PC and also it would be squads vs squads so it would be better than what it currently would be Also academy would be extended by a large amount of WP like 100k or more but dust is easy to learn anyways So you want to put players with 99k WPs in the same match as players launching DUST for the first time, still trying to figure out which buttons do what? No, the best solution is to have a short academy like we have, and then add a second-tier academy as an optional game mode (the only one checked by default). This would cap out at some SP threshold (like 5 mill SP). It would allow new players to play enough unmolested by protostompers to build up a decently competitive ADV fit with good core skills, as well as generating enough data to build a reasonably accurate Mu score. Once they graduate, the matchmaker will be able to better place them on more balanced teams, and they'll have the skills (and possibly social connections at this point) to have a lot more fun. Best PvE idea ever!
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2926	Posted - 2014.08.20 16:59:00 - [76] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: But you also have lobbies for adv/proto or you could go to FW/PC and also it would be squads vs squads so it would be better than what it currently would be Also academy would be extended by a large amount of WP like 100k or more but dust is easy to learn anyways Well for one FW matchmaking can't simply be ignored. We also see massive problems in that game mode, so it can't just be a 'free for all' like it currently is. So then I have to go to PC to have a challenging fight? Well then I have to use Proto because everyone else does, and that's just something I dont like doing as a player. So what are my options? Play standard like I enjoy doing but get stuck against noobies in pubs and FW? Or go full proto like I don't like doing, to get a decent fight? You're just pidgeonholing people because you want an overy simplistic approach that only takes gear into account, when many very good players don't even rely on Proto gear to succeed. All I want is to be able to use the gear I normally do, load up a pub match, and fight against people who win and succeed about as much as I do. I don't care if they're using proto, I don't care if they're using militia. All I want is to fight against people who are roughly of the same skill level that I am. You're simply NOT going to get that with a matchmaking system built around gear alone.
Thumb Green Raymond James Corp 1267	Posted - 2014.08.20 17:03:00 - [77] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 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. So when do you guys predict that this convergence will happen because we've had this system for over a year now? Unless you're talking about something new you've just started actively doing and not Scotty. At the RJC we don't kick ass, we kick dick and we kick it hard. Kill Scotty
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 2252	Posted - 2014.08.20 17:06:00 - [78] - Quote So what happens if you take the WP/death and WP/sec and average the two numbers together? Would that filter outlier oddballs like snipers back into the regular pool of players?
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 3884	Posted - 2014.08.20 17:35:00 - [79] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: But you also have lobbies for adv/proto or you could go to FW/PC and also it would be squads vs squads so it would be better than what it currently would be Also academy would be extended by a large amount of WP like 100k or more but dust is easy to learn anyways Well for one FW matchmaking can't simply be ignored. We also see massive problems in that game mode, so it can't just be a 'free for all' like it currently is. So then I have to go to PC to have a challenging fight? Well then I have to use Proto because everyone else does, and that's just something I dont like doing as a player. So what are my options? Play standard like I enjoy doing but get stuck against noobies in pubs and FW? Or go full proto like I don't like doing, to get a decent fight? You're just pidgeonholing people because you want an overy simplistic approach that only takes gear into account, when many very good players don't even rely on Proto gear to succeed. All I want is to be able to use the gear I normally do, load up a pub match, and fight against people who win and succeed about as much as I do. I don't care if they're using proto, I don't care if they're using militia. All I want is to fight against people who are roughly of the same skill level that I am. You're simply NOT going to get that with a matchmaking system built around gear alone. No you go to PC/FW if you generally gonna use proto and PC is a challenging fight generally but if matchmaking put squads against each other then there is a challenging fight in basic gear instead of idiots vs 2 squads in full proto Same skill level? rarely happens you either get crushed or do the crushing there is no middle ground
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 3884	Posted - 2014.08.20 17:36:00 - [80] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: But you also have lobbies for adv/proto or you could go to FW/PC and also it would be squads vs squads so it would be better than what it currently would be Also academy would be extended by a large amount of WP like 100k or more but dust is easy to learn anyways So you want to put players with 99k WPs in the same match as players launching DUST for the first time, still trying to figure out which buttons do what? No, the best solution is to have a short academy like we have, and then add a second-tier academy as an optional game mode (the only one checked by default). This would cap out at some SP threshold (like 5 mill SP). It would allow new players to play enough unmolested by protostompers to build up a decently competitive ADV fit with good core skills, as well as generating enough data to build a reasonably accurate Mu score. It also gives them the freedom to try a variety of more competitive game modes if they're looking for a challenge. Once they graduate, the matchmaker will be able to better place them on more balanced teams, and they'll have the skills (and possibly social connections at this point) to have a lot more fun. MU score is broken as **** You stomp or get stomped there is no middle ground, squads dont even fight each other they end up on the same side the vast majority of the time

Vell0cet Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 2176	Posted - 2014.08.20 17:46:00 - [81] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Vell0cet wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: But you also have lobbies for adv/proto or you could go to FW/PC and also it would be squads vs squads so it would be better than what it currently would be Also academy would be extended by a large amount of WP like 100k or more but dust is easy to learn anyways So you want to put players with 99k WPs in the same match as players launching DUST for the first time, still trying to figure out which buttons do what? No, the best solution is to have a short academy like we have, and then add a second-tier academy as an optional game mode (the only one checked by default). This would cap out at some SP threshold (like 5 mill SP). It would allow new players to play enough unmolested by protostompers to build up a decently competitive ADV fit with good core skills, as well as generating enough data to build a reasonably accurate Mu score. It also gives them the freedom to try a variety of more competitive game modes if they're looking for a challenge. Once they graduate, the matchmaker will be able to better place them on more balanced teams, and they'll have the skills (and possibly social connections at this point) to have a lot more fun. MU score is broken as **** You stomp or get stomped there is no middle ground, squads dont even fight each other they end up on the same side the vast majority of the time Did you actually read the thread? Squads would be put on opposite teams now. Best PvE idea ever!
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2926	Posted - 2014.08.20 17:46:00 - [82] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: No you go to PC/FW if you generally gonna use proto and PC is a challenging fight generally but if matchmaking put squads against each other then there is a challenging fight in basic gear instead of idiots vs 2 squads in full proto Same skill level? rarely happens you either get crushed or do the crushing there is no middle ground Ok so say I DONT want use proto, and use Standard as I always do. In a Gear-Based system, I would consistently get stuck up against new players. Why should I be forced to use higher gear to fight veteran opponents? Lol and the reason you get stomps is because more often than not you get one side made of players who win often fighting a side that wins less often. WIth the system that Rattati is proposing, the current Proto stompers would get paired against teams that win frequently.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 3884	Posted - 2014.08.20 17:57:00 - [83] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: No you go to PC/FW if you generally gonna use proto and PC is a challenging fight generally but if matchmaking put squads against each other then there is a challenging fight in basic gear instead of idiots vs 2 squads in full proto Same skill level? rarely happens you either get crushed or do the crushing there is no middle ground Ok so say I DONT want use proto, and use Standard as I always do. In a Gear-Based system, I would consistently get stuck up against new players. Why should I be forced to use higher gear to fight veteran opponents? Lol and the reason you get stomps is because more often than not you get one side made of players who win often fighting a side that wins less often. WIth the system that Rattati is proposing, the current Proto stompers would get paired against teams that win frequently. Would you always be against new players? If noobs stay in academy longer it means most likely you will fight players that actually know how to play because dust isnt hard
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 3884	Posted - 2014.08.20 17:58:00 - [84] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Vell0cet wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: But you also have lobbies for adv/proto or you could go to FW/PC and also it would be squads vs squads so it would be better than what it currently would be Also academy would be extended by a large amount of WP like 100k or more but dust is easy to learn anyways So you want to put players with 99k WPs in the same match as players launching DUST for the first time, still trying to figure out which buttons do what? No, the best solution is to have a short academy like we have, and then add a second-tier academy as an optional game mode (the only one checked by default). This would cap out at some SP threshold (like 5 mill SP). It would allow new players to play enough unmolested by protostompers to build up a decently competitive ADV fit with good core skills, as well as generating enough data to build a reasonably accurate Mu score. It also gives them the freedom to try a variety of more competitive game modes if they're looking for a challenge. Once they graduate, the matchmaker will be able to better place them on more balanced teams, and they'll have the skills (and possibly social connections at this point) to have a lot more fun. MU score is broken as **** You stomp or get stomped there is no middle ground, squads dont even fight each other they end up on the same side the vast majority of the time Did you actually read the thread? Squads would be put on opposite teams now. Only like 3yrs too late but mu is still a broken system
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2926	Posted - 2014.08.20 18:20:00 - [85] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: No you go to PC/FW if you generally gonna use proto and PC is a challenging fight generally but if matchmaking put squads against each other then there is a challenging fight in basic gear instead of idiots vs 2 squads in full proto Same skill level? rarely happens you either get crushed or do the crushing there is no middle ground Ok so say I DONT want use proto, and use Standard as I always do. In a Gear-Based system, I would consistently get stuck up against new players. Why should I be forced to use higher gear to fight veteran opponents? Lol and the reason you get stomps is because more often than not you get one side made of players who win often fighting a side that wins less often. WIth the system that Rattati is proposing, the current Proto stompers would get paired against teams that win frequently. Would you always be against new players? If noobs stay in academy longer it means most likely you will fight players that actually know how to play because dust isnt hard Not all players who use Standard gear are new, but all new players use standard gear. It's not just about learning the game, its your plan sticking me in matches where every new player will be, without exception. Yes there may be a few vets sprinkled in there, but the majority WILL be new players. "Dust isn't that hard to learn" you're right, but what about SP advantage? How long would you suggest a player stay in the academy before they're ready for the real world? Let me ask you this, what does a gear-based matchmaking system offer over a win-loss based system? What advantages does it have that the Win-based system does not?
mollerz 4956	Posted - 2014.08.20 18:28:00 - [86] - Quote I'm for dropsuit/weapon tier enforcement. There's never going to be a fool proof way to account for personal skill, and the past year or so of everyone's stats are horribly ******* skewed for various reasons. Dingle Dust Berry.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 3885	Posted - 2014.08.20 18:39:00 - [87] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: No you go to PC/FW if you generally gonna use proto and PC is a challenging fight generally but if matchmaking put squads against each other then there is a challenging fight in basic gear instead of idiots vs 2 squads in full proto Same skill level? rarely happens you either get crushed or do the crushing there is no middle ground Ok so say I DONT want use proto, and use Standard as I always do. In a Gear-Based system, I would consistently get stuck up against new players. Why should I be forced to use higher gear to fight veteran opponents? Lol and the reason you get stomps is because more often than not you get one side made of players who win often fighting a side that wins less often. WIth the system that Rattati is proposing, the current Proto stompers would get paired against teams that win frequently. Would you always be against new players? If noobs stay in academy longer it means most likely you will fight players that actually know how to play because dust isnt hard Not all players who use Standard gear are new, but all new players use standard gear. It's not just about learning the game, its your plan sticking me in matches where every new player will be, without exception. Yes there may be a few vets sprinkled in there, but the majority WILL be new players. "Dust isn't that hard to learn" you're right, but what about SP advantage? How long would you suggest a player stay in the academy before they're ready for the real world? Let me ask you this, what does a gear-based matchmaking system offer over a win-loss based system? What advantages does it have that the Win-based system does not? Gear based, everyone on same level, SP has a say but skill is needed more, cant break out the proto suit if a noob wipes the floor with you
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2927	Posted - 2014.08.20 18:45:00 - [88] - Quote What stops a veteran from using standard gear knowing it will likely pit him against newer players with less SP in order to use his SP advantage to stomp?
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 3885	Posted - 2014.08.20 18:51:00 - [89] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: What stops a veteran from using standard gear knowing it will likely pit him against newer players with less SP in order to use his SP advantage to stomp? What stops a veteran from using proto gear knowing it will pit him against newer players with less SP in order to use his SP and proto advantage to stomp?
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2927	Posted - 2014.08.20 18:53:00 - [90] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: What stops a veteran from using standard gear knowing it will likely pit him against newer players with less SP in order to use his SP advantage to stomp? What stops a veteran from using proto gear knowing it will pit him against newer players with less SP in order to use his SP and proto advantage to stomp? A system which pairs him against players who dont lose very often.

Vell0cet Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 2176	Posted - 2014.08.20 19:00:00 - [91] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Gear based, everyone on same level, SP has a say but skill is needed more, cant break out the proto suit if a noob wipes the floor with you The entire point of having different tiers of gear is to give you an edge. It's risk vs. reward: pay exponentially more ISK for a linear increase in power. In gear-based matches, there's no reason to risk PRO gear. Most would just run STD and make a nice profit stomping low SP players. Ideally, if Mu-based matchmaking is putting you in a pool of 32 players of similar ability to you, then you can use more expensive gear when it really matters (e.g. a close match or to get revenge on the dude who keeps spawn-camping, etc.). If you constantly run blinged-out fits, your Mu will probably rise and you'll be facing much harder opponents. Your gear won't carry you very far and you'll start to loose a lot of ISK. Best PvE idea ever!
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 3885	Posted - 2014.08.20 19:27:00 - [92] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: What stops a veteran from using standard gear knowing it will likely pit him against newer players with less SP in order to use his SP advantage to stomp? What stops a veteran from using proto gear knowing it will pit him against newer players with less SP in order to use his SP and proto advantage to stomp? A system which pairs him against players who dont lose very often. Well it aint this system thats for sure
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 16208	Posted - 2014.08.20 19:37:00 - [93] - Quote So my question is what could be factored in to prevent really high scoring players from lowering their Mu without isk loss? (Afking as a squad in an MCC to help their team lose for 0 warppoints?) Player behavior in past games have actually shown this to be a serious issue even in games with massive player pools (halo 2 had such rank system) While I don't mind good players mixing it with the bad players and good players getting stomped to lower their ranks I do mind if they are doing it at no cost or activities that rob others of game content. CPM 0 Secretary, CPM 1 Elect Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Advanced Minmatar Logistics =// Unlocked
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2930	Posted - 2014.08.20 19:39:00 - [94] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Well it aint this system thats for sure This system ranks everyone based largely off of their Win/Loss ratio and modifies the rank for each win and loss. The game then attempts to pair people with similar ranks against each other, effectively mean that those with a high W/L ratio fight people with a similar W/L ratio. It's like an ongoing tournament, where winning moves you up a bracket to fight others who have won a lot of battles, and losing drops you down a bracket to fight others who have lost. The more you win, the harder the opponents you face, and the harder it is to maintain that W/L ratio. Whereas as you lose, you fight easier and easier teams, making it easier to increase your W/L ratio.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 3885	Posted - 2014.08.20 19:45:00 - [95] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Well it aint this system thats for sure This system ranks everyone based largely off of their Win/Loss ratio and modifies the rank for each win and loss. The game then attempts to pair people with similar ranks against each other, effectively mean that those with a high W/L ratio fight people with a similar W/L ratio. It's like an ongoing tournament, where winning moves you up a bracket to fight others who have won a lot of battles, and losing drops you down a bracket to fight others who have lost. The more you win, the harder the opponents you face, and the harder it is to maintain that W/L ratio. Whereas as you lose, you fight easier and easier teams, making it easier to increase your W/L ratio. Its not working
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2930	Posted - 2014.08.20 19:46:00 - [96] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: So my question is what could be factored in to prevent really high scoring players from lowering their Mu without isk loss? (Afking as a squad in an MCC to help their team lose for 0 warppoints?) Player behavior in past games have actually shown this to be a serious issue even in games with massive player pools (halo 2 had such rank system) While I don't mind good players mixing it with the bad players and good players getting stomped to lower their ranks I do mind if they are doing it at no cost or activities that rob others of game content. Overall the conditions for ISK gain need to be moved away from simply existing in a battle, and more towards performing acts to help the team. Hacking, killing, repping, ect. should add to your ISK counter, and it should have very little to do with how much time spent in battle or any sort of flat rate. I also think the AFK timer needs to be more than just "As long as you're moving around, you're good." It needs better detection in terms of what constitutes as "in the battle" so that players intentionally not doing anything simply get booted. It's a real shame we never got a vote to kick option, that's how we dealt with AFKers in MAG.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2930	Posted - 2014.08.20 19:46:00 - [97] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Well it aint this system thats for sure This system ranks everyone based largely off of their Win/Loss ratio and modifies the rank for each win and loss. The game then attempts to pair people with similar ranks against each other, effectively mean that those with a high W/L ratio fight people with a similar W/L ratio. It's like an ongoing tournament, where winning moves you up a bracket to fight others who have won a lot of battles, and losing drops you down a bracket to fight others who have lost. The more you win, the harder the opponents you face, and the harder it is to maintain that W/L ratio. Whereas as you lose, you fight easier and easier teams, making it easier to increase your W/L ratio. Its not working Durrr I'm talking about the improvements that have been proposed.
Vell0cet Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 2177	Posted - 2014.08.20 20:04:00 - [98] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: So my question is what could be factored in to prevent really high scoring players from lowering their Mu without isk loss? (Afking as a squad in an MCC to help their team lose for 0 warppoints?) Player behavior in past games have actually shown this to be a serious issue even in games with massive player pools (halo 2 had such rank system) While I don't mind good players mixing it with the bad players and good players getting stomped to lower their ranks I do mind if they are doing it at no cost or activities that rob others of game content. This is an excellent question. One way to approach this is to use WPs/death (excluding suicide and teamkills). If you're AFKing to lower your Mu, you won't be dying. Players could still "game" the matchmaker by running into enemy fire in free suits, but then they're at least giving other players the satisfaction of easy kills, and destroying their own stats. I think it's a tough sell too: "Anyone want to squad up and try to get killed by the enemy over and over? Anyone? Anyone at all?" Best PvE idea ever!
IgniteableAura Pro Hic Immortalis 1597	Posted - 2014.08.20 20:44:00 - [99] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: So my question is what could be factored in to prevent really high scoring players from lowering their Mu without isk loss? (Afking as a squad in an MCC to help their team lose for 0 warppoints?) Player behavior in past games have actually shown this to be a serious issue even in games with massive player pools (halo 2 had such rank system) While I don't mind good players mixing it with the bad players and good players getting stomped to lower their ranks I do mind if they are doing it at no cost or activities that rob others of game content. You are probably best off combining a bunch of different stats to help account for this. Perhaps have a similar argument that accounts for both WP/s along with WP/d and either averages them or take the higher of the two. Which would likely still give you a pretty high correlation. Losing a match could also "cost" you fewer points. You could add logic as well to "negate" multiple 0 WP battle loses and victories. Including better AFK removal tools is a better solution though. My only issue would be it might segregate the player base via role. I know its pretty easy to rack up points in an HAV or logi but a dropship pilot or heavy that doesn't do as much "WP" earning activities will be left behind. My Youtube Biomassed Podcast
Bayeth Mal OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1205	Posted - 2014.08.20 21:16:00 - [100] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Well it aint this system thats for sure This system ranks everyone based largely off of their Win/Loss ratio and modifies the rank for each win and loss. The game then attempts to pair people with similar ranks against each other, effectively mean that those with a high W/L ratio fight people with a similar W/L ratio. It's like an ongoing tournament, where winning moves you up a bracket to fight others who have won a lot of battles, and losing drops you down a bracket to fight others who have lost. The more you win, the harder the opponents you face, and the harder it is to maintain that W/L ratio. Whereas as you lose, you fight easier and easier teams, making it easier to increase your W/L ratio. Its not working Durrr I'm talking about the improvements that have been proposed. Pokey, he's an idiot who who is scared of math he doesn't understand, do not engage. This thread just has post after post of him making declarations that prove he has no idea what's going on and hasn't actually read what Rattati has said. We'll bang, OK?

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 2262	Posted - 2014.08.20 21:42:00 - [101] - Quote I'm just looking forward to seeing what comes of this. Even if it was the only thing that made it into Delta, non-suckass matchmaking would make Delta a goddamn masterpiece.
Hakyou Brutor Pure Evil. 1091	Posted - 2014.08.20 22:40:00 - [102] - Quote I mean... you're a little late... but whatever. If CCP would have hired you from day one this game would have been much more successful. (yes, I realize Rattati is not the only one working on the hotfixes, but... even with less staff they have achieved more balancing than the full team achieved in almost 2 years... jus sayin)
iliel 0uter.Heaven 122	Posted - 2014.08.20 22:41:00 - [103] - Quote Just thought of a question (not sure if it's been answered): what are you going to do about stat padders - - that is, players who join current battles and quit if the opposing team is stacked? I'm hoping people's Mu will decrease automatically when they leave a match.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 5555	Posted - 2014.08.20 23:42:00 - [104] - Quote SHANN da MAN wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Hey players, this is more of a chat and sharing session than anything else, so please treat it as such. To recap some of the things I have shared in the past. 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. CCP Rattati wrote: Sorry, but you are assuming that because matchmaking is not effective currently, then Mu must be inherently wrong. The data says otherwise, KDR and WP ratios verify that Mu correlates with skill, regardless of the matchmaker. The problem with your current Mu calculation is that you are using Win/Loss (a TEAM metric) to calculate an INDIVIDUAL player's Mu. Players have NO ability to control who is on their team (other than the 6 in their squad, and even those aren't the same all the time) which can be populated by AFK'ers, or Griefers, or redliners, or Team Killers [in FW & PC], (etc.) and this affects their Win/Loss ratio which in turn affects their Mu. A better way to calculate Mu would be to use WP/Death [or WP/Sec, to keep the resulting calculated number smaller] (Individual Statistic) in place of Win/Loss (Team statistic). This would more accurately indicate a player's INDIVIDUAL effectiveness without being skewed by a TEAM based metric The data and analysis says that's not the case "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Spademan The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 3142	Posted - 2014.08.20 23:48:00 - [105] - Quote Hakyou Brutor wrote: I mean... you're a little late... but whatever. If CCP would have hired you from day one this game would have been much more successful. (yes, I realize Rattati is not the only one working on the hotfixes, but... even with less staff they have achieved more balancing than the full team achieved in almost 2 years... jus sayin) Funfact: He's been with CCP since at least 1.4. I am part shovel, part man, full scout, and a little bit special. Official Time Lord of the Scout Community

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 5555	Posted - 2014.08.20 23:48:00 - [106] - Quote iliel wrote: Just thought of a question (not sure if it's been answered): what are you going to do about stat padders - - that is, players who join current battles and quit if the opposing team is stacked? I'm hoping people's Mu will decrease automatically when they leave a match. Well if their Mu goes down by doing that, then they will get easier opponents next time, which is probably what that person wants. I would just want to implement a punishment for AFKing and leaving battle, like moba games. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 5555	Posted - 2014.08.20 23:49:00 - [107] - Quote Spademan wrote: Hakyou Brutor wrote: I mean... you're a little late... but whatever. If CCP would have hired you from day one this game would have been much more successful. (yes, I realize Rattati is not the only one working on the hotfixes, but... even with less staff they have achieved more balancing than the full team achieved in almost 2 years... jus sayin) Funfact: He's been with CCP since at least 1.4. With CCP since 2007, playing Dust since the beginning of time, working directly on Dust for 3 months. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Vell0cet Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 2179	Posted - 2014.08.21 00:35:00 - [108] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: iliel wrote: Just thought of a question (not sure if it's been answered): what are you going to do about stat padders - - that is, players who join current battles and quit if the opposing team is stacked? I'm hoping people's Mu will decrease automatically when they leave a match. Well if their Mu goes down by doing that, then they will get easier opponents next time, which is probably what that person wants. I would just want to implement a punishment for AFKing and leaving battle, like moba games. This begs the question, if WPs/death (excluding teamkills and suicide) is as good a metric for calculating Mu, but is much more difficult to manipulate than win/loss via sabotaging matches, why not use that stat? Best PvE idea ever!

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 5562	Posted - 2014.08.21 00:38:00 - [109] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: iliel wrote: Just thought of a question (not sure if it's been answered): what are you going to do about stat padders - - that is, players who join current battles and quit if the opposing team is stacked? I'm hoping people's Mu will decrease automatically when they leave a match. Well if their Mu goes down by doing that, then they will get easier opponents next time, which is probably what that person wants. I would just want to implement a punishment for AFKing and leaving battle, like moba games. This begs the question, if WPs/death (excluding teamkills and suicide) is as good a metric for calculating Mu, but is much more difficult to manipulate than win/loss via sabotaging matches, why not use that stat? This isn't really something that worries me right now, ie players gaming the matchmaking system. Any system can be gamed, the WP/s can easily be gamed by simply not doing anything for a few matches. But people who do that, will never ever play by any rules and game anything, so we just have to live with that (and them). "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Vell0cet Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 2179	Posted - 2014.08.21 00:54:00 - [110] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Vell0cet wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: iliel wrote: Just thought of a question (not sure if it's been answered): what are you going to do about stat padders - - that is, players who join current battles and quit if the opposing team is stacked? I'm hoping people's Mu will decrease automatically when they leave a match. Well if their Mu goes down by doing that, then they will get easier opponents next time, which is probably what that person wants. I would just want to implement a punishment for AFKing and leaving battle, like moba games. This begs the question, if WPs/death (excluding teamkills and suicide) is as good a metric for calculating Mu, but is much more difficult to manipulate than win/loss via sabotaging matches, why not use that stat? This isn't really something that worries me right now, ie players gaming the matchmaking system. Any system can be gamed, the WP/s can easily be gamed by simply not doing anything for a few matches. But people who do that, will never ever play by any rules and game anything, so we just have to live with that (and them). I agree there will always be players trying to game the system. It just seems like all things being equal, you go with the approach that would have the smallest negative impact on the other players. WPs/Death (excluding teamkills and suicide) would be a difficult stat to game (you'd have to repeatedly run into enemy fire). Players deliberately trying to sabotage the match would really ruin everyone else's experience. I could picture players intentionally placing uplinks in terrible locations (like parking a HAV ontop of it), or right in front of the enemy's position in the open so it's easy for them to spawn kill your teammates. How about calling in tons of LAVs so you can't counter enemy tanks with your own because of vehicle cap? using a dropship to crush teammates, or putting a CRU on your dropship, filling it up and then suiciding deep in the enemy redline, etc. It seems all of that BS could be completely bipassed by using WPs/Death (excluding suicide and teamkills). Perhaps there are technical reasons why this isn't practical? Best PvE idea ever!

iliel 0uter.Heaven 122	Posted - 2014.08.21 01:24:00 - [111] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: iliel wrote: Just thought of a question (not sure if it's been answered): what are you going to do about stat padders - - that is, players who join current battles and quit if the opposing team is stacked? I'm hoping people's Mu will decrease automatically when they leave a match. Well if their Mu goes down by doing that, then they will get easier opponents next time, which is probably what that person wants. I would just want to implement a punishment for AFKing and leaving battle, like moba games. You're right . Because if stat padders are penalized then their rank will drop. Therefore, they will be matched with easier opponents Therefore, they will be able to stat pad that much more easily. Moreover, the system takes care of AFKers because such players' WP/s ratio will be low.
Garth Mandra The Southern Legion Final Resolution. 412	Posted - 2014.08.21 02:06:00 - [112] - Quote One way to help discourage gaming and stat padding would be to just not make the stats visible. Just keep them hidden.
Vance Alken Commando Perkone Caldari State 167	Posted - 2014.08.21 03:02:00 - [113] - Quote Garth Mandra wrote: One way to help discourage gaming and stat padding would be to just not make the stats visible. Just keep them hidden. Yeah it'd certainly stop most people from attempting to stat pad, though anyone super dedicated to doing so would be able to find this thread :/
ZDub 303 Escrow Removal and Acquisition Negative-Feedback 3215	Posted - 2014.08.21 03:31:00 - [114] - Quote Might sound silly but I think I agree... WP/Death seems like it would make for a more universal metric of skill than WP/s. Simply ebcause each class generates WP in such drastically different ways. However, WP/Death... something that was discuss fairly in depth back when I was in Subdreddit (ages and ages ago...) it almost always correlated with the more skilled players. We also noticed that WP/D seemed generally irrespective of gear. Skilled players who ran STD gear would still end up around where I was running in a mix of proto and advanced. I know your data is saying that the 99% correlation on WP/s is generally better than the 92% but man... just thinking about it for a second as a player WP/D just seems fundamentally better than WP/s. I also wonder how afk farming affects the WP/s metric in addition to the redline sniping theory you also postulate. Back in the day, during really busy periods of school.. I would happily afk farm entire weeks of SP bonus. Seriously, i'm talking about straight afk farming through 2-3 weeks at a time during midterms and research updates. It is not an insignificant amount of my in-game time that is dedicated purely to afk farming. Its reflected in my W/L ratio and most definitely in my WP/s. My WP/D however, along with my K/D we're never impacted by this. Something to consider... I think what you're doing here Rattati is absolutely fantastic, my only feedback would be to take a good hard look at WP/s vs. WP/D. B C R U are letters, not words - Wierd Al Yankovich

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 5567	Posted - 2014.08.21 04:09:00 - [115] - Quote I agree with you guys that WP/D is a much better concept for a player to maximize. I think that WP/D is what should be shown to the players in the EOM screen, and since it is so highly correlated, we can use WP/s, Mu or WP/D behind the scenes, the data tells us they are more or less shades of gray of the same thing. Thanks for the feedback, and ISKdestroyed/ISKlost is something I need to calculate as well, it's not as accessible but I should be able to dig it up and correlate with these. It's just the problem that that is such a slayer concept, and completely negates hacki scouts, and reppy logis, and so forth. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Vell0cet Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 2181	Posted - 2014.08.21 04:57:00 - [116] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Thanks for the feedback, and ISKdestroyed/ISKlost is something I need to calculate as well, it's not as accessible but I should be able to dig it up and correlate with these. It's just the problem that that is such a slayer concept, and completely negates hacki scouts, and reppy logis, and so forth. One way to offset this drawback on logis is to include the value of kills when they get a guardian bonus. Logis and hacki scouts already suffer from K/D, and at least ISK efficiency disincentivises stomping. As you know, in EVE, when someone brings out a blinged out fit, it's like having a giant bullseye painted on your ship, and everyone wants to gang up on you to pad their efficiency stats. The same kinds of social pressure would work in DUST: "He's wearing PRO! lets get him!" I also think this would be a useful metric for balancing vehicle prices. Are they exceptionally ISK-efficient? Exceptionally ISK-inefficient? It would help inform the conversation at the very least. Best PvE idea ever!
RedPencil Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 65	Posted - 2014.08.21 08:22:00 - [117] - Quote To fix matching, you also need to trow " ping, lag, and internet latency " in your formula. match lager to play together. Lager cost more problem. Beware paper cut M[;..;]M
H0riz0n Unlimit Inner.Hell 153	Posted - 2014.08.21 10:24:00 - [118] - Quote The fact is that till japanese are against me i will never have a good match, we can have the same wp/s but i will move at 1 frame for minute. It s ok you try to resolve some problems but i still prefer a matchmaking based on connection and ping Tanker since I was born -- Want back my blaster -- Madrugar 1125/6753 -- Reduce weakspot dimension
Bayeth Mal OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1215	Posted - 2014.08.21 11:22:00 - [119] - Quote H0riz0n Unlimit wrote: The fact is that till japanese are against me i will never have a good match, we can have the same wp/s but i will move at 1 frame for minute. It s ok you try to resolve some problems but i still prefer a matchmaking based on connection and ping lol, you're just a walking stereotype ain't ya? Especially with that sig. We'll bang, OK?
Kevall Longstride DUST University Ivy League 1578	Posted - 2014.08.21 11:42:00 - [120] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: I agree with you guys that WP/D is a much better concept for a player to maximize. I think that WP/D is what should be shown to the players in the EOM screen, and since it is so highly correlated, we can use WP/s, Mu or WP/D behind the scenes, the data tells us they are more or less shades of gray of the same thing. Thanks for the feedback, and ISKdestroyed/ISKlost is something I need to calculate as well, it's not as accessible but I should be able to dig it up and correlate with these. It's just the problem that that is such a slayer concept, and completely negates hacki scouts, and reppy logis, and so forth. It does negate the hacking scouts and logi's but ISK efficiency is a metric I've been wanting since day one of playing Dust and the maths is so simple (although pulling the data might not be) that its annoyed me to be honest that we've not had it. 1.2M ISK destroyed minus 3.4M ISK spent equals -2.2M ISK, divide that by the ISK spend equals -0.647 and then times by 100 giving you an ISK efficiency of -64.7%. In other words, as a mercenary, you're not a profitable one. 3.4M destroyed against 1.2M spent however gives you a 183.3% ISK efficiency. To take into account the 'zero' cost in ISK at least of BPO's, you just give them the ISK value of the equivalent module. An AUR and LP efficiency leader-board could be interesting too. CPM 1 member CEO of DUST University Vist dustcpm.com

Vrain Matari Mikramurka Shock Troop Minmatar Republic 2185	Posted - 2014.08.21 13:08:00 - [121] - Quote There's a lot of factors to consider and talk over in this. But at the beginning i would want to consider measuring my candidate predictors over various win conditions. For example, do our three candidates(WP/s, WP/D, K/D) differentiate more when we look at skirm vs. ambush vs. dom? Do they vary if we filter for long duration matches vs. short duration matches? Or for: high clone count/MCC destruction vs. low clone count/MCC destruction? Likewise one could investigate the candidate predictors under other victory or loss conditions to try and tease out differences in behavior. Presumably the matches we are trying to predict for are not all types of wins but rather the ones that are nail-bitingly close and impossible to call for either side until the victory/defeat screen loads. PSN: RationalSpark
ZDub 303 Escrow Removal and Acquisition Negative-Feedback 3217	Posted - 2014.08.21 13:38:00 - [122] - Quote Slept on it, and one last bit of feedback for you Rattati. I'm not sure if its possible at the moment (i.e. requires a UI update) but... if you could somehow show players their own -¦ score that would also be a big driver for personal performance. In games like SC2 and Hearthstone and primarily pvp games like those, watching your own -¦ score rise and fall from game to game is a huge driver for better performance. If this could make it into the character sheet perhaps? Its something to consider at least. B C R U are letters, not words - Wierd Al Yankovich

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 5577	Posted - 2014.08.21 13:44:00 - [123] - Quote ZDub 303 wrote: Slept on it, and one last bit of feedback for you Rattati. I'm not sure if its possible at the moment (i.e. requires a UI update) but... if you could somehow show players their own -¦ score that would also be a big driver for personal performance. In games like SC2 and Hearthstone and primarily pvp games like those, watching your own -¦ score rise and fall from game to game is a huge driver for better performance. If this could make it into the character sheet perhaps? Its something to consider at least. I can see if it can be displayed on the leaderboard! "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Vell0cet Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 2186	Posted - 2014.08.21 13:49:00 - [124] - Quote ZDub 303 wrote: Slept on it, and one last bit of feedback for you Rattati. I'm not sure if its possible at the moment (i.e. requires a UI update) but... if you could somehow show players their own -¦ score that would also be a big driver for personal performance. In games like SC2 and Hearthstone and primarily pvp games like those, watching your own -¦ score rise and fall from game to game is a huge driver for better performance. If this could make it into the character sheet perhaps? Its something to consider at least. This would probably encourage gaming the system though, but you do have a valid point. There's definetly a tradeoff. If matchmaking was based on WPs/death this becomes much less of a concern though. Best PvE idea ever!
ZDub 303 Escrow Removal and Acquisition Negative-Feedback 3217	Posted - 2014.08.21 14:11:00 - [125] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: I can see if it can be displayed on the leaderboard! o7, its low priority and no one will be that upset if you can't get it in but it would be kind of cool. I won't lie, my inner troll would love to lord it over some people on the forums lol. Vell0cet wrote: This would probably encourage gaming the system though, but you do have a valid point. There's definetly a tradeoff. If matchmaking was based on WPs/death this becomes much less of a concern though. I think I agree with Rattati though, people will game the system no matter what. Its a facet of human nature. Although, do you think people would try to game the system to get a high -¦ score? If so.. then they elevate themselves in matchmaking to a point where they are against (theoretically) skill enough players to equalize whatever metric is used. If you think they will use it game themselves downwards... that will happen whether or not you can see your own -¦ score. B C R U are letters, not words - Wierd Al Yankovich
Vell0cet Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 2186	Posted - 2014.08.21 14:26:00 - [126] - Quote ZDub 303 wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: I can see if it can be displayed on the leaderboard! o7, its low priority and no one will be that upset if you can't get it in but it would be kind of cool. I won't lie, my inner troll would love to lord it over some people on the forums lol. Vell0cet wrote: This would probably encourage gaming the system though, but you do have a valid point. There's definetly a tradeoff. If matchmaking was based on WPs/death this becomes much less of a concern though. I think I agree with Rattati though, people will game the system no matter what. Its a facet of human nature. Although, do you think people would try to game the system to get a high -¦ score? If so.. then they elevate themselves in matchmaking to a point where they are against (theoretically) skill enough players to equalize whatever metric is used. If you think they will use it game themselves downwards... that will happen whether or not you can see your own -¦ score. Fair point. If -¦ becomes a point of pride, then it could actuall reduce the number of players trying to sabotage matches. It's hard-to-say. I still think WPs/death is the way to go for matchmaking, after sleeping on it, which would bypass this entire problem. Best PvE idea ever!
ZDub 303 Escrow Removal and Acquisition Negative-Feedback 3219	Posted - 2014.08.21 14:30:00 - [127] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: [Fair point. If -¦ becomes a point of pride, then it could actually reduce the number of players trying to sabotage matches. It's hard-to-say. I still think WPs/death is the way to go for matchmaking, after sleeping on it, which would bypass this entire problem. I've always agreed with you on that though, I was talking purely -¦ score though. How its calculated is another topic, of which I have posted my thoughts as well (that WP/D seems a fundamentally better metric than WP/s, despite the statistics saying otherwise). B C R U are letters, not words - Wierd Al Yankovich

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 5578	Posted - 2014.08.21 14:36:00 - [128] - Quote 90 degree turn guys I am wondering where the overlap of squads and skill lies. Let's discuss in 2 categories, where A is a beast and B is "normal" Will a single A win 3B's or even 6B's 1A vs 2B 1A vs 3B 1A vs 4B 1A vs 5B 1A vs 6B 2A vs 4B 2A vs 5B 2A vs 6B 3A vs 5B 3A vs 6B 4A vs 6B Please answer with your gut, Y/N on each. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 5578	Posted - 2014.08.21 14:38:00 - [129] - Quote ZDub 303 wrote: Vell0cet wrote: [Fair point. If -¦ becomes a point of pride, then it could actually reduce the number of players trying to sabotage matches. It's hard-to-say. I still think WPs/death is the way to go for matchmaking, after sleeping on it, which would bypass this entire problem. I've always agreed with you on that though, I was talking purely -¦ score though. How its calculated is another topic, of which I have posted my thoughts as well (that WP/D seems a fundamentally better metric than WP/s, despite the statistics saying otherwise). it has a lower correlation because of the low Mu bump in the chart, prompting my redline sniper theory. Any thoughts on that? "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Vell0cet Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 2186	Posted - 2014.08.21 14:47:00 - [130] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: ZDub 303 wrote: Vell0cet wrote: [Fair point. If -¦ becomes a point of pride, then it could actually reduce the number of players trying to sabotage matches. It's hard-to-say. I still think WPs/death is the way to go for matchmaking, after sleeping on it, which would bypass this entire problem. I've always agreed with you on that though, I was talking purely -¦ score though. How its calculated is another topic, of which I have posted my thoughts as well (that WP/D seems a fundamentally better metric than WP/s, despite the statistics saying otherwise). it has a lower correlation because of the low Mu bump in the chart, prompting my redline sniper theory. Any thoughts on that? I confess to not fully understanding this. Are you saying you suspect redline snipers have a higher WP/death than their -¦ or lower WP/death than their -¦? Logic would dictate they would have a higher WP/death than their -¦, which means they're going to be matched against better opponents and it will be harder for them to pick off low HP players. Best PvE idea ever!

Vell0cet Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 2186	Posted - 2014.08.21 14:54:00 - [131] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 90 degree turn guys I am wondering where the overlap of squads and skill lies. Let's discuss in 2 categories, where A is a beast and B is "normal" Will a single A win 3B's or even 6B's 1A vs 2B 1A vs 3B 1A vs 4B 1A vs 5B 1A vs 6B 2A vs 4B 2A vs 5B 2A vs 6B 3A vs 5B 3A vs 6B 4A vs 6B Please answer with your gut, Y/N on each. These groups are squadded right? 1A vs 2B Y 1A vs 3B ? 1A vs 4B N 1A vs 5B N 1A vs 6B N 2A vs 4B Y 2A vs 5B ? 2A vs 6B N 3A vs 5B Y 3A vs 6B Y 4A vs 6B Y Best PvE idea ever!
Spademan The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 3162	Posted - 2014.08.21 14:59:00 - [132] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 90 degree turn guys I am wondering where the overlap of squads and skill lies. Let's discuss in 2 categories, where A is a beast and B is "normal" Will a single A win 3B's or even 6B's 1A vs 2B A wins 1A vs 3B B's win 1A vs 4B B's win 1A vs 5B B's win 1A vs 6B B's win 2A vs 4B A's win 2A vs 5B A's win 2A vs 6B B's win 3A vs 5B A's win 3A vs 6B A's win 4A vs 6B A's win Please answer with your gut, Y/N on each. My gut tells me that it'd be about 3 "Normals" to every 1 "Beast" I am part shovel, part man, full scout, and a little bit special. Official Time Lord of the Scout Community
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 17302	Posted - 2014.08.21 15:01:00 - [133] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 90 degree turn guys I am wondering where the overlap of squads and skill lies. Let's discuss in 2 categories, where A is a beast and B is "normal" Will a single A win 3B's or even 6B's 1A vs 2B 1A vs 3B 1A vs 4B 1A vs 5B 1A vs 6B 2A vs 4B 2A vs 5B 2A vs 6B 3A vs 5B 3A vs 6B 4A vs 6B Please answer with your gut, Y/N on each. I don't think it can be quantified that simply. There are such a huge number of possibilities in fights that it really can vary wildly depending on what's done. As someone who'd consider myself an 'A' category player (Last I checked my KDR was over 5) I know that it's not because I can take 5 people in a straight fight, it's because I avoid straight fights and look to give myself an advantage like flanking. That said, I would say with the high tier players it's not just a tactical sense that sets them apart but against randoms people can and will win against multiple targets in a straight fight. So in a straight fight, with everyone's gear equal, if you classify B category players as your average blue dot (I may be a little bit derisive of the qualities of the average blue dot) and A category players as killing machines who really know their stuff and are talking to each other, I'd say it'd go something along these lines: 1A vs 2B - A wins 1A vs 3B - Could go either way 1A vs 4B - B wins 1A vs 5B - B wins 1A vs 6B - B wins 2A vs 4B - A wins 2A vs 5B - A wins 2A vs 6B - Could go either way 3A vs 5B - A wins 3A vs 6B - A wins 4A vs 6B - A wins I think it's an unfair way of thinking about it like this though. Some 'beast' players according to your ranking system might well be top quality logis, in which case they may be much less likely to win a 2v1 but would help a lot if paired with another A grade player. And fights don't always happen straight on. Once you get a group of people who know what they're doing together, the force multiplier is staggering. When you can have scans, a logi, and a bunch of competent slayers then randoms just have no chance at all. Communication can have a drastic effect on a match. Immediately, people squadded up are much more likely to get flanking attacks while teammates distract the opponents, get intel so they themselves don't get flanked, as well as getting all the other bonuses of squad support. If you said that the A players were highly skilled but soloists (even when there are several in the same fight) and the B players were of average quality but working together, I'd say those matchups would go much closer to this: 1A vs 2B - A wins 1A vs 3B - B wins 1A vs 4B - B wins 1A vs 5B - B wins 1A vs 6B - B wins 2A vs 4B - A wins 2A vs 5B - B wins 2A vs 6B - B wins 3A vs 5B - I'd favour A 3A vs 6B - I'd favour B 4A vs 6B - Could go either way Those are just my estimations though and they're definitely not anything approaching rock paper scissors levels of certainty. As I said, things can change wildly in a fight and there are a huge number of factors. Couple of questions I have though. Would this ranking system contribute to a harsher jump from academy matches to normal matches? Newbies coming from the academy with a background in shooters will probably have an inflated KDR and high score when they come out of the academy. If they immediately get thrown into really high ranking matches I imagine that'd be extremely offputting. Would there be a way to 'buffer' those newbies against it? So, for example, if the way you did it went off the last ten matches done, could you have newbies automatically created with ten zero scoring matches? So then they get their high scoring couple of matches which takes them out of academy but because they have a buffer of at least 5 zero score matches they don't get immediately thrown to the wolves. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake. 'Lucent Echelon' - Gallente FW channel
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 4381	Posted - 2014.08.21 15:12:00 - [134] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Please answer with your gut, Y/N on each. 1A vs 2B - Y 1A vs 3B - N 1A vs 4B - N 1A vs 5B - N 1A vs 6B - N 2A vs 4B - Y 2A vs 5B - N 2A vs 6B - N 3A vs 5B - Y 3A vs 6B - Y 4A vs 6B - Y * Beasts exclude vehicles. For each ADS or HAV, "A Team" odds improve by no less than 50%. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 2284	Posted - 2014.08.21 15:32:00 - [135] - Quote Anything is possible, but if you're looking for consistent result averages? 1A vs 2B Yes 1A vs 3B Iffy 1A vs 4B No 1A vs 5B No 1A vs 6B No 2A vs 4B Yes 2A vs 5B Yes 2A vs 6B Iffy 3A vs 5B Yes 3A vs 6B Yes 4A vs 6B Yes I'm assuming encounters are in rapid succession or all together. 2-1 is infinitely doable when the targets cater to your strengths. 3-1 is tricky and 4-1 odds are pretty much the point where you're just getting focused down. But all of these scenarios can be beaten by a "Beast" player. Hell I've done some obnoxious things in the past at a rate of 6-1. It just doesn't happen often. There are outliers who CAN consistently beat 3-1 or 4-1 normal players, but they are outliers who crack the curve hard, and are the beast hiding among beasts.
ZDub 303 Escrow Removal and Acquisition Negative-Feedback 3219	Posted - 2014.08.21 16:03:00 - [136] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: ZDub 303 wrote: Vell0cet wrote: [Fair point. If -¦ becomes a point of pride, then it could actually reduce the number of players trying to sabotage matches. It's hard-to-say. I still think WPs/death is the way to go for matchmaking, after sleeping on it, which would bypass this entire problem. I've always agreed with you on that though, I was talking purely -¦ score though. How its calculated is another topic, of which I have posted my thoughts as well (that WP/D seems a fundamentally better metric than WP/s, despite the statistics saying otherwise). it has a lower correlation because of the low Mu bump in the chart, prompting my redline sniper theory. Any thoughts on that? Hm... I think your theory is correct. The question then lies... do redline snipers affect WP/D more than afk farming affects WP/s? The statistics would say the former, and I agree your theory is correct. Its probably not only redline snipers but anyone with that kind of preservationist mentality... which we can just lump into the 'redline sniper' catagory just fine. Just considering though, since you are sharing this information with the community, there will, as a result, be a section of the community that is already thinking about how to break your mechanic. Vellocet has also recognized this, and I do believe the feedback is more that WP/D is more robust against 'gaming the system' than WP/s would be. I can tell you (from experience) that afk farming is infinitely easier and more enjoyable than trying to increase your death count without generating warpoints. You could also, possibly, make it so that suicides are not counted as a death in the -¦ calculation whereby someone must actually spawn in and run themselves into reds over and over to decrease their -¦ score. This would result in a zero-sum (ish) kind of system where someone dropping their -¦ would result in several opponents receiving a slight bump in their -¦. Just a thought here... Can you remove the section of that correlation that you believe is caused by redline sniping and look at how the correlation coefficient changes as a result? B C R U are letters, not words - Wierd Al Yankovich
IgniteableAura Pro Hic Immortalis 1604	Posted - 2014.08.21 16:25:00 - [137] - Quote Basically I agree with what others are saying on a 3:1 odds. I think Arkena makes an important point. But if what you want is "100% chance of B level players winning a fight against A level players" it would be about a 3:1 odds. 2:1 is a 65% or lower. The racial preferences have less effect at higher odds, so at 2:1 it really depends on what roles the players are doing. Having a dedicated logi and heavy together would probably take out one or two level A players, even if the logi and heavy are level B. My Youtube Biomassed Podcast
Beren Hurin Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 2455	Posted - 2014.08.21 17:08:00 - [138] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 90 degree turn guys I am wondering where the overlap of squads and skill lies. Let's discuss in 2 categories, where A is a beast and B is "normal" Will a single A win 3B's or even 6B's 1A vs 2B 1A vs 3B 1A vs 4B 1A vs 5B 1A vs 6B 2A vs 4B 2A vs 5B 2A vs 6B 3A vs 5B 3A vs 6B 4A vs 6B Please answer with your gut, Y/N on each. The hockey stat "adjusted plus/minus" is an attempt to solve this problem. You can effectively look at a player's w/l rate both as a function of his squad's average mu and the opposing team's average/median mu. I would imagine that there are high performing players whose performance is unrelated to squad quality, but also those who are significantly boosted by squad quality. What it sounds like you are looking for is a weighting function that can account for a player's mu. IOW what is the 'strength' of a mu that is 1,2,or 3 standard deviations from the mean? You have to account also for players below the mean as well when balancing the team. Does a -1 sigma mu teammate cancel out a +1 sigma mu player? Do you need 3 x -1 sigma mu players to counter a +3 sigma mu player? Sigma mu would be a number of standard deviations that a player's mu is from the total population's average mu.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 4074	Posted - 2014.08.21 17:12:00 - [139] - Quote Let's discuss in 2 categories, where A is a beast and B is "normal" Will a single A win 3B's or even 6B's 1A vs 2B [Yes] 1A vs 3B [Maybe] 1A vs 4B [No] 1A vs 5B [No] 1A vs 6B [No] 2A vs 4B [Yes] 2A vs 5B [Maybe] 2A vs 6B [Maybe] 3A vs 5B [Yes] 3A vs 6B [Yes] 4A vs 6B [Yes] Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Vell0cet Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 2186	Posted - 2014.08.21 17:14:00 - [140] - Quote Beren Hurin wrote: Sigma mu would be a number of standard deviations that a player's mu is from the total population's average mu. Either that or the name of a very lame fraternity. Sorry I couldn't resist. You actually make some good points. Best PvE idea ever!

Kevall Longstride DUST University Ivy League 1580	Posted - 2014.08.21 17:16:00 - [141] - Quote I'd also say a 2.5/3 to 1 ratio. But I'd add a modifier for those working together in a squad. CPM 1 member CEO of DUST University Vist dustcpm.com
Soulja Ghostface 2627	Posted - 2014.08.21 17:21:00 - [142] - Quote In new eden, isk is more important than death. Average Isk destroyed, isk gained and isk lossed should come into equation. Bring These Back Tanker Turned Ads Pilot
IgniteableAura Pro Hic Immortalis 1606	Posted - 2014.08.21 19:07:00 - [143] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: I'd also say a 2.5/3 to 1 ratio. But I'd add a modifier for those working together in a squad. Kevall, I agree with a 2.5:1 ratio, but do we always want the B players winning (3:1)? I think a 2.5:1 would be better as it allows some leeway into winning the engagement. We don't want to make it so A list players are always losing engagements. My Youtube Biomassed Podcast
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 17331	Posted - 2014.08.21 22:09:00 - [144] - Quote IgniteableAura wrote: Kevall Longstride wrote: I'd also say a 2.5/3 to 1 ratio. But I'd add a modifier for those working together in a squad. Kevall, I agree with a 2.5:1 ratio, but do we always want the B players winning (3:1)? I think a 2.5:1 would be better as it allows some leeway into winning the engagement. We don't want to make it so A list players are always losing engagements. I'm a little dubious of the idea that A list players would 'always be losing engagements' if they couldn't win a 3v1. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake. 'Lucent Echelon' - Gallente FW channel
SponkSponkSponk The Southern Legion Final Resolution. 1013	Posted - 2014.08.21 23:17:00 - [145] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Once you get a group of people who know what they're doing together, the force multiplier is staggering. This is the crux of the matter. Squads improve the performance of each squad member in a way that increases geometrically as squad size increases, with a bias towards propping up weaker players rather than letting an already-good player excel. Dust/Eve transfers
ZDub 303 Escrow Removal and Acquisition Negative-Feedback 3220	Posted - 2014.08.22 01:58:00 - [146] - Quote Gear and SP are going to be a strong bias in this 'A vs B' debate as well. Is the A player always using proto? Are the B players always in STD gear? How much average SP would each type of character have? I'm not sure you can made an absolute quantity with this... if anything 2-3 is probably appropriate... B C R U are letters, not words - Wierd Al Yankovich
SponkSponkSponk The Southern Legion Final Resolution. 1014	Posted - 2014.08.22 04:37:00 - [147] - Quote ZDub 303 wrote: Gear and SP are going to be a strong bias in this 'A vs B' debate as well. Maybe, maybe not. I suspect that gear choice will largely be a reactive thing; you'll have your favourite suit for the occasion, and only up-suit or down-suit based on what's happening (i.e. if you're rolling with a strong squad, you'll up-suit to proto because you die less often so why not?, and if you're getting crushed already, you'll down suit accordingly). If you're someone who always runs $TIER no matter what, then that's reflected in your stats already. Dust/Eve transfers

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 5592	Posted - 2014.08.22 07:21:00 - [148] - Quote Don't worry about the A/B thing too much, I was just wondering. Maybe I should have put it differently. If you want to win a battle, would you prefer the squads of A or B on your team 1A vs 2B - 1A 1A vs 3B - 1A 1A vs 4B - 4B 1A vs 5B - 5B 1A vs 6B - 6B 2A vs 4B - 2A 2A vs 5B - ? 2A vs 6B - ? 3A vs 5B - 3A 3A vs 6B - 3A 4A vs 6B - 4A what I am trying to see is when does relative quality outweigh the "multiplying" power effect of a squad "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Haerr Legio DXIV 1221	Posted - 2014.08.22 07:52:00 - [149] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Don't worry about the A/B thing too much, I was just wondering. Maybe I should have put it differently. If you want to win a battle, would you prefer the squads of A or B on your team what I am trying to see is when does relative quality outweigh the "multiplying" power effect of a squad Are you considering the negative morale effect of having many badberries on a team? I have seen very decent players say fuck it and do silly shit when there are to many badberries on their side. It gets especially bad when you see ~3-4 Starter Sniper fits (Speaking of which can you just delete the Starter Sniper fits?) in the same location as the reaction is "our team is X men down, we can't possibly win". Any how: 1A vs 2B - 1A 1A vs 3B - 1A 1A vs 4B - 4B 1A vs 5B - 5B 1A vs 6B - 6B 2A vs 4B - 2A 2A vs 5B - 5B - Depending on the rest of the team... (Assuming the rest of the teams is C players...) 2A vs 6B - 6B 3A vs 5B - 3A 3A vs 6B - 3A 4A vs 6B - 4A
Vell0cet Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 2193	Posted - 2014.08.22 08:05:00 - [150] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Don't worry about the A/B thing too much, I was just wondering. Maybe I should have put it differently. If you want to win a battle, would you prefer the squads of A or B on your team 1A vs 2B - 1A 1A vs 3B - 1A 1A vs 4B - 4B 1A vs 5B - 5B 1A vs 6B - 6B 2A vs 4B - 2A 2A vs 5B - ? 2A vs 6B - ? 3A vs 5B - 3A 3A vs 6B - 3A 4A vs 6B - 4A what I am trying to see is when does relative quality outweigh the "multiplying" power effect of a squad It would really help to have a "user story" for A and B. There are some players who are so good just having them on your team virtually guarantees a win unless there is a very solid squad on the other side. Best PvE idea ever!

Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 4400	Posted - 2014.08.22 12:27:00 - [151] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: It would really help to have a "user story" for A and B. There are some players who are so good just having them on your team virtually guarantees a win unless there is a very solid squad on the other side. Scotty is rather bland soul, always demanding boring things like "quantitative input values" and the like. Try as we may, we've yet to teach Scotty to appreciate story time. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
I-Shayz-I I----------I 4659	Posted - 2014.08.22 12:46:00 - [152] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Don't worry about the A/B thing too much, I was just wondering. Maybe I should have put it differently. If you want to win a battle, would you prefer the squads of A or B on your team? what I am trying to see is when does relative quality outweigh the "multiplying" power effect of a squad I can pretty much say right now that I can win a Caldari FW (possibly the hardest matches to win) with 2 other "A" randoms in my squad and 13 blue dots, even if the enemy had 2 full squads of B players (I'm considering bluedots to be below "normal" or average) Having A players on your team will always win you the match, no matter how many B players are on the other team. In a individual fight it's different...but as for overall quality and effectiveness, an A player will always be better than six B players. Unless your blue dots are SO terrible that they clone your team out even though you managed to 4-cap the enemy team at the last second and gain the objective lead. _______________________________________________________________________________ When I form squads for pub matches, I'm pretty cruel when it comes to who gets to stay in my squad. I will instantly kick anyone who can't manage 500 wp, and sometimes I'll just end up kicking the player who scored the lowest below 1000. This is generally my personal way of judging someone's skill right off the bat. Players below 1000 wp are blue dots, players above or right around that are B players. I generally find that even when playing in random squads of normal players, I could still do 10x better when playing with just one other guy. Here's a video for an example: http://youtu.be/lVy580UFMsA No matter what though, it's nice to have someone else in the squad that is actually doing **. Because I can't tell you how many times I've played matches where I hacked the objectives probably 20-30 times, and only saw them being hacked by someone else once or twice. Even "normal" players tend to just want to camp high points rather than fighting your way down with a heavy or a scout...or even just running in with a hacker fit to take the objective so that the enemy can't spawn in for a few seconds. "normal" players don't think the same ways or are able to do the same drastic things as us A players in order to win. 7162 wp with a Repair Tool! List of Legion Feedback Threads!**
ZDub 303 Escrow Removal and Acquisition Negative-Feedback 3220	Posted - 2014.08.22 13:34:00 - [153] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Don't worry about the A/B thing too much, I was just wondering. Maybe I should have put it differently. If you want to win a battle, would you prefer the squads of A or B on your team what I am trying to see is when does relative quality outweigh the "multiplying" power effect of a squad Okay... that is much better worded. Would I be happier to see a squad of [X] at the beginning of battle on my screen. Where A is a well known corp of skilled players and B is not a well known corp of likely average players. In that case... my response is: 1A vs 2B - 1A 1A vs 3B - 3B 1A vs 4B - 4B 1A vs 5B - 5B 1A vs 6B - 6B 2A vs 4B - 2A 2A vs 5B - 5B 2A vs 6B - 6B 3A vs 5B - 3A 3A vs 6B - 3A 4A vs 6B - 4A B C R U are letters, not words - Wierd Al Yankovich
IgniteableAura Pro Hic Immortalis 1614	Posted - 2014.08.22 15:19:00 - [154] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Don't worry about the A/B thing too much, I was just wondering. Maybe I should have put it differently. If you want to win a battle, would you prefer the squads of A or B on your team 1A vs 2B - 1A 1A vs 3B - 1A 1A vs 4B - 4B 1A vs 5B - 5B 1A vs 6B - 6B 2A vs 4B - 2A 2A vs 5B - ? 2A vs 6B - ? 3A vs 5B - 3A 3A vs 6B - 3A 4A vs 6B - 4A what I am trying to see is when does relative quality outweigh the "multiplying" power effect of a squad I need a definition of A vs B. If B is for the B in a bluedot, than I would rather have the A on my team for all of those examples. On any given battle I lose, I can usually count at least 4 to 5 players at the bottom of the leaderboard that basically lost us the game. Going 2-20, 1-11, 0-13 with less than 200wp each. My Youtube Biomassed Podcast
Lloyd Orfay Commando Perkone Caldari State 38	Posted - 2014.08.22 16:33:00 - [155] - Quote Neat. One issue though that I would see for some rearrangements is snipers and scouts. The issue being that there is a possibility for both things to have not an effective restraint on potential statistical scores. The way I see it is that scouts and snipers have a bit of too much damage dealing potential, and a bit too much free agent potential. What I mean by that is a majority of them can have their gameplay easier than others since they do not have to rely on other players as much as other players may need to. Maybe a slight re-purposing for these two could help? The only suits functional for good gameplay are logistics and sentinels, so rent your meat shield today!
Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 2147	Posted - 2014.08.22 18:35:00 - [156] - Quote Looking good Rattati. As a registered protostomper, any improvement to the matchmaking algorithms (or logarithms) will be greatly appreciated, and will make this game much more enjoyable "Minmitar Scout" and "Masochist" are synonyms. FA's Shotgunning T-Dome Champ Give the Minja active dampening!--By Bor
Vell0cet Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 2195	Posted - 2014.08.22 19:40:00 - [157] - Quote It just occurred to me that this might be the perfect candidate for A/B testing. You could run this with a few different values for the squad modifier, define some parameters for a close match (health of winning MCC is low, difference in clone count is small), and then run the various versions. See which yields the closest matches after a week or two and lock in those values. It's a bit more work to code, but not that crazy. Best PvE idea ever!
aaaasdff ertgfdd 233	Posted - 2014.08.22 20:19:00 - [158] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Hey players, this is more of a chat and sharing session than anything else, so please treat it as such. To recap some of the things I have shared in the past. 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. Now to the data. I have been working with a big sample of player data, testing multiple theories, some from the forums (WP/Death), the ever classic K/D of course and a time based WP/second and the results are very promising. DATA By creating buckets of Mu, I can calculate the three ratios of the players within each those Mu buckets and create a correlation table against Mu. That Correlation is then shown graphically on the top Chart. Seeing that two of them are obviously logarithmic in nature, I normalize with the log function and get the bottom chart, Normalized Correlation. Calculating and also just analyzing the graphs, we find that the correlation between WP/s and Mu is a towering 99%, and a bit lower for the other two, but still statistically very relevant. It basically means that all of them could be used in place of Mu in the beginning while Mu converges, and even in place of Mu overall. Now, our next step is to implement a better use of this data. One simple way would be to say, instead of exiting the Academy at an earned WP basis, it's not until you actually reach a minimum threshold of WP/s. It is also imperative to utilize this information more during the teambuilding part of the matchmaker. In any sport, if the two best players are on the opposite side, everyone, even the bad players, can have fun and be inspired by the good players. If both of them are on the same side, nobody has fun. I hope you enjoyed this little insight piece 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. I will not pretend to understand your theory, anamoly, or math. I do understand games though. So here is a very simple solution to matchmaking if you can select for these. WARPOINTS PER GAME, should be easy, a running average. KILLS PER GAME, not kd just kills per game, running average. I think that these 2 numbers averaged out player vs player or averaged out sqd vs sqd with the computer trying to put the 2 closest together. So for example if my wp per game average was 1200 and my kills per game average was 17 then there would be 2 numbers associated with my character 1200, 17 you would then match me or my squad to someone similar..... My thoughts. INFINITE DIVERSITY IDIC/ Peaceful Pirate No Dagger Just Swagger/ Num1 AHole in Dust/ Politically Incorrect MAN
aaaasdff ertgfdd 233	Posted - 2014.08.22 20:30:00 - [159] - Quote Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p wrote: Looking good Rattati. As a registered protostomper, any improvement to the matchmaking algorithms (or logarithms) will be greatly appreciated, and will make this game much more enjoyable When proto squads go against other proto squads one squad usually stops protostomping. Sometimes they even agree to fight at diffrent points so as to avoid each other. Other times they leave or afk. If proto squads have to face real competition my guess is they wont be as likely to protostomp. Most people protostomp noobs. I have seen FA squads put on there cheap gear after getting there initial proto suits wrecked.... People dont protostomp in pubs because they want good competition, if they wanted a good fight they would put on militia fits and run solo, or put some noobs in there squad. Squads who protostomp do so because they are losers that like to chase kills in the redline..... INFINITE DIVERSITY IDIC/ Peaceful Pirate No Dagger Just Swagger/ Num1 AHole in Dust/ Politically Incorrect MAN
Private Part's sticky green's 1	Posted - 2014.08.22 22:18:00 - [160] - Quote Why not just a win loss ratio? this will promote team play squading and running with your corp.

Vell0cet Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 2195	Posted - 2014.08.23 02:22:00 - [161] - Quote Private Part's wrote: Why not just a win loss ratio? this will promote team play squading and running with your corp. Because you'll get douchbags trying everything they can to make their team loose just so they can have easier matches. Best PvE idea ever!
iKILLu osborne Dead Man's Game 196	Posted - 2014.08.23 04:40:00 - [162] - Quote oh dear lord scotty is ditching that ged and getting a college diploma, congrats scotty. i have a question sensai rattati, i have a tanker alt, that some matches go 3000+wp and then some matches i go 700wp, would that wp/s between the two make a huge diffrence in my "mu" to the point of me stomping the crap out of the next match, or would my "mu" consistently go down in small increments if i continually did poorly? i also seen in a comment of yours about penalising afk'ers/leavers. Some players leave matches cause the map doesn't support their main role (tanker,sniper,sentinel, etc.) so i would suggest not penalising those that leave at the start of it. and of course don't penalise players when they dc. now afk'ers i say make them burn in hell. "uh guys" "i got to go back to the depot that installation made me crap my dropsuit"
Private Part's sticky green's 1	Posted - 2014.08.23 22:14:00 - [163] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: Private Part's wrote: Why not just a win loss ratio? this will promote team play squading and running with your corp. Because you'll get douchbags trying everything they can to make their team loose just so they can have easier matches. Then the D bag will drop in rank and eventually be at the bottom of the barrel with super scrubs and other D bags like them selves then all it takes is for the scrubs or new players at the bottom rank to use team work or squad up till they get a ranking where they can play with others who want a serious match. Well that's my thoughts on the matter but i could be wrong since I don't play many competitive games
Celus Ivara DUST University Ivy League 231	Posted - 2014.08.24 00:08:00 - [164] - Quote Very happy to see matchmaking being addressed, Rattati. :) Regarding how much squad size effects the squad Mu multiplier, I feel that there is (as others have pointed out) a geometric growth for how many people are in the squad, but only for the first several members. That is to say, while the value from the 4th player is a lot more than the 3rd player, a 6 person squad is only a bit better than a 5 person squad. (Keep in mind I mean this as "How good is a 6 person squad vs a 5 person squad with a 6th unsquaded player of same skill in Team?"). If I had to guess at the curve, it'd be something like this: (100-¦ level players, for easy math) Sqd count x 100-¦ = Total squad -¦ = -¦ per member = -¦PM difference between tiers 1 x 100-¦ = 100-¦ = 100-¦ = ... 2 x 100-¦ = 240-¦ = 120-¦ = 20-¦ 3 x 100-¦ = 450-¦ = 150-¦ = 30-¦ 4 x 100-¦ = 800-¦ = 200-¦ = 50-¦ 5 x 100-¦ = 1150-¦ = 230-¦ = 30-¦ 6 x 100-¦ = 1500-¦ = 250-¦ = 20-¦ My presumption about the underlying dynamic is less that the 6th person isn't useful, and more that there is a critical mass event at about 4 people. 2-3 people in squad is just a voice chat for buds playing a game. But at 4-5 people, the squad firstly has enough people to have a mixed-arms/mixed-roles effect, and secondly has a moral boost (players stop "playing for fun" and start "playing to win"). A final note: I'd postulate there's a sliding scale to when the "squad effect" happens depending on player skill. Like, I've seen vets become M'F'ers as early as 3 people; while newbies seem to sometimes need 5 or even 6 people before any large benefit from the squad shows. This is all gut-think/experienced-guess, though; I have no idea what the metrics show. :\
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 4380	Posted - 2014.08.26 02:43:00 - [165] - Quote This stuff gets a little more in depth than I care to delve, but from what I'm seeing this sounds great! I doubt it will go over well, but I'd like to see a slight ISK multiplier for those with a higher rank. For no other reason than to see people try harder. Level 4 Forum Warrior Very, very bitter vet PSN: wbrom42
Haerr Legio DXIV 1252	Posted - 2014.08.26 08:25:00 - [166] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: -snip--snip--snip- I want to implement a punishment for ... leaving battle ... Please do not punish us for leaving games that are just about to end. Some of us just wants to skip the victory screen and scoreboard so that we can quickly get into the next match. Now posting a cow to convince you that this is a valid point. .........(__) .........(oo) .../------\/ ../..\|....\|\| .*../\---/\ ...~~..~~ Maybe we can get an option to opt out of the victory screen and scoreboard? Maybe it would be easier if Scotty put us right back in the queue as soon as the match ended? That way we could go from the victory screen directly into the next match. This SCOTTY has Super Cow Powers.
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 4381	Posted - 2014.08.26 14:47:00 - [167] - Quote Haerr wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: -snip--snip--snip- I want to implement a punishment for ... leaving battle ... Please do not punish us for leaving games that are just about to end. Some of us just wants to skip the victory screen and scoreboard so that we can quickly get into the next match. Maybe we can get an option to opt out of the victory screen and scoreboard? Maybe it would be easier if Scotty put us right back in the queue as soon as the match ended? That way we could go from the victory screen directly into the next match. Edit: Perhaps you could change ambush to have a "continual queue" which skips the Merc Quarters and holds you on the victory screen until Scotty can put you into the next ambush match? I don't think you can punish people from leaving battles. I don't want to snipe beside 15 blueberries in the redline. Level 4 Forum Warrior Very, very bitter vet PSN: wbrom42
Ansla Valier One Corps 0	Posted - 2014.08.26 17:48:00 - [168] - Quote Makes sense to me. Lots of good points on squads too. I think using Mu will probably be a big improvement on the current system regardless of how it's implemented. The only thing I don't see any of these proposed solutions fixing is this situation. A player quits game or loses connection when their team is doing badly (MCC is nearly destroyed, team has almost no clones or team has objectives). I get deployed to this game. In this situation I'm basically being handed a loss that affects my stats but also isn't my fault. I'm not sure how to fix that besides just letting the losing team lose. I don't mean for all games but if they have 4 clones left and the winning team has 150 there is no way I should be put in that battle. Most of my time will be spent connecting, earning a loss before spawning, viewing the stats, going back to headquarters and having to get into a new match. Little bit of a tangent but it's directly related to "Player Statistics, their Rank and Matchmaking" so I thought I'd add it. It would also help improve Mu since Win/Loss ratio would be more accurate.
Vell0cet Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 2205	Posted - 2014.08.26 18:07:00 - [169] - Quote Ansla Valier wrote: Makes sense to me. Lots of good points on squads too. I think using Mu will probably be a big improvement on the current system regardless of how it's implemented. The only thing I don't see any of these proposed solutions fixing is this situation. A player quits game or loses connection when their team is doing badly (MCC is nearly destroyed, team has almost no clones or team has objectives). I get deployed to this game. In this situation I'm basically being handed a loss that affects my stats but also isn't my fault. I'm not sure how to fix that besides just letting the losing team lose. I don't mean for all games but if they have 4 clones left and the winning team has 150 there is no way I should be put in that battle. Most of my time will be spent connecting, earning a loss before spawning, viewing the stats, going back to headquarters and having to get into a new match. Little bit of a tangent but it's directly related to "Player Statistics, their Rank and Matchmaking" so I thought I'd add it. It would also help improve Mu since Win/Loss ratio would be more accurate. This would be solved by using WPs/Death for Mu. And also by not putting players in matches that are nearly over, which is something CCP Rattati said he want to fix. Best PvE idea ever!
Hand Fap Kirkinen Risk Control Caldari State 33	Posted - 2014.08.26 20:15:00 - [170] - Quote Celus Ivara wrote: Very happy to see matchmaking being addressed, Rattati. :) Regarding how much squad size effects the squad Mu multiplier, I feel that there is (as others have pointed out) a geometric growth for how many people are in the squad, but only for the first several members. That is to say, while the value from the 4th player is a lot more than the 3rd player, a 6 person squad is only a bit better than a 5 person squad. (Keep in mind I mean this as "How good is a 6 person squad vs a 5 person squad with a 6th unsquaded player of same skill in Team?"). If I had to guess at the curve, it'd be something like this: (100-¦ level players, for easy math) Sqd count x 100-¦ = Total squad -¦ = -¦ per member = -¦PM difference between tiers 1 x 100-¦ = 100-¦ = 100-¦ = ... 2 x 100-¦ = 240-¦ = 120-¦ = 20-¦ 3 x 100-¦ = 450-¦ = 150-¦ = 30-¦ 4 x 100-¦ = 800-¦ = 200-¦ = 50-¦ 5 x 100-¦ = 1150-¦ = 230-¦ = 30-¦ 6 x 100-¦ = 1500-¦ = 250-¦ = 20-¦ My presumption about the underlying dynamic is less that the 6th person isn't useful, and more that there is a critical-mass event at about 4 people. 2-3 people in squad is just a voice chat for buds playing a game. But at 4-5 people, the squad firstly has enough people to have a mixed-arms/mixed-roles effect, and secondly has a moral boost (players stop "playing for fun" and start "playing to win"). A final note: I'd postulate there's a sliding scale to when the "squad effect" happens, depending on player skill. Like, I've seen vets become M'F'ers as early as 3 people; while newbies seem to sometimes need 5 or even 6 people before any large benefit from the squad shows. This is all gut-think/experienced-guess, though; I have no idea what the metrics show. :\ wow instead of getting good yall waste your time doing math. I like match making getting addressed for new players but others that have been here longer since uprising have no excuse and some are just flat out shielding themselves away from competition.

Vell0cet Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 2206	Posted - 2014.08.26 20:53:00 - [171] - Quote Hand Fap wrote: wow instead of getting good yall waste your time doing math. I like match making getting addressed for new players but others that have been here longer since uprising have no excuse and some are just flat out shielding themselves away from competition. I prefer close matches. That means Scotty creating roughly equal teams playing each other. This isn't about "getting good" it's about having more matches come down to the last few clones, or last few bars of health on the MCC. Frankly I'm baffled that anyone could be against that. Best PvE idea ever!
Celus Ivara DUST University Ivy League 232	Posted - 2014.08.27 04:18:00 - [172] - Quote Hand Fap wrote: Celus Ivara wrote: Very happy to see matchmaking being addressed, Rattati. :) Regarding how much squad size effects the squad Mu multiplier, I feel that there is (as others have pointed out) a geometric growth for how many people are in the squad, but only for the first several members. That is to say, while the value from the 4th player is a lot more than the 3rd player, a 6 person squad is only a bit better than a 5 person squad. (Keep in mind I mean this as "How good is a 6 person squad vs a 5 person squad with a 6th unsquaded player of same skill in Team?"). If I had to guess at the curve, it'd be something like this: (100-¦ level players, for easy math) Sqd count x 100-¦ = Total squad -¦ = -¦ per member = -¦PM difference between tiers 1 x 100-¦ = 100-¦ = 100-¦ = ... 2 x 100-¦ = 240-¦ = 120-¦ = 20-¦ 3 x 100-¦ = 450-¦ = 150-¦ = 30-¦ 4 x 100-¦ = 800-¦ = 200-¦ = 50-¦ 5 x 100-¦ = 1150-¦ = 230-¦ = 30-¦ 6 x 100-¦ = 1500-¦ = 250-¦ = 20-¦ My presumption about the underlying dynamic is less that the 6th person isn't useful, and more that there is a critical-mass event at about 4 people. 2-3 people in squad is just a voice chat for buds playing a game. But at 4-5 people, the squad firstly has enough people to have a mixed-arms/mixed-roles effect, and secondly has a moral boost (players stop "playing for fun" and start "playing to win"). A final note: I'd postulate there's a sliding scale to when the "squad effect" happens, depending on player skill. Like, I've seen vets become M'F'ers as early as 3 people; while newbies seem to sometimes need 5 or even 6 people before any large benefit from the squad shows. This is all gut-think/experienced-guess, though; I have no idea what the metrics show. :\ wow instead of getting good yall waste your time doing math. I like match making getting addressed for new players but others that have been here longer since uprising have no excuse and some are just flat out shielding themselves away from competition. I'm sorry, I think we have a few layers of communication errors happening between us. I don't 100% understand your statement, and from I can surmise, I'm pretty sure you're misunderstanding my mine. To clarify, my intent is to help the community/CCP improve matchmaking; which would lead to closer, better fights for everyone. Basically the opposite of trying to be shielded away from competition. ;)
Duke Noobiam S.e.V.e.N. General Tso's Alliance 142	Posted - 2014.08.27 19:08:00 - [173] - Quote Thanks Rattati, Here are my comments. 0. Great analysis, thanks for sharing, it's comforting to know that CCP has been doing some match making and that improvements are possible. 1. Assuming that MU is mostly based on wins and time in battle (as you specified), the corollary between wp/s and MU shows that CCP did a great job weighing and determining the value of WPs for actions in battle. + 1 for CCP. 2. Why not use WP/S instead of MU? As you mentioned, such a directly proportional relationship between MU and WP/S means you could simply use WP/S instead of MU. You mentioned that you could use KD/R or WP/D as well, but these don't align perfectly at the beginning of the curve (for the redline snipers) so WP/S is better. Your MU is obviously a very reliable value (and if nothing else it has shown that WP/S is the best replacement to MU) so keeping it has some merit. However, you might want to differ to WP/s in some cases (as in #3 below). 3. Remaining in the academy until a certain WP/S threshold is a good idea but it introduces a little quirk. Your MU is only valid within a specific community of players. A longer academy means that there would be 2 player bases so that MUs from the academy could not be compared to MUs from the non-academy. I'm sure you understand this as it is also true for Chess / Backgammon ELO ratings and it is due to the fact that the rating is determined on wins and losses within a set player base. This means that when players will leave the academy, their MU will be too high and they will get stomped. I believe that the difference in player strength between the 2 player bases would equate much better if you used WP/s instead of MU. So I would propose leaving players in the academy until they reach a specific WP/s threshold. Once they reach this threshold and move to the regular player base, then their MU should be changed to a value that maps to the Wp/s of the non-academy players. Example: Player A has a MU of 50 and has finally reached the WP/s threshold to leave the academy (let's assume that the threshold is 2 WP/s). When this player enters in the regular player base his MU is set to 15 which is the corresponding value for 2 WP/s in the regular community as is demonstrated in your graph. 4 One way to have MU converge more quickly to its true value is to take strength of opponent into account when modifying the rating after a match. You may already be doing this, if not it could be food for thought. 5. I agree that a multiplier for MU is required when players are in squads. A few good ideas have been suggested (Fibonacci sequence, Square root of number of players in squad). I also think that teams should have the same number of squads (or best that can be done) and that squad strength should be compared (you alluded to this in some of your posts) when assigning squads to teams. How do you kill that which has no life?
Bayeth Mal OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1305	Posted - 2014.08.27 19:13:00 - [174] - Quote Since this got buried in the garbage posts early on I'll repost as I don't think my question was answered. Bayeth Mal wrote: 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 Though that could have the effect of Nyan San ending up with a permanent +25% to their Mu. Oh well 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. Edit: just noticed you said Mu is lifetime. That's maybe not a good idea. Playing sentinel and scout for so long during uprising left me with disproportionally low stats. I could now proto stomp to my hearts content and not even make a dent in my stats before xmas. Also if I was some very high KD etc player, making some "lol fits" (NK sentinel etc) would be unnecessarily punishing. A short term multiplier could help off set this. Perhaps you could game it but if designed well you could have it so you'd have to throw 3 games to stomp in 1. e.g. If you go down in Mu and then immediately dominate Mu is reversed back to prior value. We'll bang, OK?

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 5887	Posted - 2014.08.28 08:40:00 - [175] - Quote Bayeth, Duke Noobiam, both excellent contributions to the conversation. In particular the worry that a graduated Academy player will have inflated MU compared to post-academy MU's. Something to keep an eye out for, I will see what can be done about resetting the MU to a lower MU. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 2356	Posted - 2014.08.28 12:03:00 - [176] - Quote Here is a hilarious question, since I suck at reading statistics... What is the average WP/D range for most players, what is the average WP/SEC? Where do the high performers start to pull away? How much does fitting type seem to affect either?
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 2356	Posted - 2014.08.28 12:07:00 - [177] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Bayeth, Duke Noobiam, both excellent contributions to the conversation. In particular the worry that a graduated Academy player will have inflated MU compared to post-academy MU's. Something to keep an eye out for, I will see what can be done about resetting the MU to a lower MU. Why not just reset it to the baseline for entry into pubs? 25 I believe it was? That way they can rise or fall based on ttheir skill level organically and not be subjected to the absolute fun of someone like me saying "welcome to DUST" with a boundless, viziam or duvolle?
ladwar SHAKING BABIES FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE 2079	Posted - 2014.08.29 00:57:00 - [178] - Quote So a boost to sp per wp to 3 is in order so the average player can beat the passive ingame 5per second game last. Yes? actually reward players 4 doing stuff more then not getting kicked out. Level 2 Forum Warrior, bitter vet. I shall smite Thy Trolls with numbers and truth doing reviews in free time, want 1?
SponkSponkSponk The Southern Legion Final Resolution. 1023	Posted - 2014.08.29 04:09:00 - [179] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Here is a hilarious question, since I suck at reading statistics... What is the average WP/D range for most players, what is the average WP/SEC? 'normal' is 0.92KDR, 35.6WP/D at a rate of 2.4WP/s Normal being defined as about 2/3 of all players are in this band. Quote: Where do the high performers start to pull away? 'slightly better than normal is 1.37KDR, 60WP/D at a rate of 3.7WP/s (one tier above normal) I would say 'almost good' is 2.08KDR, 93WP/D at a rate of 5.2WP/s (two tiers above normal, this is where I am BTW) 'good' is 2.63KDR, 117WP/D at a rate of 6.1WP/s (three tiers above normal) Past that is 'seriously good', of varying levels of seriousness. http://i.imgur.com/7QRiR7K.png Quote: How much does fitting type seem to affect either? Not tracked, who knows? Dust/Eve transfers
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 2389	Posted - 2014.08.29 15:27:00 - [180] - Quote so what would my .99 KDR, and right around 98 WP/Death say to you? I did the math on WP/Death early last week. too lazy to do it again. Hint: I run AV primary/HMG secondary/all else tertiary so my results are skewed off the norm.

RKKR The Southern Legion Final Resolution. 1016	Posted - 2014.08.30 12:39:00 - [181] - Quote Sooooo if you finally are putting the work in balanced matchmaking and thinking about punishing leaving battles, does that mean your going to implement a better AFK-system too?/ no more joining battles that are already over?
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 2448	Posted - 2014.08.30 15:11:00 - [182] - Quote It wouldn't be as bad getting dropped into a match that was in progress if you got a multiplier on SP/ISK for being put into a late game based on clone count/MCC health drops. I mean You lose out when you join a game in progress at ANY stage unless it's like one bar into the MCCs
Luther Mandrix WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL Top Men. 357	Posted - 2014.08.31 09:57:00 - [183] - Quote 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. So Qsyning in pubs will be harder ,I hope you can get Team vs team deploy in FW.We want to run with our prople and more than one squad.
The-Errorist SVER True Blood 806	Posted - 2014.09.01 19:14:00 - [184] - Quote Have you seen my formula? There's a nice interactive spreadsheet inside and it has lots of examples. MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill. http://vimeo.com/93181621


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.