DUST Search - Matchmaking feedback

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Matchmaking feedback

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 539	Posted - 2014.09.18 12:11:00 - [31] - Quote Best matches I've had in a long time. Sure we get afk guys but it doesn't matter. We win anyways. Battles may look one sided, such as one team dominating control points, but the clone counts are so close that I routinely order my squad to carry needle and at some points not spawn at all so we can clone the other team before they clone us. Proto stompers have been getting man handled. I've never seen them lose so many suits before. Of course, I ran a match in a BPO suit with a std RR and no damage mods and went 43-3... So idk just how well the match making is currently working.
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. 2141	Posted - 2014.09.18 12:20:00 - [32] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: TheD1CK wrote: Overall, not much has changed, though teams 'look' more even, I think the matchmaking is better But exactly what CUSE points out, balancing the teams in terms of 'MU' leaves a hole where You have mercs that don't contribute unless there team is winning, But thats unavoidable Teams on the scoresheet look closer and 'some' of the battles played today and yesterday have been good, So something is definetly working out there Rattati... Just one flaw I have noticed.. AFKers Since the update, more than half the games I am in have a matching number of AFKers (or close to) Is this intended ? to not allow one team be weighed down by them? but then both teams are burdened Has anyone else noticed this flaw? I am setting up an AFK taskforce to tackle this situation, players who get kicked for AFKing, get AFK warnings and otherwise demonstrate serial AFK behaviour will get some kind of attention. We also want to change the passive ISK and SP generation to reflect contribution to battle, i.e. WP more closely ty Rattati, I've been waiting for two years to read this post. "Heres the deal, in the 40s there was Normandy today you got punks, some need culling real bad." --Truth Logi for Hire
Vell0cet Vengeance Unbound Dark Taboo 2259	Posted - 2014.09.18 14:29:00 - [33] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: TheD1CK wrote: Overall, not much has changed, though teams 'look' more even, I think the matchmaking is better But exactly what CUSE points out, balancing the teams in terms of 'MU' leaves a hole where You have mercs that don't contribute unless there team is winning, But thats unavoidable Teams on the scoresheet look closer and 'some' of the battles played today and yesterday have been good, So something is definetly working out there Rattati... Just one flaw I have noticed.. AFKers Since the update, more than half the games I am in have a matching number of AFKers (or close to) Is this intended ? to not allow one team be weighed down by them? but then both teams are burdened Has anyone else noticed this flaw? I am setting up an AFK taskforce to tackle this situation, players who get kicked for AFKing, get AFK warnings and otherwise demonstrate serial AFK behaviour will get some kind of attention. We also want to change the passive ISK and SP generation to reflect contribution to battle, i.e. WP more closely How to fight rubber-band AFKers: on the server, poll player inputs. If they're constant then player is AFK. To save resources, poll every player every 30 seconds or so. If input is constant between 30 sec intervals, set AFK_suspicion_flag = true. When this is set to true, poll input every second for 10 seconds. If all 10 polls have exactly the same input, boot the player. Best PvE idea ever!
REDBACK96USMC Ghosts of Dawn General Tso's Alliance 51	Posted - 2014.09.18 16:04:00 - [34] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: TheD1CK wrote: Overall, not much has changed, though teams 'look' more even, I think the matchmaking is better But exactly what CUSE points out, balancing the teams in terms of 'MU' leaves a hole where You have mercs that don't contribute unless there team is winning, But thats unavoidable Teams on the scoresheet look closer and 'some' of the battles played today and yesterday have been good, So something is definetly working out there Rattati... Just one flaw I have noticed.. AFKers Since the update, more than half the games I am in have a matching number of AFKers (or close to) Is this intended ? to not allow one team be weighed down by them? but then both teams are burdened Has anyone else noticed this flaw? I am setting up an AFK taskforce to tackle this situation, players who get kicked for AFKing, get AFK warnings and otherwise demonstrate serial AFK behaviour will get some kind of attention. We also want to change the passive ISK and SP generation to reflect contribution to battle, i.e. WP more closely How to fight rubber-band AFKers: on the server, poll player inputs. If they're constant then player is AFK. To save resources, poll every player every 30 seconds or so. If input is constant between 30 sec intervals, set AFK_suspicion_flag = true. When this is set to true, poll input every second for 10 seconds. If all 10 polls have exactly the same input, boot the player. Could you lay this out in a flow chart with proper function diagrams? Seriously though, this. One other option is ensuring there is a ground spawn in the same area as the MCC drop. Do not allow MCC spawns for the first spawn of a match. This will require ground spawn and give the opposing team the ability to FARM afk's. That way you would actually reward the active players. Another Option Keep all rewards at 0 for Isk and SP until the first point is gained. I cant think of anyone that cannot find a way to make at least 5 points in a match if they are playing.
REDBACK96USMC Ghosts of Dawn General Tso's Alliance 51	Posted - 2014.09.18 16:09:00 - [35] - Quote One other option. Make inside the MCC Redline area. That is still plenty of time to get out before you suicide.
Edgar Reinhart Resheph Interstellar Strategy Gallente Federation 9	Posted - 2014.09.18 16:38:00 - [36] - Quote As a casually improving, relative, noob I'm interested to see how things play out. People have to be aware that this isn't matchmaking in the sense that, 'all good players play each other' and all 'reasonable players play each other.' It is just trying to balance the teams as much as possible based on who is in the queue at that time. If there is one proto squad and 26 people like myself waiting for the match then nothing the algorithms can do is going to balance that battle. You'll end up with a squad of, let us say What the French, stomping the bejesus out of the top 16 of the remaining players with the remaining 10 players picking up the pieces. In this sense Rattati is right. The maths can do it's best but if there is a fundamental imbalance coming into the match no amount of jiggery pokery is going to fix that. It can just get as close as possible on a team, not individual basis. With such a small player base the only way around that would be to adopt the tabletop idea of flat out equal 'points' per team meaning that it could be entirely possible to have a match that is one Beta Vet vs. 16 fresh Academy graduates........ Now I think that that could be fun but it's a different beast entirely. The fact that there is a degree of imbalance in Dust's gameplay is, in my opinion, one of it's best features and hardest things to get right. It is what has kept me playing inspite of all the Burst HMGs to the face my Medic suit receives. The idea of coming across something that you can't kill is accepted and embraced in RPGs but all kind of confusing in an FPS. New players have to be made aware of this and Vets have to accept the odd boring (for them) match. Maybe there could be better implementation but I for one don't want to be put in a position where I'm just running around with other people in exactly the same tier of equipment with exactly the same stats. It needs work but balanced teams of mixed abilities is interesting. Hence the fact that I'd love to see this type of matchmaking work.
Ryme Intrinseca Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 1894	Posted - 2014.09.18 16:46:00 - [37] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: We also want to change the passive ISK and SP generation to reflect contribution to battle, i.e. WP more closely Have all my +1s <3
Ryme Intrinseca Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 1894	Posted - 2014.09.18 16:51:00 - [38] - Quote CUSE TOWN333 wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: TheD1CK wrote: Overall, not much has changed, though teams 'look' more even, I think the matchmaking is better But exactly what CUSE points out, balancing the teams in terms of 'MU' leaves a hole where You have mercs that don't contribute unless there team is winning, But thats unavoidable Teams on the scoresheet look closer and 'some' of the battles played today and yesterday have been good, So something is definetly working out there Rattati... Just one flaw I have noticed.. AFKers Since the update, more than half the games I am in have a matching number of AFKers (or close to) Is this intended ? to not allow one team be weighed down by them? but then both teams are burdened Has anyone else noticed this flaw? I am setting up an AFK taskforce to tackle this situation, players who get kicked for AFKing, get AFK warnings and otherwise demonstrate serial AFK behaviour will get some kind of attention. We also want to change the passive ISK and SP generation to reflect contribution to battle, i.e. WP more closely players running around with 0 kills and 0 deaths and 0 WP should get kicked from battle even if they are not AFKing. Actually not a bad idea. If you've gone halfway through a dom or skirm, not got any WP and not died, you're clearly not actually playing the game. Even a new player will at least have managed to die a few times . Simply kick anyone with 0 WP, zero deaths at the halfway stage.
Gabriel Ceja Knights of Eternal Darkness League of Infamy 58	Posted - 2014.09.18 17:31:00 - [39] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Mu has been calculated fer every player from May 2013 and is used. For veterans they are going to have a solid stabilized Mu. Hey I'm curious as to if this system also applies to factional warfare or not "Throw on the flux capacitor." activates fuel injector "WOOOOOO!!!"
Kaeru Nayiri Krusual Covert Operators Minmatar Republic 29	Posted - 2014.09.18 17:44:00 - [40] - Quote Absolutely great matches yesterday, much higher average of good vs bad matches. Very much appreciate the work.

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 2824	Posted - 2014.09.18 17:54:00 - [41] - Quote Gabriel Ceja wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Mu has been calculated fer every player from May 2013 and is used. For veterans they are going to have a solid stabilized Mu. Hey I'm curious as to if this system also applies to factional warfare or not It can't. You queue for a faction in FW. It cant swap you from amarr to minmatar because the team isnt balanced... or we could accept longer wait times.
PO0KY Virtual Syndicate 681	Posted - 2014.09.18 17:58:00 - [42] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Gabriel Ceja wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Mu has been calculated fer every player from May 2013 and is used. For veterans they are going to have a solid stabilized Mu. Hey I'm curious as to if this system also applies to factional warfare or not It can't. You queue for a faction in FW. It cant swap you from amarr to minmatar because the team isnt balanced... or we could accept longer wait times. Longer wait times on a fw? Aint nobody go time for that I'm so helpful.
Dust User KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 644	Posted - 2014.09.18 18:37:00 - [43] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: I am setting up an AFK taskforce to tackle this situation, players who get kicked for AFKing, get AFK warnings and otherwise demonstrate serial AFK behaviour will get some kind of attention. We also want to change the passive ISK and SP generation to reflect contribution to battle, i.e. WP more closely Looks like I'm going to be in trouble.
Vrain Matari Mikramurka Shock Troop Minmatar Republic 2241	Posted - 2014.09.18 22:23:00 - [44] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: TheD1CK wrote: Overall, not much has changed, though teams 'look' more even, I think the matchmaking is better But exactly what CUSE points out, balancing the teams in terms of 'MU' leaves a hole where You have mercs that don't contribute unless there team is winning, But thats unavoidable Teams on the scoresheet look closer and 'some' of the battles played today and yesterday have been good, So something is definetly working out there Rattati... Just one flaw I have noticed.. AFKers Since the update, more than half the games I am in have a matching number of AFKers (or close to) Is this intended ? to not allow one team be weighed down by them? but then both teams are burdened Has anyone else noticed this flaw? I am setting up an AFK taskforce to tackle this situation, players who get kicked for AFKing, get AFK warnings and otherwise demonstrate serial AFK behaviour will get some kind of attention. We also want to change the passive ISK and SP generation to reflect contribution to battle, i.e. WP more closely gobsmacked Old Minmatar merc sheds a single tear of joy. Dev....lifts merc honor. Antimeritocratic soulless dole whimpers. Not quite up to Vogon standards, but it's from the heart. PSN: RationalSpark
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 4635	Posted - 2014.09.18 23:27:00 - [45] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: TheD1CK wrote: Overall, not much has changed, though teams 'look' more even, I think the matchmaking is better But exactly what CUSE points out, balancing the teams in terms of 'MU' leaves a hole where You have mercs that don't contribute unless there team is winning, But thats unavoidable Teams on the scoresheet look closer and 'some' of the battles played today and yesterday have been good, So something is definetly working out there Rattati... Just one flaw I have noticed.. AFKers Since the update, more than half the games I am in have a matching number of AFKers (or close to) Is this intended ? to not allow one team be weighed down by them? but then both teams are burdened Has anyone else noticed this flaw? I am setting up an AFK taskforce to tackle this situation, players who get kicked for AFKing, get AFK warnings and otherwise demonstrate serial AFK behaviour will get some kind of attention. We also want to change the passive ISK and SP generation to reflect contribution to battle, i.e. WP more closely I'm going to fly to Iceland and buy you a beer. Level 4 Forum Warrior Very, very bitter vet PSN: wbrom42
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 4636	Posted - 2014.09.19 14:04:00 - [46] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Gabriel Ceja wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Mu has been calculated fer every player from May 2013 and is used. For veterans they are going to have a solid stabilized Mu. Hey I'm curious as to if this system also applies to factional warfare or not It can't. You queue for a faction in FW. It cant swap you from amarr to minmatar because the team isnt balanced... or we could accept longer wait times. It shouldn't for FW. I don't want anything to do with longer wait times for FW. The window of availability already sucks for me. Using boosters for FW is something I can no longer do because of this. I am lucky to get 10 Min FW matches in a week given my normal playtimes. Level 4 Forum Warrior PSN: wbrom42
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 4279	Posted - 2014.09.19 14:30:00 - [47] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Mu has been calculated fer every player from May 2013 and is used. For veterans they are going to have a solid stabilized Mu. Hmm, since I have mostly been playing Crash Gaden for the last year, and I really sucked a year ago, Fox Gaden is going to have a really low MU for a while. I wonder how long it would take for Fox to adjust back to a Mu that represents my current skill level? Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.


Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page