DUST Search - Sticky:[Update] Teambuilder logic

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Sticky:[Update] Teambuilder logic

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17511	Posted - 2015.02.17 08:42:00 - [1] - Quote Dear players, We have been seeing complaints that the Teambuilder is not working as intended. I have stated before, and state again, that we have not been able to verify a single instance of it not working as intended. That does not mean, as some players seemed to infer, that I personally have to play the battle to "verify" that it works. That is of course not the case, as we have all these details logged on our servers. Below is a sample of such a report for an individual battle. It is a really good example, that a community member sent to [email protected], and for that I thank him and everyone else who has sent us suspect battles. We have looked at every single one, and there is always an explanation. Here, it seems that two squads of Ready to Play have been able to queue sync, and proceed to stomp against "unsquaded" players and reported as such. The fact is that in this battle, there were 8 squads, ranked and placed thus: 6 man squad of Ready to Play = Rank 1 - Placed on Team A 5 man squad of WarRavens, KEQ, Shadows of Vortex and TRUE SAVAGES (you cannot rely on "corporations = squads") = Rank 2 - Placed on Team B 4 man squad of Incorruptibles = Rank 3 - Placed on Team B 2 man squad of Ready to Play = Rank 4 - Placed on Team A 2 man squad of Rivet Heads = Rank 5 - Placed on Team B 2 man squad of The New Suffering and Commando Perkone (NPC Corp) - Rank 6 - Placed on Team A 1 man squad of Caught Me with My Pants Down - Rank 7 - Placed on Team A 1 man squad of Heaven84 Devils - Rank 8 - Placed on Team A Total players in squads on Team A = 12 Total players in squads on Team B = 11 To recap: The sum of MU on each side is as close as possible, and there is an equal number of squadded players on each side, with the two second best/largest squads on Team B, the team that did not have the 8 Ready to Play members. The fact that the 8 were on the same side was pure chance, not Q-syncing. Team A went on to win the battle but I doubt the extra 2 Ready to Play members made such a difference. This has been the case for every single reported/suspected battle of "broken matchmaker" so I still maintain that it is working as intended. Happy to be proven otherwise, so keep sending examples to us! "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Dust User KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 1690	Posted - 2015.02.17 09:01:00 - [2] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: KEQ Thanks for the publicity. +1
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2196	Posted - 2015.02.17 09:11:00 - [3] - Quote I hope this is somewhat related; Can we please get some sort of ELO system implemented in faction warfare. I am regularly seeing players that have under 1000 lifetime kills get utterly smashed by q-syncs of veterans that can have upwards of 70 000 each. This game mode has been greatly affected by what I believe is bad behaviour on the playerbases part, and when you have the "elite" kicking the teeth of newbs in, the community loses more potential players. It's nearly impossible to get matches started until afternoon in the states due to FW being in such an unhealthy spot. The decision that FW should be a training ground for pc is wrong and seriously needs to be addressed. Afking also needs to be addressed as even some well known forum goers have been known to afk through FW matches all day just because of the apex suits. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 849	Posted - 2015.02.17 09:46:00 - [4] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 5 man squad of WarRavens, KEQ, Shadows of Vortex and TRUE SAVAGES (you cannot rely on "corporations = squads") Been saying that for weeks. I can't tell how certain things are intended, but I have to ask how much is SP is taken into consideration. My 1.2 million SP alt is always taken into the same tier battles as my 45 million SP character, me. For me, its always been the SP imbalance that wrecks matchmaking. I always wonder at the end of a really bad stomp, What is my combined + 300 million SP six man squad doing against mlt starter fits? Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
steadyhand amarr shadows of 514 3574	Posted - 2015.02.17 10:18:00 - [5] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: I hope this is somewhat related; Can we please get some sort of ELO system implemented in faction warfare. I am regularly seeing players that have under 1000 lifetime kills get utterly smashed by q-syncs of veterans that can have upwards of 70 000 each. This game mode has been greatly affected by what I believe is bad behaviour on the playerbases part, and when you have the "elite" kicking the teeth of newbs in, the community loses more potential players. It's nearly impossible to get matches started until afternoon in the states due to FW being in such an unhealthy spot. The decision that FW should be a training ground for pc is wrong and seriously needs to be addressed. Afking also needs to be addressed as even some well known forum goers have been known to afk through FW matches all day just because of the apex suits. Faction warfare working as intented it's ment as the next step. Don't want to get smashed find a squad the whole point of FW is that you and 16 buddy's can smash face to win a planet for your side. The only thing I feel FW should have is a lock out to stop newbs jumping in before they are ready or at least a window explaining what it is You can never have to many chaples -Templar True adamance
Jebus McKing Nos Nothi 1491	Posted - 2015.02.17 10:26:00 - [6] - Quote It is far too common on the EU server that there is a 6-man (corp) (proto) squad on one side against a large numer of solo players or small, unorganized squads on the other side. Even if the MUs of both teams match the advantage goes to the players in the corp squad, which makes sense of course in a way. The thing is the people running solo are less likely to work together with their teammates and are less likely to bring supperior gear. So even if MUs are on the same level that doesn't mean that the matches will be balanced. I'm of the impression that there already is a MU modifier for squads ranking the whole squad higher than the sum of its individual players? Maybe this is where we can make some adjustments. I rarely run solo because of this. I always get paired up with a bunch of randoms against organized squads and I always have the feeling the teambuilder expects me to perform as well as if I was in a squad with a bunch of friends. But this is not the case. When playing solo my efficiency is considerably worse than when I'm in a squad. Well, after all, this is just my perception of the situation and it might be that I'm subconsciously turning a blind eye to those situations where a bunch of randoms beat the crap out of a corp squad. Anyway, I will try to gather some evidence. pé¿pâûpé¦pü»pé¦pé¡pâúpâ¦péÆs½îpüúpüªpüäpéïpÇé wwwwwwwwwww
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2198	Posted - 2015.02.17 10:40:00 - [7] - Quote steadyhand amarr wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: I hope this is somewhat related; Can we please get some sort of ELO system implemented in faction warfare. I am regularly seeing players that have under 1000 lifetime kills get utterly smashed by q-syncs of veterans that can have upwards of 70 000 each. This game mode has been greatly affected by what I believe is bad behaviour on the playerbases part, and when you have the "elite" kicking the teeth of newbs in, the community loses more potential players. It's nearly impossible to get matches started until afternoon in the states due to FW being in such an unhealthy spot. The decision that FW should be a training ground for pc is wrong and seriously needs to be addressed. Afking also needs to be addressed as even some well known forum goers have been known to afk through FW matches all day just because of the apex suits. Faction warfare working as intented it's ment as the next step. Don't want to get smashed find a squad the whole point of FW is that you and 16 buddy's can smash face to win a planet for your side. The only thing I feel FW should have is a lock out to stop newbs jumping in before they are ready or at least a window explaining what it is "Pc is for the 'elite'" and "faction warfare is where the elite go to 'train' (aka stack teams and kick the crap out of noobs or anyone who hasn't also stacked teams as hard as they can and when the 'elite' encounter each other they try to break sync)" and "pubs are where the elite get to stomp and lord it over others because they have nigh infinite isk" And people wonder why new player retention is abysmal and there are dead game modes. I'm not up for arguing, but I'll tell you right now that 'working as intended' line is horsecrap. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Regis Blackbird DUST University Ivy League 639	Posted - 2015.02.17 10:49:00 - [8] - Quote Thanks for the insight Rattati However, if the system works as intended, what is your explanation why we have total stomps one way or the other? (in your example the two teams Mu were almost identical, right?) There have to be something missing in the calculations, or some unknown factor giving rise these one sided battles? If the goal is to match Mu perfectly, then I guess it's "working as intended". If the goal is to provide evenly matched and fun games... Well...
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 4031	Posted - 2015.02.17 11:07:00 - [9] - Quote We will send some pics from EU server. Some have luck, some have money, trading is not a crime. Minmatar omni-merc
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7243	Posted - 2015.02.17 11:14:00 - [10] - Quote Rattati the complaints invariably stem from half a dozen newbies on the same team as guys like me and guys like cat merc or anyone from molon labe. The other team has half a dozen more. The team balancer is working as intended, but the intent does not help players without multiple roles proto skilled out with people like me who are only moderately less effective in STD than we are in proto. Combining that with squads in comms and the learning cliff in DUST is actually STEEPER than EVE online. For players with less than 30 mil SP and less than 30m iSK there is little feeling of personal agency. Militia newbies in pubs might as well be getting slapped around by Thor himself when Im running my pink sentinels. That is a massively frustrating thing. Then you get the randoms like me who usually aren't in squad who get trainwrecked by coordinated squads. I'm not sympathetic towards them. Playing alone isn't meant to be the most profitable tactic. If you're alone and fielding proto you're likely going to consistently lose money. My concern lies entirely with NPE and those who gut out the torture to hit the 10-15m milestone. They still aren't ready for tge shark tank 90% of the time. If we can we need to start filtering newer characters into matches together. FW and PC are the exception. In both I am of the opinion that If you queue in, you are stating you can hang with the big kids. Let's be fair. Some can. But for PC and FW joining the slaughter is a CHOICE. Getting blitzbashed in pubs is not. AV


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17520	Posted - 2015.02.17 11:49:00 - [11] - Quote I get ROFLstomped in BF all the time, sometimes teams try their hardest, and sometimes that's not enough. Of course we can do better, but that's not the point of the thread. It is to explain that the method is working as intended, and is a massive improvement from what we had. The matchmaker itself, that's where we can get the next improvements. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 8777	Posted - 2015.02.17 12:06:00 - [12] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: I get ROFLstomped in BF all the time, sometimes teams try their hardest, and sometimes that's not enough. Of course we can do better, but that's not the point of the thread. It is to explain that the method is working as intended, and is a massive improvement from what we had. The matchmaker itself, that's where we can get the next improvements. Isn't the MU system primarily centralized around WP/Sec..? Wouldn't players with a higher team-focus (not necessarily victory focused) like Logistics be considered of a higher "MU" than Johnny NoBody doing nothing but slaying? Would that not also, by design, put a team-focused Logistics against a really powerful Slayer expecting that their MU would be similar for different reasons..? Have a suggestion for the Planetary Services Department? *Founder of AIV*
Denchlad 7 TheMysteriousEnd 1768	Posted - 2015.02.17 12:07:00 - [13] - Quote The example listed above of the EU server being especially stompy I can shed some light on. I normally am in a pubstomping squad with DMG guys. Normally consisting of Myself - 58mil SP LHughes - ~70mil SP Lorelei Zee - ~40mil SP manboar thunder fist ~40mil SP TheD1CK - ~65mil SP So as you can see, high SP players playing as a team. That makes it hard for whoever the matchmaker puts us against. We nornally are faced with a squad of 6 whatever mode we play. Normally Prima Galicus, Third Rock, Rainbow Effect/Negative Feedback or Academy Inferno. Some battles are intense bloodbaths, others are complete roflstomps. Against any of those corps. The issue I see is the other players the matchmaker seeds into the game. I've been in matches where PG have been completely obliterated by my team, and others where they have completely obliterated us, despite having unchanged squads. I think the only possible solution would be forcing other large squads in the place of the smaller squads, and pushing the other small squads into a different match of their own. E.g. 6-6-4 on one team, 6-5-5 on the other, with the other match as 3-3-3-3-2-2 and 3-3-3-2-2-1-1-1. Seems a bit fairer. Only issue would be the time of the day on each server and the amount of available players. "Why build ontop of foundations that aren't solid?" Currently on Dust hiatus.
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 8777	Posted - 2015.02.17 12:13:00 - [14] - Quote Another thing I want to bring to light is that not all players perform the same all the time. I could run a Prototype Gallente Assault for a few hours and then suddenly get a random hair up my kitten and decide to try out a Minmatar Commando for a few games, only being able to run Standard until I further invested into it. If the MU system is still considering that I'm a high-value slayer with a penchant for eye-gouging, how does it consider when I go into a lesser power tier? Am I still expected to perform the same with inferior equipment just because of how I performed previously? EDIT: What about complete changes in class or role? If my MU is being off-set by the fact that I'm a team-playing Logi with a few really intense battles in which I'm getting massive amounts of WP/sec, how does that affect my MU whenever I change out to be a Dropship pilot? Have a suggestion for the Planetary Services Department? *Founder of AIV*

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17520	Posted - 2015.02.17 12:26:00 - [15] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: I get ROFLstomped in BF all the time, sometimes teams try their hardest, and sometimes that's not enough. Of course we can do better, but that's not the point of the thread. It is to explain that the method is working as intended, and is a massive improvement from what we had. The matchmaker itself, that's where we can get the next improvements. Isn't the MU system primarily centralized around WP/Sec..? Wouldn't players with a higher team-focus (not necessarily victory focused) like Logistics be considered of a higher "MU" than Johnny NoBody doing nothing but slaying? Would that not also, by design, put a team-focused Logistics against a really powerful Slayer expecting that their MU would be similar for different reasons..? No, MU is correlated with WP/s but based on W/L, just like ELO rankings, which are used in all competitive sports.. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

steadyhand amarr shadows of 514 3574	Posted - 2015.02.17 12:28:00 - [16] - Quote I think a big problem here is some people just won't admit they are bad at dust and blame the matchmaker for their own screw ups or blame their team etc etc. You can never have to many chaples -Templar True adamance
Aikuchi Tomaru Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 2676	Posted - 2015.02.17 12:41:00 - [17] - Quote steadyhand amarr wrote: I think a big problem here is some people just won't admit they are bad at dust and blame the matchmaker for their own screw ups or blame their team etc etc. Regarding the opening post it seems like random people forming a squad messes things up a bit to their disadvantage. Something the matchmaking isn't able to factor in: How well a squad works together. RtP probably used voice comms while the people on the other team just used the squad finder or something. Solution 1: Stop squadding up with pure randoms. It's no different from playing normally, just that you get more Squad WP and maybe get a single big Warbarge strike out of it. Solution 2: I guess the matchmaking should value corp squads different from squads consisting of random people. Problem here being that this could be exploitet. Sign up for Caldari FW and defeat the evil Gallente Overlords!
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7243	Posted - 2015.02.17 12:43:00 - [18] - Quote steadyhand amarr wrote: I think a big problem here is some people just won't admit they are bad at dust and blame the matchmaker for their own screw ups or blame their team etc etc. There will be some of this to a point. I personally have never had the anecdotal 5-7 loss stomp streak and I run solo all the time. AV
steadyhand amarr shadows of 514 3575	Posted - 2015.02.17 13:23:00 - [19] - Quote Iv been playing shooters since you could be lay shooters abs iv learned one thing. Which ever team communicates the best will always win. And you can't matchmake for that. If you get a bunch of randoms who =800 points and squad who practice a lot but are not that great and as a result also =800 points. Which flat out stomp the randoms. The matchmaker is not going to give you win it's simply going to make sure dad's play other dad's and not progamers but if one group of dad's play together a lot... you gunna lose. You can never have to many chaples -Templar True adamance
Jebus McKing Nos Nothi 1491	Posted - 2015.02.17 13:45:00 - [20] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: I get ROFLstomped in BF all the time, sometimes teams try their hardest, and sometimes that's not enough. Of course we can do better, but that's not the point of the thread. It is to explain that the method is working as intended, and is a massive improvement from what we had. The matchmaker itself, that's where we can get the next improvements. So assuming the teambuilder works as intended and teams are well balanced then the next question we have to ask is why is it that people seem to give up after a couple of minutes into a game? Sure, you can get stomped horribly in other games too but more likely than not people will at least try until the end of match. And why shouldn't they? There is nothing to be gained from sitting around in the spawn area and nothing to be lost by keeping trying. In DUST you will lose ISK if you keep trying (sometimes even when winning the match), and you will have a very hard time turning around matches in cheap suits. While it's true that a vet in a STD suit can beat another vet in a PRO suit, the same thing does not work for noobs. A new player without his core skills up and only using a STD loadout has little to no chance of beating a vet in a PRO loadout. I see people go 0/10+ regularly and to be honest I cannot blame them if they stop trying after 5 minutes. (Also, we should not aspire to get DUST to the same level as BF, but to outshine it! ) Sorry for this horribly off-topic post. pé¿pâûpé¦pü»pé¦pé¡pâúpâ¦péÆs½îpüúpüªpüäpéïpÇé wwwwwwwwwww

Starlight Burner ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 136	Posted - 2015.02.17 15:53:00 - [21] - Quote The matchmaker shouldn't take 1 or 2 player squads in mind. Those players are 'solo' or 'duo' . They have little to nothing to contribute to the team when there is a squad of 12 ( 2 squads of 6) working. Solo and Duo players are hurting the matchmaking. Thank god for CCP Rattati!! Rogue Relics is my home away from home.
Sole Fenychs Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 613	Posted - 2015.02.17 16:02:00 - [22] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: I get ROFLstomped in BF all the time, sometimes teams try their hardest, and sometimes that's not enough. Of course we can do better, but that's not the point of the thread. It is to explain that the method is working as intended, and is a massive improvement from what we had. The matchmaker itself, that's where we can get the next improvements. Isn't the MU system primarily centralized around WP/Sec..? Wouldn't players with a higher team-focus (not necessarily victory focused) like Logistics be considered of a higher "MU" than Johnny NoBody doing nothing but slaying? Would that not also, by design, put a team-focused Logistics against a really powerful Slayer expecting that their MU would be similar for different reasons..? No, MU is correlated with WP/s but based on W/L, just like ELO rankings, which are used in all competitive sports.. ...Does W/L really matter in a game mode where sixteen uncoordinated newberries try to slaughter each other? Wins and Losses in pubs are more of a matter of correlation than of causation, unless the individual/squad in question is absolute elite or matched up against complete failures.
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback. 4601	Posted - 2015.02.17 16:18:00 - [23] - Quote I think this shows a good reason why 6 man squads may hurt the matchmaker system for public play. In a 4 man system Ready to Play would have been broken into 2 components of 4 likely with a Rank of 1 and 2. This may have ensured that they end up on opposite sides. Does the MU system have a modifier based on squad member count or is it just a simple sum of it's parts? Also, I think it reiterates the need to have a release valve for large groups of players through 8-16 man squads in faction warfare and PC away from public play. Raiding and Platoons can't come fast enough along with a reasonable scaling of rewards through these game modes that drives veteran players to them. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
JIMvc2 Consolidated Dust 710	Posted - 2015.02.17 17:26:00 - [24] - Quote I enjoyed steam rolling the Ready to Play corp. yawn seriously change your corp name to Ready to get demolished. All these made up corps just squad up and boom = Nothing in return. >.>... MAG Raven vet 7 times. Favorite weapon F90 and Highest Kills 78 and 23 deaths.
The-Errorist 1056	Posted - 2015.02.17 17:57:00 - [25] - Quote The problem is probably with MU, the stat used to rank players. What it was this instead? Here's the old thread for it. Suits, Tanks, a mode
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 988	Posted - 2015.02.17 18:46:00 - [26] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, We have been seeing complaints that the Teambuilder is not working as intended. I have stated before, and state again, that we have not been able to verify a single instance of it not working as intended. Does the system work as you intended it to? Yes. Does the system work like the players are expecting it to? No. Don't get me wrong, the teambuilder was a huge step forward for Dust and I'm thankful for it's existence. On the other hand I believe that the complaints have merit to them too. People are expecting the game to make fun matches, which is a fair expectation from their side. You are expecting the teambuilder to distribute mu-chunks evenly, which is a fair expectation from your point of view. These two concepts are related to one another, but they aren't the same. That's how we get complaints about unfit matchmaking from players and assertions of veracity from your side. As you can see I'm trying to make a case for matchmaking on top of teambalancing. Is there any progress on that front?
Regis Blackbird DUST University Ivy League 640	Posted - 2015.02.17 19:06:00 - [27] - Quote The-Errorist wrote: The problem is probably with MU, the stat used to rank players. What it was this instead? Here's the old thread for it. I am leaning towards the same conclusion, even if Rattati have stated numerous times Mu correlates perfectly to player skill. The thing is, I just don't see how a individual metric based on team W/L can ever correlate to my skill. I would absolutely love to see some Mu data (graphP0rn) which displays Mu evolution over time, or Mu difference between teams compared to win margin, to clearly display its supposed effectiveness. Take me for example. I am a very casual player which generally suck at pure killing (more a support person, adjusting strategy and fitting to suite the situation) I only get time to play a couple of matches per week (full time job and two small kids) Usually play solo, but enjoy teamwork if I get the time. I very rarely get a K/D ratio above 1.0 (and I don't care) My WP varies greatly between 200 - 2000, depending on the role I can fill on the team. If faced with a proto-stomp, usually switch to (BPO) gear to minimise ISK loss, while retaining some killing power to take a few with me. (Focus switching from attempting to win to inflict as much ISK loss as possible) Now the thing is, I very rarely feel that my contribution resulted in the team winning or loosing. Usually the WIN/LOSS is totally out of my control, so how can a metric based on this determine my personal skill as a player??? I would like to see a graph of my Mu evolution over the last year. I think it will be all over the place.
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 8783	Posted - 2015.02.17 23:17:00 - [28] - Quote Aikuchi Tomaru wrote: steadyhand amarr wrote: I think a big problem here is some people just won't admit they are bad at dust and blame the matchmaker for their own screw ups or blame their team etc etc. Regarding the opening post it seems like random people forming a squad messes things up a bit to their disadvantage. Something the matchmaking isn't able to factor in: How well a squad works together. RtP probably used voice comms while the people on the other team just used the squad finder or something. Solution 1: Stop squadding up with pure randoms. It's no different from playing normally, just that you get more Squad WP and maybe get a single big Warbarge strike out of it. Solution 2: I guess the matchmaking should value corp squads different from squads consisting of random people. Problem here being that this could be exploitet. What about guys like myself who run exclusively solo but notice extreme changes in the battle dynamics? In some games I run against nothing but MLT fitted guys, despite having 60m+ SP and a few suits proto'd out. Can watch my video on the 'Black Ops' Gallente Assault fitting I've got on youtube if you want to see how that turns out. Then in some games I go against two full proto squads of different corporations whereas my team always seems to be a mashed together mix of newbros and other corps. Theories abound but I seriously doubt that 16 people can ever be off their game at the exact same time in order to allow for one team to apply a badger sized hole in their rear. Have a suggestion for the Planetary Services Department? *Founder of AIV*
Gyn Wallace OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 234	Posted - 2015.02.18 00:01:00 - [29] - Quote Regis Blackbird wrote: The thing is, I just don't see how a individual metric based on team W/L can ever correlate to my skill. I think you've hit the nail on the head. I generally suck, except when I've got a really good squad leader. Does having about 50M sp and a W/L ratio that's awesome when a really good squad leader is leading me, and a W/L ratio that's really bad whenever the really good squad leaders log off, make my individual MU almost irrelevant? I'd imagine that the key to good match balance lies in identifying those individuals, most likely squad leaders or just people who inspire an excellent use of coms, so that their presence on a team reflects their desperate impact on the rest of the squad's performance. Figuring out that threshold or stat that identifies those individuals, and appropriately weighing their MU, would seem to be the key. Some people have awesome gun game and even running solo have a huge impact on match outcomes. Some people have incredible leadership skills and act as force multipliers for their entire squad. Figuring out how to identify the second category of people and weigh them appropriately can't be easy, but they're more important to match balance than the individual with great gun game. Particularly with respect to the OP; I blame Dux. The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 8793	Posted - 2015.02.19 03:17:00 - [30] - Quote See, this is the thing I can't seem to wrap my head around. Sure, all evidence points to the fact that teams are "balanced" but for some reason we still have these matches where one team just gets completely obliterated to the point where the victor team's MCC only took damage from the loss team's MCC and the victor's still have 100+ clones by the end of the match. But alas, the only thing that seems to ever happen about this is everyone just says "git gud", as if to say that one person is supposed to be good enough to account for the fifteen people on his team that somehow weren't good enough to make for even a "close" match or provide a "good fight" that they still lost.... It was a stomp. Meaning that 16 people, trying -at all-, did not make a difference and got utterly destroyed. You can deflect all you want with the "people just need to admit when they suck at the game" but clearly something is wrong and clearly there's no drive to fix it, otherwise we'd admit that something is wrong with the sheer amount of these stomp matches and make an effort to figure out why they happen. Can we just assume that the community doesn't care to fix it and just say that instead of trolling with the "git gud" bits? Can we just admit that we have no interest in changing this? Have a suggestion for the Planetary Services Department? *Founder of AIV*

Gyn Wallace OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 237	Posted - 2015.02.19 15:45:00 - [31] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: See, this is the thing I can't seem to wrap my head around. Sure, all evidence points to the fact that teams are "balanced" but for some reason we still have these matches where one team just gets completely obliterated to the point where the victor team's MCC only took damage from the loss team's MCC and the victor's still have 100+ clones by the end of the match. All evidence does not point to the fact that teams are "balanced." The remainder of your sentence is a portion of the evidence which clearly shows that many teams are not balanced. Aeon Amadi wrote: But alas, the only thing that seems to ever happen about this is everyone just says "git gud", ... I've never heard that response to complaints about matchmaking needing improvement. Aeon Amadi wrote: Can we just assume that the community doesn't care to fix it and just say that instead of trolling with the "git gud" bits? Can we just admit that we have no interest in changing this? That's kind of an odd thing to write on the second page of a thread about the need to improve match making. I'd like to know why CCP thinks the WP difference between teams on some matches is greater than 10k, despite MUs that must have been similar enough to put those teams in a match against each other. I get rofl-stomped when I solo, or when I'm in a squad behaving like we're solo. Then somebody has to log off, and gets replaced, and that ONE new-arrival shames the rest of us into stopping behaving like newbs or chickens with our heads-cut off, and encourages us to use a little discipline and our coms for something other than hilarity. And then we might do the rofl-stomping next match. How can MU measure that or balance the teams, without giving a vastly greater weight to that new-arrival? Is there something about him that makes him statistically distinct, like having a much batter W/L ratio than players with similar SP? There must be a way to revise MU, so that Ratatti's example wouldn't happen, i.e. the Mu for one or two people in those Ready To Play squads would so inflate that teams MU, that the last few people added to their team, would have instead been placed on the opposite team. I wish I were smart enough to just give CCP the method, instead I'm left paraphrasing Winston Churchill's comment about Americans: "You can count on CCP doing the right thing, right after they've tried everything else." The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 6775	Posted - 2015.02.20 00:29:00 - [32] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: I think this shows a good reason why 6 man squads may hurt the matchmaker system for public play. In a 4 man system Ready to Play would have been broken into 2 components of 4 likely with a Rank of 1 and 2. This may have ensured that they end up on opposite sides. Does the MU system have a modifier based on squad member count or is it just a simple sum of it's parts? Also, I think it reiterates the need to have a release valve for large groups of players through 8-16 man squads in faction warfare and PC away from public play. Raiding and Platoons can't come fast enough along with a reasonable scaling of rewards through these game modes that drives veteran players to them. ^ All of this. (I thought Kain Spero was supposed to be Dust's bad guy ... is it bad that I almost always agree with him?) Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1780	Posted - 2015.02.20 10:57:00 - [33] - Quote Regis Blackbird wrote: Thanks for the insight Rattati However, if the system works as intended, what is your explanation why we have total stomps one way or the other? (in your example the two teams Mu were almost identical, right?) FACT: Some people's actual capabilities are lower than their calculated Mu. Some people's actual capabilities are far higher than their calculated Mu. FACT: Stomps will happen every once in a while no matter what, because of battlefield and game flow reasons. Even if there would be a theorerical identical clone army on both sides, they would occasionally stomp each other. Reasons for that: Tactically worse opening spawn location (Killbox), having few deaths at same time resulting in failcascade where third-half of team is respawning all the time and can't get back in. Ahh the inertial dampeners are back to normal! ^ ^ Thank you.
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1780	Posted - 2015.02.20 10:59:00 - [34] - Quote One factor resulting in stomps is the player behavior itself, by the moderately experienced players: They recocnize tough guys on red team and go "okay hard match I use free suit for this". Multiply that by few others and the blue team is at disadvantage. Ahh the inertial dampeners are back to normal! ^ ^ Thank you.
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1780	Posted - 2015.02.20 11:04:00 - [35] - Quote steadyhand amarr wrote: I think a big problem here is some people just won't admit they are bad at dust and blame the matchmaker for their own screw ups or blame their team etc etc. That is true. At the same time, I'm personally suspecting something went wrong with Warlords 1.0 Team balancing. (as action mailed some vids ) Ahh the inertial dampeners are back to normal! ^ ^ Thank you.
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 3634	Posted - 2015.02.20 11:21:00 - [36] - Quote I personally am not complaining about the Teambuilder itself, it's a relatively simple task to normalise values between 2 arrays. What I'm concerned about is the actual matchmaker, which itmhas been stated in the past before as being non-exsistent. How do you choose who is placed into that battle BEFORE the sides are selected. That is to say in the following process. 1.Players enter lobby pool 2. Scotty choose players for the match 3. Scotty moves chosen players to match pool 4. Tommy (Scotty's Team building younger brother) normalises teams from their MU Averages 5. Match begins What is happening in step 2, why is it happening like that and could it be improved. They call me the Monkey - I like to jump off sh** and piss RE's all over your tank! Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior Lvl 3
Edgar Reinhart Resheph Interstellar Strategy Gallente Federation 27	Posted - 2015.02.20 11:30:00 - [37] - Quote I say all this as a starter fit wearing relative noob. Firstly no one likes being on the receiving end of a stomp that is something the everyone can agree on. (If you haven't seen the first ambush match from Pyrex's last stream, whatever you think of the guy, it's worth watching to see what happens when it all goes horrible). The dust matchmaker/teambuilder has a number of problems unique to the game that it has to deal with. For example just because someone has an amazingly high MU doesn't mean that they're not going to get put in a match and pull out nothing but starter suits. They'll probably still do better than most but not as well as 'maths' says they should. The inverse of that is also true. There is also the problem of the small player base (Speculation alert!) What I think is often happening is that the teambuilder looks at the available players and all it can do is (based of Rattattattattati's example) 6 man squad of Ready to Play = Rank 1 - Placed on Team A 2 man squad of WarRavens, KEQ, = Rank 2 - Placed on Team B 2 man squad of Incorruptibles = Rank 3 - Placed on Team B 2 man squad of Ready to Play = Rank 4 - Placed on Team B 2 man squad of Rivet Heads = Rank 5 - Placed on Team B 2 man squad of The New Suffering and Commando Perkone (NPC Corp) - Rank 6 - Placed on Team B 6x1 man squad xxx - Ranks 7-13 - Placed on Team B 10x1 man squad of xxx - Rank 14-24 - Placed on Team A And even after doing this the 6 man squad at Rank 1 has a higher MU than the entire other team and then you have to figure in the previous point AND hope that none of the decent squads leave Team B, which is the third problem. The small player base means that 7/8 times out of 10 you can call a match before it begins. Oh look a full squad of T.H.I.R.D.R.O.C.K. on Team A, two members of Dead Mans Game on Team B. Team A to win with the two guys from Dead Man's Game comfortably topping the table for Team B. The Devs are constantly fighting against this small playerbase when it comes to building teams and matches. Solutions? Beyond everything proposed I'm not sure. Smaller squads? Maybe, but 4 members of e.g. Prima Gallicus have to be happy to fight against 4 other members of Prima Gallicus in pubs and I'm not sure that'll happen. Auto squads? Maybe but not sure that it'd make people play any differently. Meta Level lockout? Again maybe. Despite my many deaths I have to say think limiting gear/meta levels is a bit of a shame. One of the primary USPs of Dust is the mixed battlefield but it may be necessary. It'll also fragment an already small playerbase still further. The Devs are doing what they can and overall I think we should appreciate their efforts. Sorry for the conclusionless essay!
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1780	Posted - 2015.02.20 11:37:00 - [38] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: I personally am not complaining about the Teambuilder itself, it's a relatively simple task to normalise values between 2 arrays. What I'm concerned about is the actual matchmaker, which itmhas been stated in the past before as being non-exsistent. How do you choose who is placed into that battle BEFORE the sides are selected. That is to say in the following process. 1.Players enter lobby pool 2. Scotty choose players for the match 3. Scotty moves chosen players to match pool 4. Tommy (Scotty's Team building younger brother) normalises teams from their MU Averages 5. Match begins What is happening in step 2, why is it happening like that and could it be improved. But this thread is not about Matchmaking or Scotty. As Rat' said, that's where the next improvement might be. Ahh the inertial dampeners are back to normal! ^ ^ Thank you.
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1780	Posted - 2015.02.20 11:57:00 - [39] - Quote Okay, a question to CCP Rattati. Even though this was probably explained in the Teambuilder (...I try to move away from the old Team Balancing term) threads and I probably know the answers, I have to be sure and I believe the answer would clarify everyone's thoughts: 1) If a 6-man squads Mu is high enough, will the Teambuilder do the following: [A theoretical infinite Mu 6-man squad] --> Team A [The 16 next highest Mu entities, whether squadded or not] --> Team B [The 10 lowest Mu players of the match] --> Team A ??? The importance is to realise if Teambuilder will not organise chunks of players just by left-right-left-right-left-right and so on. 2) The squads have a 'multiplier' to their Mu in order to emphasize their weight. Is the multiplier, or the weight, relatively higher for squads for more people? In other words, is a 6-man squads resulting Mu higher than three 2-man squads'? Also, it's worth emphasizing that Matchmaking and Teambuilder are entirely different things and latter begins it's work after the first has handed it the players to work with. Ahh the inertial dampeners are back to normal! ^ ^ Thank you.
Haerr Nos Nothi 2343	Posted - 2015.02.20 12:32:00 - [40] - Quote Can you bar players who go 0 / 16 from going up against stomp squads? Better to have a some what balanced 8v8, 10v10, 12v12, with longer queue times than 'a bunch of randoms being farmed for kdr'. Not very 'welcome to new eden-y' but then again nor is 16v16s...

Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 6802	Posted - 2015.02.20 13:11:00 - [41] - Quote KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: FACT: Stomps will happen every once in a while no matter what... "Every once in awhile" odds of occurrence would be great. 25% to 50% odds of a stomp are not great. * Estimated stomp frequency, Ambush (Americas) ** Weekends tend to be a 'bit less stompy than weekdays Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 812	Posted - 2015.02.20 19:25:00 - [42] - Quote steadyhand amarr wrote: I think a big problem here is some people just won't admit they are bad at dust and blame the matchmaker for their own screw ups or blame their team etc etc. Nothing to do with people who are on both sides of the stomp and get bored of stomps in general... Would like a few more even sided matches. Honestly I'd rather be on the team getting stomped, because at least then there's something to do.
Gyn Wallace OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 239	Posted - 2015.02.21 15:06:00 - [43] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, We have been seeing complaints that the Teambuilder is not working as intended. ... This has been the case for every single reported/suspected battle of "broken matchmaker" so I still maintain that it is working as intended. ...] How far apart were the war point totals for the teams in that match? How bad would a stomp have to be for you to recognize that the current match making system had failed to give the players a somewhat balanced fight? (Which I recognize is a different question than "Is match making working as intended?") Also, (flame suit on) what if the players were given the ability to adjust their Mu manually, raising their calculated SP as much as 5 or 10%? I know; that's crazy; everybody would keep it low, to try to give themselves easier matches.... or would they? If even only a small portion of the the players adjusted their Mu off the default setting (for newbs) in order to challenge themselves or get into more interesting matches because they've had a run of being on the stomping side, would it partially alleviate the problem? Its probably not worth the work it would take to implement, but I do wonder if it would help. The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 819	Posted - 2015.02.21 16:37:00 - [44] - Quote Can we maybe send people into 2 different matchmaking groups. Group 1: Has never (one or more of the following) - Been above 1000wp in a single match - Had more than 25 kills in a single match - Hacked more than 15 installations/objectives in a match Group 2: has achieved greatness in a single match (one of the above.) Perhaps give a leeway of 3 or so matches, because there's always the odd fluke. It will increase queue times a bit, by how much I couldn't say (even if I had the relevant info, because I'm lazy.) Who here wouldn't take a little more time queuing for slightly more even teams? Add in a middle tier if needed, but that would really chuff things up.
LOOKMOM NOHANDS Warpoint Sharx 23	Posted - 2015.02.22 05:34:00 - [45] - Quote To be honest the team builder seemed to work AMAZINGLY while the SP cap was glitched. As far as I can tell this was due to the fact that people were actually playing to win. The 150 point requirement was a good start but it just delays the point where people go AFK. Incentive to win would make matches far better. Not only does this include the possibility of a pay bonus, SP bonus, or even gear bonus to the winners but must also only be given to those that actually participated.
Shaun Iwairo CANT-TOUCH-THIS Smart Deploy 0	Posted - 2015.02.23 05:54:00 - [46] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: FACT: Stomps will happen every once in a while no matter what... "Every once in awhile" odds of occurrence would be great. 25% to 50% odds of a stomp are not great. * Estimated stomp frequency, Ambush (Americas) Weekends tend to be a 'bit less stompy than weekdays Newbro here, just had my first proper weekend of playing. I felt is was closer to 75% stomps. I was killed by guys in proto suits using proto weapons more often than not. So matchmaker and team-builder are trying doing what they can with what they've got, getting players into games in an acceptable time frame. They aren't working very well because the player pool is so small. I'm guessing each game consisted of wildly varying player MU (though the totals on either side are fairly even). I wouldn't mind waiting a few extra minutes if it meant I could get in a game where not only the sides had relatively similar combined Mu, but the individual players Mu was similar too. I'm losing ~75% of my play time to stomps, let me just spend an extra 5 or even 10 minutes waiting for a battle (good time to refill a drink or go for a smoke maybe) where I'll at least be playing with mostly lower tiered guys like myself. Again, we should be inserted into battles not only in teams that have similar total Mu but player Mu should be within a certain bracket too.** This will be easy to achieve for solo players, but a little harder for squads. So - if a squad queues up, their Mu should be calculated as ((sum of members Mu / squad members) + Mu of member with highest Mu)/2. This equation deliberately weighs things against having even one high Mu player. I have no idea what the actual MU numbers are, but say you have a squad of: 100, 150, 300, 200 & 2500 you would get ((3250 / 5) + 2500)/2 = 1575. Having even one high Mu player throws off the squads value. This is so a few vets can't get into a game with noobs and make bad things happen. Conversely, if you had a fairly even but low MU squad consisting of: 200, 225, 210, 230 & 217 you would get ((1102 / 5) + 230)/2 = 225.2 There, everything is nice and our newbros get to play with other newbros. The main problem I see with this is that if a vet wants to squad up with some newbros and show them the ropes, they're going to end up in a high tiered bracket. The solution to this would be to only have one or at most two newbros in your squad of vets. If the vets actually want to teach the newbros they won't mind protecting them for a few rounds. So to sum up my newbro perspective - I don't want to be playing against vets in proto gear. Let me get on my damn feet first. I don't mind waiting for the pool of people queued for a battle to get bigger (and thus get in a battle with similarly skilled players) because I'm wasting a bunch of time being thrown into proto-stomps anyway.
Imp Smash Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 688	Posted - 2015.02.23 06:51:00 - [47] - Quote I don't think there is anything wrong with matchmaking personally. I just think people's ego makes them look for excuses for getting stomped.
Greiv Rabbah M.T.A.C Assault Operations Command Lokun Listamenn 81	Posted - 2015.02.23 12:06:00 - [48] - Quote Imp Smash wrote: I don't think there is anything wrong with matchmaking personally. I just think people's ego makes them look for excuses for getting stomped. I want to +1 this more. But realistically, meta level based lockout on matches will fix most of the issue here. And based on the supposition that american server ambush mode is the stompiest, well, if you play deathmatch you're gonna die sry. Maybe instead there could be an exploration/hunter mode where... Actually I feel bad encouraging a new game mode. Why is this still a lobby shooter and not a boots-on-the-ground companion to eve online? Why can't we harvest resources, explore planetscapes, seek out ruins to plunder & datacores to hack, and hunt drone hives? Maybe people could consider for once that a big part of the afk problem is... People have a reason to afk, and not enough reasons not to
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 830	Posted - 2015.02.23 12:29:00 - [49] - Quote Imp Smash wrote: I don't think there is anything wrong with matchmaking personally. I just think people's ego makes them look for excuses for getting stomped. Then you are blind. Not everyone is hating on getting beaten. The stomps go both ways and are boring either way.
Imp Smash Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 690	Posted - 2015.02.23 12:50:00 - [50] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Imp Smash wrote: I don't think there is anything wrong with matchmaking personally. I just think people's ego makes them look for excuses for getting stomped. Then you are blind. Not everyone is hating on getting beaten. The stomps go both ways and are boring either way. Stomps are true of any game - but since I see a lot of the same people and play against and with a lot of the same people due to my timezone - over the course of a few years I start to see patterns. I've played with guys (they are my bluedots) and they have appeared useless. I've played against the same people and gotten stomped. And vice versa. Played with em and watched them destroy but played against them and smashed them embarrassingly. I think a lot of it is perception. In this game, where the variety of combat styles, combat options, support options, and fits is so great, it may create situations that seem more bloated one way or another than expected. Quite simply, I think it's our own personal bias and, what do you know, the raw data supports that. So, no, not blind -- just not self absorbed.

Mountain Doody F0RSAKEN EMPIRE. Smart Deploy 48	Posted - 2015.02.23 15:18:00 - [51] - Quote Hi Rattati, thanks for the update. Could you please weight each squad by the sum of the ranks of each player? (e.g. i am a seargent major, and should be weighted slightly higher than a private and slightly lower than a corporal.) edit: this would be even better: Shaun Iwairo wrote: Again, we should be inserted into battles not only in teams that have similar total Mu but player Mu should be within a certain bracket too.
Jebus McKing Nos Nothi 1521	Posted - 2015.02.23 22:27:00 - [52] - Quote Working as intended MY ASS! 16 randoms VS full squad is not how balancing teams works. No matter what MU says. Looking at the WPs, I probably was the only one in my team getting SP. I'm not even mad. MU modifier for squads needs to be changed. Special thanks to NF. This would not have been possible without you guys! pé¿pâûpé¦pü»pé¦pé¡pâúpâ¦péÆs½îpüúpüªpüäpéïpÇé wwwwwwwwwww
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 840	Posted - 2015.02.24 11:03:00 - [53] - Quote got into a 5 vs 7 yesterday... The team of 7 had a 5 man Prima squad... We had a 2 man squad of something I've never heard of before... I don't think the matchmaker works well every time. Surely if matchmaking was working (other than the half empty teams) the team with more players would have been against the Prima squad?
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 8831	Posted - 2015.02.24 12:04:00 - [54] - Quote Jebus McKing wrote: Working as intended MY ASS! 16 randoms VS full squad is not how balancing teams works. No matter what MU says. Looking at the WPs, I probably was the only one in my team getting SP. I'm not even mad. MU modifier for squads needs to be changed and/or we need smaller squads for pubs. Special thanks to NF. This would not have been possible without you guys! Hahaha, holy kitten that is amazing. I'm just going to say "git gud" before someone else does because that's literally all I can say; I'm totally speechless, that is a 100% stomp. Good to know that the MU system is working though because that totally means you guys just screwed off that whole match, right? /sarcasm God, it's kitten like this that I can't fathom. 15 Players didn't get SP but for some reason the Minimum WP is now a requirement because of all the dumb arguments that "if you can't get 150 WP you need to delete the game". Might as well just stand in a corner and stare at the wall for fifteen minutes. Probably more productive than wasting time -AND- ISK. This will never be fixed. I'd be surprised if they even came back to it and tweaked it. This is just how Dust 514 is going to work from now on, at least until some other hairbrained idea comes along - who knows, maybe they'll increase the Minimum WP requirement to earn SP to 500 or something bcause #reasons. Have a suggestion for the Planetary Services Department? *Founder of AIV*
CUSE TOWN333 KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 2203	Posted - 2015.02.25 11:31:00 - [55] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: I hope this is somewhat related; Can we please get some sort of ELO system implemented in faction warfare. I am regularly seeing players that have under 1000 lifetime kills get utterly smashed by q-syncs of veterans that can have upwards of 70 000 each. This game mode has been greatly affected by what I believe is bad behaviour on the playerbases part, and when you have the "elite" kicking the teeth of newbs in, the community loses more potential players. It's nearly impossible to get matches started until afternoon in the states due to FW being in such an unhealthy spot. The decision that FW should be a training ground for pc is wrong and seriously needs to be addressed. Afking also needs to be addressed as even some well known forum goers have been known to afk through FW matches all day just because of the apex suits. no you caldari noobs just need to get good instead of trying to make CCP save you. KEQ diplomat but i may not be able to save you if you let Dust User see your tear mails.
Mad Syringe ReDust Inc. 467	Posted - 2015.02.25 14:38:00 - [56] - Quote I think one of the biggest problems for the matchmaking system is to predict if that 60mil SP guy is pulling proto and push the objectives or if he is just having a casual game in an APEX or maybe is even on the hunt for those dreaded installation hacks to complete a mission... He can't predict it. One more problem withh WP based matchmaking is the possibillity of having a decent logi team on one side against a decent slayer team on the other... who might win here? I think to gain more players we need to give them a chance to grow. That means that they need gamemodes reserved for them only. Call it the graduate hich sec mode or whatever. Maybe even in two stages. So you have the academy. After that you are allowed to join pubs. The graduates will have a gamemode for sub 5mil SP Characters. After they outgrow that mode, they'll have one for another 5-10 mil SP players. After they have outgrown these, they can be put into the games with the pros. They will still get stomped, but they will have understood the game by now and hopefully be attached enough to not quit instantly. Together with tiered gamemodes, this should give new players a chance to adapt and grow into the game, instead of getting stomped into oblivion for several month and being told to HTFU... which is no good motivation to stay in the game.
Lorhak Gannarsein Nos Nothi 4374	Posted - 2015.03.03 15:07:00 - [57] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Jebus McKing wrote: Working as intended MY ASS! 16 randoms VS full squad is not how balancing teams works. No matter what MU says. Looking at the WPs, I probably was the only one in my team getting SP. I'm not even mad. MU modifier for squads needs to be changed and/or we need smaller squads for pubs. Special thanks to NF. This would not have been possible without you guys! Hahaha, holy kitten that is amazing. I'm just going to say "git gud" before someone else does because that's literally all I can say; I'm totally speechless, that is a 100% stomp. Good to know that the MU system is working though because that totally means you guys just screwed off that whole match, right? /sarcasm God, it's kitten like this that I can't fathom. 15 Players didn't get SP but for some reason the Minimum WP is now a requirement because of all the dumb arguments that "if you can't get 150 WP you need to delete the game". Might as well just stand in a corner and stare at the wall for fifteen minutes. Probably more productive than wasting time -AND- ISK. This will never be fixed. I'd be surprised if they even came back to it and tweaked it. This is just how Dust 514 is going to work from now on, at least until some other hairbrained idea comes along - who knows, maybe they'll increase the Minimum WP requirement to earn SP to 500 or something bcause #reasons. Purely out of curiosity, were you designing a teambuilder, in what possible way could you prevent a stomp like this from happening? You get thirty-two players and no more, an assortment of solo players and one single full squad consisting of a group of closed- and open-beta veterans who've been playing together for two and a half years. They have effectively infinite ISK, and they've maxed out half a dozen different roles. They're also competent players individually. There is no possible way the teambuilder can fix this sort of situation; this is, I'd argue, not even a situation the teambuilder was intended to fix. Stomps have been happening since this game has existed, and the degree of the stomps is just increasing with time (although I seriously doubt they'll get more significant than this). But you know what? Once upon a time, True Power would have employed Jebus, Aury and Dysnomia as well as the full squad of Negative-Feedback. It's clear to me that the teambuilder is working as intended. What we need is not complaining about how the 'teambuilder is broken' but a matchmaker. The pool from which the teambuilder works ought to be expanded. The question, of course, then becomes: is that something our playerbase can sustain? Guys, we need to stop calling MU a 'matchmaker' when it's actually a 'teambuilder'. And I want to play FE:A now. Damn.
Gyn Wallace OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 271	Posted - 2015.03.03 15:55:00 - [58] - Quote By the way, is there some terribly expensive coding impediment to putting more than 16 people on one team, and fewer than 16 on the other team, while still capping the total people in the match at 32? How much of the problem for teambuilder of balancing a single 6 man practically-infinite-Mu squad is resolved by putting them up against the other 26 people in the match? The huge newbie team would also need a disproportionate number of clones, maybe 250 v 50 instead of 150 v 150. The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 7184	Posted - 2015.03.03 16:16:00 - [59] - Quote Gyn Wallace wrote: By the way, is there some terribly expensive coding impediment to putting more than 16 people on one team, and fewer than 16 on the other team, while still capping the total people in the match at 32? How much of the problem for teambuilder of balancing a single 6 man practically-infinite-Mu squad is resolved by putting them up against the other 26 people in the match? The huge newbie team would also need a disproportionate number of clones, maybe 250 v 50 instead of 150 v 150. This is an interesting approach! This might work very well in an Ambush-like setting, and (more importantly) it'd potentially be alot of fun. The stompsquad would essentially be playing a "Survival Mode" (which is awesome!) ... Bring your best gear and fend off wave after wave of lesser enemies, who adapt to your squad's strategies and tactics. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
LOOKMOM NOHANDS Warpoint Sharx 72	Posted - 2015.03.03 16:35:00 - [60] - Quote Gyn Wallace wrote: By the way, is there some terribly expensive coding impediment to putting more than 16 people on one team, and fewer than 16 on the other team, while still capping the total people in the match at 32? How much of the problem for teambuilder of balancing a single 6 man practically-infinite-Mu squad is resolved by putting them up against the other 26 people in the match? The huge newbie team would also need a disproportionate number of clones, maybe 250 v 50 instead of 150 v 150. I have thought about this as well and love the idea. Flexible numbers on the teams would make team balancing so much easier. They have said that going over 32 would be problematic but your solution stays with in that and really should be considered. Balancing clone counts would be the interesting part. What about if they just took a number like say 10 clones per player and that number of clones was assigned at the creation of the match? Another possible solution would be to actually create a value for each person on the team based on their K/D and WP/D so that a new berry being a new berry is not an instant disadvantage for one side. This would also make a cool subsystem possibility with like 1 extra clone per level. TL;DR LOVE IT. Match generation as the balancing factor instead of team building itself sounds amazing and there are tons of things that could be done there.


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17943	Posted - 2015.03.05 09:51:00 - [61] - Quote This discussion is effectively over. We all agree that the matchmaker itself needs work but teambuilder is working as intended. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"



Pages: 1 2 3 :: [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.