Having taken pictures of a few unbalanced matches I later realised that they were caused by squads on one side bailing.

I have checked hundreds of battles, and demonstrated in a recent thread a sample of such a deep dive.

How many have you checked, and where is your data?

How do you determine who is in squads and who not?

^ This is probably the main reason we have loopsided battles.

I might not fully understand the Mu concept, but I willing to take a leap with CCP Rattati's statement that it truly represent the skill of the individual player, and that the Teambuilder is working as expected. What then is left is the Matchmaker.

So how do we prevent this behaviour (leaving game)?
I would say: Don't let the same people meet eachother time and time again.
(Difficult with our numbers, I know...)

I have checked hundreds of battles, and demonstrated in a recent thread a sample of such a deep dive.

How many have you checked, and where is your data?

How do you determine who is in squads and who not?

If the squad Mu is built based on Solo Mu, then perhaps we should have separate squad Mu?

Because I have been in matches where the squad of high Mu solo players push a damn good squad onto the other team, but aren't anywhere near the level of 'teamplay' that the 'lesser Mu' squad' who always play together are.


If we already have separate Mu for squads, then I'm buggered if I can tell what's wrong, but the redlining in those matches with multiple squads on the same team, speaks for itself.

Blauhelme, Molon, Gallicus and more. If I had these teams before the match I would have been hard pressed to pick a winner...

Act like an adult - the "question" was poorly formed and not understandable. He said he didn't understand - maybe try to rephrase the question so he does. Acting the way you are will only convince him to ignore you and this thread, and where is the positive in that?

Act like an adult - the "question" was poorly formed and not understandable. He said he didn't understand - maybe try to rephrase the question so he does. Acting the way you are will only convince him to ignore you and this thread, and where is the positive in that?

And another thing! The customer is ALWAYS right. He needs to do his f*cking job and grow up, maybe if he did his f*cking job instead of ignoring people for weeks at a time, then I wouldn't have gotten to this point. Why doesn't he grow up, cup his f*cking balls and handle his sh*t, take care of his responsibilities and stop acting like a little b*tch! Go f*ck yourself Rattati! No good piece of f*cking sh*t!

...
Second question: Is it, or is it not true that vets squad together because no one else will squad with them, because their MU is too high? Yes or No.

Hi BB, Please can you hang on for a bit while CCP Rattati reads everyone's minds so he can answer this question about their motivation for you?

Sure...in the meantime I'll correct your sentence their.

"Hi BB, Can you please hang on for a bit, while CCP Rattat reads everyone's mind, so he can answer this question about their motivation for you?"

Their you go dumbsh*t. Is he ready?

Tip: don't post angry or you might, for example, use "their" instead of "there" in a post correcting someone else's English.

First off, you can't see the other team's squad breakdowns, second off your numbers seem pretty vague and nonspecific, and so the conclusion to which I must therefore arrive is that you are exaggerating.

There is no reason that a squad is any good.

I don't know how MU is calculated, but let's say, for argument's sake, pulling numbers right out of my arse, six guys with an individual MU of 10 squad up via Squad Finder.
They get a multiplier of 3.5 for being in full squad, for a squad MU of 210.

There's also a squad of three guys with an individual MU of 40, getting a multiplier of 2, for a total of 240. These mercs are vastly more competent than the full squad, and are selected for team A, while the full squad is first pick on team B.

All works out; it turns out through the magic of blueberries the MUs end up approximately equal on both teams; some more competent players show up and carry team B. All is well, the teambuilder has functioned as it is intended, and no-one gets butthurt cos it looks like a team of nobodies has won.

On the flipside, let's say that noob squad joins the same corp after that match (they were all REALLY IMPRESSED by one another). The competent squad fills out with a fourth corp member. They now have a much larger MU of 400 - they'll be first pick for sure.

A third group, and a fourth show up - there are only a few of them, a four-man squad and a three-man squad. None of these guys share corps - they're friends from a chat channel or something. They have MU of 25 each - that gets multiplied by 2.5 for a total of 250 and by 2 for a total of 150.

The MU balancer now takes the competent team first; they take team A's total to 400. The two new squads conveniently have MUs that add up to 400 together, so those seven get added to team B in order to fill out the team balance. The group of newly-corp'd newbies are the next largest group; they get added to team A. There being no more squads, the teams get filled up in order - there might be some competent players here with MU of 50 or 60, even, but they don't matter compared to the squads.

Team A wins convincingly; the group of extremely skilled players on top of the number of somewhat-organised meatshields carries the day.

The killboard shows up, and it looks like team A has two large squads from two different corps, and team B had nobodies.

Then you, being one of the randoms on team B, go on the forums and complain about a thing that would make sense if you stopped and thought for a minute, and here I am at 1:30AM straining my brain trying to think about numbers that make sense.


I'm going on the assumption, incidentally, that the team with lower MU gets to pick next - as opposed to how it might be selections in the same way that your gym class picked players on the football team.
The former, of course, being a much more sensible method of selection.


EDIT: I have discovered proof that it does indeed work the sensible way I thought it ought! Shockingly, it is in that thread!

Wow someone who understands how the teambuilding works without having to be told. and then realizes that rattata already explained it when nobody was listening.

too bad nobodys still listening, because this is the Dust 514 forums.
If you arent crying "NERF!" nobody's ever listening.
sadly, when you do cry nerf, the devs are listening.

These are all answered in my previous blogs/threads.

Step 1)
All squads and individuals are converted to units. Each unit is the sum of Mu of all the individuals in the squad.

Step 2)
Multiplier is applied to all units

Step 3)
The highest value unit is placed randomly on Team A or Team B, let's say Team A for simplicity.

Step 4)
Units are placed on the opposite Team, Team B, until the sum on Team B exceeds Team A.

Step 5)
Units are placed on Team A until the sum of Mu exceeds Team B or either team has 16 player. Then the rest go on the other team.

Step 6)
Repeat until all units have been placed.

This method guarantees that the two best squads are always on opposite sides.

It also guarantees that the second best and third best squads are on the opposite side of the best squad.

If there is a single 6 man squad and no other squads, it gets placed on one Team and ALL the best individuals on the opposite side, due to the multiplier, usually 8-10 of the best solo players fight the 6 man squad.

Finally, this method has never been shown to have not worked as intended. Players concern is usually because the second best squad isn't all in the same corporation so it looks like randoms.

These are all answered in my previous blogs/threads.

Step 1)
All squads and individuals are converted to units. Each unit is the sum of Mu of all the individuals in the squad.

Step 2)
Multiplier is applied to all units

Step 3)
The highest value unit is placed randomly on Team A or Team B, let's say Team A for simplicity.

Step 4)
Units are placed on the opposite Team, Team B, until the sum on Team B exceeds Team A.

Step 5)
Units are placed on Team A until the sum of Mu exceeds Team B or either team has 16 player. Then the rest go on the other team.

Step 6)
Repeat until all units have been placed.

This method guarantees that the two best squads are always on opposite sides.

It also guarantees that the second best and third best squads are on the opposite side of the best squad.

If there is a single 6 man squad and no other squads, it gets placed on one Team and ALL the best individuals on the opposite side, due to the multiplier, usually 8-10 of the best solo players fight the 6 man squad.

Finally, this method has never been shown to have not worked as intended. Players concern is usually because the second best squad isn't all in the same corporation so it looks like randoms.

And another thing! The customer is ALWAYS right. He needs to do his f*cking job and grow up, maybe if he did his f*cking job instead of ignoring people for weeks at a time, then I wouldn't have gotten to this point. Why doesn't he grow up, cup his f*cking balls and handle his sh*t, take care of his responsibilities and stop acting like a little b*tch! Go f*ck yourself Rattati! No good piece of f*cking sh*t!

Sure...in the meantime I'll correct your sentence their.

"Hi BB, Can you please hang on for a bit, while CCP Rattat reads everyone's mind, so he can answer this question about their motivation for you?"

Their you go dumbsh*t. Is he ready?

^ This is probably the main reason we have loopsided battles.

I might not fully understand the Mu concept, but I willing to take a leap with CCP Rattati's statement that it truly represent the skill of the individual player, and that the Teambuilder is working as expected. What then is left is the Matchmaker.

So how do we prevent this behaviour (leaving game)?
I would say: Don't let the same people meet eachother time and time again.
(Difficult with our numbers, I know...)

BUT

Rattati the major issue is if you have two squad synced for battle on one side the MU do not see "there is need to put another two squads on other one".

If you will have one group and some loners on both side the MU system will works, but with two groups syncs you need to implement more than just MU system.

If the steps listed by CCP Rattati are correct, then it shouldn't be possible for two squads of the same group to q-sync into the same team. One squad would be in Team A while the other squad that q-synced would be put on Team B. At least that's how it's suppose to work right now.

I'm asking because I want to know how it works. I always get put into games with Dia Farron, Kaizuka Sniper, Milkman, Frosty Kitty, and Duna 2002 all on the other team at the same time.

Back in 1.5-1.7 I ran tanks/logi uplinks. I would AVERAGE 4,000WP's per game and have an AVERAGE of 35 kills per game. Not bragging, just found a way to be productive given that current state of the game. Is this why my "MU" is SOOOO high? No one wants to squad with me, except a few good players. Everyone always leaves my squad because they get recked, by those guys above.

They always say they are taking a break, but then I see them post lfs in a chat. I confronted a few of them and they said my MU was high, and they didn't want to face NS all day. How can I fix this...I'm not B.S.ing. This is a legitimate problem for me. I would imagine it's a legitimate problem for a lot of vets...given how few of us there are in comparison to the newer players. This forces myself and others to run solo or stick together and this is why people always joke about the best players being "butt-buddies". It's not the way we want it...you have no idea.

^^^There! Please tell me why this is happening and is this why OP players stick together, creating pubstomping squads....because no one else will play with them...

If the steps listed by CCP Rattati are correct, then it shouldn't be possible for two squads of the same group to q-sync into the same team. One squad would be in Team A while the other squad that q-synced would be put on Team B. At least that's how it's suppose to work right now.

I think people are over-reacting, but in an effort to have transparency and put these complaints to rest, is it possible to show the MU of each player on the leaderboard?

I would propose that the adjusted number for being in a squad be reflected so if you are solo you one match and in a squad the next you can see the actual impact of being in a squad. Also, a total MU score for each team would be nice as well, if we can't show individual MU scores.

Thanks for listening.

I have checked hundreds of battles, and demonstrated in a recent thread a sample of such a deep dive.

How many have you checked, and where is your data?

How do you determine who is in squads and who not?