4. When fighting against higher ranking players, if you lose, it's kind of expected, so you won't lose much ranking, but if you win, your ranking would increase by a lot, so losing a few matches because of vets isn't that much of an issue from ranking point of view.

Quick question pretty sure youve been asked already but is ranking determined by sp win/loss ratio kdr or average war points or all the above. Ir is it determined by players killed based of certain numbers such as those listed above

1. I just seem to find em all.

2. So it encourages people to be bad or be thrown in with Vets using gear suited for fighting low ranks. Nice.



Of course it's expected that I lose, I'm not saying I should win, I'm saying I don't wan't the "opportunity" to try and beat them. You replaced "skill" with ranking..now I'm confused..I think I want to say I don't wan't the chance at higher ranking by fighting Vets, I want the ranking for fighting my own low ranks so I can actually enjoy the video game I'm playing. *Intense staring* :D

So as a diciplined group, do you want to stomp players which are much lower skills than you or you want to fight a similarly diciplined group, at least we don't want the former one to happen.

2. I don't know how you interpret it to this, what I'm saying is the player's true ranking will be corrected as they play more matches, it's not about "encourages people to be bad", it's about if the ranking is not reflecting his real skill, it will be corrected.

Skill is an abstract definition, and we realized it by representing it as "ranking", I just don't want to confuse it with skill points.

Ohh. I agree fully. I can stomp one way or another though, it doesn't really matter to me. I just want to get into a game, man. I, and the other not get pulled in and out of battle with no reward at all and losing suits to no one and losing isk. I imagine that you guys know how messed up the matchmaking is and that's why the next event is focused on FW instead of pubs. It starts in a few hours and now everyone with be q syncing so you probably won't be hearing much about that from me after that. I just hope that this problem is fixed after the event is over...

He was just saying that there might be a fault somewhere in the battle system. He also said said that because there are just so few players available, it's hard to find a balanced match based on the squad you're in if you happen to be with vets in your squad. Have you tried squading up with other players of your tier and see you might get better matches?

Also, he was just making a suggestion about going solo to give it a try. Nothing wrong with doing that. I have been going solo for a long time now and so far I have not had much problems with matchmaking recently with only some minor exceptions. However, it seems to me that there might be a problem with mid-tier players finding a good match. Players in the low and high tiers seem to have less problems compared to mid-tier. At least that's what me and one other player think so far.

Getting sick of the lopsided teams. I enjoy a challenge, don't get me wrong... but when games were actually filled out 16 vs 16. it was more fun. These 7 on 16 matches are sickening even though we won a few of them,, Games where the enemy ( or even your team) has twice the players SHOULD NOT EXIST, that's just wrong. Almost as wrong as the gambleboxes.

-Rom

O k so the situation is as follows. I will be in a squad of 6, often with many of us having high SP. We will be queued by the squad leader into, for, example Skirmisk and Ambush. If we don't get into a match, we will have been waiting about 6 minutes before being scottied for the first time. We will then try to queue up the search again (there are a few things that happen here and where I am having huge problems with the game and the main crux of what I am complaining about).

We will get scottied repeatedly. Often with the time, for the brief second that it is up reading "Estimated time to deployment 00:57" before scottied the entire squad. This will repeat over and over again. We will switch squad leaders, we will wait, and then, with the squad be queuing for a game that none of the squad leaders queuing for, in the case that I am describing, we would be pulled into a Domination match. The squad will be pulled into the battle and anywhere from 5 seconds into the match until almost 5 minutes where my squad and I will be removed from the game and then we will be pulled back into the merc quarters. When this happens my team will be repeatedly pulled in a pulled out of battle. We have tried switching squad leaders, resetting our systems, switching servers, even singing guitar songs to Scotty but it is all for naught because in all these circumstances, even when we all reset our systems, and log back in and get to the merc quarters, we will continue to be pulled into battles that we ultimately get removed from, losing suits, vehicles, and weapons that we were using at the time. I have been doing a lot of faction warfare to avoid this where the competition is non existent, not rewarding in regards to ISK, and generally not as fun as the public matches I have played before.

To be fair, when all 16 players on both side start at the same time and fight it out, they are very good games. It's just a shame that I can only say that about a 5 games that I have played since April 1st. I am playing more PC and FW than pubs these days and it is reflecting in the relative emptiness of my merc's wallet...

The scenario above happened to me yesterday as well. It didn't stop until I logged into an alt and played a match on that. Then I could log back in on my main and have it queue properly. I was running solo, no squad.

Ah... I would say it's some dirty corners in the battle system, our GM and QA had noticed some weird bugs a long time ago, but it's so hard to find a solution or sometimes even reproduce the bug...

Speaking of matchmaking, if you squad up with really really high skill players, then unless there's an equally good squad queueing at the same time, it's doomed to find a battle, because we cannot find 2 balanced teams with enough players... Can you try solo? Is it better?

We'll try to fix the problem of scotty by accepting some unbalanced battle if player really waits too long, do come back and try pubs after the event I'll also update when the fix is deployed.

Skill seems to create confusion, it's better called "ranking"

Several facts:
1. There isn't much battles where vet and non-vet mixed together
2. If a player with low ranking from matchmaking's view is actually pretty good, he will move to high ranking pretty fast by winning, so you wouldn't face them in just a few (or maybe one) match after
3. Even in a battle like you're talking about, you still have many low ranking players in the other team for you to counter, and what I'm saying is on your side you also have vets to counter enemy vets. A battle shouldn't be decided solely by one or two vets, it's also about the whole team, so killing other players also contributes to your victory
4. When fighting against higher ranking players, if you lose, it's kind of expected, so you won't lose much ranking, but if you win, your ranking would increase by a lot, so losing a few matches because of vets isn't that much of an issue from ranking point of view.

Honestly I think players getting an error trying to queue for a battle is the one thing you should avoid at all costs. If you put them against a poor bunch of lesser ranked mercs, then it's only as bad as before matchmaking came in,and I would suggest that is better than basically telling a squad, nah sorry, you can't play right now, you're too good.

Of course this means you'll get problems on the other team because they are more likely to lose (or get stomped) but I'm not sure you should prevent a high-rank squad joining a battle. That has to be the fastest way to lose players.

If matchmaking is on some sort of timer, then when that runs out, you really have to put people into a battle rather than tell them to try again. That's no different to having them wait 6 + 6 minutes for a battle. 6 minutes is kind of long as it is but maybe acceptable.

from a game design standpoint, it's fairly easy to achieve this.

Simply add a 'revenge bonus' to your next win based on how badly you've lost so far, a bit like a jackpot in a lottery. A certain percent of the ISK you lose in a match that you see through to the end will be stored away, and given back when you finally win a game.

So, if you're on a six-match losing streak and finally win a match, you'll be showered in isk to recoup some of the isk you've lost since your last win.

This will encourage people to

a) see matches through, even if they are losing
b) push harder for a win to get their jackpot

And since there will be people in each match in category A and people in B, it's a virtuous circle of cause and effect.

Interesting idea we did talked about changing the reward mechanism after this matchmaking change so players can still benefit from probably less battles (due to longer waiting time).

Interesting idea we did talked about changing the reward mechanism after this matchmaking change so players can still benefit from probably less battles (due to longer waiting time).

I don't know how you interpret it to this, what I'm saying is the player's true ranking will be corrected as they play more matches, it's not about "encourages people to be bad", it's about if the ranking is not reflecting his real skill, it will be corrected.

Skill is an abstract definition, and we realized it by representing it as "ranking", I just don't want to confuse it with skill points.

But I keep thinking that the longer a player/squad waits, the more they deserve a balanced battle to fight, probably you're right, but it bothers me so much if you wait much longer than the old matchmaking - which is totally random - and still get same results.......

GǪUmmm. I know we live in a world obcessed with the "transparency" ideal. But I think the ultimate proof of the matchmaking experiments the Devs are coming up with (and, yesGǪthey seem to be a fun improvement) will be for the final structure of the "matchmaking" to be JUST LIKE THE "Aim Assist" system. Meaning,

---It will be SO fluidly "in the background", that players no longer will sense that it's working for them, and how well it's working.

--It, like the "Aim-Assist", will work better when players DO NOT learn the full details of what it's measuring-----so as to minimize any players starting right away to try to circumvent it.

No offense, Devs, but please don't give it all away. You have a promising mechanic going on here, and I'd like to see it succeed. We are PS3 Dust Players, and we're not at all as benign and harmless as you think we are. Seriously, sometimes keeping your lips closed about some areas of a new invention is BETTER. Pretty-Pleeeassee

Yes they deserve a balanced battle, but if that is not possible inside an expected duration, surely they deserve a battle instead of an error and then having to queue again, without any idea how long it's going to take. At the end of the day they want a fight, and Scotty has to serve up the best opposition he can find.

Also if I've read you right, the Scotty error is not actually an error on these occasions, it's that a timer elapsed. That message should reflect what just happened - right now I bet everyone thinks it's a bug rather than there's nobody of your rank to fight.

With that knowledge, if that is the case, then shouldn't that squad be able to split into two equal parts (how the mercs in squad are going to know what that is I do not know) and guarantee a battle? Albeit against each other? Perhaps then there's some options that could be suggested there.

GǪUmmm. I know we live in a world obcessed with the "transparency" ideal. But I think the ultimate proof of the matchmaking experiments the Devs are coming up with (and, yesGǪthey seem to be a fun improvement) will be for the final structure of the "matchmaking" to be JUST LIKE THE "Aim Assist" system. Meaning,

---It will be SO fluidly "in the background", that players no longer will sense that it's working for them, and how well it's working.

--It, like the "Aim-Assist", will work better when players DO NOT learn the full details of what it's measuring-----so as to minimize any players starting right away to try to circumvent it.

No offense, Devs, but please don't give it all away. You have a promising mechanic going on here, and I'd like to see it succeed. We are PS3 Dust Players, and we're not at all as benign and harmless as you think we are. Seriously, sometimes keeping your lips closed about some areas of a new invention is BETTER. Pretty-Pleeeassee