You're completely right that the problem is irrelevant, but you kinda say: "The problem is irrelevant" and then "The problem is actually relevant" in two subsequent sentences.


Your statement "substantially lesser odds of oddly shaped inputs getting hung up in queue while awaiting complementary pairs" is unclear for two competing reasons:

1. It is precisely a statement which is equivalent to the counting problem I attempted to detail in my discussion. It's clear that the problem is difficult, and that the results don't necessarily match your claimed intuition about the impact of larger squad sizes has on the proportion of "good" squad partitions. In fact, my proof was incorrect for a number of reasons, though I've finally turned up what looks to be a paper by an undergraduate or graduate student pair that can be used to put the question to rest for a few basic examples. https://www.rose-hulman.edu/mathjournal/archives/2008/vol9-n2/paper5/v9n2-5pd.pdf ; I'm checking it and then I'll have to futz around with some CAS stuff.
2. All of the discussion of proportions of valid partitions is completely irrelevant to the problem at hand. We have absolutely no clue as to how frequently groupings of particular sizes typically arrive in the queue. If solo players turn up excessively often then the entire discussion is meaningless. This isn't a matter of optimization, it's a matter of queuing theory, and a complicated matter at that even if we had the information that we're missing.

There are so many better points of contention in this discussion space than trying to make an argument based on mathematics that none of us have the time to synthesize. The statement is entirely vacuous without more information and more analysis. Even further, it completely ignores the psychological aspect of how the queuing environment will probably change as players respond to new conditions.



I'm not entirely caught up on this thread because it has run so long. Perhaps you were suggesting that we should just restrict groups to sizes of 4, 8, and 16 wholesale in FW. That might not be a terrible idea for a number of psychological and gameplay reasons, but in terms of math? I'm not so sure.

Before someone tries to say it:

Not once have I argued against team deploy in this thread. I have argued against just throwing it into the current system as fast as possible without even thinking about what else needs to be there besides " a UI change " as Kain claims is all that is needed.

O.o?????

The hell are you going on about now with this clone selling business? Land holders? The hell does any of that have to do with Faction Warfare????

Well, then after all this argument it's good to know that we all basically support team deployment then.

It has to do with exactly the point I made earlier about intentional CP farming through the same exploits. Considering CP is required for almost every move you make in PC as well as provides access to discounted clone packs any CP exploit is a serious one that has the means to offset the many months now that has been spent trying to work out PC 2.0.

CP is required to sell clones. No CP no passive ISK from clone generation, more CP more passive ISK and district credits to spend in the "unique market"

CP is required to change timers. If you want to lock districts through moving timers around you need a large flow of CP exactly what exploiting this could provide.

CP can be used for cheaper clone packs which can also be used to launch locking attacks as well as give any corp a larger advantage than their corporation activity is meant to dictate.

Back to the math stuff. The simple issue here is that you are trying to calculate based on a clean slate which is simply not the case. We already have squad prioritization in effect which means that would have to be reworked as well before 16 man can be added.

No, I've never purported that the conclusion here has any bearing on the actual situation from a mathematical standpoint. What I've set about to show is that yours and Adipem's intuitions are absolutely not useful, and that's patently the case. It should be clear to you and Adipem now that the existence of "bad" partitioning configurations is only a single, tiny observation in what would be a detailed investigation. For the length of the history of this discussion, I've been emphasizing that the fact of the matter is that there are no useful conclusions to draw on a mathematical basis without substantial further analysis of a type none of us are going to do.

"There will be odd parts!" is a concern that is neither here nor there without information that we don't have. The problem is not simple, and both of your continuing posting patterns make it clear that you don't really understand the level of analysis necessary to draw even cursory conclusions.

I'm not really going to sit around arguing this point much further, since I'm pretty sure only you and Adipem insist on trying to draw mathematical conclusions without any particular rigorous basis in fact. From the outset, the only take away that I want any reader to take away is this: Without proof it's completely impossible to say whether a mathematical statement is true or false. Claiming that a statement is true because of a few observations that make you "feel that way" is a great place to start investigating proof, but it's not a valid place from which to draw a conclusion.

You're making a lot of assumptions about "what, and Why" and forgetting that the previous dev team loved to overcomplicate simple things.

We are currently at the mercy of a mad scientist dev who seems to think that simplicity that even a 12 year old can understand isn't a bad thing if it can add to the game.

There is not "Matchmaker wasn't built to handle 16 man squads. the matchmaker doesn't give a crap if the squad is 16 or 6.

In fact, if there's multiple 16s in the queue all the matchmaker has to do is pull the two highest in the queue, drop them then go back to Mu sorting of the smaller squads and randumbs. Every argument I have seen based on math eitehr needs to sh*t numbers proving the thesis or admit that the thesis is based on an asspull.

there is no matchmaking in FW

The team builder in FW is not the match maker in pubs. It does not have Mu or anything else. It simply slams 16 people together as fast as possible while making sure squads get to go in first.

OMG! YOU PAID ATTENTION!

It appears you DO seem to understand how the matchmaker works.

Now apply the following logic:

Greater squad size = acceleration to a higher spot on queue.

Priority of deployment:

Full Squads.

THEN partial squads

THEN Randumbs.

It has always been thus, even in FW.

It does not simply roll the random number generator and go "All right, what miserable mismatch can I pop out of my ass today???"

And correct. Rattati did not apply any new matchmaking logic other than what was already there to FW deployment.

If we get 16 man deploy any randoms can just search solo and AFK with whatever group they get dropped into.

Do we really want to teach randoms that they can just roll the dice for a match to AFK a free win a portion of the ime because they got dropped in with a 14 man squad who was just short? I thought AFKing was bad enough in FW.

What game are you playing?

This happens all the time already.

You obviously missed the portion which I underlined for you.

Since there is already a problem does that mean we should make it worse?

I'm not really going to sit around arguing this point much further, since I'm pretty sure only you and Adipem insist on trying to draw mathematical conclusions without any particular rigorous basis in fact.