DUST Search - Instant Battle - Searching For Battle

S Park Finner wrote:

If this were any other kind of matchmaking -- like a dating service -- the people running it would ASK the people using it who they wanted to match up with. Why all the heartache over automatic matchmaking? Aren't the players smart enough to state their preferences?

Lets say there are three measures: K/D, War Points/Death, and Allocated skill points.

Let the players choose the minimum and maximum player level in each category they want to play with. Make it a configuration options. Be sure they set it when they create their character so they know the option is there. Have it default to a middle value, set it once and forget it, or change it around with your mood.

For each measure check off...

The minimum level player I want to play with is...

Much worse than me
Some worse than me
About the same as me
Some better than me
Much better than me
Don't care

The maximum level player I want to play with is...

Much worse than me
Some worse than me
About the same as me
Some better than me
Much better than me
Don't care

If the game can't find a match it tells you why and you can loosen the requirements.
If you are playing in a group it tries to match you all and if it can't tells you who didn't make the match an why.

Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Beren Hurin OMNI Endeavors 183	Posted - 2013.02.17 21:35:00 - [61] - Quote ImperfectFan514 wrote: Noc Tempre wrote: I believe relying on matchmaking algorithms to create fun matchups is a fools errand. EVE was successful for making a sandbox and saying "have fun". The constant attempt to force the players into a single experience is very anti-CCP and more importantly, isn't working. Matches since the changes have resulted in 3/4 members of a squad being able to put up 20+ kills a piece. They need to bring back the old battlefinder and allow competitive players to have at each other. What are you saying here? That it should be MORE imbalances with 20% of players getting 80% of kills?
ImperfectFan514 IMPSwarm Negative-Feedback 51	Posted - 2013.02.17 21:45:00 - [62] - Quote Beren Hurin wrote: ImperfectFan514 wrote: Noc Tempre wrote: I believe relying on matchmaking algorithms to create fun matchups is a fools errand. EVE was successful for making a sandbox and saying "have fun". The constant attempt to force the players into a single experience is very anti-CCP and more importantly, isn't working. Matches since the changes have resulted in 3/4 members of a squad being able to put up 20+ kills a piece. They need to bring back the old battlefinder and allow competitive players to have at each other. What are you saying here? That it should be MORE imbalances with 20% of players getting 80% of kills? Back in August we had a functional battlefinder that allowed players to pick where they played versus relying on "instant matchmaking". Instant matchmaking has only created more problems with this game than it has solved.
S Park Finner BetaMax. 89	Posted - 2013.02.17 21:55:00 - [63] - Quote If this were any other kind of matchmaking -- like a dating service -- the people running it would ASK the people using it who they wanted to match up with. Why all the heartache over automatic matchmaking? Aren't the players smart enough to state their preferences? Lets say there are three measures: K/D, War Points/Death, and Allocated skill points. Let the players choose the minimum and maximum player level in each category they want to play with. Make it a configuration options. Be sure they set it when they create their character so they know the option is there. Have it default to a middle value, set it once and forget it, or change it around with your mood. For each measure check off... The minimum level player I want to play with is... Much worse than me Some worse than me About the same as me Some better than me Much better than me Don't care The maximum level player I want to play with is... Much worse than me Some worse than me About the same as me Some better than me Much better than me Don't care If the game can't find a match it tells you why and you can loosen the requirements. If you are playing in a group it tries to match you all and if it can't tells you who didn't make the match an why.
Drommy Hood Tritan-Industries Legacy Rising 242	Posted - 2013.02.17 22:05:00 - [64] - Quote S Park Finner wrote: If this were any other kind of matchmaking -- like a dating service -- the people running it would ASK the people using it who they wanted to match up with. Why all the heartache over automatic matchmaking? Aren't the players smart enough to state their preferences? Lets say there are three measures: K/D, War Points/Death, and Allocated skill points. Let the players choose the minimum and maximum player level in each category they want to play with. Make it a configuration options. Be sure they set it when they create their character so they know the option is there. Have it default to a middle value, set it once and forget it, or change it around with your mood. For each measure check off... The minimum level player I want to play with is... Much worse than me Some worse than me About the same as me Some better than me Much better than me Don't care The maximum level player I want to play with is... Much worse than me Some worse than me About the same as me Some better than me Much better than me Don't care If the game can't find a match it tells you why and you can loosen the requirements. If you are playing in a group it tries to match you all and if it can't tells you who didn't make the match an why. Only problem with that is, if you where going to do it like that you would have to have diminishing returns for choosing players much worse than you. Because decimating the new berries would probably give you more actual rewards than being decimated by the top players. Not to mention your own costs in dying more in harder battles
S Park Finner BetaMax. 89	Posted - 2013.02.17 22:15:00 - [65] - Quote Drommy Hood wrote: Only problem with that is, if you where going to do it like that you would have to have diminishing returns for choosing players much worse than you. Because decimating the new berries would probably give you more actual rewards than being decimated by the top players. Not to mention your own costs in dying more in harder battles That's true enough but the new players don't have to sign up to play with you. They could set an upper limit to keep you out. Or did I misunderstand your comment?
WR3CK HAVOC SVER True Blood Unclaimed. 11	Posted - 2013.02.17 23:37:00 - [66] - Quote Reset the battle search. I only get put into games about to end and on the team that is being redlined. I used to be able to join a game that is about to start, but now all the matches are ending and im on the losing team.
R F Gyro ZionTCD Legacy Rising 315	Posted - 2013.02.17 23:44:00 - [67] - Quote Sloth9230 wrote: Vrain Matari wrote: In a rational universe, this would be true. Keep a score of what type of matches players participate in, that way we can know if someone is pubstomping randoms just so they can pad their KDR. That, or have separate KDR for scores for both of them. With the player-balanced matches I suggested that the very easiest ones (1.0 sec status in my model) don't even impact KDR.
Noc Tempre Imperfects Negative-Feedback 1170	Posted - 2013.02.18 00:13:00 - [68] - Quote A system where there is only one button yet everyone gets a customized experience is a fools errand at best.
Vrain Matari ZionTCD Legacy Rising 404	Posted - 2013.02.18 00:54:00 - [69] - Quote Noc Tempre wrote: I believe relying on matchmaking algorithms to create fun matchups is a fools errand. EVE was successful for making a sandbox and saying "have fun". The constant attempt to force the players into a single experience is very anti-CCP and more importantly, isn't working. In a free-roam sandbox version of DUST(which I want so desperately it's actually pathetic), what you say about EVE would apply. It's the fps match structure that's the issue here - tender nooberries getting jammed in a very small cell with seasoned rapists - that many apparently have an issue with. There's a lot of reviews out there crying about how much the initial DUST experience sucks. Personally, I agree with you, I'm totally fine with taking a godawful beating for months, it's fun. But a lot of potential players don't feel that way. BTW, this whole matchmaking discussion should be confined to hisec pub matches - once a player gets their feet under them, the gloves should come off. Should DUST accommodate the new player experience?
S Park Finner BetaMax. 89	Posted - 2013.02.18 01:30:00 - [70] - Quote Vrain Matari wrote: Noc Tempre wrote: I believe relying on matchmaking algorithms to create fun matchups is a fools errand. EVE was successful for making a sandbox and saying "have fun". The constant attempt to force the players into a single experience is very anti-CCP and more importantly, isn't working. ... There's a lot of reviews out there crying about how much the initial DUST experience sucks. Personally, I agree with you, I'm totally fine with taking a godawful beating for months, it's fun. But a lot of potential players don't feel that way. BTW, this whole matchmaking discussion should be confined to hisec pub matches - once a player gets their feet under them, the gloves should come off ... I'm completely behind this sentiment. I made a suggestion for player driven matchmaking but it should be limited to hi-sec pub matches. Anywhere else you're on your own. In EVE we have system security levels and Concord to enforce them. It helps support different levels of involvement for players. DUST 514 not only doesn't have that but also has a potential player base that needs a new method of introduction to the EVE universe. Good matchmaking early in a player's DUST 514 experience can play a big part in that.

Ling Jirachi SVER True Blood Unclaimed. 5	Posted - 2013.02.18 08:55:00 - [71] - Quote I could be wrong, but I thought the original plan (ie. what was announced at Fanfest 2012) would be dynamically generated maps, with orbitals and anti-orbitals that were based in low-sec and nullsec only, plus eSports focussed maps such as a "gladiator's arena" and CTF. Is this not the stuff we hoped for, and the features that got us excited about the potential of this game? Right now we're playing on a handful of test maps to iron out the various problems with everything else before the more complicated journey of dividing up the universe happens. It might be a while away (it certainly is off schedule according to last year's Fanfest announcement), and if you want to put the game down, that's fine - no one's forcing you to play it. But I imagine that every bit of constructive feedback is helpful, as well as every match you try to play, rather than just calling everything bs for a game that is in beta (ie testing) and that you haven't paid for. Unless, of course, you bought the merc pack or aurum.
Leovarian L Lavitz Tritan-Industries Legacy Rising 278	Posted - 2013.02.18 09:21:00 - [72] - Quote I think it is set to auto-float people based on kdr, war point average, total kills, matches played, your average rank on the score board after every battle. It probably generates a number from that information, then has 16(random number, I don't know how many) tiers of matches. People who almost always rank first on their team find their way into tier one matches, people who almost always rank two find their way into the rank two matches, and so on. A squad will find a nice center point to place itself in the matches based on it's members weighted average ranks. it's a positive to negative scale, so 8 ranks (1 to 8) and (0 to -7) Newberries find themselves playing on the rank zero match (against people who usually placed eight in pub matches) If they do consistantly well, it promotes them level by level till they finally reach rank one matches, if they start doing horribly for a bit, it will demote them till they do consistantly again. Imo. TLDR: It uses your average match ranking to chose your difficulty level, then adjusts it from there after every two or so matches.
DJINN leukoplast Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy 288	Posted - 2013.02.18 10:17:00 - [73] - Quote Well, during my normal session, I actually found it MUCH easier to get into matches than previously. Over the last week or two (or three), I was having near constant problems joining matches, especially Ambush OMS. It would say waiting for deployment for centuries, usually ending in failure. But tonight I don't think I had a single failure to join a match, and the deployment was near instant in either Ambush or Ambush OMS (aside from after the one 000 clone glitch match I had). As for the games, it didn't seem much different than usual, although the balance of name-brand players on each side was somewhat proportional and I didn't witness any full-squad one-corp steamrolling tonight (there was some steamrolling, just not due to corps loading up one side). In fact, the teams that actually had full squads on one side, usually got dominated. Most of what I saw was squads of two corp members on both sides. Overall a fun night with decent matches as a solo player. Although I was expecting a lot more stiff competition based on my stats. 2.8 mil SP, ~4,400 kills @ 4.78 KDR (my W/L isn't that great though, maybe 1.8)
KalOfTheRathi CowTek 168	Posted - 2013.02.18 13:34:00 - [74] - Quote I asked my Squad Leader why this was posted in General versus Announcements and he thought it was because of open comments. Well, our comment was: Damn this matchmaking sucked. We were in several Skirmishes with two Full Squads from two different Corps and our Squad of two or three with enough New Berries to make jam out of. Which the Reds promptly did. We worked our butts off trying to make some progress but it was horrifying more than it wasn't. Oddly enough when I played later, before the shutdown, with a slightly different Squad it was not nearly as one sided. Somewhat but at least the Battles weren't instant canned Blue Soup. My Squad Leader had suggested that the balance was based on SP and as such his leaving changed the stats. I can supply his ID under request but would have to check with him first. Nonetheless, as the later Squad had popped a 800K ISK HAV, one of those losses didn't taste all that bad.
KalOfTheRathi CowTek 168	Posted - 2013.02.19 12:30:00 - [75] - Quote After playing for a few days and even just recently until the Server Shutdown at 10:30 GMT Feb 19, 2013 the Instant Battle Finder solution is still not a good solution. I would love to see some of the data for the match ups. However a lot of Mercs would like to see any data related to playing DUST. But, I digress. Your match up still sucks most times. It appears to cycle through several different solution spaces. One is Everybody Gets Their Own Squad and God knows what is balanced between Teams. Then there is the always horrible variant of putting two Corp Squads of four Mercs each on one side, leaving the Designated Losing Squad filled with New Berries and maybe a few Vets with a significant desire for anti-depressants. A time or two since the test there has been a match or two that was good. Solid Squads counts, mostly balanced set of pre-existing Squads on opposite sides even. Something was obviously broken there. My personal fear is that the two sides are getting the benefit of two completely different algorithms but we will be left in the dark as to what any of them are. So in parting let me say: Filters, what a concept. Maybe even as just a preference that always fails.
Emi Love The Southern Legion 0	Posted - 2013.02.19 13:37:00 - [76] - Quote I don't know about using sp values, or just using k:d ratio, and this is my take.. Feel free to troll at my outside the box thinking I think a good match making idea would be; -Average cost of isk per death (including drop suit, all mods and weapons values only, and can include vehicles Isk cost too, but would have to be tweaked so it's not just a server of HAV drivers) - so ppl who run prototype gear (150k ~ isk) can verse ppl who use similar equipment.. Enjoy the competition :) - also I wouldn't mind see the average cost of suit and weapon isk cost per death in character sheet stats (if this gets to I'd like it noted the idea was mine :P) - in combination with k:d cause in essence, that to me is the difference in players skill lvl (would have to exclude vehicle kills, cause that would throw a spanner in the works) - I know that k:d ratio screws logi, but a good logi doesn't go into battles without a squad anyways, and if they do well they better be able to kill anyways. - and for the pro that just runs militia weapons and drop suits +mods well he'll be versing people who use 20-40k isk~ weapons and drop suits +mods, so it should be a bit more balanced This is just the idea, tweak as needed - Che
Full Metal Kitten Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 150	Posted - 2013.02.19 16:18:00 - [77] - Quote Either matchmaking is getting better, or my gun game is. Can't tell which yet. It does appear the balance of pre-formed squads is improved. If true, then I guess that answers my first point.
Draco Cerberus Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy 6	Posted - 2013.03.12 18:17:00 - [78] - Quote R F Gyro wrote: I love the way CCP seem to want to make both work and grief for themselves. They'll pour more and more effort into making an increasingly complex matchmaking system, and they'll still get constant grief for it. In fact, they may well get more grief as they make it more complex because it will become less obvious what the rules are. CCP should stop taking responsibility for matchmaking and let the players do it. All that would be required is to offer players a choice matches with different levels of rewards (and possibly specific restrictions such as "no pre-built squads"). Newbies will choose low reward matches where they face a lower chance of getting pubstomped, experienced players will choose high reward matches for faster SP progression and to pay for their proto gear. I agree with part of this but considering we're fighting over actual districts on planets why not list the districts being qued for battle (Planet x, District y, Constellation z) and let players decide which battles to go to. That way the involvement of their eve counterparts can be orbital support instead of a response "I think I can get from Jita to there in time for the match, oh wait, I'm not in Jita and all I have is my Velator"


Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page