| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Yosef Autaal
SONS of LEGION
RISE of LEGION
34
   |
Posted - 2013.03.01 16:57:00 -
[1] - Quote
I am a controller player and I do not want to be split from k/m players.
Some people say k/m have unfair advantage if this was true (it isnt) what happens when those people who have now very rarely played agaisnt those k/m players finally go agaisnt them.
You cant split by k/m and keyboard what next splitting people if there using analogue tvs or HDMI because people say HDMI has better picture and can see the snipers in the distance easier??
the only way to do match making is by pl;ayer skill and that is not measurable in Dust -
Example - SP higher sp might mean jack of all trades not a master of one if someone focuses with lower sp granting better equipment then the higher sp player.
ISK- playing with billions who only ever plays with milita gear or player with thousands who is spending all his isk on proto gear and tanks
K/D ration- the sniper who hides dar away never getting killed compared to logi who stays in thick of it focusing on repping then shooting and rarely gets any kills
the only way to do match making is squads and corps.
|
Thurak Mirunas
BetaMax.
9
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 17:10:00 -
[2] - Quote
Another way for good matchmaking is having battles on a large enough scale that its statistically unlikely 1 team will have a significant skill advantage over the other, 16 v 16 games can be greatly offset by 1 very good player or a squad, 256v256 would need a lot more good players on 1 team to make an impact.
For measurement of skill I guess wins/losses is reasonable measurement, although someone who spends most of there time in a squad will get higher wins/losses if they play together and they may still suck playing solo, WP/life could also be considered, I think for matchmaking in random battles its fine the way it is, although more players per team will help reduce and balance games from as one sided as they can be, however generally balance is reasonable |
Cade Orion
Tronhadar Free Guard
Minmatar Republic
28
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 20:15:00 -
[3] - Quote
Thurak Mirunas wrote:Another way for good matchmaking is having battles on a large enough scale that its statistically unlikely 1 team will have a significant skill advantage over the other, 16 v 16 games can be greatly offset by 1 very good player or a squad, 256v256 would need a lot more good players on 1 team to make an impact.
For measurement of skill I guess wins/losses is reasonable measurement, although someone who spends most of there time in a squad will get higher wins/losses if they play together and they may still suck playing solo, WP/life could also be considered, I think for matchmaking in random battles its fine the way it is, although more players per team will help reduce and balance games from as one sided as they can be, however generally balance is reasonable
Ah sounds like an ex-MAG player - I have to agree though the more players on the battlefield the less one great player stands out. But MAG did it right - it would take a great deal of map planning to do something similar again. |
Buster Friently
Rosen Association
43
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 20:17:00 -
[4] - Quote
Thurak Mirunas wrote:Another way for good matchmaking is having battles on a large enough scale that its statistically unlikely 1 team will have a significant skill advantage over the other, 16 v 16 games can be greatly offset by 1 very good player or a squad, 256v256 would need a lot more good players on 1 team to make an impact.
For measurement of skill I guess wins/losses is reasonable measurement, although someone who spends most of there time in a squad will get higher wins/losses if they play together and they may still suck playing solo, WP/life could also be considered, I think for matchmaking in random battles its fine the way it is, although more players per team will help reduce and balance games from as one sided as they can be, however generally balance is reasonable
More players in battle is definitely a better approach than splitting the community based on input device. |
Jathniel
G I A N T
51
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 23:39:00 -
[5] - Quote
+1 for the OP.
There are people on gamepad, that are actually better than folks on KB/M.
Let people play together as they see fit. |
Reimus Klinsman
BetaMax.
321
|
Posted - 2013.03.02 00:53:00 -
[6] - Quote
No to seperating Controller vs KBM.
I use a mouse and a DS3 at the same time... What game shard would I be in?
What about the people who use KBM for infantry and controller for vehicles?
No ones been complaining. |
RINON114
B.S.A.A.
18
|
Posted - 2013.03.02 02:45:00 -
[7] - Quote
+1 to this!
I use k/m and get my butt kicked. I'm still not used to it! |
Shijima Kuraimaru
WarRavens
168
|
Posted - 2013.03.02 04:27:00 -
[8] - Quote
Cade Orion wrote:Thurak Mirunas wrote:Another way for good matchmaking is having battles on a large enough scale that its statistically unlikely 1 team will have a significant skill advantage over the other, 16 v 16 games can be greatly offset by 1 very good player or a squad, 256v256 would need a lot more good players on 1 team to make an impact.
For measurement of skill I guess wins/losses is reasonable measurement, although someone who spends most of there time in a squad will get higher wins/losses if they play together and they may still suck playing solo, WP/life could also be considered, I think for matchmaking in random battles its fine the way it is, although more players per team will help reduce and balance games from as one sided as they can be, however generally balance is reasonable Ah sounds like an ex-MAG player - I have to agree though the more players on the battlefield the less one great player stands out. But MAG did it right - it would take a great deal of map planning to do something similar again.
Have you actually zoomed all the way out on the deployment screen and seen the entirety of the maps? We're just waiting for everything to come together so CCP can open them up fully? |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |