|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
howard sanchez
Zumari Force Projection
Caldari State
525
   |
Posted - 2013.05.10 18:59:00 -
[1] - Quote
First, I like the concept of using War Points earned as your meter for player experience until such time as more refined metrics are in place.
Second, why do we need to set a hard limit on the number of WP to cut off access to Instant Battle Academy?
It seems to me that one big issue with splitting the player base for pub match play is the risk that one or both player pools will be too small to keep constant battles going.
If that is not the case and player population is big enough to sustain splitting the community between queues then my next suggestion may not be needed.
Suggestion: CCP knows how many players are needed online in order to sustain instant battles. Take that number and sp,it the community around it based on WPs.
Example: if you need 2000 players online to sustain instant battles and you have 7000 players online then figure out where the WP total is that carves out about 2000 and define that total and below as your Academy set. Those players queue to Acadamy battles and players w/ WP totals above that number queue to normal battles.
The goal of my suggestion is to keep a set of players w/ the least exp (WP) in a sustainable battle queue. |
howard sanchez
Zumari Force Projection
Caldari State
525
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 19:04:00 -
[2] - Quote
Noc Tempre wrote:WPs is a really bad metric. If you really want to go that way, then perhaps 1M?
Noc,
You've been around a long time and are a very experienced beta vet. Why do you consider total WP earned a poor metric for gauging overall player experience?
Follow up: given your reasoning for declaring WP a 'really bad metric', why do you suggest 1,000,000 WP as the cut off for Academy matches? |
howard sanchez
Zumari Force Projection
Caldari State
525
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 19:06:00 -
[3] - Quote
Noc Tempre wrote:Noc Tempre wrote:WPs is a really bad metric. If you really want to go that way, then perhaps 1M? In case this wasn't clear, this wasn't serious. Ideally I would like to see the number be dynamic. Bottom 5%?
Thanks, yah, wasn't clear to me that you weren't serious. I take you seriously and thanks for the follow up. I like the dynamic vote. |
howard sanchez
Zumari Force Projection
Caldari State
525
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 20:18:00 -
[4] - Quote
Tiel Syysch wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:Noc Tempre wrote:howard sanchez wrote:Noc Tempre wrote:WPs is a really bad metric. If you really want to go that way, then perhaps 1M? Noc, You've been around a long time and are a very experienced beta vet. Why do you consider total WP earned a poor metric for gauging overall player experience? Follow up: given your reasoning for declaring WP a 'really bad metric', why do you suggest 1,000,000 WP as the cut off for Academy matches? See my follow up. Sorry for leading with sarcasm. But in general, any fixed number risks sending players off a cliff if they are still unable to compete. Sure they *should* have graduated, but forcing them to so suddenly may be an experience that causes them to give up. Yeah this is in general why I'm not so in favor of a hard limit. A gradient of experience and skill level is really what we are after and that is what a proper match making solution should provide (it's also really difficult to do but we are working on it). My thoughts on this - hard limit obviously bad. Passing a threshold and just instantly go from one game being manageable to forever going forward being thrown in with the sharks has made me flat out quit games in the past. Also, WP is a bad measure to base all of this on. It's essentially a "time played" indicator that if you're in the low end of the pool, you will never relatively get out of it as everyone else above you continues to progress away from you at the same rate you go toward them. WP also isn't an indicator of you having learned anything worthwhile when it comes to playing the game well enough to not get slaughtered.
Tiel,
I must respectfully disagree, I do think War Points earned is a valid metric for measuring a players' experience in DUST.
I caveat that statement with: WP may not be the BEST metric but as far as a simple SINGLE variable I think it is optimal.
To earn WP in DUST you have to successfully perform actions that the game deems contributory to success. Such as: kill red dots, heal blue dots, provide spawn or resupply assets to blue dots, hack red assets, etc.
You don't earn WP passively and while your WP total is positively boosted through squad play that is also viewed as experienced player behavior (team game you know) and should be rewarded.
I must politely disagree with another poster's suggestion that K:D reflects experienced play. If your K:D is high your WP total is high but for those players that are not front line trigger pullers ( logistics support role for example) K:D will always be low despite our experienced DUST play. |
howard sanchez
Zumari Force Projection
Caldari State
525
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 20:40:00 -
[5] - Quote
Fair points Tiel
And, if DUST never added new players after 514 then being stuck in the bottom percentage would be a real risk. But you are correct, if a player is doing anything 'productive' (defined loosely as earning WP), they will eventually be 'pushed' out of the Instant Battle Academy (IBA) pool and into the deep end.
Folks, this isn't a bad thing. There has only been one side to this pool thus far and lots of people point out the idea that you don't improve your game as quickly against newbs as you do against vets (I hold some arguments against this blanket statement but I agree with the concept).
And! If we use a dynamic WP level to separate the shallow from deep ends of the pool then that slow drift downstream continuously adds room for newer players while feeding the deep end with more experienced mercs.
If the WP level is dynamic enough ( like real-time dynamic responsive to current online population) you might see some players in the deep end today and back in the shallow end tomorrow...and if online population spikes the WP level shifts and back they go swimming with sharks.
This kind of thing would only happen to a small subset of DUST players whose WP total currently rests near the dynamic cutoff. |
howard sanchez
Zumari Force Projection
Caldari State
525
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 21:33:00 -
[6] - Quote
DJINN leukoplast wrote:While you guys are tweaking MM, how about a squadless option? (pre and post formed) Being able to enjoy myself solo is almost impossible as of late, as it's always one team curb stomping the other due to stacked squads of good players.
Would be nice if I could play Dust and have fun without always having to squad up. Plus when both teams don't have squads, it is SO much more even.
Ok, I'll bite...
I don't see a separate queue or game mode dedicated to play without squads as viable.
1) there won't be enough demand for this style of play to sustain a queue of battles
2) there is a LOT of work that's gone into building a game where players' choice to work together enhances success and creating a mode that restricts that level of game development runs counter to what Dust/Eve is about
Now, I have been advocating for WP as a single simple variable around which to build a dynamically responsive division of the player base. But I don't think that is the best way to create the matchmaking system. I think Dev responses support this view.
In my perspective, you would start with WP as a base value and add in other factors that would move a player towards the deeper or more shallow ends of the pool.
PREFORMED squads would factor towards the deep end. So, if two players with the same WP queued up for instant battle and one was solo while the other was currently in a squad, the squared player would be graded towards the deep end while the solo player would be graded towards the IBA end.
I would not penalize or restrict solo players who squad up after entering the War Barge.
Players who per-squad are demonstrating more coordinated and, arguably, more experienced behavior than those who solo or post-barge squad.
This is NOT to suggest that solo players are not skilled or experienced. I agree with the quoted source (& I also solo for relaxing combat) that this is viable play style.
So mark the pre-squads up and post-squads/solos down (or neutral).
But, overall, I was hoping CCP would introduce IBA soon (5/14) and I want to keep my arguments simple and realistic considering the timeframe |
|
|
| |
|