Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vell0cet
Royal Uhlans Amarr Empire
12
|
Posted - 2013.06.25 17:01:00 -
[31] - Quote
I think a much more elegant solution is for people to get a ranking based on how good they are, K/D ratio, amount of damage done, amount taken, accuracy with weapon, average rank in WP at end of match, modify these numbers for their favorite weapon, vehicle, suit types, and skill points and come up some final number that determines how "good" of a player you are.
Based on this number, matchmaking should try to assign 2 teams each with similar sums of the player's number. In other words, it's ok to have good and bad players, high and low skill point players on the battlefield as long as they're in roughly equal proportions for each team. This should keep the matches close and check pub stoming with having other people on your side that can counter them.
Additionally, pubstomping should be countered by making proto gear unaffordable to be used profitably. You should have to save up ISK in the pub matches using economical fits to be able to afford proto for important matches (or be willing to take steep losses to your wallet if you just want to have fun in the best gear in unimportant matches). Risk/reward.
AFKing also needs to be addressed for this system to work (since it will make good players appear artificially weaker than they are). This should be easy to track: how much damage to enemy players have they done? Are they looking left/right/up/down? Are they in close proximity to an objective? Are they gaining WP?
This data will look very different for a player just starting out as a sniper on the red-line with a crappy rifle, lots of sway, and not enough DPS to get kills/assists, and someone past the red-line crouch-walking into a mountain with a rubber-band on the joystick. |
Text Grant
Planetary Response Organization
24
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 00:03:00 -
[32] - Quote
Vell0cet wrote:I think a much more elegant solution is for people to get a ranking based on how good they are, K/D ratio, amount of damage done, amount taken, accuracy with weapon, average rank in WP at end of match, modify these numbers for their favorite weapon, vehicle, suit types, and skill points and come up some final number that determines how "good" of a player you are.
Based on this number, matchmaking should try to assign 2 teams each with similar sums of the player's number. In other words, it's ok to have good and bad players, high and low skill point players on the battlefield as long as they're in roughly equal proportions for each team. This should keep the matches close and check pub stoming with having other people on your side that can counter them.
Additionally, pubstomping should be countered by making proto gear unaffordable to be used profitably. You should have to save up ISK in the pub matches using economical fits to be able to afford proto for important matches (or be willing to take steep losses to your wallet if you just want to have fun in the best gear in unimportant matches). Risk/reward.
AFKing also needs to be addressed for this system to work (since it will make good players appear artificially weaker than they are). This should be easy to track: how much damage to enemy players have they done? Are they looking left/right/up/down? Are they in close proximity to an objective? Are they gaining WP?
This data will look very different for a player just starting out as a sniper on the red-line with a crappy rifle, lots of sway, and not enough DPS to get kills/assists, and someone past the red-line crouch-walking into a mountain with a rubber-band on the joystick. Elegant isnt needed. We should have the option to fight how we want. High risk high reward or low risk low reward. |
Gaelon Thrace
DUST University Ivy League
11
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 00:23:00 -
[33] - Quote
Again
Gaelon Thrace wrote:http://youtu.be/-mv_zxFjP6Q?t=20m42sNow can everybody please stop posting about it until the next patch is released? I'm tired of seeing threads about stuff that's already being addressed. Wait a few weeks for the next patch. |
Halcyon MI1
Blackwater Voodoo N.O.M.A.D.S
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 00:39:00 -
[34] - Quote
YES! Make Standard, Advanced and Prototype matches! That way the playerbase would be divided but not forcefully! |
Krom Ganesh
Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire
29
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 00:50:00 -
[35] - Quote
It should be based on total gear meta that way players can sacrifice performance in one or more areas to increase it in another area.
Here is a topic I made describing a similar system. |
Text Grant
Planetary Response Organization
24
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 06:59:00 -
[36] - Quote
Bump |
Vell0cet
Royal Uhlans Amarr Empire
22
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 07:29:00 -
[37] - Quote
Text Grant wrote:Elegant isnt needed. We should have the option to fight how we want. High risk high reward or low risk low reward. We already have this, it's called Planetary Conquest and Faction Warfare.
Making tiers based on gear really negates the whole point of gearing up in the first place. Matches should be fair, and by that, I mean both sides should have teams with roughly equal skill on each side. People seem to want safe pools to play in, and that goes against the entire ethos of New Eden. In EVE, a person with a billion isk ship can suicide gank the ship you've spent the first month saving up for in highsec for the LOLs, but there are major consequences (they're going to be out a lot of ISK) which deter this behavior. It should be similar in DUST. Proto suits should be 10x more expensive, and too expensive to waste in pub matches. I'd also support the idea of a 2nd tier to the academy where you'd be sheltered until you have your first 2 million SP or so. After that, all bets are off. |
Text Grant
Planetary Response Organization
24
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 07:32:00 -
[38] - Quote
Vell0cet wrote:Text Grant wrote:Elegant isnt needed. We should have the option to fight how we want. High risk high reward or low risk low reward. We already have this, it's called Planetary Conquest and Faction Warfare. Making tiers based on gear really negates the whole point of gearing up in the first place. Matches should be fair, and by that, I mean both sides should have teams with roughly equal skill on each side. People seem to want safe pools to play in, and that goes against the entire ethos of New Eden. In EVE, a person with a billion isk ship can suicide gank the ship you've spent the first month saving up for in highsec for the LOLs, but there are major consequences (they're going to be out a lot of ISK) which deter this behavior. It should be similar in DUST. Proto suits should be 10x more expensive, and too expensive to waste in pub matches. I'd also support the idea of a 2nd tier to the academy where you'd be sheltered until you have your first 2 million SP or so. After that, all bets are off. I would be okay with this too. Because proto gear being 10X more expensive would still cause less protostomping |
Cai Mo
Tritan's Onslaught RISE of LEGION
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 12:31:00 -
[39] - Quote
Text Grant wrote:Vell0cet wrote:I think a much more elegant solution is for people to get a ranking based on how good they are, K/D ratio, amount of damage done, amount taken, accuracy with weapon, average rank in WP at end of match, modify these numbers for their favorite weapon, vehicle, suit types, and skill points and come up some final number that determines how "good" of a player you are.
Based on this number, matchmaking should try to assign 2 teams each with similar sums of the player's number. In other words, it's ok to have good and bad players, high and low skill point players on the battlefield as long as they're in roughly equal proportions for each team. This should keep the matches close and check pub stoming with having other people on your side that can counter them.
Additionally, pubstomping should be countered by making proto gear unaffordable to be used profitably. You should have to save up ISK in the pub matches using economical fits to be able to afford proto for important matches (or be willing to take steep losses to your wallet if you just want to have fun in the best gear in unimportant matches). Risk/reward.
AFKing also needs to be addressed for this system to work (since it will make good players appear artificially weaker than they are). This should be easy to track: how much damage to enemy players have they done? Are they looking left/right/up/down? Are they in close proximity to an objective? Are they gaining WP?
This data will look very different for a player just starting out as a sniper on the red-line with a crappy rifle, lots of sway, and not enough DPS to get kills/assists, and someone past the red-line crouch-walking into a mountain with a rubber-band on the joystick. Elegant isnt needed. We should have the option to fight how we want. High risk high reward or low risk low reward.
Deciding how we fight should not mean picking battle classes, dividing on gear seperates the sandbox vision rather then bringing it together.
I support the idea to have some fancy formula for the public matches, taking all those various stats into account they are already tracking, avg wp per battle, sp, k/d, miles travelled, avg shots fired, etc. This should slowly balance people/squads into battles with equals, while it can still be manipulated which sounds EVE universe style imho, no risk/reward without :effort: |
Text Grant
Planetary Response Organization
27
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 04:09:00 -
[40] - Quote
Bump |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |