Matchmaking
scanfield
Join Date: 2012-12-14 Member: 175069Members
Join Date: 2012-12-14 Member: 175069Members
There's been lots of talk here about balance issues, the disparity between new/veteran/competitive players, etc. I think one way to help these issues would be using player rankings to do automatic matchmaking. Of course, that's a very different model from the "join a server" model currently used, but it's also a model that's been fairly successful in keeping players of the same skill playing together (see StarCraft 2, Halo, etc). It's also a lot of work to build the infrastructure to do it (which is why I suspect UWE has not).
This is a way to help the new and veteran player experience without changing the actual game balance, which is of course very hard to do. You'd need to keep the ability to join a specific server and the ability to group with friends to protect competitive / group play as well.
This is a way to help the new and veteran player experience without changing the actual game balance, which is of course very hard to do. You'd need to keep the ability to join a specific server and the ability to group with friends to protect competitive / group play as well.
Comments
And I hate your timeless elitist attitude. Some ppl just have a lower skill ceiling by nature (maybe they are old, or very young or are paralized and have to play with their chins, who knows...), some ppl can't afford to play as much as other ppl, which may make them perform worse.
Of course there will always be differences in skill level and you can't get better when you constantly play against equally skilled ppl, but getting owned as a newb by veterans over and over without having the slightest clue how they did it is very frustrating and not what game design should strive for.
Instead a loose ranking system would be the way to go imo. I personally dislike matchmaking, as I'm very picky with things like player counts and map rotations, so, as long as the server browser doesn't offer these filters I don't need matchmaking. Also, with a smaller player base like NS2's, matchmaking might not always work once a few filters are added.
you know whats funny
this new generation of gamers will soon be saying the exact same thing about the next generation of gamers after them ;)
Of course there will always be differences in skill level and you can't get better when you constantly play against equally skilled ppl, but getting owned as a newb by veterans over and over without having the slightest clue how they did it is very frustrating and not what game design should strive for.
Instead a loose ranking system would be the way to go imo. I personally dislike matchmaking, as I'm very picky with things like player counts and map rotations, so, as long as the server browser doesn't offer these filters I don't need matchmaking. Also, with a smaller player base like NS2's, matchmaking might not always work once a few filters are added.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
shut up, shoot harder. That's how we learned, that's how you'll learn.
/thread
<!--quoteo(post=2053879:date=Dec 31 2012, 02:05 PM:name=scanfield)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (scanfield @ Dec 31 2012, 02:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2053879"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's been lots of talk here about balance issues, the disparity between new/veteran/competitive players, etc. I think one way to help these issues would be using player rankings to do automatic matchmaking. Of course, that's a very different model from the "join a server" model currently used, but it's also a model that's been fairly successful in keeping players of the same skill playing together (see StarCraft 2, Halo, etc). It's also a lot of work to build the infrastructure to do it (which is why I suspect UWE has not).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--><i><!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->
(Coincidentally that forum post right there, the one you made appealing to the devs to simplify your gaming experience and take choices away from the player, is the most likely cause of recent immense casualization across every single gaming genre. Angry birds is your fault and you should feel bad)<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--></i>
If we wanted a challenge we go and play scrims, the devs have more important ###### to work on like getting it run well and balancing and those broken game mechanics
Really? What scrims? The ones that occur at set times that many people can't play at? Yeah that's a great idea. Sometimes I honestly think people are out to see the game fail.
It's set its own path to failure without some proper changes but this is a different discussion
Actually, the people that are promoting matchmaking has as far as I've seen been the people who are getting these 40-1 scores.
"Pub stomping" isnt fun, but we do enjoy playing the game. If there are no gathers or pcw's happening what would you suggest we do?
Matchmaking would also make these hack-accusing idiots silent.
/thread<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Shut up and learn to comprehend. You then might notice that I was speaking on behalf of other ppl, not myself. I'm quite content as is, trying to be an asset to the team and usually ending up in the upper regions of the board, both score- and k/d-wise.
<!--quoteo(post=2054105:date=Jan 1 2013, 12:26 PM:name=Kama_Blue)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kama_Blue @ Jan 1 2013, 12:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2054105"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><i><!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->
(Coincidentally that forum post right there, the one you made appealing to the devs to simplify your gaming experience and take choices away from the player, is the most likely cause of recent immense casualization across every single gaming genre. Angry birds is your fault and you should feel bad)<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--></i><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where was he even vaguely implying to take any choice away from the player or simplify the gaming experience? Get a grip, will you?
They don't need to. In 6 months time, you will be ######ing and moaning about how gamers nowadays are mindless COD kiddies who are unwilling to learn, and how its so unfair that the games you like have absolutely no player base, and they will be off playing new games and not giving a ######.
Guess who wins? Cuz it aint you.
<b><!--sizeo:7--><span style="font-size:36pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->But:<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--></b>
A big problem appears when you rank based on player statistics. Persistant stats are guaranteed to ruin the game. Because people will go for kills/win ratio/whatever the ranking is based on, instead of doing the only thing they should be doing - playing for fun and for the team.
Persistant stats (to use for matchmaking) work great for "individual" games like CoD or Starcraft 2, but are toxic to team games! They are basically automatic teamplay suicide. It's hard to get teams to work together as it is, no need to make it 100x harder because everyone goes stat rambo.
I believe (or rather hope) UWE know this very well and won't ruin their awesome game with any kind of persistant ranking based on player stats (team score during game is ok exactly because it isn't persistant, so nobody cares enough to "play for score").
<b><!--sizeo:7--><span style="font-size:36pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->Idea:<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--></b>
An option that might work is that players can choose a "my skill level" from 1 to 10 in the matchmaking screen (and after a game, you are suggested a coarse skill level to get an idea what to choose for matchmaking), and then people get matched by this (and servers could say something like "skill level 3-6 plz").
This is basically a finer version of rookie vs non-rookie.
Any "ranking" must <b>*not*</b> be based on any kind of persistant player stats. Or teamplay dies a tragic death.
What issue is there? I don't understand what you're whining about. What can a player do to improve their rating in this situation besides play with their team or in the case of skilled players go rambo and dominate the other players.
What negative actions will players take to improve their rating exactly when they need to win? Besides map exploits and gameplay exploits I can't think of anything.
<b><!--sizeo:7--><span style="font-size:36pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->But:<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--></b>
A big problem appears when you rank based on player statistics. Persistant stats are guaranteed to ruin the game. Because people will go for kills/win ratio/whatever the ranking is based on, instead of doing the only thing they should be doing - playing for fun and for the team.
Persistant stats (to use for matchmaking) work great for "individual" games like CoD or Starcraft 2, but are toxic to team games! They are basically automatic teamplay suicide. It's hard to get teams to work together as it is, no need to make it 100x harder because everyone goes stat rambo.
I believe (or rather hope) UWE know this very well and won't ruin their awesome game with any kind of persistant ranking based on player stats (team score during game is ok exactly because it isn't persistant, so nobody cares enough to "play for score").
<b><!--sizeo:7--><span style="font-size:36pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->Idea:<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--></b>
An option that might work is that players can choose a "my skill level" from 1 to 10 in the matchmaking screen (and after a game, you are suggested a coarse skill level to get an idea what to choose for matchmaking), and then people get matched by this (and servers could say something like "skill level 3-6 plz").
This is basically a finer version of rookie vs non-rookie.
Any "ranking" must <b>*not*</b> be based on any kind of persistant player stats. Or teamplay dies a tragic death.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or just don't tell players their rank at all. Keep it all internal. If the player clicks matchmaking, then just stick them in a matchmaking enabled server with comparable players.
Having played MOBAs, matchmaking works well to put you in your place and allow you to develop your skills. Do not include K/D, it's pointless in NS2 as most kills are just from snowballing as you obtain higher tech. Matchmaking in MOBAs still requires teamwork and will not take away this element from NS2
Your clever matchmaking <u>will not work</u> for NS2. Your comparisons to MOBAs are severely flawed.
1. Basing MMR on individual stats is pointless due to the teamplay aspect of NS2 and the differences between the classes. Is a 50-1 onos better than a 50-1 fade? Was a 0-5 gorge useless to the team in that round? Is a 0-0 commander better than a 10-1 shotgun marine? It just doesn't work like that. You can't quantify the contribution of a player to the team's success in any reasonable way.
Then there's the player behavior aspect where people will constantly try to game the system to gain a higher or lower MMR than they currently have, which will result in frustration for everyone since noone is actually playing the game properly anymore.
2. Basing MMR on team wins is also pointless due to the sheer number of players in a NS2 team, the ability to join and leave matches in progress and the severe dependency on commanders. Your whole team will be (doubly!) penalized for having a bad commander, team stacking and rage quitting will be abundant on all servers. This is already happening now without any ranking or matchmaking, which would only make it a lot worse.
MOBAs have the advantage of having only 5 players in a team which cannot be replaced by others during the match and every player having roughly equal opportunity to influence the game, while in NS2 there are up to 12 players per team and one commander whose skill is much more important than anyone elses.
I'm also sure you have seen the rage inducing nature of the ranking system and the resulting community if you've ever played a MOBA style game. NS2 doesn't deserve this.
Your clever matchmaking <u>will not work</u> for NS2. Your comparisons to MOBAs are severely flawed.
1. Basing MMR on individual stats is pointless due to the teamplay aspect of NS2 and the differences between the classes. Is a 50-1 onos better than a 50-1 fade? Was a 0-5 gorge useless to the team in that round? Is a 0-0 commander better than a 10-1 shotgun marine? It just doesn't work like that. You can't quantify the contribution of a player to the team's success in any reasonable way.
Then there's the player behavior aspect where people will constantly try to game the system to gain a higher or lower MMR than they currently have, which will result in frustration for everyone since noone is actually playing the game properly anymore.
2. Basing MMR on team wins is also pointless due to the sheer number of players in a NS2 team, the ability to join and leave matches in progress and the severe dependency on commanders. Your whole team will be (doubly!) penalized for having a bad commander, team stacking and rage quitting will be abundant on all servers. This is already happening now without any ranking or matchmaking, which would only make it a lot worse.
MOBAs have the advantage of having only 5 players in a team which cannot be replaced by others during the match and every player having roughly equal opportunity to influence the game, while in NS2 there are up to 12 players per team and one commander whose skill is much more important than anyone elses.
I'm also sure you have seen the rage inducing nature of the ranking system and the resulting community if you've ever played a MOBA style game. NS2 doesn't deserve this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You do understand that League of Legends matchmaking isn't based on whether you're a 20-2 Ezreal or a 1-5 Soraka, but whether you actually win or lose games, right?
The OP's idea is completely valid, and the only reason against it is the time/difficulty involved in implementing it. It very clearly would get players into matches much more suitable of their skill level, creating better games for everyone (newbies and veterans alike.)
The "learn to play" posters are mere trolls. That's the only way to explain their baseless opposition to an idea which would clearly create better, more enjoyable rounds.
Your clever matchmaking <u>will not work</u> for NS2. Your comparisons to MOBAs are severely flawed.
1. Basing MMR on individual stats is pointless due to the teamplay aspect of NS2 and the differences between the classes. Is a 50-1 onos better than a 50-1 fade? Was a 0-5 gorge useless to the team in that round? Is a 0-0 commander better than a 10-1 shotgun marine? It just doesn't work like that. You can't quantify the contribution of a player to the team's success in any reasonable way.
Then there's the player behavior aspect where people will constantly try to game the system to gain a higher or lower MMR than they currently have, which will result in frustration for everyone since noone is actually playing the game properly anymore.
2. Basing MMR on team wins is also pointless due to the sheer number of players in a NS2 team, the ability to join and leave matches in progress and the severe dependency on commanders. Your whole team will be (doubly!) penalized for having a bad commander, team stacking and rage quitting will be abundant on all servers. This is already happening now without any ranking or matchmaking, which would only make it a lot worse.
MOBAs have the advantage of having only 5 players in a team which cannot be replaced by others during the match and every player having roughly equal opportunity to influence the game, while in NS2 there are up to 12 players per team and one commander whose skill is much more important than anyone elses.
I'm also sure you have seen the rage inducing nature of the ranking system and the resulting community if you've ever played a MOBA style game. NS2 doesn't deserve this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i'm pretty sure you haven't played moba games because their rating doesn't come from personal stats, personal stats are THERE but they don't tell your MMR ( Matchmaking rating ), it comes purely from wins / losses, the higher you are ( in your team ) in MMR, the lower you gain / lose from that match, the lower you are ( in your team ) in MMR the more you gain / lose rating.
i have no clue why you think Matchmaking makes people go score hunting, it works on MOBA games only because it comes purely from winning or losing the MATCH, and it should be the same in NS2, if you're on losing team, you lose rating, if you're on winning side, you gain points, otherwise in MOBA games TOO there wouldn't be support heroes because they get AWFUL personal scores.
in conclusion, matchmaking would only encourage people to work as a team, because if you lose, you lose rating, no matter how well you have done as invidual.
only bad side i can see with this is that once there is something to actually LOSE in matches ( or gain ), people come incredibly competetive and starts to flame, troll, insult or whatever the weaker members of the team ( or simple mistakes IE, dying with onos ), wich is HUGE problem in moba games.
<!--quoteo(post=2054316:date=Jan 1 2013, 10:41 PM:name=Juomari)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Juomari @ Jan 1 2013, 10:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2054316"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->i have no clue why you think Matchmaking makes people go score hunting, it works on MOBA games only because it comes purely from winning or losing the MATCH, and it should be the same in NS2, if you're on losing team, you lose rating, if you're on winning side, you gain points, otherwise in MOBA games TOO there wouldn't be support heroes because they get AWFUL personal scores.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Same point as above. Read the ######ing post before replying.
<!--quoteo(post=2054316:date=Jan 1 2013, 10:41 PM:name=Juomari)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Juomari @ Jan 1 2013, 10:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2054316"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->only bad side i can see with this is that once there is something to actually LOSE in matches ( or gain ), people come incredibly competetive and starts to flame, troll, insult or whatever the weaker members of the team ( or simple mistakes IE, dying with onos ), wich is HUGE problem in moba games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->And this is exactly what I wrote in my post, too.
In addition to this, think about how you can't join MOBA games in progress or even <u>switch sides</u>. On NS2 servers, you would encounter massive team stacking and rage quitting in addition to the rampant flaming and even server admins kicking supposedly weak players from their team.
Here's two examples, which happened like this in Quake Wars and ######ed the game hard. ETQW is an objective-based team FPS with 2 asymmetrical sides (does this ring any bells?). ETQW has a persistant XP system, and even though XP do nothing in long term (they reset after 3 maps and only for this duration you get upgrades from them), the sum of all XP ever gained is still shown and players went XP rambo hard due to this.
<ul><li> There had to be "ranked" servers (which count towards persistant XP) and "unranked" servers (you get XP for gameplay additions, but they are not added to your overall persistant XP score). <b>This killed any mods instantly</b>. Because there could be a mod specific to increase your score (XP whoring), modded servers had to be unranked. So nobody ever played on them (because you get no XP).
Now please tell me if killing mods is a good idea for NS2? A game being designed around modability?</li><li> You could figuratively see players go "###### the objective, I just want XP" and ruin games. From overall frustrating non-teamplay and rambo-ing to downright 100% XP whoring (one team repairs something, other team shoots it for 20 minutes, and they kickvote any "real" players daring to join the server) everything was possible.</li></ul>
There are tons of horror scenarios like these two about persistant ranks. People being generally unfriendly and hostile to new players (this is the MOBA reputation right?), disconnecting left and right for fear of "bad stats", things you can't even imagine before some idiot does it...
Persistant stats killed Quake Wars, don't let them kill NS2!
---
Again, matchmaking would be really nice, but it must <b>*not*</b> lead to persistant stats of any kind being added to the game. They won't work, they will be gamed, no matter how sophisticated they seem before reality kicks you in the balls.
Your clever matchmaking <u>will not work</u> for NS2. Your comparisons to MOBAs are severely flawed.
1. [words]
2. [words]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If a matchmaking system, that attempts to rate skill, ever makes it into NS2 then the MOBA-style is best. You are over thinking this way too much.
The MOBA style is basically:
Your play influences your team. If that's a positive influence, you'll win more. The more you win (or lose) the more points you gain (or lose). Match players based on their point level and matches will be more fair than the random public scene.
Is it perfect? No. Does it work? Yes. The goal of a ranked matchmaking shouldn't be to capture every little detail of a player's skill. It should be to make the games slightly more even and fair. There's no need to bash your head against the wall trying to go into explanation about why it will not work for NS2. It would work for NS2 just fine.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm also sure you have seen the rage inducing nature of the ranking system and the resulting community if you've ever played a MOBA style game. NS2 doesn't deserve this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For the most part, people act like others around them. MOBA games foster, breed, and create the troll mentality. NS2 does not. This isn't, and shouldn't, be a concern.
I've played around 50 hours of Counter Strike:Global Offensive. It's my favorite FPS game right now for one simple reason: Matchmaking. Their system is awesome. You queue up, are placed in a 5v5 game, your win/loss is reported after the match. Even better, you don't really have a super-clear understanding of where you are in the system. It ranks players in military style rankings. IE; "Sergeants" then all the "Sergeants" are usually placed together. Since no one really knows how far or down they are, raging and general hatred <i>almost never happen</i>.
The games I get through the matchmaking system are awesome. You can say something like "do a 2/3 short a split" and people just know what to do. If they don't, they ask. The community is friendly, welcoming, and from what I've seen across my 50 hours everyone has a fun time win or lose. The system doesn't allow people to switch teams, auto assigns the map based on pool (just like starcraft), and if you disconnect early you're unable to use the system for X time (each offensive the time increases).
If NS2 could create a matchmaking system half as decent as CS:GO's the community would be much better off for it.
I'd consider my skill level to be above average, I typically get K/D's of about 40/10 and top score. When I play against a lot of comp players though I tend to even out a bit. It's nice to go into a pub and be able to get nice ratios from time to time, but it's also fun to play against more veteran players and get owned. There is a lot to be gained by repeatedly being killed by the same guy if you learn something from it.
This actually is a pretty legit argument against matchmaking. Of course, no one would be forced to play matchmaking. So you could still join the random servers. Granted, those skilled players may be all doing matchmaking, taking them away from the pub scene.
That said, I'm not sure how many other players would agree with you. You say you typically have a 4:1 k/d so when someone is better than you, it's not every day. It doesn't upset you; you see it as an opportunity to learn. What if your typical k/d was 0.5 or 0.7? These people spent most of their game dying, dead, waiting. It may get old constantly getting rocked. Especially when a (from their perspective) 'hacking' player is able to pull a 4:1 without any consistently.
For these players, having the better ones more focused on matchmaking would be a benefit.
That said, I'm not sure how many other players would agree with you. You say you typically have a 4:1 k/d so when someone is better than you, it's not every day. It doesn't upset you; you see it as an opportunity to learn. What if your typical k/d was 0.5 or 0.7? These people spent most of their game dying, dead, waiting. It may get old constantly getting rocked. Especially when a (from their perspective) 'hacking' player is able to pull a 4:1 without any consistently.
For these players, having the better ones more focused on matchmaking would be a benefit.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't start off that good, when I started playing in the beta I got owned pretty consistently. It took a lot of trial and error on both sides to see what works and what doesn't. For instance playing marine I learned it's pretty difficult to track skulks on the ceiling or walls, so as a skulk I now barely stay on the floor. As an alien I learned how quickly I can be shredded as a lerk if I try to spike marines to death, so when I'm a marine I don't panic when a lerk is spiking me because I know I can kill it 10x faster with an lmg clip than it can kill me with spikes.
As much as people say it's an elitist attitude to expect people to learn to play, it's truth. You won't get any better by playing against people who suck, and you'll feel no satisfaction with doing well once you get really good.
Both of those encourage people to play for the stats rather than the game. even if it's win / loss ratio only it will further encourage stacking. (unless you got rid of the ability to browse for servers, in which case many would leave the game) Win loss ratio would also cause people to F4 when things start to go bad even more than they do now.
Matchmaking would be pointless here in Australia anyway. Even after the sale you can flick through the local servers in a few seconds.
if matchmaking were to be implemented, I'd hope it only uses hours played to match people. Having k:d on the score board causes people to not play for the team enough as it is. We do not need more rubbish to break team play.