<!--quoteo(post=2054777:date=Jan 2 2013, 12:07 PM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ Jan 2 2013, 12:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2054777"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And that's why everyone who plays NS is still so awfully bad at the game. Or did we all learn from a couple of people who were born with knowledge of NS?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> They would have had good commanders directing them, or a good team captain type.
The beginner servers are a bunch of people running around aimlessly not looking at their map. They don't even know what went wrong when the "Marines Lose" prompt appears, and this is after building turrets everywhere and getting no upgrades. I wouldn't say they're learning much.
If you are 1000 ELO and you beat someone on 1000 ELO, you will say get +5 for the win, and they lose 5 points. End result is you are now 1005 and they are 995 If a 1005 ELO player plays a 995 player and wins, they only get +4 this time, but if they lose they get -5. Similarly, the 995 player may get +6 for winning and only -4 for losing.
For someone to keep increasing their ELO, they have to keep playing more stronger opponents (others that have high ELO) and keep winning.
Match making is matching people with as similar ELO as possible.
End goal is that EVERYONE should have a 50:50 win/loss ratio.
Now this simple idea becomes a lot more complicated when multiple people with different ELO are on each team. Do you have to calculate a 'team elo'? how do you do that? just a simple average? What happens when you win?, does everyone get the same + or - to their score? How will it get adjusted?
(Note: games like LoL have already come up with an implementation for this. <a href="http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com/wiki/Elo_rating_system" target="_blank">LOL Elo Ranking System</a>)
It gets even more complicated again when each team has members that can join/quit at any time, and even change sides.
I remember Halo 2 having that same ELO system for their matchmaking. The way they handled team games was to calculate the gain or lost for each player individually. For instance, if team A beats team B, player A1 gains exp from B1, then from B2, and so on. Then it calculates A2's gain, then A3, gain, etc, and finally goes through team B's losses in the same manner. It might sound a bit complicated, but it's really not.
Alternatively, I'd say that in my personal opinion, a kill/death ratio could be used for ranking, since players who are better at the game are generally better at tracking aliens or dodging marine aim. In fact, I'd argue that with comm being it's own beast entirely, most other aspects of the game, like sticking together or chewing res nodes, are usually learned and mastered early in a players experience with the game. So while there are a few other key aspects, the big defining answer to the question of if a player is too good for the server is their kill/death ratio. While it's annoying to have extractors being constantly hit, it's not game-breakingly frustrating until a marine with a rifle solo's your entire team. The one important feature here is to not make the ranking visible to the player. Keep it all in the background. Additionally, since players usually don't grow worse, you could tier it up. Instead of a rank, players progress when their overall performance in combat gets past a certain point. Again, no fanfair, no popup, not a single notice. All in the background. Just make sure that players can still match up with others above or below their tier if needed.
And along with all of this, servers must stay openly joinable for people who don't want to matchmake. Instead, the quickjoin could be altered to take the average of the levels or tiers (whether its a K/D ranking system or 'ELO" system doesn't matter) in each possible server into consideration and then try to match a player to one. While a high-skilled player could join manually later, it would still allow players to be matched well for the most part, and would be little different from a high-level CoD player joining a game in progress that his level 2 friend is in.
What is relevant is methods for joining a game. Does what you are proposing remove the ability to browse the server list and join what ever you want? Cause if so, good luck selling that to PC gamers.
Matchmaking means players don't join premade games in midgame, and it works well in ARTS/MOBA games like Dota 2, and everyone accepts this system because they realize that it's required for balanced games. Matchmaking is not without its problems, but it's way better than hopping servers in hopes of finding good players. NS2 doesn't have as many players as the millions playing Dota 2, but it's partly a chicken and egg problem: there could be more players if the game offered something better than pubs with people who don't even realize they aren't that good because they only play lame pub games.
What I would like to see is using player rankings to make even teams before a round starts. Just sum up the player strengths of all aliens and marines and ensure that there is some sort of equilibrium.
This has worked on an NS1 server and guess what, the guys at Starcraft 2 and Dota2 copied it.
If you are 1000 ELO and you beat someone on 1000 ELO, you will say get +5 for the win, and they lose 5 points. End result is you are now 1005 and they are 995
If a 1005 ELO player plays a 995 player and wins, they only get +4 this time, but if they lose they get -5.
Similarly, the 995 player may get +6 for winning and only -4 for losing.
For someone to keep increasing their ELO, they have to keep playing more stronger opponents (others that have high ELO) and keep winning.
Match making is matching people with as similar ELO as possible.
End goal is that EVERYONE should have a 50:50 win/loss ratio.
Now this simple idea becomes a lot more complicated when multiple people with different ELO are on each team.
Do you have to calculate a 'team elo'? how do you do that? just a simple average?
What happens when you win?, does everyone get the same + or - to their score?
How will it get adjusted?
(Note: games like LoL have already come up with an implementation for this. LOL Elo Ranking System)
It gets even more complicated again when each team has members that can join/quit at any time, and even change sides.
LOL is a terrible game, and the ELO system is flawed.
That end goal of 50:50 win/loss isn't acceptable to me. I want to WIN, not lose. I will do everything in my power to be on top and not be losing. Winning=Fun.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
I've come to believe a big part of what is hindering NS2's population growth is the fact that it doesn't have some type of skill-based matchmaking system. I watched as many new players were thrown into servers against people orders of magnitude better then them. I suspect many of these players gave NS2 a couple of hours before deciding getting pubstomped wasn't all that fun. The current systems (rookie servers, L2P systems) are simply inadequate towards addressing this problem.
Also, for those who point out the many, real flaws with any skill-based matchmaking system, it doesn't have to be perfect to be a vast improvement over what currently exists. Simply making it available in addition to the current server browser method and making it the first thing a new player sees would be greatly improve the experience of new players to NS2.
QUOTE (unkind @ Jan 1 2013, 08:50 AM) »no. get raped and learn to get better. i hate this generation of weak ass gamers
And I hate your timeless elitist attitude.
Timeless, yes, and for a good reason. Elitist? Hardly. The reason why this perspective is so common is because it works. Probably better than any other method. I'll explain why with the rest of your post.
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.
All players improve over time. The pace may be different for some, but the fact remains constant. If a player is becoming frustrated about losing because a skill disparity, the only logical option for them is to improve their own skills. Do any real life sports offer special handicaps for players who differ in skill? No. Video games should not be any different. Arguing that hand-eye coordination, reaction time, and common sense are only limited to an elite group of gamers is weak.
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.
I disagree. When I was said newb, getting owned by better players, I WANTED to figure out what I did wrong, and what I could do differently. So I started reading the NS2 wiki, which explains how Armor and different damage types interact, the weapon stats, the lifeforms stats, everything about the game. I watched competitive players play in the Casted Showmatches, taking mental notes on what the best players did and how they played. I watched people play the game on streams to analyze different player behaviors, and tactics. This is a video game. It's anything but hard to learn how this game works and how to improve.
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.
With how NS2 handles games, matchmaking would interesting to implement, if not difficult... The most you can do is help players out in game instead of bashing on them when they lose.
All players improve over time. The pace may be different for some, but the fact remains constant. If a player is becoming frustrated about losing because a skill disparity, the only logical option for them is to improve their own skills.
Actually, the most logical option would be to quit and do something else. The vast majority of gamers play to have fun, not improve their skill. There isn't a lack of alternative games that do a much better job of ensuring new players have fun while playing.
My bad for mistaking most players thinking improving as a player = fun.
"If I'm not winning right now, this game sucks."
This is pretty much distinguishes competitive and casual players imo. Comp players have fun improving themselves even if it means losing frequently. Casual players have fun by winning (or by playing with friends).
Its simply a matter of fact that there are more casual gamers out there, so if you want to increase your playerbase, you need to at least cater somewhat to their desires. The only exception I've seen is playing with friends (think simulating LAN parties online), in which casual players seem to still have fun even when losing if its with their friends.
LOL is a terrible game, and the ELO system is flawed.
That end goal of 50:50 win/loss isn't acceptable to me. I want to WIN, not lose. I will do everything in my power to be on top and not be losing. Winning=Fun.
That's rich! Sounds like "fun" for you would mean playing against unchallenging opponents. Luckily, most people realize that even though the goal is winning, the genuinely fun games are the ones with balanced teams, not the ones where you have a guaranteed victory. The 1:1 win/loss ratio is a natural consequence of balanced matches, since for every winner there needs to be a loser. That's why in games like LoL or Dota 2 only people who stack teams with friends achieve higher than average win/loss ratios, but losing is a fair price for the chance of an interesting game.
At any rate, something needs to be done, because NS2 is losing players, and there aren't enough competitive teams. Having proper matchmaking would provide a natural progression for casual players, so you could start to experience organized games where NS2 really shines, and also improve your play beyond what pub games can provide. I get the distinct feeling that a lot of people who would oppose this just lack experience of playing anything but pubs, and that they're also under the false impression that being a pubstar means you know how to play.
Its simply a matter of fact that there are more casual gamers out there, so if you want to increase your playerbase, you need to at least cater somewhat to their desires. The only exception I've seen is playing with friends (think simulating LAN parties online), in which casual players seem to still have fun even when losing if its with their friends.
You know what else is a fact? There are so many people targeting the casual gaming market already that NS2 may not have a great chance of competing. Was the original NS popular because it appealed to casuals, or did it become popular because it had great team based gameplay? Maybe instead of being dumbed down to compete for the CoD playing crowd, NS2 should play on its strengths and be the best hardcore, asymmetric team based game it can be for players who like such games.
You know what else is a fact? There are so many people targeting the casual gaming market already that NS2 may not have a great chance of competing. Was the original NS popular because it appealed to casuals, or did it become popular because it had great team based gameplay? Maybe instead of being dumbed down to compete for the CoD playing crowd, NS2 should play on its strengths and be the best hardcore, asymmetric team based game it can be for players who like such games.
I'm not saying NS2 shouldn't do that, but the practical effect is that you'll see the big playercount drops we have seen since its release. That's normal for every game, but NS2 needs to be played widely enough that it draws enough hardcore comp players from other competitive games to sustain a comp community. The most surefire method is simply to have a large casual playerbase.
While I too am opposed to any kind of 'rank' and matchmaking system, it's not because of the elitist learn 2 play crap that some are spouting. The reality is that matchmaking will fail for a number of reasons.
-It would emphasize gameplay aspects (like kills and deaths) that are not necessarily indicative of a skilled player. In short, you can't put a 'rank' on teamwork, and teamwork is the bedrock of this game
-Ranking systems are almost always able to be 'gamed' to influence a certain result.
-Skilled players might choose servers with lesser skilled players to pad their scores
-New players would be shunned even more than they are now if wins/losses are taken into account
-People would be worried about their 'rank' and not the gameplay
While matchmaking may sound good on paper, it doesn't work in practice
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
Translation: It's fun to royally stomp all over people who have no chance of beating me.
-It would emphasize gameplay aspects (like kills and deaths) that are not necessarily indicative of a skilled player. In short, you can't put a 'rank' on teamwork, and teamwork is the bedrock of this game
-Ranking systems are almost always able to be 'gamed' to influence a certain result.
-Skilled players might choose servers with lesser skilled players to pad their scores
-New players would be shunned even more than they are now if wins/losses are taken into account
-People would be worried about their 'rank' and not the gameplay
While matchmaking may sound good on paper, it doesn't work in practice
None of your points apply to matchmaking done right. Let's take Dota 2 as an example:
* Personal stats like KDR aren't factored into the rating
* No good known way to game it
* The whole point of matchmaking is that you don't choose who you're matched to, the system does; what you're saying is nonsense
* New players aren't forced to play ranked matches; in case of NS2 they could just play in pubs
* The rank is hidden, there isn't even a clear way to tell your skill bracket
To sum it up, instead of matchmaking not working in practice, you just haven't seen it work. It's not perfect in Dota 2 either, of course, but most experienced players find it good enough.
I'm not saying NS2 shouldn't do that, but the practical effect is that you'll see the big playercount drops we have seen since its release. That's normal for every game, but NS2 needs to be played widely enough that it draws enough hardcore comp players from other competitive games to sustain a comp community. The most surefire method is simply to have a large casual playerbase.
There's tons of games that are betting on appeal to casuals, and most of them fail and fade into obscurity. Many of the titles that succeed do so just because of big marketing budgets. What options does NS2 have? You think just dumbing it down would make the player numbers stop shrinking? NS2 could be a popular niche game, but it needs good word of mouth and a competitive scene for that. I don't see how not supporting players who want to play better matches than in pubs helps. Low level play in pubs gets old, and there's few teams a player with only pub experience could join, and few teams to play against because the NS2 competitive scene is anemic. Playing organized matches (PUGs or gathers) could be the middle step to get experience before joining a team, but it takes time and effort due to the lack of support from UWE. I actually often feel surprised that many of the good players I've met are still active despite the tedious process of getting to a game.
Matchmaking just wont work in this game. Certainly something could be worked out in some kind of elo so that the system was possible to implement, but there simply aren't enough players for it to work. You can't automatically match players of similar skill and get playably full servers
It would already be a great improvement for matchmaking if what's currently happening through third party sites like ensl.org could get official support.
I'd like to see a matchmaking system within the servers to balance the teams, don't think it will ever happen. The "regular guys" on KKG servers are particularly prone to all stacking the same team, game after game, I don't see how that's fun for either side.
Don't know why people hate on matchmaking so much. I can see the appeal, and if it were implemented well then it would be fantastic.
Even if it were implemented well (yeah right) it's not going to do a thing here in Aus when there is usually 3 maybe 4 servers on week nights to choose from. On the weekend when if lucky we might have 10 servers it will still do jack all. I'd much rather just see who of my steam friends are where and join them.
Why do I hate on matchmaking so much? Because chances are it will introduce negative side effects and the actual matchmaking its self will do naught here. It will also waste developer time which could be better used for balance, performance and content.
Addressing the issue of doing Matchmaking for new players because the current system in place is faulty:
Do you people really think this game is that hard to learn? You really don't need a matchmaking system here. This is one of the most linear games around, even moreso than CS. While this isn't bad; it means its just easy to understand the game. Like competitive CS, we have a game based on player positioning. It takes no rocket scientist to figure out running into a room 1v5 is a bad idea. Unlike CS, the game's weapon features are relatively easier to learn. The only thing you have to actually learn is not to shoot nades at whips.
What I'm getting at here is that a matchmaking system is not going to address the fact that there are bad players that will remain bad. If they aren't getting better playing with better people, they're definitely not getting better playing with players as bad as them. Either these players don't care enough to learn to play the game, or they're just hopeless. The game is not complicated. You can basically learn everything you need to learn to participate in the game within an hour. You really don't need to hold everyone's hand. (this excludes commanding)
Let's face it, new players have it extremely easy in this game. They can ask questions and get answers. I have yet to see any player say LOL YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO BUILD AN RT? LOL NEWB GTFO. That just doesn't occur much in this community. Try starting from square one in Dota or CS. These games both have matchmaking, and both communities are at least 10x harder on new players. I have actually played in Dota games where everyone was shocked to find that the matchmaking had put us in a game full of well-mannered players. This just doesn't happen often, as some of you can relate to.
edit: Just had another thought: Imagine how many disgruntled trolls will grief you in the command chair. This would be unacceptable in a matchmaking game where an even game is essential. If one player refuses to participate, it ruins EVERYONE's game.
While matchmaking may sound good on paper, it doesn't work in practice
To sum it up, instead of matchmaking not working in practice, you just haven't seen it work. It's not perfect in Dota 2 either, of course, but most experienced players find it good enough.
So you propose a parallel server system, and that if a friend is in a 'matchmade' game that I won't be able to join it?
There is no such thing as a good matchmaking system. They can all be gamed, and they all have flaws.
You think just dumbing it down would make the player numbers stop shrinking? NS2 could be a popular niche game, but it needs good word of mouth and a competitive scene for that. I don't see how not supporting players who want to play better matches than in pubs helps.
Yet when some advocate for an 'advanced mode' ruleset, some people object. This is almost exactly the same thing. NS2 is a game with a massive learning curve, and I hate to break it to you, matchmaking isn't going to make that any easier. People can't have it both ways here. You can't reject an advanced ruleset saying it would 'split the community' when matchmaking would effectively do the same thing. If you want a 'middle step', then you need a means for new players to ease themselves into the game without being tossed in at the hardest level - with no training to boot. Experienced players keep rejecting an advanced ruleset, and now you want a means to do effectively the same thing while continuing to turn away new players who can't handle the learning curve?
Playing organized matches (PUGs or gathers) could be the middle step to get experience before joining a team
The problem is that many players never make it past the first step of learning the game to the point where the gameplay experience is fun. Matchmaking isn't going to improve that. If there was an advanced ruleset and matchmaking only applied to that ruleset, I would back it. Otherwise it's just another way for people to stroke their epeens, and frankly I don't see the need for it.
Comments
the biggest issue is that this is a RTS, and you need players to start and end the round together
same 12 guys starting the game need to be the same 12 guys ending it. get that system working, and then add other stuff on top of it.
They would have had good commanders directing them, or a good team captain type.
The beginner servers are a bunch of people running around aimlessly not looking at their map. They don't even know what went wrong when the "Marines Lose" prompt appears, and this is after building turrets everywhere and getting no upgrades. I wouldn't say they're learning much.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system</a>
Let me try to summarize
Each player begins with say 1000 ELO
If you are 1000 ELO and you beat someone on 1000 ELO, you will say get +5 for the win, and they lose 5 points. End result is you are now 1005 and they are 995
If a 1005 ELO player plays a 995 player and wins, they only get +4 this time, but if they lose they get -5.
Similarly, the 995 player may get +6 for winning and only -4 for losing.
For someone to keep increasing their ELO, they have to keep playing more stronger opponents (others that have high ELO) and keep winning.
Match making is matching people with as similar ELO as possible.
End goal is that EVERYONE should have a 50:50 win/loss ratio.
Now this simple idea becomes a lot more complicated when multiple people with different ELO are on each team.
Do you have to calculate a 'team elo'? how do you do that? just a simple average?
What happens when you win?, does everyone get the same + or - to their score?
How will it get adjusted?
(Note: games like LoL have already come up with an implementation for this. <a href="http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com/wiki/Elo_rating_system" target="_blank">LOL Elo Ranking System</a>)
It gets even more complicated again when each team has members that can join/quit at any time, and even change sides.
Alternatively, I'd say that in my personal opinion, a kill/death ratio could be used for ranking, since players who are better at the game are generally better at tracking aliens or dodging marine aim. In fact, I'd argue that with comm being it's own beast entirely, most other aspects of the game, like sticking together or chewing res nodes, are usually learned and mastered early in a players experience with the game. So while there are a few other key aspects, the big defining answer to the question of if a player is too good for the server is their kill/death ratio. While it's annoying to have extractors being constantly hit, it's not game-breakingly frustrating until a marine with a rifle solo's your entire team. The one important feature here is to not make the ranking visible to the player. Keep it all in the background. Additionally, since players usually don't grow worse, you could tier it up. Instead of a rank, players progress when their overall performance in combat gets past a certain point. Again, no fanfair, no popup, not a single notice. All in the background. Just make sure that players can still match up with others above or below their tier if needed.
And along with all of this, servers must stay openly joinable for people who don't want to matchmake. Instead, the quickjoin could be altered to take the average of the levels or tiers (whether its a K/D ranking system or 'ELO" system doesn't matter) in each possible server into consideration and then try to match a player to one. While a high-skilled player could join manually later, it would still allow players to be matched well for the most part, and would be little different from a high-level CoD player joining a game in progress that his level 2 friend is in.
This has worked on an NS1 server and guess what, the guys at Starcraft 2 and Dota2 copied it.
LOL is a terrible game, and the ELO system is flawed.
That end goal of 50:50 win/loss isn't acceptable to me. I want to WIN, not lose. I will do everything in my power to be on top and not be losing. Winning=Fun.
Also, for those who point out the many, real flaws with any skill-based matchmaking system, it doesn't have to be perfect to be a vast improvement over what currently exists. Simply making it available in addition to the current server browser method and making it the first thing a new player sees would be greatly improve the experience of new players to NS2.
Timeless, yes, and for a good reason. Elitist? Hardly. The reason why this perspective is so common is because it works. Probably better than any other method. I'll explain why with the rest of your post.
All players improve over time. The pace may be different for some, but the fact remains constant. If a player is becoming frustrated about losing because a skill disparity, the only logical option for them is to improve their own skills. Do any real life sports offer special handicaps for players who differ in skill? No. Video games should not be any different. Arguing that hand-eye coordination, reaction time, and common sense are only limited to an elite group of gamers is weak.
I disagree. When I was said newb, getting owned by better players, I WANTED to figure out what I did wrong, and what I could do differently. So I started reading the NS2 wiki, which explains how Armor and different damage types interact, the weapon stats, the lifeforms stats, everything about the game. I watched competitive players play in the Casted Showmatches, taking mental notes on what the best players did and how they played. I watched people play the game on streams to analyze different player behaviors, and tactics. This is a video game. It's anything but hard to learn how this game works and how to improve.
With how NS2 handles games, matchmaking would interesting to implement, if not difficult... The most you can do is help players out in game instead of bashing on them when they lose.
"If I'm not winning right now, this game sucks."
Its simply a matter of fact that there are more casual gamers out there, so if you want to increase your playerbase, you need to at least cater somewhat to their desires. The only exception I've seen is playing with friends (think simulating LAN parties online), in which casual players seem to still have fun even when losing if its with their friends.
At any rate, something needs to be done, because NS2 is losing players, and there aren't enough competitive teams. Having proper matchmaking would provide a natural progression for casual players, so you could start to experience organized games where NS2 really shines, and also improve your play beyond what pub games can provide. I get the distinct feeling that a lot of people who would oppose this just lack experience of playing anything but pubs, and that they're also under the false impression that being a pubstar means you know how to play.
You know what else is a fact? There are so many people targeting the casual gaming market already that NS2 may not have a great chance of competing. Was the original NS popular because it appealed to casuals, or did it become popular because it had great team based gameplay? Maybe instead of being dumbed down to compete for the CoD playing crowd, NS2 should play on its strengths and be the best hardcore, asymmetric team based game it can be for players who like such games.
-It would emphasize gameplay aspects (like kills and deaths) that are not necessarily indicative of a skilled player. In short, you can't put a 'rank' on teamwork, and teamwork is the bedrock of this game
-Ranking systems are almost always able to be 'gamed' to influence a certain result.
-Skilled players might choose servers with lesser skilled players to pad their scores
-New players would be shunned even more than they are now if wins/losses are taken into account
-People would be worried about their 'rank' and not the gameplay
While matchmaking may sound good on paper, it doesn't work in practice
Dota and games like it use Elo or similar. I imagine if NS2 did the same, rather than placing people by KD ratio, it would work out better.
Translation: It's fun to royally stomp all over people who have no chance of beating me.
I bet you're the kind of guy that team stacks.
* Personal stats like KDR aren't factored into the rating
* No good known way to game it
* The whole point of matchmaking is that you don't choose who you're matched to, the system does; what you're saying is nonsense
* New players aren't forced to play ranked matches; in case of NS2 they could just play in pubs
* The rank is hidden, there isn't even a clear way to tell your skill bracket
To sum it up, instead of matchmaking not working in practice, you just haven't seen it work. It's not perfect in Dota 2 either, of course, but most experienced players find it good enough. There's tons of games that are betting on appeal to casuals, and most of them fail and fade into obscurity. Many of the titles that succeed do so just because of big marketing budgets. What options does NS2 have? You think just dumbing it down would make the player numbers stop shrinking? NS2 could be a popular niche game, but it needs good word of mouth and a competitive scene for that. I don't see how not supporting players who want to play better matches than in pubs helps. Low level play in pubs gets old, and there's few teams a player with only pub experience could join, and few teams to play against because the NS2 competitive scene is anemic. Playing organized matches (PUGs or gathers) could be the middle step to get experience before joining a team, but it takes time and effort due to the lack of support from UWE. I actually often feel surprised that many of the good players I've met are still active despite the tedious process of getting to a game.
Even if it were implemented well (yeah right) it's not going to do a thing here in Aus when there is usually 3 maybe 4 servers on week nights to choose from. On the weekend when if lucky we might have 10 servers it will still do jack all. I'd much rather just see who of my steam friends are where and join them.
Why do I hate on matchmaking so much? Because chances are it will introduce negative side effects and the actual matchmaking its self will do naught here. It will also waste developer time which could be better used for balance, performance and content.
Do you people really think this game is that hard to learn? You really don't need a matchmaking system here. This is one of the most linear games around, even moreso than CS. While this isn't bad; it means its just easy to understand the game. Like competitive CS, we have a game based on player positioning. It takes no rocket scientist to figure out running into a room 1v5 is a bad idea. Unlike CS, the game's weapon features are relatively easier to learn. The only thing you have to actually learn is not to shoot nades at whips.
What I'm getting at here is that a matchmaking system is not going to address the fact that there are bad players that will remain bad. If they aren't getting better playing with better people, they're definitely not getting better playing with players as bad as them. Either these players don't care enough to learn to play the game, or they're just hopeless. The game is not complicated. You can basically learn everything you need to learn to participate in the game within an hour. You really don't need to hold everyone's hand. (this excludes commanding)
Let's face it, new players have it extremely easy in this game. They can ask questions and get answers. I have yet to see any player say LOL YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO BUILD AN RT? LOL NEWB GTFO. That just doesn't occur much in this community. Try starting from square one in Dota or CS. These games both have matchmaking, and both communities are at least 10x harder on new players. I have actually played in Dota games where everyone was shocked to find that the matchmaking had put us in a game full of well-mannered players. This just doesn't happen often, as some of you can relate to.
edit: Just had another thought: Imagine how many disgruntled trolls will grief you in the command chair. This would be unacceptable in a matchmaking game where an even game is essential. If one player refuses to participate, it ruins EVERYONE's game.
There is no such thing as a good matchmaking system. They can all be gamed, and they all have flaws. Yet when some advocate for an 'advanced mode' ruleset, some people object. This is almost exactly the same thing. NS2 is a game with a massive learning curve, and I hate to break it to you, matchmaking isn't going to make that any easier. People can't have it both ways here. You can't reject an advanced ruleset saying it would 'split the community' when matchmaking would effectively do the same thing. If you want a 'middle step', then you need a means for new players to ease themselves into the game without being tossed in at the hardest level - with no training to boot. Experienced players keep rejecting an advanced ruleset, and now you want a means to do effectively the same thing while continuing to turn away new players who can't handle the learning curve? The problem is that many players never make it past the first step of learning the game to the point where the gameplay experience is fun. Matchmaking isn't going to improve that. If there was an advanced ruleset and matchmaking only applied to that ruleset, I would back it. Otherwise it's just another way for people to stroke their epeens, and frankly I don't see the need for it.