I do think that the skill values in the server browser were not useful for most of the players base, even as someone who used the information.,
The thing is that this information would be useful to the high skilled players that most of the lesser skilled players complain about post-stomp. This makes it indirectly beneficial to the lesser skilled players even if they don't know why. Occasionally you'll see a TA server get to 3k to 3.5k average on a non-captain's night. It's rare but it happens. What's happening is that enough of the high skilled players online realize that the server is peaking and some good games are had. Of course, a subset of higher skilled players will want to stomp on occasion. But that happens even when intentions are pure simply due to the game's poor player distribution at any given time, and a well-intentioned stomp is virtually indistinguishable from a maliciously-intentioned stomp to the player getting stomped. So anything we can do to help higher skilled players group together emergently - as a byproduct of favorable server selection - is a good thing assuming the opportunity cost isn't excessive. The goal is a saner player distribution across currently populated servers.
More directly and only slightly less importantly, this information will help set expectations when players join servers with (visibly indicated) higher skilled competition. Some will complain and attempt to get good players kicked for 'hax' regardless of what we do, but sane design is sane design and weak assholes are weak assholes.
Anecdote time:
I often hop in and out of servers in search of the highest skill group. This is in my own interests. I have a high skill, and I prefer games where there's a good number of players who have a good chance of killing me assuming that there's enough solid players on both teams. That last part is important. I'll tolerate a bunch of rookies on my team provided that there are at least a few names I can rely on.
Games where there are only one or two or - this is the worst: three - good players across both teams can be a nightmare. If there's one amazing player then he's likely to stomp (but probably has no support). If there are two and they're on opposite teams you might get an interesting game, but this doesn't often happen in practice. If there are three then there's always a 2-1 mismatch; you're either stomping or you're going up against two versions of yourself armed only with a team of barely responsive newcomers (and a few in the middle, to be fair). All of this is less fun than it could be. It gets far more fun when more, better players are present. I suspect that most other high skill players feel the same way. By the time you get to four great players in the server the average skill is already increasing significantly and it's off to a good start.
So most of the playerbase indirectly benefits when the better players cluster together in a server rather than spreading themselves around. When good players cluster up and compete, it's essentially creating a player distribution that's closer to the matchmaking/skill bracketing we all would love to have if only the playercount could support it.
Do we need this feature to accomplish what I'm describing? Maybe not. Skill grouping can often be done by just looking at player names. But players often change their names and it's easy to miss one or two high skill players in the mix when quickly scanning through the server list. And score isn't a good metric to assess a server's skill distribution because it's relative to the current round population and nothing else. So the convenience factor provided directly integrating server skill rankings into the UI would have the best results. The implementation just needs to be solid, per Handschuh's post here.
To be honest, yes, ELO shown in the server browser would be very nice, but at this point it also wouldn't do much. Most of the time I don't even have a choice which server to join anyway because the few that are populated are already full and there is basically only 1 left.
[bad implementation of idea x] ->
[idea x gets removed] ->
["it wasn't useful"] ->
[brainstorm proper implementation of idea x with rational use cases provided] ->
["it isn't/wasn't necessary, use these broken clientside mods instead"] -> [p r o f i t]
I have written so many long posts describing how hive is not the cause of the perceived imbalances, but rather a lack of skill grouping as you put it.
In my opinion skill grouping is something that would fix so many of the problems NS2 has. It would make the game better in so many ways.
It is sad that I have somehow found myself on the other side of this discussion. Maybe I am not communicating well enough, or maybe I am only describing one side of the issue.
I was someone who actively used the hive skill values in the server browser when they were there. I also remember it didn't really make a meaningful difference in terms of grouping players in terms of skill.
The same reason Welsh Wizard says it wouldn't do much now is why I think that hive skill in the server browser wasn't meaningful enough. If it didn't make a meaningful difference then, why would it now?
Before you say it was a bad implementation, we could do better, please describe how the implementation was bad. I said it took up too much GUI space. It goes deeper though. Hive skill in the server browser does not do enough, or much at all, to encourage players to group up with like skilled players. At best it was a quality of life feature for those who would rather play with others of similar skill than play at all. If grouping played with similar skilled players is the goal, and I think it should be, then we need a far better solution. I think the hive skill in the server browser is an ineffective solution.
NousWanderer, in another thread we miscommunicated where we had different ideas about the scope and context of the conversation. I am saying that hive skill information in the server browser alone is simply not enough and that we need a more complex solution. We need to expand the scope of our ideas here.
@NousWanderer what name do you use in game? I don't play that much anymore, but I seek out those same high skill games on TA that you described. I don't think we have played together if that is your in game name.
I was someone who actively used the hive skill values in the server browser when they were there. I also remember it didn't really make a meaningful difference in terms of grouping players in terms of skill.
The same reason Welsh Wizard says it wouldn't do much now is why I think that hive skill in the server browser wasn't meaningful enough. If it didn't make a meaningful difference then, why would it now?
This is a situation where it's difficult to explicitly measure the impact the information did/would have on the playerbase. The benefits are soft but systemic. If I have to join 5 servers to assess the relative skill levels in each server because I'm personally interested in the highest average skill available to me at that moment in time, then anything that prevents me from having to waste my time on that process is a benefit. Anything that makes the desired result (that is: joining the highest skill active game) more accessible is a benefit.
Others with identical inclinations would benefit similarly. And then there are people with similar inclinations to mine but with a key difference: they aren't willing to take the time to manually check each server. Thus, any in-game function which does the same job will improve their experience and make them more likely to group on the same server (again, the desired behavior). Over time, more people engaging in the desired behavior increases the likelihood of better games manifesting naturally, as a byproduct of individual players making comparable choices. This holds true even in the case of the rarer subset of low skilled players who nonetheless seek out superior competition. This latter group is - not coincidentally - the specific subset of the lower skilled playerbase that we want mixing with veterans. Meanwhile, lower skilled players who want to avoid higher skilled games would be better able to do so when equipped with the same server skill information that would equip veterans to more easily aggregate.
It's a matter of likelihoods, the common human appetite for convenience, and the aggregate effects of small, consistent differences. If the information is presented usefully so that those who would normally join the highest skill server available if only they were aware of its existence can do so more simply and easily, then the cumulative effect over time is as I described it: we edge closer to the ideal in which skilled players go up against players of comparable skill. No, it will not be a perfect system. No, it is not sufficient to fix the problem; anything short of a massive player influx will be insufficient to fix the problem. What it will do is offer an accessible, immediate metric by which server decisions can be made at a (seemingly) low cost.
Before you say it was a bad implementation, we could do better, please describe how the implementation was bad. I said it took up too much GUI space.
The overall UI design has historically been fairly inefficient, in my opinion, so I won't fault this idea for past UI inefficiencies. My bigger issue with the previous implementation was that it was so abstract. I remember just a few arrows to indicate relative skill differences, and no ability to rank active servers by skill. The old system just produced a scenario where high skill players were told that every server had a poplation that was significantly beneath their skill. This isn't the same as being able to accurately sort the servers on the basis of current average skill (if this was possible at one point then I wasn't aware of it at the time). And more specific values would be better. I might avoid playing entirely if every populated server has an average skill of 900. Or perhaps I'll try to seed a new one, inviting other higher skilled friends. Point is: I'm better empowered to make a reasonable choice about how I want to spend my time. Color coding can still be used to indicate abstract skill 'brackets' if necessary, or to compare the non-empty servers in realtime on the basis of average skill. See Handschuh's post which I linked in my last reply for other potential reworks.
It goes deeper though. Hive skill in the server browser does not do enough, or much at all, to encourage players to group up with like skilled players. At best it was a quality of life feature for those who would rather play with others of similar skill than play at all. If grouping played with similar skilled players is the goal, and I think it should be, then we need a far better solution. I think the hive skill in the server browser is an ineffective solution.
I agree with the bolded part. I just think that a quality of life feature along these lines, at this point in the game's lifespan, is a net good. A proper information-rich implementation would make it much easier for the remaining high skill players to find one another without undue hassle. Again, this isn't impossible by any means as is. This would just make it easier. And like I said, for every similarly inclined personality, a subset of them will avoid the desired behavior simply due to present procedural difficulties (e.g., having to join every server to check). And to repeat: I also think it helps set useful (pre-server join) expectations for players of lower skill.
NousWanderer, in another thread we miscommunicated where we had different ideas about the scope and context of the conversation. I am saying that hive skill information in the server browser alone is simply not enough and that we need a more complex solution. We need to expand the scope of our ideas here.
I agree that it is not enough. I disagree with the contention that it wouldn't help.
@NousWanderer what name do you use in game? I don't play that much anymore, but I seek out those same high skill games on TA that you described. I don't think we have played together if that is your in game name.
I agree that it is not enough. I disagree with the contention that it wouldn't help.
It is not that it wouldn't help at all, it is that it doesn't help much beyond a quality of life tool for a very small number of players. I am sure that at some imperceivable small level, it also helps group similar skilled players together at the margins. Is that worth it though given UWE's gui design?
I'm better empowered to make a reasonable choice about how I want to spend my time.
What I said above. In theory this is true, in practice it was only true for a small amount of players. I am relying on memory, but I don't remember servers being any more skill grouped then than they are now. In practice the added information didn't effectively change behavior for enough people to be effective. If it did anything at all, which we have no way of knowing, it was highly marginal. In my opinion the effect was so marginal that the feature overall was a quality of life feature only for a very small number of players.
The overall UI design has historically been fairly inefficient, in my opinion, so I won't fault this idea for past UI inefficiencies. My bigger issue with the previous implementation was that it was so abstract. I remember just a few arrows to indicate relative skill differences, and no ability to rank active servers by skill. The old system just produced a scenario where high skill players were told that every server had a poplation that was significantly beneath their skill. This isn't the same as being able to accurately sort the servers on the basis of current average skill (if this was possible at one point then I wasn't aware of it at the time).
I clarified earlier. I will do it again. I am not talking about the silly arrows. Before the arrows the server browser showed the actual average hive skill of the server. This is what I am speaking about. The arrows made a marginal quality of life feature, that I used, worse. I think I remember it even having color coding at one time, but I am not sure if that was implemented until the arrows.
I am sure that at some imperceivable small level, it also helps group similar skilled players together at the margins. Is that worth it though given UWE's gui design?
MephillesGermanyJoin Date: 2013-08-07Member: 186634Members, NS2 Map Tester, NS2 Community Developer
There was also a difference in the server situation back then. Back then you had more choices in servers when it comes to playernumbers. I remember 7v7 pub games being quite active back then (in EU atleast) and I prefered this environment over any 10v10 no matter what skill. Since now all servers are 10v10 or higher looking for the highest skilled pub server would benefit in quality of games.
Also in addition to that the play now button could try to use the average hive skill information to put you on a server that has a similar hive skill than you have. (If it doesn't do that already)
I don't know about how hard it is to change the GUI of the game but looking at the last couple of changelogs, it looks like most of the features that got added where originally done by community members (example babbler mines by katzenfleisch), while the PDT focusses on backend stuff like the "play now" button for example. I am pretty sure some community members would gladly create a mod for that, which will get some quality check by PDT and PT (and maybe UWE?) and if it is good enough just merge it in.
In my opinion skill grouping is something that would fix so many of the problems NS2 has. It would make the game better in so many ways.
The issue really does come down to higher skilled players playing with low skilled players and ruining each others time. We dont have the player base to support a mechanical segregation of players based on rank. This method would definitely been a great feature so each rank can play against people of similar skill and have a good time. The problem is NS2 just doesnt have the concurrent player count or player base to support this feature so another method would have to be implemented.
Though I think if the server browser is taken out for the vanilla game and only a queue was used that would make the above method work. The server browser would only be used for other game modes like arcade, combat, or siege. Just spit balling here so dont take this too seriously to the main topic of this thread.
I used that skill arrow thing whenever I was on because even today I loathe playing with low skilled players. It is not their fault but I enjoy being challenged and even though mowing down scrubs is fun, it doesn't do much for me. So even though a marginal amount of players would use it, getting the higher skilled players together more often would give lower skilled players more chances to play with people at their skill level and vice versa. Having this feature would give us the ability to make this choice. I really enjoy the way @Handschuh would have it implemented as colors make it easier to understand for people who dont know what HS is. ALl the would see is Skill level and think "oh no red is bad!" or "Green is good"
Is there a way to tell if the upper and lower skill quartile of game go up or down? I would be interested to see if the lower end gets lower and the higher end get higher with this if it was re-implemented.
I am relying on memory, but I don't remember servers being any more skill grouped then than they are now.
[...]
Before the arrows the server browser showed the actual average hive skill of the server. This is what I am speaking about. The arrows made a marginal quality of life feature, that I used, worse. I think I remember it even having color coding at one time, but I am not sure if that was implemented until the arrows.
I remember this now - that was awhile ago. It was useful, and the arrows did in fact remove much of its utility. But as Meph said:
There was also a difference in the server situation back then. Back then you had more choices in servers when it comes to playernumbers. I remember 7v7 pub games being quite active back then (in EU atleast) and I prefered this environment over any 10v10 no matter what skill. Since now all servers are 10v10 or higher looking for the highest skilled pub server would benefit in quality of games.
The situation was very different then, and some of the problems we face now have exacerbated since that time. You're suggesting that we need a "more complex solution" and I hope people come up with one. That would be useful. But this is a small change that would be immediately useful, and which is likely to have a small but positive effect on the existing playerbase.
Also in addition to that the play now button could try to use the average hive skill information to put you on a server that has a similar hive skill than you have. (If it doesn't do that already)
If you are interested in what UWE is working on right now, not what they will be working on, or want more details than the roadmap might give, check out their development tracker trello. https://trello.com/b/uFv64kH6/ns2-development-team
I don't know about how hard it is to change the GUI of the game but looking at the last couple of changelogs, it looks like most of the features that got added where originally done by community members (example babbler mines by katzenfleisch), while the PDT focusses on backend stuff like the "play now" button for example. I am pretty sure some community members would gladly create a mod for that, which will get some quality check by PDT and PT (and maybe UWE?) and if it is good enough just merge it in.
I am not a programmer, but it was once in game so it can't be that hard to put it back. The code exists already somewhere. I did link two mods, that I did not check if they were working, that put it back in which are other sources of code.
Should the code go back in? I don't know. I don't think it would make a a big difference like some here think it would. I think it would make a very small amount of players happy. I think everyone here knows how hard it is to get UWE to reverse something they changed no matter how unpopular they are. Health bars? Onos boneshield regen? It isn't something UWE can just flip a switch on.
Is there a way to tell if the upper and lower skill quartile of game go up or down? I would be interested to see if the lower end gets lower and the higher end get higher with this if it was re-implemented.
Yes. I can do that pretty easily. I can even compute if the change is statistically significant. In the spoiler is a graph similar to what you are asking for if this ever got implemented. I made this the last time I did a bunch of stat work. I really need to get back into the stats again. Also, as a reference hive 2.0 was released around November 2016.
There was also a difference in the server situation back then. Back then you had more choices in servers when it comes to playernumbers. I remember 7v7 pub games being quite active back then (in EU atleast) and I prefered this environment over any 10v10 no matter what skill. Since now all servers are 10v10 or higher looking for the highest skilled pub server would benefit in quality of games.
The situation was very different then, and some of the problems we face now have exacerbated since that time. You're suggesting that we need a "more complex solution" and I hope people come up with one. That would be useful. But this is a small change that would be immediately useful, and which is likely to have a small but positive effect on the existing playerbase.
I said it earlier. If it didn't make a meaningful difference then, why would it now? You said:
I am sure that at some imperceivable small level, it also helps group similar skilled players together at the margins. Is that worth it though given UWE's gui design?
Yes.
I have said many times now that I don't think it will make a meaningful difference. You say it will. We can't move beyond that. I don't think either of us can convince the other. I was thinking my role in the conversation was done.
______________________________________________
We are already way off topic. I guess this community would rather tangent into a different topic lately than make a new thread for it. Seems to be a trend. If my part in that conversation is done, and I think it might be, then how about I open up more to discuss.
Earlier I mentioned I have had so many long posts describing how the perceived imbalances are not because of hive but because of a large skill gap and a small player base. I have said the solution is createing near skilled games, or as otherwise said in this thread creating skill groups. This link (here) is one thread of many in which I make this assertion. I will quote one of my posts from that thread. I tough on rookie integration, skill grouping, and more. Maybe this quote can be a jumping off point for even more quality discussion.
NS2 has about 200 average daily players but they don't play every day. 25,090 unique NS2 players in the last 45 days. 5,808 of those unique players were not rookies. The irony is that NS2 does have that many players trying NS2. If even half of them, nearly 10,000 players, stuck around NS2 wouldn't have the concurrent player base problem it does anymore. You are right jrgn that there are a lot more players trying NS2 than one would expect.
Do you know what makes them leave? Most rookies stick around until they are kicked out of rookie only servers. Then they leave. They are deterred by the sheer skill difference. If NS2 could somehow group players of similar skill into separate servers, it could improve gameplay quality and dramatically improve player retention. NotPalagi is exactly right with this.
Imagine there are 192 NS2 players like I mentioned before. That is enough for 8 courts, each with large 12 versus 12 games. 12 players are pro level players. 72 players are veterans. 108 players are rookies. This leaves 2 pros, 4 veterans, and 14 rookies per server. Hive can make the teams balanced, but it can't change the skill difference. Games are not going to be that good in this scenario.
Imagine if instead the players were put into servers with near skill players. That would be servers with:
12 high skill players and 12 high skill veterans, split evenly among the teams.
24 veterans.
24 veterans.
12 veterans and 12 low skill veterans, split evenly among the teams.
Please actually read the links because it is not a traditional matchmaking. It is not a party system, it will not guarantee you can play on the same team as your friends.
It is not a competitive / gather mode. It is not going to replace community servers.
UWE appears to be planning some sort of mass server seeding system that tries to group players of similar skill. It looks like an expansion of the play now system if anything, which is almost what NotPalagi just recommended.
I don't think it is too late for such a system, although it is late. NS2 still has a lot of players trying NS2. There were 19,282 rookies in the last 45 days. Some sort of grouping system could help keep a lot of those players. Even if this grouping system was only used by the top 10% of skilled players, those over 1500 hive skill.
Comments
I know you are joking, and I am not saying that anyone thinks this, but I hope no one thinks I speak for UWE.
I do think that the skill values in the server browser were not useful for most of the players base, even as someone who used the information.,
More directly and only slightly less importantly, this information will help set expectations when players join servers with (visibly indicated) higher skilled competition. Some will complain and attempt to get good players kicked for 'hax' regardless of what we do, but sane design is sane design and weak assholes are weak assholes.
Anecdote time:
I often hop in and out of servers in search of the highest skill group. This is in my own interests. I have a high skill, and I prefer games where there's a good number of players who have a good chance of killing me assuming that there's enough solid players on both teams. That last part is important. I'll tolerate a bunch of rookies on my team provided that there are at least a few names I can rely on.
Games where there are only one or two or - this is the worst: three - good players across both teams can be a nightmare. If there's one amazing player then he's likely to stomp (but probably has no support). If there are two and they're on opposite teams you might get an interesting game, but this doesn't often happen in practice. If there are three then there's always a 2-1 mismatch; you're either stomping or you're going up against two versions of yourself armed only with a team of barely responsive newcomers (and a few in the middle, to be fair). All of this is less fun than it could be. It gets far more fun when more, better players are present. I suspect that most other high skill players feel the same way. By the time you get to four great players in the server the average skill is already increasing significantly and it's off to a good start.
So most of the playerbase indirectly benefits when the better players cluster together in a server rather than spreading themselves around. When good players cluster up and compete, it's essentially creating a player distribution that's closer to the matchmaking/skill bracketing we all would love to have if only the playercount could support it.
Do we need this feature to accomplish what I'm describing? Maybe not. Skill grouping can often be done by just looking at player names. But players often change their names and it's easy to miss one or two high skill players in the mix when quickly scanning through the server list. And score isn't a good metric to assess a server's skill distribution because it's relative to the current round population and nothing else. So the convenience factor provided directly integrating server skill rankings into the UI would have the best results. The implementation just needs to be solid, per Handschuh's post here.
I call that quality!
In my opinion skill grouping is something that would fix so many of the problems NS2 has. It would make the game better in so many ways.
It is sad that I have somehow found myself on the other side of this discussion. Maybe I am not communicating well enough, or maybe I am only describing one side of the issue.
I was someone who actively used the hive skill values in the server browser when they were there. I also remember it didn't really make a meaningful difference in terms of grouping players in terms of skill.
The same reason Welsh Wizard says it wouldn't do much now is why I think that hive skill in the server browser wasn't meaningful enough. If it didn't make a meaningful difference then, why would it now?
Before you say it was a bad implementation, we could do better, please describe how the implementation was bad. I said it took up too much GUI space. It goes deeper though. Hive skill in the server browser does not do enough, or much at all, to encourage players to group up with like skilled players. At best it was a quality of life feature for those who would rather play with others of similar skill than play at all. If grouping played with similar skilled players is the goal, and I think it should be, then we need a far better solution. I think the hive skill in the server browser is an ineffective solution.
NousWanderer, in another thread we miscommunicated where we had different ideas about the scope and context of the conversation. I am saying that hive skill information in the server browser alone is simply not enough and that we need a more complex solution. We need to expand the scope of our ideas here.
@NousWanderer what name do you use in game? I don't play that much anymore, but I seek out those same high skill games on TA that you described. I don't think we have played together if that is your in game name.
Others with identical inclinations would benefit similarly. And then there are people with similar inclinations to mine but with a key difference: they aren't willing to take the time to manually check each server. Thus, any in-game function which does the same job will improve their experience and make them more likely to group on the same server (again, the desired behavior). Over time, more people engaging in the desired behavior increases the likelihood of better games manifesting naturally, as a byproduct of individual players making comparable choices. This holds true even in the case of the rarer subset of low skilled players who nonetheless seek out superior competition. This latter group is - not coincidentally - the specific subset of the lower skilled playerbase that we want mixing with veterans. Meanwhile, lower skilled players who want to avoid higher skilled games would be better able to do so when equipped with the same server skill information that would equip veterans to more easily aggregate.
It's a matter of likelihoods, the common human appetite for convenience, and the aggregate effects of small, consistent differences. If the information is presented usefully so that those who would normally join the highest skill server available if only they were aware of its existence can do so more simply and easily, then the cumulative effect over time is as I described it: we edge closer to the ideal in which skilled players go up against players of comparable skill. No, it will not be a perfect system. No, it is not sufficient to fix the problem; anything short of a massive player influx will be insufficient to fix the problem. What it will do is offer an accessible, immediate metric by which server decisions can be made at a (seemingly) low cost.
The overall UI design has historically been fairly inefficient, in my opinion, so I won't fault this idea for past UI inefficiencies. My bigger issue with the previous implementation was that it was so abstract. I remember just a few arrows to indicate relative skill differences, and no ability to rank active servers by skill. The old system just produced a scenario where high skill players were told that every server had a poplation that was significantly beneath their skill. This isn't the same as being able to accurately sort the servers on the basis of current average skill (if this was possible at one point then I wasn't aware of it at the time). And more specific values would be better. I might avoid playing entirely if every populated server has an average skill of 900. Or perhaps I'll try to seed a new one, inviting other higher skilled friends. Point is: I'm better empowered to make a reasonable choice about how I want to spend my time. Color coding can still be used to indicate abstract skill 'brackets' if necessary, or to compare the non-empty servers in realtime on the basis of average skill. See Handschuh's post which I linked in my last reply for other potential reworks.
I agree with the bolded part. I just think that a quality of life feature along these lines, at this point in the game's lifespan, is a net good. A proper information-rich implementation would make it much easier for the remaining high skill players to find one another without undue hassle. Again, this isn't impossible by any means as is. This would just make it easier. And like I said, for every similarly inclined personality, a subset of them will avoid the desired behavior simply due to present procedural difficulties (e.g., having to join every server to check). And to repeat: I also think it helps set useful (pre-server join) expectations for players of lower skill.
I agree that it is not enough. I disagree with the contention that it wouldn't help.
You will note that I was taking a break for awhile.
What I said above. In theory this is true, in practice it was only true for a small amount of players. I am relying on memory, but I don't remember servers being any more skill grouped then than they are now. In practice the added information didn't effectively change behavior for enough people to be effective. If it did anything at all, which we have no way of knowing, it was highly marginal. In my opinion the effect was so marginal that the feature overall was a quality of life feature only for a very small number of players.
I clarified earlier. I will do it again. I am not talking about the silly arrows. Before the arrows the server browser showed the actual average hive skill of the server. This is what I am speaking about. The arrows made a marginal quality of life feature, that I used, worse. I think I remember it even having color coding at one time, but I am not sure if that was implemented until the arrows.
Also in addition to that the play now button could try to use the average hive skill information to put you on a server that has a similar hive skill than you have. (If it doesn't do that already)
I don't know about how hard it is to change the GUI of the game but looking at the last couple of changelogs, it looks like most of the features that got added where originally done by community members (example babbler mines by katzenfleisch), while the PDT focusses on backend stuff like the "play now" button for example. I am pretty sure some community members would gladly create a mod for that, which will get some quality check by PDT and PT (and maybe UWE?) and if it is good enough just merge it in.
The issue really does come down to higher skilled players playing with low skilled players and ruining each others time. We dont have the player base to support a mechanical segregation of players based on rank. This method would definitely been a great feature so each rank can play against people of similar skill and have a good time. The problem is NS2 just doesnt have the concurrent player count or player base to support this feature so another method would have to be implemented.
Though I think if the server browser is taken out for the vanilla game and only a queue was used that would make the above method work. The server browser would only be used for other game modes like arcade, combat, or siege. Just spit balling here so dont take this too seriously to the main topic of this thread.
I used that skill arrow thing whenever I was on because even today I loathe playing with low skilled players. It is not their fault but I enjoy being challenged and even though mowing down scrubs is fun, it doesn't do much for me. So even though a marginal amount of players would use it, getting the higher skilled players together more often would give lower skilled players more chances to play with people at their skill level and vice versa. Having this feature would give us the ability to make this choice. I really enjoy the way @Handschuh would have it implemented as colors make it easier to understand for people who dont know what HS is. ALl the would see is Skill level and think "oh no red is bad!" or "Green is good"
Is there a way to tell if the upper and lower skill quartile of game go up or down? I would be interested to see if the lower end gets lower and the higher end get higher with this if it was re-implemented.
The situation was very different then, and some of the problems we face now have exacerbated since that time. You're suggesting that we need a "more complex solution" and I hope people come up with one. That would be useful. But this is a small change that would be immediately useful, and which is likely to have a small but positive effect on the existing playerbase.
https://trello.com/c/Zk5778Qu/28-match-seeding-system
https://trello.com/c/s7ONC9b7/21-matchmaking-system
UWE also has a real player progression systems coming...
https://trello.com/c/ov771Jrf/16-player-level-progression
https://trello.com/c/Y03Driqa/22-progression-rewards
... and some additional player stats systems coming...
https://trello.com/c/N0djMvpp/20-player-stats-system
https://trello.com/c/AbN8RzW4/24-steam-stats
... as seen on the NS2 roadmap.
https://trello.com/b/njrpasjl/ns2-roadmap
If you are interested in what UWE is working on right now, not what they will be working on, or want more details than the roadmap might give, check out their development tracker trello.
https://trello.com/b/uFv64kH6/ns2-development-team
I am not a programmer, but it was once in game so it can't be that hard to put it back. The code exists already somewhere. I did link two mods, that I did not check if they were working, that put it back in which are other sources of code.
Should the code go back in? I don't know. I don't think it would make a a big difference like some here think it would. I think it would make a very small amount of players happy. I think everyone here knows how hard it is to get UWE to reverse something they changed no matter how unpopular they are. Health bars? Onos boneshield regen? It isn't something UWE can just flip a switch on.
Yes. I can do that pretty easily. I can even compute if the change is statistically significant. In the spoiler is a graph similar to what you are asking for if this ever got implemented. I made this the last time I did a bunch of stat work. I really need to get back into the stats again. Also, as a reference hive 2.0 was released around November 2016.
I said it earlier. If it didn't make a meaningful difference then, why would it now? You said: I have said many times now that I don't think it will make a meaningful difference. You say it will. We can't move beyond that. I don't think either of us can convince the other. I was thinking my role in the conversation was done.
______________________________________________
We are already way off topic. I guess this community would rather tangent into a different topic lately than make a new thread for it. Seems to be a trend. If my part in that conversation is done, and I think it might be, then how about I open up more to discuss.
Earlier I mentioned I have had so many long posts describing how the perceived imbalances are not because of hive but because of a large skill gap and a small player base. I have said the solution is createing near skilled games, or as otherwise said in this thread creating skill groups. This link (here) is one thread of many in which I make this assertion. I will quote one of my posts from that thread. I tough on rookie integration, skill grouping, and more. Maybe this quote can be a jumping off point for even more quality discussion.