2x squad vs 4x squad

I’m just about certain that win ratio never mattered, but if your rating drops low enough and you fly a ship with no/low synergy and low quality main weapon that can reduce you rank, so maybe that’s what you were seeing.

Yes W/L ration never mattered for MM. But how many losses or wins you have in a row mattered but doesn’t anymore.

 

A long time ago I was in 4-man NASA squad, we queued with T2’s (not sure if we had standard R6’s) we started in queue 29 (top end of T2 queues) after 12 win’s in a row we were in queue 35 where MM broke our winning streak.

 

 

I think those in T1 would disagree.

 

Why they dont disagree? Because they dont give a damn about comming to the forums and complaining about it. And why ppl farm in squads T1? Because it is counterproductive in some cases to farm any other tier. And why that happens? Because the game is broken.

 

Then just stop farming in PvP! What is there to farm about anyway, and why do you need to be in a squad to farm?

 

Synergy farm, i still have about 3 or 4 R9 ships to max, once i finish ill start dedicating time on T4’s MAYBE, or, just unlock T5’s and stick with T5’s since theres no point in T4’s in terms of number of games.

 

You can farm synergy more consistent in PvE and get more credits and loot in the process. Go leave us players who are still learning alone with your farming. PvP is the only game mode where you can learn so don’t ruin it more by abusing it. 

You can farm synergy more consistent in PvE and get more credits and loot in the process. Go leave us players who are still learning alone with your farming. PvP is the only game mode where you can learn so don’t ruin it more by abusing it. 

 

First: I dont farm T2 or T1. When i play on those it is because some friend wanted to try the game, so i squad with him.

 

Second, where the hell did you get the information that synergy farm is better in PVE? Sure, you can do that if you get in an neverending bad luck streak while playing pvp solo, but the synergy gain is ridiculously low on PVE. On PVP on a fighter usually with gauss cannon, i can get from 13k-25kish syn per battle (i only have the license bonus and my fleet strenght). While on PVE even if i kill everything by myself if i get 14k it is a miracle. Plus, getting random pugs on PVE makes the games last an eternity, and most of them (the last 10 i did, the fail rate was higher than 50%) because ppl dont even know how to play.

 

You can farm synergy more consistent in PvE and get more credits and loot in the process. Go leave us players who are still learning alone with your farming. PvP is the only game mode where you can learn so don’t ruin it more by abusing it. 

 

First: I dont farm T2 or T1. When i play on those it is because some friend wanted to try the game, so i squad with him.

 

Second, where the hell did you get the information that synergy farm is better in PVE? Sure, you can do that if you get in an neverending bad luck streak while playing pvp solo, but the synergy gain is ridiculously low on PVE. On PVP on a fighter usually with gauss cannon, i can get from 13k-25kish syn per battle (i only have the license bonus and my fleet strenght). While on PVE even if i kill everything by myself if i get 14k it is a miracle. Plus, getting random pugs on PVE makes the games last an eternity, and most of them (the last 10 i did, the fail rate was higher than 50%) because ppl dont even know how to play.

 

Well since you apparently never lose in T3 PvP because you always fly in 4man squad or always can make a significant contribution with your kills with any ship role, you don’t know how it is for others that are not like you.

 

How much syn do you get from lost battles when you get your butt kicked because MM just but you on the screw you list? Right you don’t know because you always win on PvP. I guess the countless lost battles have to go somewhere …

 

Yes you get lower syn in PvE then at the best battles on PvP but on PvE you have control especially if you squad up. If you queue lower tier in PvE but still use your higher tier ship the mission time is a lot faster but still get the same synergy and even solo queuing you can never fail with most ships (depending on scenario). Sure PvE is really boring but hey you want only want to syn your ships, right?

 

I guess everyone is just synergizing ships that leads to nowhere because what will you do when you have all ships fully synergized? And what are you doing now in Sector Conquest? You wait 20min for 4vs4 (at least in my time zone). For what?

That is one of the big problems with this game. It suggests you need to progress in the ship tree and they make it easy, just spend some real money here and there and you get there much fast. What is the point in that?

I’m at a point where I’m becoming like you and others just doing my own agenda in PvP and not really caring much about the other players in the match or what they want. Just to get through the match and not being too frustrated having lost 10 matches in a row. And the poor matchmaking (coming back to topic) only makes things worse.

Well since you apparently never lose in T3 PvP because you always fly in 4man squad or always can make a significant contribution with your kills with any ship role, you don’t know how it is for others that are not like you.

 

I dont always win, a lose a lot, because these days i rarely fly in 4-man squad, mostly it is a 2-man squad or solo. With some ships (like some interceptors) i make xxxx things, and still average at least 11k per battle. (the average duration of the battles is MUCH lower than PVE missions)

 

How much syn do you get from lost battles when you get your butt kicked because MM just but you on the screw you list? Right you don’t know because you always win on PvP. I guess the countless lost battles have to go somewhere …

 

If im piloting a fighter (my speciality) i get at least 11-16k syn, losing or winning.

 

Yes you get lower syn in PvE then at the best battles on PvP but on PvE you have control especially if you squad up. If you queue lower tier in PvE but still use your higher tier ship the mission time is a lot faster but still get the same synergy and even solo queuing you can never fail with most ships (depending on scenario). Sure PvE is really boring but hey you want only want to syn your ships, right?

 

If i am to  be bored to death while doing PVE, AT LEAST i would want the more loot thing, otherwise it would not be worth. Also, the fun of learning other ships is very usefull.

 

I guess everyone is just synergizing ships that leads to nowhere because what will you do when you have all ships fully synergized? And what are you doing now in Sector Conquest? You wait 20min for 4vs4 (at least in my time zone). For what?

 

Because i want perhaps? I Wanna synergise ships because i want. And the most ships i synergise the easier it gets to synergise (well, not always, but fleet strenght bonus is great). No i dont play on sector conquest, because contrary to many brainless people, since i dont have good equiped T4 or T5 i dont want to be carried, or to cause my team to lose.

That is one of the big problems with this game. It suggests you need to progress in the ship tree and they make it easy, just spend some real money here and there and you get there much fast. What is the point in that?

 

Well, you know, this game is made with the purpose to make money from it…

I’m at a point where I’m becoming like you and others just doing my own agenda in PvP and not really caring much about the other players in the match or what they want. Just to get through the match and not being too frustrated having lost 10 matches in a row. And the poor matchmaking (coming back to topic) only makes things worse.

What if it would just go off of win/lose ratio? Make both teams have player distribution so that both teams have an even win/lose ratio.

Using the W/L for MM I think is not a good idea as that changes slower with increasing amount of games you do. With 1000 battles you have to win/lose 10 battles to change it by .01 .

 

several weeks ago MM would memorize the amount of battles you won/lost in a row and would put you in a higher/lower queue. Now that queue doesn’t change so not sure if MM still uses it and in what way it is trying to make a win/loss more likely.

 

I have noticed that my W/L went down dramatically over the past weeks. But my SR hasn’t change much.

Using the W/L for MM I think is not a good idea as that changes slower with increasing amount of games you do. With 1000 battles you have to win/lose 10 battles to change it by .01 .

Using win ratio is actually the only reasonable idea for any match-maker because the goal must always be to balance teams in a way that both teams have equal chances of winning. Since you’d use the current win ratio (say for the past 50-100 battles or some kind of weighted moving average) the slow change issue is in fact none.

Other factors such as the weighted kill death ratio (aka SR rating) are rather irrelevant for match-making because that stat says nothing about your ability to win battles.

Using win ratio is actually the only reasonable idea for any match-maker because the goal must always be to balance teams in a way that both teams have equal chances of winning. Since you’d use the current win ratio (say for the past 50-100 battles or some kind of weighted moving average) the slow change issue is in fact none.

Other factors such as the weighted kill death ratio (aka SR rating) are rather irrelevant for match-making because stat stat says nothing about your ability to win battles.

How would MM look like with people having a W/L ranging from 0.7 to 4.0 ? The ones with 4.0 are setup to lose the next 5000 matches so W/L meets somewhere in the middle?

 

No single reading in the pilot stats says anything about the likelihood to win a match.

 

It would be better to create and/or add more measurements of matches and included that in the MM. Like efficiency of matches (PvP only) is not part of pilot stats at the moment but could help. Like suggested here: [http://forum.star-conflict.com/index.php?/topic/22341-contribution-rating/](< base_url >/index.php?/topic/22341-contribution-rating/)

No single reading in the pilot stats says anything about the likelihood to win a match.

It would be better to create and/or add more measurements of matches and included that in the MM. Like efficiency of matches (PvP only) is not part of pilot stats at the moment but could help. Like suggested here: http://forum.star-co…ibution-rating/

Hmm what? Win ratio is exactly the stat describing the likelihood to win a match. Everything else is just a crutch. Efficiency is entirely unrelated.

Hmm what? Win ratio is exactly the stat describing the likelihood to win a match. Everything else is just a crutch. Efficiency is entirely unrelated.

Nope because it can be cheated almost like SR. And it can be wrecked or improved by MM like now or in the past. If you look through some of the pilot stats of players that have been with the game before March 2013 you’ll see what I mean (winning streaks of 40…). You can also start a new account and can get a higher W/L then anyone in T1.

 

So better to consider multiple measurements than to relying on just one.

 

So you still haven’t answered my question. How should use MM W/L ratios ranging from 0.7 to 4.x ?

Using win ratio is actually the only reasonable idea for any match-maker because the goal must always be to balance teams in a way that both teams have equal chances of winning. Since you’d use the current win ratio (say for the past 50-100 battles or some kind of weighted moving average) the slow change issue is in fact none.

Other factors such as the weighted kill death ratio (aka SR rating) are rather irrelevant for match-making because stat stat says nothing about your ability to win battles.

 

Not to mention that after, about 4 wins straight the MM putted you against impossible odds, with 900 SR on one side, against like… 12 ESB guys. kkkkkkkkkkkkkk

Not to mention that after, about 4 wins straight the MM putted you against impossible odds, with 900 SR on one side, against like… 12 ESB guys. kkkkkkkkkkkkkk

If MM wouldn’t have used the winning streak in the 4man NASA squad matches we probably would have kept going setting a new record or wouldn’t have anymore matches because we would have been queued in T4 where no one queues (at the time we played).

 

The ESB guys need to farm too, right?

Ok I get it, you don’t actually want a fair MM, you just want to keep winning. Say no more…

Ok I get it, you don’t actually want a fair MM, you just want to keep winning. Say no more…

Right… I wanna cheat … I’m one of those 14year olds… :bomber:

 

I’m not MrDuck/Leikis or whatever he calls himself these days.

 

Please, can’t you just answer my question? If you say W/L should be used in MM, then how with the big differences and slow changing ratio?

 

Let’s say we have 20 players queuing in T3:

3 have W/L of around 0.8

2 has a W/L of around 0.9

4 have W/L of around 1.0

2 have W/L of around 1.1

2 have W/L of around 1.2

3 have W/L of around 1.3

2 have W/L of around 1.5

1 has W/L of 2.1

1 has W/L of 3.0

 

 

So how would you match those players?

I already explained why a slow changing ratio is no issue. As to matching them, same as you would do with any other stat, you distribute them in a way so team averages end up as close as possible.

I have to agree with Snib and Enny. There is a problem with matchmaking. And you can feel this, specifically if you try to solo it. Kraimax is being covered by squads and so am I, so we do not feel it. We have the power to change the course of the game, but if you are by yourself, there is not much that you can do, other than be at the mercy of the MM to be put on a decent team. But because your ratings (which I still think it’s just DSR) are a bit better, you are the one that gets to carry their team, and will probably be forever put against us, and other better squads.

 

So yes, MM is not at it’s best for solo players, actually it’s quite a big issue. An ideal MM would make everyone’s win ratios close or above 1.0, but we all know that is not the case in SCon, and neither we want that, because we believe that as a group of 4, we have the chance to win the game over more often than just half of the time (if we consider ourselves a good player). 

 

The real issue behind this might actually be really simple, that we allready talk about all the time: lack of players, tiers and squad inequality.

 

I have studied how MM works in other games, and there is not a single game without MM problems that exists (even if it does, players will always complain because it’s hard to accept defeat), but SCon has some underlining problems that make current MM which is not a bad concept of itself, not work properly.

 

First there are tiers and game modes, so we have allready split playerbase by more than 5 groups just based on ship rank battles. Remember when they wanted to mix the tiers so bad? Well, that was because it made an easier job for the MM to group and balance out players with different skill ratins and squads. The problem is in the design of the game. The problem is in the tiers. Would there be no tiers to split players apart, we would only use players statistics and experience to balance out the games, and the pool of selectable players would be much, much higher. There would also be no occasions of “bad players in T5 in and SQ” because you would never see them in your game, since they are way out of your skill league. But right now, because of such low player base spread across all those tiers, you are forced to play with anything that MM can get - if you get a game at all, that is.

 

And than there are squads. Latest MM is having a good try to balance them out but it’s still a problem. And reason again is lack of players to select from. You cannot balance a game with squads across more than 5 groups of ranked games at any given time with ~1000 player pool. For this MM to work properly, you would need a 1000 player pool all in the same tier (counting not everyone queing in the game, some of them in hangar/pve/battle already), that means a total of 5000 players active for all tiers, to have this MM work. And 5000 is not a big number for a f2p lobby based game like this, it’s actually quite average. With bigger numbers, or if there would be no tiers, this MM would work, and would also balance out the squads properly. Right now only solution is to put squads against squads only (and that is what they are trying to do), but this cannot work properly. You don’t have the playerbase.

 

So there you have it. 

 

  1. Lack of players

  2. Blended and split across many tiers

  3. Inability to balance the squads because of #1, that is connected to #2.

 

As long as there are tiers in this game, this problem is not fixable. The small playerbase makes it impossible for MM to work properly in a tier based environment, so the actualy business model with tiers is not appropriate for this situation. Would they have averaging 5000 pool player base, with 1000 per tier, this would work. But until than, it cannot. Should they have chosen to put everyone in the same group and other progression/monetasation methods than splitting playerbase in 5 tiers, they could work with this nubmers. But this way, this cannot be done.

 

So my only solution to you guys in this paradox scenario would be to squad up, and adapt to the system. It’s the only way to beat the system, and it’s the only way that a corporation like ours is being successfull, because I have noticed this problem from start. There are other games with MM, where it’s actually beneficial and sometimes even easier if you don’t squad up and play in solo queues (because if your whole team sucks, you will be put against stronger teams). One of the similiar games I play has a solo queue ratio of 88% (even the devs were shocked by this), and players don’t have as big an issue as here (yet they are still tweaking it).

 

So again, while I agree with your concerns, I don’t think there is much else that can be done to make it fair, than to squad up yourself and try to beat the odds. You have a good chance of this if you are a good player, since you are allready being put against stronger squads to “carry” your team. But with this MM, it is hardly fair, and you have little chance to win, unfortunately. If you consider yourself a good player, you must squad up. Or be forced to carry bad teams eternally until we get the playerbase for this. 
 

I have to agree with Snib and Enny. There is a problem with matchmaking.

I never said there is a problem with match-making, actually I said that I’d rather have a match fast than to wait for a perfectly balanced one.

The issue with squads, if you think there is one, are game mechanics. I used to enjoy going up solo against kill squads - taunting SemTex by telling him who I was going to kill next out of his squad, and then going in and doing it (or sometimes getting hit by an EM torp in the face when getting caught in stasis in a bad place - he sure knew how to twitch aim them) were the most fun times I had in the game. In the current “meta” with overly strong tacklers and mass AOE damage that’s no longer possible, so as a solo player with typically not even as much as an engineer on your team you have to stay away from kill squads because you stand no chance.

However, as you said, I have the possibility to fly in a kill squad myself and so does everybody else, so that’s something that can easily be “fixed” on the player level. Whether you want it to be fixed this way or cater more to solo players (who, as you said, are probably the bigger market) is a game design decision. Adding bots so everyone has at least one easy target is not exactly the way I would have addressed it but that’s sadly where we stand right now.

Disclaimer: Before you or anyone jump on me again for the term kill squad, that’s not a derogatory term, it simply denotes a squad geared for killing instead of just some people grouping up synergizing random ships together. Also I fly solo for reasons my own, I have nothing at all against players squadding up to kill, farm or do whatever. So do not make this personal because neither am I.

Just to stop you right there; “grouping up for sinergyzing random ships?”. Wow, I have to say that’s something I never expected to hear. Sounds almost like pve. Hm, I was all about “groupping up to win”, above all else, never really cared about… well… anything else than that. Just being too hardcore I guess, I never saw the game that way (play to sinergize ships, to get… better ships… the point being…? does not everybody want to win?)

 

Also, it is one thing, just pointing out, if you’re like say solo, and than focus on exclusively one player just to bring him down, well, you might manage to make it out, and might seem fun for someone but that’s counterproductive way of playing imho, ughh, everytime I ever tried that doing myself, it ussualy did not end well for the team or the game. Yes, maybe you can make it and do a leeroy jenkins on him, but how did that help the outcome of the game? Not, quite… what was… nah, just… no. 

Not blaming you for anything at all, I just don’t understand why would someone want to do that just for the gits of it, but as said, I take it a bit too seriously to joke around like that. And oh god, do I miss semTex allright.

Just to stop you right there; “grouping up for sinergyzing random ships?”. Wow, I have to say that’s something I never expected to hear. Sounds almost like pve. Hm, I was all about “groupping up to win”, above all else, never really cared about… well… anything else than that. Just being too hardcore I guess, I never saw the game that way (play to sinergize ships, to get… better ships… the point being…? does not everybody want to win?)

This game is a grinder. So many players play for the grind. Or for other reasons. I play for my own, but this is not about me. And I miss semTex too, he was a nice guy.

Could say “play for the progression” not so much for the grind. Hmm, it’s basically what’s keeping me form playing any more of MWO; the grind in that game is ridicolous. Just if I want to say, switch to another assault mech chasis, I would need about a month of playtime to earn, master, and equip all 3 variants (they have this stupid exp model where you have to buy 3 types of same chasis with slightly different fits to “unlock” additional upgrades). Not to stray too much offtopic, grind in SCon is not nearly as bad, and rewards gained feel much better; you get so many different ships on your way, you are not stuck several weeks playing just to earn one type of ship that you are not even sure about if it might fit you (or pay 20€ for just one premium model!). The good thing is tough, there are no tiers, but progression sucks for that matter. While tiers we have here is great for progression feel and keeps you interested, unfortunately it does not work well with the MM as I described earlier. Doubled edged sword, both scenarios.