Hi everyone! I have yet-another-suggestion to improve matchmaking.
General idea: Let’s drop the squad restrictions completely and instead balance teams considering number of battles of each player.
I suggest to define 3 categories:
Rookie: 0 - 500 battles. Impact 1 point
Veteran: 500-1500 battles. Impact 2 points
Elite: 1500+ battles. Impact 3 points
When there is suitable amount of players teams will be shuffled to minimize the difference in sum of impact points for each team. Same consideration is applied for new players joining during the match.
The motivation:
The is always a way for a player to “cheat” the balance - Loose on purpose/Create new account/Equip white modules e.t.c
Squad of rookies against squad of elite pilots is as good as no squad at all.
There is no point to count exact number of battles (or win rate) since pilots tend to use various ships with various success.
I’d really appreciate your feedback regarding categories, numbers and idea overall but please refrain from posting new/other suggestions in this thread.
Don’t you think that this system is too easy to abuse?
Current mm has nearly 10 parameters, and you propose just one?
Current system is also abusable if they synchronize clicking battle. I’ve encountered some pretty interesting situations with other corporations in random battle. Could use a pattern system that recognizes individual corp members and holds them for a different queue after a number of them has been reached. This way they can’t ruin and rig games by 6 of them clicking battle at once and coordinating between teams on teamspeak and doing who knows what. At the very least this would make people who want to continue doing it spend gs to puppet multiple corporations if they wish to retain corporation status.
Hi everyone! I have yet-another-suggestion to improve matchmaking.
General idea: Let’s drop the squad restrictions completely and instead balance teams considering number of battles of each player.
I suggest to define 3 categories:
Rookie: 0 - 500 battles. Impact 1 point
Veteran: 500-1500 battles. Impact 2 points
Elite: 1500+ battles. Impact 3 points
Elite at what? playing more battles than the other two groups? surely you’re not operating under the assumption that more battles means more skill?
If you want organized team play, do tourneys or custom games. Pubstomping is cancer and it’s bad enough you can do it by yourself through no fault of your own at tier 5, let alone people intentionally doing it at tiers 2 and 3. I may soon be in that group as destroyers will be tier 3 to start with, but I am considering hanging onto my materials until tier 5 is released unless there is a level of competitive play at tier 3 I find attractive for destroyers.
a small community and a massive skill imbalance between players. All it takes is one person in a game that can aim and suddenly the match is lopsided. I really don’t think the majority of the problem is on the developer’s end but we could do with some more safety valves at lower tiers to prevent players from leaving before they’ve invested enough time to make investing money look attractive.
Don’t you think that this system is too easy to abuse?
Current mm has nearly 10 parameters, and you propose just one?
My bad - the idea is to drop only squad restriction. All other metrics like ship synergy and rank restriction are still viable.
The thing there are two kind of rules:
Which players can be matched in the battle.
Which team gets certain player.
So in second type of rules we have this “same amount of squads” which causes longer waiting time and often causes new players to be matched against pro. It’s not just “unfair” - it causes players to give up playing pvp in squads. Personally when I tried to bring my friend back to SC it didn’t went well specifically because of this…
P.S.: I don’t know the best way to integrate with existing rules. Dropping squad balancing will also allow creating squads on the fly and let us players bring our friends without telling them “you better play pvp alone”…
Elite at what? playing more battles than the other two groups? surely you’re not operating under the assumption that more battles means more skill?
…
You right but I’m afraid there is no metric to determine impact of the player on the incoming battle. At least you must assume he will do his best, right? What I really want here is to remove squad restriction so players will not feel punished for playing together - but what you do with squad of pros? or rookie who bought tier 5 prem ship?
I also think the thread about “veteran club” is very interesting.
My bad - the idea is to drop only squad restriction. All other metrics like ship synergy and rank restriction are still viable.
The thing there are two kind of rules:
Which players can be matched in the battle.
Which team gets certain player.
So in second type of rules we have this “same amount of squads” which causes longer waiting time and often causes new players to be matched against pro. It’s not just “unfair” - it causes players to give up playing pvp in squads. Personally when I tried to bring my friend back to SC it didn’t went well specifically because of this…
P.S.: I don’t know the best way to integrate with existing rules. Dropping squad balancing will also allow creating squads on the fly and let us players bring our friends without telling them “you better play pvp alone”…
How should a number of battles make squads more balanced?
First of all there would be the need of 1 squad of similar per team which is already hard at certain time zones.
Secondly the squads would need equal strength, but there is a big difference between 4 friends that play casually and 4 guys from a top corp.
How should a number of battles make squads more balanced?
First of all there would be the need of 1 squad of similar per team which is already hard at certain time zones.
Secondly the squads would need equal strength, but there is a big difference between 4 friends that play casually and 4 guys from a top corp.
First - Thank you I got so many responses in this short time!
Now:
The idea is to use number of battles to balance teams not squads. In general don’t think its important to balance power of squads at all - only power of teams.
First - Thank you I got so many responses in this short time!
Now:
The idea is to use number of battles to balance teams not squads. In general don’t think its important to balance power of squads at all - only power of teams.
The number of battles is a weak criteria in judging a players skill.
It is possible to have many battles, but still being and average pilot. I can for example have 1501 battles in T2/3, but still play as a Ace in T5.
In a game where a player choose 1 ship or Tank or Plane or Character, it’s easy to introduce this kind of mechanic in a MM. And you can think that a player will 1000 game with the same thing will be better than a player with only 200 or 300 games.
In Star Conflict, players are not limited toonly 1 Ship but can choose up to 4 differents ships depending of the gamemode. Meaning that the game would have to take in consideration much more parameters that will not always help to balance a team because of the “Fitting” that can change a lot at the difference of “War Thunder” or “World of ArmoredCansWithHealthbarwhattheheckisthiscrap?”
(Continue a lot of blabla explaining that the amount of battles can’t be correctly used in Star Conflict due to the amount of Variation that can exist on the same ship played by the same players)
tournament groups work slightly different, but similar.
The test server should be turned into a MM simulator. With several adjustable parameters and with using real player counts and launching behaviors from different times. Kind of like an open source MM. Whoever could optimize MM the best would win GSs… GS reward is optional for motivation. But I think many players would want to work on MM.
The number of battles is a weak criteria in judging a players skill.
It is possible to have many battles, but still being and average pilot. I can for example have 1501 battles in T2/3, but still play as a Ace in T5.
I agree - its a weak criteria. Yet you are familiar with ship types/maps/modes - this is why I think measuring above 1500 is meaningless. On the other hand if you are totally fresh perhaps its much more important than the fact that you are in squad.
You right but I’m afraid there is no metric to determine impact of the player on the incoming battle. At least you must assume he will do his best, right? What I really want here is to remove squad restriction so players will not feel punished for playing together - but what you do with squad of pros? or rookie who bought tier 5 prem ship?
I also think the thread about “veteran club” is very interesting.
There really isn’t, and no you musn’t assume anything certainly not that they will do their best because there is no prefilter to ensure this mentality is the case.
as far as a proper filtering system goes to determine potential impact, they would need a more robust statistics gathering for example “win percentage per map” or at the very least “score per minute per map”. Comparing gear and synergy levels, damage output, survivability, speed of ships if it is beacon capture, etc etc would also be welcome, but as there are not many people playing and you are allowed to bring four ships, this is potentially a sorting nightmare that begins a massive time and money sink, and this turns a joke like picture related into reality.
