You mean purposely tanking there stats to gain better MM queves?
I was talking about NOVA, they sucked like hell that match.
ESB was pwnage as usual.
I think the current matchmaking system is optimal in the long run. The problem is that on one hand, we have too many people used to curbstomping their tier by using max-rank-for-tier ship with optimal gear and in a squad with similar people, basically demolishing gameplay for others. This was one of the main reasons why many stayed in T2 and never played in T3 back when T4 was the highest tier in existence.
This problem got fixed.
The biggest problem as far as I see it is that we just have too few people playing right now. If we had more at T4/T5, squads would have good games there, and solo people would be queued at lower level. Right now top players are queuing lower because queuing higher just doesn’t give them any games at all - there’s no players. This results in former “top of their tier” people meeting ranked down “top of the upper tier” people, resulting in same demoralizing effect that stopped T2 players from going to play in T3.
Matchmaking is fine. It’s the low amount of people in the matchmaking pool however breaks it. That said, old system of locked tiers was far, FAR worse for everyone except those few flying on “top of their tier” like myself. For us, that guaranteed a gear and squad teamplay advantage on top of skill advantage over most players, which broke the game for them.
I find it fitting that as of typing this, in game poll shows that over 40% of all people voted for option #1.
And those are all people that are NOT informed of anything but getting that FREE 10 GS
And those are all people that are NOT informed of anything but getting that FREE 10 GS
That’s not how voting works in democratic environment. You don’t get to tell someone they’re too stupid to vote or that their vote doesn’t count because they are too stupid.
That’s not how voting works in democratic environment. You don’t get to tell someone they’re too stupid to vote or that their vote doesn’t count because they are too stupid.
And that’s why we have so much troubles with our politics in the “Third World”.
Sorry for the derail, can’t contain myself, lol.
Anyway, and back in topic, the actual matchmaking system could work well whenever we got a bigger playerbase, and a stable one, but for the numbers of players that we have today, we need a change, this ain’t working flawlessly.
You mean purposely tanking there stats to gain better MM queves?
Why not, a higher DSR makes it more likely to be placed against better teams with worse teammates. If you’re grinding synergy, you want the higher ranked ships on the other side.
I was talking about NOVA, they sucked like hell that match.
ESB was pwnage as usual.
Nova’s wide ranging in skill. I don’t know of another corp to really compare them with. Remember, in the last tournament, a Nova team was the only team to beat an ESB team.
That’s not how voting works in democratic environment. You don’t get to tell someone they’re too stupid to vote or that their vote doesn’t count because they are too stupid.
The order of the option should have been randomized to minimize the chance of “pick one and get 10 GS.” But your point stands, and as we all know the in game numbers will dominate, and if the devs completely ignore the playerbase the game is guaranteed to fail. Right now in game is 40% saying “it’s ok.” I don’t take that as a “do nothing” since many don’t understand the equation. The only clear choice is not making a separate squad only queue. Balancing squads in PUG matches will be extremely difficult for the devs, As for mixed tiers, I think there can also be a difference between hard mixing and soft mixing. An R7 ship has a lack of one active module slot and that can be significant in T3. An R10 only has a passive module increase and an implant bonus increase. Putting T2 ships against T4 is extreme. But suppose it’s a four man ESB squad grinding their R6 ships, they can handle four random R10’s. The situations where jumping two tiers is ok, but limited. The big issue is comparing that to a four man CORP squad grinding their R6 ships. If it’s only a couple ranks, I don’t see a problem ONLY as long as the part of matchmaker to balance teams actually balances teams.
I think the big problem with squads is that MM can’t handle squad synergy and only focuses on squad size. Some of the metrics are simplified, yet so is DSR, or rather “1v1 rating.”
You know the worst thing about this? The results are gonna be skewed so only the in-game voters count “because that’s what the players want!”…
You have voted in-game, aren’t you all? This means that forums serve just as double.
We have the poll on the forums so that you can discuss things, but the main platform is game, it has many more players, and the decision will this way or another tell on all of our pilots. We cannot make a decision that big based on a relatively small poll on forums, which represents only part of playerbase.
Moreover… say, would you belive that government elections are not skewed, should someone told you that some people were able to vote twice?
Anyway, and back in topic, the actual matchmaking system could work well whenever we got a bigger playerbase, and a stable one, but for the numbers of players that we have today, we need a change, this ain’t working flawlessly.
This is going to change.
I cant say I’m at all surprised that the results here are totally different to the ones on the general in game poll, there are 2 main reasons for this;
firstly the one in the game has an incentive, so people who don’t care about the poll but simply want the 10 standards will simply select a random option with a strong bias for the first option without even reading it;
secondly, people, unless they have a useful opinion and usually a sensible rationale wont bother coming here to post or vote, so only those people who are actively looking to improve the game (or who are chronic attention seekers) will turn up here.
much as both systems have their flaws you are more likely to get a sensible result if you look more at the un-coerced forum vote even though the numbers are smaller, rather than the in game vote which is likely to have a fair bit of white noise and a bias towards whatever the first answer is.
also it is pretty self evident from where I am that you do not want to in any way discourage squadding, the inbuilt benefits of squadding are fine as it helps to build communities and communities mean player retention as well as player recruitment.
That’s not how voting works in democratic environment. You don’t get to tell someone they’re too stupid to vote or that their vote doesn’t count because they are too stupid.
Democracy is not supposed to work via people just voting for whoever has the most interesting name, or just ticking a box because they get a reward for voting regardless of what they pick.
Democracy is meant to work by the voters being given a series of options, and being informed about what those options mean. The fact is, the forum polls are clearly more informed than the player polls. We know this because of these long discussions / arguments that are taking place. Take Griffon - even if most of us feel his theories are way out of whack, he has supposedly played under both systems and thus he has some form of logic behind his vote. He is an informed voter.
But most of the people in game are not. It’s been six months or so since Fixed Tiers, right? How many people voting have been here that long? How many of them understand what is at stake? How many know, or care, what impact the current system has had on high levels, or on squads?
This is the key issue. Low level players whose experience of the game would not change in either system are given the same weight as people whose way of playing has been completely ruined by recent patches. Hell, it’s not even “recent” patches any more.
The irony is that a lot of the people who voted for Option A, if they stick with the game, will regret it later. They’ll get higher up, want to play with friends, and get slaughtered by a spiteful matchmaking system. Then they’ll come on here and complain about how unfair it is and how they want to be able to fly with friends without being farmed by T3 / T4 ships… and then we’ll all turn around and say “we tried to get you that system, but you voted against it.”
This poll shouldn’t have been run like this. Ideally, it should have been run in a months time - after a month of Fixed Tier gaming so people had a chance to experience both systems.
That, or have Option A as “I don’t care” just to stop people unfairly stacking the system against what the players actually want.
As JasaQuinn above says, Polls != vote. Voting needs information and being informed.
And I agree with Luckyo and others whom say, that MM depends a lot on player pool.
Personally I think MM will anyways have to be again refactored when/if the game gets bigger player base. Naturally, it would be good for the game, if the current guess would be close enough to the optimal that is to be. And personally I think it should be a system, that doesn’t penalize team play, but also doesn’t create effortless “I WIN 80% of the games and ruin the game for randoms” -scenario for squads. With current size of the player base, I don’t see how this can be achieved with current wait times.
In my opinion, only problem being one tier lower than others in the battle is big alpha damage / huge debuff sources. It is insane to take a hit from T3 LRF as T2 inty. Or e.g. have your shields drained extremely quickly, as the module difference is that much bigger. T3 blue/purple module is always a big deal compared to T2 ships, already from the first rank of T3.
While all other aspects of the game make mixed tiers a challenge for good player, these alpha / module difference / HP difference issues when in mixed tiers don’t make the game challenging, but frustrating. And I don’t see an easy way to balance it. If the mixed tier system is required, maybe give lower tier ships some free boosts (e.g. very high resistance) that last through the game when they are in higher tier match, maybe also lower re-spawn timer as you die more, and so on (other options can be invented: explosion damage halved, big alpha damage halved as you’re squishy low tierer…).
As said antibus, people who voted in the forum voted in game as well.
But I agree choices should be randomized and there should be a description of each choices to explain to the ingame players what that woud change (and maybe also a “I don’t care” choice).
Heaven forbid if we’re not penalized every step of the way for actually doing good >.< Even solo queueing I’ll start out winning about 5-10 in a row and then the horrible horrible teams start coming my way. I’m sorry I can carry some teams to victory but when you have 5 LRF in a detonation match or even worse nobody brings an Engi in combat recon, there’s not much you can do to stop the inevitable defeat…just try and minimize your deaths.
You forget players that do cares but don’t want the “heavy” option of the forum. Most player don’t go on the forum because for them it’s a loss of time.
I don’t think you go on all the forum of all the games you played.
You forget players that do cares but don’t want the “heavy” option of the forum. Most player don’t go on the forum because for them it’s a loss of time.
I don’t think you go on all the forum of all the games you played.
On multiplayer games I do. Not so much single player, not unless I really want to discuss the game with people, but multiplayer? Yeah, pretty much always. The community is what makes or breaks a multiplayer game, so of course I want to be part of it!
sadly not much players thinks the same, when you see 1500players at peak hours (let’s divide it by the 3 regions so 500 players). only less than 50 are active on this forum, on many games only 10-20% of the players are active in the community (actually, those who have time to do it).
Actually, this is why the game poll should be ignored: there is no incentive to vote on the forum if you don’t care. Thus, the votes on forums are all people who feel strongly enough that they really want a specific option. The “silent majority” don’t care either way.
Again, in game voting has a GS reward. It can’t be coincidence that the disparity between game and forum is consistent with what we’d have if people just vote for option A to get their free GS…
So far there are 31 votes on this forum. That’s trivial compared to the number of players online at the lowest of points. Most matches do not involve squads, yet many forum members prefer to fly in squads. Sometimes it seems like those squad flyers just want to be able to dominate at the top of a tier and not face tougher, more competitive opponents. Before the poll was switched tierless combat was getting preferred, now it’s tiered combat. Having multiple but limited options can lead to distortion of the results. The only thing that should make the forum votes count more is that forum members have seen how match maker calculates rank, while people not on the forums go only on in game experience.
My biggest complaint on match maker is that it has insufficient information to balance teams. The skill metric is flawed and w/l ratio is too strong.
So far there are 31 votes on this forum. That’s trivial compared to the number of players online at the lowest of points. Most matches do not involve squads, yet many forum members prefer to fly in squads. Sometimes it seems like those squad flyers just want to be able to dominate at the top of a tier and not face tougher, more competitive opponents. Before the poll was switched tierless combat was getting preferred, now it’s tiered combat. Having multiple but limited options can lead to distortion of the results. The only thing that should make the forum votes count more is that forum members have seen how match maker calculates rank, while people not on the forums go only on in game experience.
My biggest complaint on match maker is that it has insufficient information to balance teams. The skill metric is flawed and w/l ratio is too strong.
I would agree with your points where it not for the fact that there is no default “I don’t care” option. This is kind of necessary given that people are going to vote just to get GS, and it is entirely possible (if not probable) that they just click “vote” and be done with it.
As an aside, I’d be curious to see just how many votes Option A gets each weak across all polls. I’m sure it’s always one of the highest…
Again, where I to don my conspiracy theorists hat, I would say the poll was changed specifically because Fixed Tiers looked like they were likely to gain the popular vote and win, so the voting was rigged to allow the Dev’s desired option - keep it as is - to win. If they ran this poll again next week with “Fixed Tiers” as Option A, I’ll bet good money it would win by a landslide.
To further make the point, consider this: when the polls changed, about 30% of players were voting “Don’t care”. Let’s just look at what yesterday’s poll might look like if that trend continued…
Don’t Care: 30%
Mixed Tiers – Squads boosted up tiers: 11.24%
Mixed Tiers – Squads only fight Squads: 11.24%
Locked Tiers – No penalty for squads: 28.96%
Locked Tiers – Squads only fight Squads: 19.56%
Under that model, everyone who voted for Mixed Tiers combined can’t match the players who want the old system.
“But that’s not fair - you’re assuming all Don’t Care votes go to Option A!” That’s true, and not all will… but the amount of people who genuinely don’t care, yet pick an option at random are so small they can be ignored. I mean, why would they? It’s just easier to click “Vote” and ignore the options when “Don’t Care” isn’t present and the default is “leave it as is”.
Biased poll is biased, and faith in Devs is low as ever…
Don’t forget devs have another thing to take into account than no players have to take care about => money. They have a far better vision than us about this. I agree that a game should be made for player and not for money but that’s how the world works.
They may be trustable but gamers don’t see it.
And when im screaming at the devs to increase the GS to FREE SYNERGY RATIO, they LOWER IT!
IM like TELLING YOU THAT I WANT TO THROW MONEY AT YOU! and you REFUSE ME!