I hope that you address this after the engine update and re-release of APB

[safdfsgkjhdgsjkhs 140]

Matchmaking..... making proper matches.

 

Putting silvers and bronzes vs a 4 man team of golds just because the hidden matchmaking number "matches" the opposing team's hidden matchmaking number STILL DOESNT MAKE SENSE.

 

I don't understand why anyone would think putting 6 new/lower skilled/less time invested in the game players vs players who are all higher threat and even higher combined is a good idea...

No matter how many bronzes you put in the mission it will not be balanced vs 4 man group that have thousands of hours playing.

 

ALSO... can we get a duo only queue option? Its not fair to put a 2 man team and 2 bronze players vs a 4 man pre-made group.... same thing im saying above. Instead of balancing weapons that dont need balancing how about you try to balance the way people are matched up grouped or solo players or low skill vs high skill.... this is the most relevant reason why no one stays playign this game.

[NotZombieBiscuit 3146]

When this happens it is unfortunately the best that the matchmaking can give at that time.

 

The alternative is no match at all.

[VanilleKeks 737]

Have you read any of the stuff LO has said? Ever?

 

That is literally one of the first things that will come with the release of 2.1.

[vsb 6171]

42 minutes ago, VanilleKeks said:

Have you read any of the stuff LO has said? Ever?

 

That is literally one of the first things that will come with the release of 2.1.

if we acknowledge that info has already been put out for this then we can't get our good boy points for making another pointless thread

[Flaws 1033]

Another useless thread outlining one of the major issues of APB that everyone is already aware of and LO has said time and time again that will be fixed through multiple different processes past the engine upgrade. Please read news, announcements and watch Q&A's before making threads on the forum. Move along.

[SmilyFace 300]

It's coming, no one know when, but is in the works.

[safdfsgkjhdgsjkhs 140]

lol i did read it and matt scott even said they are planning at throwing silvers and bronzes at gold teams... have you guys even read what he said? 

im not silver i just dont want imbalanced teams at the cost of adding an extra player just to "even it up" when it doesnt even anything up at all.

when they add the phasing they really need to make 4 vs 4 and no more imbalanced teams cause of low and high threeat... remove backup option and silvers vs silvers and golds vs golds. 

 

ive read the whole thread and he hasnt touched on anything i just said lol

 

edit: here is what he said regarding imbalanced matchmaking... he's all for it.

 

Edited May 10, 2020 by safdfsgkjhdgsjkhs

[Kevkof 806]

8 hours ago, safdfsgkjhdgsjkhs said:

lol i did read it

Other than the Matchmaking and Threat thread that you linked, the Q&A's are very interesting ones to read up on as matchmaking is always brought up.

The second Q&A transcript: https://forums.gamersfirst.com/topic/11052-second-apb-reloaded-qa-videos/?do=findComment&comment=144943

Transcript for the 3rd (and most recent) Q&A: https://forums.gamersfirst.com/topic/13720-highlight-video-of-the-apb-21-beta-with-qa/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-174180

 

 

Matchmaking changes were already confirmed to be in progress (quoted from the recent Q&A):  

On 4/19/2020 at 4:32 PM, Kevkof said:

When it comes to threat and matchmaking, I'm sure that's everybody's biggest beef. It won't launch immediately with the beta, but it's the next major thing we're putting in and a ton of work has been done server-side for this for 2.1 and that is the way districts will expand and collapse. So in off-peak times, we're actually going to be dynamically scaling the threat levels so we can get everybody either on to one server or multiple servers but basically reducing/contracting how threat works so you can get matches. And then during peak times we're actually going to be subdividing threat even further than it is now so that we're getting very very closely matched players on each district. That's part of what we call district allocations that's in the new systems, but this idea of being able to scale dynamically and get people to the right servers so that they're getting matched a lot better.

 

 

[Fortune Runner 796]

21 hours ago, safdfsgkjhdgsjkhs said:

lol i did read it and matt scott even said they are planning at throwing silvers and bronzes at gold teams... have you guys even read what he said? 

like seriously.... what?

[ShaiShai 130]

On 5/9/2020 at 6:58 AM, VanilleKeks said:

Have you read any of the stuff LO has said? Ever?

 

That is literally one of the first things that will come with the release of 2.1.

reading ? you expect people to read , lol your funny

[CookiePuss 5378]

It's very disappointing to me that people blame matchmaking instead of the limited available player pool.

You want fair matches vs a pool of 40 players?
You can maybe get one every two hours or so.

Enjoy your new APB.

[NotZombieBiscuit 3146]

4 hours ago, CookiePuss said:

It's very disappointing to me that people blame matchmaking instead of the limited available player pool.

You want fair matches vs a pool of 40 players?
You can maybe get one every two hours or so.

Enjoy your new APB.

Vs the 2-10 players that aren't already in a mission*.

[Noob_Guardian 417]

On 5/10/2020 at 5:00 AM, Kevkof said:

Other than the Matchmaking and Threat thread that you linked, the Q&A's are very interesting ones to read up on as matchmaking is always brought up.

The second Q&A transcript: https://forums.gamersfirst.com/topic/11052-second-apb-reloaded-qa-videos/?do=findComment&comment=144943

Transcript for the 3rd (and most recent) Q&A: https://forums.gamersfirst.com/topic/13720-highlight-video-of-the-apb-21-beta-with-qa/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-174180

 

 

Matchmaking changes were already confirmed to be in progress (quoted from the recent Q&A):  

 

 

while what he says sounds interesting, i worry about its effects with small game population. I already get stuck facing the same people at times 3-5 matches in a row, if this makes that worse I'll probably just log for a few hours.

[EVInezca 81]

I think the mm is fine i see no problem with it. Only 1 rank higher then gold would be nice in my eyes. Beetween golds i see big differents. 

Im more for a auto kik system for bronze server with the reason skill is to high. you must join the next higher district. To protect the beginners better from deathraters. 

[Jilleroo 349]

2 hours ago, Eviltara said:

Im more for a auto kik system for bronze server with the reason skill is to high. you must join the next higher district. To protect the beginners better from deathraters. 

Thread in my signature would solve this problem.

 

Not sure about most of you, but most games have a seasonal ladder with milestones denoted by ranks. Typically these include the literal gold standard of scheming systems. What LO needs to do, is make it so once you reach Silver (so whatever mysterious MMR metric equivalency they use) that you cannot drop back down to Bronze, same for Yellow and Gold.

 

Yellow needs to be a thing, btw. Some people are not Gold, not even close. If this was a WoW Arena rating, the range shouldn't be 1400+ to qualify as "Gold". Someone who is 1,400 and another at 2,800 aren't even in the same realm of skill, yet this game labels them the same.

 

And inb4 some nerds cry that the colours are meaningless... There's a reason losers dethreat all day. There's no prestige to striving for excellence. No one gives a sh*t, so why work hard for it? They don't deserve Gold. They don't deserve recognition. They don't deserve to play. God, I hate dethreaters...

 

 

TL;DR - Can't drop rank tiers until season reset and dethreaters are a plague. Tired when I wrote this, please excuse.

[vsb 6171]

9 minutes ago, EvaPooh said:

There's a reason losers dethreat all day. There's no prestige to striving for excellence. No one gives a sh*t, so why work hard for it?

i would think this is the base problem which we should be trying to solve

 

 

10 minutes ago, EvaPooh said:

What LO needs to do, is make it so once you reach Silver (so whatever mysterious MMR metric equivalency they use) that you cannot drop back down to Bronze, same for Yellow and Gold.

is this a visual freeze only, to prevent people from punching down into lower threat districts?

 

if this actually affects MMR then it will only lead to massive threat inflation - it might only last for a season (however long that is) but i very much don't think that's any healthier for the game than the current situation

[Jilleroo 349]

7 hours ago, 404 said:

is this a visual freeze only, to prevent people from punching down into lower threat districts?

 

if this actually affects MMR then it will only lead to massive threat inflation - it might only last for a season (however long that is) but i very much don't think that's any healthier for the game than the current situation

Not just a visual freeze. Once you reach X rating, you shouldn't be able to drop below it.

 

Massive threat inflation? That's why most ladders reset.

 

There would be no inflation. Also, once the game offers us a better pool of opponents than just the lousy 20 or so we get in a district, this wouldn't be a problem. My suggestion and personal opinion is entirely based on after the EU and the matchmaking rework. I detailed this in my thread, but I forgot not everyone will read it and probably isn't on the same page as me. A season can last whatever LO decides, but there's a reason competitive systems utilize a system like this.

 

Also, seasonal rewards. Make it feel good to be good and reward those of us who don't dethreat.

[CookiePuss 5378]

17 minutes ago, EvaPooh said:

Once you reach X rating, you shouldn't be able to drop below it.

Sounds like all that would do is shift the bad time to a different demographic.

 

[Jilleroo 349]

1 minute ago, CookiePuss said:

Sounds like all that would do is shift the bad time to a different demographic.

Once the pool isn't as small as it is now it wouldn't matter.

[CookiePuss 5378]

15 minutes ago, EvaPooh said:

Once the pool isn't as small as it is now it wouldn't matter.

Hopefully soon.

[safdfsgkjhdgsjkhs 140]

On 5/10/2020 at 5:00 AM, Kevkof said:

Other than the Matchmaking and Threat thread that you linked, the Q&A's are very interesting ones to read up on as matchmaking is always brought up.

The second Q&A transcript: https://forums.gamersfirst.com/topic/11052-second-apb-reloaded-qa-videos/?do=findComment&comment=144943

Transcript for the 3rd (and most recent) Q&A: https://forums.gamersfirst.com/topic/13720-highlight-video-of-the-apb-21-beta-with-qa/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-174180

 

 

Matchmaking changes were already confirmed to be in progress (quoted from the recent Q&A):  

 

 

thanks, I did not read anything about matchmaking outside of the matchmaking thread. that sounds alot better and I hope that they further work on things like incentives for wanting to be the best threat like a reward system and also hoping that they remove backup and group vs solo players later on when the game's population could support these type of changes.