The Problems With Districts and Matchmaking

[Seadee 107]

1 hour ago, hotbot said:

 

That's actually a good idea. The only reason I say to tier the member count is because during RTW there were none, and zerg clans would be gain most of the rewards, save for the rewards coming from mission win/loss ratio and kill/death ratio. Also, by including clan leaderboards more people will be looking to be apart of clans and joining up with bigger clans or smaller clans to reap the rewards. You'll have less people running around with one off clan names that serve as a alternative to their title and more actual clans running around. I remember in RTW certain clans were having trouble with the clan member limit and 90% were active just because every week they'd make sure they had the members to keep their clan rewards coming in. 

in RTW WASP was about 10-15 people, we played every day and were frequently at the top of the table, mainly due to a squad of about 4 people who appeared to have no lives outside of APB, but hell they did a good job of winning.

even now we are not near the member limit, but i agree, Zerg clans make things like "clan points" not work, especially if you don;t account for losses (which happens to often these days in the "every one is a winner" environment), causing the points to be per person, reduces the success of Zerg clans without directly punishing them for it.

it also rewards smaller, higher skilled clans by making the points their members earn mean something. 

Hell even a 1 man clan then stands a chance, might not get the bulk of missions completed in comparison, but it would still work...

[hotbot 16]

1 hour ago, ScarecrowXIII said:

What if I feel like grouping with randoms in competitive mode? It happens, I do it often in Siege and it works surprisingly well.

That could be possible 

 

 

I was suggesting pre-mades because I think it would be more fair from a competetive standpoint. It'd be easier if everyone in the district was in pre-mades to match with other pre-mades. Solos would work it might just be at a significant disadvantage to them.

Edited June 18, 2018 by hotbot

[Snjezana 22]

20 hours ago, Spudinskes said:

 

2) A pool of 40 players isn't enough to pick from. This often leads to longer than desirable wait times for opposition, and can even result in unbalanced matches as the system gets desperate to match people together as wait times get longer. Not only that, but teams often get matched against each other because the only balanced opposing team is the one that they just fought. So teams often fight against each other until one of them leaves. This can be seen as both good and bad depending on how much you like "rivalries" but for the most part this can cause the matches to get repetitive. Since the pool of players for the system to choose from is limited to one district, players are missing out on playing against opponents located in other districts. This is adding a hard artificial barrier even between players that are of the same skill level.

 

And as always, be civil and be constructive.

 

Yes, BUT: Imagine 64v64 or 80v80. I see two problems there. 

 

1. As of now on Citadel EU, we have for example 3 Financial Bronze districts at good times. Two completely full, one with 0/1. Long story short, I don't think the player population is high enough atm for districts with like 120+ slots.

 

2. Map size. I happens often that other players on mission ram you, park at your spot or the point you defend is currently having 8 players having a bloody shootout going on. Imagine like 120 players doing missions on the current map. That said, I hope (if there's a new map coming), that it will be bigger. 

[Nymphi--DoubleDee 83]

6 hours ago, hotbot said:

~snip~

Fight Club? What's that? The -ONLY- thing that offers is the Crown, that I don't have. I was saving for it, but then... Ticket wipe.

 

Anyways, as far as other MMO's... Say, Overwatch, LoL, or Siege, those games, have competition. Those games, have seasons, brackets, proper ELO, Glicko, etc ranking brackets, and, a Pro League.

 

APB has none of that, will never have that, and unless the whole game was remade, doesn't play like that. And why?

 

Because Gold's bitched when they got threat locked. Boo hoo.

 

EVERY other competitive game does it.

 

But, let's talk matchmaking. Matchmaking is fine. It's the community that is the problem.

 

If Golds were ONLY on the Gold Districts, you'd have fair amount of skill variance. With 40 to choose ranging from Gold 1 - Gold 10, the most common would be between Gold 4 - Gold 6. So, if it is going to let it get up to a 5v5, you'd have a fairly decent team.

 

But as it stands, you have Golds in a district where it goes from Green to Gold 3... Yeah, matchmaking is broken as hell. It's not matchmaking's fault. It's the people that are breaking the matchmaking rules.

[Defibrillator 132]

23 hours ago, Spudinskes said:

1) Friends can't play together despite them having similar skill. A bronze 10 player is unable to play with his silver 1 friend due to silvers not being allowed in bronze districts.

Hi, you seem vaguely new to the game and i can see u throwing tantrums here and there, but im not gonna make any assumptions.

 

Friends of same skill can play together or play against similar skilled enemies (read it again) of the same skill level again and again and again and improve urself.

 

Here is what you gotta do. Find enemies and friends of ur skill level. Head to an empty district or into an open conflict. Make sure there are atleast 2vs2 on either teams and press k. 

 

Problem over. Dont make it as an excuse.

 

23 hours ago, Spudinskes said:

2) A pool of 40 players isn't enough to pick from. This often leads to longer than desirable wait times for opposition, and can even result in unbalanced matches as the system gets desperate to match people together as wait times get longer. 

40 is not enough players to pick up from? 

 

In a district there will be some ppl who always play in groups. Say there are:

 

3 groups with 4 ppl in each group (3*4=12)

3 groups with 2 ppl in each group (3*2 =6)

 

The remaining 22 players can be coming in any possibility. It is equivalent to 22! (Factorial)

 

Only if u're in the max threat the district can hold it wont take much time for matchmaking. 

 

Say u're a group of 4 golds in a bronze district matchmaking is gonna take some time. Thats why players always say press K in a bronze district. 4 golds take around 4-5 silvers and a bronze as opponents.

 

On a side note, more the number of players in a district, more time for customisation in the game to load. Already the game is poorly optimised, u dont want to worsen it any further. Map isnt much bigger for more than 50 v 50. Already there are a lot of ppl running in between missions cuz it is a mission for them in there.

 

23 hours ago, Spudinskes said:

In many matchmaking games out there low ranked players very rarely get matched against top players. Unfortunately in APB due to how few players are available for the system to choose from it gets desperate and results in very unbalanced  matches. In CSGO as a double AK you rarely ever run into a global elite. In Overwatch as a diamond you rarely see a top 500. In League as a gold you rarely see challengers. 

U clearly havent played enough of apb, or u played too much of the above mentioned stuff. Apb is not a renowned game of any kind. It got a good customisation options, decent gameplay and a pop of 3-4k nowadays. The other games u say..do ur math. Apb is  2010's game and u compare it with a recent game.

 

I bet there are 80% gamers in the world who never heard of apb and they've heard abt the games u have mentioned. Thats cuz of advertising the game. Im sure you could jus advertise and promote the game and we'd be grateful for u.

 

P.S : always remember there is nothing called perfect. You say other games have best matchmaking, you go there and see a group of ppl complaining. No cheaters in pubg cuz of battleye, close to 1M bans in january alone and still coming.

 

They say,

The grass is always greener on the other side.

[Spudinskes 41]

On 6/18/2018 at 3:37 PM, Defibrillator said:

Hi, you seem vaguely new to the game and i can see u throwing tantrums here and there, but im not gonna make any assumptions.

 

Friends of same skill can play together or play against similar skilled enemies (read it again) of the same skill level again and again and again and improve urself.

 

Here is what you gotta do. Find enemies and friends of ur skill level. Head to an empty district or into an open conflict. Make sure there are atleast 2vs2 on either teams and press k. 

 

Problem over. Dont make it as an excuse.

 

40 is not enough players to pick up from? 

 

In a district there will be some ppl who always play in groups. Say there are:

 

3 groups with 4 ppl in each group (3*4=12)

3 groups with 2 ppl in each group (3*2 =6)

 

The remaining 22 players can be coming in any possibility. It is equivalent to 22! (Factorial)

 

Only if u're in the max threat the district can hold it wont take much time for matchmaking. 

 

Say u're a group of 4 golds in a bronze district matchmaking is gonna take some time. Thats why players always say press K in a bronze district. 4 golds take around 4-5 silvers and a bronze as opponents.

 

On a side note, more the number of players in a district, more time for customisation in the game to load. Already the game is poorly optimised, u dont want to worsen it any further. Map isnt much bigger for more than 50 v 50. Already there are a lot of ppl running in between missions cuz it is a mission for them in there.

 

U clearly havent played enough of apb, or u played too much of the above mentioned stuff. Apb is not a renowned game of any kind. It got a good customisation options, decent gameplay and a pop of 3-4k nowadays. The other games u say..do ur math. Apb is  2010's game and u compare it with a recent game.

 

I bet there are 80% gamers in the world who never heard of apb and they've heard abt the games u have mentioned. Thats cuz of advertising the game. Im sure you could jus advertise and promote the game and we'd be grateful for u.

 

P.S : always remember there is nothing called perfect. You say other games have best matchmaking, you go there and see a group of ppl complaining. No cheaters in pubg cuz of battleye, close to 1M bans in january alone and still coming.

 

They say,

The grass is always greener on the other side.

Hey man, I've been playing the game since APB RTW Beta, so nearly a decade (YouTube.com/Spudinske). I don't have issues finding players to play with, I've met tons of people along the years that still for some odd reason play APB like me. I am curious as to what tantrums you're talking about. Mind quoting some?

 

Anyways for the bit you were responding to you completely overlooked the point I was trying to make. Max gold's, like me, get pit against silvers all day long. These low players have a miserable gaming experience  by us completely decimating them the second their names turn red after spawning. This shouldnt happen as often as it does, and part of the issue is how players, even golds, are separated from each other due to districts.

 

Yes 40 players is not enough to pick from, but I never said anything close to the idea of increasing the district cap. In fact, I state  it multiple times in this thread that increasing the player cap would not solve the integral issue of matchmaking, which is segregation across districts. You're preaching to the choir on that one.

 

I didn't say other games have the  best matchmaking, I only use them as examples that have better matchmaking. Just because another system is not perfect does not mean it's not better. Like you said nothing is perfect, and if you use that logic as to why a better system shouldn't be implemented then you're stuck going no where.

Edited June 20, 2018 by Spudinskes

[Spudinskes 41]

On 6/18/2018 at 12:27 PM, Snjezana said:

 

Yes, BUT: Imagine 64v64 or 80v80. I see two problems there. 

 

1. As of now on Citadel EU, we have for example 3 Financial Bronze districts at good times. Two completely full, one with 0/1. Long story short, I don't think the player population is high enough atm for districts with like 120+ slots.

 

2. Map size. I happens often that other players on mission ram you, park at your spot or the point you defend is currently having 8 players having a bloody shootout going on. Imagine like 120 players doing missions on the current map. That said, I hope (if there's a new map coming), that it will be bigger. 

Yea I agree with you. Like I said multiple times throughout this thread increasing the player cap wouldn't be the solution. I never insinuated that player caps should increase.