Matchmaking and Extiction of middle threat levels.

[Revoluzzer 274]

On 9/30/2022 at 3:15 PM, CookiePuss said:

Like is there a point where your ELO stops going up? Yes. Once you hit “gold 10” you can’t go any higher.

Good question!

The logical assumption, as suggested by NotZombieBiscuit, is that the Glicko-Value can increase indefinitely. As long as there are better players to beat. But of course you won't go beyond Gold 10, because that's where the threat range stops.

 

So here's an interesting problem: How does matchmaking work exactly? Does it match players based on Glicko, or based on Threat? Again, the logical assumption would be a matchmaking based on Glicko. I'd expect that to be more accurate. But it might as well be based only on threat-level, since you can't go any higher than Gold 10.

In the latter case, my earlier statement of "a Silver 10 and a Gold 1 player can be rated at 1500 and 1501 respectively" might not actually mean that the matchmaking system would consider them practically identical. Silver 10 and Gold 1 would still not be worlds apart, but the range could be significantly greater.

 

We don't know how "large" each Threat-level is in terms of Glicko-values. Let's take a guess anyway. Magnus Carlsen's FIDE rating is ~2800. They use ELO, according to Wikipedia, but it doesn't really matter for this exercise.

2800 / 40 = 70

So each Threat-level would encompass round about 70 Glicko-values. In terms of the aforementioned FIDE world rankings that's roughly the difference between Magnus Carlsen and numbers 2 and 3 on that list, by the way. All the top 20 players are less than 140 points (i.e. two threat levels) apart from each other.

On the weekly ratings for Lichess (which uses Glicko 2) the scale starts at 600 and ends at 2800. Quite a nice coincidence, assuming green Threat ends at 700 and you probably don't stay there unless you game the system or lack any comprehension of the game's mechanics.

So if APB's threat distribution is anything close to the Lichess-curve(s), most players will sit somewhere in the lower silver range and hardly anyone is even close to Gold 10.

 

With such a small active population, the curve of active players might sway noticeably to the right. New players will jump in, inflate the threat of slightly more experienced players, then give up if they can't get a foot in the door. That inflation ripples upwards, losing momentum on the way. But over time the system should correct itself. Rating-systems aren't a one-way street (or progression), after all.

[BlatMan 711]

Does the threat system take into account the total time spend in an opposed mission. For example, players called in as backup during the final stage will have lower score than players who completed multiple objectives in the previous stages. Will the lower scored backup players lose threat?

[Yapopal 168]

Here's how it used to work:
B-bronze
S-silver
G-gold
B=B
S=S
G=G
------
BB=S
BBB=G
BS=G
------
SS=G
SSS=GG
BSG=GG

This can be easily verified by looking at the mission results table.
The problem is that there are players whose level of play is much higher than the rest, they have broken through the golden ceiling, the level of their game is somewhere in the stratosphere.
This moment is not taken into account when picking an opponent. I have a gold level, but I feel powerless if I meet such opponents.

The game leaves me no choice, I understand that I will lose, but I have no way to call for help or leave the mission without penalties or shutting down the game. The game tells me to be meat for the next 5 minutes. The number of people on the server, the division of threat areas, does not exclude the occurrence of the situation described above.
The system of taking on the enemy is necessary, and most importantly, it is possible to change it right now. The system should not be loyal to veterans, as it is now. The system should be loyal to inexperienced, new players. They are the bright future of this game.

New players enter the game because they have an interest in the gameplay, in editors, in customization. They don't know about Armas, cool guns, keys to the city, premium subscription. They are not interested in new contacts 255+ rank. The new long-awaited update WITHOUT CHANGING THE OPPOSITOR SELECTION SYSTEM does not accept new players into the game, the old ones will come, they will come to look and leave. And if you ask them why are you leaving? They will answer - NOTHING CHANGED IN THIS GAME.

I am surprised by the people in whose hands this game was and is. Isn't what I wrote above obvious? You have invested your own money and time in this game. You have the problem of losing population, the main resource needed for the game to work. The problem can be solved now, yesterday, a year ago, 10 years ago. And you don't have time. The game has become a classic. Sometimes messages from players appear in the game chat with memories of their CHILDHOOD times, about how well they played this game.

You are developing a new version of the game, you are talking about new contacts, more stable fps. Yes, it is interesting to people who know about this game. Will it be of interest to new players? I think no. When you are bent, you don't think about how to open a new contact, you think about how to run away.

Edited October 7, 2022 by Yapopal

[Revoluzzer 274]

On 10/5/2022 at 10:42 PM, BlatMan said:

Does the threat system take into account the total time spend in an opposed mission. For example, players called in as backup during the final stage will have lower score than players who completed multiple objectives in the previous stages. Will the lower scored backup players lose threat?

I believe it was mentioned during the introduction of the current threat system, that people joining a mission late won't be considered for threat calculation. But I do not remember a hard cut-off every being mentioned.

 

Even if this cut-off doesn't exist, the system remains self-correcting, mind you. Massive outliers like in this scenario would heavily impact your confidence-value, because they're just so far from your regular outcomes. But if you perform normally during your next mission, that confidence goes right back to where it was.

 

On 10/7/2022 at 3:24 PM, Yapopal said:

Here's how it used to work:
B-bronze
S-silver
G-gold
B=B
S=S
G=G
------
BB=S
BBB=G
BS=G
------
SS=G
SSS=GG
BSG=GG

This can be easily verified by looking at the mission results table.
The problem is that there are players whose level of play is much higher than the rest, they have broken through the golden ceiling, the level of their game is somewhere in the stratosphere.
This moment is not taken into account when picking an opponent. I have a gold level, but I feel powerless if I meet such opponents.

Your extremely simplified explanation doesn't make sense in the current system or any of its predecessors. You even acknowledge that G=/=G when you say that you feel powerless against some Gold-threat players, despite being rated Gold yourself.

And as I mentioned before, in some scenarios the matchmaking system might consider one Bronze player (more or less) equal to one Silver player. If they're both just at the edge to the other colour (i.e. Bronze 10, Silver 01).

So sometimes the matchmaking will consider B=S, or S=G, or BB=SB, or GGG=GG. (If the lichess ratings are anything to go by, the last example is the least likely, by the way.)

[Drischa 6]

I've returned to the game recently and found that my threat has been bouncing between gold and silver like a yo-yo. I have found that the system does seem to consider me around this rank rather than just binarily gold or silver.

For example, I might be gold and get matched alongside a gold against a gold and silver, for the enemies to win and my threat to change to silver and the enemy silver's threat to change to gold, showing that both of us were about even, and I can only assume the other golds were about equal as well.

Something I assume is that threat levels balance themselves to the active population. Let's say that all the non-gold players disappeared from the game, and only gold players were being matched. The lower half of the gold players would lose to the higher half, so would their threat eventually become silver and then bronze to represent where they are in the current mix of players? Or would they all remain above the non-playing playerbase as golds?

Yes this is a thinly veiled excuse of "but players are more hardcore now!" for me going silver lol

[vsb 6171]

1 minute ago, Drischa said:

I've returned to the game recently and found that my threat has been bouncing between gold and silver like a yo-yo. I have found that the system does seem to consider me around this rank rather than just binarily gold or silver.

For example, I might be gold and get matched alongside a gold against a gold and silver, for the enemies to win and my threat to change to silver and the enemy silver's threat to change to gold, showing that both of us were about even, and I can only assume the other golds were about equal as well.

Something I assume is that threat levels balance themselves to the active population. Let's say that all the non-gold players disappeared from the game, and only gold players were being matched. The lower half of the gold players would lose to the higher half, so would their threat eventually become silver and then bronze to represent where they are in the current mix of players? Or would they all remain above the non-playing playerbase as golds?

Yes this is a thinly veiled excuse of "but players are more hardcore now!" for me going silver lol

the threat system is not dynamic so it does not automatically adjust to an arbitrary "active population", iirc g1 has had to manually reset the threat category percentages 3 times over the course of apb's life 

[Drischa 6]

On 10/17/2022 at 1:11 AM, glaciers said:

the threat system is not dynamic so it does not automatically adjust to an arbitrary "active population", iirc g1 has had to manually reset the threat category percentages 3 times over the course of apb's life 

I understand that the threat system doesn't change, but let's say hypothetically that all non-gold players quit the game, the less skilled gold players would on average lose more than they win against the higher skilled golds, so wouldn't they eventually become silver? even though compared to all the players who aren't playing any more they're gold. If all the lower players came back they would suddenly win a lot more and be gold again. Do you see what I'm saying?

 

I imagine most golds are high enough in gold that even with the losses they wouldn't drop out of gold, but for someone like me who's on the edge I think it makes a difference, and also demonstrates how middle threat levels will still exist even if the popularity falls.

edit: I also just went silver again, then next mission won quite comfortably but remained silver. I imagine it specifically tracks where on the scoreboard you land rather than a simple 50/50 split

Edited October 18, 2022 by Drischa
additional info

[Yapopal 168]

On 10/16/2022 at 9:05 PM, Revoluzzer said:

Your extremely simplified explanation doesn't make sense in the current system or any of its predecessors. You even acknowledge that G=/=G when you say that you feel powerless against some Gold-threat players, despite being rated Gold yourself.

And as I mentioned before, in some scenarios the matchmaking system might consider one Bronze player (more or less) equal to one Silver player. If they're both just at the edge to the other colour (i.e. Bronze 10, Silver 01).

So sometimes the matchmaking will consider B=S, or S=G, or BB=SB, or GGG=GG. (If the lichess ratings are anything to go by, the last example is the least likely, by the way.)

You just added to my answer. My explanation is superficial, but it explains the general principle of the system. Disputes are inappropriate, it is enough to compare the table of mission results. I'll turn around. The matchmaking system has a ceiling that can be broken through. After that, the selection of the enemy does not work correctly.

[Rade 54]

I have chipped in the conversation around threat on these forums many times over the years but I still like the nuke button option. Get rid of threat and matchmaking. Players only get better and learn by playing against, and with good players. All threat does is put a bubble around not so good players and toss em all in one big toilet. I say flush the chain and let everyone mix together in the sewer down below. This will help foster better skilled players. You wont get better if you dont challenege yourself.

 

Or you also have optional districts that are a free for all, threat / rank doesnt matter and players are matched based on a whoever is ready basis.

[vsb 6171]

37 minutes ago, Rade said:

I have chipped in the conversation around threat on these forums many times over the years but I still like the nuke button option. Get rid of threat and matchmaking. Players only get better and learn by playing against, and with good players. All threat does is put a bubble around not so good players and toss em all in one big toilet. I say flush the chain and let everyone mix together in the sewer down below. This will help foster better skilled players. You wont get better if you dont challenege yourself.

 

Or you also have optional districts that are a free for all, threat / rank doesnt matter and players are matched based on a whoever is ready basis.

that’s what we have right now and it’s a terrible experience for every skill level 

[MACKxBOLAN 431]

1 hour ago, Rade said:

Players only get better and learn by playing against, and with good players.

No we don't get better we just angry with lo for letting ya all into bronze.

For listening to only golds n not the rest of the pop, who begged to be let into bronze.

So U figure that people who spent thousands of dollars n played for years as a casual.

So U figure its fair to steal from them, n demand that after the fact of spending the management gets 

Toxic towards non hackers n non pro's n robs out our armas purchases by sending pro golds into bronze dist.

So if we wanted to keep playing with all these toxic golds, we have to Up our Game to Your level.

Why would make U think that we/bronzie-silvers would want to be Pro's.

Not to mention that just the act of letting you guys into bronze is Fraud.

These purchases were made with the idea that threat segregation was a permanent thing.

Had been for years even in the lowest pop times. 

So for years the common practice if we saw a gold in dist was to troll him out, not k up, leave, ect

Now not only is seeing some sweaty cringe named gold common, but were suppose to like you, 

and learn from you. The only thing ive learned from golds is how to properly insult someones mother.

 So it has been ingrained into us that golds are bad, either they cheat, be toxic, tk , insult ect.

Then after watching golds cry for weeks specifically to be let into bronze, so they could get us without having to dethreat.

Their Friend an fellow Sociopath DEV. Selali let them in. n to this day, Matt Scott still doesnt know about it.

He's never spoke about deseg or apologized or offered any compensation, no news of that employee being fired or jailed.

All You golds for some reason think that 'Getting Good' is only reason someone would play, then ya spend your day in chat 

flexing n talking down to silvers n gloating over your Goodness n in general being braggarts n stuck up.

Now just try for a moment to put yourself in my shoes, n U want us to Learn from and look up to as a role model

someone we've been taught to hate. Someone with a license plate name never seen before in bronze dist.

coming in talkin like they been a daily for 20 years.

  When there are so many other games that its not so hard to Good at, and the games are modern, backed by reputable business'

that cares about their patrons, including those that are not so Good. 

 And another thing, what does it get me to be Good. The right to insult someones mother or insult a silver or bronze, 

or Hang with the Bullys that I wouldnt be caught dead with irl, considered to be morally some of worst people in the world. 

Edited October 19, 2022 by MACKxBOLAN

[iRawwwN 282]

On 10/19/2022 at 1:27 PM, Rade said:

I have chipped in the conversation around threat on these forums many times over the years but I still like the nuke button option. Get rid of threat and matchmaking. Players only get better and learn by playing against, and with good players. All threat does is put a bubble around not so good players and toss em all in one big toilet. I say flush the chain and let everyone mix together in the sewer down below. This will help foster better skilled players. You wont get better if you dont challenege yourself.

 

Or you also have optional districts that are a free for all, threat / rank doesnt matter and players are matched based on a whoever is ready basis.

Threats are important for many reasons, and tossing new players in with veterans of the game isn't going to help ANYONE. Having optional threat-districts with the population as low as it is now will just further increase times between opposed missions or limit Gold players opposition.

 

Merged.

 

On 10/19/2022 at 3:13 PM, MACKxBOLAN said:

garbage

cant add ur quote to my post above...

 

ur actually dumb.

 

There are cheaters yeah, but there aren't as many as you think there are. Not every Gold is cheating, not every Gold cheese wins. You just refuse to improve as a person, you're a fucking BOOMER. get good.

 

P.S.

 

It's a video game and ur crying about "letting you guys into bronze is Fraud" and that "These purchases were made with the idea that threat segregation was a permanent thing.". No, you spent money on a video game from a private business that you in no way - shape or form - signed a contract with that the game had to remain the way it was. Insults removed.    - Azukii

[Rade 54]

3 hours ago, MACKxBOLAN said:

wall of text

Just imagine if there was no threat system and it was just one big free for all, your post and this thread wouldnt exist and we would all be living happily ever.

 

 

[MACKxBOLAN 431]

3 hours ago, Rade said:

we would all be living happily ever.

 

naw, trolls like raaawn n zombie n the others in here would find a reason to throw salt, 

n the staff would tolerate it as usual. n Matt would still be chasing rabbits.

You can take the 4th grader out of the salt, but u can't take the salt out of the 4th grader.

I blocked em so they don't have any more Tizzy fits.

[Deadliest 385]

can confirm MACKxBOLAN is bad in the game and the aggressor of toxic behaviour. Yes you were toxic towards me in game as I remembered and I didn’t do nothing nor insult you just simply playing the game while killing you several times.
 

Don’t worry some people are not meant to be good, I truly understand there’s nothing wrong playing casually but your too stubborn to understand the fact the game has low population with unbalance skill player base pool available to matchmake. You can’t cry to LO when there are players better than you lol.

 

not enjoying the game play something else? 

 

Sucks to be you. 

Edited October 20, 2022 by Deadliest

[MrLek 35]

On 8/6/2022 at 11:07 AM, Queen of Love said:

Soluções:
Não há ninguém, sem incluir um anti-cheat decente ou um nível de ameaças irreversíveis maciças (Gold = ficar ouro, para sempre, sem ameaças permitidas), com MM recebendo oposição insana aos goldies.

 

P: Você é bronze agora?
R: Eu também ficarei verde em apenas 2 horas, com este MM. antes de desinstalar.

What if there was a district just for golds?
A separate district that encompasses all greens, bronzes and silvers together and another separate district just for golds.

Maybe with this idea there were no more golds in the separate districts for them, so consequently whoever became gold, left the game and came back, could only enter the districts for golds and these districts could be empty, so it wouldn't be possible to lose the gold and come back to be silver. All that would be left would be to stay in the social, asylum or fight club. It would be a negative point for those who play without a hack and are honest golds.

Maybe not the solution, just a decent anti-cheat to "solve" this problem.

Edited October 19, 2022 by MrLek

[NotZombieBiscuit 3146]

17 hours ago, Rade said:

I have chipped in the conversation around threat on these forums many times over the years but I still like the nuke button option. Get rid of threat and matchmaking. Players only get better and learn by playing against, and with good players. All threat does is put a bubble around not so good players and toss em all in one big toilet. I say flush the chain and let everyone mix together in the sewer down below. This will help foster better skilled players. You wont get better if you dont challenege yourself.

 

Or you also have optional districts that are a free for all, threat / rank doesnt matter and players are matched based on a whoever is ready basis.

I don't enjoy slamming greens, bronzes, and silvers.

[Rade 54]

5 hours ago, NotZombieBiscuit said:

I don't enjoy slamming greens, bronzes, and silvers.

Its players with your elitist attitude that make all online games crap for everyone. Besdies, without the threat system everyone would be the same colour and we would not have the toxic behaviour you are displaying right now.

Edited October 20, 2022 by Rade

[NotZombieBiscuit 3146]

12 minutes ago, Rade said:

Its players with your elitist attitude that make all online games crap for everyone. Besdies, without the threat system everyone would be the same colour and we would not have the toxic behaviour you are displaying right now.

Wait. So me not wanting to destroy people with lower skill level than mine is toxic?

 

But I've been told that seal clubbing/noob stomping is toxic.

 

I don't know what I'm meant to think anymore.

[Rade 54]

Its your choice to destroy them or not. What you could do is help them learn. I take myself as an example, in FC I try not to kill bronze or trainees. In missions I go easy and let them win and help them.

 

Your problem is you have a very polarised view, ie I destroy anyone with lower skill or I dont want to play with them. This is what makes you toxic.

31 minutes ago, NotZombieBiscuit said:

Wait. So me not wanting to destroy people with lower skill level than mine is toxic?

 

But I've been told that seal clubbing/noob stomping is toxic.

 

I don't know what I'm meant to think anymore.

Edited October 20, 2022 by Rade

[NotZombieBiscuit 3146]

1 minute ago, Rade said:

Its your choice to destroy them or not. What you could do is help them learn. I take myself as an example, in FC I dont kill bronze or trainees. In missions I go easy and let them win and help them.

 

Your problem is you have a very polarised view, ie I destroy anyone with lower skill or I dont want to play with them. This is what makes you toxic.

Okay, so I guess if I'm already toxic I might as well just stomp noobs as hard as I can.

 

Got it.

[vsb 6171]

3 hours ago, Rade said:

Its your choice to destroy them or not. What you could do is help them learn. I take myself as an example, in FC I try not to kill bronze or trainees. In missions I go easy and let them win and help them.

 

Your problem is you have a very polarised view, ie I destroy anyone with lower skill or I dont want to play with them. This is what makes you toxic.

that’s dumb tbh

 

i play a competitive pvp game to play a competitive pvp game, not go afk for half a match so the other team doesn’t quit - it’s not my job to babysit lower skill players in my own personal free time and it provides me zero entertainment or reward

 

this is the entire reason elo and matchmaking systems exist, because it’s simply not fun for either side when vastly different skill levels to interact in pvp

 

 

Edited October 20, 2022 by glaciers

[Rade 54]

glaciers, this is a conversation about APB....

 

On that note, you are free to do whatever floats your boat. If stomping the opposition is rewarding and entertaining for you, cool story bro.

6 minutes ago, glaciers said:

that’s dumb tbh

 

i play a competitive pvp game to play a competitive pvp game, not go afk for half a match so the other team doesn’t quit - it’s not my job to babysit lower skill players in my own personal free time and it provides me zero entertainment or reward

 

this is the entire reason elo and matchmaking systems exist, because it’s simply not fun for either side when vastly different skill levels to interact in pvp

 

 

[NotZombieBiscuit 3146]

Just now, Rade said:

glaciers, this is a conversation about APB....

 

On that note, you are free to do whatever floats your boat. If stomping the opposition is rewarding and entertaining for you, cool story bro.

Did you even read his post or mine.

 

Neither of us enjoy stomping lower skilled players.

[Rade 54]

20 minutes ago, NotZombieBiscuit said:

Did you even read his post or mine.

 

Neither of us enjoy stomping lower skilled players.

But you do it anyway because its not your fault the matchmaking system is broken and you dont want to lose your gold threat. If threat didnt exist people like you may not be so try hard on newbies / not so good players because you would have nothing to lose. Equally if we had a working matchmaking, you would never be up against newbies / not so good players. I still maintain the concept of matchmaking in general doesnt help players get better it just divides the good from the not so good and we dress it up under the label of creating a fair playing environment.

Edited October 20, 2022 by Rade