Matchmaking issue idea

[RovingFox 9]

Regarding the current matchmaking issue. Would it be a good idea to remove the Advance tab in district selection and let the game choose a district for you with people of equal threat?

 

 

I am not very familiar with how the threat level works but from what I know, there is a number behind that color(a skill number, MMR). The game can use that to put you in a district with equal or similar skilled players. And if that's not enough it could take into account even district pop or the gap between the lowest skilled player in that district and the highest.

 

 

Edit: Friends can still join each other through the Group&Friend tab.

Edited July 9, 2018 by RovingFox

[NecrophileChick 1]

No, not just like that. You should be able to group up with whoever you want to. A solid matchmaking strategy should ensure fairness even while dealing with teams of mixed skill level.

 

[RovingFox 9]

5 hours ago, NecrophileChick said:

No, not just like that. You should be able to group up with whoever you want to. A solid matchmaking strategy should ensure fairness even while dealing with teams of mixed skill level.

 

I am not sure to what you are referring but I don't see a problem to why not to play with whomever you want.

[NecrophileChick 1]

Problem:

 

 

> You're gold.

> Your friend's not.

> GL joining the same district without the Advanced tab.

[RovingFox 9]

3 minutes ago, NecrophileChick said:

Problem:

 

 

> You're gold.

> Your friend's not.

> GL joining the same district without the Advanced tab.

Join your friend from Group&Friends tab.

[NecrophileChick 1]

1 minute ago, RovingFox said:

Join your friend from Group&Friends tab.

lol ok, but you have to admit that this basically equals to a free district choice, if you have enough friends on the list. Especially because APB friendship is not necessarily symmetric, i.e. you can add whoever you want without them even noticing.

[RovingFox 9]

1 minute ago, NecrophileChick said:

lol ok, but you have to admit that this basically equals to a free district choice, if you have enough friends on the list. Especially because APB friendship is not necessarily symmetric, i.e. you can add whoever you want without them even noticing.

Yes in a way is free district and in case it is abused they could change from the current "stalker" like friend system to a one that requires both to accept. I don't say the system I'm proposing is perfect, doubt there is a perfect system except for the phasing one which requires a lot of work. But it sounds better and less abusive then the current one that contains dethreaters and silver districts filled with golds.

 

[cyral 25]

RovingFox, I've been a very loud voice in asking the same thing you just did for right at 6 months now.... the advanced options, at this point in APB's time, will not change... theirs too freaking many pussies here who need it in order to keep their kill count high as FUCK... while very low skilled players constantly get screwed... all's these certified idiots will tell you is this " quit complaining and get good" I do tell the same idiots the same thing.... but I'm more hostile on that subject... my favorite is I call em coward as hoes who abuse the advanced district selections.... and to the idiot's  that want or need 2 play with "friends" they need 2 use the "OPEN CONFLICT " Districts  as their turf.. not the Bronze Match Maker On Districts...

[RovingFox 9]

On 7/7/2018 at 3:38 AM, cyral said:

RovingFox, I've been a very loud voice in asking the same thing you just did for right at 6 months now.... the advanced options, at this point in APB's time, will not change... theirs too freaking many pussies here who need it in order to keep their kill count high as FUCK... while very low skilled players constantly get screwed... all's these certified idiots will tell you is this " quit complaining and get good" I do tell the same idiots the same thing.... but I'm more hostile on that subject... my favorite is I call em coward as hoes who abuse the advanced district selections.... and to the idiot's  that want or need 2 play with "friends" they need 2 use the "OPEN CONFLICT " Districts  as their turf.. not the Bronze Match Maker On Districts...

Yep, its a requirement to be on any forums: whine like there is no tomorrow. But I'm looking forward to flaws in my suggestion.

Edited July 8, 2018 by RovingFox

[MurkTheMerc 111]

Matt Scott already said they plan to implement phasing for missions. You ready up in a action district and you pretty much are readying up against the entire population of that action district. i.e, you're in Financial, you ready up, you're readied up against every person in every Financial.

He said this more than likely will not happen till 3.5

[RovingFox 9]

1 hour ago, MurkTheMerc said:

Matt Scott already said they plan to implement phasing for missions. You ready up in a action district and you pretty much are readying up against the entire population of that action district. i.e, you're in Financial, you ready up, you're readied up against every person in every Financial.

He said this more than likely will not happen till 3.5

Yes, I know they are planning to add phasing, and I can't wait for it, but it will require a lot of work. I am hoping for my suggestion to fit somewhere between this pile of crap and our salvation. A quick fix and easy fix until we get a better matchmaking.

[VickyFox 353]

A better match making is needed regardless of what is done to support and mitigate higher threats choosing to enter lower threat districts.

[MurkTheMerc 111]

6 hours ago, RovingFox said:

Yes, I know they are planning to add phasing, and I can't wait for it, but it will require a lot of work. I am hoping for my suggestion to fit somewhere between this pile of crap and our salvation. A quick fix and easy fix until we get a better matchmaking.

Is what you're asking for is a percentile?

I've thought over the past year our threat should honestly be distributed weekly based on an active population percentile. Anyone not matched with a threat yet, could just play among themselves with unthreated players or fill the gap for backup when needed.

 

This way people know if they're, say Gold, they're at the top of the chain in that server and not just an easy Gold obtained.

[RovingFox 9]

16 minutes ago, MurkTheMerc said:

Is what you're asking for is a percentile?

I've thought over the past year our threat should honestly be distributed weekly based on an active population percentile. Anyone not matched with a threat yet, could just play among themselves with unthreated players or fill the gap for backup when needed.

 

This way people know if they're, say Gold, they're at the top of the chain in that server and not just an easy Gold obtained.

 

I don't see the link between my suggestion and maintaining the threat percentages. Regardless, I don't see how this improves matchmaking. Might actually hurt it, depending on how it is implemented. Scratch that. It makes a nice visual effect but no matchmaking effect.

Edited July 8, 2018 by RovingFox

[MurkTheMerc 111]

2 minutes ago, RovingFox said:

 

I don't see the link between my suggestion and maintaining the threat percentages. Regardless, I don't see how this improves matchmaking. Might actually hurt it, depending on how it is implemented.

Is English not your native language because the system you're asking is pretty much what I said. How you said it, is how the mechanics would or should work.

Threat is distributed weekly, based on the active population of that week, so if the Gold percentile is 15 and the population is 100, then the top 15 players of that week will be Gold. "Might actually hurt it", is a big ways off considering how Matt explained in the Discord he visits often, after me asking it, it would be a complete involvement of that action districts populations, not just those in ONE instance.

Like you said your self, you're not very familiar with how threat works but you're saying your own idea would hurt the game?

[RovingFox 9]

2 minutes ago, MurkTheMerc said:

Is English not your native language because the system you're asking is pretty much what I said. How you said it, is how the mechanics would or should work.

Threat is distributed weekly, based on the active population of that week, so if the Gold percentile is 15 and the population is 100, then the top 15 players of that week will be Gold. "Might actually hurt it", is a big ways off considering how Matt explained in the Discord he visits often, after me asking it, it would be a complete involvement of that action districts populations, not just those in ONE instance.

Like you said your self, you're not very familiar with how threat works but you're saying your own idea would hurt the game?

I understood your suggestion, no, english is not my native language (if it matters anyway), no, this is not what I am suggesting,

[Triksterism 137]

3 hours ago, VickyFox said:

A better match making is needed regardless of what is done to support and mitigate higher threats choosing to enter lower threat districts.

Copying my post from another thread regarding this:

 

Controversial but I think the matchmaking system is, by itself, actually good (as it is now). The problem that most people don't recognize is that it's a POPULATION issue not a system issue.

 

Example: A full district is 80 people (40 E / 40 C), when you queue up you have to get lucky because at least half of those 40 (enemy faction) people are going to be already in a mission. So that leaves us with 20 potential people to get matched against. Out of those 20 people several are going to be in groups with their friends, so the system is trying to 'puzzle piece' all these people together as best it can.

 

There are only 2 real solutions to fix this:

 

(A) Increase the district pops -- This used to be 100 players (50 E / 50 C) but over the years has been reduced to the 80 we see today. 100 would help but only marginally and anything beyond that range would make for a bit of crowding given the district size (map).

(B) Come up with some sort of 'phasing' system like World of Warcraft has. No more segregated districts, just plain 'ol Financial / Waterfront. Anyone can be in any district instance but the queue will match people across all instances and phase them into a specific one seamlessly.

[Optimus_Crime 81]

Here's what I have in mind, don't let the game match trainees/bronzies with gold threat players and keep things as they are or just remove threat over all and make the ranks red and blue letting RNG decide who to match up with who anything else just strays too far from APB or copies too much from other games taking too much effort imo

Edited July 9, 2018 by K3i

[Triksterism 137]

1 hour ago, K3i said:

Here's what I have in mind, don't let the game match trainees/bronzies with gold threat players and keep things as they are or just remove threat over all and make the ranks red and blue letting RNG decide who to match up with who anything else just strays too far from APB or copies too much from other games and just takes too much effort imo

So, open conflict?

Edited July 9, 2018 by Triksterism

[Optimus_Crime 81]

5 minutes ago, Triksterism said:

So, open conflict?

 

exactly, G1 had the right idea you suggested pretty much this in that other thread about this issue, it's just a matter of how they do it really.

Edited July 9, 2018 by K3i

[AriaVenom 0]

57 minutes ago, Triksterism said:

So, open conflict?

This here's what I've been stating for many years...

 

Eliminate all segregation and just leave Open Conflict up.... Increased populations and no need to de-threat.

[Triksterism 137]

1 hour ago, AriaVenom said:

This here's what I've been stating for many years...

 

Eliminate all segregation and just leave Open Conflict up.... Increased populations and no need to de-threat.

Hopefully with some tweaks first. For instance, preventing 1v4's (common in OC)

[RovingFox 9]

I personally have no problem with open conflict but that is because I can handle the majority of the player base. But I think you guys over estimate a low silver and underestimate a high gold. Open conflict will be a massacre.

Edited July 9, 2018 by RovingFox

[yood 345]

the thought is correct. there is a discrepancy between the title of the topic and the specified application.

[RovingFox 9]

19 minutes ago, YooD said:

the thought is correct. there is a discrepancy between the title of the topic and the specified application.

Thank you for the observation, I hope its more clear now.