Matchmaking and Threat

[Kewlin 692]

1 minute ago, Akahi said:

Yes I know the gold district is empty. I just don't understand why all the gold players show up in the silver district. It's not that I got a thing against gold players but there are quite a few that seem to be there just to get easy kills or just to sabotage a mission when your paired with them.

 

There's simply not enough Golds, at least on Jericho, to actually fill up districts.

[SK4LP 62]

enough on citadel ...

gold flood silver district ... but, yeah (lel) prblm are dethreaters ...

[cnoobster 0]

cross-district matchmaking and phasing to mission sounds like great idea ! 
Mostly cuz we gonna have that awesome "Back to the Future" feeling especially if we phase to new instance whit Vegas

 90% already wrecked while nitro is on, smashing instantly into some gas station  where are enemy's have spawned :)

 

Ok now obviously  more pool of players to draw from means a lot more fun for me cuz i don't need to constantly play

against same Bulgarian kid ( which name i wont speak of  :P ) while his on opposite side , gets old and boring very fast, so definitely a great idea.

 

Another good thing potentially ( if you limit mission instances to lets say 30 players in total , so 15 crims 15 enfos in mission instances ) 

it can help a lot whit performance issues ( especially for us that have old hardware and unstable fps cosed whit forced upload download

assets from and to other players around us, then reloading that in district during missions ) ,

cuz now and for the last couple of years , only ppl whit high end pc's have enjoyed the game fully whit stable fps and good performance (above 80fps during matches)

compared to 40-55 fps during matches on minimal settings on older pc's.

[TheSxW 47]

On 11/5/2018 at 2:11 AM, cnoobster said:

cross-district matchmaking and phasing to mission sounds like great idea ! 
Mostly cuz we gonna have that awesome "Back to the Future" feeling especially if we phase to new instance whit Vegas

 90% already wrecked while nitro is on, smashing instantly into some gas station  where are enemy's have spawned 

 

Ok now obviously  more pool of players to draw from means a lot more fun for me cuz i don't need to constantly play

against same Bulgarian kid ( which name i wont speak of  ) while his on opposite side , gets old and boring very fast, so definitely a great idea.

 

Another good thing potentially ( if you limit mission instances to lets say 30 players in total , so 15 crims 15 enfos in mission instances ) 

it can help a lot whit performance issues ( especially for us that have old hardware and unstable fps cosed whit forced upload download

assets from and to other players around us, then reloading that in district during missions ) ,

cuz now and for the last couple of years , only ppl whit high end pc's have enjoyed the game fully whit stable fps and good performance (above 80fps during matches)

compared to 40-55 fps during matches on minimal settings on older pc's.

after phasing i think they will made something like event spawning xD so it will avoid this Killed after phasing

[BoomLion 46]

this is all good but are LO looking at how bad things get with all the DTers?? 

 

it cant be that hard to stop them doing it without haveing to mess with match maker right now..do a fast fix..lock golds to gold servers...real gold players wont care...make bronze locked up to rank 195..

serious it cant be that hard to just do an easy fix for now...

 

Matt u said u want a good fair fun game for all..so serious man try something thats not gonna take alot to do...make it 500% harder to gain gold...maybe...im sure for now u dont have to bust things..just something simple.. if u locked golds to gold servers not one of them will care..makeing silver real silver...and if u make it 500% harder to gain gold... 

 

would this not be easy to do ?? i dont have a clue im just asking....

[vsb 6171]

7 hours ago, Birmingham said:

this is all good but are LO looking at how bad things get with all the DTers?? 

 

it cant be that hard to stop them doing it without haveing to mess with match maker right now..do a fast fix..lock golds to gold servers...real gold players wont care...make bronze locked up to rank 195..

serious it cant be that hard to just do an easy fix for now...

 

Matt u said u want a good fair fun game for all..so serious man try something thats not gonna take alot to do...make it 500% harder to gain gold...maybe...im sure for now u dont have to bust things..just something simple.. if u locked golds to gold servers not one of them will care..makeing silver real silver...and if u make it 500% harder to gain gold... 

 

would this not be easy to do ?? i dont have a clue im just asking....

locking golds to the gold districts was what started the mass dethreating in the first place

[BoomLion 46]

But the real good players wont care long as the maps full..... so lock it and every player thats a real gold wont care ... 

 

Try something... anything ..nothing can be worse then how it is now... 

 

just some one say how hard it would be to make it 500% harder to gain gold ?? 

Edited November 6, 2018 by Birmingham

[Syzus 23]

I really hope that 3.5 engine can bring new possibilities to matchmaking.

Edited November 20, 2018 by Syzus

[Haganu 104]

I wasn't there when the old threat distribution was in place, so I can't tell much about it, but the sheer simplicity of it (determining threats by win/loss) easily causes a lot of problems.

The new (current) threat distribution tried to fix that but did a horrible job. Horrible being quite an understatement, since this introduced dethreating. Mainly balance is way out place. Everyone here always likes to politically debate on balance, yet I haven't seen much debates on balancing in points distribution throughout the years on this forum, and is something that in my opinion deserves a lot more urgency than it currently does.

 

People go up (and down) in threat way too easily, simply because your influence on points (gaining/making the opposition gain) points is so easy.

In one afternoon I can go down from gold all the way to green threat. I've done that multiple times just for fun, doing Asylum afterwards. I can go from green to gold in an afternoon aswell. That absolutely cannot be right.

 

As @Lord Cashpoint already has mentioned, one issue disturbing this balance is the points you get from medals. Medals that count as much as a kill, multiple kills or all the way up to 10 kills (blitzkrieg 4) is a major problem disturbing balance, of which the worst comes to light once match-ups are extremely out of balance (asymmetrical match-ups with a significant skill gap comes to mind). Although both teams can gain medals throughout a mission, the points are way out of balance. 

 

Another major problem is that pressing F can net you an easy 250 points, or just being near a teammate doing an objective giving you 150 points. Everyone sees match-ups caused by the current points distribution are awfully lopsided, but the matchmaking system can't see this. The game increases or decreases the threat of players based on their score, not even calculating against a global average or anything of such sorts (correct me if I'm wrong, I've never seen anywhere that there is a global average it compares your score to). If you score bottom half of the field you go down in threat, as long as you've done at least 2 things throughout the mission (assisting in a kill, stunning an enemy, killing an enemy, doing an objective, et cetera).

Then the next time people ready up for missions they're matched up against the best opposition matchmaking can find. That is an opposition with threat as close as possible to yours with what's available in the instance.

 

Then another issue is the sheer amount of threats levels We have 4 colors, and each color has about 10 levels. That has to be confusing for matchmaking, especially with the population we have now. The chance of a matchup of 2 teams with exactly the same threat is absolutely 0 as it is, and I don't think phasing will solve it with this /pop. I'm also slightly skeptical when everyone says the playerbase will grow once UE3.5 hits. Maybe the first week there will be a huge influx of players, but when everyone realizes it's the same song with different background instruments they'll just tune out again. Once UE3.5 releases I think Little Orbit has very little time to push through major changes. If Little Orbit doesn't manage to push such changes through I expect nothing significant to change at all. At least not for the better. Just the way the game looks and the tech it runs on. Then you can release as much content as you want, but in my opinion those little peaks of temporarily returning players wouldn't be worth development hours, costs, and years of promoting what would eventually end up being vaporware (even though this community promotes the Engine Upgrade almost entirely by itself).

 

To complete the picture, remove hard segregation and don't define districts by their threat color.

 

TL;DR

Points, the current way of measuring threat, should much more revolve around kills and overall performance, instead of on how many objectives you press F. Low-skill medals, and low-skill methods of gaining medals (blitzkrieg 2+ from rocket laucnhing a car with 3+ players), should not reward as much points as it currently does. Completing an objective also shouldn't reward as much points as it currently does. Decreasing the amount of threat levels would also be beneficial for matchmaking. It doesn't take a new engine to balance these, right?

[Rade 54]

@MattScott

 

Under this system I can still manipulate my threat level by intentionally playing like a potato.

Under this system I will probably always be matched against the same players over and over.

Under this system  we are preventing lower skilled players from progressing because we are "ring fencing" them from facing challenging opposition.

Under this system, nothing will change.

 

The best thing you can do is to obliterate the threat system and have matchmaking performed on a who is available basis.

 

That means you will have a mix of players teamed up together, facing a variety of skilled opposition. This is a good thing and the biggest helping hand you could give to help players get better at the game (and for the development of the player base in the long term).

 

Fact we all learn from each other, by playing together, observing tactics used by the opposition, learning from better players etc. So when you separate the not so good players from the good players, all you are doing is helping the good players stay at the top and fostering one of the biggest issues this game has endured throughout its lackluster existence, elitism. Meanwhile the not so good players continue to be osmaw heroes, perc pigs and have it out nano-a-nano because they are not pushed/challenged enough to move up the skill ladder.

 

Take responsibility for developing the player base, stop baby sitting them. Match making is a cancer to the development all players good or bad because it keeps us within a comfort zone. Survival of the shittest...

 

In addition to the above and at some point in the future, think about having a more competitive element to APB such as clan v clan districts with leader boards but only until you have a system in place that fosters the development of good players and not the sorry-cheat-accusating-childish-elitist-spaghetti goop we have right now and will under this system you are proposing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ch1ck 45]

Threat needs to be gone. Completely. Every districtshould be Open Conflict style. No threat levels whatsoever, if it's 4v4 then it's 4v4, idgaf if one of them is simply bad at the game. No backups, no crying, no visual representation that servers no purpose. 

[Haganu 104]

I rather have threat removed too than keeping this system in place till Unreal 3.5.

Having no threat is better than having the abomination we have right now. 

[Kewlin 692]

8 hours ago, Ch1ck said:

Threat needs to be gone. Completely. Every districtshould be Open Conflict style. No threat levels whatsoever, if it's 4v4 then it's 4v4, idgaf if one of them is simply bad at the game. No backups, no crying, no visual representation that servers no purpose. 

 

Sounds like a great way to entirely ruin the game.

[Haganu 104]

4 hours ago, Kewlin said:

Sounds like a great way to entirely ruin the game.

Anything is better than what we have right now until the game has proper systems. That includes having no threat-based matchmaking at all.

It's absolute folly to think differently when you've seen the result of the current system with your own eyes for half a goddamn decade.

Edited November 13, 2018 by Haganu

[Kewlin 692]

2 minutes ago, Haganu said:

Anything is better than what we have right now until the game has proper systems. That includes having no threat-based matchmaking at all.

It's absolute folly to think differently when you've seen the result of the current system with your own eyes for half a goddamn decade.

 

I'm pretty sure not anything is better, lol.

[Haganu 104]

9 minutes ago, Kewlin said:

I'm pretty sure not anything is better, lol.

Then tell me, what would not be better than a system that AND caused the population to bleed for a significant part AND makes sure anyone willing to try this game out gets scared away?

What would not be better than this current system, that for a good 4, nearly 5 years is the source of this game getting negative reviews from anyone trying out this game?

 

If you don't know the things this current system has caused then you must've been living under a rock for the past... half decade or so. At least on this matter.

New players get faced with toxicity the moment they get matched up after pressing K. It's the same in both silver and bronze district. The majority of new players will just leave and likely leave a negative review on Steam (or you have those YouTubers that give their opinion). The few that stay end up becoming as toxic as the players that steamrolled them in their first hours. 

 

It's easy, but insane folly to blame the players solely for this, when it's the systems distributing threat and players that's causing this. At this point ANYTHING is better, even having no threat-based matchmaking and distribution. If you think otherwise then I'd like to hear some clear, detailed examples from you.

 

If you don't feel like coming with any then your opinion might aswell instantly be discarded.
If you can't come with anything, save yourself the effort and just not post at all on this subject.

Edited November 13, 2018 by Haganu

[Kewlin 692]

23 minutes ago, Haganu said:

~long-patootie response~

Fuck man, calm down, I just posted a single sentence. All I'm saying is that I don't see how it's better to just entirely remove matchmaking, and thus remove any form of protection against new players getting reamed every mission, than to have matchmaking that has a few issues.

 

I don't know how much you've played open conflict, but it's really, really bad, unless your sole purpose is fucking over newbies.

[Haganu 104]

15 minutes ago, Kewlin said:

Fuck man, calm down, I just posted a single sentence. All I'm saying is that I don't see how it's better to just entirely remove matchmaking, and thus remove any form of protection against new players getting reamed every mission, than to have matchmaking that has a few issues.

 

I don't know how much you've played open conflict, but it's really, really bad, unless your sole purpose is fucking over newbies.

I'm calm, don't worry.

 

The point is, there is no protection for new players with current matchmaking. In both bronze and silver district new players get matched against premades or well-equipped and more skilled players than them everyday. This is especially a thing in bronze district. The way things are no is in no way a protection, and on top of that only hinders players by often giving them missions without opposition, and/or having them wait a while because matchmaking has to find a somewhat fitting opposition for them (which in most cases isn't a fitting opposition at all).

 

I'd rather have no matchmaking at all until something that works is in place, then I won't have to wait for my opposition. Opposition that I either end up stomping or ends up stomping my team.

It's kinda late for it now since we're soon halfway through november already, sadly.

 

I'm used to typing rather long posts. Asking for an example only means I was asking for a response from you to validate that one-liner :v (then again it's a pity that one-liners are the status quo)

Edited November 13, 2018 by Haganu

[vsb 6171]

58 minutes ago, Haganu said:

If you don't know the things this current system has caused then you must've been living under a rock for the past... half decade or so. At least on this matter.

New players get faced with toxicity the moment they get matched up after pressing K. It's the same in both silver and bronze district. The majority of new players will just leave and likely leave a negative review on Steam (or you have those YouTubers that give their opinion). The few that stay end up becoming as toxic as the players that steamrolled them in their first hours. 

how exactly would no threat/matchmaking help with this?

 

if anything it would exacerbate the current issues, because there wouldnt even be the vague guideline that is current threat/matchmaking

[NotZombieBiscuit 3146]

There are some real special people in this thread I see.

[Kewlin 692]

17 minutes ago, Haganu said:

~snip~

 

Sorry, you're just incorrect. I've played Open Conflict enough to know what you're suggesting will just be a borefest for me of stomping bronzes and silvers all day.

 

And I post things longer than one line, but only usually when there's actually something substantial to debunk. If you actually think that just because dethreaters exist, (something that exists in literally every game with matchmaking in one form or another, mind you,) we should remove any matchmaking formula entirely so that everyone's fun is ruined by the majority of matches being entirely lop-sided, then there's really nothing to say beside basically saying you're wrong.

 

You're literally just asking for the problem to become worse by not allowing people to not stomp newbies.

[Haganu 104]

22 minutes ago, Kewlin said:

Sorry, you're just incorrect. I've played Open Conflict enough to know what you're suggesting will just be a borefest for me of stomping bronzes and silvers all day.

 

And I post things longer than one line, but only usually when there's actually something substantial to debunk. If you actually think that just because dethreaters exist, (something that exists in literally every game with matchmaking in one form or another, mind you,) we should remove any matchmaking formula entirely so that everyone's fun is ruined by the majority of matches being entirely lop-sided, then there's really nothing to say beside basically saying you're wrong.

 

You're literally just asking for the problem to become worse by not allowing people to not stomp newbies.

I don't think that we should remove matchmaking as a whole - I'm not here to argue Remove threat please! - it's not my point (I posted it before though, sorry for that), but I don't think anything can be worse than the distribution of threat we have now. The flaws you pointed out with Open Conflict are roughly the same flaws that matchmaking currently has, that's all.

 

Abusing matchmaking for its lack of intelligence is indeed a thing in other games, but APB's one of the few special snowflakes - if not the only game - where it's a significant part of the game.

 

Also, people are already stomping newbies day in day out with the way things currently are.

That's why first and foremost I think points and threat levels should be distributed differently, and districts shouldn't be locked by threat.

26 minutes ago, BXNNXD said:

how exactly would no threat/matchmaking help with this?

 

if anything it would exacerbate the current issues, because there wouldnt even be the vague guideline that is current threat/matchmaking

Especially at this point I think Open Conflict wouldn't improve the game significantly enough, (1- five years is way too long, so everyone's already used to the way things currently are, 2- the year's almost over, we might get UE3.5 soon). It never lived up to its purpose either anyways since nothing has ever been done with the so called Data it was meant to gather for matchmaking. I still am of the opinion that the current vague/over-manipulated/lopsided guideline we've had the past 5 years has only been horrible for this game and its players and is the absolute worst thing a game can have.

 

I also think that with the current distribution of points, getting a larger player pool alone for matchmaking by phasing between districts is not going to solve the issue we've been having at all.

Edited November 13, 2018 by Haganu

[vsb 6171]

8 minutes ago, Haganu said:

I'm not here to argue Remove threat please! - it's not my point (I posted it before though, sorry for that)

why did you even bother moving your fingers then

[Kewlin 692]

6 minutes ago, Haganu said:

I don't think that we should remove matchmaking as a whole - I'm not here to argue Remove threat please!

 

Hmm. . . so maybe you should have. . . I don't know, said that you didn't mean something that was literally the thing I was responding to and arguing based off of?

 

11 hours ago, Haganu said:

I rather have threat removed too than keeping this system in place till Unreal 3.5.

Having no threat is better than having the abomination we have right now. 

 

And you're the one that said:

1 hour ago, Haganu said:

. . . At this point ANYTHING is better, even having no threat-based matchmaking and distribution. If you think otherwise then I'd like to hear some clear, detailed examples from you.

 

If you don't feel like coming with any then your opinion might aswell instantly be discarded.
If you can't come with anything, save yourself the effort and just not post at all on this subject. 

 

Please, stop, it's hurting my head. I don't know if I've seen this level of backtracking on the forums ever before.

[Fubukigata 14]

Hello there o/

 

1 hour ago, Kewlin said:

 

I'm pretty sure not anything is better, lol. 

 

@Kewlin
APB Matchmaking is one of the biggest issue since the release and yes it has to be changed mainly by rank (experience) and not by threat.

 

8 minutes ago, Haganu said:

Anything is better than what we have right now until the game has proper systems. That includes having no threat-based matchmaking at all.

It's absolute folly to think differently when you've seen the result of the current system with your own eyes for half a goddamn decade.

@Haganu

I read that Matt closed the OTW for some internal tests, so yeah i hope seeying a 3.5 realease sooner than expected at some point.
 

 

 

@MattScott
It does not need any release engine to talk and status about those huges game issues that had be pointed and reviewed over years right ?