Matchmaking and Threat

[vsb 6171]

6 minutes ago, Kewlin said:

Once a week isn't that bad, plus matchmaking doesn't treat high silver and low gold that differently TBH, except not allowing golds into bronze but. . . high silvers really shouldn't be in bronze TBH.

once a week is a pretty long time when you're stuck in a gold district with potential opp way above your skill level, as opposed to potential opp at your skill level

 

threat is already pretty badly inflated by wins counting more than losses, further imbalancing that would just further inflate threat

[Kewlin 692]

22 minutes ago, BXNNXD said:

once a week is a pretty long time when you're stuck in a gold district with potential opp way above your skill level, as opposed to potential opp at your skill level

 

threat is already pretty badly inflated by wins counting more than losses, further imbalancing that would just further inflate threat

 

We're talking high silvers here, gold isn't really "way above" that, plus there are actually silvers in silver district usually.

[vsb 6171]

2 minutes ago, Kewlin said:

We're talking high silvers here, gold isn't really "way above" that, plus there are actually silvers in silver district usually.

thats assuming a player is actually a high silver tho, if you can only dethreat once per week i think there would def be low silvers and maybe even the odd bronze getting stuck as gold threat

[Glubbable 41]

10 hours ago, Kewlin said:

 

You specifically said that the new tech of cross-instance matchmaking wouldn't solve the current issues with matchmaking, and then went on to describe the current issues, so unless you misspoke I understood perfectly:

 

 

The new system pretty much inherently solves the problem of people being in the wrong district.

 

I did not say that it won't solve the problem, what I said was that introducing new tech does not always mean that the problem will be solved. So I put it out there that I would like to see LO address the current issues that plague the matchmaking in some form rather than holding off for a feature that depends on the Engine Upgrade, which is still far away.

[Rosabella 2]

I know this is off topic Matt  and I do apologize umm could you try to bring the show stopper and some of the guns on pc into Xbox one can you please work on getting those guns on Xbox I would help to keep the game fresh and help  make cash on Xbox one apb community 

[Kevkof 806]

5 hours ago, Rosabella said:

I know this is off topic Matt  and I do apologize umm could you try to bring the show stopper and some of the guns on pc into Xbox one can you please work on getting those guns on Xbox I would help to keep the game fresh and help  make cash on Xbox one apb community 

They plan to get both PC and Consoles (both of them) on the same content once the newer engine is out on PC as well

[Rosabella 2]

6 hours ago, Kevkof said:

They plan to get both PC and Consoles (both of them) on the same content once the newer engine is out on PC as well

Thank you it’s just the hype is killing me lol and once the show stopper is on apb I want to use it with my reaper with to kick some patootie

[TheJellyGoo 343]

Maybe its time for another threat reevaluation by dropping everyone down a certain elo coupled with less elo gain in the future.

Let's see how threat re-calibrates itself. Might be a good opportunity to bridge the time until EU.

[vsb 6171]

4 minutes ago, TheJellyGoo said:

Maybe its time for another threat reevaluation by dropping everyone down a certain elo coupled with less elo gain in the future.

Let's see how threat re-calibrates itself. Might be a good opportunity to bridge the time until EU.

id be down for that, iirc its been like 3 or 4 years since the threat level percentages were adjusted

[Nymphi--DoubleDee 83]

20 hours ago, Kewlin said:

 

Once a week isn't that bad, plus matchmaking doesn't treat high silver and low gold that differently TBH, except not allowing golds into bronze but. . . high silvers really shouldn't be in bronze TBH.

As a High Silver... I hated being in Bronze as is. It was either dethreaters, or new players, and very... VERY occasionally, Silvers vs Silvers. I don't want easy wins, or going up against Opposition that just single handedly stomps my team. I just wanted to play.

19 hours ago, BXNNXD said:

thats assuming a player is actually a high silver tho, if you can only dethreat once per week i think there would def be low silvers and maybe even the odd bronze getting stuck as gold threat

As a High Silver, if I were to dip into Gold, I'd be okay being stuck there, if only for a few days as is. It wasn't always a constant battle between being Gold or Silver. 

 

Plus, I think you underestimate exactly how hard it would be for an average solo player to go from Bronze to Gold. There is so much map knowledge, skill, and partial luck needed, that it'd be almost inconceivable for your average Bronze player to suddenly be enlightened to get to Gold.

[Revoluzzer 274]

On 12/23/2018 at 1:06 AM, TheJellyGoo said:

Maybe its time for another threat reevaluation by dropping everyone down a certain elo coupled with less elo gain in the future.

Let's see how threat re-calibrates itself. Might be a good opportunity to bridge the time until EU.

If this would actually fix anything, it would've done so in the past. The underlying system needs improvement, threat won't "re-calibrate" itself because it currently doesn't have the means to do so. What you suggest is only a short-lived reset.

[TheJellyGoo 343]

18 minutes ago, Revoluzzer said:

If this would actually fix anything, it would've done so in the past. The underlying system needs improvement, threat won't "re-calibrate" itself because it currently doesn't have the means to do so. What you suggest is only a short-lived reset.

That would imply that G1 always did what could and should have been done to improve on those smaller systems.

How long did people ask for HVR changes again?

Now, I agree that it might very well not be the end-solution to all our threat issues but it seems worth a shot.

Many games have done it since threat inflation is a natural occurrence. If you can't find that magical key for the perfect system just move the bar higher.

Even if it is short-lived, we can gain more data for when they go for the complete overhaul. Should we dismiss all changes even small ones just because the big underlying problem isn't solved yet?

 

[Revoluzzer 274]

3 hours ago, TheJellyGoo said:

Many games have done it since threat inflation is a natural occurrence. If you can't find that magical key for the perfect system just move the bar higher.

Threat inflation only occurs in poorly designed matchmaking systems to begin with. I've laid out before in this threat that a dynamic threat distribution system could easily combat this issue, removing the necessity for resets like the one suggested altogether.

[TheJellyGoo 343]

8 hours ago, Revoluzzer said:

Threat inflation only occurs in poorly designed matchmaking systems to begin with. I've laid out before in this threat that a dynamic threat distribution system could easily combat this issue, removing the necessity for resets like the one suggested altogether.

And I understand that. I never said that it will fix everything. It is intended to bridge some time until the EU since it doesn't require much manhours unlike all the other suggestions for larger overhauls.

We don't know how much it could improve the general enjoyment of gameplay if we don't try it. Having high and mid levels players around the same threatlevels as right now clearly creates issues.

Would this change solve those? I don't know, maybe some, most probably not all considering how limited it is in correlation to other systems and their current issues (matchmaking/playerpool/...).

Still seems like worth a try. At the very least it's a change that keeps the players busy until EU rollout.

Every system has it's flaws that also includes your dynamic solution. Assuming you have a larger part of the playerbase of the same skillevel as your threat levels are designated to house it will force players into the wrong threat creating a wave which stretches itself through the whole system like a domino effect just to mention one. How you deal with the issues that those system create makes them either a success or not.

[Stunny 42]

On 12/21/2018 at 4:42 AM, MattScott said:

Hi there,

 

The plan is to still let you choose any server you want to hang out with friends while you’re waiting for missions.

 

Then the system will aggregate the players in the same mission to the ‘best fit’ server alongside other players in other missions. Opponents can be matched on any server (so best population matching possible). Each action district can still feel populated, but we get to control the load balancing.

 

Thanks,

Matt

But not populated as is now? I mean 2-3 teams on maps this size won't feel as populated as you think it will.. nobody ramraiding, nobody chatting in district, nobody hanging out, randomly driving around doing stuff.. it's gonna completely kill the game's atmosphere, san paro will feel like a ghost town

 

Why not just increase pop of each district so there's a bigger pool to matchmake from?

[Vincci 24]

On 10/19/2018 at 7:45 PM, MattScott said:

"Cross district matchmaking"

The concept is to allow players to join whatever action district they want. No spamming servers to get into the one full district. They simply join, drive around and get to interact as part of the district while waiting for a group. Players are matched with other players across all instances of the same action district, so we can ideally narrow the range of skill as much as possible. Once they are matched, the server moves both teams to a different server where the mission plays out.

In my opinion, this is the holy grail. We eliminate segregated districts, because it doesn't matter which one you join. We eliminate visible threat levels, because it's not information you can act on. We increase the pool of players you match against for even matches.

 

 

Hell yes!

[vsb 6171]

8 hours ago, Stunny said:

But not populated as is now? I mean 2-3 teams on maps this size won't feel as populated as you think it will.. nobody ramraiding, nobody chatting in district, nobody hanging out, randomly driving around doing stuff.. it's gonna completely kill the game's atmosphere, san paro will feel like a ghost town

 

Why not just increase pop of each district so there's a bigger pool to matchmake from?

the servers can’t even handle 50v50 why would you even suggest anything higher lmao

[Darkzero3802 611]

1 hour ago, BXNNXD said:

the servers can’t even handle 50v50 why would you even suggest anything higher lmao

If LO bought 21st century servers maby we could have 50v50 and then some

[Stunny 42]

16 hours ago, BXNNXD said:

the servers can’t even handle 50v50 why would you even suggest anything higher lmao

uh it used to have 100/100

 

it's only because of g1 buying crappy servers from 1942 they had to keep lowering and lowering the pop

[vsb 6171]

7 hours ago, Stunny said:

uh it used to have 100/100

 

it's only because of g1 buying crappy servers from 1942 they had to keep lowering and lowering the pop

the server cap has never gone above 100 (50v50), even rtw didn’t exceed that “magical” number - its certainly never had 200 (100v100)

 

people who suggest future stuff when they don’t even understand present stuff always make me worried

 

 

Edited December 27, 2018 by BXNNXD
typo

[Kewlin 692]

3 hours ago, BXNNXD said:

the server cap has never gone above 100 (50v50), even rtw didn’t exceed that “magical” number - its certainly never had 200 (100v100)

 

Actual picture of APB with 100v100 districts:

[Doc Holliday 4]

I look forward to more progress on the opening post. Some really great ideas to finally solve the threat/matchmaking problem. Hiding it would be very good as a start. A better matchmaking algorithm will certainly help. 

 

look forward to hearing and seeing progress on it. I skipped the next 8 pages of drivel after the first btw. Its a lot of reading and I know some people will miss the point entirely and steer this discussion way off track. Its APB after all.

[Haganu 104]

Pretty sure RTW APB had 100 players in a district. So 50 vs 50.

[Stunny 42]

16 hours ago, BXNNXD said:

the server cap has never gone above 100 (50v50), even rtw didn’t exceed that “magical” number - its certainly never had 200 (100v100)

 

people who suggest future stuff when they don’t even understand present stuff always make me worried

 

 

why are you lying? i used to play on joker NE and it was 100/100. then 80/80 then 50/50. oh a year after 50/50 they tried 80/80 again but the crappy servers from 1861 powered by some guy on a bicycle didnt handle it so they halved it again.

 

just saying if they got proper servers they could have proper districts again like joker NE had.

 

anything but this "you'll get phased into an empty district with 2-3 other teams" crap. that's going to kill the game. san paro will feel dead. no ambiance, no ramraiders, no district chat, no randomness, no atmosphere. just you and a couple of other teams stuck on this dead empty map knowing you're just there for the match and the district doesn't really 'exist'. it'll be so static and stale.

 

i'm really worried.

Edited December 28, 2018 by Stunny

[JellyBOY 4]

What's happening here?