Matchmaking and Threat

[Darkzero3802 614]

On 6/19/2019 at 11:07 AM, Jazeker said:

This has been THE issue with Apb since Rtw days. Different things have been tried, nothing made it better. Partly it is the community as well, but hey, if the game allows stuff you should be able to do stuff, right? I dunno, personally I don't agree with that mindset but hey, that's like my opinion, man.

 

Too bad it's still a waiting game for a new try, the game really needs it. What has been said for 3.5 still sounds promising to me.

its alot more then partially the community. It wasnt as bad before dethreating (and before gold was ez).

[DORIUS 9]

On 6/21/2019 at 4:44 AM, Yood said:

people want to play - they don't want to play PRO!!!!! they want simple opponents ! they don't want to lose 3 matches , die with 2-3-17 kills .

 

you don't let players play .

 

Merged.

 

how to make the boss it's his decision, his money . 

 

players don't want to see you !!!! GOLD PRO in bronze !!!! the first post of the old forum ! the balance of the teams and the Golden menace combined !

 

Pro !!!!! you'll die if you have plankton !

 

Merged.

 

 

GAME SHOULD HAVE SEPARATE QUEUES FOR PREMADE AND SOLO PLAYERS

What right do you have to insult me? Why did you decide that the opinions of other players are similar to yours? Other players opinions about the APB important to you? 
You describe the situation for PvE games. Maybe for this reason the game is constantly dying. 
To my mind, from you absolute negative about players and APB... 
You use the fact 95% of players do not come to the APB Forum. And I'm no longer interested in being here. 

[yood 345]

On 6/27/2019 at 9:16 PM, DORIUS said:

And I'm no longer interested in being here. 

so long.  we will always be glad to see you . ambitious - prove play in the Golden arena .

 

Merged.

 

все хорошо 

 

Merged.

 

новое продолжение . открыть доступ золотым игрокам в зеленую арену . мы не должны нарушать право свободного выбора .

Edited June 28, 2019 by Yood

[TheMessiah 430]

Threat-removed.Best solution right now.At least will kinda screw the plans of dethreaters and they will start getting true golds for oposition(not only theyr noob victims)The thing they fear most(facing the fact that they suck)New players get farmed anyway so at least they will match against entire pool of players and not gonna be lock in circle with theyr tortures.Its like throwing wolf in a sheep shed and u dont want to open the door so at least the sheeps can have the chance to escape or anything.Right now the wolf is lock inside with them and kills them 1 by 1.Also if u remove threat new players gonna have the chance to team up with some of the best players.Keeping the threat right now makes no sense-new players get destroyed in every single match anyway.This cross district matchmaking not gonna happen soon guys.Right now players have bad gaming experience,fresh blood leaves in a flash,LO loses money..tell me whats the point

Edited January 19, 2020 by TheMessiah

[BlueB 35]

Best solution get back players... im tired repeating it.

[TheMessiah 430]

I think i figured out a new way how to improve the current matchmaking even before the return of threat districts(can work with threat dist. as well)Also before engine upgrade and the new cross district thing.

 

Challenges..what i mean(not sure if possible before 3.5 dou)

 

When you run certain command in game from the command panel you can see which groups,players and more stuff are in current district right?So why not player to have the option to run command and system shows all players with theyr threats and what is theyr current status(on mission,ready and waiting or just stay in the district)So every player can have the option to challenge other player(only hes own threat)to a match.Similar when player sends friend/clan request to other(just example how message gonna appear)So besides pressin K and waiting for random oponent/s to be dispatch against him - every player or groups of players can also do what i suggest.We dont even need threat districts if we do this method.Also you can give option when player is ready(K is on)the system to auto search for the same threat oponent/s and only then the match gonna start.

 

So i give entire example:Im new player(T)and i play one mission(no threat dist.)I get bronze threat after match finished.Im ready to play my next mission.Now when i press K - message appears and ask if i want to start my next random match or system can show me all players/groups and theyr current threat and status.So i can directly challenge someone(only same bronze threat)or make the system to search for opponent(same threat)and when find - our match will start

 

So thats in my mind overall.At least players will have more options how to play theyr matches with this method.Hope i helped and sry for my english

Edited January 19, 2020 by TheMessiah

[Darkzero3802 614]

You cant restrict P5/N5 during missions thats just stupid. If someones doing really well they get P5/N5 and now they have an extra element to contend with besides the opp that has struggled. Its a form of checks and balances in the game, those who do really well get it more often as those who dont do so well dont get it often. Changing this will make it even more unfair for lesser skilled players especially if they have to go up against vets.

[vsb 6174]

27 minutes ago, Darkzero3802 said:

You cant restrict P5/N5 during missions thats just stupid. If someones doing really well they get P5/N5 and now they have an extra element to contend with besides the opp that has struggled. Its a form of checks and balances in the game, those who do really well get it more often as those who dont do so well dont get it often. Changing this will make it even more unfair for lesser skilled players especially if they have to go up against vets.

n5/p5 isn’t based solely on current mission performance - a player could have stomped his opp on the last mission and only been barely breaking even on the current mission, but still go n5/p5

 

edit: this doesn’t really have much to do with matchmaking or threat 

 

Edited January 23, 2020 by Solamente
edit

[ExoticZ 131]

4 hours ago, Darkzero3802 said:

You cant restrict P5/N5 during missions thats just stupid. If someones doing really well they get P5/N5 and now they have an extra element to contend with besides the opp that has struggled. Its a form of checks and balances in the game, those who do really well get it more often as those who dont do so well dont get it often. Changing this will make it even more unfair for lesser skilled players especially if they have to go up against vets.

When you play a mission despite it being against vets or rookies, the N5/P5 system should NEVER interfere with your mission. Because when you press "K" to ready up, you are getting ready for a PvP experience with an objective to play for. Once the mission has started, the only goal is to eliminate your opponents and finish the objective. Without being disturbed by other players.

 

This does not we have to remove the bounty system completely. It can be changed to the point where it does not have any impact on your missions.

[Darkzero3802 614]

18 hours ago, Solamente said:

n5/p5 isn’t based solely on current mission performance - a player could have stomped his opp on the last mission and only been barely breaking even on the current mission, but still go n5/p5

 

edit: this doesn’t really have much to do with matchmaking or threat 

 

I am well aware of that its happened to me before, but it is what it is. And in a way it does as how often do you see bronzies, greens or trainees go P5/N5? Majority of the time its golds.

14 hours ago, ExoticZ said:

When you play a mission despite it being against vets or rookies, the N5/P5 system should NEVER interfere with your mission. Because when you press "K" to ready up, you are getting ready for a PvP experience with an objective to play for. Once the mission has started, the only goal is to eliminate your opponents and finish the objective. Without being disturbed by other players.

 

This does not we have to remove the bounty system completely. It can be changed to the point where it does not have any impact on your missions.

So what happens if in the mission your opp is 15-0 and cant be stopped? This is where P5/N5 comes in as now this gives the other team a chance to move on with the mission and lets them know where this person is. Or if said person is hacking, nothing will be perfect even if its changed but by making it so that P5/N5 doesnt trigger in a mission then someone doing that well can just keep rolling over everyone and in that case the other team will stop playing the mission.

[vsb 6174]

4 hours ago, Darkzero3802 said:

I am well aware of that its happened to me before, but it is what it is. And in a way it does as how often do you see bronzies, greens or trainees go P5/N5? Majority of the time its golds.

So what happens if in the mission your opp is 15-0 and cant be stopped? This is where P5/N5 comes in as now this gives the other team a chance to move on with the mission and lets them know where this person is. Or if said person is hacking, nothing will be perfect even if its changed but by making it so that P5/N5 doesnt trigger in a mission then someone doing that well can just keep rolling over everyone and in that case the other team will stop playing the mission.

i mean if the teams are mismatched that badly, why would you want a lucky n5/p5 kill to allow you to finish an objective and have to play another whole stage?

 

wouldnt it just be better for everyone in a blatantly mismatched teams scenario for the mission to end asap?

[Darkzero3802 614]

1 hour ago, Solamente said:

i mean if the teams are mismatched that badly, why would you want a lucky n5/p5 kill to allow you to finish an objective and have to play another whole stage?

 

wouldnt it just be better for everyone in a blatantly mismatched teams scenario for the mission to end asap?

But you cant throw matches as its against the TOS so by all rights you have to keep trying till the end. I personally rather hand the hacker a loss as they are losers irl anyway for needing to cheat.

[ExoticZ 131]

10 hours ago, Darkzero3802 said:

So what happens if in the mission your opp is 15-0 and cant be stopped? This is where P5/N5 comes in as now this gives the other team a chance to move on with the mission and lets them know where this person is. Or if said person is hacking, nothing will be perfect even if its changed but by making it so that P5/N5 doesnt trigger in a mission then someone doing that well can just keep rolling over everyone and in that case the other team will stop playing the mission.

I'm well aware of your point and I understand what you mean. If a mission is unbalanced, its not the players' fault or the bounty system's fault. 

It's quite clearly the matchmaking that needs rework too. All of this is a work in progress.

 

They didnt mention any matchmaking balancing in the 2020 roadmap, but I think everyone can agree on that matchmaking needs a rework.

[Specia 11]

38 minutes ago, ExoticZ said:

I'm well aware of your point and I understand what you mean. If a mission is unbalanced, its not the players' fault or the bounty system's fault. 

It's quite clearly the matchmaking that needs rework too. All of this is a work in progress.

 

They didnt mention any matchmaking balancing in the 2020 roadmap, but I think everyone can agree on that matchmaking needs a rework.

Yea matchmaking is a joke but it is what it is.

[vsb 6174]

14 hours ago, Darkzero3802 said:

But you cant throw matches as its against the TOS so by all rights you have to keep trying till the end. I personally rather hand the hacker a loss as they are losers irl anyway for needing to cheat.

nowhere did i mention throwing the match?

[Darkzero3802 614]

On 1/24/2020 at 2:52 AM, ExoticZ said:

I'm well aware of your point and I understand what you mean. If a mission is unbalanced, its not the players' fault or the bounty system's fault. 

It's quite clearly the matchmaking that needs rework too. All of this is a work in progress.

 

They didnt mention any matchmaking balancing in the 2020 roadmap, but I think everyone can agree on that matchmaking needs a rework.

Its needed a rework since 2011 (when I started playing) and the tweak they did only made threat pointless. As for bounty leave it be as ppl will find ways to get around the system and its still a good check and balance, not to mention makes things more interesting.

On 1/24/2020 at 12:17 PM, Solamente said:

nowhere did i mention throwing the match?

You didnt, but lets be honest here how many times have we seen ppl just give up in missions?

[vsb 6174]

1 hour ago, Darkzero3802 said:

Its needed a rework since 2011 (when I started playing) and the tweak they did only made threat pointless. As for bounty leave it be as ppl will find ways to get around the system and its still a good check and balance, not to mention makes things more interesting.

all bounty does atm is provide an incentive to faction kill

 

 

1 hour ago, Darkzero3802 said:

You didnt, but lets be honest here how many times have we seen ppl just give up in missions?

n5/p5 opposition isnt going to change that, and if by some miracle that n5/p5 death moves the mission to another stage its just going to be another 3-7 minutes of the low skill team being stomped

[Queen of Love 453]

Why don'T remove cars?

 

could help a lot the matchmaking cause people use to have fun with race instead of press K.

 

Merged.

 

Why donT remove COP/criminal faction?

 

STAbba for all, sirens for all, red vs entire raimbow and we will be a nice COD clone with more cat ears.

[EzOn3 10]

If you remove threat (like other shooters), then you should remove the ability to team up / premade (like other shooters). There should also be a 10min or so penalty for abandoning a mission, or remove that feature all together so they can't keep abandoning until the odds are stacked in their favor.

 

Keep in mind that no Trainers, Green, Bronze or Silvers are calling for threat to be removed. It's only some high rank Golds who don't want to play against other high rank Golds all the time. They want some easier matches here and there. Everyone is happy playing against other people of their threat except Golds. You have high rank Golds calling for threat to be removed so that lower ranks can "get better", and yet, they don't want to play against each other to "get better". Golds that want to get better are playing against other Golds, they're not on the forum asking for no threat. Plus, if and when everyone is in one big pool with phasing, the system will still group you by your skill level, which means you will be playing people at your skill level all the time.

 

If you automatically move players once they threat up with the current system, there would be no point in de-threating and all districts would have people in them. Also, this would accurately mimic a future phasing system. Take the ability to choose the district out of the hands of the players, which will also mimic future phasing. Then instead of one district with 40 and one with 10, you would have two districts with 25.

 

Once they have the ability to phase missions, then remove threat from all districts. The system can then group people up and move them into districts automatically based on population. Group A in district 1 matches best with Group B in district 2, move Group B into Group A's district / instance (or vice-versa) and start the mission.

[CookiePuss 5382]

1 hour ago, EzOn3 said:

You have high rank Golds calling for threat to be removed so they can log in and play vs someone

Im not taking sides on segregation, but your post was some b.s.

Anyways, fixed it for you. 

[EzOn3 10]

5 hours ago, CookiePuss said:

Im not taking sides on segregation, but your post was some b.s.

Anyways, fixed it for you. 

There's actually a bunch of Golds, they're all in Silver district and a few in Bronze. Which causes the Silvers to go to Bronze and causes the Bronze to quit. Move all the Golds to Gold district and there would be people there. Some of them will de-threat though to get easy OP and go Gold again, which is why there should be an auto-move.

 

I've been round and round with other Golds on this, and it always come down to them saying: I would like easier OP from time to time, so I don't have to go 100% all the time. One way around this would be to make threat per character and not account wide, for those times you want to chill with easier OP or play with low threat friends without bringing them to Gold.

[R3ACT3M 489]

4 hours ago, EzOn3 said:

There's actually a bunch of Golds, they're all in Silver district and a few in Bronze. Which causes the Silvers to go to Bronze and causes the Bronze to quit. Move all the Golds to Gold district and there would be people there. Some of them will de-threat though to get easy OP and go Gold again, which is why there should be an auto-move.

 

I've been round and round with other Golds on this, and it always come down to them saying: I would like easier OP from time to time, so I don't have to go 100% all the time. One way around this would be to make threat per character and not account wide, for those times you want to chill with easier OP or play with low threat friends without bringing them to Gold.

I honestly don't know why people dethreat. Shit takes way too much effort

[Yapopal 180]

I have a thought. Change the player's health level or weapon damage in real time. Focus on the number of kills and deaths in real time, as well as the player's play recently (30-60 minutes). The game calculates a multiplier that changes the health level or weapon damage. This will allow new players to compete with veterans, remove the importance of macros, and allow high-latency network and server players to compete with low-latency players.

What do you think of it?

[HighSociety 148]

5 minutes ago, SHEMER said:

I have a thought. Change the player's health level or weapon damage in real time. Focus on the number of kills and deaths in real time, as well as the player's play recently (30-60 minutes). The game calculates a multiplier that changes the health level or weapon damage. This will allow new players to compete with veterans, remove the importance of macros, and allow high-latency network and server players to compete with low-latency players.

What do you think of it?

That sounds like the most uneven playfield i ever heard of and has nothing to do with balance.

[Yapopal 180]

45 minutes ago, HighSociety said:

 

Why do you think so?

Edited March 25, 2021 by SHEMER