[quote=“elegantRoyalty;57905”][quote=“Harlot;57850”]
Those level 20’s have to play against somebody. [/quote]
why? why is it better for 12 people to waste 15-20 mins, than the game returning a no reasonable opponent found result and recommending they split into two groups or try later?
[/quote]
Even two level 20’s would crush a team of all level 6’s. And you can’t exactly tell them to split up just because they’re higher level while lowbies can stack.
[quote=“elegantRoyalty;57905”][quote=“Harlot;57850”]
Those level 20’s have to play against somebody. [/quote]
why? why is it better for 12 people to waste 15-20 mins, than the game returning a no easonable opponent found result and recommending they split into two groups or try later?[/quote]
Yes, 2 Problems.
First, it intensifies with the skill-lvl you got. At least it should, top skill-lvl should be unreachable for most, so the top 1%? should only be playing together… all at the same time… on the same server? Sure? (ok, so probably even devide the 20 or what top-players to three to four timezones?
Second, how do you rank up or down without better or infferior players in the match? All players the same skill? Who is better, who is worse?
[quote=“Harlot;57914”]
Even two level 20’s would crush a team of all level 6’s. And you can’t exactly tell them to split up just because they’re higher level while lowbies can stack. [/quote]
true but one level 20 on their own team of 6’s might lead to a balanced fun game, you can do whatever you want if your the server admin/dev this is exactly how i used to do it 20 odd years ago when we had this problem in q2.
no im not saying the best 1% can only play the top 1% im saying reasonably equal teams will lead to more fun games and a healthier environment. the matchmaking should aim to keep the spread as equal as possible but you can put lower skilled players in with pros if you keep the teams balanced. im not saying you cant have variance im saying the sort of game the above ss was from is a stupid thing to happen.
at the end of the day you have to choose , do we build the game making it a fun experience for all or do we throw folks under the epeen bus and probably shrink the scene?
i see no problem when the top 5 players que together the MM system does a search and comes back with a “sorry guys theres just nothing out there that can give you a game, if i split you up i can build you into two even teams want to do that or try again later?”
Again this nonsense with competitive vs pubs, wannabepros vs casual. Endless and pointless battle.
Wanted to put in my two cents. I do not know why DB is trying to become more and more like CS GO they are COMPLETELY different games, with completely different styles of play. Dirty Bomb is classed based shooter, with the two most played game modes involving respawning, because of this Dirty Bomb originally was competing with TF2 and in the future Overwatch. However, Nexon probably saw how profitable CS GO has become and decided to try and emulate it by shifting the focus of DB. However, their are currently so many problems with the competitive side of DB (you know what I’m talking about) that the shifting of focus is actually hurting the game more than helping it. And on the subject of Competitive matchmaking, Lvl. 20s should not be paired with Lvl. 6s and Cobalts should not be paired with Silvers. If people who are Lvl. 20 and are Cobalts have to wait in a queue for 20 minutes to find a game, then so be it. That is the price you have to pay for Dirty Bomb being a relatively new game (discounting closed beta and all other iterations). As the player base grows, and the game ages and people become higher level’s and more experienced, then the whole problem of waiting a long time to find a game if your a high level player will disappear. In fact, I once asked a question on the DB reddit about the competitive matchmaking, to which Smooth from Splash Damage responded and stated that high level and high ranked players being paired with lower level players is in-fact not intended. This is what he said:
The matchmaker uses Elo but has several issues that we’re working on resolving, notably how quickly the search expands to pick-up players of vastly different skill.
The others include:
How we split up the divisions - the spread of players is currently quite a bit more bunched up in the middle than we were anticipating
How quickly player skill ratings change over time
Who players playing their placement games are matched against
I think that before they should balance only for comp they should fix matchmaking and get rid of hackers 1st. Then I will start caring about comp.
They have to balance for the vast majority. This is always how it’s done. Competitive players will follow a set of guidelines for competitive matches. That’s how it is in all FPS shooter competitions. Classes, weapons, deployables all get restrictions put on them for official ranked competitive play. The competitive players cannot alone fund the development and deployment of an entire video game. It’s not at all viable.
Tell that to Valve with Dota 2 and CS GO, two of the most popular competitive games right now.
This notion that competitive players and casual players don’t want the same thing is a bit ridiculous. As long as you’re the kind of player that plays to win and get better, then you’re interests are the same as the pro’s.
The only real difference between highly skilled players and most pubbers is in their understanding of the game’s mechanics. Since the top level players have a better understanding of how the game works, it’s usually better to listen to their feedback but at the end of the day both groups benefit from it and pubbers frequently want the same changes that competitive players ask for anyway.
I agree with the OP.
I’d like to add:
People inevitably improve over time. Balancing for bad players or even just decent players is bad for the game because in a relatively short time the balance will be irrelevant to most people’s skill levels anyway. If you balance for optimal play, for max potential, then balance makes sense because there’s a consistent level of high play everyone can eventually attain if they play. Making a game for bads or people who don’t stick around for more than a short time is pointless and punishes the real, long-term supporters and good players of the game.
I like it and fully agree on it even if I don’t play competitive because of what @litheJacket wrote.
(Listening to non-competitive non-Elite destroyed Phantom not so long ago…)
Aside from that: Someone explain. Why competitive is ALWAYS the highest levelled players vs. the lowest levelled players? (Someone ever saw a game where like, 4 strongest people were split equally on both teams?)
Imo, before they balance mercs to competitive, they should do the balance of competitive itself.
Tell that to Valve with Dota 2 and CS GO, two of the most popular competitive games right now.[/quote]
But the comp scenes do not alone fund those games…which is true. Games do not thrive without a large casual scene.
Many people like myself, do not care about their ranking or stats compared to the whole player base. I just care about having fun and winning individual matches.
This is the current issue, Dirty Bomb says it is competitive, yet it balance around pubs, SICK META.
The best thing SD could have done in regards to balancing was force everyone to play 5v5 matches similar to LoL. No open 12-16 man servers. Just have us queue up. Have one queue for non-ranked games and then another for ranked games. That way they could keep a tight control on things without worrying that a melee Phantom can kill 3 of the really inexperienced players in an 8v8 before dying himself.
But then we’d lose giant pubs which a lot of people find pretty fun. But that would have helped them to be able to more easily balance since every match would be 5v5.
I see you’re covering for RuleofBooKz while he’s on his vacation, how nice of you.
[quote=“Amerika;58556”]The best thing SD could have done in regards to balancing was force everyone to play 5v5 matches similar to LoL. No open 12-16 man servers. Just have us queue up. Have one queue for non-ranked games and then another for ranked games. That way they could keep a tight control on things without worrying that a melee Phantom can kill 3 of the really inexperienced players in an 8v8 before dying himself.
But then we’d lose giant pubs which a lot of people find pretty fun. But that would have helped them to be able to more easily balance since every match would be 5v5.[/quote]
Horrible idea to force players into pens. Ive seen it failing in game i played previously. For 3 years they were “fixing” MM(whole MM were based purely around queues, only way to play custom games were to actually pay for each custom match) and there were only one constant excuse - there isnt enough players in the game for MM to work properly(and there wont be more players considering that game fails in all areas but P2W). And as it was crap it remains crap to this day.
Instead of making MM that would work with limited amount of players, absolutely nothing has been done.
This idea is especially bad since it dosnt account to any additional factors, like pings. And if it would, then there would be 100 queues for 100 different players.
Forcing players into queues will create same situation as it is with competitive, just on larger scale. Current competitive missions situation is a good example - 4 out of 5 players just cancel it, partially since competitive is crap and partially since they have no interest in it.
Majority of playerbase has no interest in competitive, they simply dont care(they play for fun, not for some virtual penis enlargement). And if SD will be stupid enough to enforce it, they will simply move on to another game.
And making 5vs5 games as main feature is also a bad idea. It may be be good for competitive, but it would be horrible for pubs. Since not every1 are pulling the rope, some ppl tend to just run around, others get lost, third group is busy with something else.
Modulating game purely around competitive scene is a worse idea ever for any developer, since it would repel about 2/3 of potential players. And every online game is only as good as size of its player base.
Or people don’t wanna participate because the anti cheat doesn’t work well. Until that is fixed people won’t want to…which is sad because it’s really fun.
[quote=“Dirmagnos;58712”][quote=“Amerika;58556”]The best thing SD could have done in regards to balancing was force everyone to play 5v5 matches similar to LoL. No open 12-16 man servers. Just have us queue up. Have one queue for non-ranked games and then another for ranked games. That way they could keep a tight control on things without worrying that a melee Phantom can kill 3 of the really inexperienced players in an 8v8 before dying himself.
But then we’d lose giant pubs which a lot of people find pretty fun. But that would have helped them to be able to more easily balance since every match would be 5v5.[/quote]
Horrible idea to force players into pens. Ive seen it failing in game i played previously. For 3 years they were “fixing” MM(whole MM were based purely around queues, only way to play custom games were to actually pay for each custom match) and there were only one constant excuse - there isnt enough players in the game for MM to work properly(and there wont be more players considering that game fails in all areas but P2W). And as it was crap it remains crap to this day.
Instead of making MM that would work with limited amount of players, absolutely nothing has been done.
This idea is especially bad since it dosnt account to any additional factors, like pings. And if it would, then there would be 100 queues for 100 different players.
Forcing players into queues will create same situation as it is with competitive, just on larger scale. Current competitive missions situation is a good example - 4 out of 5 players just cancel it, partially since competitive is crap and partially since they have no interest in it.
Majority of playerbase has no interest in competitive, they simply dont care(they play for fun, not for some virtual penis enlargement). And if SD will be stupid enough to enforce it, they will simply move on to another game.
And making 5vs5 games as main feature is also a bad idea. It may be be good for competitive, but it would be horrible for pubs. Since not every1 are pulling the rope, some ppl tend to just run around, others get lost, third group is busy with something else.
Modulating game purely around competitive scene is a worse idea ever for any developer, since it would repel about 2/3 of potential players. And every online game is only as good as size of its player base.[/quote]
It’s exactly what we had for a lengthy period of time during the closed beta. You got matches instantly and they were well balanced since the whole populace had to use it even with the MUCH smaller playbase at that point (500 players on at peak?). And my point is they would have had an easier time balancing. I didn’t say it was what they should do but I can see the logic in why it would make things a lot easier. And had the game been that way from the start it would be a lot more competitive too. But it wouldn’t have the rather fun larger pubs which isn’t a tradeoff many would want to make
How do you “make” matchmaking work without a lot of players? If your’e going to say something like that you should definitely back it up with actual logic and reasoning. Not just magical hand waving and acting as if it’s an easy problem to solve.
Now you are just making things up. Good MM with just 500(or less) players ?!?! And every1 were happy about it ?
If it was so great, why they scuttled it them ?
And my point is they would have had an easier time balancing. I didn’t say it was what they should do but I can see the logic in why it would make things a lot easier. And had the game been that way from the start it would be a lot more competitive too. But it wouldn’t have the rather fun larger pubs which isn’t a tradeoff many would want to make
First, easier doesnt mean better.
Second, not every1(in fact, most players arent) are obsessed or even interested in competitive. Majority of players play for fun. And they dont care about ranks.
In fact its better not to have those in general, since many wannabepros will do absolutely everything, short of blatant cheating, to get a better position in ranking, as like it is an indicator of something.
Do you really want some stoners or stargazers in competitive with all those wannabe pros ? Considering that pub-oriented population is far greater, it will just turn into offset of pub.
And then all those wananbes will be complainign again, why all those nabs are flooding their belowed pro-games.
As i have mentioned, ive seen exactly where it leads, forced MM and mandatory ranking. Its horrible.
Current system is far far far better. You want competitive, you play competitive. Dont wannt it, nor care about it - play pubs.
Cheaters and poor MM surely affect competitive, but if people would really wannt to play it, they WOULD play it.
How do you “make” matchmaking work without a lot of players? If your’e going to say something like that you should definitely back it up with actual logic and reasoning. Not just magical hand waving and acting as if it’s an easy problem to solve.
Yes, its hard to make it work. But if feature doesnt work for some reasons, then you either fix it or replace it with feature that will work. Instead of just expecting that world will come around and be in the way you want it to be, doing nothing.
Its a problem with “what if” vs “what is”.