What will the matchmaking be based on? Friends and clans or skill measured in some way?
Why asking? Take a look at the CS:GO matchmaking epic fail, where you have about 10% chance for a balanced match…
Matchmaking - facebook vs skill.
Dysfunkshion
(Dysfunkshion)
#2
**** matchmaking. Dedicated servers is what we need. I’m still baffled how PC game developers keep putting in matchmaking in their games even though no one likes it. That’s why I hope SD doesn’t make the same mistake.
Edit: To clarify, I overreacted because I had a wrong understanding. Please read my post below for a clearer stated opinion.
NeoRussia
(NeoRussia)
#3
Why do you assume matchmaking means no dedicated servers? L4D BO2 and TF2 all have matchmaking into dedicated servers. Matchmaking is a good thing. It means you can queue up with friends or as a pick up game and play against equally organized teams. It was probably the only reason people started playing L4D competitively. Matchmaking into dedicated servers this is a very important feature of multiplayer PC titles and I hope it makes it into DB by release.
GENETX
(GENETX)
#4
Meh. Should be optional, bu I rather just join my favourite (clan)server where I meet all the regulars and have some fun with people all over the world who I get to know a bit better as days go by. Plus, I don’t think there is much need for balancing anyway. In ET I suck on 1v1, but hard oponents made me better and since it is all about teamwork an objectives, you will improve other skills as well, such as avoiding fights and do some hide and seek 
. I have just as much fun being clever instead of skilled in 1v1.
Dysfunkshion
(Dysfunkshion)
#5
OK, well, maybe I overreacted a bit. I just really hate matchmaking with hosts and didn’t realise there’s somewhat of a hybrid inbetween. Matchmaking for competitive play on dedicated servers would be a great addition. But for public play, dedicated servers in a server browser is the way to go. That way you can play with the same people over and over again. A way to establish a community.
Bloodbite
(Bloodbite)
#6
I agree, matchmaking is for the more casual FPS’s.
I know CoD has been using it for awhile but really, CoD isn’t a skill based game, it’s 50% chance you’ll score yourself a string of opportunistic respawns while the enemy gets lumps with a few insta-kill spawns.
Matchmaking is for those too lazy to dedicate themselves to the community in my opinion. I remember favouriting a few good servers in W:ET and sticking to them until they either went down in challenge or ping or whatever. You not only get to know other regulars, at least by their tactical habits and personalities… you also learn to use the game properly.
Matchmaking is the Apple of FPSing… one stoopid-friendly “turn on” button that solves all. I’m not saying it doesn’t have its place in the world of shooters, but it’s yet another example of who NOT to encourage to play this game. If finding a server on your own for you AND your friends is too complicated and time consuming… learning the mechanics of this game is going to be beyond your understanding. People that rely on matchmaking don’t have a proper understanding of how ping works and the various things that cause lag. Man it ****s me how many times I’ve heard visual tearing referred to as LAG like as if that’s impacting your data connection with the server. From annoying kids that are passionate that they’re IT geniuses (yet all they know is Windows and maybe a Mac… never had to deal with DOS).
Input lag versus connection lag… very different things, and that’s something you are not in control of in the matchmaking process. Response is equally as important as skill.
I think I’m going to make this my catch phrase… “Look what happened when the ignorant masses bought into Brink…” they killed it with their CoD stubborness and their ignorant TF2 comparisons. Remember all that whining because they couldn’t deal with the idea that they weren’t bright enough to play it properly? Let’s not have a repeat of that.
If it’s stoopid friendly, keep it out of this game.
Matchmaking = VERY stoopid friendly
Anti
(Anti)
#7
Having matchmaking doesn’t exclude dedicated servers or server browsers at all, just look at Battlefield 3. What you are worried about is peer-to-peer multiplayer, that is very different to matchmaking.
What matchmaking can add is the ability to match the skill level of players joining the same server, providing better games, on top of all the other usual PC functionality.
Dysfunkshion
(Dysfunkshion)
#8
[QUOTE=Anti;416552]Having matchmaking doesn’t exclude dedicated servers or server browsers at all, just look at Battlefield 3. What you are worried about is peer-to-peer multiplayer, that is very different to matchmaking.
What matchmaking can add is the ability to match the skill level of players joining the same server, providing better games, on top of all the other usual PC functionality.[/QUOTE]
Yes, after reading NeoRussia’s comment, I realised that I had a wrong understanding. That’s why I apologised for overreacting in my post above 
I hope matchmaking can be included for competitive play, but I hope we’re still able to hop on our favorite dedicated server.
Kendle
(Kendle)
#9
I’m not sure how matchmaking could work in this game. Matching players by skill? Define skill. Presumably the only definition you could track and base matchmaking on would be things like K/D and / or score per minute etc., which might not be relevant in a class-based game.
What might be useful is if the matchmaking system first asks you what class you want to play then puts you on a server with less than the optimal number of players playing that class, but then I wouldn’t mind having a filter on the server browser that can filter by numbers of players of each class as well and letting me make my own choice.
Personally I’d want to join servers where everyone else is better than me, cos that’s the only way you improve.
Falcon.PL
(Falcon.PL)
#10
[QUOTE=Anti;416552]
What matchmaking can add is the ability to match the skill level of players joining the same server, providing better games, on top of all the other usual PC functionality.[/QUOTE]
How about saying something more about how it will work in DB? Well, in CS:GO we also have “matchmaking based on skill”, yet it is obviously not, as it is based both on skill and friends-lists/clans… As we know: when something is designed for everything it basically is good at nothing. When they pick friends and clans and skill they land up with vast majority of surprisingly imba matches. Although the idea of balance achieved by skill level adjustment is pretty much awesome and when it does work(no clans and “friends” made it into calculations aka no compromise) it really does produce amazing feeling of the right level of difficulty, so ppl are really playing intense, trying hard, as they know it’s about 50:50 chance. 
That is fun! And I would like to ask - is Splash Damage going to learn on Valve mistake? Will Dirty Bomb has the skill-only based matchmaking?
Bloodbite
(Bloodbite)
#11
I made that mistake too… but I don’t think I’ve seen it done right yet either. There always seems to be an aspect of it that sacrifices connection performance in favour of rank based matching.
Perhaps what some of us should really be asking (like myself) is how do you guys plan on quantifying “skill”???
I don’t think the profile rank/level system is the way to go at all. Perhaps an average of XP earned per match based on a 2 week, or month’s worth of average? But going off past experiences with ETQW and even something like Savage 2… the better of the upper-middle-rung players didn’t necessarily average outstanding XP results per match when they focused on proper team play. There always seemed to be those XP whoring opportunities that came from being on a stacked team that allowed for the luxury to indulge in that kind of behaviour, and showed you to be a better XP performer than those that really helped shape the battle’s tactical advancements.
… or is this just something that isn’t an issue with the smaller W:ET style of level design?
BioSnark
(BioSnark)
#12
For those who resurfaced after the trailer or teaser, it’s worth noting that there was a lengthy discussion on measuring player skill around here in the recent past.
luffeN
(luffeN)
#13
Well, you can create a playlist FFA style where players from all ranks can play and lists with let’s say rank 0 - 4 and 5 - 10 and so on (or filters). If you have a 5 rank increment, then it should not get too imbalanced (obv.) between a rank 0 player and a rank 4 player. The rank should be made up of ingame points coming from kills, objectives cleared and rounds/games won. You can only gain rank points and not lose them. Normally in a game the more you play the better you become. Apart from the general handling of your mouse and your eye hand coordination, a longer playtime will ensure a better understanding of the modes and the layout of the maps.
ZeD
(ZeD)
#14
Rather have non dedicated hosts. Have servers hosted and made by players. This way we know which public server is more skilled and more for fun. Like we have in RtCW/ET. There is few serious public where people are more skilled and take the fun to serious business and fun on another server. I find this is the best thing to go for, since the automated system for matchmaking these days are so popular but at the same time its sooooo bad. Casual gamers don’t care but dedicated players do!
Hundopercent
(Hundopercent)
#15
As long as their are dedicated servers that I can join I don’t care how they handle match making. I will probably be spending a majority of my time in a comp mod server.
GENETX
(GENETX)
#17
Well there could be a hybrid with dedicated servers set up by clans, communities whatever. The players playing there have a certain skill level. The average of the level can be taken to put a number on the skill in the server. People could join the server by just picking it in the explorer, or can let the software decide what a good server would be, based on player skill vs server skill and ping. That could be positive as well to try new servers when the server you usually join is full, empty or there is a war going on between 2 clans or whatever.
I’d expect a system like that, when looking at Anti’spost. Trackmania Nations does about the same: Giving servers a rating depending on the players on it, and does suggest servers based on your own rank compared to the average on the server.
ImageOmega
(ImageOmega)
#19
There seems to be a lot of definitions behind what “Match Making” is considered to be in this thread. A few of you seem to be hitting the nail on the head in regards to keeping both competitive players and casual gamers happy. Let me explain what I consider a necessity to support the widest spread of players (including ranges of skill or commitment). There needs to be several options for the players.
The Community Server: First, let me state that I believe all servers should be dedicated. There are too many variables that create horrible experiences in games when a peer-to-peer system is used. If Splash Damage is able to host a bunch of servers that would be fantastic. However, to maximize the potential of the community, there should be dedicated servers players can set up themselves.
This is how communities inside a game are born and for some people, once they start playing on a specific server, they will refuse to go anywhere else. As creatures of habit, once we have a great experience on a particular server we will want to return again and again. This could be due to a fantastic connection, likable players, or specific game settings. Regardless giving the player the choice to find a server where he/she can play against other returning gamers makes quite the enjoyable experience. This became how I met a lot of the clan mates I had. We frequented the same servers and, because of that, we wanted to play together.
Also, there has often times been servers that are very well moderated by admins. This adds to the enjoyable experience by weeding out griefers or just idiots in general. Also, the admins as well as returning players set up a hierarchy of player status within the server. People will return to the server to gain favor from other skilled players or admins. Validation within the game is a huge driving force to why people continuously play.
Match Making: A Quick Join feature (where the game decides which server is best for you to join other like skilled players) is not at all what I mean by match making. Match Making to me is not about jumping in a game quickly with skilled players, but rather putting yourself (and your friends) to the test in a competitive environment. The whole point of match making is not to create a lobby of players to play casual games, but to provide a competitive environment for teams to practice together without having to find scrims or matches outside of the game.
Now, of course, match making would be available to those without teams. This would allow people who can not field a team of 6 or 7 (whatever the norm would be) a chance to find a random/ringer to fill that spot. No match making service is going to be perfect, but finding another team that will play the objectives and provide a competitive environment is priceless. There is a huge difference between a competitive match and a public server.
I see some comparisons to CS:GO’s matchmaking and I think CS:GO actually does an amazing job as far as putting teams together. You may not always have the best ping or you may be completely outclassed, but more often than not (if you are decent) you will have a fun game. And, if you feel like you are always getting stomped and the match making is to blame, I think maybe you should take a second look at improving yourself and getting better as a team first. Match Making is not about being 100% fair all the time. It is not about protecting the team that comes in “second place”. It is to provide the opportunity for serious players or friends to jump into a queue to find another team to test their mettle against.
And, to reiterate, these should absolutely be played on dedicated servers. Where the resources come from to do this is a question I can not answer. I do not know if Splash Damage has the means or if it is a better option to make it up to the community to reserve a server port for dedicated competitive matches. Regardless, peer to peer just won’t do.
One thing that is for certain is that a standard should be decided during the beta that exemplifies what competitive play is and how it should be handled. (IE: Which maps are best and more suited to competitive play, how many players per side, what gameplay rules or settings should be enforced.)
Final thoughts and options: Control by the players is the name of the game when it comes to an enjoyable, thriving community. The player needs to have a choice of whether he/she joins a public server or gets a team together to compete against other teams. If there is a quick join option, then it would be to just throw someone on the most adequate public server that fits their pre-set filter requirements.
There should most definitely be an in-game browser so people can favorite their beloved servers or people can keep track of the private servers they like to host pugs, scrims, or matches on. And, as a side note, some sort of capability to support pick up games would be quite interesting, albeit not necessary.
How to rate player skill is a completely different story and I am not sure what is the best way to do this. But, player skill should be strictly tied to a competitive environment instead of a sloppy method like QuakeLive’s tier system. Quake is a different beast, so maybe it is easier to spot the weak link in the chain, but when it comes to fun public play the newer players should not feel punished for joining a server “out of their tier”. I’ve played the Quake series for over 15 years, so when QuakeLive introduced tiers, all it did was confuse me as to why it was trying to splinter an already dying community. It already took away server control from the players and the ability to rejoin the server you liked the most.
I have high hopes for Dirty Bomb and while all this talk is really only theoretical or outspoken opinions, I hope as a community everyone supports Splash Damage in their choices. Test things out and come together to figure out how to improve upon an established system as opposed to pure criticism. I think we have a rare opportunity here to have our voices be heard by developers who are bringing back a beloved gameplay style so many of us miss.