Teams coming out of lobby are pretty awful lately

(Amerika) #21

So if you’re on the other team from your buddy one of you will almost always, very early, have the chance to switch.

How would you fix this issue? I’ve made note of what could be done from my perspective but I poked about a billion holes in it due to the system not being able to factor in tons of variables that are completely out of it’s control. Not to mention that in more controlled environments with highly skilled players who are focused still end in stomps. How do you fix that?[/quote]

Have high skill players play among themselves. Fix ranked.[/quote]

That’s not a solution. That’s just something you want to achieve. How do you actually achieve balance?

(torsoreaper) #22

[quote=“Amerika;138751”]

That’s not a solution. That’s just something you want to achieve. How do you actually achieve balance?[/quote]

I know level != skill but I would say let’s try making teams based on level for a patch cycle and see if things are better or worse. While a guy who is a level 3 but has played a ton of CS might be able to kill a level 20 person every time, it doesn’t help when he does that while letting their mechanic repair the EV or if he doesn’t know how to flank because he hasn’t even learned the map yet.

(Amerika) #23

[quote=“torsoreaper;138754”][quote=“Amerika;138751”]

That’s not a solution. That’s just something you want to achieve. How do you actually achieve balance?[/quote]

I know level != skill but I would say let’s try making teams based on level for a patch cycle and see if things are better or worse. While a guy who is a level 3 but has played a ton of CS might be able to kill a level 20 person every time, it doesn’t help when he does that while letting their mechanic repair the EV or if he doesn’t know how to flank because he hasn’t even learned the map yet.[/quote]

Why? Most matches become imbalanced when players swap sides, players leave (and it takes 30-60 seconds for a new player to join and help out) or because the balance system which assigns an actual skill rating to everyone based on actual performance couldn’t factor in that a guy is on the phone while playing, listening to music, playing a new merc they have never played or something else.

How does balancing by levels resolve any of this? That’s what I want people who keep throwing out this suggestion to do. Show, logically, how it works beyond being a placebo for a few people who obsess over numbers and think that a level in DB is the same thing as a level in an MMO.

(RyePanda) #24

Was playing with a friend new to the game. The lobby had a level 30 (me), a level 33, a level 4, and a level 3 (my friend). So of course it puts the 33 and 30 together and the 3 and 4 together.

(Maverix) #25

[quote=“Amerika;138757”][quote=“torsoreaper;138754”][quote=“Amerika;138751”]

That’s not a solution. That’s just something you want to achieve. How do you actually achieve balance?[/quote]

I know level != skill but I would say let’s try making teams based on level for a patch cycle and see if things are better or worse. While a guy who is a level 3 but has played a ton of CS might be able to kill a level 20 person every time, it doesn’t help when he does that while letting their mechanic repair the EV or if he doesn’t know how to flank because he hasn’t even learned the map yet.[/quote]

Why? Most matches become imbalanced when players swap sides, players leave (and it takes 30-60 seconds for a new player to join and help out) or because the balance system which assigns an actual skill rating to everyone based on actual performance couldn’t factor in that a guy is on the phone while playing, listening to music, playing a new merc they have never played or something else.

How does balancing by levels resolve any of this? That’s what I want people who keep throwing out this suggestion to do. Show, logically, how it works beyond being a placebo for a few people who obsess over numbers and think that a level in DB is the same thing as a level in an MMO.[/quote]

I agree with everything but the part about levels. You can say level isn’t everything, and that’s true SOMETIMES. I’ve seen a level 60 have crap aim. And I’ve seen a level 6 completely wreck the enemy team on his own. But for the most part, difference is, I would expect a level 30 to hesitate when hearing the sound of Proxy’s mine behind a corner and slowly peak it over a level 5. I would expect a level 30 Vasilli to throw his sensor in a vital spot that benefits his team the most. I would expect a level 30 nader not to trigger their martyrdom when a medic is about to revive them. I would expect a level 30 player to dodge an airstrike from skyhammer.

And I repeat, level doesn’t always represent how good a player will be. But it holds a lot more value that what some people think. I’m not debating the topic of balance in this post. Just my opinion that there is definitely some value to people’s level. and that it shouldn’t be discredited.

(Amerika) #26

[quote=“Maverix_GT;138795”][quote=“Amerika;138757”][quote=“torsoreaper;138754”][quote=“Amerika;138751”]

That’s not a solution. That’s just something you want to achieve. How do you actually achieve balance?[/quote]

I know level != skill but I would say let’s try making teams based on level for a patch cycle and see if things are better or worse. While a guy who is a level 3 but has played a ton of CS might be able to kill a level 20 person every time, it doesn’t help when he does that while letting their mechanic repair the EV or if he doesn’t know how to flank because he hasn’t even learned the map yet.[/quote]

Why? Most matches become imbalanced when players swap sides, players leave (and it takes 30-60 seconds for a new player to join and help out) or because the balance system which assigns an actual skill rating to everyone based on actual performance couldn’t factor in that a guy is on the phone while playing, listening to music, playing a new merc they have never played or something else.

How does balancing by levels resolve any of this? That’s what I want people who keep throwing out this suggestion to do. Show, logically, how it works beyond being a placebo for a few people who obsess over numbers and think that a level in DB is the same thing as a level in an MMO.[/quote]

I agree with everything but the part about levels. You can say level isn’t everything, and that’s true SOMETIMES. I’ve seen a level 60 have crap aim. And I’ve seen a level 6 completely wreck the enemy team on his own. But for the most part, difference is, I would expect a level 30 to hesitate when hearing the sound of Proxy’s mine behind a corner and slowly peak it over a level 5. I would expect a level 30 Vasilli to throw his sensor in a vital spot that benefits his team the most. I would expect a level 30 nader not to trigger their martyrdom when a medic is about to revive them. I would expect a level 30 player to dodge an airstrike from skyhammer.

And I repeat, level doesn’t always represent how good a player will be. But it holds a lot more value that what some people think. I’m not debating the topic of balance in this post. Just my opinion that there is definitely some value to people’s level. and that it shouldn’t be discredited.[/quote]

Nobody is arguing that. Level is an indicator of experience but not an indicator of skill, competence or your current state of mind/play. It’s not used to balance teams and it shouldn’t be. You can be a crap level 60 and be balanced appropriately in Dirty Bomb. If you were a pretty bad player but played a lot and had a high level you’d get punished by any system that tries to balance based on time played. And your team would get punished as well.

(Maverix) #27

[quote=“Amerika;138810”]
Nobody is arguing that.[/quote]

Actually you arguing that.

[quote=“Amerika;138757”]
How does balancing by levels resolve any of this? [/quote]

And then you asked:

^Show’s that you are arguing it.

And literally my entire post above answers your question. You asked “Show, logically, how it works beyond being a placebo”. Personally I feel like my 4 examples that I provided are considered as being “logical”.

(Amerika) #28

[quote=“Maverix_GT;138817”][quote=“Amerika;138810”]
Nobody is arguing that.[/quote]

Actually you arguing that.

[quote=“Amerika;138757”]
How does balancing by levels resolve any of this? [/quote]

And then you asked:

^Show’s that you are arguing it.

And literally my entire post above answers your question. You asked “Show, logically, how it works beyond being a placebo”. Personally I feel like my 4 examples that I provided are considered as being “logical”.[/quote]

Why did you cherry pick one part of my post but not include the other?

“Nobody is arguing that. Level is an indicator of experience but not an indicator of skill, competence or your current state of mind/play.”

I’m fairly certain I explained myself. So I am not sure why you chose to ignore that. We do actually agree but I only agree on a very specific point in regards to experience. But their actual net worth to the team is completely unpredictable making the amount of value a level shows be completely inconsistent with the reality of how good they will do. Levels breed a false sense of balance or imbalance that is more prominent in DB than any other game I’ve ever played before. I don’t believe that is a coincidence. Games like Rocket League allow you to hide your “level” because of this very reason. Their devs get it. SD apparently doesn’t.

(Maverix) #29

Because as a veteran, I would expect you to understand that experience is actually a high indicator of skill. I know this and can provide an example. Back when I first started playing FPS competitively on BF3, I had a really low end computer. I was constantly receiving 25-35 frames, which is a death request when it comes down to one on ones. But after obtaining some experience, I developed “crosshair discipline”. I consistently had my crosshair on probable areas where an enemy might expose their heads. And because of the amount of experience I’ve obtained, I was able develop a skill that resulted in me winning that majority of my one on ones. It became so bad that I was receiving hackusations on a daily basis. With every game that I’ve ever played, I was able to convert my “experience” into “skill”. With enough gameplay, I would develop a strategy that allowed me to excel on the field. Here is the definition of skill that I just pulled from dictionary;“the ability to do something well; expertise.” I chose to ignore “experience=/=skill” comment, because I honestly didn’t think what you said was serious, in relations to my personal experience.

(Amerika) #30

You just explained my point. DB account levels indicate experience/time played but not a person’s actual skill level, their competence or their will to play correctly or even learn to play correctly. I know people who are in their 40’s who don’t know how to move around maps properly or they spam the jump button when they shoot due to panicing or try to use a grenade launcher at point blank range. And people who just run in and try to blow up people with mines on proxy despite basically suiciding every time. All high account level players but not high level competent players who care about “crosshair discipline”.

Just because you spent time trying to get better doesn’t mean everyone does. Some people just jam out to music and blow off steam and play for hours because it’s fun regardless of how good they do.

(SirFrancelot) #31

Maybe if there was some kind of check 3 mins into a match to see if the total score of a team is more than double that of the other team (or some other sufficient amount), and if so, commence a player shuffle. Since in-game score seems like a reasonable way to gauge players ability as oppose to level.

(SirFrancelot) #32

Since level based balancing can’t account for everything

(Kingsley) #33

http://www.memegenerator.eu/media/created/wn26ej.jpg

(Kingsley) #34

By the way, I don’t know, maybe try joining a team…?
Being that you have these opinions, make a team yourself.
Why shouldn’t players play with their friends?
Jesus.
Stop it.
Go Away.

(torsoreaper) #35

[left][quote=“Amerika;138757”]
How does balancing by levels resolve any of this? That’s what I want people who keep throwing out this suggestion to do. Show, logically, how it works beyond being a placebo for a few people who obsess over numbers and think that a level in DB is the same thing as a level in an MMO.[/quote]

Because the R squared on a correlation analysis between level and skill is probably > 70%? I am all for showing a skill rating instead of a level rating but just imagine how enraged people will be if you have a bunch of S and A level players against a bunch of D and F rated players coming out of lobby. What would your defense be at that point? Because right now people can say “level doesn’t equal skill”. But when skill = skill and the teams are unbalanced, it just shines a glaring spotlight on a broken MM system. Which is why SD will never do something like that. So we are left with 2 options:

[list=1]
[] Try to fix matchmaking one way or another
[] Hide levels and pretend the problem doesn’t exist
[/list][/left]

(Amerika) #36

[quote=“torsoreaper;138937”][left][quote=“Amerika;138757”]
How does balancing by levels resolve any of this? That’s what I want people who keep throwing out this suggestion to do. Show, logically, how it works beyond being a placebo for a few people who obsess over numbers and think that a level in DB is the same thing as a level in an MMO.[/quote]

Because the R squared on a correlation analysis between level and skill is probably > 70%? I am all for showing a skill rating instead of a level rating but just imagine how enraged people will be if you have a bunch of S and A level players against a bunch of D and F rated players coming out of lobby. What would your defense be at that point? Because right now people can say “level doesn’t equal skill”. But when skill = skill and the teams are unbalanced, it just shines a glaring spotlight on a broken MM system. Which is why SD will never do something like that. So we are left with 2 options:

[list=1]
[] Try to fix matchmaking one way or another
[] Hide levels and pretend the problem doesn’t exist
[/list][/left][/quote]

Random numbers don’t support an argument and humans don’t always perform at their optimal skill nor choose to get more skillful over time or even have the option to get better. Especially when talking about an open public server players. I’ve outlined all of the ways the current skill rated system breaks down due to all of the things that can’t be accounted for with players. But at least it tries to make things even. Sorting players by just level played would be ridiculous and completely random and it would punish people who admittedly can’t get any better than they are or simply don’t want to because they have played more than others. How is this a good system? And if you still believe it is how is it, in a pro/con list, a smart move. Let’s refrain from making up numbers you can’t backup.

I wouldn’t mind if a total skill rating per team was shown. But showing individual skill ratings would lead to mostly the same issues but over a different number.

(torsoreaper) #37

[quote=“Amerika;138943”]Random numbers don’t support an argument and humans don’t always perform at their optimal skill nor choose to get more skillful over time or even have the option to get better. Especially when talking about an open public server players. I’ve outlined all of the ways the current skill rated system breaks down due to all of the things that can’t be accounted for with players. But at least it tries to make things even. Sorting players by just level played would be ridiculous and completely random and it would punish people who admittedly can’t get any better than they are or simply don’t want to because they have played more than others. How is this a good system? And if you still believe it is how is it, in a pro/con list, a smart move. Let’s refrain from making up numbers you can’t backup.

I wouldn’t mind if a total skill rating per team was shown. But showing individual skill ratings would lead to mostly the same issues but over a different number.[/quote]

So to paraphrase your agruments:

the R squared between skill and level is zero.

the R squared between aggregate player skill and team skill is zero

therefore matchmaking is impossible

What I would love to see, but obviously SD will never release the data, would be everyone’s individual level and their hidden skill number. Then we would actually be able to see the correlation between level and skill. I would be shocked if the correlation is zero. I just don’t understand how someone can spend literally hundreds of hours at something and still suck aside from the fact that most people don’t enjoy spending hundreds of hours doing something they are shitty at. Usually the better someone gets at something, the more they enjoy doing it. Not the opposite.

Finally, on your point of showing total skill per team vs individual skill on the scoreboard, how would that do anything different than what I suggest? If people come out of lobby and a team is 500 rating vs 100 rating, wouldn’t everyone on the other team just rage quit anyways?

(Amerika) #38

[quote=“torsoreaper;138946”][quote=“Amerika;138943”]Random numbers don’t support an argument and humans don’t always perform at their optimal skill nor choose to get more skillful over time or even have the option to get better. Especially when talking about an open public server players. I’ve outlined all of the ways the current skill rated system breaks down due to all of the things that can’t be accounted for with players. But at least it tries to make things even. Sorting players by just level played would be ridiculous and completely random and it would punish people who admittedly can’t get any better than they are or simply don’t want to because they have played more than others. How is this a good system? And if you still believe it is how is it, in a pro/con list, a smart move. Let’s refrain from making up numbers you can’t backup.

I wouldn’t mind if a total skill rating per team was shown. But showing individual skill ratings would lead to mostly the same issues but over a different number.[/quote]

So to paraphrase your agruments:

the R squared between skill and level is zero.

the R squared between aggregate player skill and team skill is zero

therefore matchmaking is impossible

What I would love to see, but obviously SD will never release the data, would be everyone’s individual level and their hidden skill number. Then we would actually be able to see the correlation between level and skill. I would be shocked if the correlation is zero. I just don’t understand how someone can spend literally hundreds of hours at something and still suck aside from the fact that most people don’t enjoy spending hundreds of hours doing something they are shitty at. Usually the better someone gets at something, the more they enjoy doing it. Not the opposite.

Finally, on your point of showing total skill per team vs individual skill on the scoreboard, how would that do anything different than what I suggest? If people come out of lobby and a team is 500 rating vs 100 rating, wouldn’t everyone on the other team just rage quit anyways?

[/quote]

Because teams aren’t coming out of the lobby with a 500 rating vs. a team with 100 rating. Where are you getting this information? The game is balanced via a skill rating system that takes in everyone’s last 25 games and tries to even out the skill between teams. This system is far from perfect and has a number of flaws. But it’s at least trying to sort teams based on a skill rating. The system’s flaw (offsetting a good player against a lot of medium players) combined with people joining late or dropping with then more people joining makes it chaotic at best. But, again, at least there is something in place that is trying to balance things out based on an actual skill value and not just one factor in evaluating potential skill (like account level).

And showing a skill rating per team would shut down arguments like your own where you can automatically assume that teams are being matched incorrectly and use doubt as your main argument point as opposed to actual knowledge. And you could also see the skill rating adjust as people joined/left which provides valuable information as well in this argument and many seem to just forget exists while arguing it.

(Ctrix) #39

So if you’re on the other team from your buddy one of you will almost always, very early, have the chance to switch.

How would you fix this issue? I’ve made note of what could be done from my perspective but I poked about a billion holes in it due to the system not being able to factor in tons of variables that are completely out of it’s control. Not to mention that in more controlled environments with highly skilled players who are focused still end in stomps. How do you fix that?[/quote]

Have high skill players play among themselves. Fix ranked.[/quote]

That’s not a solution. That’s just something you want to achieve. How do you actually achieve balance?[/quote]

No I’m quite serious. Every time there’s a clearly imabalanced match, it’s because one side has an MLG tryhard level 30 who headshots you 8/10 times and just can’t be outplayed by the average person.
Just recently I was in a game where on the enemy team there was one Sparks player who got all the quick shot headshots and even though the rest of his team was collectivity worse than our team, we still couldn’t get past him. I’d call it hacking but he was missing a lot too.
But the effect was the same as if the other team had a hacker. People learn that if they poke their head out they get instant-killed, so they start camping and then the match might as well be already over.
The only solution is to remove the MLG tryhards. Give them an incentive to play ranked, and fix ranked, so they leave the pugs alone.

And no it’s not about Sparks, this happens with all classes. One guy + a bunch of scrubs can outplay the entire enemy team in this game if they manage to land their skillshots. It’s actually frequently worse with aoe ones, because they require less skill to kill the other team.

(torsoreaper) #40

[quote=“Amerika;138950”]

Because teams aren’t coming out of the lobby with a 500 rating vs. a team with 100 rating. Where are you getting this information? The game is balanced via a skill rating system that takes in everyone’s last 25 games and tries to even out the skill between teams. This system is far from perfect and has a number of flaws. But it’s at least trying to sort teams based on a skill rating. The system’s flaw (offsetting a good player against a lot of medium players) combined with people joining late or dropping with then more people joining makes it chaotic at best. But, again, at least there is something in place that is trying to balance things out based on an actual skill value and not just one factor in evaluating potential skill (like account level).

And showing a skill rating per team would shut down arguments like your own where you can automatically assume that teams are being matched incorrectly and use doubt as your main argument point as opposed to actual knowledge. And you could also see the skill rating adjust as people joined/left which provides valuable information as well in this argument and many seem to just forget exists while arguing it.[/quote]

If you scroll back through this post Darkmatter Matt shows a great pic of a lobby that just made teams that are CLEARLY unbalanced unless you desperately cling to your argument that level absolutely doesn’t indicate skill at all. I think we are obviously going to have to agree to disagree because we’re making arguments based on fundamentally different assumptions and neither of us has anything other than anecdotal evidence.