What are the criteria used to determine matchmaking?

(bubblesKeyboard) #1

I come from a game called Blacklight Retribution and they match you up based on level/kdr, and if you are the best in the lobby they put you on one team with the rest of the worst players in the lobby, and the leftovers go to the other team forcing the one good person to carry the rest of the team hard.

Coming from match making I’ve noticed a similar case where there is one level 10 on one team with a bunch of 5s, 4s, and 1s, and on the other team there are a bunch of 7s and 6s. I don’t know if the same thing happens in this game as well but it has happened to me every single game so far.

(Szakalot) #2

I would very much hope matchmaking is only based on level a little, as its only indicative of your time in game, rather than your ability to contribute to team win.

(bubblesKeyboard) #3

Yes, or kdr. I’ve been against a team where there was a lvl 11 and the rest were 2 and 3s and all the lvl 11 did was sit at the back of the map and snipe

(INF3RN0) #4

Expect something very similar to CSGO, though the overall system is still a WIP. All I know is that last test it would put the highest ELO player on Attack and the second highest on Defenders (so I expect we will see the favored team playing attackers first in SW), but overall these MM tests are more for stress testing and stuff.

(The99thProblem) #5

When in game, and you click the “Profile” tab, those 3 metres of evaluation are considered. Points per minute, KDR, and winning ratio. Not confirmed but a viable estimate.

(INF3RN0) #6

W/L is the main variable, but yes I do believe that SPM is a factor- since score incorporates KPM, XPM, etc. KDR isn’t nearly as relevant in this game mode.

(bubblesKeyboard) #7

Idk man but I just played 12 different matches with insufferable teams. One match i went 73/10 and we still lost. The rest of my team went single digits and deaths of somewhere in the low thirties. 12 MATCHES. Either that or we were 1-2 men short. I don’t know what else to do.

(Nail) #8

the player base is tiny, very hard to evaluate averages, 1300 player peak doesn’t give you a lot of information for MM, but does give them info on how well backend works

(Amerika) #9

Why do you keep quoting random numbers for peak time? In other threads you’ve said 1500 and another thread you said much less IIRC.

I do agree that matchmaking is going to be pretty meh with a low number of players though and even some people who have played quite a bit aren’t as skilled as others.

(Nail) #10

actual peak was 1304
https://steamdb.info/app/333930/graphs/
I don’t quote random numbers, I actually know what I’m talking about, you should try it, very satisfying

(Eox) #11

I think the best balance system would be something based on your performance within the last seven days you played. It works out the average of your precedent total game scores within the last seven days and tries then to balance everyone the best it can. Since it’s only based on your performance since the last seven days were you played, it never really gets outdated. And if you stopped playing for more than one month, the game would just reset the stats kept in mind and consider you as a brand you player : a small flaw, but it may be necessary. It may be hard to program though.

(Amerika) #12

The downside to that is that the person who hasn’t played in the last 7 days won’t lose their knowledge or skill in that amount of time. If it was months, maybe slightly decrease things. But not 7 days. When this new beta popped up I pretty much instantly picked the game back up as if we never stopped playing and I’d wager that was most everyone else’s experience as well.

(Eox) #13

[quote=“Amerika;6086”]
The downside to that is that the person who hasn’t played in the last 7 days won’t lose their knowledge or skill in that amount of time. If it was months, maybe slightly decrease things. But not 7 days. When this new beta popped up I pretty much instantly picked the game back up as if we never stopped playing and I’d wager that was most everyone else’s experience as well.[/quote]

Indeed, but that would be quickly balanced after a couple of games. So I don’t think it’s too bad.

Maybe we could avoid that problem with a “global score decrease system”. If you stop playing for at least a month, the balance system will begin to substract a fixed amount from the global score you would have registered before each month were you stopped playing. And it would more likely delete all data after one year, where you would supposedly have definitely stopped playing.