{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
4/15/2020 5:22:13 PM
17
Or, we can not dilute the playerbase by making an additional playlist and just implement team-based matchmaking criteria.
LFG 6 stack of 2.0+ K/D players matches another. Teams of 4+ in general cannot match players who are less skilled than any one member of their team.
Start there and see how it is. Bungie should be fixing existing playlists to ensure the experience they offer is fun, engaging, and rewarding; not making a brand new playlist that'll just make the experience in the others worse.
English
-
Excuses. It's one of the most popular PvP activities with no shortage of players. If a premade team of 4. 5 or 6 are pitted against similar skilled solo teams then you're giving a WHOPPING ADVANTAGE to the premade team. Even if they take it lightly, and boy some take it very seriously, they still communicate, solo-made teams almost never. They then look after another, have more coordinated attacks. It's an advantage/handicap that there should be an OPTION for.
-
I literally asked for team based criteria so teams don't match solos. I don't get what your "Excuses" comment is. It doesn't matter how many players are in IB. Fact of the matter is that number will be spread across two playlists if they add a solo playlist, thus significantly limiting the abilities of any matchmaking systems.
-
Saying, no, we shouldn't 'dilute' the playerbase - a common justification - is an excuse. When IB can get 10% plus of guardian activity, there's enough players and, worse case scenario, the benefits far exceed the wait times. They said the exact same thing about comp, knowing full well how solos were ROUTINELY EXPLOITED by teams and when we got Freelance it was the best thing that has ever happened to Crucible so far. You will also see a lot less players leaving matches. When I get thrown into a dead game (love that) more times than not that's solos leaving being pitted against clans. Ultimately what we really need is transparency and an update from Bungie on what exactly the hold up is.
-
Freelance comp also has a terrible matchmaking system. Most games have players that shouldn't even be in the match. Team balancing then puts the worst players (players that shouldn't have even been in the match) on the team of the best, and then they waste lives. Normal comp also has terrible matchmaking since the poluation is even lower now. You get complete mismatches. If you do queue, you get a solo that shouldn't even be in the match more than likely. It's a mess. Heck. Last time I played comp, I do queued and our blueberry aped with a bow. A BOW. He ended up with 16 deaths IN SURVIVAL. I ended up in 1v2s and 1v3s almost exclusively, so best I could do is run or trade most of the time. You would say that's matchmaking working as intended? Thay guy shouldn't have even been there. His Glory and his skill ranking were lower than we expected. So no. It's a real life scenario. It isn't an excuse. Myself and many others identified it in freelance. Just because you haven't doesn't mean it isn't real.
-
Artisanにより編集済み: 4/16/2020 3:24:57 PMMatchmaking algorithms have nothing to do with population. Incidentally for Comp, it usually works out 1 or 2 very strong players are teamed with 2 or 1 weaker players with the exact same on both sides. But, it's nothing to do with IB or population. Snipe with a bow and cleanup with another weapon. Instead of hating them for being a noob, you had the better option to message them afterwards and explain with some suggestions.
-
Matching algorithms have nothing to do with population, correct. But guess what? Their effectiveness is 100% dependent on it. For CBMM, who ensures that matches are of good quality/connection? The casual playerbase. Their presence provided a huge pool of players to choose form based on connection, which results in the best connection achievable for that match. If the population is low, the algorithm will have to "settle" if it can't find a perfect fit, thus decreasing connection quality. For SBMM, who fills in the skill "gaps" between players to ensure everyone is similar in skill level and there aren't any significant outliers that ruin team balancing? Again, the casual playerbase. They make up the majority of players and fill in those gaps, so the algorithm won't have to expand it's skill criteria any, if at all. Reduce that number of casual players and all of a sudden, the algorithm has to start expanding its criteria to find a match. The effectiveness of any matchmaking system is dependent on the size of the population it assess. That is a fact. There's no debating that. Reducing that population by splitting it into two playlists would limit the capabilities in both playlists, resulting in even more mismatches and mercies we have now.
-
The parameters are absolute on matchmaking. If one doesn't fit then you wait, no exceptions. The worst is merely you face repeat matches, big deal. The playlist dilution was argued for comp and it worked fine and said every time players want the option in IB and that would be fine too. Bungie are too busy faffing with Emblems to do any proper QoL updates, so players suffer.
-
[quote]The parameters are absolute on matchmaking. If one doesn't fit then you wait, no exceptions. [/quote] False. How were solos "exploited" in the original version of comp as you say? Because people would dodge 3 stacks until they found a solo. Once they did, the system would try and find another solo or a two stack of the similar rank. Since it couldn't, it's skill criteria would expand. That's why solos reported being put in matches against legends even when they weren't even at Fabled. The system would rather expand the criteria and find a match, then search for 20 minutes. Your just lack of understanding of the basic fundamentals of matchmaking systems has invalidated your entire stance. And no, as I described earlier, the matchmaking in the freelance playlist is not "fine." Every other match is a mismatch and has players in it that shouldn't even be there.
-
No, there's no evidence it expands the criteria due to population and without access to the algorithms it's all speculation. The system previously, as now, seems to pay almost no attention to groups rather looking to skill. A 3 stack of kad2.0 players = 3 solos of kad 2.0 - although it assesses live, not mere kad. Bs. I previously explained why there is an apparent mismatch between team members which is of far less inconvenience than having teams repeatedly face solos. The argument doesn't even remotely stack up.
-
[quote]No, there's no evidence it expands the criteria due to population and without access to the algorithms it's all speculation.[/quote] I never said it expands the criteria due to population. I said it expands the criteria in order to find a match, because the default criteria can't find one due to the limited population. That's literally common sense. And if you don't get that, than you never understood that actual mechanics behind the original state of comp and why solos wanted a solo playlist anyways. I guess you also ignored the hundreds if not thousands of players that were put into matches that were well outside of their rank, even though MANY of them were listed on these very forums. Cause guess what? Pre Shadowkeep, if a 3 stack found a solo at legend rank in comp, the system would then try and find either a two stack or a solo at legend rank. If it couldn't, it would go to Mythic 3, then 2, etc. However, the solo population at those ranks was very low, which expanded the criteria. Which is way MANY LEGEND PLAYERS MATCHED PLAYERS AT FALBLED WHILE THEY WERE AT LEGEND. That actually happened. I even tested it myself MANY TIMES. It is not going to keep you in or it for 30 minutes. It is going to expand. Period. That is a fact. That is how EVERY SINGLE MATCHMAKING SYSTEM THAT ACCOUNTS FOR QUEUE TIME WORKS. They have default criteria, and then expand that criteria IF NECESSARY so it can find a match in a timely manner. That is a fact. Your arguement completely ignored that FACT. Your explanation was terrible. So I'm not debating that anymore. Educate yourself with that FACTS, or go somewhere else.
-
[quote]No, there's no evidence it expands the criteria due to population and without access to the algorithms it's all speculation.[/quote] I never said it expands the criteria due to population. I said it expands the criteria in order to find a match, because the default criteria can't find one due to the limited population. That's literally common sense. And if you don't get that, than you never understood that actual mechanics behind the original state of comp and why solos wanted a solo playlist anyways. I guess you also ignored the hundreds if not thousands of players that were put into matches that were well outside of their rank, even though MANY of them were listed on these very forums. Cause guess what? Pre Shadowkeep, if a 3 stack found a solo at legend rank in comp, the system would then try and find either a two stack or a solo at legend rank. If it couldn't, it would go to Mythic 3, then 2, etc. However, the solo population at those ranks was very low, which expanded the criteria. Which is way MANY LEGEND PLAYERS MATCHED PLAYERS AT FALBLED WHILE THEY WERE AT LEGEND. That actually happened. I even tested it myself MANY TIMES. It is not going to keep you in or it for 30 minutes. It is going to expand. Period. That is a fact. That is how EVERY SINGLE MATCHMAKING SYSTEM THAT ACCOUNTS FOR QUEUE TIME WORKS. They have default criteria, and then expands that criteria IF NECESSARY so it can find a match in a timely manner. That is a fact. Your arguement completely ignored that FACT. So I'm not debating that anymore. Educate yourself with that FACTS, or go somewhere else.
-
Artisanにより編集済み: 4/16/2020 9:55:28 PMAre you even reading the stuff you're writing : [Quote] I never said it expands the criteria due to population. I said it expands the criteria [...] due to the limited population. [/Quote] You're literally contradicting yourself. And as I reiterated, any such extra waits are infinitely preferable to solos who are routinely pitted against stacks. The proprietary formula for matching is an unknown and is continuously ammended to boot. Your confirmation bias that occasions of "mismatching" are evidence of low population and nothing besides wrecking that matching are simply unfounded. To what proof? We simply don't know to what degree factors including errors are figured in nor to how the algorithm has changed beyond that it HAS and DOES get changed. All of which goes further and further away from the actual relevant argument that Freelance remains a quantum level improvement for solos. FACT. IB being even more populated would be every bit as successful and as a big improvement as that. Currently IB has 21% of all guardian activity, making it the single most popular current activity. That's more than enough to EASILY support two playlists. FACTS. Worst case scenario of longer wait times is PREFERABLE to solos being routinely faced against stacks. FACT. Argue or don't - it seems you're struggling with even the most elementary of points in any case that it's tiresome to spell it out every time.
-
You're helpless. You can't cut out half a paragraph and then call it anything other than garbage. You aren't CNN or FOX. I said: "I never said it expands the criteria due to population. I said it expands the criteria in order to find a match, because the default criteria can't find one due to the limited population." See that? The DEFUALT CRITERIA CAN'T FIND A MATCH DUE TO THE LIMITED POPULATION. The criteria expanding is a SECONDARY EFFECT. I'm done here. Argue with stupid long enough, you'll become it. And I'm just not interested in that.
-
You're a mug who got petty and offensive when you've failed against the most basic relevant points of the issue. All of which, ALL, we're left unaddressed in place of assumptions. I showed the HALF SENTENCE removed to spoon feed you but you didn't get it - hardly surprising as it's your garbage writing and thought processes in the first place. No, you're ASSUMING the criteria expands because of population over any number of other possibilities (again, spelt out) and that's the best you came up with. Again, IB has higher populations, so a null point. Again, extra unlikely wait times being overwhelmingly preferable to not having the Freelance option. Again, Freelance comp, even with LOWER POPULATION, enjoys massive success, is exponentially better than it ever was when there were no options. Hey, leave or don't son, you're acting like that's some big deal - with such an absence of actually relevant points and blatantly weak fudges to cover over self-contradiction it's the net same result.
-
I'll come back just to difute 3 of your more intelligent points I apparently ignored. 1. You say IB has 21% of the population so it should be able to support two playlists. Okay. Well that's across 3 platforms, thousands of matches, and the majority is solos. Making a solo only playlist isn't splitting that 50/50. It's more like 70/30 or worse, which would really ruin the matchmaking experienc of anyone just trying to play with a friend or two for the reason I've already stated, which aren't assumptions (See Point 3.) 2. You say Freelance has found success. That's just false. It's matchmaking is 100% terrible. It HAS made reaching Legend easier, but that's mostly due to the adjustments with Glory ranks implemented as well. I actually have SEVERAL classmates who have solo queued to Legend in Freelance multiple times, each time creating a spreadsheet detailing wins, losses, ELO and K/D of opponents and allies, etc. 80%+ of their losses came from matches where the odds were stacked against them. Every opponent had a higher skill rating and combat rating (one of Bungie's SBMM criteria) higher than their allies. That's HUNDREDS OF MATCHES. Then you can literally consult any feedback forum to see similar results. I'm not saying this crap out of assumptions. Reaching Legend was easier, but the matching is still bad. 3. You say I'm assuming the criteria expands when it can't find a match using the defialt criteria. That's not an assumption. You can deliberately make the criteria expand by targeting a low player population, such as solos at Legend rank. Dodge 3 stacks at Legend rank comp until you get a solo. Now the system has to find a two stack or another solo, both are VERY RARE at Legend rank, so the criteria expands, quite possibly resulting is mismatches. That is a FACT. That is how a large portion of players hit Legend when NF came out. That's how a lot do it now. I've been in fireteams where it was done. That isn't an assumption. It is a fact that is being exploited at this very second. This is common knowledge at this point. You can literally test it yourself with the method above. In fact, and this has been my entire point all along, this exploit has gotten [i]more effective[/i] since Freelance was introduced. There's an [i]even smaller[/i] solo population in the normal survival playlist, so once you find one solo at high rank, the search criteria has an [i]even greater[/i] chance of expanding. The fact that this exploit exists is proof that the criteria will expand if it can't find a match on existing criteria. In fact, every matchmaking system I've ever played under for any game does.
-
♤♧♡♢により編集済み: 4/16/2020 3:15:47 PMI suspect the people using the "splintered player base" excuse are really routine members of stacked teams who don't want to have their ability to farm teams of randoms, who have no communication or coordination, severely impacted. As you already said, the freelance mode already proved them wrong.
-
Absolutely. The game is, unfortunately, chock full of cheeses, exploits, easy wins, imbalances, team farming, cheaters, recovs, carries. The worst thing is much of this is by design, it's ENCOURAGED by Bungie, the rest though is incompetence or wilful neglect.
