{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
1/10/2020 9:44:46 PM
13
TJM99, we went back and forth on this. I would love to understand how this idea is any different then CBMM playlists, and SBMM playlists. But, I don't. Again, I can not see how putting everybody into one pool of players, and having them choose their preferences, is really any different. People right now, are choosing either classic mix, (CBMM), or everything else,(SBMM). In what you want, people would either choose to matchmake by connection, (CBMM), or matchmake by skill, (SBMM). If the system gave each player exactly what they ask for, the players would still be separated, just by the choice they make. I really do not see how there is any substantial difference between the two. I honestly wish you could explain this in a way I could understand how or why it is any different.
English
-
Separate playlists create separate pools, unlike personal priorities where MM fine chooses for you/where you'd best fit. It isn't the same. Gave one guy a dire case of a 1v1 lobby where only two people are present, even with different/conflicted preferences, they'd still match. This would be because MM had no other options. If they were separated, then it would be impossible (Control vs Classic). This is your difference. It wouldn't be impossible to match with less "desired" players if numbers shit the bed. I keep saying preferences because it's a [b]prefrence[/b]. If circumstances demand it, then your interests may fall to the wayside so that you even get a game period. That's the result of low player numbers. I don't get how this is hard for people to understand. It's like a cafeteria with tables styled in ways everyone likes or something vs several cafeterias each with separate styles. (shit analogy probably) Playlists with something pre-set are static, whereas one with options are more dynamic. If you look at the image from Reach, that shows a prioritization set for skill and connection. To us, that'd basically look like SCBMM, a smaller skill gap + good connection. If no checkbox is selected, then MM doesn't use either, it wouldn't be SB or CBMM. You can't have these things with static MM settings. It's crucial to remember too that not every single player is versed in MM preferences or wtf SBMM even is. It's too much to assume that because Crucible has more ppl in the new year, when the game went free to try, that Quickplay getting SBMM is what shot the numbers up and as a result, SBMM is the better and more preferred option. These people that may not care would probably not bother with preferences and stick to the fastest MM setting, no filter by default. Now you have easy filler people to satisfy others and it keeps things smooth. A smooth experience for everyone, in one playlist. Not 2 with rigid ways of matching, just one, that tries its best to find you what you want.
-
RAIST5150により編集済み: 1/11/2020 7:53:38 PMThe problem I think comes from a lack of understanding of how their filtering has always worked. There has never been a very "dynamic" mode for the filtering. There was always a default order of priority strictly enforced and that would only ever relax in any way once it failed to fill an instance. With every reset, the prioroty always starts the same and only changes scale in the event of a failure to fill the instance. The primary filter is applied to the global pool to find it's initial pool and that does not change unless it is reset to start over again. So the first pool will be for the event requested under a specific filter--whether this is by checkbox or separate lists. Those initial filters are what are the top level filters that will not change. First and foremost, say the player opted for event A with filter B priority--you will not reach out to grab players from event A with filter A, nor event B with filter B--they will only be looked at if queuing [i]specifically[/i] for event A with filter B set. That one filter takes priority and is enforced strictly on this separate pool until it fails, then it loosens the restrictions on the secondary filter. Once that advances to a certain point without success it loosens a restriction on the primary filter and tries again. BOTH filters are always in play, but one stays as the priority. So it may start with SBMM at range 1 and CBMM at range 2. If it fails, it drops CBMM to range 3 and tries to find more players. If it continues lowering CBMM restriction to the point it floors, it drops SBMM to range 2 and tightens CBMM and follows the same pattern until it floors again, rinse and repeat. But SBMM stays as a priority the entire time. The same applies in reverse for CBMM. So it matters not whether it is a checkbox or separate lists. The governing top level filters will be established and applied globally until it is reset completely, whether that is set by checkboxes against a global playlist or separate lists that have a filter applied globally to each list. Both methods will function the same... basically all you would be doing is changing how the choices are presented. What needs to be done is to adjust the ranges of the filters and such. They could tighten the floor for loosening the primary filter (force a lower latency limit before it expands SBMM). They could expand the min/max threshold for each range of the filter (which could result in reducing the number of tiers it steps through and maybe speeding up the process). Start them both at level 1 instead of one having higher prioroty from the get go. There are options to make the current system work better... they just need to find that sweet spot now that the dynamics of the playerbase has changed so much.
-
So, for shits and giggles, lets say you are the connection base guy, I am the skill based guy. I prefer skillbased and go into matchmaking EXPECTING to be matched with people that are on my level. The game, having a hard time filling a position on your chosen method of matchmaking, connection, grabs me because we match for connection. You, are lets say a top 10% player, and I am having my first ever go at crucible. I suffer while you get what you want. Not acceptable. The only way I could ever support player preferences, is if it strictly matches you within your choice. If you choose skill based, that is what you get, simple as that. What we have now is better, and maybe that is why Bungie chose not to go with the old HALO system.
-
You want close skill I want a good connection If it struggles for me, it widens the connection gap If it struggles for you, it widens the skill gap (This is how it usually works, pulls the best it can, nothing new, it's present now) If your skill gap widens enough to mine, and we have a solid connection, then yes. it matches. It's what it'd do if it [b]HAD[/b] to. (now that runs itself through everyone in the lobby, avoiding all conflicts of interest it can.) If isn't strict segregation, it's one player pool, it can't. That's why it's a priority. If it was really failing to give you what you wanted, then player population really isn't working out, and in a skill-based setting, your "bracket" is really small for MM to rapidly make a match before it starts expanding options.
-
RAIST5150により編集済み: 1/11/2020 8:13:59 PM[quote]You want close skill I want a good connection If it struggles for me, it widens the connection gap If it struggles for you, it widens the skill gap (This is how it usually works, pulls the best it can, nothing new, it's present now)[/quote] And here is the disconnect. It isn't an either/or filter. BOTH filters are in effect at all times, but one has the higher priority. When SBMM is priority, it relaxes CBMM limits until it floors, then drops SBMM one notch and tightens CBMM again--but not to the point it supersedes SBMM--it keeps SBMM as a higher priority. If SBMM floors, it resets and tries again. It does not devolve to the extreme where the two would cross over as you mentioned.
-
Not. Possible. The issue isn’t priorities. It’s POPULATION and where people fall on that skill curve. CBMM IS A TROJAN HORSE FOR FORCING LOW AND MEDIUM SKILL PLAYERS TO PLAY PEOPLE AT THE TOP OF THE SKILL CURVE. The result is that those at the top get a steady stream of players who are significantly weaker than they are to farm. https://youtu.be/4ns0m-YVEU8 Not to single out Mtashed. In fact I respect him because he’s at least willing to be honest about his agenda. Once you give those weaker players a choice you can’t satisfy those people looking to dominate weaker players. You can only satisfy them by stripping those weaker players of choice.
-
Kellygreen2, at best, he wants more access to lower level players. Its really all I can actually make of it. He will never admit it though. I believe he feels that if matchmaking draws from a single pool of players, wait times, and connection issues would be resolved, because with low numbers of players, the system would have to draw from lower leveled players choosing SBMM, and place them into games they do not want to be in. Most that want CBMM, do not realize that the low numbers of players we see now, are a direct result of matchmaking being CBMM for over a year. Players got tired of being mismatched and being farmed. They left, PVP numbers have never been lower then when CBMM was in place. Those numbers are rising, as players find that SBMM playlists exist now. Players are showing their preferences by NOT going into classic mix, it has nothing to do with the size or placement of the icon for the playlist as many are saying. They just can not believe that people do not want to play outside of their ability, or too much outside of it.
-
I barely even play the crucible, why the hell would I want "lower level players" I haven't cared about KD since I heard of it. The only Crucible kill tracker I've ever applied was on Quickfang cause it's a sword and they struggle to find a place there.
