declined GS-Based Matchmaking

[Furious 81]

                                                                                                                        ~Joining in Matchmaking based to GS~
Im deadly pissed off from MM. The reasons are two. 1) Mults; 2) Battle moderators does not exist.
So what's my idea?
In MM battles you're getting into battle only with players that are with close GS. For example 1 battle can contain players with GS between 7000-7499;9000-9499; 9500-9999 and so on.
I think this will fix the biggest problem of MM. The useless players with 0 brain that are just destroying the game and the fun.

Or if you dont find this good, what about this?
After clicking Matchmaking menu, you will see "Filter" from where you can write what kind of battles you want to play, with what kind of players, supplies, GS, efficiency, experience and things like this

[Devoid 2,604]

Declined.

 

8 hours ago, Mr.Perfect_Skill said:

Part 1:

Spoiler

                                                                                                                        ~Joining in Matchmaking based to GS~
Im deadly pissed off from MM. The reasons are two. 1) Mults; 2) Battle moderators does not exist.
So what's my idea?
In MM battles you're getting into battle only with players that are with close GS. For example 1 battle can contain players with GS between 7000-7499;9000-9499; 9500-9999 and so on.
I think this will fix the biggest problem of MM. The useless players with 0 brain that are just destroying the game and the fun.

Looking at your first idea, this is a good idea in theory, but it has a few flaws, that will very quickly become exploited by a wide array of players.

 

Firstly, let's analyze the base idea - GS-ranked Matchmaking. Some people in lower-ranked battles (Players mainly around the rank of Major) have very high GS ratings (8,000-9,000), which is similar to the GS ratings of many high-ranked players (Mainly Legends, but can include Marshals and above). The problem with your idea is that low-ranked players, who might not have much experience with the game, could match up against players, such as myself, who have played the game for several years, and have mastered a few combinations. The low-ranked players, with their low level of experience, might have a very tough time competing with the much more experienced tankers they would be matching up with.

 

Secondly, let's analyze the potential of exploiting the system for extremely positive gain. I have a feeling that if a system like this would come to the game, tankers would begin to switch to their worst combination (For example, Shaft Mk1 and Mammoth Mk1 with 0 upgrades, totaling 0-500 GS), queueing into a battle, getting into a battle with other tankers that also had 0-500 GS, and then immediately switching to their best equipment (For example, Hornet Mk7 and Firebird Mk7 with fully upgrades, and three Mk7 full protection modules, plus a fully micro-upgraded drone, totaling 9999 GS). This would allow such tankers to gain extremely high amounts of experience without actually having to play the game well to do so. It would also make the game experience very bad for players matching with such exploiting tankers, possibly even pushing them to quit the game.

 

In short, this system would be very corrupt, and would receive much more negative feedback from players than the current Matchmaking system, and for these reasons, your first idea is declined.

 

8 hours ago, Mr.Perfect_Skill said:

Part 2:

Spoiler

Or if you dont find this good, what about this?
After clicking Matchmaking menu, you will see "Filter" from where you can write what kind of battles you want to play, with what kind of players, supplies, GS, efficiency, experience and things like this

Looking at your second idea, this is much too similar to the old, pre-Matchmaking system, where both PRO and Standard Battles were intermixed, and players could choose the battles they wanted to play. Developers implemented the Matchmaking system because there were a very large number of flaws with the old system, and returning to this state would only bring back the same issues. Plus, the "Ideas and Suggestions" section rules also state that no ideas suggesting the return of previous features in the game are automatically declined. For these reasons, your second idea is also declined.

[Maf 32,333]

In addition to the above,

8 hours ago, Mr.Perfect_Skill said:

 The useless players with 0 brain that are just destroying the game and the fun.

You say you want to solve a problem with "0 brain", but how is that related to GS? Nothing stops a player with 9999 GS from doing the same dumb things that annoy you in less experienced players. Instead of making an improvement, your suggestion will only make MM waiting times longer.

[Sacrifice 2,282]

I have hunter m0 and smoky m1 at legend rank and equiping them would lower my GS. 

Just saying that if your idea was to be implemented , next thing ik, I am battling gefrieters. And all the dudes are reporting me for being a hacker because I have a silver reddish rank and they dont. 

[Maf 32,333]

8 hours ago, Mr.Perfect_Skill said:

Im deadly pissed off from MM. The reasons are two. 1) Mults; 2) Battle moderators does not exist.

Mults are unlikely, since it's very difficult to send an additional account into the enemy team in a matchmaking battle. You're probably looking at less experienced players, and if MM does its job well, then your team should have the same number of such players as the enemy team.

Battle moderators do exist, but their team is quite small and not enough to monitor the whole game. If you need to be reassured that they are doing something, check out this topic which lists every single instance of punishment issued by battle mods. (Spoiler alert: there are thousands of them)

[Furious 81]

So I'm going to rework the idea and if I come to something more helpful, I'll come back

[r0fl 3]

Hi all,

Personally, i dont have a problem with buyers as i understand that the game has to make money to pay employees and other stuff. However, some dont see this and often complain. So i think that matchmaking should be matched via gear score rather than rank cos nowadays i see staff seargants on my low account with m2 equipment and it makes things very hard for non buyers but adding a system like this would really balance things out. 

Maybe it could be based every 1000 gearscore 

[Devoid 2,604]

1 hour ago, r0fl said:

 

Topic merged.

[wolverine848 13,097]

2 hours ago, r0fl said:

Hi all,

Personally, i dont have a problem with buyers as i understand that the game has to make money to pay employees and other stuff. However, some dont see this and often complain. So i think that matchmaking should be matched via gear score rather than rank cos nowadays i see staff seargants on my low account with m2 equipment and it makes things very hard for non buyers but adding a system like this would really balance things out. 

Maybe it could be based every 1000 gearscore 

What happens when a Legend equips it's mk1 equipmenmt and gets placed in a battle with Sergeants, then immediately switches to mk7+ items?

[ILiveOnTheChatBox123 936]

6 hours ago, wolverine848 said:

What happens when a Legend equips it's mk1 equipmenmt and gets placed in a battle with Sergeants, then immediately switches to mk7+ items?

You can apply rank limitations that in a sergeant battle only equipment modifications that sergeants can attain can be used. But you still will have MU differences, and supplies. Besides, aren't Legends supposed to have some more skill that is not dependent on equipment? I doubt such a system will be implemented. 

[wolverine848 13,097]

45 minutes ago, ILiveOnTheChatBox123 said:

You can apply rank limitations that in a sergeant battle only equipment modifications that sergeants can attain can be used. But you still will have MU differences, and supplies. Besides, aren't Legends supposed to have some more skill that is not dependent on equipment? I doubt such a system will be implemented. 

Back to square one then...

 

I don't follow...    My point was... using GS to assign battles won't work because there is a GIANT loophole.

[ILiveOnTheChatBox123 936]

23 hours ago, wolverine848 said:

Back to square one then...

 

I don't follow...    My point was... using GS to assign battles won't work because there is a GIANT loophole.

 

On 2/3/2020 at 11:02 PM, ILiveOnTheChatBox123 said:

You can apply rank limitations that in a sergeant battle only equipment modifications that sergeants can attain can be used. 

So in such a battle any Legend can join, just their equipment will be limited to a certain degree of the other players at the rank of sergeant. So if a Legend player selects an option for 'limited modification quicker matchmaking', they cannot equip any modification higher than the limit. They are still playing in the quickest battle regardless of rank, but their equipment is lowered to only what is attainable for all players in that battle. Such a feature should still try to keep the ranks somewhat close, but a legend can end up in a sergeant battle, but they will have only equipment that can be reached by sergeant not dependent on the players actual rank.

So yes the GS of all the players in the battle will be about equal,  and buyers will have somewhat of a less advantage which was player @r0fl's original problem.

[wolverine848 13,097]

3 minutes ago, ILiveOnTheChatBox123 said:

So if a Legend player selects an option for 'limited modification quicker matchmaking', they cannot equip any modification higher than the limit.

At worst I'm tied with the best players - but since there's also a bunch of new players, they can't all be maxed out to the limit, so I'd certainly have advantage over them.

Don't forget the 20k of each supply I have and... ALL the modules.  Sure they are lowered - but I have all of them "maxed" for the battle.  Then slap on an upgraded Brutus module and Bob's ur uncle.

You honestly don't think Legend players will have a giant advantage playing in these battles?

This is definitely what I select to do all my missions...

[ILiveOnTheChatBox123 936]

1 minute ago, wolverine848 said:

At worst I'm tied with the best players - but since there's also a bunch of new players, they can't all be maxed out to the limit, so I'd certainly have advantage over them.

Don't forget the 20k of each supply I have and... ALL the modules.  Sure they are lowered - but I have all of them "maxed" for the battle.  Then slap on an upgraded Brutus module and Bob's ur uncle.

You honestly don't think Legend players will have a giant advantage playing in these battles?

This is definitely what I select to do all my missions...

 

11 minutes ago, ILiveOnTheChatBox123 said:

Such a feature should still try to keep the ranks somewhat close

I don't think you should be playing with recruits, but if the modification cap is low enough, and it is only a few more ranks in your rank spread, it can improve battle wait and give buyers a little less of an advantage.

[wolverine848 13,097]

1 minute ago, ILiveOnTheChatBox123 said:

 

I don't think you should be playing with recruits, but if the modification cap is low enough, and it is only a few more ranks in your rank spread, it can improve battle wait and give buyers a little less of an advantage.

It's almost like you didn't read anything I typed.

This idea makes anyone at mid-high rank = buyer. All they gotta do is equip the low items they never used past sergeant and enter a low-GS battle.  Wolves among the sheep.

[ILiveOnTheChatBox123 936]

10 minutes ago, wolverine848 said:

It's almost like you didn't read anything I typed.

This idea makes anyone at mid-high rank = buyer. All they gotta do is equip the low items they never used past sergeant and enter a low-GS battle.  Wolves among the sheep.

You are not exactly getting into a sergeant battle. It will just be a couple of ranks more than the current rank-spread.

[r_Given6 859]

How about Max-possible-GS-based MM? 

[Mountaingoat11 26]

First things first, why don't you make it so that people with M3s get grouped with other M3s, etc.? You can prevent abuse by having the game do a scan of a player's account before they join a battle; if they have even one M3, don't put them with M2s! That way we don't have M4s fighting M2s (as if we needed that). Okay, back on topic. I think GS balancing is a great idea, no part due to the number of 8000+ GS players I see running around every few battles (thanks to the Mk update). Worse are those battles where everybody on one team has a higher GS (in general) than the other team. MM is stupid, everyone knows. To fix this? Just have the game calculate what an account's highest possible GS is, and use the scale suggested by Mr.PerfectSkill. Also, add a hidden gearscore, one calculated based off of a player's whole garage (i.e. if you have 5 M4s and 50% prop against everything, you're getting thrown into the mosh pit, regardless of rank).

The only foreseeable problem will be that we'll probably have a couple of Colonels fighting legends, but then and again, they do have the equipment necessary for it.

Or you could just have 7000 GS players rekting 4000-5000 GS nubs. Your choice.

Spoiler

Here's a brilliant idea. The fix suggested above would make buying in this game obsolete... so why doesn't TO just create a "Battle Pass Bundle" that you need (if you are high enough GS) to "cheat" in lower GS battles. So when a buyer says, "Welp, we done with challenges. Not doing this one this month," he finds himself amidst legend ranks. Only apply this to buyers.  

Also, a bit off topic, but the low ranks are now corrupt. I'll say 50% of players at Master Sergeant and above for every battle is just a Legend account playing on an alt. Nubs get rekt nowadays extra hard thanks to a lack of supplies (you won't be completing missions if that loaded/drugged up Thunder + Hunter M1 is killing everyone right after spawn proc wears off, or, worse, running the flag like it's a chore...).  

[wolverine848 13,097]

7 hours ago, Mountaingoat11 said:

if they have even one M3, don't put them with M2s! That way we don't have M4s fighting M2s

This would kill any incentive to buy kits or MU your equipment. 

Just because you might have 1 m3 (and rest of equipment including modules is m2 or lower) does not indicate you will do well versus Legends.

Buyers would stop buying and game would fold.

And how do you prevent ranks like Lt. general (with m2) from playing against Marshalls (who have m3s)?   That's only a 2-rank difference.

[yellowghetto 3,206]

I agree with @Mr.Nibbles. Highly exploitable. The game techinically around solves this via ranks. Many players already have enough equipment to support the team a little. If you don't like the battle, do what I do and stay if there is little time left, or instant use the Esc+Enter Combo and find another match. If you are getting angry by a minor flaw, I think you are wasting your own time.

[0tsutsuki 21]

Battles are based according to ranks so that you can put up a fight against each other but does that really happen in MM battles?

 

I don't think maps and extreme supply users matter more than a fair match being made.

There is a need to include Gear Score while we are put into the battles. Matchmaking should not consider rank only but also the equipment what the player has and how upgraded it is.

You can't expect a normal non-buying Warrant Officer to put up a fight against a buyer. Here I would like to highlight the fact that after the mk update m2 (10/10) got mk7 which has really disturbed the balance of the game (Guys who haven't even reached Major rank use equipments same as Legends).

I understand that buyers aren't using some illegal underhanded tactics, it is quite obvious that commerce is a part of our lives. Developers need to be supported. (Not discussing this because it should be obvious and understandable).

 Coming back, I believe Gear Score should be the primary parameter of drawing up a match.

 

And now we have an obvious problem: If GS is used for drawing a match, players can use their weaker equipment in garage and then change later back to their top tier ones.

This is going to be an obvious concern because of all the smart people playing around with the rules. 

For this I have some suggestions as well: 

• Not allowing change of equipments in battle. This may not seem quite right and people may argue that they can't use Firebird on HIghways map. But they can always leave a battle early to find the right map which we all can find within 2-3 attempts. 
• Having a provision to not to be able to change to an equiment with a lot higher GS while in MM. Here it is how it goes: A 'smart' player at captain rank equips Rail Hornet from his garage which has a GS of 3000. He would be put with people of lower ranks in battle if my suggestion is implemented. But then he decides to change to his Thunder Viking with GS of 7000. This shouldn't be allowed so that his opponents as well as his team mates get a fair chance at battle. His equipment should be capped to +1000 GS only. He could change to an equipment with 4000 GS from his garage but not above that in order to ensure a fair match in MM.

[Devoid 2,604]

8 minutes ago, 0tsutsuki said:

 

Topic merged.

[0tsutsuki 21]

8 hours ago, Mr.Nibbles said:

Topic merged.

Is my suggestion also declined along with this thread?

I gave a new suggestion for restricting the change of in MM battles to avoid the 'obvious' problem that would arise

[0tsutsuki 21]

On 2/10/2020 at 1:50 PM, yellowghetto said:

I agree with @Mr.Nibbles. Highly exploitable. The game techinically around solves this via ranks. Many players already have enough equipment to support the team a little. If you don't like the battle, do what I do and stay if there is little time left, or instant use the Esc+Enter Combo and find another match. If you are getting angry by a minor flaw, I think you are wasting your own time.

This flaw may look minor to you at Legend. Come down and play with a new Id until Lieutenant ranks. You will realise how unfair battles are!

Remember The Prometheus Kit! Firebird M3 was one of the last M3 that was unlocked at around Marshal rank back when M3 started unlocking at Brigadier. Now you can find a Lieutenant Colonel with the same kit burning up the entire arena along with the joy of playing the game.  

Escp+Ent might seem a good way to deal with this 'minor flaw' but this is a problem with Every MM Battle at the middle and now unfortunately early rank (due to mk update). Run away from a Prometheus or two with GS of 7k to find a Guardian or a Raiden with GS of 8k.

And on top of all of it, the way they use repair kits! You can find players at Captain ranks who have used more supplies than those at Legend 5!
(I can even post links to such players if I am allowed to.)

[Viking4s 10,791]

1 hour ago, 0tsutsuki said:

Is my suggestion also declined along with this thread?

I gave a new suggestion for restricting the change of in MM battles to avoid the 'obvious' problem that would arise

The wise range of ranks is by design. It promotes competition, variety and help tye system to creatw battles quickly.

Sometimes you will be the highets rank, sometimes you will be the lowest rank. It ie the same for wvery player.

Othereise you will always have the same battle with the same ppeople. As for your suggestion, it is obvious to all that it will be abused by a few, the it will betdone by all, then it would be worse than now.