Jump to content

Russ On Matchmaking


136 replies to this topic

#1 Kyle Polulak

    <member/>

  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 584 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 22 May 2014 - 06:24 PM

Hey all! If you haven't already seen this post from Russ' AMA event on Reddit, please check it out below!

I recently communicated this information in the next VLog that we just finished recording however I wanted to get this information out faster to the community.

Status of the Matchmaker: I have both good and bad news. The release of the 3/3/3/3 feature has been as frustrating for us as it has been for you. Many have speculated that the feature simply has been proven unviable and we should be looking for alternative ways to match our players. Here is where I can state the good news that it actuaully seems that we have proven the feature to be very viable and fun. In explanation: now that we have the Queue window we actually were able to prove that players are willing to adjust there behaviour and play more Light and Medium mechs so long as they know that the two sides are even which was always a critical component of the 3/3/3/3 feature. We actually saw the Queue's for the 4 weight classes even out very effectively. On top of that when matches were kicking off the matches were noticable by everyone involved to be very fun and and much more consistently competitive. Now the bad side unfortunately what we found was that the feature is unviable in the currently way the matchmaker has been written. Therefore it is going to be necessary to do a rewrite of the matchmaker code. Now I should mention that it was always going to be necessary to rewrite the matchmaker code to support the faction based matching necessary for CW which was basically upon us anyhow, but we had hoped in the meantime 3/3/3/3 would be active. So this has changed our plans and we have had to bump the MM rewrite up to top priority. Karl Berg is now assigned to start and complete this rewrite and we will start out by completing just the existing design of 3/3/3/3 and get that active then complete it to support CW. So as to an ETA all I mentioned in the VLog is that I promise to give you an updated ETA in about 2 weeks time, but I am hopeful it will only be in the ~1month timeframe.
In summary: 3/3/3/3 seems very fun, competitive and viable. But it will need some rewrite of the MM to actually turn it on. I will get back to the community with an updated ETA in about two weeks time.


Thanks everyong for your patience, can't wait to get this feature live.
Russ


#2 mp00

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Civil Servant
  • 319 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationIn a bottle, Canada

Posted 22 May 2014 - 06:31 PM

Some disappointment that 3/3/3/3 is still a few weeks+ away, but please continue to keep us informed. Good news, bad news, silly news, blueberry muffin news whatever.

#3 Wispsy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Talon
  • Talon
  • 2,007 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 07:03 PM

Why does 3-3-3-3 get top priority taking months of time from people who could be doing real useful stuff B)

#4 Roadbeer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 8,160 posts
  • LocationWazan, Zion Cluster

Posted 22 May 2014 - 07:06 PM

Oh good, since you're rewriting the MM code, how about you pencil in some support for large groups?

You've been ******* with balance for over 18 months now, with total failure, while those of us who have more than 3 friends are *********** trying to sync drop.

#5 Bartholomew bartholomew

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 1,250 posts
  • LocationInner sphere drop point

Posted 22 May 2014 - 07:12 PM

You are gonna need group support for CW anyways. So Roadbeer is right that you might as well get it wrote in and ironed out.

Solo puggers are not going to do CW anyways.

#6 Tekadept

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 1,290 posts
  • LocationPerth, Australia

Posted 22 May 2014 - 07:17 PM

Posted Image

#7 Aym

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 3,041 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted 22 May 2014 - 07:18 PM

Hey now, at least it's useful informative communication. It's not what we WANTED to hear, larger groups, weapon balance, hit detection/hit boxes, but it we shouldn't knock it for what it is.

#8 p4r4g0n

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 1,511 posts
  • LocationMalaysia

Posted 22 May 2014 - 07:20 PM

Thank you for a more detailed explanation of the problems with the matchmaker which I greatly appreciate. Any chance that public group queue (2-12) could be squeezed in as well during the re-write?

Wouldn't hurt if we could start dropping with our faction mates prior to CW as well if there are sufficient numbers for it. At the very least, people would start making choices about their factions, etc and rebut the frequent "the playerbase is shrinking, the playerbase is shrinking" comments.

#9 Prezimonto

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 2,016 posts
  • LocationKufstein FRR

Posted 22 May 2014 - 07:22 PM

View PostRoadbeer, on 22 May 2014 - 07:06 PM, said:

Oh good, since you're rewriting the MM code, how about you pencil in some support for large groups?

You've been ******* with balance for over 18 months now, with total failure, while those of us who have more than 3 friends are *********** trying to sync drop.

View PostBartholomew bartholomew, on 22 May 2014 - 07:12 PM, said:

You are gonna need group support for CW anyways. So Roadbeer is right that you might as well get it wrote in and ironed out.

Solo puggers are not going to do CW anyways.

Yes and Yes.

If it's being rewritten, take a moment to plan out a better way from the ground up.

#10 Zack Esseth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Predator
  • The Predator
  • 248 posts
  • LocationRith Essa

Posted 22 May 2014 - 07:23 PM

View Postmp00, on 22 May 2014 - 06:31 PM, said:

Some disappointment that 3/3/3/3 is still a few weeks+ away, but please continue to keep us informed. Good news, bad news, silly news, blueberry muffin news whatever.

Muffin Button.

I think since it needs a rework on how the launcher works from its entirity that they should add in the Faction splitting so that we get Faction based action. Doesn't seem like it would hurt since at worst, it would get turned off within the first hour or two if it didn't just like 3/3/3/3.

#11 WarHippy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,834 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 07:34 PM

Part of the question that was asked when you said look for a later post was asking about larger groups yet I see nothing about that just more hurry up and wait on the rule of 3 which is lackluster at best. I guess I'm not surprised, but come on the community is pleading for a hand out here.

#12 K1ttykat

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 90 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC, Canada

Posted 22 May 2014 - 07:35 PM

3/3/3/3 is a lot more fun, even the approximation we have now is a lot better than before (ignoring the queue time).

If the matchmaker is all that's holding back 4-8 public drops then why not slip it in there while you're working on it (I can think of some gameplay reasons why that might not be so great). But if you just say "we feel the best experience is with groups no larger than 4" fair enough, people will just have to deal with it.

If the concern for 4-8s is queue times, if they know the risks I don't see the problem with letting them wait for another 8 man to queue up

Edited by K1ttykat, 22 May 2014 - 07:37 PM.


#13 Prawfutt

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • LocationThe sulfuric beaches of Malibu

Posted 22 May 2014 - 07:35 PM

View PostPrezimonto, on 22 May 2014 - 07:22 PM, said:

Yes and Yes.

If it's being rewritten, take a moment to plan out a better way from the ground up.


The better way for groups is group only que. group sizes of 2-10 and matched # of groups 2+10 = 6+6, 4+8 = 3+9 (sorry if that screws people who have 11 friends but its much better than 4)

That also gives the solo pug drop guys their "solo only" que that they have been wanting.

#14 Appogee

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 10,966 posts
  • LocationOn planet Tukayyid, celebrating victory

Posted 22 May 2014 - 07:43 PM

And so the seemingly endless wait for balanced matches continues...

.

#15 Roadbeer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 8,160 posts
  • LocationWazan, Zion Cluster

Posted 22 May 2014 - 07:55 PM

View PostWarHippy, on 22 May 2014 - 07:34 PM, said:

Part of the question that was asked when you said look for a later post was asking about larger groups yet I see nothing about that just more hurry up and wait on the rule of 3 which is lackluster at best. I guess I'm not surprised, but come on the community is pleading for a hand out here.

That's true

Niko, the question was asked about 5-11 groups which Russ said would be addressed in his State of Match Making Post, that (I will point out) says nothing about large groups.

Or is that Russ just being coy again by not answering a direct question while vaguely referencing an upcoming post that has nothing to do with the question at hand other than they both have something to do with Match Making?

Edited by Roadbeer, 22 May 2014 - 07:56 PM.


#16 Tekadept

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 1,290 posts
  • LocationPerth, Australia

Posted 22 May 2014 - 08:26 PM

So you always knew you had to rewrite the MM to support CW, yet all the times you were 90 days away from CW you had not thought to rework the matchmaker that was required for said CW as it sounds like it was yet another "bottleneck"?
Posted Image

Edited by Tekadept, 22 May 2014 - 08:27 PM.


#17 Wildstreak

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Civil Servant
  • Civil Servant
  • 5,110 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 09:30 PM

Consider an Alternative/Addition.
Find a way to allow a Private Match ability that provides XP and CB without being exploited. Then we can arrange our own balance.

What about alternate size groups for PUGs if we are keeping it?
Three choices.
12 vs 12
8 vs 8
4 vs 4

View PostBartholomew bartholomew, on 22 May 2014 - 07:12 PM, said:

Solo puggers are not going to do CW anyways.

Like heck I won't.

#18 Sarlic

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Hearing Impaired
  • Hearing Impaired
  • 4,519 posts
  • LocationEurope

Posted 22 May 2014 - 09:49 PM

When 3/3/3/3 does not work, find another solution. Community have given enough solution for other scaling.

#19 Sharknoms

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Jaws
  • The Jaws
  • 129 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 22 May 2014 - 09:58 PM

View PostBartholomew bartholomew, on 22 May 2014 - 07:12 PM, said:

You are gonna need group support for CW anyways. So Roadbeer is right that you might as well get it wrote in and ironed out.

Solo puggers are not going to do CW anyways.



Posted Image

#20 LiGhtningFF13

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Devoted
  • The Devoted
  • 1,375 posts
  • LocationBetween the Flannagan's Nebulea and the Pleiades Cluster

Posted 22 May 2014 - 10:10 PM

Like that kind of info exchange!





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users