I would rather it not be like that, other wise if your first match of the game you get lucky and get 6 kills before dying, suddenly you are at 600% BV, and forever placed stupid high. i think a better system would be to use the mechs BV, unmodified for your first 50(go go random number!) games, so you have an average MM can base off of. otherwise it would be all sorts of topsy turvy as your K/D bounces up and down while you have a low number of deaths to balance it out.
Is there any sort of ranking/matchmaking system?
Started by Broceratops, Jul 01 2012 12:53 PM
22 replies to this topic
#21
Posted 09 July 2012 - 02:34 PM
#22
Posted 09 July 2012 - 03:33 PM
A matchmaker doesn't need to match player skill at all; all it needs to do is mechanically balance the game - the objective measurements are more important than intangible ideas like skill level, which can't effectively be measured.
A battle value and tonnage combination would be ideal for this (and even a max limit on certain weight classes like lights and assaults). It wouldn't be perfect unless people were willing to wait half a day for the potential variance margins to line up, but it does even out mechanical advantages.
For instance, it's a much loved fallacy that a skilled player in a commando will beat an unskilled player in an atlas (which isn't strictly true), but without a matchmaker it would be possible to dump a whole team of assaults against a whole team of lights - the lights are at a severe mechanical disadvantage, certainly a perceived disadvantage. A matchmaker will spread mechanical weightings among the two sides, and moreso will even out the distribution of weight classes within a team. It means games will be diverse and reasonably mechanically fair.
To use a netball analogy (like I know anything about netball
), a matchmaker shouldn't split players into A and B league players - all it should do is make sure some players aren't playing basketball.
A battle value and tonnage combination would be ideal for this (and even a max limit on certain weight classes like lights and assaults). It wouldn't be perfect unless people were willing to wait half a day for the potential variance margins to line up, but it does even out mechanical advantages.
For instance, it's a much loved fallacy that a skilled player in a commando will beat an unskilled player in an atlas (which isn't strictly true), but without a matchmaker it would be possible to dump a whole team of assaults against a whole team of lights - the lights are at a severe mechanical disadvantage, certainly a perceived disadvantage. A matchmaker will spread mechanical weightings among the two sides, and moreso will even out the distribution of weight classes within a team. It means games will be diverse and reasonably mechanically fair.
To use a netball analogy (like I know anything about netball
Edited by Zyzyx66, 09 July 2012 - 03:34 PM.
#23
Posted 09 July 2012 - 03:56 PM
I kinda like the system SC2 has. every one at the start plays a few placement games. The system will stick you in 5 random games in a row and depending on your scores,dwell time and class/role points the system will give you an overall score and depending on what that that score is thats the brackit you start in. then you just play from there and try to move up the brackit to get to the next one. Every 6mo the brackits reset and we all start agine. This way there will always be a constant changeing system.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users















