2 replies to this topic

[Sigmar Sich]

Lets try to find better solution than just splitting group and solo queues in CW.

I believe this can be achieved through two stages:
1) Make it easier for players to join units and build communities.
2) Make some kind of matchmaker for CW, which will try, if possible, keep groups play vs groups.

It is far from perfect, sure. But is it better than what we have now, or what we'll get with split CW? Possibly.


Part 1 - Missing link.

If solo players don't go to units, units must go to them.

Lets remember earliest CW concepts. There was loyalist units - premade unit shells, managed by NPCs or devs, with permanent loyalty to faction.
I believe CW needs this premade unit shells with restrictions, in form of lore units.

How this "shells" differ from custom units, to attract solo player? Easier to choose and faster to join. Less responsibilities, and less dependence. At least.

Solo players will gravitate to this semi-units, making first step to build a team. Some will remain lone wolves, some will move on in search of another team, and some will stay.

Would be interesting, if available "shell" units would depend on your faction rank. For example, Steiner rookie can join only regional militia units. As his faction rank grows, player opens new possibilities - join more prestigious units in search for more experienced team, such as Lyran Regulars or something, or stay in militia in higher rank, to help rookies. And so on, till most prestige units, like Royal Guards and others..(You can find faction units in Field Manuals, with story and descriptions).

For some players this will not matter, they will continue to play solo, ot play in custom units. But for some this can be "golden middle".


Part 2 - Matchmaker priorities.

Just before you say this will make waiting times longer - yes, probably, at least in beginning - but dead CW will make waiting times even worse.

As for now matches form - first group in attack queue fight vs first group vs defender queue.
Lets say Attack queue -1) trained unit 2) pug
And Defend queue is - 1) pug 2) trained unit.
It will be A1 vs D1 and A2 vs D2, and two bad games. Obviously it would be better if matchmaker could recognise situation, and put A1 vs D2 and A2 vs D1.

But what variables matchmaker should operate? Please, make your suggestions.

Probably some kind of group rating, based on each player's personal CW(or CW + group public matches) rating. To make proof from some exploits, let it count only victories, and not decrease with defeats.
So, if player wins in CW (or better CW + group queue) he increases his rating.

Group rating = sum ratings of all players in group. Matchmaker will try to match groups with similar rating, or closest fit.
Well, same as we have in public queue, but without weight matching - should be easier. And this rating shouldn't drop with defeats - just for exploit-proof.

At least this matchmaker will ensure that strongest attacker will play against strongest defender. And waiting times can be tweaked by amount of time given to matchmaker to form and match groups in queue. I'm sure it is better to wait few minutes longer, but get better game quality. And if better games attract more players in CW - waiting times could be even shorter.

Please, discuss and suggest.

Edited by Sigmar Sich, 22 January 2016 - 06:04 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

OK just cut to the core:

problem with ratings in CW - if you just have one or more high competive unit at a front they can't participate in cw when the opposite just has casuals and pugs.

but if they participate nobody would enjoy the battle. of course you can say the pugs may learn or have to organize in semi groups. this is where your "shell concept" comes to work.

Maybe just maybe you should just have "shells" for loyalists or Mercs aka Independent Units - that are groups.

The ranking of a unit is the number of 12men teams they usually can create. Each faction has just a limited contingent of 12men teams.
All other players that are not in 12men teams have to drop in "shells" - so its a strict barrier between solo and groups.
Of course syncdropping would still be possible and a dozen other problems that come with such a solution.

Currently the main issue of CW - you can't overcome class with mass... you may stall a better unit, while the rest of your unit commits ghost drops - but that is less satisfactory. Same as dropping as pug vs them and get slaughtered in your drop zone.

[Sigmar Sich]

True, matchmaker will be nearly useless in some situations. At least it will try to put closest fit against good team, not just any unlucky guys who was first in queue. And it should work well for Tukayyid events, or just big battles. Probably.

As for strict barrier between solo and groups - not sure i understood this idea correctly. But strict barriers have problem - for example planet, with groups as attackers and solo players as defenders. If they can't interact - this is same as split queues.

What can be done with quality disbalance?
Matchmaker will work only if both sides have strong and weak teams - at least strong will play vs strong, and weak vs weak; and not just first vs first.

What about "Call to arms", with two-three levels? Usual level informs about battle happening. Second level informs if enemy deployed strong teams (matchmaker see team, but cannot find equal match). This should get attention of stronger units to join the battle. Though it probably will work in opposite way, as "Danger! Turn back!"...

Okay, idea. lets call it "CW elder game".
Strong premade teams from both custom and lore units can play "special assignments". And get some unique reward, lets call it "brag points".
Special assignments could have several forms.
1) Reinforce weakest side in some battle. Maybe with some expanded options for mercs, so called bounty hunting..
2) Special battles, where difference in rating compensates with extra help. For example stronger team will have less respawns (with less tons in deck). (Well, this could probably be balance "quality vs quantity"...)
I'm sure there can be more..

Edited by Sigmar Sich, 22 January 2016 - 07:31 AM.