15 replies to this topic

[Shadow_Wolf]

I absolutely love the gameplay for Hawken, but the matchmaking service needs to implement some sort-of skill balancing. In the last three Team Deathmatch games I played, one team won the match by a margin of more than 35 points. Furthermore, the team that was ahead for the whole game kept getting new players added, meaning that although they were ahead in points, they also continued to outnumber the losing team.

Now, I understand that the players on the losing side may very well just be quite unskilled, but that's also the point. In a proper matchmaking set, the teams should never be that unbalanced - and the team that is clearly superior to begin with should also not consistently outnumber the inferior team.

I realize that a proper matchmaking service may be difficult to implement, especially with such a small playerbase that may be present during a closed beta, but I sincerely hope the developers can find a way to do so.

Just my suggestion; again, I think the gameplay is absolutely fantastic and am looking forward to a lot more time in it.

Thanks!

Edited by Shadow_Wolf, December 03 2012 - 12:28 PM.

[DarkPulse]

You do know this is why we're testing it, right_

[Shadow_Wolf]

Of course I know we're testing it; that's why I put my comment in the "Suggestions" part of the Beta Forum. That's also why I mentioned that it was just my suggestion. Any other questions_

[Subdivision]

If we all start condescending each other we're not going to get anywhere now, come on!

I can see where DarkPulse is coming from because there have been hundred of these threads made before and it would greatly help if more people would use the search feature in the top right of the forum to find these past discussions to add to them rather than making an endless stream of the same issue. I think what he was getting at is by partaking in the current stage of testing and providing feedback, we are giving the developers the necessary information to do just what you are asking for.

Yes we need better player balancing. It would be a greater help if this was added to an existing discussion to add new ideas into the mix if you have any of how this can be achieved. Asking for cake doesn't help someone without a recipe, we have to help them with the recipe so we can have cake!

[Amalilakab]

I concur with Shadow_Wolf that it is an issue that I have wished would be corrected. Another issue is not having auto-balance. During a game it seems fairly common to have team mates leave when the other team just has a clear advantage (and other reasons), making it all that much harder to get any points. There is no real incentive that I see for someone to jump to the other team. Early game you sometimes see some players jump to help out the other team, but it seems pretty rare and mid to late game there is no reason to switch and lose the additional Hawken Points from the win (even though it isn't much). It seems like some sort of auto-balance or some way to incentivize someone to switch teams to bring balance to the game or at least attempt to make it more fair.

It would seem that making an auto-balance function that works well taking player statistics into account probably isn't the most simple feature to add, but my number one complaint is just being stuck on a team that is all new players while the other team is full of experienced players. Not enough to make me stop playing at this point, but I would love to have more competitive games.

[BuDeKai]

DarkPulse, on December 03 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:

You do know this is why we're testing it, right_

harsh bro

[Shadow_Wolf]

While I am not a programmer for any game, let alone this game, I believe I can see a few ways in which to track how experienced and skilled a player is. There are, first off, the obvious items: a player's personal record. This includes K/D ratio, assists, time in-game, and Win-Loss Record (all of which are presented after each match, so the game has them built-in), as well as the player's level in each mech-type / weapon. Furthermore, at the very least the game should try to balance out the number of players on each team; there is no reason why a side is down by one or more personnel, and then have a player joining the session on the other side, particularly (and especially) since the game should recognize if the short-handed team's score is significantly below the other team's.

Now, aside from those obvious statistics, an important one that I think should also be incorporated as a measure of skill-tracking is the accuracy ratio. The game can clearly track whether or not an attack hits (proven by virtue of damage resulting on the target mech), and while everybody can certainly miss, people unfamiliar with game (and its controls) are obviously likely to miss more.

I'm sure there are other methods the game can use; I'm sure some of the more modern competitive games put far more data / details into their matchmaking systems that would ever be visible to the users. Nonetheless, at a minimum I could see these being used.

As far as the tone of my last message goes; DarkPulse, if your comment was intended as humorous and / or non-insulting, than I missed that aspect and fully apologize. I took it as intentionally insulting and down-putting, and if you didn't intend it that way, I apologize for my response. I certainly would not like the board to devolve into crass name-calling and rudeness. I also should have put more of these details from this message into my first post, as that might have alleviated any concerns about my trying to make a redundant, meaningless post.

In any case, back to more playing; awesome game!

Edited by Shadow_Wolf, December 05 2012 - 05:41 PM.

[DarkPulse]

Shadow_Wolf, on December 05 2012 - 05:39 PM, said:

As far as the tone of my last message goes; DarkPulse, if your comment was intended as humorous and / or non-insulting, than I missed that aspect and fully apologize. I took it as intentionally insulting and down-putting, and if you didn't intend it that way, I apologize for my response. I certainly would not like the board to devolve into crass name-calling and rudeness. I also should have put more of these details from this message into my first post, as that might have alleviated any concerns about my trying to make a redundant, meaningless post.

It was fully non-insulting. We're testing this aspect of the game now for a reason - so it sucks less come December 12th. But yes, it's certainly not the first time similar posts went up, and that's basically been the answer - "We're testing it, it's what we're here for." One kind of gets apathetic to seeing the same things crop up over and over.

[DM30]

Shadow_Wolf, on December 05 2012 - 05:39 PM, said:

Furthermore, at the very least the game should try to balance out the number of players on each team; there is no reason why a side is down by one or more personnel, and then have a player joining the session on the other side, particularly (and especially) since the game should recognize if the short-handed team's score is significantly below the other team's.

I don't know where you're getting this from, because the matchmaker fills in teams from left to right, starting with the team with fewer players. If a team is down on men, the next player to join gets put into that team. Always.

The downside to this is that if the teams are on even footing number-wise, a new player ALWAYS gets added to Sentium. If Sentium is winning the game by a huge margin due to a skill gap, they still get a numbers advantage to boot the next time someone joins. So I agree, this needs to change.

[Akrium]

DM30, on December 06 2012 - 09:49 AM, said:

Shadow_Wolf, on December 05 2012 - 05:39 PM, said:

Furthermore, at the very least the game should try to balance out the number of players on each team; there is no reason why a side is down by one or more personnel, and then have a player joining the session on the other side, particularly (and especially) since the game should recognize if the short-handed team's score is significantly below the other team's.

I don't know where you're getting this from, because the matchmaker fills in teams from left to right, starting with the team with fewer players. If a team is down on men, the next player to join gets put into that team. Always.

The downside to this is that if the teams are on even footing number-wise, a new player ALWAYS gets added to Sentium. If Sentium is winning the game by a huge margin due to a skill gap, they still get a numbers advantage to boot the next time someone joins. So I agree, this needs to change.

Partially true.. yes it starts the person on sentium. But if the team are at even numbers the player can still choose to go prosk instead. He has a 50/50 chance of getting on the winning team always. So you are suggesting that when ever you join a game, you should always be put on the losing team if the game is in progress_

that's harsh =
I like the 50/50.. cause I can just say I was unlucky and not the game fuzzy bunny me over. Thus blame is not on the game, but luck. If the game always makes me join the losing team, I will always hate joining a game where I am more likely to lose when I first join. Why not start a new game instead and not worry about joining into a fuzzy bunny game.

I just hope they never ever ever never ever never ever ever ever never ever ever never add auto team balance... shiver...

But I cannot wait to see the changes to OB and what is yet to come. The community (on a whole) seems great and the devs are wicked cool and they really want to make the best game they can make. I find myself getting lost in the game all the time.

[DM30]

Akrium, on December 06 2012 - 10:08 AM, said:

Partially true.. yes it starts the person on sentium. But if the team are at even numbers the player can still choose to go prosk instead. He has a 50/50 chance of getting on the winning team always. So you are suggesting that when ever you join a game, you should always be put on the losing team if the game is in progress_

Yes, the player can chose to change teams at the start if the numbers are even, but that's only if the player actually makes that choice. From my experience, the vast majority will think, "Sweet, I'm on the winning team" and just stay there. Also, that's only if they check what the current score is before deploying into the match.

I wouldn't say ALWAYS put new players on the losing side, no. Randomize it some, maybe with a bit more weight put toward the team that's losing depending on the score gap. I just think that it's wrong that the matchmaker doesn't take the current score into account at all. When you're losing a game 30 to 10 and all of a sudden the winning team gets ANOTHER player, it's pretty frustrating.

If it upsets that player so much that they got put on the losing side, by your own argument they can just switch anyway since the numbers were even before, so it doesn't change much, really. It might just help team balancing a little bit in regards to players who don't check the score before jumping into the match.

I don't know; it's a tricky subject. Every way of doing it has its drawbacks, I suppose...

Edited by DM30, December 06 2012 - 11:40 AM.

[fwip]

I think new players should be put on the losing side - it encourages people to stick around after the first round, since they'll have better odds of winning the next round rather than a new game.

[DarkPulse]

fwip, on December 06 2012 - 11:42 AM, said:

I think new players should be put on the losing side - it encourages people to stick around after the first round, since they'll have better odds of winning the next round rather than a new game.

Sensitive egos will look, see they're losing 30-10, and just bail right back out.

[fwip]

Hmm, you've got a point. I suppose personally, I don't care if those people are having fun (by stomping the other team), but that might be a bit selfish of me.

[DarkPulse]

Well, from what the devs said, they're going to look at some way to prevent that. Not sure if that's rewarding stayers or punishing quitters though.

[Shadow_Wolf]

DM30, on December 06 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

Akrium, on December 06 2012 - 10:08 AM, said:

Partially true.. yes it starts the person on sentium. But if the team are at even numbers the player can still choose to go prosk instead. He has a 50/50 chance of getting on the winning team always. So you are suggesting that when ever you join a game, you should always be put on the losing team if the game is in progress_

Yes, the player can chose to change teams at the start if the numbers are even, but that's only if the player actually makes that choice. From my experience, the vast majority will think, "Sweet, I'm on the winning team" and just stay there. Also, that's only if they check what the current score is before deploying into the match.

I wouldn't say ALWAYS put new players on the losing side, no. Randomize it some, maybe with a bit more weight put toward the team that's losing depending on the score gap. I just think that it's wrong that the matchmaker doesn't take the current score into account at all. When you're losing a game 30 to 10 and all of a sudden the winning team gets ANOTHER player, it's pretty frustrating.

Those last two sentences capture one of my original points exactly. As before, I still believe more data can be made a part of the software's decision of what games to place people in (detailed in my last post); but at the very least, a team that is so far behind should not then be subsequently outnumbered (possibly by an even greater margin than just one person, as the case has been in several games I've played) when another player joins the match.

As far as players having the option of switching teams: I think the software could offer some minor incentive to do so, like perhaps an additional 1% - 5% xp and / or HP bonus for the length of the match if you switch to the losing (and especially outnumbered!) team. That could certainly make it worthwhile to switch, even if it (possibly) means losing the match.