13 replies to this topic

[So_Say_We_All]

This is a series of new proposals addressing some of the other things previously discussed from this topic: https://community.pl...izing-quitting/

 

I see many misguided players claim that matchmaking is "broken" and "random." No way! While inherently a mix of MMRs will sometimes result in matchmaking balance not being perfectly even every game, I consistently see matchmaking produce decently-balanced teams at the beginning of a game and by the end of it there's absolutely no balance. You can't point to the end of a match as evidence for matchmaking because of a whole variety of reasons I won't go into right now. 

 

The only problem with matchmaking is that it is intentionally (and unintentionally) bypassed by such a significant portion of players that it makes whatever balance existed when it actually tried to balance the players between rounds is useless. 

 

Ultimately: The complication that disrupts balance is in players joining and quitting during a match. This process is inherently not easily balanced. Matchmaking attempts to make a "fair" game and then the high MMR player joins adding significant advantage in MMR weight to his team in the process. The only chance the game possibly has for being balanced then is hoping that another equal-ish high-level MMR player joins for the other size. But it's far more likely that isn't the case and then the balance is shot. 

 

So in case any of you higher-MMR players doesn't already know, let me teach all of you how to use this currently broken system to your benefit. 

 

Exploiting Matchmaking is easy:

1) Deliberately leave as soon as a game ends. 

2) Join after matchmaking for the next round.

3) Enjoy your easy game on the winning side. 

 

 

 

PROPOSALS TO ENCOURAGE FULL GAMES: 

For the following section: 

Full = Stayed from pre-round matchmaking through end. 

Partial = joined after matchmaking.

 

 

-REDUCE the HC standard given post-game by HALF of what it currently is if the player played a partial game game.

(Establish this as the "normal" HC reward)

-ADD an additional HC bonus given for FULL ROUND of play equal to 75% of what HC currently is given (this goes up to a total of 125% current HC reward when added with the above bullet point)  

(Describe this as a "Matchmaking Bonus" reward) 

-Daily Win Bonuses ONLY given out if you were there during full round. No partial game daily wins. 

-One's Win/Loss stat on profile only counts FULL games, not partial games. Partial games count as nothing. 

-I'm not entirely sure how MMR is calculated, but I would also propose MMR gains/losses be adjusted to count for less during a partial game compared to a complete game. This way it doesn't allow someone to "reduce" his MMR intentionally, it just makes your play less meaningful if it isn't for a full-round. 

Edited by So_Say_We_All, 10 December 2015 - 03:36 PM.

[Call_Me_Ishmael]

-I'm not entirely sure how MMR is calculated, but I would also propose MMR gains/losses be adjusted to count for less during a partial game compared to a complete game.

 

You'd have to exclude from MM ranking anyone who joined the game after start for this to work.

[americanbrit14]

*Insert snarky off topic pun here because i honestly like this idea but Fuzzy Bunny fuzzy bunny it.*

[nepacaka]

Daily Win Bonuses

 

daily win bonuses should go! added something else instead.
like a:
- kill babaji in 3 matches in a row
- win 2 times in a row
- don't do nothing in hangar 5 min and get a free coockie
- etc.

 

-One's Win/Loss stat on profile only counts FULL games, not partial games. Partial games count as nothing.

 

bad idea. too lazy to explain why. it should be vise-versa
 

Edited by nepacaka, 10 December 2015 - 03:48 PM.

[Sriracha_Sauce]

Something like a consecutive match bonus could be in order, if a player stays in a server for a while and doesn't leave.

[Draigun]

These proposals wouldn't do much to ameliorate the matchmaker's inability to balance throughout the entire match. They won't work when the value of HC diminishes to virtually nothing, which has been the trend due to obvious reasons.

 

Of all the solutions I've seen posted here, the only one that strikes itself as having a viable approach without extra 'overhead' to other imbalance (systems) elsewhere: matchmaker having the ability and algorithm to swap players mid-match. The fact is, the matchmaker's implementation is actually pretty decent when its conditions are fully met.

 

It would happen on the fly and automatically, it shouldn't impede any other system (i.e. economy, player skill, etc.), and above all else, it works even when the match has already started.

[So_Say_We_All]

These proposals wouldn't do much to ameliorate the matchmaker's inability to balance throughout the entire match. They won't work when the value of HC diminishes to virtually nothing, which has been the trend due to obvious reasons.

 

Of all the solutions I've seen posted here, the only one that strikes itself as having a viable approach without extra 'overhead' to other imbalance (systems) elsewhere: matchmaker having the ability and algorithm to swap players mid-match. The fact is, the matchmaker's implementation is actually pretty decent when its conditions are fully met.

 

It would happen on the fly and automatically, it shouldn't impede any other system (i.e. economy, player skill, etc.), and above all else, it works even when the match has already started.

First, the proposals in the first post require virtually no changing of game play mechanics at all. There's no extra overhead required that I'm aware of. 

 

You suggest HC isn't as effective as I think it is at affecting player behavior. Not everyone has maxed out all mechs and has no need of HC. I'm absolutely positive it will effect some players' behavior and in the process promote more balance than curently exists. I think it will have an impact and I think there's only one way to find out. 

 

Second, a lot of adjusting of teams mid match has its own consequences. It can be disorienting to players to be switched without their consent or warning. It stands to also be needed quite frequently during a lot of games where leaving and joining can happen often and people will constantly be pushed back and forth over teams. Worse yet, if someone wanted to intentionally mess up teams they can enter and leave the game repeatedly causing team switches each time.

I think an easy update that is along the same lines is to have the F8 team switch protocol not simply switch the first player to push F8 but do it according to balance. I almost thought this used to be how it was done, but it's clearly not how it is now.  

Edited by So_Say_We_All, 10 December 2015 - 11:43 PM.

[Draigun]

HC value has gone down, and this is speaking to quite a handful of players that are not just hanging around on these forums. I'm making a presumption here, but I believe the upper tier of at least 2000~ MMR have a vastly different need for HC than those below them, assuming there is drive to obtain HCs. How the game is right now, and with the lack of content, it's safe enough to point out that there needs to exist a demand for HCs above anything else. Your suggestions will affect Hawken's economy, which proves that these are also balance suggestions.

 

The mid-match balance solution has its pros and cons, just as your suggestions for a better experience. However, when weighing between the two, it will make sense to implement the safer option. We've already seen what happens when a player presses F8, and it does have its own benefits. As such, it wouldn't be such a mess as you describe it would. Mid-match balance is a likely candidate for a safe implementation of addressing matchmaker balance.

 

With how Hawken handles the F8 team switch function, agreed—that form of action should not be used if mid-match balance is implemented. I'm thinking it should be along the lines of a 'soft' switch. I've seen the ability to swap teams without it interrupting the player's mech itself. This in itself can be considered a 'soft' switch, since it does not infringe on the rights of your own ability to move around and play the game. Obviously, adjustments are needed to evenly balance the match. For example, there should be a limit to how often it swaps a player. Ideally, it could go along the lines of sending a warning message that teams are being re-balanced, with a countdown imminent to those being swapped. Also, it shouldn't just swap one team member per wave of balance re iteration. Perhaps every minute it analyzes the current balance, and accordingly swaps out the needed players to the other team or vice-versa.

 

Preventing abuse of this system is very easy to manage. Assign a special flag to a user's account that is a very brief lockout before being able to rejoin that server. By the time they can get back in, the system will be ready to autobalance teams once more. Although even then, leaving a game and rejoining it is around 30 seconds of downtime. No system is perfect, and certainly not this one. But, if it works right, you'll probably begin to realize that for the majority of the games played, balance improves. Honestly I wouldn't know the exact algorithm to use as an example for it, but any form of intelligent mid-match balance should be a welcome addition in the effort to provide balanced matches for everyone.

 

FWIW: The current implementation of F8 auto-balance relies largely on two factors, I believe—the time value for the match and the player being swapped. For the start of the game until the half, the system will give users the ability to press F8 to swap teams. If no user has elected to press F8 in a specified window of time, the game will automatically swap the best candidate. After the game time has passed below half, the system no longer automatically selects the candidate to be swapped, but users are still able to press F8 to switch teams.

Edited by Draigun, 11 December 2015 - 12:33 AM.

[StubbornPuppet]

Ha.  "HC"

 

I've got so much of it lying around I could literally afford to bankroll an entire garage of every mech, fully equipped, for two new players.  It's a joke past a certain level... especially when there is nothing left to buy with it and I cannot even delete mechs from my garage.

[So_Say_We_All]

So this is basically the second time I've offered a series of good ideas to help the game's balance and been met by a community who just says "I don't think it'll help." I'm not sure which is worse, the fact the the developers aren't paying attention or that the players almost always just reject ideas because they're simply unconvinced and feel their way (or their issue) is more important to focus on. 

You don't like it. I can't prove it. Implementation would prove it. But that won't happen. So trying to help Hawken is an exercise in futility. 

Edited by So_Say_We_All, 13 December 2015 - 11:55 AM.

[crockrocket]

Here is my related suggestion from March. Personally I'm of the mindset that good behavior should be rewarded, rather than bad behavior be punished. Obviously this doesn't hold for all cases (hackers should be punished for example), but as far as MM goes I believe a reward based system would be best.

Edited by (TDM)crockrocket, 13 December 2015 - 12:10 PM.

[DM30]

So this is basically the second time I've offered a series of good ideas to help the game's balance and been met by a community who just says "I don't think it'll help." I'm not sure which is worse, the fact the the developers aren't paying attention or that the players almost always just reject ideas because they're simply unconvinced and feel their way (or their issue) is more important to focus on.

You don't like it. I can't prove it. Implementation would prove it. But that won't happen. So trying to help Hawken is an exercise in futility.

Not sure if we're reading the same thread, because there was a lot more there than just "I don't think it will help." There was valid feedback in there.

On the issue of HC, you basically called out high-tier, experienced players as a large contributor to balance issues, which is fair enough. Problem is many of these high tier players have put enough time in the game where they have massive stockpiles of HC, though, especially in the game's long dry spell content-wise. Using more HC as an incentive to change their behaviour is meaningless when they already have more than they can use. That's why they said so. That's feedback that you can use, instead of just getting defensive. Rather than whine that people are shooting down your idea, how can you adjust the idea to get them to get behind it?

The feedback is there. What you do with it is your choice.

[So_Say_We_All]

Yeah, we're not reading the same thread. I did not call out higher-tier, experienced players for being responsible for this because there are plenty of non-elite players who quit matches and ruin games.  The problem is universal and present in almost every match, not isolated to only top-tier games. The only reference I made to higher-tier players was instructing them on how to abuse the system (Because only higher tier players benefit by abusing the system... Lower tier players actually benefit by staying for matchmaking. Yet both of them do impact the game significantly when they quit after matchmaking to find a new game)

 

A lot of players for whom HC is meaningful aren't on the forums. I was well-aware from the last thread I made that the posting community thinks HC is worth nothing.

You are all wrong. There are plenty of players to whom HC gains are meaningful and to whom the proposed changes would prevent some of their premature quitting/joining after every round.

 

 

 

But HC aside I also suggested two other stat effects (MMR and Win/Loss Stat). And if you had read the thread I linked you to, plenty of other ideas that were penalties that didn't have to do with HC were also suggested (This topic doesn't present any penalties for quitting). And out of ALL of these alternative ideas you got "HC HC HC."  I'd say the MMR thing alone is at least as important to most people who quit matches as anything to do with HC. 

 

The most crucial thing of all, though, has nothing to do with the incentive itself but the fact that the developers have implemented anything at all which could encourage better balance. Whether the effect is significant or not, the gesture of trying to fix the game's balance issues is worth far more than any possible non-action. 

I'm not interested to attempt to persuade people who are smug and dismissive of others' suggestions. You're not as smart as you think you are and there's no way I'll convince you of that. Either the developers read this and decide their game is worth developing or they don't and nothing you or I say here is worth either of our times. 

Edited by So_Say_We_All, 15 December 2015 - 03:43 PM.

[Draigun]

[...]