Why not add a handicap per games won or per kill or whatever?
I remember back when I pwned all my friends at super smash bros melee we turned on handicap, made games a lot more balanced as every game I won I had my damage scaled down and took more damage. When I lost the handicap would adjust slightly further back.
Heh, given the way things stack in either direction with STO - would we really want something like that?
Yes. And this balances the vast majority of the matches. VapeScore was needed to account for playstyle issues arising from having cloak+oneshot players too unevenly distributed between the teams. And as far as I can tell, the main problem now is that my balacing tool tends to underappreciate how useful some sci players are and how well they place their SNBs/scans. If one has access to the SNB/scan data, this weakness can most likely be greatly reduced.
You can learn teamwork without having to play with the same players all the time. Yes, there are some team setups that rely on everyone having a very specific ship build (like the SW gravwell thing), but outside of these rare very specialised team builds, you can mix&match most players once they have a certain skill level. Take Renim as Eng, Naz and Linty as Sci, Kharn and Blackjack as tacticals. If I'm not mistaken, none of them had any significant playtime with one of the others, let alone as a team of five. Do you really think that such a team would be a failure (as in: losing to teams with significantly worse dps/hps/etc. stats, but more experience as a group) because of their lack of "teamwork"?
Do you really think that such a team would be a failure (as in: losing to teams with significantly worse dps/hps/etc. stats, but more experience as a group) because of their lack of "teamwork"?
Take those five...have them play together through a series of matches...are you saying you wouldn't see any improvement in their performance as they continued to play together?
Take those five...have them play together through a series of matches...are you saying you wouldn't see any improvement in their performance as they continued to play together?
I'm saying that even without any previous experience together they would perform on a level that more or less corresponds to what their numbers say. Would they lose against a full premade of a top fleet? Maybe. But the primary goal of a matchmaking system is not to balance pure pugmades against full premades. The goal is to balance matches in a mixed queue which is primarily filled with single players and partial teams, with only very few full high-end premades mixed in. And I'm convinced that this can be done with the avilable data.
1) RvB the queues.
2) Separate PUGs and *mades.
3) Have two base game types (Arena & Scenario) for Space & Ground. (Pretend Shuttle doesn't exist.)
4) Implement matchmaking for the PUG queues.
5) Implement matchmaking for the *made queues.
6) Implement PvP Ranking/Tier/Hierarchy/Reputation for *made queues.
7) Offer better rewards for *made queues to reflect the less casual approach than the PUG queues.
8) Add additional Arena and Scenario maps/gametypes.
9) Have a robust endgame instead of just talking about one...
Reading through the comments, I see that a few great points have been made. In accordance with those points, I would like to modify the thoughts in my original post. I think it would be awesome to have a PUG queue that skill ranks the participants. That way everyone would get a fairer go and new people may be attracted to PvP.
Yes, I could have added to a necro thread, but I think that it's important that players who believe in a change shouldn't be limited to the old threads. By starting new threads we keep reminding the devs that certain topics are dear to us and we're not just going to let them go.
As an aside, I played a PvP earlier today. Judging from the fleet names of all involved, it seemed to be a PUG match. The match went for over 25 minutes and through the match you could see players adapting to accommodate their team mates as well as the tactics of the enemy. My team lost the match 14-15 but it was, without a doubt, one of the best matches I've ever been in.
This thread is not about winning. It's not about smashing the opponent. It's about minimising the number of matches where one team utterly destroys the other. That way there's more chance of happening across those nail-biting matches where the advantage swings over numerous times in a match. Those are the matches that I'm after.
Well I just loaded up STO for a quick fun PvP match... which ended up against a full fleet premade with two Recluses (we of course lost 15-0 despite everyone trying their hardest). While that was admittedly an extreme, pug vs premade matches seem to be the norm nowadays, with only a quarter of the matches being pug vs pug. It's even worse on weekends where almost every match pits pugs against premades.
Reading through the comments, I see that a few great points have been made. In accordance with those points, I would like to modify the thoughts in my original post. I think it would be awesome to have a PUG queue that skill ranks the participants. That way everyone would get a fairer go and new people may be attracted to PvP.
Yes, I could have added to a necro thread, but I think that it's important that players who believe in a change shouldn't be limited to the old threads. By starting new threads we keep reminding the devs that certain topics are dear to us and we're not just going to let them go.
Just to clarify, the last thread wouldn't have been a necro. It was only one week. But I'll drop it.
Sounds like a fair suggestion. There has to be skill matching/match making of some kind, or the queues will never be balanced except through the random wiles of the RNG. But perhaps, just to cater to those who want to play with friends - how about allowing partial teams, say up to 3?
Full teams most likely would derange any matchmaking - but how about partials?
In a decent match making system, sorting out "pug-mades" from "pre-mades" and pugs of superior skill level could be, and should be done seamlessly.
All a player need to is filter out the game modes they don't want and push buttan for pvp. Limiting players to 3 or less game types does more harm to the queues than many players are apparently admitting.
And to answer mancom point about a balanced game being some sort of terrible consequence - rubbish. When people are doing stuff, playing and believing their actions have an effect on the outcome of the match, that's success, causal or not, experienced or not, pre-made or not.
And to answer mancom point about a balanced game being some sort of terrible consequence - rubbish.
Don't be so quick to dismiss the point. If one is a player with time constraints and wants quick matches, then maybe 30min+ balanced matches aren't what one is looking for.
Look at the latest tournaments (which aren't all full fleet teams; there are pugmade groups in there too) and how they have time limits (30min or so) and matches ending with single digit scores. You can see these really long (up to one hour) matches in TD too when it's not just escorts; and that's with random players that are balanced only by an algorithm.
Is a player who wants quick action and can't spare 2 minutes to find 1-2 other players for a mini queue group in OPVP really interested in such long matches?
Don't be so quick to dismiss the point. If one is a player with time constraints and wants quick matches, then maybe 30min+ balanced matches aren't what one is looking for.
Look at the latest tournaments (which aren't all full fleet teams; there are pugmade groups in there too) and how they have time limits (30min or so) and matches ending with single digit scores. You can see these really long (up to one hour) matches in TD too when it's not just escorts; and that's with random players that are balanced only by an algorithm.
Is a player who wants quick action and can't spare 2 minutes to find 1-2 other players for a mini queue group in OPVP really interested in such long matches?
The problem isn't of potentially long matches, it's of wasting their time doing nothing. Spending (more like 10-20) minutes waiting for the right number of people to join, setting up teams, probably switching from tac to sci or vs versa is time not doing what the player wants to do. Sure, it's more efficient than entering the current queue with 1/20 chance of a decent 'close to balanced' match, but it's no where near what's capable given a developer who ever gave a damn.
I've been in some public matches that have gone on for 40 minutes+ and some private matches that have lasted 90 minutes plus, some of the best experiences I've had in ANY PVP GAME.
If it ever became the norm, then we'd face the problem when it comes - some sort of draw or ticket mechanic imo would be best if we really have to constrain match lengths - but if you're using that as an excuse not to make matches more balanced?
Im just going to point out a flaw a lot of people miss when discussing PUG queues.
A good player is a good player. Solo or on a team.
I know MANY solo players that can only be beaten by a coordinated effort, or a generic mass of five on one, or another equally skilled player (I am one of them, btw, for all of my difficulty getting the team thing down, I do know I am a deadly solo player).
What happens when someone like me, or even worse, better than me gets into a 5v5 against a really disorganized group?
Pretty simply put, they will get destroyed by that ONE good player, even if the rest of their four teammates are garbage.
it happened today in FvK with me actually, I was on a rom tac dhelan and scored 14 of the kills in the match (at least 7 of them were solo kills as well, only one of my teammates seemed competent and was my assist on the shared kills we had, the others were basically killfarms for the OPFOR)
What are we going to do when that starts happening should this "pug queue" ever be implemented?
Take a good player off of a team, he is still a good player. Splitting up the queues is not going to help one iota for the vast majority of the people crying about it (they are just bad at pvp and teamwork and need to learn to play better, its just that simple, sorry)
Fleet Admiral Rylana - Fed Tac - U.S.S Wild Card - Tactical Miracle Worker Cruiser
Lifetime Subscriber since 2012 == 17,200 Accolades = RIP PvP and Vice Squad
Chief of Starfleet Intelligence Service == Praise Cheesus
The problem isn't of potentially long matches, it's of wasting their time doing nothing.
No. Long matches are a very real problem. The fact that average matches in Stellar Impact were somewhere around 40 minutes is the primary reason I stopped playing that game.
The occasional long match is fine. Even that 3h TSI-Panda match wasn't that bad. But if a player wants a quick match and only has one hour per day, then having 30min+ matches on a regular basis is a problem. I'm very much in favour of more balanced matches, but (too) long matches are a very real danger. Unless there is a top level damage dealer around, tanking/healing is much easier than scoring a kill in STO. Combined with the fact that many casual players like Engineers and aren't exactly top damage dealers when they play cruisers or sci ships, this could lead to ugly effects.
(And also: Stop the strawman. If I say "OPVP mini group for the queues", I mean saying "x up for pvp group" in OPVP, waiting 1-2min and then queueing with whoever signed up. No need to do any 20min manual balancing.)
I agree with hilbert. A great matchmaking system would lead to many long fights.
How about sudden death victory condition after 15min(?), this might even lead to some last ditch efforts if teams end up being poorly balanced regardless of matchmaking.
How about sudden death victory condition after 15min(?)
Great idea. Suddenly there is a reason why one would want Smallsam on one's team. Yes, he dies a lot, but he certainly has the ability to pull off that one final kill.
Exactly. That's why balancing is more important than pug queues.
Again, rubbish. Very easy to implement mechanics that force games to end (if that indeed becomes some sort of issue) - much easier than rebalancing several hundred ships abilities, traits, items and all the aggro that would cause if done aggressively and comprehensively.
Again, rubbish. Very easy to implement mechanics that force games to end (if that indeed becomes some sort of issue) - much easier than rebalancing several hundred ships abilities, traits, items and all the aggro that would cause if done aggressively and comprehensively.
I think he meant balancing queues as in balanced matchmaking, not balancing abilities.
I think he meant balancing queues as in balanced matchmaking, not balancing abilities.
Right, my bad, however he has been suggesting the spectre of long fights as a problem...
Well, it would be a nice problem to have, and a relatively easy one to fix, hell, a simple 15 minute time limit and if the score is still 0-0 just add the dps/heal numbers to find out who wins.... Or call the match a draw... It's not as if there are any real consequences to each match anyway.
I honestly fail to see the debate here. This is a common sense simple solution to the slow death pvp is experiencing. The elitist "premade teamers" could continue to have everything their way in the premade team ques and the rest of sto players could enjoy the random/pug pvp ques.
Make no mistake about it. PVP IS DYING on STO. Above all this is a profit generating game. When an area stops generating profits it stops getting developer attention. Simple a s that. If the elitist "premade teamers" want the devs to pay attention to pvp, make improvements and such they should be willing to do whatever it takes to get more players playing pvp.
Bottom line: More players = more revenue = more dev attention.
I honestly fail to see the debate here. This is a common sense simple solution to the slow death pvp is experiencing. The elitist "premade teamers" could continue to have everything their way in the premade team ques and the rest of sto players could enjoy the random/pug pvp ques.
Make no mistake about it. PVP IS DYING on STO. Above all this is a profit generating game. When an area stops generating profits it stops getting developer attention. Simple a s that. If the elitist "premade teamers" want the devs to pay attention to pvp, make improvements and such they should be willing to do whatever it takes to get more players playing pvp.
Bottom line: More players = more revenue = more dev attention.
Pardon me, but did you read the previous posts? The debate is over whether simply implementing solo queues without any further changes will actually help. Some of us say that it isn't enough. Ire may simply shift to vet players instead of premades. The simplest solution may not necessarily be the best.
To extend your equation,
Solo pug queues without further changes does not necessarily = more players in long run. That's the debate.
I know MANY solo players that can only be beaten by a coordinated effort, or a generic mass of five on one, or another equally skilled player (I am one of them, btw, for all of my difficulty getting the team thing down, I do know I am a deadly solo player).
I know many horrible players out there that even with 6-7+ of them, I'm not going to die until I want a cigarette. I know many players out there that they'll kill me so fast that I'll need a cigarette.
What happens when someone like me, or even worse, better than me gets into a 5v5 against a really disorganized group?
You stay uncloaked - you take off your shields - you take off any armor - you try to stay in their arcs - you tell folks to go easy on the heals - you try to give them the opportunity to learn to feel good about themselves to want to PvP again...?
it happened today in FvK with me actually, I was on a rom tac dhelan and scored 14 of the kills in the match (at least 7 of them were solo kills as well, only one of my teammates seemed competent and was my assist on the shared kills we had, the others were basically killfarms for the OPFOR)
What are we going to do when that starts happening should this "pug queue" ever be implemented?
Take a good player off of a team, he is still a good player. Splitting up the queues is not going to help one iota for the vast majority of the people crying about it (they are just bad at pvp and teamwork and need to learn to play better, its just that simple, sorry)
Which is pretty much bullcrap...nothing you've said so far supports that.
You've provided information that supports implementing a matchmaking system within a PUG queue, but nothing to prevent separation... if anything, you've provided ample support that it be split.
Pretty simply put, they will get destroyed by that ONE good player, even if the rest of their four teammates are garbage.
So instead of ONE good and FOUR garbage...you have FIVE good, eh?
Yep, you've provided an excellent reason why the queues should be split...
...and an excellent reason that part of that split should involve matchmaking.
Solo pug queues without further changes does not necessarily = more players in long run. That's the debate.
Splitting the queues without matchmaking might be like taking an aspirin when you need surgery...
It gets into probabilities.
What is the current probability that you'll run into a team in the queues?
If the queues were split, what would the probability be that all the good players would be on the other team?
It's multiple steps to address the issues...always has been.
Heck, it's one of the reasons that earlier in the thread I listed increased rewards for team play - as an incentive to get folks into team play...so the team queues don't end up dead.
There's just so much to fix with PvP, it would be easier not to bother...
Yeah, it's debatable whether it would be an improvement over the current system. Your diluting the concentration of players in each queue = more waiting, less pvp, which is a a bigger problem than super pugs solo'ing queues or pre-mades with no one to play with.
Yeah, it's debatable whether it would be an improvement over the current system. Your diluting the concentration of players in each queue = more waiting, less pvp, which is a a bigger problem than super pugs solo'ing queues or pre-mades with no one to play with.
The conundrum...the dilemma...the fun for Cryptic, eh?
But hey, like I'm copping out of many discussions of late - with Expansion 2, will it matter? Is all of this moot?
Comments
Heh, given the way things stack in either direction with STO - would we really want something like that?
You can learn teamwork without having to play with the same players all the time. Yes, there are some team setups that rely on everyone having a very specific ship build (like the SW gravwell thing), but outside of these rare very specialised team builds, you can mix&match most players once they have a certain skill level. Take Renim as Eng, Naz and Linty as Sci, Kharn and Blackjack as tacticals. If I'm not mistaken, none of them had any significant playtime with one of the others, let alone as a team of five. Do you really think that such a team would be a failure (as in: losing to teams with significantly worse dps/hps/etc. stats, but more experience as a group) because of their lack of "teamwork"?
Take those five...have them play together through a series of matches...are you saying you wouldn't see any improvement in their performance as they continued to play together?
2) Separate PUGs and *mades.
3) Have two base game types (Arena & Scenario) for Space & Ground. (Pretend Shuttle doesn't exist.)
4) Implement matchmaking for the PUG queues.
5) Implement matchmaking for the *made queues.
6) Implement PvP Ranking/Tier/Hierarchy/Reputation for *made queues.
7) Offer better rewards for *made queues to reflect the less casual approach than the PUG queues.
8) Add additional Arena and Scenario maps/gametypes.
9) Have a robust endgame instead of just talking about one...
Yes, I could have added to a necro thread, but I think that it's important that players who believe in a change shouldn't be limited to the old threads. By starting new threads we keep reminding the devs that certain topics are dear to us and we're not just going to let them go.
As an aside, I played a PvP earlier today. Judging from the fleet names of all involved, it seemed to be a PUG match. The match went for over 25 minutes and through the match you could see players adapting to accommodate their team mates as well as the tactics of the enemy. My team lost the match 14-15 but it was, without a doubt, one of the best matches I've ever been in.
This thread is not about winning. It's not about smashing the opponent. It's about minimising the number of matches where one team utterly destroys the other. That way there's more chance of happening across those nail-biting matches where the advantage swings over numerous times in a match. Those are the matches that I'm after.
Daizen - Lvl 60 Tactical - Eclipse
Selia - Lvl 60 Tactical - Eclipse
Just to clarify, the last thread wouldn't have been a necro. It was only one week. But I'll drop it.
Sounds like a fair suggestion. There has to be skill matching/match making of some kind, or the queues will never be balanced except through the random wiles of the RNG. But perhaps, just to cater to those who want to play with friends - how about allowing partial teams, say up to 3?
Full teams most likely would derange any matchmaking - but how about partials?
All a player need to is filter out the game modes they don't want and push buttan for pvp. Limiting players to 3 or less game types does more harm to the queues than many players are apparently admitting.
And to answer mancom point about a balanced game being some sort of terrible consequence - rubbish. When people are doing stuff, playing and believing their actions have an effect on the outcome of the match, that's success, causal or not, experienced or not, pre-made or not.
Look at the latest tournaments (which aren't all full fleet teams; there are pugmade groups in there too) and how they have time limits (30min or so) and matches ending with single digit scores. You can see these really long (up to one hour) matches in TD too when it's not just escorts; and that's with random players that are balanced only by an algorithm.
Is a player who wants quick action and can't spare 2 minutes to find 1-2 other players for a mini queue group in OPVP really interested in such long matches?
The problem isn't of potentially long matches, it's of wasting their time doing nothing. Spending (more like 10-20) minutes waiting for the right number of people to join, setting up teams, probably switching from tac to sci or vs versa is time not doing what the player wants to do. Sure, it's more efficient than entering the current queue with 1/20 chance of a decent 'close to balanced' match, but it's no where near what's capable given a developer who ever gave a damn.
I've been in some public matches that have gone on for 40 minutes+ and some private matches that have lasted 90 minutes plus, some of the best experiences I've had in ANY PVP GAME.
If it ever became the norm, then we'd face the problem when it comes - some sort of draw or ticket mechanic imo would be best if we really have to constrain match lengths - but if you're using that as an excuse not to make matches more balanced?
A good player is a good player. Solo or on a team.
I know MANY solo players that can only be beaten by a coordinated effort, or a generic mass of five on one, or another equally skilled player (I am one of them, btw, for all of my difficulty getting the team thing down, I do know I am a deadly solo player).
What happens when someone like me, or even worse, better than me gets into a 5v5 against a really disorganized group?
Pretty simply put, they will get destroyed by that ONE good player, even if the rest of their four teammates are garbage.
it happened today in FvK with me actually, I was on a rom tac dhelan and scored 14 of the kills in the match (at least 7 of them were solo kills as well, only one of my teammates seemed competent and was my assist on the shared kills we had, the others were basically killfarms for the OPFOR)
What are we going to do when that starts happening should this "pug queue" ever be implemented?
Take a good player off of a team, he is still a good player. Splitting up the queues is not going to help one iota for the vast majority of the people crying about it (they are just bad at pvp and teamwork and need to learn to play better, its just that simple, sorry)
Fleet Admiral Rylana - Fed Tac - U.S.S Wild Card - Tactical Miracle Worker Cruiser
Lifetime Subscriber since 2012 == 17,200 Accolades = RIP PvP and Vice Squad
Chief of Starfleet Intelligence Service == Praise Cheesus
The occasional long match is fine. Even that 3h TSI-Panda match wasn't that bad. But if a player wants a quick match and only has one hour per day, then having 30min+ matches on a regular basis is a problem. I'm very much in favour of more balanced matches, but (too) long matches are a very real danger. Unless there is a top level damage dealer around, tanking/healing is much easier than scoring a kill in STO. Combined with the fact that many casual players like Engineers and aren't exactly top damage dealers when they play cruisers or sci ships, this could lead to ugly effects.
(And also: Stop the strawman. If I say "OPVP mini group for the queues", I mean saying "x up for pvp group" in OPVP, waiting 1-2min and then queueing with whoever signed up. No need to do any 20min manual balancing.)
what "good player" and "romulan" have in common .Guess next will be "you need skill to a2b faw" :rolleyes:
Id advise you dont assume things Edna. I stayed out of cloak for nearly the entire fight because it was obvious they were really bad on the OPFOR.
I dont know exactly where your hatred comes for things, considering you play enough pay to win TRIBBLE you supposedly hate, yourself.
I guess its par for the course? I suppose youll say next that youre skilled and I am not, right?
Fleet Admiral Rylana - Fed Tac - U.S.S Wild Card - Tactical Miracle Worker Cruiser
Lifetime Subscriber since 2012 == 17,200 Accolades = RIP PvP and Vice Squad
Chief of Starfleet Intelligence Service == Praise Cheesus
How about sudden death victory condition after 15min(?), this might even lead to some last ditch efforts if teams end up being poorly balanced regardless of matchmaking.
a history of sto pvp: 2010 - 2011
a history of sto pvp: 2012 - 2013
lol I was kidding
I play a s4 escort with s4 stuffs .Only new thing is the ram doff.My jhas is from that winter event .I dont play romulans
all my other pvp toons are no longer good in the current pvp.Id normaly play healer but healers are now only slow targets for faw ships.
lol how you guessed it
Again, rubbish. Very easy to implement mechanics that force games to end (if that indeed becomes some sort of issue) - much easier than rebalancing several hundred ships abilities, traits, items and all the aggro that would cause if done aggressively and comprehensively.
I think he meant balancing queues as in balanced matchmaking, not balancing abilities.
Right, my bad, however he has been suggesting the spectre of long fights as a problem...
Well, it would be a nice problem to have, and a relatively easy one to fix, hell, a simple 15 minute time limit and if the score is still 0-0 just add the dps/heal numbers to find out who wins.... Or call the match a draw... It's not as if there are any real consequences to each match anyway.
Make no mistake about it. PVP IS DYING on STO. Above all this is a profit generating game. When an area stops generating profits it stops getting developer attention. Simple a s that. If the elitist "premade teamers" want the devs to pay attention to pvp, make improvements and such they should be willing to do whatever it takes to get more players playing pvp.
Bottom line: More players = more revenue = more dev attention.
Pardon me, but did you read the previous posts? The debate is over whether simply implementing solo queues without any further changes will actually help. Some of us say that it isn't enough. Ire may simply shift to vet players instead of premades. The simplest solution may not necessarily be the best.
To extend your equation,
Solo pug queues without further changes does not necessarily = more players in long run. That's the debate.
But that good player can be an even better player depending on who is around them...
I know many horrible players out there that even with 6-7+ of them, I'm not going to die until I want a cigarette. I know many players out there that they'll kill me so fast that I'll need a cigarette.
You stay uncloaked - you take off your shields - you take off any armor - you try to stay in their arcs - you tell folks to go easy on the heals - you try to give them the opportunity to learn to feel good about themselves to want to PvP again...?
Well, duh - there's so much overgearing and difference in skill that such a thing could and does easily happen...
Not really a surprise...
Which is pretty much bullcrap...nothing you've said so far supports that.
You've provided information that supports implementing a matchmaking system within a PUG queue, but nothing to prevent separation... if anything, you've provided ample support that it be split.
So instead of ONE good and FOUR garbage...you have FIVE good, eh?
Yep, you've provided an excellent reason why the queues should be split...
...and an excellent reason that part of that split should involve matchmaking.
Split 'em and match 'em.
Splitting the queues without matchmaking might be like taking an aspirin when you need surgery...
It gets into probabilities.
What is the current probability that you'll run into a team in the queues?
If the queues were split, what would the probability be that all the good players would be on the other team?
It's multiple steps to address the issues...always has been.
Heck, it's one of the reasons that earlier in the thread I listed increased rewards for team play - as an incentive to get folks into team play...so the team queues don't end up dead.
There's just so much to fix with PvP, it would be easier not to bother...
The conundrum...the dilemma...the fun for Cryptic, eh?
But hey, like I'm copping out of many discussions of late - with Expansion 2, will it matter? Is all of this moot?