Hey everyone, I'm no game dev, publisher, or anything of the like, and I'm not going to act like I know the first thing about keeping a sustainable population besides the fact that the argument that SBMM won't work with a small playerbase and will make the playerbase any smaller is extremely mislead. If you aren't a competitive gamer and are unfamiliar with how skill based matchmaking (or SBMM) works or even what it means, it's basically an algorithm designed to group players of similar skill levels together so that the match doesn't result in a complete steamroll of one team or player by the other. If you're familiar with the ELO system of Counter Strike or Overwatch's Competitive Matchmaking, those are examples of SBMM. And you could argue that if the game groups players together based on a vague algorithm of "skill" and not location and availability, then that would result in wait times being even longer or some big pings, right? You are right, but ask yourself this: "how many times have I dropped a game because it took to long to find a game," versus "how many times have I dropped a game because the games I've played weren't fun?" How many times have you said "Gee, it's so fast to find a game, I'm never gonna quit this!" I've gotten into a few competitive shooters before, like Team Fortress and Overwatch, but I'll never forget the fun I had with Splatoon and how fast that game unfortunately died. It was doomed to a short lifetime because of it's nature as a Wii U game, but also because it totally failed to keep players attracted to it, and it failed because it tried too hard and didn't use any common sense behind its reasoning. If you've never played Splatoon, you might not have heard that all the game's DLC maps and weapons (which were all free, by the way, like Titanfall 2!) were all in the base 1.00 version of the game. They weren't patched in or anything. The only things in patches were balance changes and bugfixes. They would release a few weapons and a map at the same time every week or two, with the idea that players losing interest would return to try out the new stuff. Sounds smart, right? Steadily bring in a nice amount of new content for casual players to try out, give them reasons to keep playing besides to level up. And it was a good idea, those players would keep coming back every week to try out the new stuff! and then they would quit immediately because they got absolutely destroyed. There was no regional or skill-based matchmaking at all. Everyone would get crushed by Japanese competitive players with 300+ ping to them who knew all the movement mechanics and frequented the 2ch board for the game. The only western community left standing is on squidboards, which while I really enjoyed my time there, quickly shrunk because no new players would come in and players who already owned the game quickly got frustrated with it. It's passionate fanbase quickly shrunk and moved onto other games because there was simply not a casual playerbase to turn into a competitive one. I'm not going to act like Respawn are anywhere near as incompetent at Nintendo are at designing a shooter to be played at a casual and competitive level, or that Titanfall 2 is as bad as Splatoon was at keeping a playerbase, considering these people have been in the industry for so long and basically created the modern military shooter design trend that everyone grew to loathe in the early 2010's with COD4:MW. These people are experienced and know what they're doing better than we do. That's why I want this community to push Respawn to make good design decisions and not to keep the completely vanilla matchmaking we have right now. Christmas kids are here, with consoles having 40k+ players and PC at 6k+. Please, let's keep them here to stay. I'm very confident that this game will die sooner if it matches players together poorly in high volume, than if it matched the right players together with low numbers. Thanks for reading.
Welcome aboard pilot. Glad to have you here. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I believe I understand what you are saying and if so then I think you are expressing the same concerns I have been trying to for awhile now. TF1 was my favorite video game of all time. It was almost perfect in my opinion, but it did have 2 flaws that killed the user base (non-existent matchmaking algorithm and no anti-cheat system). The games were always lopsided both in numbers and skill. Even as a veteran it was almost unbearable at times, especially when you would throw a cheater in the mix on the other side when you were already outnumbered and outskilled. If it was frustrating to a veteran of 2 years, imagine what it felt like to someone who had just bought the game. It is no wonder they didn't stick around. I believe the point you are trying to make is that there has to be a sense of urgency to incorporate a rock solid matchmaking algorithm as early as possible while the user base is as large as it is going to be, because if you don't you are going to lose what you have very quickly and it is just going to spiral downhill and get increasingly worse as the user base shrinks. Basically, having a larger user base might be able to mask it a little bit, but this should not be used as an excuse to not implement a good matchmaking algorithm, because you are definitely going to need it later. Forgive me if I misinterpreted what you were trying to say. By the way, you mentioned Overwatch. I think Respawn should either buy the rights from Blizzard for their matchmaking and anti-cheat systems or pay Blizzard to implement them for them. From what I hear, no one does matchmaking and anti-cheat better than it is done in Overwatch. Also, you may be interested in seeing a matchmaking algorithm idea I've been trying to share with Respawn for well over a year now. http://www.titanfall-community.com/threads/team-balance-matchmaking.2009/#post-46139
I hear you guys and understand the need for an "anit-cheat" system. If I am correct this is primarily if not exclusively a PC issue; it is why I moved to console from PC. Unfortunately the PC community seems to be small and I doubt it would be economically feasible to implement. Now don't jump on me and launch the argument that it would bring more users if word got out - I agree it would. The problem is would Respawn risk the investment when they have other issues to deal with that will impact their bigger user base on consoles? I think not... As to matchmaking yes give us a better system. This weekend when a whole new crop of "Tommy Two Thumbs" joined the horde I felt there would be some very unbalanced matches but it didn't seem that way at least not in Ampted Hardpoint. Games were reasonably balanced for the most part. It was funny watching the noobs run around getting a zillion kills and then bitch that they were at the bottom of the ladder when the MVP had only 2 kills. They just don't get it and when I suggested that they stay and capture the point or amp it they just ignored me and took off to "B" to get slaughtered. This was not a rarity at all. In one game I was MVP but on the loosing team one young guy on my team said to his buddy (yes they were a team) "...how can that Bawgs be 1st when he only had one kill, something is f___ked in this game..." I had 2,600 points however, hope they figure it out before they quit.
Ensc, just curious, how long is too long and are you able to figure (with your coding) how long players would sit between matches? I'm also curious what others think; how long is too long between matches?
Oh, DARK, you are singing to my heart strings my friend. I love Hardpoint so much and I love when people play it the right way, which I know you do. It is amazing how many just don't get the concept. They are playing attrition in the middle of a Hardpoint game when kills mean nothing unless they take place inside the invisible boundaries surrounding the 3 hardpoints. I saw the MVP of the winning team one time have 0 Kills and 12 Deaths, but personally, he is the guy I would want on my team, because I know he knows what is important in Hardpoint and what is not. In TF1's Multiplayer Campaign when there was a guy on the other team who was really good at Attrition, I couldn't wait to get to one of the Hardpoint games with him on the other team, because I knew I would destroy him, because generally those who are really good Attrition don't have the patience to sit and play defense in Hardpoint.
I understand there is an argument for both sides. You don't want the noobs to completely be turned off and not wanna play , but too much of sbmm is a complete disaster. Advanced warfare is my example of an awful game but completely destroyed by sbmm. There is no fun at all playing tryhards every single game. I don't know if there's a perfect system out there but sbmm ruins the game for the veteran and skilled players but it helps the noobs at first. I don't want new players to get turned off either but people have to understand there's going to be a learning curve playing a new game online.
Thanks for the question Getmused. If I had access to their code, I could stick a timer in there and test it accurately, but without that it is all just opinion. I can tell you how I feel about it. I think players should be willing to wait longer in direct proportion to how even the games are. Let me try to give you 3 examples to explain what I mean. 1) NO EVENNESS - No matchmaking algorithm (as in TF1 and TF2 despite propaganda video, the results speak for themselves), which result in lopsided games in numbers and skill levels at the start of a game in TF1, and extremely lopsided skill at beginning of game with FPS clan on one side in TF2 resulting in lopsided numbers mid-game when some on other team realize what is going on and leave) WAIT TIME - Should be almost nothing. If you are going to give players a crappy match anyway, then at least get them in there fast. Obviously, whatever code you are using, if any, is not working, so just strip it out completely and throw 10 or 12 players in a match quick, because your code is bogging things down with ZERO benefit. 2) SOME EVENNESS - Lazy matchmaking algorithm (let's say that all they did was look at the Generation and Level of the players and tried to keep both sides having equivalent players based on just that) WAIT TIME - Should be maybe about a minute at the most. At least they are trying, but not going too deep. 3) ALWAYS EVEN GAMES - Using rock solid matchmaking algorithm as I laid out in the link above (they are taking everything into account: experience, skill and recent effectiveness resulting in very even matches almost every single game) WAIT TIME - Could be about 2 minutes or so. ***Personally, if I knew the result was ALWAYS going to be an extremely even match because they were using a good algorithm, I would be more than happy to wait 5 minutes for a match. *** There is a caveat here. I'm basing this on the better way things were done in TF1, where once you got into a match you stayed with those same people so long as they didn't leave for the entire one or two hour session you played, so there would only be the initial 5 minute wait, but then almost no pause between games other than enough time to allow people to change loadouts or whatever they might like to do. The new system needs to be scrapped, because even if you had a good algorithm, it would create the delay before every game, because they suck you out into the entire user pool for that lobby and create a new game from scratch. Hope that helps.
There is absolutely a "sweet spot" for SBMM. I don't disagree that going overboard with SBMM can be more hurtful than helpful, but the state matchmaking is in right now is far from ideal, as well.
Well pilot v pilot was very competitive today , attrition definitely is a much softer lobbies typically. I just think this happens with most online games Christmas noobs come on and you destroy them lol this doesn't seem like it's just a titanfall thing. I think it has to just settle in. I'm no expert at all I'm completely a casual player. So I don't know anything technical at all I am using a lot of assumptions. I do feel that the matchmaking has been messed up overall because the low number of players . I think it has been better the last week or 2 . There hasn't been too many one sided blowouts although that still does happen
I hear what they are saying and just want to add; I spoke too soon when I said this in an earlier post: "As to matchmaking yes give us a better system. This weekend when a whole new crop of "Tommy Two Thumbs" joined the horde I felt there would be some very unbalanced matches but it didn't seem that way at least not in Ampted Hardpoint. Games were reasonably balanced for the most part." Yesterday while playing Hardpoint we lost a game 400 - 13. yes "13" no typo! The other team were no doubt in a party and the spawn trapped us at the "A" spawn on Dry Dock. I got out once and got to "C" only to be killed when two of their Stimed guys came down on my I never even captured the point. Now tell me again about "matchmaking"... This team were all extremely good players very well organized and focused. We only Ampted "A" at the start and that was it. Omega I agree and fear that this type of imbalance will chase the "noobs" away in droves. It would be such a shame for a great game with the potential this has to become a classic. I have noticed that the "party" symbol is no longer visible, this is over the past week or two the other thing that we should be able to see is the GEN of each player. I think Respawn is jerking us around with this lack of information as it allows unbalanced - mismatched games to take place. IK I would appreciate your views on this -EN I know yours for sure...
EN, I redacted your post only in the interest of time for the reader. You as always are right on and I agree with you. I did take a quick look at your proposal some time ago, and clearly it should be tested to see how it works. Having said that I can't recall how it would deal with "clans" partying games as I described above. It this type of gaming that I believe has hurt COD as it is hard to find a game without a large party dominating the game - sure contributed to this long term CODer quitting the game. I like to play with a social party but usually play solo. At the moment I am GENing my PS4 and don't have that many friends I play with so often solo and this "clan" thing seems to be increasing in frequency. PS yesterday there was over 60,000 players on both consoles combined. Lots of AH games with wait times of 2 to 4 minute wait time. I welcome your comments...
Interesting. Idk if this is too much off topic but it's a distant cousin: attrition scoring. I've brought this up before but something is going on and I've got photos and video. It's not just happening to me be other teammates and the opposing team. Oddly enough it's always when someone scores a really high score and I'm pretty sure mine happen while I'm lagging. The reason I noticed, I started applying the lowest points to pilots and titans during a match. Pilot 5 Titan 10 and I noticed that a lot of the time my score should have been higher than what was recorded just using pilots and titans not minions. http://xboxdvr.com/gamer/GetMused/video/25034294 In the video you'll see I get 3 pilot/titans for 15 points so for the rest just add 10 You'll also notice I kill 2 reapers 5 each. Again add 1 to the rest of the minions. It's just really weird. I brought this before and I just posted on the EA site. Some wanted to say you get kills in the epilogue which add to the kill but not score. This is not true. Others said you get 10 points for dooming the Titan and the player that actually kills the Titan gets the "kill" not score. This is also false. Unless my recordings of me dooming titans is false. Anyway I just want your guys opinions.
Well that game you were in clearly is ridiculous and shouldn't happen. The problem doesn't only seem to be matchmaking but maybe even spawn logic as well ? But how many games did you play total ? Out of all the games you played how many times were they really out of balance? I play pilot vs pilot and attrition, I really haven't tried the other modes yet. These severely imbalanced games don't occur all that much , but they still happen from time to time. Sometimes a game could become a blowout but in a way it was still competitive, and sometimes games are a blowout but it's a one sided abusive lobby that utterly destroys your team. If I saw this happening majority of the time then I wouldn't like it either , but at least in the modes that I play those kind of one sided abusive beat downs are really not as common as people believe. Also when you say new players won't stay around well I'm a new player and I stayed around. If your talking about a little kid who has no previous experience with online play or shooters like call of duty then yes they probably will get frustrated and not wanna play. But somewhere along the line you will have to learn how to play online games. I started with halo 2 and it was very hard and I sucked. But you develop skills over the years so now at least you know what to expect. Outside of a 400-13 game I don't think this game has been that out of balance. Like I said maybe different modes you encounter different lobbies , but something tells me that Team was a bunch of cheats and the matchmaking probably shuffled them after your game and you didn't see them again the rest of the day
Yes the party system has hurt COD a lot. But it didn't really hurt it in black ops 3. Yes certain weekends like double xp you will have try hard party lobbies all over the place. Playing solo would be very tough. But Advanced Warfare was the king of horrendous lobbies and sbmm. That game was one of the worst experiences I have been apart of . Titan fall so far has not come close to that. But I have experienced time to time abusive lobbies that make you wanna scream. But I'm not sure if this can really be avoided ? Either it's gonna remain a casual game and time to time your team gets stomped or they are gonna turn it into a clan war sweatfest try hard lobby game after game like advanced warfare.
I prefer SBMM because I like close, competitive matches. However, even if I get beat 400-13.. I don't quit. For me personally, I stay against that team and learn and grow as a player. I actually LOVE those type of games because it makes you better. If you're gonna quit because someone is better than you, I feel sorry for that person in real life.
Close competive matches are good of course. But there definitely has to be a limit to sbmm. We are not playing competitive tournament style matches , we are playing CASUAL matches . Too much sbmm completely takes any kind of fun from the game because the guy you go up against is always as good as you. Yes you get better as a player but you can only see that when you play against less skilled opposition . It needs to be a mix of sbmm but also casual play. If my goal is to become a tournament style player then I would want to play in as many hard matches and lobbies that I can. But I want challenging matches but also mixed in softer lobbies too. This is for casual play so you can have fun with the game. If I want to try new weapons or new boosts new tacticals i can do that in casual matches , in rampant sbmm everyone is always using there best class and they approach the game in a very competitive tryhard way. You just need to look at advanced warfare to see how awful the sbmm was . As soon as you hit a certain K/D the lobbies became absolutely ridiculous
Thanks DARK! I appreciate your kind words and for having taken the time to read my proposal as well. My proposal would deal with clans and individuals equally. This is the portion of my proposal that would handle it: -Distribution (must use holding areas) --when someone enters a game mode, whether an individual or a block of friends --they must be put in a holding area and only added into games if you are adding --equal numbers of players with equal experience based on algorithm above onto --each side at the same time --it is better to wait, knowing you will be entering an even game, rather than --getting thrown directly into a game that could be frustratingly lopsided --if you don't like waiting, you can always try a different server or mode Hope that helps
So my question is, you would rather wait to have "even" matches than instantly get throw into matches? I don't know, for me personally, I'd rather just get thrown into matches at a faster rate because when I get home from work... the last things I want to do when I fire up Titanfall is wait even longer. It's also the reason I hated the fact that now all games have to install to your console to be able to play them. Get a new game, get it home, pop it in and get ready to play... oh no.. you have to wait 1hr for the update to download and another hour for the game to install lol /rant
I was playing attrition earlier today and all the matches were super close. A lot of them were decided in the last minute.