Feedback about matchmaking!!!

[Fulcrum.Armulus]

Please let us know how you think we can improve matchmaking system.

[nico77nico77]

fix the ♥♥♥♥♥♥
rank match
always getting unbalanced teammate

didnt know how to knock enemies
T T

4 times playing

always getting noobie
teammates

stupid rank system

[KitsuneShion]

I think it's good that they lowered the level to start playing ranked, but that two molecules, l and ll, are left in a party with 3 unranked players and one of them is account level 11... The matchmaking needs to be improved a lot in that sense. I don't know if they should restrict certain levels or meet some requirement, but I don't find it fair. Also, without knowing what the ranks are like on the other side, one doesn't know how much "equality" one is receiving. I don't see any problems if it shows the enemy ranks, either permanently or at the end of the games, to know what one was up against. That's why, as many comment, the games are a roller coaster where sometimes they are very extreme, you destroy or they destroy you.

[HyphenSam]

Was in a challenge match with 2 Neutron players and 1 Proton player, with the enemy team either low rank or didn't play ranked, and we absolutely destroyed them. I haven't played ranked so I can't judge it, but the matchmaking on challenge needs some work too. It's mostly one-sided matches which isn't fun to play even on the winning team.

[TimeTimeTime]

Originally posted by HyphenSam:

Was in a challenge match with 2 Neutron players and 1 Proton player, with the enemy team either low rank or didn't play ranked, and we absolutely destroyed them. I haven't played ranked so I can't judge it, but the matchmaking on challenge needs some work too. It's mostly one-sided matches which isn't fun to play even on the winning team.

I mean, they could use headshot percentages, avg synergy levels and skill scores to match people together. I think it's hard when matching parties and solos. You could also use win /  lost ratios in the match making metrics.

One area of matchmaking that could be improved on is not rematching everyone just because one person didn't enter the matchmaking. Why not just find one person to add to the match, instead of disregarding it all. You would think that would be more efficient for the servers.

[60]

Originally posted by TimeTimeTime:

Originally posted by HyphenSam:

Was in a challenge match with 2 Neutron players and 1 Proton player, with the enemy team either low rank or didn't play ranked, and we absolutely destroyed them. I haven't played ranked so I can't judge it, but the matchmaking on challenge needs some work too. It's mostly one-sided matches which isn't fun to play even on the winning team.

I mean, they could use headshot percentages, avg synergy levels and skill scores to match people together. I think it's hard when matching parties and solos. You could also use win /  lost ratios in the match making metrics.

One area of matchmaking that could be improved on is not rematching everyone just because one person didn't enter the matchmaking. Why not just find one person to add to the match, instead of disregarding it all. You would think that would be more efficient for the servers.

I feel like things like a player never using any abilities or buying upgrades should be considered as well. Suggests that they dont understand how the game works.

[Saber Nero]

Originally posted by 60:

Originally posted by TimeTimeTime:

I mean, they could use headshot percentages, avg synergy levels and skill scores to match people together. I think it's hard when matching parties and solos. You could also use win /  lost ratios in the match making metrics.

One area of matchmaking that could be improved on is not rematching everyone just because one person didn't enter the matchmaking. Why not just find one person to add to the match, instead of disregarding it all. You would think that would be more efficient for the servers.

I feel like things like a player never using any abilities or buying upgrades should be considered as well. Suggests that they dont understand how the game works.

second this

[TimeTimeTime]

I know that my feedback means nothing in the grand scheme of things and even if they do take it, I receive no glory, lol. It's almost less than meaningless to contribute ideas from that POV. However, I will give my suggestion:

I've been thinking about this off and on, and this game really needs a matchmaking system based on skill. I think that if you gave rewards for playing deathmatches, like more deathmatch events, then you can use the damage, skill, and synergy scores to match people in future games, but with damage scores highly dictating it.

So, if you are playing deathmatches and getting top 10% all the time, then you are matched against others who get top 10%. If you are bottom %, then you are matched with others who are bottom %. If you are middle, then other middles.

I think over time, this would create a better matchmaking system. Of course, people can smurf or do bad to play with worst tiers and smurf, but the system could also flag accounts that are bouncing between other tiers too often, or it could prevent you from going to a lower tier when you elevate to a higher one (especially after bouncing between tiers too often).

There is the idea for all it's worth.

[TimeTimeTime]

Originally posted by 60:

Originally posted by TimeTimeTime:

I mean, they could use headshot percentages, avg synergy levels and skill scores to match people together. I think it's hard when matching parties and solos. You could also use win /  lost ratios in the match making metrics.

One area of matchmaking that could be improved on is not rematching everyone just because one person didn't enter the matchmaking. Why not just find one person to add to the match, instead of disregarding it all. You would think that would be more efficient for the servers.

I feel like things like a player never using any abilities or buying upgrades should be considered as well. Suggests that they dont understand how the game works.

Yeah, I think that's a good idea. I definitely think that the damage, skill, synergy, and ability usage could create a better matchmaking system, but I wouldn't hold my breath on my ideas being implemented, lol.

[TimeTimeTime]

Originally posted by Saber Nero:

Originally posted by 60:

I feel like things like a player never using any abilities or buying upgrades should be considered as well. Suggests that they dont understand how the game works.

second this

Yeah, I also think (now that I think about it), that they could track how fast it takes someone to kill someone else upon engagement. Like, when two people are in combat shooting at each other.

If they were to factor in how much time it took on average to kill other players, that could be theoretically used to match-make people together.

[Bakaczor]

I don't know how matchmaking works in this game, but clearly it does not work correctly. After the last game I played I decied to run a very small analysis, because it was ridiculous.

I hit Emerald recently (Emerald IV to be precise). I played 6 escort games today and I decied to check the team balance. I did not think much of the methodology and I taken into consideration mostly ranks (levels) not skill, because I don't have time for scrapping every player profile and inventing fancy equations. Anyway, these are the results.

Assuming:
bronze=1
silver=2
...
and
V=+0.0
IV=+0.2
III=+0.4
...

game 1 (defeat, 8:19)
- 1 x emerald IV
- 1 x silver II
- 1 x bronze I
- 1 x bronze IV
- 1 x ? (3rd place, 8/3) - assumed silver III
mean K/A: 5.8/6.6

vs.
- 1 x legend III
- 1 x master III
- 1 x platinum II
- 1 x platinum IV
- 1 x silver I

BALANCE(5.2)
mean: 2.64 - 5.48
median: 2.4 - 4.6

game 2 (victory, 11:31)
- 1 x emerald IV
- 1 x bronze I
- 1 x bronze II
- 2 x ? (3rd and 5th place, 6/13 and 1/15) - assumed bronze III and bronze V
mean K/A: 10.2/13.8

vs.
- 1 x diamond II
- 2 x platinum III
- 1 x gold III
- 1 x silver I

BALANCE(5.2)
mean: 2.2 - 4.32
median: 1.6 - 4.4

game 3 (defeat, 7:53)
- 1 x emerald IV
- 2 x bronze II
- 2 x bronze III

vs.
- 1 x gold II
- 1 x gold V
- 2 x bronze I
- 1 x ? (4th place, 9/2) - assumed silver V
mean K/A: 6/7

BALANCE(5.2)
mean: 2.24 - 2,44
median: 1.6 - 2

game 4 (victory, 5:52)
- 1 x diamond V
- 1 x emerald IV
- 1 x platinum III
- 1 x platinum V
- 1 x gold V

vs.
- 1 x emerald IV
- 1 x gold II
- 1 x silver III
- 1 x bronze III
- 1 x bronze IV

BALANCE(5.2)
mean: 4.52 - 2.76
median: 4.4 - 2.4

game 5 (defeat, 11:40)
- 2 x emerald IV
- 1 x gold V
- 1 x silver IV
- 1 x bronze II

vs.
- 1 x platinum II
- 1 x platinum V
- 1 x silver III
- 1 x silver IV
- 1 x silver V

BALANCE(5.2)
mean: 3.44 - 3.04
median: 3 - 2.4

game 6 (defeat, 12:34)
- 1 x diamond V
- 1 x emerald II
- 1 x emerald IV
- 1 x platinum IV
- 1 x silver IV

vs.
- 1 x platinum I
- 1 x platinum II
- 1 x gold V
- 1 x silver V
- 1 x bronze II

BALANCE(5.2)
mean: 4.64 - 3.2
median: 5.2 - 3

As you can see, maybe 1 out of 3 games is balanced at most. But the balance between two teams is one thing. Balance inside the team is also important. Last 3 games I was paired with all bronze or bronze/silver players (literal newbies if you will). This is ridiculous. I don't know if the matchmaking algorithm is just that bad or the game has too small playerbase to have good matchmaking, but this needs investigation. Right now, as I said, maybe 1 out of 3 games feels balanced enough and the rest is just one team obliterating the other, either way.

Again, this is a very basic analysis on a really small sample. But the purpose was just to point out the problem, which undoubtedly exists.

[NekoSama0w0_TTV]

The match making reminds me of CoD, you can do one good match and have a descent team than the next match your going against the no life, high ranks for no reason. I am not even exaggerating this cause i search him on the leader board and he was ranked two on escort with average escort holding time of 60+hrs like wtf why are the no life. My team has the level 6 audury who thought it was a smart idea to use their ult after they capture zone which gives them god mode for like 5 seconds and waste their ult not once but twice.

-There needs to be a better balancing in ranked and causal stop punishing people who get off work and want to run causal and not have to carry the team and lose cause of no life's

[Karino Shuka]

1. a level 10 unranked could be matched with me when i'm atom, algo needs some serious work. Also many instances where i was matched with substances.

2. chat censorship is so strict to the point where it's impossible to communicate at all.

[Malamasala]

Originally posted by Bakaczor:

I hit Emerald recently (Emerald IV to be precise). I played 6 escort games today and I decied to check the team balance.

Escort is pretty bad to check balance on considering attackers have extreme advantage and should win every single time, unless you got so unbalanced teams that the defenders can hold.

[Sniddy]

Originally posted by Fulcrum.Armulus:

Please let us know how you think we can improve matchmaking system.

Matchmaking is cooked. Everyone is Copper, no one will ever get out. Either you get cooked by your opponents or you cook them yourself. Nothing inbetween, its horrible.

[Aimee]

Originally posted by TimeTimeTime:

I've been thinking about this off and on, and this game really needs a matchmaking system based on skill. I think that if you gave rewards for playing deathmatches, like more deathmatch events, then you can use the damage, skill, and synergy scores to match people in future games, but with damage scores highly dictating it.

The problem with this is that Challenge does use this, but Ranked does not. Ranked needs to split players based on skill right from the start. You cant expect someone who plays shooters for the first time who just started playing Strinova to be having fun in a team with someone who plays shooters for 30 years, nor the other way around.
MM in Challenge is fine, but Ranked needs to split players in different ranks before people start climbing the ranks. This way its actualy fun for everyone involved.
Challenge should not based skill with ''damage scoring the highest'', since thats not a good measurement.
Some characters are better at dealing damage than others, and sometimes when you have a decent team(mate) who is playing an agressive character, you can help get knocks but dont get much damage in. If anything they should consider headshot percentage and if you finish your own kills the highest. Dealing a lot of damage but killing noone is not going to help you win the game most of the time.

Originally posted by TimeTimeTime:

So, if you are playing deathmatches and getting top 10% all the time, then you are matched against others who get top 10%. If you are bottom %, then you are matched with others who are bottom %. If you are middle, then other middles.

This would be a decent way to do this, although a bit simple most certainly effective.

Originally posted by TimeTimeTime:

Of course, people can smurf or do bad to play with worst tiers and smurf, but the system could also flag accounts that are bouncing between other tiers too often, or it could prevent you from going to a lower tier when you elevate to a higher one (especially after bouncing between tiers too often).

If the flagging for ''smurfing'' is too strict, it would result in a lot of bans and punishments, especialy at the higher player skills. High skilled players bounce between skill level a lot normaly, based on how tired they are, or other factors. You cant always be ''locked in'', not to mention not giving 100% when you are in a losing team. Or not trying to beat the enemy team even harder when you are already winning by a landslide.

I normaly dont give it my all, unless i think it would change the outcome of the game. So if the system punishes that too quick, ill quickly get banned over and over again.