Forced into 3 player teams AGAIN?

[Sticks]

What is it with these games and forcing you to group up so that the only way to have any control over the outcome of a match is to get a coordinated team together? I had this game on my wishlist and was looking forward to playing it and now knowing its another forced teams game I just have to pretend it doesn't exist like all the rest of them.

For those of you actually playing these games I have to ask, whats the appeal? Personally the thing that always made fps games appealing to me is having the best twitch reflexes and accuracy and cleaning house. I can't get that from this game because twitch reflexes and accuracy come second to having a coordinated team that can save your ass when someone better than you comes along and beats you.

So does the fun really just come from getting a good team together and pub stomping less coordinated randomly matched teams? How is that fulfilling? And if thats not it then what is? I really don't get why this keeps ruining every promising looking fps but I must be missing something for it to keep happening.

[Sticks]

Originally posted by Tetori:

Originally posted by Sticks:

Can you explain what the difference is between the algorithm trying to get it so you win as much as you lose and the algorithm trying to enforce a 50% win rate?

The whole point of the rock paper scissors comparison was to show that ranking systems can separate out players into different "skill levels" even in a completely luck based game. Ranking alone are indicative of nothing, they don't make a game competitive.

It isn't trying to get you to have a 50% win rate, it's something that naturally happens as you play more games. A 50% win rate shows that you are against people of the same skill level as you as you can comfortably win and lose the same amount. If you are consistently better than your opponents you will increase in rank until you are against people you can't consistently win against. Your win rate and rank will constantly change until you get to a point where your rank and win rate stabilise; which will be around the 50% mark because of how playing against people your own skill level naturally progresses.

In the case of your rock, paper, scissors example your win rate would eventually reach around 33% because that is the chance of winning against another person and because there are 3 game states: win, lose, draw.

What naturally happens is that people of varying skill levels all join a server and play together and the best players do the best in that server. What a matchmaking algorithm tries to make artificially happen is matching everyone together so that they'll only win 50% of the time.

When I join a server I want whether I win or lose to be an unknown factor. I don't want a matchmaking algorithm to see me on a hot streak and place me against people who are just better than me in order to make me lose in order to enforce its 50% winrate.

Does this lead to imbalances where a small number of players are disproportionately more skilled than the rest leading the server to stack one way? Sure, but that's something you as a player can control, there's no controlling the goal of the algorithm to ensure you lose as much as you win.

[Tetori]

Originally posted by Sticks:

Originally posted by Tetori:

It isn't trying to get you to have a 50% win rate, it's something that naturally happens as you play more games. A 50% win rate shows that you are against people of the same skill level as you as you can comfortably win and lose the same amount. If you are consistently better than your opponents you will increase in rank until you are against people you can't consistently win against. Your win rate and rank will constantly change until you get to a point where your rank and win rate stabilise; which will be around the 50% mark because of how playing against people your own skill level naturally progresses.

In the case of your rock, paper, scissors example your win rate would eventually reach around 33% because that is the chance of winning against another person and because there are 3 game states: win, lose, draw.

What naturally happens is that people of varying skill levels all join a server and play together and the best players do the best in that server. What a matchmaking algorithm tries to make artificially happen is matching everyone together so that they'll only win 50% of the time.

When I join a server I want whether I win or lose to be an unknown factor. I don't want a matchmaking algorithm to see me on a hot streak and place me against people who are just better than me in order to make me lose in order to enforce its 50% winrate.

Does this lead to imbalances where a small number of players are disproportionately more skilled than the rest leading the server to stack one way? Sure, but that's something you as a player can control, there's no controlling the goal of the algorithm to ensure you lose as much as you win.

It doesn't force a 50% win rate, if it did there wouldn't be people who have consistently above and below this rate. Every game you join will have an unknown factor and no game is guaranteed to give you a win or a loss.

You joining a random server against randomly skilled opponents gives you no more control than in a ranked system but at least the ranked system will get to a point where it will place you against people of your skill level and as a result you will know where you stand overall.

The only part you control when joining random servers is that you can just join a different server. At the end of the day you will just be randomly put against people of drastically varying skill levels, so it's a really poor gauge on your overall skill level. All you will know is whether you are better or worse than people in that specific match.

[Sticks]

If you're straying from a 50% winrate than the algorithm either isn't good enough to keep you there or the game isn't skill based enough for it to influence your winrate through the players it chooses for you.

For example if you're playing competitively with the same team of friends over and over again that takes the power away from the algorithm to put worse players on your team to try and make you lose. So naturally premade teams will have higher winrates just based on the algorithm not being able to do its job as well.

I will choose being randomly put in a server against people of drastically varying skill levels any day of the week than subject myself to the wills of an algorithm that actively seeks to make me win or lose from game to game.

[Tetori]

Originally posted by Sticks:

If you're straying from a 50% winrate than the algorithm either isn't good enough to keep you there or the game isn't skill based enough for it to influence your winrate through the players it chooses for you.

For example if you're playing competitively with the same team of friends over and over again that takes the power away from the algorithm to put worse players on your team to try and make you lose. So naturally premade teams will have higher winrates just based on the algorithm not being able to do its job as well.

I will choose being randomly put in a server against people of drastically varying skill levels any day of the week than subject myself to the wills of an algorithm that actively seeks to make me win or lose from game to game.

Several games have separate ranks depending on if you're a full team or not or have systems in place to prevent too much rank discrepancy between team members.

Straying from the 50% win rate is what makes you increase or decrease in rank. Always staying above or below the 50% win rate typically means you're at the top or bottom rank.

You may choose to go for the random approach but in the end you will only see your performance against the players in that match. You will not have an accurate overview of your abilities compared to the majority of players on the game. Hence why those modes are casual while ranked systems and tournaments are the competitive scene.

Tbh your description of wanting completely random people on a completely random server is no different from non-ranked match making. In both scenarios you run the chance of running into people of completely random skill levels and run the chance of running into full teams or not.

[Sticks]

I don't need to have an accurate overview of my abilities compared to every other person playing the game. Once again I don't care what precious metal the game assigns to me relative to everyone else. Once again ranked matchmaking has no bearing on whether or not a game is competitive, rock paper scissors with ranks is not a competitive game.

[Jesus Christ]

sticks stop just stop lmao. This man wants call of duty but made by some one else. theres no saving him. leave him be

[Sticks]

This thread isn't even about the finals anymore, just more of whats ruining modern gaming. I guess every game was a casual game prior to the invention of matchmaking algorithms assigning everyone a rank.

[Tetori]

Originally posted by Sticks:

I don't need to have an accurate overview of my abilities compared to every other person playing the game. Once again I don't care what precious metal the game assigns to me relative to everyone else. Once again ranked matchmaking has no bearing on whether or not a game is competitive, rock paper scissors with ranks is not a competitive game.

It depends on how pedantic you want to be. Technically rock paper scissors is competitive due to the fact you're competing to win the game. But in the gaming world it's typically accepted that playing in a ranked system or tournament is competitive play because it's for people who don't want to play the game like everyone else, i.e. casually. Also there aren't many games that would fit that definition of competitive without having a team element to them.

At the end of the day your precious death match game modes are what casual FPS gamers play and aren't taken seriously.

[Tetori]

Originally posted by Sticks:

This thread isn't even about the finals anymore, just more of whats ruining modern gaming. I guess every game was a casual game prior to the invention of matchmaking algorithms assigning everyone a rank.

Not scrimming and/or not playing tournaments is casual gaming.

[Tetori]

Originally posted by Sticks:

This thread isn't even about the finals anymore, just more of whats ruining modern gaming. I guess every game was a casual game prior to the invention of matchmaking algorithms assigning everyone a rank.

I'll agree with you that not having the casual modes, dedicated servers and no modding is ruining a lot of modern games.

[Sticks]

You're trying to character assassinate me as a deathmatch mode playing casual because you know as well as I do how manipulative these matchmaking algorithms are and are just too deep in defense of them to admit it. I hated all the ass blasting in counterstrikes deathmatches for the same reason I hated it in quakes ffa matches.

I played counterstrike as it was meant to be played without an algorithm masterminding how my games are going to go to ensure I don't win or lose too much. And I'm not about to let you take ownership over competitive gaming based on whether or not you'll put yourself at the mercy of such an algorithm.

[Tetori]

Originally posted by Sticks:

You're trying to character assassinate me as a deathmatch mode playing casual because you know as well as I do how manipulative these matchmaking algorithms are and are just too deep in defense of them to admit it. I hated all the ass blasting in counterstrikes deathmatches for the same reason I hated it in quakes ffa matches.

I played counterstrike as it was meant to be played without an algorithm masterminding how my games are going to go to ensure I don't win or lose too much. And I'm not about to let you take ownership over competitive gaming based on whether or not you'll put yourself at the mercy of such an algorithm.

lol I made the assumption of you being a deathmatch casual because your initial complaint was about team based modes.

I support ranked modes because I think for the most part they work well in every game I've played that uses them and have been improved frequently over the years.

Also what's considered casual hasn't changed in the FPS scene since I was a kid. If you're not scrimming, joining tournaments or in a ranked system then you are playing the game casually.

[Sticks]

Every game with matchmaking algorithms would be better served by a server browser and the user experience for everyone but the worst players would be improved if we returned to that. But once again it's all about appealing to the lowest common denominator these days and it just comes at the expense of everyone else.

As for casual vs competitive I think you're intentionally muddying the water by talking about "playing casually" or "playing competitively" when we were talking about game modes being competitive or casual. The normal mode for counterstrike where you plant and defuse a bomb is literally called the competitive mode. The deathmatch mode in comparison is the casual mode because its the less skill based one where you're getting shot in the back of the head all the time and its just for fun.

[JiM__13]

Originally posted by Sticks:

I guess every game was a casual game prior to the invention of matchmaking algorithms assigning everyone a rank.

"Hey! Wanna come over to my house and play International Karate Plus on my computer?" - Matchmaking with friends, 1987

"Call my phone number with your modem. I'll set Doom to answer. Two players on different computers is gonna be great!" - Matchmaking with friends, 1993

"I can't believe all of our computers fit your Mum's basement. Counter-Strike LAN is so good!" - Matchmaking with friends, 1998

"Wow, we're all in the same squad fighting on a massive Battlefield of real people from the comfort of our own basements. Cover me while I AFK for a second!" - Matchmaking with friends, 2002

"I'm being forced to play a multiplayer game with people I don't like." - Matchmaking algorithms assigning everyone a rank, 2023

[Sticks]

Born too early to explore the stars, born too late to explore the earth, born just in time to witness the horrors of the cyberpunk dystopia.