Matchmaking sbmm?

Discussion in 'General Titanfall discussion' started by Omega82, Aug 9, 2017.

Image has been removed.
URL has been removed.
Email address has been removed.
Media has been removed.
  1. Omega82

    Omega82 Generation 5

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2016
    Messages:
    283
    The last week or so I've seem to notice almost every match is extremely tough and competitive , also it's taking a lot longer to find a match most likely because it seems like respawn has tinkered with the match making system , anyone notice this as well ?

    Sbmm helps new and beginning players by matching them with equal skilled opponents , however it can poison the veteran players due to the fact that every game turns into a tryhard sweatfest match . Competitive matches are good but too much hardcore lobbies like that can kill an online game fast. It has to be balanced very strictly and not turn into the disaster advanced warfare became. But hopefully atleast this time maybe the new players who joined have stuck around now because they are having an easier time online by going up against other rookies. I've noticed a jump in the online player total since the release of frontier defense , so that's awesome.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. RottweilerluvNZ

    RottweilerluvNZ Generation 5
    Elite Pilot

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2015
    Messages:
    336
    Have noticed that getting into game is a lot slower than used to be, so it wasn't just me!!!

    Definitely a big jump in numbers that's cool.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. ensc

    ensc Generation 7
    Elite Pilot

    Joined:
    May 29, 2016
    Messages:
    1,614
    If they have tweaked it to make the games more even that would be a great thing. That is what I have been making a case for all along. All I want is an even game. I don't mind losing if it was an evenly balanced game and I just got outplayed. I just can't tolerate losing because the game was extremely lopsided in skill (and possibly numbers).

    I would much rather have the sweat fests if we were getting consistently even games. And, to be perfectly honest, I would much rather lose veterans who don't want to sweat fest rather than lose new players because they keep getting thrown on the short side of extremley lopsided games. Losing veterans and bringing in new would keep the overall balance better for everyone. Plus, if the veterans don't want to sweat fest, it is most likely because they enjoy just being bullies. They want to be in lopsided games so they can steamroll the other team. We don't need players who want that. Players like that drive new blood away with a bad taste in their mouth never to return. New blood sticking around grows the user base for everyone.

    The only other comment I would make is due to a comment I saw getmused make somewhere. It is possible that they did nothing to tweak the matchmaking, but that this is all a side effect of adding Frontier Defense. I believe it was getmused who said that he noticed that the regular modes were much harder, because most of the casual players have moved to Frontier Defense, so you are only left with the serious players in the other modes. That is one possibility. It could also explain it taking longer for other modes if there has been a mass exodus from those over to Frontier Defense.
     
  4. Getmused

    Getmused Generation 4

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2016
    Messages:
    197
    I gotta agree. I think matchmaking has changed a bit
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Omega82

    Omega82 Generation 5

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2016
    Messages:
    283

    I think it takes from the fun of the game to be honest. I want it to be competitive but not to the point where it's like your competing in a tournament every time you play a match. That absolutely will kill a game just as fast , you think people would stick around and play that kind of game but they won't. Advanced warfare was a game that basically became a complete and utter disaster once you hit a certain ranking , many people have expressed the Comtempt for the sbmm. This is an arcade shooter just like call of duty , and a big part of the fun in these particular games is when you can go on kill streaks and have big solo games .. when you have sbmm say goodbye to all of that because you just will play even with your opponent , that is the reality of sbmm. 10kills , 10deaths as in example in every match you play is just stupid , I just don't think you acquire the fun in this kind of game that way. Also the sbmm only benefits new players , and like I said the veteran players kind of get shafted . New players will have scores like 2 kills 15deaths as an example , of course that looks bad but they have to LEARN , soon there scores will look like 13kills 5 deaths , 17kills , 7 deaths that shows growth in what the player has learned , he/she gets to feel the satisfaction now since they put the work in to learn. I think the system is fine like that but if they can tighten up the matchmaking so it can limit the number of lopsided games to a respectable number I'm all for it.

    Lopsided games are not a desire of mine and new players who experience that can and will hurt their experience. But like I have said before I don't think the games are really that one sided. My win percentage is 54%. So it's a little better than even. But it's proof that the matchmaking isn't as bad as what has been talked about . You will have some lopsided games and some very close games , but I don't think it's out of balance where it's a serious problem. Also waiting 5 mins for a match is not a good thing , I think the game feels a lot more fun when they match you faster. Remember this is an arcade shooter , the matches are short You don't want to be waiting around too long to get into a match.

    Tightening up the matchmaking is fine , going overboard with it however is not a good decision at all. But maybe more casuals are playing frontier defense and that explains the difference in matches.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Omega82

    Omega82 Generation 5

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2016
    Messages:
    283
    Also En you play on the pc, it's possible that you are getting a different experience from the pc community and maybe the matchmaking feels really bad on the pc. I play on ps4 and while I will acknowledge there has been plenty of times I have seen really bad matchmaking it hasn't happened an inordinate amount of times and the matchmaking never has made me not want to play the game. However if the sbmm now currently gets any worse than I might stop playing lol. But I don't think it will
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. ensc

    ensc Generation 7
    Elite Pilot

    Joined:
    May 29, 2016
    Messages:
    1,614
    If getmused think's it has changed, then I will take both or your word's for it. If it has been improved that's great!

    Yes, the PC matchmaking has always been horrendous on both TF1 and TF2, but TF2 is worse because the stronger team gets boosts and then titans faster making things worse. Also, it is probably worse on the PC because the player base is smaller. When you have larger numbers on the PS4 it can kind of dilute a poor matchmaking system more, because you are pulling from a much bigger ocean.

    We are just going to have to agree to disagree about this. I like you very much Omega, but this is one I feel extremely strong about. In my opinion, you absolutely have to have rock solid SBMM so that new players are never stuck in lopsided games. Here is why I think that. In TF1, for example, even when the game was newer, you would have a block of Gen 10s playing together on one side and it would fill the other side with all Gen 1s. The fact that they even allowed that to happen is unforgivable. Here is why. Imagine yourself as one of those new players sitting across from 6 Gen 10s. How many of them do you think got discouraged and said screw this, left with a bad taste in their mouth and never came back. I would say it is very conservative to say that if a pack of Gen 10s played that way for a few hours a night, they probably were driving at least 2 new players away EVERY SINGLE NIGHT. And, this still goes on to this day in TF1, because I am a veteran and I get thrown on the opposite side of those Gen 10 walls and it is tough for me, so since I do still see Gen 1s all the time (probably because the game is so cheap now), the new players are probably still being driven away that way. The game has been out for 3 years and 4 months, but let's just use 3 years for sake of example. Those 6 Gen 10s could have possibly driven away (3 years * 365 days * 2 new players/day) = 2190 players. So think about that, why in the hell would you want to allow a system that favors those 6 essentially bullies rather than the 2190 new players they may have driven away? If those 2190 players were given a better experience right out of the gate, even if only 10% of them were still sticking around, that would still be 219 players I would rather have than those 6 veterans. Especially now when the user base is down as low as 50 total sometimes, we could sure use those 219 players that those 6 players were allowed to discourage right out of the gate.

    Plus from my perspective as a veteran who despises other veterans who do play in blocks of Gen 10s like that, I just want an even game. If some are stubborn and want to play in a block like that, fine, but then they should have to wait until they have equally skilled players to go against. Once again, I don't mind losing if it was even and fair and square, but lopsided games in unacceptable. Plus, if I am in a game lopsided against me, I am going to be sweat festing anyway to try to carry my team, so if I am going to have to sweat fest anyway, I would MUCH RATHER do it in a game balanced with all veterans on both sides, so that my sweat at least has a chance to win.
     
  8. Getmused

    Getmused Generation 4

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2016
    Messages:
    197
    @ensc i don't want to say it's 100% but I do notice longer wait times and I have more matches that are competitive. So even though I say more it's not always. I also notice a game starting competitive but I'll or someone will have dbl the kills then the other team. Then all of the sudden the game starts stuttering and the same players I've easily killed take twice as many rounds. And the game starts to even out.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Omega82

    Omega82 Generation 5

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2016
    Messages:
    283

    Well of course I have respect for you as well and your opinion. There is no question sbmm benefits new players , that is the point of implementing it. If we are going to just focus on what new players would prefer sbmm would be the choice every time. But that's my point , the sbmm starts to alienate the hardcore fans of the game and I believe it effects the longevity of the game as well. If we use your breakdown that 2 new players would quit Titanfall permanently I would then say those same 2 players would also quit permanently as soon as they reach a certain k/d level , because that is when the negative side of sbmm kicks in . Connectivity gets worse as well because in order to fill the skill quota for the game they will most likely pull players who aren't local to you , so not only will you always be in try hard lobbies you will often be suffering from laggy players more often. Again I cite advanced warfare as my example , that game turned to hell strictly due to sbmm.

    Since owning Tf2 from the beginning there has never been even ONE time I though of quitting the game due to the matchmaking. I honestly never felt the game suffered any substantial problems with the matchmaking. The first month of the game it was probably the worst with the lopsided games but for the duration of the games life I do not feel the matchmaking is that big of an issue. Key things we have to remember is what exactly do you mean by new players ? are you describing new players as people who are new to fps shooter ? New to just titanfall? Because this matters. Someone who has a history of playing other shoooters such as call of duty should be able to handle some of the lobbies they go against , there are certain fundamentals that we have acquired over many years playing shooters. New players who never played shooters before are gonna be in for a rude awakening, and they absolutely would most likely quit .

    Also I just can't agree with the fact that lopsided lobbies happen as much as you think , I just do not see these lopsided games as much as you do I guess. They still happen but to me not enough for me to complain about it at all. I have 15 days played on this game I think I've seen a lot of it . I think for awhile the problem was the matchmaking threw you into the next game way to fast and that's when you would see a lot of these lopsided games , but I think they have steadily improved the matchmaking as time went on. My only point I'm expressing I don't want them to go to far down that road , because a casual game is still what I want. I don't want to play ranked matches EVERY SINGLE game , that doesn't mean I don't want to be challenged there is a distinct difference here and anyone who is familiar with advanced warfare will know right away what I'm talking about.

    Also , lets also keep in mind new players are at a big disadvantage if they are just now buying the game. Because a lot of the online player base already are familiar with the maps and how to play the game. So of course it's even worse now for new players due to getting the game at such a late point . Another thing that I really feel strongly about is the small player base online definitely has an impact on the unbalanced lobbies most of the time. For new players don't have a big pool of other new players to be potentially matched up with . So I think this particular matchmaking would work a lot better with a substantial player base.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Omega82

    Omega82 Generation 5

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2016
    Messages:
    283
    I also just want to again add the longer wait times are definitely a big negative right now. You can't have people waiting around for 5 mins to get into a game. This whole game is designed around speed and efficiency and the Matches theselves are pretty short. So I think the long wait times also can effect new players decisions on sticking with the game .
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Getmused

    Getmused Generation 4

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2016
    Messages:
    197
    Yeah I'm not a fan of waiting a cpl mins.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. itbeatswalking

    itbeatswalking Generation 3

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2016
    Messages:
    37
    I've had a lot of close matches. I do notice the slightly longer wait times lately, but I find a game usually within 30 secs when it used to be almost immediate.For the most part, matches end up lopsided when people quit. They aren' even down by an insurmountable # and they leave.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  13. Omega82

    Omega82 Generation 5

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2016
    Messages:
    283
    They are definitely taking longer than 30 seconds on my end. But your definitely right about people quitting a lot of times causes the lopsided matches. And then you get thrown into that game already in progress but now playing in a very lopsided game. That's really not a matchmaking issue , people quit all the time for variety of reasons.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  14. ensc

    ensc Generation 7
    Elite Pilot

    Joined:
    May 29, 2016
    Messages:
    1,614
    Thank you. I appreciate that.
    Also, I appreciate your passion and still want to hear what you think of TF1 someday, but I enjoy the debate, so please don't take anything I say below personally, but I believe I've discovered why exactly we feel so differently about this and when I mention below how I am in real life I believe you will understand why.

    This is a very clarifying statement and I believe it explains why we feel so differently. I just want an even game, because I want to at least have an even chance to win in every single game and I could care less what my K/D is. If I got 8 kills and died 20 times, but we won or just barely lost, I'm good with that. It seems as though you are exactly the opposite. You seem not so concerned about whether you have a chance to win in every game or whether the game is lopsided or not, but as long the distribution of players allows you to have a good K/D then you are happy. You don't want too much competition on the other side and you want there to be some easy kills. So basically, an environment that allows you to have a K/D you are happy with is what you prefer, but an environment where I have at least a chance to win every game is what I prefer.

    Yes, this confirms that. You see, if I am going to play the game, I am going to take it serious otherwise why play it? This is how I operate in real life. Whenever I played sports, I would get furious with teammates who were not in it 110%, because I was. I'm not out for a stroll here. I'm not trying to do something to pass the time. I'm doing it because I am passionate about it, I am going to give everything I have for myself and for the team. I just object to a system that even allows the possibility of the deck being stacked completely against me before I even get started.

    This is not the SBMM's fault though. This is a separate issue that also needs to be resolved. You can help this by having the rock solid SBMM algorithm in place at game launch when your player count is high, so that you are not driving new players away. If you keep more players around, then that means more players closer to you, so you don't have this problem as much. Also, on a larger scale, they need to break down the walls between platforms so that PC/XBOX One/PS4 are all in the same pool, because this would also provide more players closer to you. Also, even above and beyond all of that, since players do sometimes play each other on opposite sides of the world, they have just got to figure out a good solution for how to make that work.

    Well, you did mention before that it may be because I play on the PC and that is probably the case, yet another reason to break down those walls as I mentioned above.

    You are right that the smaller player base does impact this, but this is why as I've said above, you have to have the SBMM in place at launch. This is one of those cart before the horse things. I believe the reason the player count is low now is because there was not a good SBMM in place at launch and it drove a lot of new players away that otherwise might still be around.

    I agree that in our "attention span of a gnat", "30-second sound byte" society we live in, that longer wait times could drive people away. However, it depends on what happens after the wait.
    1) Was it worth the wait?
    For me, and I think a lot of new players, if the other side of that wait means a dependable even sided match, then it is well worth the wait as opposed to getting jammed into a horrendously lopsided game quickly.
    and
    2) Will I have to wait more?
    This is why they should go back to the lobbies of TF1 and get rid of this TF2 Networks crap. In TF1, you may have had to wait to get your first game, but once you were in your first game, you never had to wait again unless you chose to leave that lobby.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Omega82

    Omega82 Generation 5

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2016
    Messages:
    283

    Haha yea i think you kind of misunderstand why I brought up the k/d. I'm not trying to average a certain k/d I mentioned it because as soon as you hit a 1.2 k/d in advanced warfare that is when the game pretty much became unplayable. That is when the sbmm made the experience awful. Completely abusive lobbies that are head glitching you at every turn and a clear and noticeable difference in connection. To say the connection wouldn't be affected if they are looking for a skill quota and NOT connection based players I just can't accept . That is precisely what would happen if the search is not connection based but skill based. There is no way this is an enjoyable experience what so ever , nobody wants to play in these conditions.

    I am not playing titanfall or any shooter to be a tournament level player. I am a casual player and I would think most people on this forum are casual players . There is a difference between ranked matches and casual matches. Let me use street fighter as an example , they have ranked/tournament play and they have casual played. Ranked play you expect to encounter the toughest matches every single time. Casual gives you a variety , some easy , some hard , some in the middle . This is what I want in a shooter and I see nothing wrong with it at all. You get to experience a variety of matches. Sometimes you get to have big games , sometimes even games , and sometimes bad games . This to me is a perfect balance. With true sbmm all you can expect is even games or bad games , sorry I don't really see the fun in that. I am not competing for tournaments, I am also playing and ARCADE shooter , this is not a realistic sim. A big part of these arcade shooters is that you can have good individual games at times , and be a lone wolf if you so desire.

    I was just playing earlier today and the only lopsided games were because people quit and the teams were mismatched with players. So at that point those games will always be lopsided. Also I agree that people have the attention spans of gnats but the wait time has been longer than 30 seconds , I think sometimes it's close to 2 minutes . I just think that is unacceptable for this type of game. As an example battlefield there is a long wait time to join a game but the matches are LONG, and then they keep the same lobby straight to the next map. So I think it's more feasible to wait longer in that particular game. But titanfall the matches are a lot faster , the wait times should be faster as a result.

    I just want to restate my opinion and my wants in an online shooter. I want to play in a casual setting that provides a variety of matches. Some easier , some hard , and some in the middle. I DONT want to always be on a team that STOMPS out the other team , that wouldn't be fun at all. And likewise I DONT want to be on a team that always gets STOMPED out either. But I want a variety and I think this game has given me that.

    I definitely understand your point , I really get what your saying completely. And if you consistently see lopsided games then i can see why you feel as strongly as you do. I wished you could be in better matches and if respawn is now tightening up the matchmaking then so be it. But if it gets to the level that advanced warfare was at then I have to say bye bye to titanfall. Because that can be an unplayable experience.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. ensc

    ensc Generation 7
    Elite Pilot

    Joined:
    May 29, 2016
    Messages:
    1,614
    OK, I will have to take your word for it, because I have not played that game. However, just because something was not done right in other games does not mean it should be dismissed entirely. It just needs to be done right.

    I didn't say it would not be affected. I just said it is not the SBMM that is the cause of the problem. The cause of the problem is them not solving how to handle players at long distances and not coming up with a way to keep more players in your area so you don't have to worry about that in the first place. The solutions for the latter would be (implementing SBMM and anticheat up front so as to not drive players away AND/OR breaking down the walls between PC/PS4/XBONE).

    I agree with you, but this is all the more reason to have SBMM. Why? Because even though the nature of the game is strangers against strangers, you still have players that play in a group or a block and they play coordinated, which in my opinion is something that only belongs in tournaments. To play like that in a game where the nature is strangers against strangers, if one team is playing coordinated it is an unfair advantage before the game even starts. I'm not saying don't let them do that, but what I am saying is if you are going to allow them to do that, then you have to have SBMM, so that it assembles the team across from them with either an equally skilled group or equally skilled players on an individual basis. If you don't have SBMM to do that, then you are basically allowing games where there is a team of randoms on one side and a tournament team on the other side. That is what I cannot tolerate, because I know if you took anyone of those tournament players and put them with 5 strangers against me with 5 strangers, I beat them every day and twice on Sunday. But by allowing it, everyone of my deaths is me facing one of them like a man and getting shot in the side of the head or the back by one of their buddies. By having SBMM, even if my side is not playing coordinated, we at least have players on our side that are going to keep them occupied and/or distracted so that they will not be able to do their coordinated play no matter how much they would like to.

    This is my style, whether playing with friends or by myself. I am always a lone wolf. I never play coordinated. I never look for help or to help. I just want to be the strongest individual player I can possibly be, which is why I get so irritated when not having an SBMM puts me across from a coordinated team.

    I AM REALLY GLAD WE ARE HAVING THIS DEBATE, BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT HAS GIVEN ME AN IDEA THAT IF IMPLEMENTED CORRECTLY WOULD MAKE BOTH OF US AND ACTUALLY PROBABLY EVERYONE HAPPY. IT WOULD ACTUALLY ALLOW YOU TO TAILOR THE GAME FOR THE MOOD YOU ARE CURRENTLY IN. AND, IF YOU CHANGED YOUR MIND NEXT GAME, YOU COULD DO THAT INSTANTLY. PLEASE ALLOW ME TO EXPLAIN AFTER READING THESE COMMENTS OF YOURS.

    Yes, I absolutely agree. I don't want a tournament game. I don't want a casual game. I just want an evenly balanced game.

    You would like a variety.

    You also see people leaving as an issue.

    OK, NOW, USING SOME THINGS I'VE POSTED IN OTHER THREADS A LONG TIME AGO AND PIECING IT ALL TOGETHER WITH THE NEW IDEA YOU HAVE JUST GIVEN ME, LET ME TRY TO PRESENT IT AND THEN LET'S SEE WHAT YOU THINK.

    FIRST, IT ABSOLUTELY HAS TO BE BASE ON AN SBMM, WHICH I HAVE DETAILED AS BELOW:
    -Experience (must include many factors, can't rely on Prestige/Level only)
    --Prestige/Level - 25% weighted (will measure skill with multiple weapons)
    --Total In-Game Time - 25% weighted (will measure intel, knowledge of maps/modes)
    --Winning Percentage Last 10 Games In Current Mode - 50% weighted (effectiveness)
    ---P = Prestige (1 through 10, ignoring Level)
    ---T = Time Spent In-Game (up to 500 hours, anything over 500 will equal 500)
    ---W = Wins In Last 10 Games Of Current Mode
    ---this makes all 3 have a base of 10, which makes the weighting work
    ---ATTEXP = (P * 0.25) + (T/50 * 0.25) + (W * 0.5) <<< W = wins in last 10 ATT
    ---HPEXP = (P * 0.25) + (T/50 * 0.25) + (W * 0.5) <<< W = wins in last 10 HP
    ---CTFEXP = (P * 0.25) + (T/50 * 0.25) + (W * 0.5) <<< W = wins in last 10 CTF
    ---LTSEXP = (P * 0.25) + (T/50 * 0.25) + (W * 0.5) <<< W = wins in last 10 LTS
    ---MFDEXP = (P * 0.25) + (T/50 * 0.25) + (W * 0.5) <<< W = wins in last 10 MFD

    -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

    *** THIS PIECE OF THE SBMM WOULD SOLVE YOUR "PEOPLE QUIT" PROBLEM
    -Numbers (must have equal numbers on both sides, must make it a priority)
    --you can totally control ENTRY or game setup as described in Distribution above
    --what you cannot control is people leaving (must allow them to leave)
    --how you deal with this is treating someone leaving as an absolute emergency
    --you drop all Distribution you are currently handling and grab the best fit
    --Experience-wise for that mode to take their place immediately
    --once the emergency has been dealt with, then and only then, can
    --you resume normal Distribution


    The best solution is to have a good matchmaking algorithm that looks at each individuals Generation/Skill/Effectiveness individually (whether they are in a group or not) and create matches by putting players of equal number and skill on the other side. This would even work with teams/groups/clans as you can see in the third example here, where Team 1 had a group of 5 Gen 10s:
    [​IMG]
    *** First, I want to make a point here, because this may be where you misunderstood my whole concept or philosophy of SBMM. I think that you believe that if you have an SBMM, they are all going to look more like the third example there. I am not saying that at all. I actually prefer games more like the first two. But the point is, no matter the makeup of a team, the other side is balanced to match that team.

    NOW, HERE IS THE NEW IDEA YOU JUST GAVE ME THAT I THINK WOULD MAKE US ALL HAPPY

    OK, so let's say you had something as described above in place and completely working. Well, what if you were to add one thing to it that would give all of us what we want? What if you did the same thing as you do in the Single Player Campaing or other games and let people select their desired "Difficulty" right from the start, so you could select EASY, MEDIUM, HARD, PRO.

    EASY = no more than (2) Gen 8's, 9's or 10's on either side.
    MEDIUM = no more than (4) Gen 8's, 9's or 10's on either side
    HARD = all players will be Gen 8's, 9's or 10's on both sides
    PRO = all players will be Gen 8's, 9's or 10's and playing as groups

    This way you could have your mix you like Omega by jumping between the different Difficulties. And I could have the even games I want all the time and just changed the level of Difficulty if I'm in the mood for it.

    What do you think?
     
  17. Omega82

    Omega82 Generation 5

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2016
    Messages:
    283

    You wrote a lot of good stuff here and I want to respond to it but first can you give me a better idea of what you personally think an even game is? Let's use attrition and the score obviously goes to 500. Team A score? Team B score ?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Omega82

    Omega82 Generation 5

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2016
    Messages:
    283
    Just played this morning and I recorded the wait times for each game.

    Console: ps4
    Game types searched: Titan Brawl & Attrition
    Users online: close to 9,000

    Games
    1) 1:30sec
    2). 2:34sec
    3). 2:55 sec
    4). 3:55 sec
    5). 2:55 sec
    6). 3:05 sec
    7). 3:00 sec

    This is a far cry from 30 seconds lol Half the call of duty community would quit the game if they waited this long lol. Nah that's probably an exaggeration, but I think the wait times are getting to be to long now. And ironically the 2 blow out games I had were game 4 , and game 7. Both wait times were pretty much the longest and it didn't translate into a dead even game.

    I didn't play for that long only 7 games but there is no reason to believe the wait times were going to improve the more that i played. The online users seemed to be around the average total that I normally see . It seems the search times are about a minute longer than normal now for each game.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. ensc

    ensc Generation 7
    Elite Pilot

    Joined:
    May 29, 2016
    Messages:
    1,614
    OK, so in TF1 Attrition goes up to 300 and I would say an even game should in most cases end up with one team at 300 and the other one somewhere between 250 and 299. In TF2, if it goes up to 500, then I would say in most cases it should end up with one team at 500 and the other somewhere between 400 and 499. Could it occasionally go below 250 in TF1 or 400 in TF2? Of course, but it should not be because of poor matchmaking, but just because the best players that would normally carry most of the weight on the losing team just happened to have a bad game. Bad timing. Bad luck. Just everything going wrong, etc. It happens sometimes. Even a Tom Brady or a Peyton Manning have bad games once in awhile.

    OK, I agree this is a problem, but again, this is not due to SBMM. This is largely due to this Networks crap they are using. Can we please at least agree that if we did things the way it was in TF1 it would greatly improve this? You may have to wait the 3 to 4 minutes for your first game, but then once you are in, you never have to wait again between games unless you choose to leave the lobby. This was such a superior system, because it also gave you continuity in players and chat for your entire 1-hour to 2-hour session. Unless any of you chose to leave, you would be with the same 12 people for the entire time with just some switching sides between games. You could give atta boys, talk smack, have revenge games, build some new relationships and add new friends. All of that is lost in this Networks crap. AND, worst of all, by sucking you back into the general pool after each game, now you have to suffer the wait time for creating a new game each time.
     
  20. Getmused

    Getmused Generation 4

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2016
    Messages:
    197
    @ensc @Omega82 great stuff and great DISCUSSION. Kinda a relief. Anyway, curious what you guys think about ranked/nonranked? Wouldn't a lot of this be solved if TF2 implemented a rank system? With the ranked you keep track of all stats but with unranked you don't.

    This way you could come in play and if the game is laggy or acting "weird" just jump into nonranked. And vice versa
     
    • Like Like x 2