Matchmaking - A possibility?

VaNilla · November 16, 2007, 12:30:13 AM

Okay I'm back again hi :D.

But that's besides the point, or is it? I went on CT today to try and get back into it, to find I was overwhelmed by how experienced some players have become. So like some other games have used I was thinking, you could optionally match someone to a player of their skill sets, I wouldn't make it compulsary, or have something that actually marks that persons skill, like Halo 3, just something they could optionally select to find a match with someone they can easily work with.

But as I said this could be optional, so say they want to play with some more experienced guys and learn community tactics, or just get in straight off the bat, they could search matches as normal, ways this could be implented is Quick Match > Matchmaking. Custom Match > Your choice. What do you think, personally I think it could work but ofcourse, im not the one making the game :P.

Quote from: Overstatement on November 16, 2007, 03:34:38 AM
I think the best solution would be to have the host select what kind of skill his server is. People do it in server names, might as well officially support it with an additional descriptor of the server and free up the name for something meaningful.

The above is a brilliant idea too!

Gawain · November 16, 2007, 12:35:14 AM

sure, it could work for some casual players if ps gets a bigger player base than ct. but it's a team game, so you'd need an option for teams.
funny thing is, it would be sufficient if people read the server name before joining ("good only", "no noobs", "teams only","looking for a mate","just for fun",...).

VaNilla · November 16, 2007, 12:44:27 AM

Yeah but it's also easier through matchmaking, I agree that's an easy way too though. I think it would be a very good idea to assume your going to get a fairly big player base from the start, and support the game that way, because if you don't have support for people from the start then your going to have less people playing your game.

I didn't say you couldn't have an option for teams though :P. It would be a good thing to have within the option, along with other elements you could add to the matchmaking :P.

Farley4Fan · November 16, 2007, 02:54:00 AM

Matchmaking sounds good. The only way to do this is to implement a ranking system. Otherwise, you wouldn't find an equal match.

Overstatement · November 16, 2007, 03:34:38 AM

I think the best solution would be to have the host select what kind of skill his server is. People do it in server names, might as well officially support it with an additional descriptor of the server and free up the name for something meaningful.

B1nArY_001 · November 16, 2007, 03:49:13 AM

Excellent Suggestion.

AgentX_003 · November 16, 2007, 04:39:16 AM

I kinda disagree with this because it all goes back to you go into a server and then someone asks you you NOoob Med Pro ? OVER AND OVER AGAIN , when you know in your heart say ie. me B1nary, Daybreak, have been playing since the dawn of Pandora

I hate to be racist here but its always you Polish and german people that do this and I want to rip my hair out every time that question is asked.

kronf · November 16, 2007, 05:20:09 AM

Are you pro?

Westfall · November 16, 2007, 07:04:57 AM

Quote from: kronf on November 16, 2007, 05:20:09 AM
Are you pro?

:D

neth · November 16, 2007, 08:49:55 AM

Quote from: AgentX_003 on November 16, 2007, 04:39:16 AM

I hate to be racist here but its always you Polish and german people that do this and I want to rip my hair out every time that question is asked.

You'd rather see flares in your mate's inventory ?

Gawain · November 16, 2007, 02:04:12 PM

the real question is how to implement a rank system. one idea that comes to my mind is:
time played < x hours = "newbi"
time played > x hours (0.5x time as a merc/spy)= "middle skilled" or "good" or "expert" selectable by the player.
what i don't want to see implemented in ps is a ranking system similar to what we have in ct. it's a team game, so solo stats are kinda stupid anyways. rank mode is also bad for the attitude: you should try hard to win a game, but it's not about winning or loosing at all costs, it's about having a good time (and maybe self-improvement). imo there would be way less cheats for ct if there was no ranking system.

Cyntrox · November 16, 2007, 02:05:46 PM

Quote from: Overstatement on November 16, 2007, 03:34:38 AM
I think the best solution would be to have the host select what kind of skill his server is. People do it in server names, might as well officially support it with an additional descriptor of the server and free up the name for something meaningful.

Awesome idea! And it sounds easy to implement too.

neth · November 16, 2007, 04:04:12 PM

Quote from: Gawain on November 16, 2007, 02:04:12 PM
the real question is how to implement a rank system. one idea that comes to my mind is:
time played < x hours = "newbi"
time played > x hours (0.5x time as a merc/spy)= "middle skilled" or "good" or "expert" selectable by the player.
what i don't want to see implemented in ps is a ranking system similar to what we have in ct. it's a team game, so solo stats are kinda stupid anyways. rank mode is also bad for the attitude: you should try hard to win a game, but it's not about winning or loosing at all costs, it's about having a good time (and maybe self-improvement). imo there would be way less cheats for ct if there was no ranking system.

What about people who are good and play rarely because of lack of time ? And what about people who dont have mates ?

Bob_Bobber0 · November 16, 2007, 04:21:23 PM

I agree, having an option on the server side that specifies what the skill set of the server is seems to be the easiest/best option.

Tidenburg · November 16, 2007, 04:44:40 PM

Have a var called skill and then for each objective hacked a spy gets a point and for each kill the spy gets 0.5 of a point, each death loses 0.5 of a point. For the mercs a kill gains a point whereas a death loses 0.5 of a point, multiply that by hours played and you get a good system for the system to search with.

It wouldn't be that hard, you look if the party was open to join through Matchmaking, then if so you see inside and check which players the player could pair with to "balance" when they have paired the two have another temporary boolean for in lobby called balanced which sets to true until one of them quits.

At first the max difference between the two "ranks" (and i use the term loosely) could be like 50 then 150 if it can't find anyone and so on.

That sounds much to easy tho,,, :)

The reason you X by the time played is because that means the longer you've played the quicker you go up ranks. You'd obviously put a cap on like over 10 hours.

The average could then be taken from a lobby and be represented in star form on the server list so you can see how good overall the players inside are, however you can never look specifically at their ranks.