PDA

View Full Version : Parties vs random publics



WoG-Hazaa
11th Jan 2015, 13:03
I think it's been a huge issue lately that parties with high lvl players play vs low lvl random public team. There should be party matchmaking so parties play vs other parties. It's not good for overall gameplay that new players and other guys going solo have to play vs 3 or 4 men parties. This breaks game mechanics since they have huge advantage in tactics and with voice chat.

I've lately seen lots of games again with 4vs2 or 4vs3. No one who is just learning this game wants to play vs 3 or 4 ppl "pro" party. There are many esl parties playing in public and that really breaks the game for ppl who just wanna have fun and even normal public games.

--Ram--
11th Jan 2015, 13:39
All true however we would need a lot more players for segregation to result in much other than no one getting a game at all. It's a bit of a vicious circle. People get tired of frustrating solo games, so play with their mates and create frustrating solo games for their opponents. Neither option is ideal but 90% of the time it's one or the other. Sometimes good random games are had but they are indeed rare. Bring on open beta.

Cristari
11th Jan 2015, 15:10
I have said this since I started playing, Both points the one the OP is making and the statement in RAM's first line that there are far too few people playing Nosgoth atm for matchmaking changes to be of any use.

I Agree with the OP there should be no way in hell that a Party group should be playing against randoms the Party will know how each other play and most likely are playing with what they measure as good players while the randoms just get thrown together the good and the bad. With recent changes to matchmaking meaning skill based players should be playing together (as yet to see this happen) you would imagine a fairer game against a party however this is not the case. Most parties will have teamspeak or vent to communicate (no idea why people don't use in game comm's could probably be removed) offering another level of co-ordination that randoms just don't have.

However like RAM said atm there are very few people playing this and the annoying thing is I don't see that improving in any way when this game finally comes out of Beta. It is very easy to get into this via beta keys, friend invites and the low low cost of Early Access. When this Free to Play game goes live I don't see more people being enticed to this game than already play it. So the number situation I don't feel is going to be a good enough excuse.

For me I wouldn't mind if a party system was removed and everyone would need to play as a random (awaiting the backlash!) it would at least give Psyonix the info they need for the matchmaking system. If they think they can triple the number of people playing by going Open Beta or Live then I would suggest that the Party v Party system be put in place and tested then. At least they will have the data of the Random matchmaking to base party matchmaking from rather than trying to do it all at once.

WoG-Hazaa
11th Jan 2015, 15:32
Maybe Psyonix needs to remove party from public and allow it only in private matches. This would be solution for the duration of closed beta without having to make too many modifications to matchmaking.

Psyonix_Corey
12th Jan 2015, 21:56
Maybe Psyonix needs to remove party from public and allow it only in private matches. This would be solution for the duration of closed beta without having to make too many modifications to matchmaking.

This isn't an option. Not being able to reliably play with friends in public matches is an absolute dealbreaker for many, many people. In this case the cure is worse than the disease.

We're considering re-enabling the ability to split parties for team balancing in cases where there's a major skill imbalance, or full premades vs. randoms.

CrimCarnage
18th Jan 2015, 03:27
We're considering re-enabling the ability to split parties for team balancing in cases where there's a major skill imbalance, or full premades vs. randoms.

Thank god.

Cristari
18th Jan 2015, 14:32
We're considering re-enabling the ability to split parties for team balancing in cases where there's a major skill imbalance, or full premades vs. randoms.

Seen this happen and it kept the game well balanced.

I was playing in a team on Flashpoint of me solo and a party of 3 clan mates. During the game there was a imbalance of teams by someone leaving the party was split and new players joined immediately. The game was hard fought but what it proved is that the party balance v random balance was just too much and after the split the game went on much fairer than before.

I applaud you for making this happen and look forward to many more fair games.

For the people that want to play as a party all the time you really have to introduce a 'Party only' queue or 'Clan v Clan' matches.

Vampmaster
18th Jan 2015, 15:06
@Corey, what about making party splitting opt-in if people would rather be split up than have an unbalanced match. It could work for parties with too many members too if the extras are willing to be moved over to the other team.

If you're looking for alternatives, there was this feature in Uncharted 3 that I absolutely loved. Part way through a game, if a team was losing badly enough, the game would trigger some event in game such as a sandstorm or would unlock certain emergency abilities to give them an opportunity to catch up. It could be cool if when the humans were losing, the clouds would part or something and make the vampires weaker or if the vampires were losing, maybe it could start raining blood to make them stronger or something. As long as the effect wore off before it became unfair to the team that was playing better, it would at least give the other team a fighting chance and some entertainment.

Cristari
18th Jan 2015, 16:34
@Corey, what about making party splitting opt-in if people would rather be split up than have an unbalanced match. It could work for parties with too many members too if the extras are willing to be moved over to the other team.

If you're looking for alternatives, there was this feature in Uncharted 3 that I absolutely loved. Part way through a game, if a team was losing badly enough, the game would trigger some event in game such as a sandstorm or would unlock certain emergency abilities to give them an opportunity to catch up. It could be cool if when the humans were losing, the clouds would part or something and make the vampires weaker or if the vampires were losing, maybe it could start raining blood to make them stronger or something. As long as the effect wore off before it became unfair to the team that was playing better, it would at least give the other team a fighting chance and some entertainment.

I like the suggestion in the second half of your post however if you let party's get split simply because they Opt in or out then I know everyone in a party would opt out automatically.For the moment I don't see that any different to the previous situation in Matchmaking that kept parties together and stomping all over the random's.

snejjjj
18th Jan 2015, 16:59
Seen this happen and it kept the game well balanced.

I was playing in a team on Flashpoint of me solo and a party of 3 clan mates. During the game there was a imbalance of teams by someone leaving the party was split and new players joined immediately. The game was hard fought but what it proved is that the party balance v random balance was just too much and after the split the game went on much fairer than before.

I applaud you for making this happen and look forward to many more fair games.

For the people that want to play as a party all the time you really have to introduce a 'Party only' queue or 'Clan v Clan' matches.

you played with 3ppl of |Filthy Peasant| and i was in the enemy team with 3 randoms. your team destroyed us. no party split up here. MM still complete broken. 1st match i am on one side in the lobby. we lost 10-60. now i am switched to the other side of the lobby. what is this ****? MM couldnt seen that before? Oo Happens every day! reproduceable. It make completly no sense to solo queue. Its a waist of time and the match is always lost. If the devs can show me an option to record that MM is failing all the time, i will record/report this ****

Cristari
18th Jan 2015, 17:06
you played with 3ppl of |Filthy Peasant| and i was in the enemy team with 3 randoms. your team destroyed us. no party split up here. MM still complete broken. 1st match i am on one side in the lobby. we lost 10-60. now i am switched to the other side of the lobby. what is this ****? MM couldnt seen that before? Oo Happens every day! reproduceable. It make completly no sense to solo queue. Its a waist of time and the match is always lost. If the devs can show me an option to record that MM is failing all the time, i will record/report this ****

That was the first match I had you guys all left after the first then there was a second match. The MM is based on Skill level so I guess I was thrown to their team because their skill average was higher than mine and mine was lower than your teams. The match I had after that was split where 2 of them were chucked into the other team and the game was a lot tighter than the one we had with you.

Vampmaster
18th Jan 2015, 17:14
I like the suggestion in the second half of your post however if you let party's get split simply because they Opt in or out then I know everyone in a party would opt out automatically.For the moment I don't see that any different to the previous situation in Matchmaking that kept parties together and stomping all over the random's.

I don't know. I just thought a strong party might get bored with pubstomping and a weak party might get tired of losing sometimes. I mean I prefere to play with frends, but playing against friends is still better than against strangers. I don't think any of us would take it personally if we beat each other.

Cristari
18th Jan 2015, 17:20
I don't know. I just thought a strong party might get bored with pubstomping and a weak party might get tired of losing sometimes. I mean I prefere to play with frends, but playing against friends is still better than against strangers. I don't think any of us would take it personally if we beat each other.

Glad to see you of that mindset I just wish a lot more thought like you but to be honest if a party knew there is a possibility they would get split if playing against a far weaker team then why would they allow themselves to be split up only to leave at the end of the round to form another party? People would opt out of party splitting if they had a choice.