Please stop N7 matchmaking!
#526
Posté 01 juin 2012 - 11:05
#527
Posté 01 juin 2012 - 11:05
Bolo Xia wrote...
kadzier wrote...
I've noticed this new system since last night. Throwing in my two cents, it is horrible. Roll it back, please, and don't try again until you've come up with an algorithm that makes sense (and preferably has nothing to do with N7 ranking, which is almost meaningless when it comes to an evaluation of player skill).
Personally I think the smartest route would be a system based on # of successful extractions on each difficulty, or even better, how many times you've passed the wave 3/6/10 barrier on each difficulty. Obviously a player who has dozens of extractions on gold is much likelier to be better than one who only has extracted on bronze, N7 rating irrelevant.
so the people that get disconnected due to bugs and crappy servers should be punished?
i dont get disconnected because i host mostly.
it needs to be a ping range or something, otherwise their will be a lot of people in certain brackets that cant play the game.
my N7 is over 3000 so should i not be able to play because the majority is in the 200 to 700 range?
basically right now me and my friend cant host a game because our retarded N7 number is too high.... we can host but nobody joins.
its fair right?
we host so we can play together without problems of getting lucky to find a lobby with room or get lucky and the 2nd person beats a random into the game, just so we can play together.
You basically are saying that you and your friend are more important than the majority? I don't think you should be punished, but how many guys were saying they are tired of seeing bad players in gold? Do you want this system gone or refined? Do want like N7 1000 or better to be one group? 800 or better, 700 or better etc... Instead of this complaining thread maybe someone should put down a ideas thread about this topic. Bioware clearly reads this stuff, start spit balling on a new thread. Why be negative when you can be proactive.
I like a match making system but I would like to see it refined.
#528
Posté 01 juin 2012 - 11:06
Adhok42 wrote...
kadzier wrote...
not saying my idea is perfect. But ANY idea is better than what they have now. Actually, the BEST thing to do would to be base it off of total XP, since it is directly correlated with both skill and time played. Of course, XP doesn't accumulate after level 20, but they can change that or keep track of it internally or something.
Won't work. You can buy packs with real money and the character cards drop class XP. XP like N7 is not a result of time and skill.
fair enough then.
But at least we're agreed that something has to be better than what they have now.
#529
Posté 01 juin 2012 - 11:07
#530
Posté 01 juin 2012 - 11:57
on a later game with other 1200+ friends we had to do a gold with just the three of us after waiting for 10 minutes for someone to join.
Please Bioware, in the name of everything that is good in this game, revert this stupid system. it's idiotic and destroys the userbase. a few more days of this and no one with a higher rank will play this game anymore. unless this is your intention you need to listen to us.
#531
Posté 02 juin 2012 - 12:24
#532
Posté 02 juin 2012 - 12:25
I play exclusively with randoms, have been playing since release, and have only ever promoted three times. It now takes me longer to find matches, particularly on gold, and when I do find a match, it is populated by people of around rank 200 or less. Obviously a fairly low rank is not a definitive indicator of skill or experience and some of the players in these matches are very good, but quite often they do turn out to have little experience and low level weapons. I'm a good enough player to hold my own in a decent team, but no where near good enough to carry a weak team. Since the patch I have therefore had far more failed matches in gold, and these games have been harder to find.
#533
Posté 02 juin 2012 - 12:32
#534
Posté 02 juin 2012 - 01:03
#535
Posté 02 juin 2012 - 01:07
#536
Posté 02 juin 2012 - 01:09
#537
Posté 02 juin 2012 - 01:18
Whether to wait for someone the same level as ours N7, we can wait long!
#538
Posté 02 juin 2012 - 01:33
They record the amount of points we earn in the matches (not that points are necessarily a good indicator, either) so why not have a ranking system based on those? I'd honeslty rather not see matching via a ranking system, however: some players are bad, sure, but its just a game. If everyone is at the same level all the time where are the nuances or difficulties? Matching is only good for allowing skilled players to farm.
Modifié par Melgrimm, 02 juin 2012 - 01:35 .
#539
Posté 02 juin 2012 - 01:42
#540
Posté 02 juin 2012 - 01:44
#541
Posté 02 juin 2012 - 01:46
thewalrusx wrote...
If BW wants n7 to actually mean something add a 1% credit bonus for every 100 n7 you get
N7 still wouldn't mean anything though, some players would just earn more credits than others.
#542
Posté 02 juin 2012 - 01:50
#543
Posté 02 juin 2012 - 02:00
that said, they bring out dlc that we cant play becuz its all ****ed up!
i waited for an hour in a created lobby (N7 1972), with only having 1 person (N7 1948) drop in for like 60 sec.
and to add to it now only 2day for some bloody reason i am being kicked every match on round 10 whether im there at the start or i enter mid match
#544
Posté 02 juin 2012 - 02:10
Me and my GF only play Random/Random/Gold.
Neither of us like promoting, so we're in the 200's N7.
We went from being 'average' skill teammates, to having to do most the work.
The typical N7 200 player is barely started off... whereas we've been at end-game for a while...
Match making should be based on "total time played @ the given difficulty setting" or "gear level".
N7 just isn't a good measure...
Games like this were never happening before, and it should not be happening :

It's fun to get a big score time to time, but it's a friggin' chore to do it all the time.
And it's a lot more expensive.
I went form using 2-5 rockets + 1-2 omnigel + 1-2 ops survivals per map...
to using 5 rockets + 5 omnigel + 3-5 ops survivals per map.
It used to be enough to just do non-farming gold, and on average you'd have 2-3 good players per match.
With match making, I just sit and wait for people to join, and when they finally join most of their gear is in the single digits and they have goofy setups - like they're just getting their feet wet.
You know the high N7's that are complaining about long wait times? ... well the low N7's are in the same situation.
We used to PUG together and have a lot of good matches.
Now it's all fractured, and people are waiting for no reason.
Seasoned low N7's are waiting, and seasoned high N7's are waiting, when we could be playing together.
-scheherazade
Modifié par scheherazade, 02 juin 2012 - 06:32 .
#545
Posté 02 juin 2012 - 02:46
1 if everyone hosts, then this is no longer multiplayer.
2 if you do no host but rather pug, YOU CANNOT ESCAPE A HOST WITH BAD PING. You leave the host, rejoin, and presto, back to the same laggy host, as the only people within 5 points of your n7 is that freaking laggy host and the other 2 dudes unlucky enough to be within 5 points of him/her.
add those 2 up, and pugging is 100% dead.
The one and only criteria that should be used for matchmaking, is PING and PING ALONE.
Modifié par hotpocketgimme, 02 juin 2012 - 02:47 .
#546
Posté 02 juin 2012 - 03:10
#547
Posté 02 juin 2012 - 03:12
#548
Posté 02 juin 2012 - 03:14
#549
Posté 02 juin 2012 - 03:16
SparkeeLecaro wrote...
Wait, this is why it took ten minutes for me to get one person in my game? What the hell were they thinking?
going on about a half hour now... all FBWG. left and got dropped in the same FBWG match 3x. tried to start my own PUG game.. another half hour.. no one. this "new feature" stinks
#550
Posté 02 juin 2012 - 03:18
Quackjack wrote...
Well Chris Priestly messaged me back and said they are investigating this. I thought this was a team effort? Whatever, as long as they can fix this i'll play.
all they needed to investigate were the responses on this thread. can't have a team effort when you can't even find teammates anymore.





Retour en haut




