Design the 'perfect' matchmaking system

[Shifty Geezer]

Having just read a post in the KZ2 thread about teams, I'd like to taz people's design nounce to design the perfect matchmaking, team-creating system applicable to a standard online competitive game. Assume teams can be anything from 5 to 16, and perhaps you can extend your ideas to larger forces to accomodate squad creation.

The principle issues to solve are : Skill balancing, where one team isn't completely overpowered; friends on the same team, unlike Warhawk where we'd get split up; team 'management' wherein prior to a match, the right skills/boosters/etc. are chosen to support the mission; and convenience, wherein we don't want 15 minutes of preparation between rounds. Feel free to offer more suggestions.

A significant problem seems to be how to obtain and apply useful metrics. What would you base a rating system on - individual performances, experience, or games won? And should experienced players be handicapped (IMO yes!) or given extra boosts to make them even more powerful? How should the online scene be graded into leagues, or should it not, and the game left as a free-for-all?

I've played a few online titles, what with this brave, new online-world of ours, but it's only really U2 that's given me the reward of trying, and even then the multiplayer aspect can be seriously broken at times. I think a serious rethinking of the approach to multiplayer gaming is needed, and this is the thread to do it!

 

[nightshade]

Skill balancing by taking ranks into consideration can never be perfect as there will always be new low ranked players as time goes on while the older crowd [generally the majority] are at a much higher level...in these cases complaining for broken match making if you get matched against high ranked players; is a moot point imo. Though things like all high ranked players in one team & low ranked ones in another are definitely a big no no & should be avoidable as much possible, but it seems to me that these kind of issues exist in all games that incorporate matchmaking.

I am generally not a big fan of Matchmaking since I'm more of a "choose the server from the browser" kind of guy, but for me ideal matchmaking would be that case when the number of high rankers & low rankers are equally balanced in both teams.Also I believe the game should take KDR & objective completion into consideration for matchmaking since the games can already track these stats of individual players easily, while a high KDR doesn't necessarily means the player is extremely good at the game cause one can just camp for kills and forget about completing the objectives,but it does however means that he's pretty good at killing hence can be a key players for a team to win the match.

 

[Npl]

I dont think you can use any "per-individual" rating for team-based games. The only way matchmaking could work for teamgames is having a rating system for whole teams - if I play with people I know (stratgames, never played KZ2) I know what they are capable of and we can use tactics you just cant do reliably with random people.
Actually I would prefer friends beeing divided in random skirmishes for that reason alone... and a seperate ladder and rankings for teams (where both sides consist of "friends" or clanmates so to speak).

 

[Npl]

Skill balancing by taking ranks into consideration can never be perfect as there will always be new low ranked players as time goes on while the older crowd [generally the majority] are at a much higher level...in these cases complaining for broken match making if you get matched against high ranked players;

New players should be in a seperate bracket until they played enough games to have a valid rank.

 

[MfA]

I think some type of ELO rating based on pure kills combined with a smart (evolutionary) algorithm which takes those ELO ratings and groupings (ie. whether people joined as a group) into account could have a decent accuracy in predicting wins (and thus be used for balancing).

Low skill players joining as a group probably have little greater effectiveness than when playing individually (I could be wrong, but that's why I said evolutionary algorithm).

 

[Dregun]

UC2 has horrible Matchmaking in my opinion, however here are my thoughts on a well balanced system.

Remove Skill level from matchmaking unless K/D ratio and objective completions way heavily into it. Time played does not equate to greater skill!

Just because you created a party doesn't mean you should always be on the same team. When a party of 5 people consists of high ranked good players who are from a clan they shouldn't be allowed to play against another team of complete noobs! I remember being lvl 15 on UC2 and I was the highest ranked player on my team..our oponents..all Roman Numerals!

Allow the ability to "Stay" with either your team or opponents. I don't like not having control over who I'm playing against from round to round. Sometimes I want revenge and I can't get it because it moves me. Or sometimes I'm on a really good team and both sides are matched but it comes to my screen at the end of the round and all the slots say "Finding Player"

Allow the "Players Met" section to allow me to try and Join the game they are in without having to add them as friends. I don't want to add people as friends because during 1 game I thought they where good team players. Give me the ability to play with them more before I friend them...buy me dinner first damnit!

Micro manage, everyone no matter how good they are has good days and bad days. Sometimes they have good games and bad games within the same day! Keep track of the way the player is performing on a micro level and factor that into Matchmaking. If I'm having a great day, racking up kills then put me in a match with better players, if however I'm not doing so hot today why not put me in a match with people performing the same as me?

Allow us to "Judge" other players! Why not allow us after matches (co-op or competative) to be able to give thumbs up and thumbs down on certain criteria? Example:

Co-op: UC2
You played a game with TimmyTwoGuns and Dregun
After the match you can click on the player and rank them.

Did "Dregun" offer help in completing the objectives <Yes><No><Partial>
Did "Dregun" show significant skill in taking out enemies <Yes><No><Partial>
Did "Dregun" quickly try to revive or attempt to save you from enemies <Yes><No><Partial>
Would you recomend "Dregun" to other players looking for a co-op partner <Yes><No><Maybe>

Now someone can see from "Players met" stats like this along how many votes (without knowing who voted) to see if that player is a good fit. They could not allow members with the same clan tag to vote to keep it fairly legit too.

Using that information as well as the revised "Rank" would go a long way to help balance out many games.

I have more ideas but this post is long enough as it is

 

[Phil]

I think it quite depends on the game on how the 'perfect matchmaking system' would need to work. If you take MW2 for intance - it's a game that requires the participants to have a good connection. If you don't, the experience becomes nearly unplayable as the game tries to sync itself to the host. I'd also mention that MW2 has a rather steep learning curve to (especially aiming) as well as strategic element which is why a good matchmaking system would have to take care of ping among all participants but also factor in the rank level of the player it puts together.

I'm not that sure I'd factor in Kill/Death ratio as high as player ranking, as K/D can fluctuate quite a bit depending on how you play and against who you are pitted against. I think it's the most fair to have players with equal play time pitted against each other, as these players will mostly have the same "upleveling options" to them. If there is a player than is a lot better than the rest in his given rank - fair play to him. I would think it is more unfair to have a level 10 player play against a level 40 player (that most likely has more than 4 times the play time on his hands, knows the maps better and has more powerful upgrades enabled due to his rank) even if he has a similar K/D.

If you take KillZone2, I think that game doesn't require a very complex match making process once players reach the first general status (10'000 points I think = one general star), as the game centers a lot around team efforts and is generally very balanced. The biggest problem there is that you may end up with one team of 8 players playing against 4 players which would obviously tilt it in ones favour. Since the game doesn't reward very powerful perks, you can potentially start as a complete n00b and be quite efficient in aiming better than much more experienced players with the standard rifle. For everyone that hasn't yet reached the first general ranking, match making would be a good thing as to protect the new and inexperienced in getting into games where they are pitted against much stronger, more experienced players that know the maps and have the aiming figured out.

 

[PARANOiA]

I think the basic and most obvious matchmaking tool missing from pretty much every game I've played is a system where my first few times online should never chuck me in with someone that has been playing more than a handful of games. There's nothing that turns me off a multiplayer game more than the "learning curve" where you struggle through a bunch of frustrating deaths while you're trying to learn the ropes.

"Friends" in free-for-all deatchmatches is also hard - I get frustrated when two people in a small deathmatch group (4-8 people) team up. How can there be a solution to this, though? I tend to give the people involved negative feedback for "bad sportsmanship", but there's not much else I can do.

 

[Tap In]

Modern Warfare 2

Join in progress
Fast, ultra fast, game finder
drop in drop out
auto team balance
stay with room after match

 

[dragonelite]

Modern Warfare 2

Join in progress
Fast, ultra fast, game finder
drop in drop out
auto team balance
stay with room after match

Bad company uses same kind of matchmaking only then with dedicated servers from EA.
Would really like to have that instead of p2p or hope microsoft does more with the user own dedicated server software you could use for section 8.

 

[Tap In]

Bad company uses same kind of matchmaking only then with dedicated servers from EA.
Would really like to have that instead of p2p or hope microsoft does more with the user own dedicated server software you could use for section 8.

yep love BC also but with more game types in BC2 hopefully it works as well

love the dedicated servers on EA but I have actually seen more lag on the EA servers (mostly on BF 1943) than I ever have on a P2P MW2 (or any CoD game)

 

[patsu]

R2 + some missing RFOM features (e.g., text chat !)

Don't know how they did it, but we never got broken up by the match making (We have 20 member party sometimes). And the matches were usually fun until people quit half way. Insomniac patched the system later to rebalance the match in round 2, but it's hard to ensure fairness if too many people left. The setup allows spectating, and is dedicated server too.

The Warzone and join anytime concept in KZ2 is nice though.

 

[betan]

Modern Warfare 2

Join in progress
drop in drop out

That's terrible in general

auto team balance

That's terrible in MWs

stay with room after match

OK, what's good about that? wanting to play with the same people over and over again, especially if it's a party allowed lobby...

 

[Tap In]

That's terrible in general

That's terrible in MWs
.

disagree. drop in /out is fantastic so there is no waiting at the lobby yet game launches with balanced teams and balances as people are added. If some people drop out, no biggie as they are replaced with fresh meat nearly instantly.

wanting to play with the same people over and over again, especially if it's a party allowed lobby...

it's two clicks to leave lobby and relaunch the ultra fast matching again... and boom you are in a new game.

In general there is going to be a big disconnect here with old school PC players who are used to, and prefer, lobbies controlled by a host with King powers and those of us who love the console matchmaking of no Kings and no waiting for some guy to let his dog out or go have a smoke before the game starts.

 

[patsu]

Yeah, I think MW2 has a health supply of players for match making even if people rage quit halfway.

Matchmaking without drop-in/out doesn't have to be long though. Usually took seconds to less than a minute for RFOM. Dynamic drop in/out is probably good for countering rage quit.

 

[Tap In]

Yeah, I think MW2 has a health supply of players for match making even if people rage quit halfway.

Without drop in/out, matchmaking doesn't have to be long though. Usually takes seconds to less than a minute in RFOM. Dynamic drop in/out is probably good for countering rage quit.

even in CoD WaW which I played for several weeks after MW2 launched, there were only 20-30k players on at a given time (compared to 1/2 million on MW2) and the match making system worked equally as well.

IMO, IW/Treyarch took the precedent setting Halo2 matchmaking to a new level with their version. as noted only BF BC (servers) compares. I will no longer suffer an online game that does not have matchmaking sans lobby waiting.

 

[patsu]

If it doesn't work as well, the noobs are the ones who'd notice first. Seasoned players will have fun killing noobs and other well-matched players anyway.

I guess it kinda depends on the game design too (How powerful can experts get vs a new player ?).

 

[Tap In]

If it doesn't work as well, the noobs are the ones who'd noticed first. Seasoned players will have fun killing noobs and other well-matched players anyway.

I guess it kinda depends on the game design too (How powerful can experts get vs a new player ?).

yes. I played MW2 for the first time about a month or so after launch so I was a noob compared to most. It was a tough learning curve for the first couple of days but before you know it I was competitive. so yes, the rank up system needs to be fair and even noobs need some good starting tools to be able to advance. MW2 seems to have nailed that. I'm looking forward to seeing the advances in Bc2 compared to BC with their leveling system.

 

[patsu]

yes. I played MW2 for the first time about a month or so after launch so I was a noob compared to most. It was a tough learning curve for the first couple of days but before you know it I was competitive. so yes, the rank up system needs to be fair and even noobs need some good starting tools to be able to advance. MW2 seems to have nailed that. I'm looking forward to seeing the advances in Bc2 compared to BC with their leveling system.

That's the thing I hope match making solves. KZ2 -- without match making -- also has this pit fall. Is there a match making system that allows new players to have an enjoyable experience ?

I think some of the match making benefits may have been pawned away by restricting new players to low level gears.

 

[Tap In]

That's the thing I hope match making solves. KZ2 -- without match making -- also has this pit fall. Is there a match making system that allows new players to have an enjoyable experience ?

I think some of the match making benefits may have been pawned away by restricting new players to low level gears.

There is a training ground in Halo 3 where only newbs (allegedly ) can play for the first few levels. Also MW2 restricts the games you are allowed to play in and opens up other modes as you advance, but you are still in those modes with 5 star generals. the learning curve is certainly not a "game quitting" experience but a challenge as much for not knowing the maps as the difference in levels.