FORUMS


How to prevent bad team setup / bad MM?



Posted: //
March 23, 2018, 4 a.m.


Updated //
March 23, 2018, 4:08 a.m.

I've had a ton of matches recently where my team consisted of a really horrible class combination. Like 2 destroyers, 4 artilleries, 2 corvettes... aaand exactly zero tanks and healers. As if it weren't enough that squads ruin half the matches, the other half is ruined by bad class combinations.

I think the root cause here is that people want to level certain ships, either for fun or (in case of new players) to unlock OBs. You could argue that "oh if you're stupid enough to not pick a healer when you see your team has none, you deserve to lose", but no, that's not a valid point. I have "sacrificed" myself more times than I can count already, which lead me to have both a Koschei and an Aion, and to have them as my most advanced T4 (as in most modules unlocked) ships, even though that was never my intent.

Meanwhile I still don't have certain OBs that I want, simply because I skipped playing the ships that lead to them, for the benefit of my team. About a week ago I've decided my charity ends now, and since then I refuse to fill important roles that are lacking in my team, and focus on leveling whatever I want. This lead to a plethora of horrible matches.

So we currently have 2 reasons that lead to roflstomp style matches: bad MM (bad squad balance), and a restrictive progression system that leads to bad team setups. Combine these with the low population and you soon end up with more bad matches than good ones, which obviously leads to players leaving the game.

So how do we get around this issue? I'm open to any ideas you have, here are 2 of mine:

  • We could select a ship before joining MM. This way you're locked to a single ship per match (you could still have loadout A and B ), however MM will know exactly what class/role are you going to play, and it also sees your tier. This way it would have A LOT easier job at balancing teams, so you'd never be without a tank or a healer, and you'd never face a team of T4 ships with T3 ones. I rarely see people switching ships during a match, so the benefits here could easily outweigh the downside of a locked ship.
  • We could get rid of Ship XP forever, period. All XP would be Free XP, thus no matter which ship you play, you could still advance the one you intend to. Therefore you could make the "sacrifice" of playing a healer at the times you didn't want to, and still unlock modules on your destroyer.

What 'yall think?


Ryzen 2600X @ 4.2GHz, 16GB DDR4 @ 3200MHz, 1070 Ti iChill X3 V2


Posted: //
March 23, 2018, 5:46 a.m.



The bottom line is, regardless what you set out to do, you can chose 5 ships, so if you are levelling ships you like, a healer or tank may not be in that 5. We would then be falling back to the days of when playing an MMO, you could be waiting hours for a healer before you could start a raid etc. We could end up in the same possition of waiting ages for someone to be playing a healer/tank. People might just not want to play them.

From my point of view the problem seems to be the game can not balance teams when squads are involved. I had 4-5 matches yesterday on the side of a squad, and it was like the game conted the squad as one level 50 in terms of dishing out level 50 players. There would be 6 level 50's on my tean while ony 3 on the other, and I wasnt even in a squad.

What we really need is an MM that looks at the following, what ships you have in your fleet, what your win/loss ratio is, your level, count the numbers of players in the squad as the highet player but counts them as solo players when balancing the team and maybe time played.

I'm not going to pretend that is going to be easy, it probably is not at all. I also have no clue as to what would go in to making a good MMR, but I do know, what we have now, it not good for the game. It gives out a very negative impresstion to me at least on how the matches are set up. It feels like it's trying to force people to spend money on convershion to jump ahead, when in reality that dose not "fix" the problme, just moves/delaiys it.


https://gb-live-privateassetsbucket-1359zn8x1as94.s3.amazonaws.com/images/Brother_Belial_Forum_Signature.original.original.png

i5 11600K @ 3.9GHz|32GB Corsair Vengunce RGP SL Pro 3600mHz|MSI MPG Z590 Gaming Plus|MSI GTX 960 Gaming 2GB|Corsair TX 650W|Win11 Pro X64| Corsair Spec Delta Case|

Dreadnought Support tool | Customer Support | Rookie Helping Hand Manuel


Posted: //
March 23, 2018, 7:52 a.m.



Tyrel#8199 posted (#post-215156) said:

What 'yall think?

I think it's a systemic issue. I do hope that the new 'crew system' that was intended to replace Officer Briefings is higher up on the priority list.

I do like the proposal of removing ship-specific experience and making it a universal currency. However, there are two reasons I can think of that might prevent them from wanting to do that:

Having ship-specific exp means that they can charge people to convert exp off hero/maxed out ships.

Is it really a good idea to allow people to progress through a ship line they don't(/have never) play(ed)? By proxy, would it be acceptable for people to fully unlock up to and through T5 ships simply by playing Recruit matches(being able to potentially skip the Veteran Queue entirely)?


Posted: //
March 23, 2018, 8:51 a.m.


Updated //
March 23, 2018, 8:53 a.m.

To be honest with you, it sounds like the solution is to MAKE SHIP CHOICES THAT SUPPORT YOUR TEAM UPON ARRIVING IN THE MATCH. If I'm supremely lucky I wont get stuck playing tactical cruisers all day. I think the people here have unrealistic MM expectations. If Im in a match with people roughly within a tier of me, above or below, thats golden. Im not convinced the MM should ne trying to evenly split squads or distribute hoghly ranked players, I just want it to find a match and expecting it to set up the perfect winnable game for you is silly

conversely, dont touch thw xp the rest of your fleet generates. If you dont play a healer at all, consider that this is how we progress all the ships we'd rather be playing


Posted: //
March 23, 2018, 9:48 a.m.



@Tyrel, you're going to roll your eyes and probably want to slap me, but I'll say it anyway...

Have you tried asking your team for someone to switch to healer or tank? You could even be more blunt about it by saying something similar to "We need a dreadnought/healer/X-class ship if we want to win! Someone please switch to X-class ship."

Of course, this doesn't ameliorate the problem of people wanting to grind based on their own desires, not to mention the problem that the often limited time in ship-selection orbit causes, but hopefully there will be some other altruistic players like you (and me) out there that will be willing to switch ships if asked to do so.


Posted: //
March 23, 2018, 9:56 a.m.



First option isn't viable.

Second option, while it would be welcome to me, I doubt would happen as it is related to DN's income.


Posted: //
March 23, 2018, 10:51 a.m.



Both issues are by design.

First issue is the base game design idea of Dreadnought, you can counter everything but you will need a certain loadout/ship. Second one is part of the monetisation scheme, get people to play the right ships, which then gather XP you can convert to free XP.

Good luck trying to change the minds of the financial officers/business analysts. The just one ship option would need a total revision of the core balance and part of the game design, so unlikely to happen.


Recruit Engineer


Posted: //
March 23, 2018, 11:03 a.m.



Szeron

my take on your last question yes it would be a good idea, because it doesnt matter in which "league" players play, as long as they play and enjoy doing so.

you cant expect all players to be godlike pro gamers that spend most of their time gaming and doing nothing else, or maybe just playing one game, to enjoy fighting the same.

so maybe s.o. will unlock all ships just by playing recruit and then try out fighting legendary, realize the players there are too good or the setup too complex and go back playing recruit.

who cares? the devs couldnt care less cause they want their game to be played by as many people as possible and not by as many progamers as possible.

regarding universal xp and dedicated roles i would also love a universal xp than a ship specific xp and dedicated roles on the battlefield. b

ecause its the only logic and balanced approach of recreating a battlefield with different roles and classes available and i would love to see dreadnought do financially well and connect to more players.

and yes team composition is a major flaw in the game right now, because it is random.

so ontop of the frustrating experience that new players and random squads face from an unfair matchmaking mechanic that puts together ships of different tiers and different OBs / module unlocked, players also face the frustration of being literally shipped out into a battle with random team composition against players that may not.

SO if your goal was to create a frustrating game experience and retain as few players as possible you have succeeded.

if you asume that its up to players to balance out the already frustrating setup by stepping up and take up the roles required to balance the odds, its not going to happen, and you double the frustration.

team based games already put players in a frustrating situation, because some players and teams will already be better than others.

what a game should do to retain players is always to counter the frustration and balance out the odds.

dreadnought doesnt care at all, and accordingly the player retention is close to 0.

this game is supposed to be a team based experience, yet the tools for setup and coordination of a team are close to non existing.

any game that succesfully wants to recreate a battlefield experience with different roles knows that roles have to be dedicated and not setup by random.

if the roles are played correctly is up to the players and something that comes with playing time and experience in the game.

universal xp and dedicated roles would solve a huge chunk of the frustation new players and random squads face.

its in the interest of the developers to provide a less frustrating game experience and retain player numbers so that they can create an income for the game they provide.

it also involves less balancing issues and much more time to develope the game.

the more players enjoy the game the more will socialize, the more will tell others to play with them, the more customizations they will buy to set themselves apart from other players, the more the will generate exposure and income for the devs.


Posted: //
March 23, 2018, 12:56 p.m.



I dont buy that the design choices are necessarily wrong. Beong able to switch ships on the fly is useful and the matchmaking to me feels like every system counting on a low or growing playerbase. I cant speak specifically for the matchmaking system, but I can say the switch to a system with dedicated roles means queueing as the role you intend to play, and relying on MM to piece together a bare minimum of 2 tacs 2 dreads

This might not be a bad solution if the queue population supports it. Until then the biggest answer is to push players to pick ships based on what their team needs instead of what theyd like to be grinding. It doesnt happen often but it is a thrill when I join a room and people have already selected tacs. hooray! I get to play a dread!

The last thing to consider is a system like Star Conflict, where modules are researched using match xp and not individual ship xp


Posted: //
March 23, 2018, 3:02 p.m.


Updated //
March 23, 2018, 3:15 p.m.

It's really nice to see an actual conversation about the issues, instead of the "git gud!" attitude that tends to govern some topics.

As for the dedicated role MM, I know it would be a big change, but if you look back at your past few dozen of battles... In how many of them did you switch roles mid-flight? I'm guessing one hand is enough to count them? Would it really be such a great loss then, considering you don't even lose the feature fully, since Loadouts could be retained?

Now think about how MUCH easier a job MM would have, if it knew - in advance - exactly what tier and what class are you going to fly. I don't really think it would noticeably affect queue times, for example if it would force teams to have 2+ dreads, that's not impossible to find. In most of my matches there are usually 4+ dreads flying around, the issue is that they can easily all end up on one team.

This is one of the root issues of the current MM - how would it ever ever know what ship are you going to fly if you have a fleet containing 3+ classes? It cannot balance team composition at all, regarding roles, and it also cannot balance them regarding tiers. Some of you expect it should be able to do tier balancing at least, but no, why would it? Many players have a mix of t3 and t4 ships for veteran, as they progress through the tech trees. How should MM know which one you'll play?

Everyone complains that MM is clueless... yes. It is, but not because of a bad algorithm, but because Fleets directly cause it to be designed clueless. It can't be not clueless, unless it learns to see into the future%. The only thing it should be able to handle better are squads, but I doubt that's enough. Which leads to:

Solokonto#4004 posted (#post-215192) said:

SO if your goal was to create a frustrating game experience and retain as few players as possible you have succeeded.

True, sadly... MM is bad because with the current circumstances it has no chance of being good.

% [I'm an asterisk]

if we go for dedicated role MM, we sort of make it see into the future.


Ryzen 2600X @ 4.2GHz, 16GB DDR4 @ 3200MHz, 1070 Ti iChill X3 V2

This forum is restricted, posts cannot be made.