Matchmaker Implementation

[MasterMoose]

I am excited, just as many of you are, that Eugen has taken constructive feedback from the community and will be implementing a matchmaker. However, the issue remains on how to implement a successful and sustainable matchmaker. One idea to ensure the success of a matchmaker in Steel Division is as follows:

Custom lobbies remain hidden from public view; i.e. you can either create your own lobby or be privately invited.

Let me be clear, I do not want to discuss other proposals in this thread, such as eliminating game modes, discussions concerning the actual operation of the matchmaker, etc. The focus of this thread is simply on the above proposal.

The ultimate goal of a matchmaker is to quickly place teams or individuals into a match because it forces players to learn a common set of game parameters/skills. However, implementing a successful matchmaker is no easy tasks and requires a multifaceted solution. A "one matchmaker fits all approach" does not work as there are many small changes and nuances that need to be made to a matchmaker from game to game.

I am afraid that if Eugen keeps its present public lobby system along with a new additional casual matchmaker, the whole matchmaker principle may fail. I do not want to limit private lobbies (private lobbies allow for in house games, private tournament games, or allow you to fool around with friends in unique game modes). However, I do believe they should not be visible to the public. If they remain visible I foresee a few problems.

For one, many players may grow tired of waiting in matchmaker system for a game and then may resort to "lobby hopping" (either while waiting for a matchmaker game or choosing a public lobby system from the onset). This divides the player base and decreases quick game availability. Ironically enough, over time this may devolve Steel Division into a "lobby simulator 2.0," with even more game options available than in Red Dragon because of the casual matchmaker.

Second, should lobbies remain visible to the public, players/teams may be able to more easily "shop" around for very narrow and custom game parameters that ultimately divides and shrinks the player base. As discussed, a matchmaker forces a player base to develop a skill set for a particular game style, therefore increasing the overall pool of players available for a match. hatever that game style in matchmaker should be for Steel Division is not a topic of this thread. Irrespective, having a public lobby system undermines the very essence of a matchmaker because it decreases player availability for a quick match. Custom matches and creative game types should be experimented privately between friends, not with random members of the community. Shop with friends, not with strangers.

I am curious as to everyone's thoughts, whether for or against, as to the restriction for private custom games only.

Thanks everyone.

 

[RoyalColor]

Will see it in the open beta, then we'll talk

 

[Graphic]

Custom lobbies should be invite only. But in that case, it's important to have automatch vs. AI like Company of Heroes 2 for all the comp stompers out there.

 

[GoraSahib]

There has been a real need for a matchmaker in Wargame, and I would like to see one in SD. My preference for a system would be one the rewards players for using the matchmaker. Continue to allow players to host open and visible match lobbies, but have a system that rewards players for 1. signing up to matchmaker battles, and 2. sees those battles through to the end.

What kind of rewards? Well how about you earn "elan" points. Elan points can then be spent for purely cosmetic changes to units. Unique historic camo patterns and vehicle unit emblems. Unique historic "named" command units with a small bonus (something like 10% larger command range). This sort of thing.

Anyway, thats my two cents.

 

[MasterMoose]

Will see it in the open beta, then we'll talk

Royal, are there any reasons you see against having private lobbies v. implementing public lobbies along with a matchmaker?

I understand that you are taking an approach to see how it plays out in practice, and appreciate and respect that empirical approach, but I am looking into addressing longevity issues which may not be apparent during short run. For example, new players may surge the player base after a holiday sale after the game has been released for a significant amount of time. This new player base may be subject to either system, and I am looking at which system would best accommodate them/retain them best.

 

[RoyalColor]

Royal, are there any reasons you see against having private lobbies v. implementing public lobbies along with a matchmaker?

Not at all, imo matchmaker is a must and I can live without having any "custom" matches at all. If I want to test something I'll just launch skirmish.

I understand that you are taking an approach to see how it plays out in practice.

Exactly. At this point I am very happy with the stream announcement, but anything beyond that is just pure speculation. We don't know how they are going to implement it, how it is going to play and how this community will approach it. From other games' experience, where MM is a thing, I know it is usually a difficult topic.

 

[MasterMoose]

There has been a real need for a matchmaker in Wargame, and I would like to see one in SD. My preference for a system would be one the rewards players for using the matchmaker. Continue to allow players to host open and visible match lobbies, but have a system that rewards players for 1. signing up to matchmaker battles, and 2. sees those battles through to the end.

What kind of rewards? Well how about you earn "elan" points. Elan points can then be spent for purely cosmetic changes to units. Unique historic camo patterns and vehicle unit emblems. Unique historic "named" command units with a small bonus (something like 10% larger command range). This sort of thing.

Anyway, thats my two cents.

Hey Gora, I am with you that there must be a matchmaker, and Eugen seems to be as well. Is there any reason why custom lobbies should be public?

I understand your idea of rewards, but isn't it simply better if you force matchmaker as opposed to providing public options with an incentive based system; i.e. a public matchmaker and public lobbies? What are the pros of keeping a public lobby system with an incentive based matchmaker as opposed to private lobbies with a matchmaker?

 

[GoraSahib]

Hey Gora, I am with you that there must be a matchmaker, and Eugen seems to be as well. Is there any reason why custom lobbies should be public?

I understand your idea of rewards, but isn't it simply better if you force matchmaker as opposed to providing public options with an incentive based system; i.e. a public matchmaker and public lobbies? What are the pros of keeping a public lobby system with an incentive based matchmaker as opposed to private lobbies with a matchmaker?

I would say the following.

1. Public player hosted lobbies are a good way to meet players and make friends, especially when a game is new.

2. Public player hosted lobbies are potentially less intimidating to new players (especially "noobs only" type lobbies).

3. If the reward system is good (i.e. the rewards draw people into the MM, but the rewards dont unbalance the game - thus my idea of essentially cosmetic rewards), then the draw for the MM will be strong and theres no need to restrict player hosted matches to private. Essentially Im saying we can have our cake and eat it too, and please all sides of the player base.

 

[Raventhefuhrer]

1. You'd meet people with a matchmaker too. The lobby isn't magical or anything, you can still make friends during a game.

2. Matchmaker should enable you to play against people your skill level or so.

3. I think the 'rewards' system is too gimicky. If you made matchmaker the only way to find a game (sans private, invitation-only lobbies) you wouldn't need to incentivize it.

 

[Graphic]

3. I think the 'rewards' system is too gimicky. If you made matchmaker the only way to find a game (sans private, invitation-only lobbies) you wouldn't need to incentivize it.

Maybe so, but if it doesn't effect gameplay, what's the difference? I'd be excited to unlock a reskin of 3rd Armored to 2nd Armored with cammies for the infantry squads.

 

[GoraSahib]

1. You'd meet people with a matchmaker too. The lobby isn't magical or anything, you can still make friends during a game.

2. Matchmaker should enable you to play against people your skill level or so.

3. I think the 'rewards' system is too gimicky. If you made matchmaker the only way to find a game (sans private, invitation-only lobbies) you wouldn't need to incentivize it.

Let me expand on my point #1. Hosts can customize the parameters of their match. This can draw in players who are looking for a certain experience that maybe (actually likely) the MM wont provide. If say someone doesnt know many people playing the game, public matches set to the parameters they like are a good way to meet folks. You see this all the time in Wargame with people hosting select maps, income rates, deck restrictions, player skill restrictions, etc etc etc. A match making system isnt going to be this varied.

To just state my own take, if the MM is good thats pretty much all Id ever use. However, I know the player base is larger than just me and I think theres a great many players who would still prefer the option of public player hosted matches.

EDIT: Also, in the likely scenario that the MM has issues early on ... or develops issues down the road, its a nice fall back for the community to have public matches. And to my point #2, some new players may like the assurance that they are joining a game with all noobs, and not thrown into a match were they are the noob on a team of 4, facing a team of 3 pros and 1 noob. Catch my drift?

 

[KartoffelWerfer]

Matchmake by auto-assigning each joining player to a faction based on experience & scores and in-lobby blocking of any team-switching that would unbalance the game? Have system force a player to the other side where a weaker player joins a stacked game? Make 'Matched Game' a switchable option in the lobby?

Display all players rank, kill-ratio, win-rate and experience stats in-lobby with no need for clicking on player profiles so everyone can see and decide whether matchmaking seems to be working?

 

[TGApples]

Lobby games will never go away - people like their 250 point low income 4v4 on 1v1 map. It's not for me, but people like them.

There's a lot of way interface design can swing things here - quickmatch is either going to be the default way to play, or be ignored. For example, Wargame had 3v3/4v4 ranked options in ALB, and even had a interface showing you how many other people were searching. Did anybody ever play 3v3/4v4 ranked in them? Nope, becuase nobody else did. That, and pubstomping was easier.

On ranking - I believe quickmatch should make no attempt to match based on ranking. That should be for ranked. It should, however, have different catagories for arranged teams and individuals.