Here's a good example to show how the target order never leaves the squishiest players in 8v8. They respawn and come back before the damage ever reaches the others, which creates an extremely unpleasant situation for everyone involved: Eight people being forced to focus the same two or three players over and over again. The only solution I see is to go back to 4v4v4.
Finding 16 players of the same skill level wouldn't change how the target order works, @MincMincMinc . In fact, it would just set it in stone. Do you see how the match above would have been incredibly boring even with your MMR idea?
Let's slow down a bit. You do realize that even if you could somehow find 16 players of the same skill level, there would still be a target order, right?MincMincMinc wrote: »Here's a good example to show how the target order never leaves the squishiest players in 8v8. They respawn and come back before the damage ever reaches the others, which creates an extremely unpleasant situation for everyone involved: Eight people being forced to focus the same two or three players over and over again. The only solution I see is to go back to 4v4v4.
Finding 16 players of the same skill level wouldn't change how the target order works, @MincMincMinc . In fact, it would just set it in stone. Do you see how the match above would have been incredibly boring even with your MMR idea?
No the dynamic wouldnt change at all. Good players will always target the squishiest opponents.
Let's slow down a bit. You do realize that even if you could somehow find 16 players of the same skill level, there would still be a target order, right?MincMincMinc wrote: »Here's a good example to show how the target order never leaves the squishiest players in 8v8. They respawn and come back before the damage ever reaches the others, which creates an extremely unpleasant situation for everyone involved: Eight people being forced to focus the same two or three players over and over again. The only solution I see is to go back to 4v4v4.
Finding 16 players of the same skill level wouldn't change how the target order works, @MincMincMinc . In fact, it would just set it in stone. Do you see how the match above would have been incredibly boring even with your MMR idea?
No the dynamic wouldnt change at all. Good players will always target the squishiest opponents.
Let's slow down a bit. You do realize that even if you could somehow find 16 players of the same skill level, there would still be a target order, right?MincMincMinc wrote: »Here's a good example to show how the target order never leaves the squishiest players in 8v8. They respawn and come back before the damage ever reaches the others, which creates an extremely unpleasant situation for everyone involved: Eight people being forced to focus the same two or three players over and over again. The only solution I see is to go back to 4v4v4.
Finding 16 players of the same skill level wouldn't change how the target order works, @MincMincMinc . In fact, it would just set it in stone. Do you see how the match above would have been incredibly boring even with your MMR idea?
No the dynamic wouldnt change at all. Good players will always target the squishiest opponents.
MincMincMinc wrote: »Let's slow down a bit. You do realize that even if you could somehow find 16 players of the same skill level, there would still be a target order, right?MincMincMinc wrote: »Here's a good example to show how the target order never leaves the squishiest players in 8v8. They respawn and come back before the damage ever reaches the others, which creates an extremely unpleasant situation for everyone involved: Eight people being forced to focus the same two or three players over and over again. The only solution I see is to go back to 4v4v4.
Finding 16 players of the same skill level wouldn't change how the target order works, @MincMincMinc . In fact, it would just set it in stone. Do you see how the match above would have been incredibly boring even with your MMR idea?
No the dynamic wouldnt change at all. Good players will always target the squishiest opponents.
Yes and thats how combat happens, to put it simply you are not going to get rid of survival of the fittest. Maybe if the combat system was turn based dice rolling......
MincMincMinc wrote: »Let's slow down a bit. You do realize that even if you could somehow find 16 players of the same skill level, there would still be a target order, right?MincMincMinc wrote: »Here's a good example to show how the target order never leaves the squishiest players in 8v8. They respawn and come back before the damage ever reaches the others, which creates an extremely unpleasant situation for everyone involved: Eight people being forced to focus the same two or three players over and over again. The only solution I see is to go back to 4v4v4.
Finding 16 players of the same skill level wouldn't change how the target order works, @MincMincMinc . In fact, it would just set it in stone. Do you see how the match above would have been incredibly boring even with your MMR idea?
No the dynamic wouldnt change at all. Good players will always target the squishiest opponents.
Yes and thats how combat happens, to put it simply you are not going to get rid of survival of the fittest. Maybe if the combat system was turn based dice rolling......
Now that we've seen that no change to MMR would fix any of these problems, we can talk about how viable your suggestion is. According to your idea, into how many ranks do you think the population could be split?
The first step in solving any problem is recognizing its existence, but we can talk about them later. Regarding your mmr idea, how many ranks?MincMincMinc wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »Let's slow down a bit. You do realize that even if you could somehow find 16 players of the same skill level, there would still be a target order, right?MincMincMinc wrote: »Here's a good example to show how the target order never leaves the squishiest players in 8v8. They respawn and come back before the damage ever reaches the others, which creates an extremely unpleasant situation for everyone involved: Eight people being forced to focus the same two or three players over and over again. The only solution I see is to go back to 4v4v4.
Finding 16 players of the same skill level wouldn't change how the target order works, @MincMincMinc . In fact, it would just set it in stone. Do you see how the match above would have been incredibly boring even with your MMR idea?
No the dynamic wouldnt change at all. Good players will always target the squishiest opponents.
Yes and thats how combat happens, to put it simply you are not going to get rid of survival of the fittest. Maybe if the combat system was turn based dice rolling......
Now that we've seen that no change to MMR would fix any of these problems, we can talk about how viable your suggestion is. According to your idea, into how many ranks do you think the population could be split?
MMR is completely detached from what you are talking about. That post doesn't outline any problems? Regardless of anything in that post, you would still want an mmr system.
The first step in solving any problem is recognizing its existence, but we can talk about them later. Regarding your mmr idea, how many ranks?MincMincMinc wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »Let's slow down a bit. You do realize that even if you could somehow find 16 players of the same skill level, there would still be a target order, right?MincMincMinc wrote: »Here's a good example to show how the target order never leaves the squishiest players in 8v8. They respawn and come back before the damage ever reaches the others, which creates an extremely unpleasant situation for everyone involved: Eight people being forced to focus the same two or three players over and over again. The only solution I see is to go back to 4v4v4.
Finding 16 players of the same skill level wouldn't change how the target order works, @MincMincMinc . In fact, it would just set it in stone. Do you see how the match above would have been incredibly boring even with your MMR idea?
No the dynamic wouldnt change at all. Good players will always target the squishiest opponents.
Yes and thats how combat happens, to put it simply you are not going to get rid of survival of the fittest. Maybe if the combat system was turn based dice rolling......
Now that we've seen that no change to MMR would fix any of these problems, we can talk about how viable your suggestion is. According to your idea, into how many ranks do you think the population could be split?
MMR is completely detached from what you are talking about. That post doesn't outline any problems? Regardless of anything in that post, you would still want an mmr system.
The first step in solving any problem is recognizing its existence, but we can talk about them later. Regarding your mmr idea, how many ranks?MincMincMinc wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »Let's slow down a bit. You do realize that even if you could somehow find 16 players of the same skill level, there would still be a target order, right?MincMincMinc wrote: »Here's a good example to show how the target order never leaves the squishiest players in 8v8. They respawn and come back before the damage ever reaches the others, which creates an extremely unpleasant situation for everyone involved: Eight people being forced to focus the same two or three players over and over again. The only solution I see is to go back to 4v4v4.
Finding 16 players of the same skill level wouldn't change how the target order works, @MincMincMinc . In fact, it would just set it in stone. Do you see how the match above would have been incredibly boring even with your MMR idea?
No the dynamic wouldnt change at all. Good players will always target the squishiest opponents.
Yes and thats how combat happens, to put it simply you are not going to get rid of survival of the fittest. Maybe if the combat system was turn based dice rolling......
Now that we've seen that no change to MMR would fix any of these problems, we can talk about how viable your suggestion is. According to your idea, into how many ranks do you think the population could be split?
MMR is completely detached from what you are talking about. That post doesn't outline any problems? Regardless of anything in that post, you would still want an mmr system.
The first step in solving any problem is recognizing its existence, but we can talk about them later. Regarding your mmr idea, how many ranks?MincMincMinc wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »Let's slow down a bit. You do realize that even if you could somehow find 16 players of the same skill level, there would still be a target order, right?MincMincMinc wrote: »Here's a good example to show how the target order never leaves the squishiest players in 8v8. They respawn and come back before the damage ever reaches the others, which creates an extremely unpleasant situation for everyone involved: Eight people being forced to focus the same two or three players over and over again. The only solution I see is to go back to 4v4v4.
Finding 16 players of the same skill level wouldn't change how the target order works, @MincMincMinc . In fact, it would just set it in stone. Do you see how the match above would have been incredibly boring even with your MMR idea?
No the dynamic wouldnt change at all. Good players will always target the squishiest opponents.
Yes and thats how combat happens, to put it simply you are not going to get rid of survival of the fittest. Maybe if the combat system was turn based dice rolling......
Now that we've seen that no change to MMR would fix any of these problems, we can talk about how viable your suggestion is. According to your idea, into how many ranks do you think the population could be split?
MMR is completely detached from what you are talking about. That post doesn't outline any problems? Regardless of anything in that post, you would still want an mmr system.
You’re right.
The problem is that it’s impossible to tweak MRR the way people are suggesting.
There’s no real way to put players together of a similar experience base. How would one determine that?
You can’t go by “group” match result because if you happen to be on a team with a healer or broken meta build then your results would be skewed by their performance.
You can’t go by individual stats because many of the PvP contents don’t score properly. For example, players aren’t rewarded points for guarding their Relic OR by fighting to defend their Ball carrier, and even though those are critical contributions they aren’t recorded in individual player stats. Meanwhile, the ones who ignore the objectives and just go run off to grab kills are rewarded so this is moot.
You can’t go by CP because you’ve got lots of players who focus more on PvE content and only dabble in PvP for the resource rewards so their level isn’t reflective of any true experience in PvP …
You can’t go by kills or TTK because everyone’s slotting either Assassin’s Blade, or Merciless Resolve, or Mages Wrath to snatch kills. So while in the past players couldn’t just lean on spamming executes, they can now.
So how would one match make? This is why matchmaking is broken as it is, because there’s no real; true, way to put solid groups together based on any of those metrics.
You can’t use results based measures in this game to match make. We need to use something else.
Major_Mangle wrote: »@MincMincMinc , I somewhat admire you for putting up with the mental gymnastics in this thread from certain individuals, but honestly just leave them be. There has been several other BG threads and all they do is spam the same 2-3 sentences/pre-written posts that makes little to no sense and only serves to derail and nitpick words out of context.
Never claimed anything of the sort.MincMincMinc wrote: »What? You can't just claim my ideas are invalid or without purpose
I only have solutions for three-teams. But if you don't think these are problems, then how can you possibly hope to help solve them?MincMincMinc wrote: »and instead try to say you have a solution to no problem that exists.
No need to guess. My point right now is just trying to understand your suggestion, which is why I'm asking- for the third time- into how many tiers/ranks/groups do you want to split the BG population.MincMincMinc wrote: »What kinda argument logic is this? Make an actual point to talk about, I can't keep guessing what you sort of might, maybe mean.
MincMincMinc wrote: »Major_Mangle wrote: »@MincMincMinc , I somewhat admire you for putting up with the mental gymnastics in this thread from certain individuals, but honestly just leave them be. There has been several other BG threads and all they do is spam the same 2-3 sentences/pre-written posts that makes little to no sense and only serves to derail and nitpick words out of context.
Ima be honest, I got nothing else to do at work but run numbers. We are in between projects and I only have about 8 or so hours of actual work to do a week. So instead I run numbers on UESP and rant about things zos will never see on the forums.
[/list]
Thumbless_Bot wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »Major_Mangle wrote: »@MincMincMinc , I somewhat admire you for putting up with the mental gymnastics in this thread from certain individuals, but honestly just leave them be. There has been several other BG threads and all they do is spam the same 2-3 sentences/pre-written posts that makes little to no sense and only serves to derail and nitpick words out of context.
Ima be honest, I got nothing else to do at work but run numbers. We are in between projects and I only have about 8 or so hours of actual work to do a week. So instead I run numbers on UESP and rant about things zos will never see on the forums.
[/list]
Pretty much... I'm on a meeting i dont need to be on while I type this.
MincMincMinc wrote: »Major_Mangle wrote: »@MincMincMinc , I somewhat admire you for putting up with the mental gymnastics in this thread from certain individuals, but honestly just leave them be. There has been several other BG threads and all they do is spam the same 2-3 sentences/pre-written posts that makes little to no sense and only serves to derail and nitpick words out of context.
For BGs in order the most important things zos could do going forward in order are:
- Implement a NON resetting constant Account wide MMR system based on KDA
- The resetting mmr places old players in matches with new players. While comical for 5s in discord, it gets boring going 50/0 for a week straight while you regain leaderboard
- Account wide makes sense because 90% of eso depends on knowledge, build theory, and mechanics which all translate between builds and classes now since combat is not unique between different classes. Everyone sustains the same, everyone has similar debuffs, everyone has similar buffs, everyone has similar healing methods, everyone has a timed burst......combat is just the same boring template now adays.
- The game's build systems are far to complex to numerically matchmake players based on stats or calculated outputs. Even hub build sites like UESP can only realistically compare Burst builds. Dot builds and crit builds start to become numerically impossible to compare and are better off just parsing or dueling to compare. THE ONLY thing in common between these 3 setups is Kills, Deaths, and Assists. Which is a simple output comparison metric of player skill since the days of .... idk quake or halo?
- Balance match made teams based on previous match's healing values
This is because of how prolific ESO's healing builds are. So many things are simple aoe auto mechanics that play the game for you. So many skills on live are hidden aoe conal smart heals when they should be more single target aimed skills like their damage counterparts.- Change spawns to be at level with the ground and use methods like one way walls, or slaughterfish to get players out of spawn and prevent enemies from going into the spawns.
Current spawns trap the losing team up on a very high keep wall essentially. Dropping down lets the enemy team of 8 players focus and hit you for multiple GCDs. Even if you survive, you were just the first penguin off the ledge. Chances are your whole uncoordinated team didn't jump off at the same time. Having spawns at level with the ground lets the more hesitant players leave the nest with the rest of the group. Not only this, but you could punish or make it impossible for birds to stay in the nest forever.
Never claimed anything of the sort.MincMincMinc wrote: »What? You can't just claim my ideas are invalid or without purpose
MincMincMinc wrote: »Let's slow down a bit. You do realize that even if you could somehow find 16 players of the same skill level, there would still be a target order, right?MincMincMinc wrote: »Here's a good example to show how the target order never leaves the squishiest players in 8v8. They respawn and come back before the damage ever reaches the others, which creates an extremely unpleasant situation for everyone involved: Eight people being forced to focus the same two or three players over and over again. The only solution I see is to go back to 4v4v4.
Finding 16 players of the same skill level wouldn't change how the target order works, @MincMincMinc . In fact, it would just set it in stone. Do you see how the match above would have been incredibly boring even with your MMR idea?
No the dynamic wouldnt change at all. Good players will always target the squishiest opponents.
Yes and thats how combat happens, to put it simply you are not going to get rid of survival of the fittest. Maybe if the combat system was turn based dice rolling......
Now that we've seen that no change to MMR would fix any of these problems, we can talk about how viable your suggestion is.
But if you don't think these are problems, then how can you possibly hope to help solve them?
Avran_Sylt wrote: »
Yeah, it's because you make the experience worse for anyone you queue with not matched to your skill/build.
Not exactly. Three-teams BGs could be balanced by placing one or two BG regulars per team and filling the rest of the slots with newcomers. You could easily create matches with extremely high probability of being fun for everyone, regardless of skill level. Doing the exact same thing in two-teams BGs just doesn't have the same result. Here's why:
- Since you can't use one team against another anymore, its difficult for BG regulars to engage each other without discarding everything they know about positioning and target selection.
1) Here's a typical 8v8 Deathmatch, pointless, horrifying and destined to die the moment that players are allowed to return to the three-sided version. Very unbalanced, yes?
2)Now let us assume we had a Magic Matchmaking capable of making both teams identical:
3)And here's the target order. Although there are exceptions, it will generally be determined by squishiness. Tanks and pure healers at the back, gankers and bombers at the front.
4) Do you notice how the BG regular is number 6 out of 8? It means that numbers 1,2 and 3 will just keep coming back before it's time to engage number 6. And if not, 4 and 5 are right there.
The format being 4v4v4 would decrease number 6 position all the way to 3 or 4. If their team was inside a sandwich, it would drop even lower.
Do you see how it was much easier for BG regulars to engage each other in 4v4v4?- The most extreme form of anti-gaming imaginable is a thousand times easier now.
- Spawncamping is encouraged by the two-sided format itself in every gamemode.
- People just give up a lot sooner because they can no longer fight for second place.
The only solution I have to these game-breaking problems is to go back to the three-teams format. Do you have another?
Never claimed we don't need mmr system, or a better mmr system.MincMincMinc wrote: »Literally no part of the conversation before proved anything against the fact that we need an mmr system, but we can go back to the topic.
No.MincMincMinc wrote: »You want 3 sided bgs because they will fix spawncamping, pugstomping and afk players.
No.MincMincMinc wrote: »You want 3 sided bgs because they will fix spawncamping, pugstomping and afk players.
3 sided would fix spawncamping being encouraged in every gamemode.
3 sided would make it easier for the pvpers to go after pugstompers and other pvpers.
3 sided would make it harder for the EU hive mind to avoid each other and play as if they were on the same team(anti-gaming). You don't need to concern yourself with this one. Doesn't happen on PC NA.
3 sided would incentivize people to keep fighting until the end (second place).
As much as I'd love to keep circling back to these, I'd prefer to understand your suggestion first. For the fourth time, into how many tiers/ranks/groups do you want to divide the BG population?
So if the matchmaking search had to expand enough it would still put players of vastly different skill levels in the same matches, right?MincMincMinc wrote: »-
How many tiers to split up MMR? It really doesn't matter. The simplest answer is infinite where each player gets a place on the ladder. Either you are above or below someone else, we are talking the bare essentials of any matchmaking game. Matchmaking simply tries to go upwards and downwards to group people around your level.............
So if the matchmaking search had to expand enough it would still put players of vastly different skill levels in the same matches, right?MincMincMinc wrote: »-
How many tiers to split up MMR? It really doesn't matter. The simplest answer is infinite where each player gets a place on the ladder. Either you are above or below someone else, we are talking the bare essentials of any matchmaking game. Matchmaking simply tries to go upwards and downwards to group people around your level.............
MincMincMinc wrote: »
So once we address the most relevant overarching issue. Then we get into more fundamental issues or more niche scenarios and try to counteract those. Does this make sense? In order of priority you would target the largest overarching system change to alleviate the most pain. MMR hits one main pain point on the head and also cuts down on the other pain points to a large degree.
MincMincMinc wrote: »
So once we address the most relevant overarching issue. Then we get into more fundamental issues or more niche scenarios and try to counteract those. Does this make sense? In order of priority you would target the largest overarching system change to alleviate the most pain. MMR hits one main pain point on the head and also cuts down on the other pain points to a large degree.
100% agree with you here, minc. Its nice for people to type out their wishlists for BG features, but suggesting fixes to problems that have a very simple common problem, without addressing that common problem, is people building their castles on sand.
Really hoping we hear back from the devs soon about whether they have finally stopped resetting MMR.
I do believe population is small enough that your mmr system would need to constantly grab players of vastly different skill levels, so let's lean on other mechanics.MincMincMinc wrote: »So if the matchmaking search had to expand enough it would still put players of vastly different skill levels in the same matches, right?
Yes, (...) Even if the population of bgs collapsed to say 30 people, the MMR system would still function, but in these more niche scenarios you would then start leaning on other mechanics to prevent issues.
I do believe population is small enough that your mmr system would need to constantly grab players of vastly different skill levels, so let's lean on other mechanics.MincMincMinc wrote: »So if the matchmaking search had to expand enough it would still put players of vastly different skill levels in the same matches, right?
Yes, (...) Even if the population of bgs collapsed to say 30 people, the MMR system would still function, but in these more niche scenarios you would then start leaning on other mechanics to prevent issues.
MincMincMinc wrote: »The first step in solving any problem is recognizing its existence, but we can talk about them later. Regarding your mmr idea, how many ranks?MincMincMinc wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »Let's slow down a bit. You do realize that even if you could somehow find 16 players of the same skill level, there would still be a target order, right?MincMincMinc wrote: »Here's a good example to show how the target order never leaves the squishiest players in 8v8. They respawn and come back before the damage ever reaches the others, which creates an extremely unpleasant situation for everyone involved: Eight people being forced to focus the same two or three players over and over again. The only solution I see is to go back to 4v4v4.
Finding 16 players of the same skill level wouldn't change how the target order works, @MincMincMinc . In fact, it would just set it in stone. Do you see how the match above would have been incredibly boring even with your MMR idea?
No the dynamic wouldnt change at all. Good players will always target the squishiest opponents.
Yes and thats how combat happens, to put it simply you are not going to get rid of survival of the fittest. Maybe if the combat system was turn based dice rolling......
Now that we've seen that no change to MMR would fix any of these problems, we can talk about how viable your suggestion is. According to your idea, into how many ranks do you think the population could be split?
MMR is completely detached from what you are talking about. That post doesn't outline any problems? Regardless of anything in that post, you would still want an mmr system.
You’re right.
The problem is that it’s impossible to tweak MRR the way people are suggesting.
There’s no real way to put players together of a similar experience base. How would one determine that?
You can’t go by “group” match result because if you happen to be on a team with a healer or broken meta build then your results would be skewed by their performance.
You can’t go by individual stats because many of the PvP contents don’t score properly. For example, players aren’t rewarded points for guarding their Relic OR by fighting to defend their Ball carrier, and even though those are critical contributions they aren’t recorded in individual player stats. Meanwhile, the ones who ignore the objectives and just go run off to grab kills are rewarded so this is moot.
You can’t go by CP because you’ve got lots of players who focus more on PvE content and only dabble in PvP for the resource rewards so their level isn’t reflective of any true experience in PvP …
You can’t go by kills or TTK because everyone’s slotting either Assassin’s Blade, or Merciless Resolve, or Mages Wrath to snatch kills. So while in the past players couldn’t just lean on spamming executes, they can now.
So how would one match make? This is why matchmaking is broken as it is, because there’s no real; true, way to put solid groups together based on any of those metrics.
You can’t use results based measures in this game to match make. We need to use something else.
I already talked about this when pointing out that there are no metrics other than KDA and healing value. For mmr eso is too complicated to match make compared to a game like overwatch which has flat expected values for similar defined characters. In those games Healers do X, Damage dealers output Y, Tanks block Z.......ESO you can go anywhere between X,Y, and Z. So you have to ignore the system entirely and use only the output of the system which is KDA. Healing is an extra which could simply be a saved variable after every match to help balance the teams once the players are matched together.
I do believe population is small enough that your mmr system would need to constantly grab players of vastly different skill levels, so let's lean on other mechanics.MincMincMinc wrote: »So if the matchmaking search had to expand enough it would still put players of vastly different skill levels in the same matches, right?
Yes, (...) Even if the population of bgs collapsed to say 30 people, the MMR system would still function, but in these more niche scenarios you would then start leaning on other mechanics to prevent issues.
This is still incredibly fundamentally flawed and would not provide the results you’re advocating for.
KDA in ESO PvP isn’t experienced based so you’d never get proper matchmaking.
Using a results based approach is what they do now and it just doesn’t work.
This is why, IMO, it’s more realistic to just go a different route. Rather than trying to skill based matchmake when you have no skill based metrics; just use something else.
It’s not complicated, it’s just that MRR simply doesn’t work anymore. ESO has been over developed beyond a point where a system like that will ever actually “work”.
Nobody is saying ESO should matchmake like Overwatch. My idea would see ESO balancing out builds on an individual basis for PvP. Basically, no more metas.
This solves a lot of your problems with spawn camping or abusing existing PvP game mechanics.
And it’s not even complicated, it’s been done in RPGs before. It’s not a new concept nor is it hard to do.
MincMincMinc wrote: »The first step in solving any problem is recognizing its existence, but we can talk about them later. Regarding your mmr idea, how many ranks?MincMincMinc wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »Let's slow down a bit. You do realize that even if you could somehow find 16 players of the same skill level, there would still be a target order, right?MincMincMinc wrote: »Here's a good example to show how the target order never leaves the squishiest players in 8v8. They respawn and come back before the damage ever reaches the others, which creates an extremely unpleasant situation for everyone involved: Eight people being forced to focus the same two or three players over and over again. The only solution I see is to go back to 4v4v4.
Finding 16 players of the same skill level wouldn't change how the target order works, @MincMincMinc . In fact, it would just set it in stone. Do you see how the match above would have been incredibly boring even with your MMR idea?
No the dynamic wouldnt change at all. Good players will always target the squishiest opponents.
Yes and thats how combat happens, to put it simply you are not going to get rid of survival of the fittest. Maybe if the combat system was turn based dice rolling......
Now that we've seen that no change to MMR would fix any of these problems, we can talk about how viable your suggestion is. According to your idea, into how many ranks do you think the population could be split?
MMR is completely detached from what you are talking about. That post doesn't outline any problems? Regardless of anything in that post, you would still want an mmr system.
You’re right.
The problem is that it’s impossible to tweak MRR the way people are suggesting.
There’s no real way to put players together of a similar experience base. How would one determine that?
You can’t go by “group” match result because if you happen to be on a team with a healer or broken meta build then your results would be skewed by their performance.
You can’t go by individual stats because many of the PvP contents don’t score properly. For example, players aren’t rewarded points for guarding their Relic OR by fighting to defend their Ball carrier, and even though those are critical contributions they aren’t recorded in individual player stats. Meanwhile, the ones who ignore the objectives and just go run off to grab kills are rewarded so this is moot.
You can’t go by CP because you’ve got lots of players who focus more on PvE content and only dabble in PvP for the resource rewards so their level isn’t reflective of any true experience in PvP …
You can’t go by kills or TTK because everyone’s slotting either Assassin’s Blade, or Merciless Resolve, or Mages Wrath to snatch kills. So while in the past players couldn’t just lean on spamming executes, they can now.
So how would one match make? This is why matchmaking is broken as it is, because there’s no real; true, way to put solid groups together based on any of those metrics.
You can’t use results based measures in this game to match make. We need to use something else.
I already talked about this when pointing out that there are no metrics other than KDA and healing value. For mmr eso is too complicated to match make compared to a game like overwatch which has flat expected values for similar defined characters. In those games Healers do X, Damage dealers output Y, Tanks block Z.......ESO you can go anywhere between X,Y, and Z. So you have to ignore the system entirely and use only the output of the system which is KDA. Healing is an extra which could simply be a saved variable after every match to help balance the teams once the players are matched together.
This is still incredibly fundamentally flawed and would not provide the results you’re advocating for.
KDA in ESO PvP isn’t experienced based so you’d never get proper matchmaking.
Using a results based approach is what they do now and it just doesn’t work.
This is why, IMO, it’s more realistic to just go a different route. Rather than trying to skill based matchmake when you have no skill based metrics; just use something else.
It’s not complicated, it’s just that MRR simply doesn’t work anymore. ESO has been over developed beyond a point where a system like that will ever actually “work”.
Nobody is saying ESO should matchmake like Overwatch. My idea would see ESO balancing out builds on an individual basis for PvP. Basically, no more metas.
This solves a lot of your problems with spawn camping or abusing existing PvP game mechanics.
And it’s not even complicated, it’s been done in RPGs before. It’s not a new concept nor is it hard to do.