Ranking public servers by skill


(Cankor) #1

This is my number one thing that I wish the Developers had as their highest priority: creating a public ranking/matchmaking system for all players where players of similar skill levels are grouped together for matches. This would result in funner, more intense matches, which would help ensure player’s keep playing and don’t quit from frustration. To me this is more important than new maps, new mercs, or any other feature currently taking up dev time.

I am not talking about party matchmaking, that’s a different issue, to me, this basic matchmaking needs to come first and be a higher priority than party matchmaking. This would be the default “quick join” option for all public players, it’s not an opt-in thing, it’s forced on everyone.

How to do it?

(For purposes of this discussion, I will use K/D as the metric for skill. The metric is important of course, and K/D isn’t ideal, but it will work to illustrate the concept.)

Skill rankings are relative to the people you play against, if you are an average player, and play against really good players you will have a low K/D ratio, if you play against really bad players, you will have a high K/D ratio. The goal of the ranking system would be to put players together such that when they play against each other their average K/D is ~1/1. In other words, players of the same skill are grouped together for matches.

Player Ranks:
So, first all players must have a skill level, lets say 1-100, and we break this up into player ranks of 1-10 to group players into matches. rank 1 = 1-10 level players, rank 2 = 11-20…rank 10 = 91-100 level players. having some granularity in the ranking (the skill level) is important because it lets players see how close they are to the next highest or lowest rank.

Match Ranks:
Then, we might say we need to rank all the servers from 1-10 so we can put the players together based on the server. But, ranking the actual servers is not dynamic enough (you will have a lot of servers going unused to make sure there is capacity and would need to change the ranks when the player skill base shifts). So, instead of ranking the servers, we rank the matches dynamically. This allows any server to be used for any match. As an example, right now with the max level 5 servers, if no one is playing on them they are going unused. This could be a reason why there are no max level 10, max level 15, etc. servers. Ranking the matches instead of the servers would solve this issue.

So, if I am a rank 5 player, the matchmaking system puts me into a rank 5 match, ideally consisting of other players all of rank 5 (skill level 41-50). If I consistently do really well against these guys, my skill level moves up, and soon I move up in rank, if I do poorly, eventually I move down in rank.

Ranking the matches instead of the server also allows you to adjust the match rank based on the average skill level of the players in the game. This allows for cases where there might not be an available game to join which matches your rank. While the matchmaking system would still try and put you into the closest game which matches your rank, during times when few players are online you might have a wider spread. So, for instance, if I am in a game with players evenly spread between skill levels 41 (bottom of rank 5) and 70 (top of rank 7), that would still be considered a rank 6 match.

Of course, the rank 5 players are playing in a game one rank higher than their skill level, and the rank 7 players one rank lower, so how they move up and down in skill level based on their performance would be adjusted accordingly.

So, that’s the basics, everything below is just added implementation detail/

Not allowing players into matches below their skill levels:
Of course, this will be controversial. people are going to want to play with friends and their friends will be at different levels, but players shouldn’t be allowed into a match more than one or two levels below their skill level unless there are no other matches available. I don’t know that there is a good answer here for being able to play with your friends, allowing lower ranked players to play in higher ranked matches should be allowed. maybe there is a “pure” option and a “blended” option, where if you choose pure when looking for a match you will be in a match ONLY with other players of your rank (but you might have to wait to get into a match). Blended allows for the match to be ranked based on the average skill level of the players (and maybe you can even set a max spread).

Forcing/facilitating server/match switches:
If you are in a match above or below your skill level, you should be shown a message that a match closer to your rank is available after your current match ends, with a quick switch button to jump to that server. While some will say this is bad since it encourages people to leave your current server, it’s the opposite because it is encouraging people to re-balance, and hopefully you have people of your same skill level joining from other matches.

If you are in a match that is more than the max allowable spread below your skill level, and there are now enough players to create a match at your skill level (or a slot opens on one you couldn’t get into before) you would be automatically moved to the new match at the end of the current one. Again, splitting friends is of course an issue, some way to handle that would need to be worked out. One idea might be you indicate who you are wanting to play with and if there isn’t too much of a spread in skill it sticks you all in “blended” matches at your average skill and lets you stay there.

Waiting times:
With enough players, waiting times to get into a “pure” match (every player in the match at exactly your rank) wouldn’t be an issue. But the “blended” match is always an option if it is.

Game Modes:
Sort of ignoring this for now, but if the player base is too low it’s probably worth it to combine stop watch and objective into objective only in order to have enough players in one mode where there is enough spread on the skill levels to get proper groupings. I’d give up playing one or the other stopwatch if it meant the games were funner/more evenly matched.

Maybe stopwatch becomes an option only if there are enough players to not split the player base too much. I don;t know about execution, I never play it, if that’s a mode where the people who play it would leave and not play at all obviously you don;t want to eliminate it. But splitting the player-base with multiple modes is self defeating if it takes away more players from one mode than it brings in over all. I’m happy with just one mode so long as it is fun, and stop watch and objective are so close to the same mode that you could eliminate one or the other and I’d happily play the other. Obviously, you want stop watch for competition, so it still has to be available. I have no idea if the player-base size is an issue or not right now.

With high level players being placed into games with other high level players automatically, the whole “solo queue” issue of the current matchmaking could become a non-issue.

And the max level 5 servers could go away, simply drop brand new players into matches at rank 1 and let them start moving up as they get better.


(Apples) #2

banana for scale


(Szakalot) #3

you could do that, or you could do ranked solo-queue separate mode


(Cankor) #4

Many people won’t do it then and it will fail.


(Szakalot) #5

why wouldnt they?


(Cankor) #6

I believe that:

  1. Many won’t see the benefit.
  2. Many will see it as a mode for higher skilled players and stay away because they don’t want to be “compared to those guys” or have to play against them, (this despite the fact that it is designed to separate lower skilled players from higher skilled players).

I don’t know, I’m sure the solo queue thing would work if the player base were larger, but I would worry that without enough people doing it, it wont work, the games will be bad, and people will stop doing it. In other words, the same thing that seems to be happening with competitive matchmaking now.

I suppose if their were a big splash screen on the main menu advertising it as a way to get into games with players of your own skill it could work. You’d have to battle the issue of perception right away to get it rolling. And maybe add incentives.

OK, so changing my mind, if it were done right (part of which is getting enough people to do it) the solo queue would work and it would eliminate the issues of people wanting to play with friends since they would just not solo queue when they wanted to do that. And it would eliminate the issue of game modes, since I assume solo queue would always be stopwatch.


(Kl3ppy) #7

I have 2 Options in mind:

  1. Get community run servers

  2. Get rid of the server browser and just have mm, just the selection if playing Execution, Objective or Stopwatch
    For Option 2 we need a MM System like in the current “competition”. When every player has to use it the balance should improve. Since SD is not able to create a proper balance on the servers I would vote for option 2. But I really really hate to see the server browser to get removed. We fought for this and it should stay ingame! SD get ur arses up and make option 1 available!


(abnorm) #8

[QUOTE=Kl3ppy;543965]

  1. Get community run servers[/QUOTE] :stroggbanana::stroggbanana::stroggbanana:

(MoonOnAStick) #9

Wouldn’t hurt to have a basic skill-rating column in the server browser (too hard, too soft, just right) based on average score-per-minute, if you’re balancing on that anyway.

[QUOTE=Kl3ppy;543965]1) Get community run servers[/QUOTE] And this.


(Cankor) #10

[QUOTE=Kl3ppy;543965]I have 2 Options in mind:

  1. Get community run servers[/QUOTE]
    Community run servers won’t do the same thing. Sure you can kick hackers or abusive players easier, and you might have a place for the higher skilled players to congregate, but other than team balance via forced shuffles (which people hate), how does it help with the matchmaking aspect?

[QUOTE=Kl3ppy;543965]2) Get rid of the server browser and just have mm, just the selection if playing Execution, Objective or Stopwatch
For Option 2 we need a MM System like in the current “competition”. When every player has to use it the balance should improve. Since SD is not able to create a proper balance on the servers I would vote for option 2. But I really really hate to see the server browser to get removed. We fought for this and it should stay ingame! SD get ur arses up and make option 1 available![/QUOTE]

That’s basically what I was saying, MM as the default. But, go ahead and leave the server browser and just get the solo queue working and make a strong effort to educate people on how it will give them better games.


(Kl3ppy) #11

It doesnt help MM directly. On this servers you would have a better balance. MM in the current state is not able to generate a good balance. With the community run servers you have a place for players with a similar mindset. And maybe SD can have a look at this servers how the balance is generate there and bring in in their MM Algorithm.


(Szakalot) #12

not sure an algorithm can be based off of admin decisions. Imo nr1 thing that generates good balance:

small skill differences between best and worst players on the server.

Which is much more likely to be achieved on a community run server.


(Kl3ppy) #13

[QUOTE=Szakalot;544048]not sure an algorithm can be based off of admin decisions. Imo nr1 thing that generates good balance:
[/QUOTE]

I meant that there could be something which describes the balance better than just a number.

How would you measure “skill”? Is it an average of weighted indicators? like 20% k/d, 30% xp/min,20% accuracy, 30% time played?


(Szakalot) #14

[QUOTE=Kl3ppy;544052]I meant that there could be something which describes the balance better than just a number.

How would you measure “skill”? Is it an average of weighted indicators? like 20% k/d, 30% xp/min,20% accuracy, 30% time played?[/QUOTE]

of course its difficult, but imo total K/D, total W/L and total XP/Min are the best indicators, especially W/L. If someone can maintain high W/L or high K/D over hundreds of hours of play they are clearly better than that other player who got high k/d and high w/l from getting lucky stomps in the last 25 games.

The main issue with the recent games system we have is that stomps screw up the balance majorly. If im trying ot carry a team against a very powerful stomp, ill likely get XP around that of the lower 50% of the enemy team, while often topscoring my team with more than twice the XP of the next player behind me.

This means that all those players in the opposing team are now considered better by the system, while all the players in my team (myself included) are underrated. Put that into consideration in the next game, and system puts people all over the place again, making another stomp likely.

But this isn’t actually the biggest issue with skill-based balancing, its the timing: typically skill-based lobby-shuffle is done with less than half of the players on the server, with latejoiners determining the final balance of the next map. Basically, there is very little balancing done atm., not while people have the CS cancer of ‘have to leave after each round, only to come back on the same server 3min later’


(Apples) #15

As said and I think everyone agree there, community servers would fix that the neatest way… I must admit that the only game I played without community servers was Qlive, and with a pretty big playerbase the balance problem was (IMO) achieved by splitting the “skills” (based on your total stats) into many levels, thus making you choosing from “easy” to “hard” servers to play on.

With comparatively little playerbase and the problem Szak mentionned, I dont see how autobalance can work in DB, gief community servers asap! ^^

I’m not happy with switching servers as cankor mentionned, because it adds a layer of complexity to the balance and the “leaving server after one game” will be even worse of a problem, lets focus to the balance in one server first. If all servers are instrinsequely (engrish?) balanced, there will be de facto no need to balance between servers.

Slighty OT and might have been discussed before, but how about giving the opportunity to say, the 3 best players in one team (the stomping one, determined if an obj is done after 10% of playtime [attack stomp] or if it isnt done after 80% of playtime [def stomp]) to switch and exchange their spot with the lowest player on the bashed team for XP reward, obviously the numbers determining the stomping side can be tweaked here and there, but you get the point. This can add a little flexibility to manual balance without having admin around or community servers.

If you think it is unfair for the lowest players in the bashed team because they wont have a word to say to their switch, they can gain half the XP you give to the better player switching automatically, or they can even stay on their team but limit the better player switching to one then, sometimes a balanced 7V5 is preferable than a freaking stomp 6V6.

Well it is obviously not easy, but I’d like to have ideas on this point.


(BomBaKlaK) #16

Solution : Dedicated server rental !
Give tools to the community or let this game die !


(Nail) #17

[QUOTE=BomBaKlaK;544143]Solution : Dedicated server rental !
Give tools to the community or let this game die ![/QUOTE]

little dramatic even for you BumBaKrack


(spookify) #18

No matter what you do for a Pub server with jump in and jump out it will always be unbalanced in a person eyes.

There will always be people like me that will jump on attackers the first chance they get or stay on the stacked team.

All that matters is that I am happy and raging noobs and everyone else can go fly a kite or leave.

With that attitude its just putting the necessary shuffles and things in place that makes it hard or harder to stack. This has been a problem for every FPS game out because skills very soo much.


(spookify) #19

[QUOTE=BomBaKlaK;544143]Solution : Dedicated server rental !
Give tools to the community or let this game die ![/QUOTE]

What will communities do? Allow an admin to Shuffle a game that is 50% of the way through. What else will they do; kick the good player that is unbalancing the game? We are back to square one with abusive admins and noob servers filled with people that are sheltered from the real game. I just got out of a server and got called a haxer and aura booster because of my level. I was like both huh? hahahaha! So many people have no idea the high skill of this game. That is not limited to aim and tracking either. Map knowledge, movement and ways to do the objective are also huge. Community servers will make a bubble a very toxic bubble controlled by dictators!

We need something like COD has with a quick join into a que however I hate those things because of how buggy they are. But if you can party with friends it might be cool.


(Apples) #20

Community servers can allow you to rent your own and admin it the way YOU want it, so you can ban these pesky noobs who called you a haxor, thus, your point is moot…

With community servers there will ALWAYS be a high skilled server where you’ll be at home, no one calling you a haxor, a great group of likeminded players to play with and admin who can be sure that there are no hackers or no one ruining your experience. Thing is, diversity always add quality, it also add ****ty servers but you’ll be able to avoid them anyway.