I see no problem at all with what has been implemented aside from the fact I can’t choose my game mode, so why not allow me to que for incursion, meltdown, or capture via ranked or casual…that would be a great fix. Leave the voting for what map you want to play on.
I’ve never even remotely seen 20+ wait time ques for PS4. That sounds like a PC SPECIFIC ISSUE. So no, not “Broken”.
And I don’t know why you think I’m obligated to “offer options” beyond what a little common sense would inform. I’m not interested in a discussion. That’s YOUR expectation. Besides I’m not in a position privy to anything other than my anecdotal experience. Developers have metrics, data, engineering/programming backgrounds, etc. I’m voicing dissatisfaction as appropriate as I can as a customer and a part of the playerbase.
If I order a meal at a restaurant and it comes out tasting terrible, I don’t have a debate with the chef about possible cooking strategies or seasoning tips. I’m not asked to come back to the kitchen, handed an apron, and then throw down on the grill. I say my piece and the restaurant does what they do to make it right.
The math doesn’t work.
Now instead of splitting the player base into 3 (Meltdown, Incursion, Capture).
You would be splitting them into at least four: Casual; 3 (Meltdown, Incursion, Capture)
And up to six: Casual: (Meltdown, Incursion, Capture) ; Competitive: (Meltdown, Incursion, Capture)
Queue times would, in some cases, increase indefinitely.
On the PC, chances are people would never find a game in some modes.
2 Likes
I see your point, I can only speak for ps4 and have never had bad wait times, it’s difficult to balance this out and impossible to please everyone. Would make things much simpler if you could play cross platforms.
1 Like
Well, if things stay this way I’ll just be done playing the game. Capture is stupid and Incursion is ok on occasion, but Meltdown is what I played in the CTT, it’s what I played in the Beta, and it’s what I bought the game for. There’s no way I’m going to keep playing this game of the gametype I play is going to be decided by vote and not by what I actually want to play.
3 Likes
If they just allow for multi-queueing that would fix the problem.
Let people pick multiple modes or maps they would like to play.
No, it’s not. Here’s a suggestion. Change the way matchmaking itself works and how the game searches for matches based off ELO NOT the modes you can choose. There’s multiple other options that they never tried that could still use an ELO matchmaking, such as matching a player against and to each other, or balancing after gathering 10 players.
Word.
This new matchmaking is STUPID. When you have challenges that require certain circumstances ( win x amount on Temples, etc) and those maps are frozen out plus people deciding to NOT play those mode - why the frak even have challenges. Really, Gearbox. Go back to Borderlands and just stop messing with this game. Every time a new change is done it is worse than the previous and ends up alienating even MORE PLAYERS. With this I will stop playing PvP and concentrate on getting the trophies for characters that I have luckily completed their PvP portions. I thought EA was bad but Gearbox, you really SUX!
2 Likes
The devs messed up and somehow made the game’s matchmaking system even worse. The game is almost unplayable for me at this point. The Casual playlist doesn’t go any faster but there is a lot more quitting than ever before. I am basically spending more time waiting than playing. I’m pretty close to just not playing anymore.
1 Like
This is ridiculous, I dont want to play meltdown or capture at all, so why am I forced to play them now? Either this changes or I am going to quit playing I shouldnt be forced to play game modes I dont want to play for a game I payed for and if this was going to happen they should have made this known in the beta, I wouldnt have bought game if this was how it was in the beta. Fix your ■■■■ gearbox or I am walking…
1 Like
They did that. It let to long queue times. [quote=“Saboteur-6, post:38, topic:1539294”]
I’ve never even remotely seen 20+ wait time ques for PS4. That sounds like a PC SPECIFIC ISSUE. So no, not “Broken”.
[/quote]
Before they turned off ELO, queuing would take me 10-20 mins, with 15 being about average, for either incursion or metldown. This is on PS4 and 6pm-9pm. Search the forums, there are plenty of posts with people explaining the same. Broken
No one is asking you to program a new code for matchmaking. All im saying is offer up a solution instead of just saying matchmaking sucks.
Or in terms of your analogy. The steak is too salty, using less seasoning may help.
1 Like
No they had ELO, and they removed it. That’s not what I’m saying. Never did they have a matchmaking system that would balance teams after finding players.
I’m on Xbox One, and I consider 5 minute wait times “long”. I also have a 70% W/L overall, so I’m assuming it doesn’t get all that much longer for others. That’s not broken at all. Broken on PC, yes.
Im on PS4, with a W/L over 70% as well. My times were 15+ minutes on average the weeks leading up to the removal of ELO based matchmaking.
If your game find 5 players with an ELO of 100 and then finds another group of 5 with an ELO of 100, why do you need to shuffle them?
First, it’d be nearly impossible to have the maximum ELO I’d imagine and games are created by using ELO brackets. For example, say that a bracket is 60-75. If you have 5 60s and 5 75s, it should be mixed throughout both teams which isn’t what currently happens. That’s my point. Yes sometimes shuffling may not have an affect but that’d be pretty rare.
1 Like
Multi-Queuing is an interesting option, “I’ll play anything except…”
It’s a bit (understatement) more complicated to implement, but it would certainly reduce the number of quitters.
I like this.
The potential downside is that it’s entirely possible we might end up splitting the population too much, and generate longer wait times.
1 Like
I actually like team shuffles as a form of balance.
The way it could work is that you put together any set of people at all. It doesn’t really matter who they are.
You match them to any other set of people.
Now you have 10 people, relatively quickly.
After this happens, the game shuffles teams so that total ELO for each team is in parity.
This could be computationally complex, and may be difficult to implement with their current matchmaking architecture, but it’s a solution worth thinking about.
Additional Problem: This would generate teams where you might have one superstar being supported by a handful of not-so-great players. It might also generate teams where you have two awful players and three mediocre ones against a couple of superstars.
Games could get weird, and from an individual player’s perspective, may still feel unbalanced (even though technically they are “perfectly” balanced). Food for thought.
2 Likes
lets not forget that gbx is trying to improve the quality of the game, not ruin it. they are not against the community, but it’s also VERY difficult to please everyone. therefore, they’re only trying out the new pvp changes for a week to see if things improve or not, so if they receive a lot of negative feedback then they’ll most likely go back to the old matchmaking. everyone needs to chill. additionally, even before the pvp changes people were still threatening to stop playing the game, so what’s new 
I feel like this is more or less what they tried to do when they removed ELO based matchmaking. Each team had 1 “good” player and the other 4 where whatever was available. While the games may have been even, its pretty aggrivating being put on a team with people far below (or above) your skill level.
This is a good point.
It might be a little better than that, because it would have a “built-in” side-effect that would mean high ELO pre-made teams would not get matched against much, much weaker teams.
Which would slow their queues, but I guess that’s the price you would pay.