Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Peter Goldman

Matchmaking in Legends

Recommended Posts

jodgi    2,331

Winning the match is already ingrained in most arena players as the most important measure of a player's skill. So I expect global win ratio to become the most important stat in legends as well with damage padding and (useless) K/D ratios (et al) as supporting stats.

If we can enable 5th rates and below to use their speed and sailing profiles to win a match that would help everyone to feel useful; upwind capture circles and other goals. I really hope we can keep the importance of mobility in legends, as it is a natural counter to the big ships' protection and firepower.

Duels and larger training scenarios is a given, but shouldn't we be careful with splitting up the rest of the matchmaker queue? We need to see what kind of numbers are normal or average before we start splitting up the queue and risking spreading everyone too thin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LordOfDope    55
1 hour ago, Peter Goldman said:

 As a player in L'Ocean I will prioritize small ships, 1 broadside to Pickle and it's dead. 2 Broadsides to Surprise and it's dead.

I wish you good luck TRYING to hit a Surp or Pickle that knows how to use manual sails properly.

with such agile ships you should be able to stay on their stern or even their bow.

 

As long as there is no 2nd ship to defend the stern of the SoL, an agile ship should be able to stay on the stern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter Goldman    1,284
10 minutes ago, LordOfDope said:

your sooooo wrong, I love to fight SoL 's in a frigate

I refuse to sail a sluggish SoL

Fighting SOLs in a frigate is cool indeed, but it needs to be rewarding and worth the time effort too. I don't want to see SOL the best reward/time effort ratio in this game like it is in NA mostly. We need good reasons to use small ships as well other than the pure fun of using them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LordOfDope    55
9 minutes ago, Peter Goldman said:

Fighting SOLs in a frigate is cool indeed, but it needs to be rewarding and worth the time effort too. I don't want to see SOL the best reward/time effort ratio in this game like it is in NA mostly. We need good reasons to use small ships as well other than the pure fun of using them. 

using their speed for cap or defend cap.

when there are muliply fronts you can way faster reinforce another group

 

but just as Sea Trials, I think Cerb as smallest ship against 1st rates is fine, Shallow water ships are just to small to have an impact in battles up to 1st rate

 

edit: to balance eco, you can make more/less exp/gold for killing lower/higher rated ships

 

like in a lot of arena games you have light/medium/heavy vehicle. in Wot your also not going head on with a light tank against a heavy tank or in War thunder head on with a fighter against a heavy attacker

Edited by LordOfDope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter Goldman    1,284
8 minutes ago, LordOfDope said:

using their speed for cap or defend cap.

when there are muliply fronts you can way faster reinforce another group

 

but just as Sea Trials, I think Cerb as smallest ship against 1st rates is fine, Shallow water ships are just to small to have an impact in battles up to 1st rate

 

Snows, Brigs, Privateers and Lynxes are great fun too. Gunboats and Prince will be a great addition as well. Rattlesnake? Don't you dare to touch it! Niagara? It's a lovely and deadly ship. These ships can't have a huge impact? You're absolutely wrong here and I can ensure you about that :)

I would personally get rid of cutters and pickles (these ships are ugly and terrible)

Edited by Peter Goldman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LordOfDope    55
3 minutes ago, Peter Goldman said:

Snows, Brigs, Privateers and Lynxes are great fun too. Gunboats and Prince will be a great addition as well. Rattlesnake? Don't you dare to touch it! Niagara? It's a lovely and deadly ship. These ships can't have a huge impact? You're absolutely wrong here and I can ensure you about that :)

I would personally get rid of cutters and pickles (these ships are ugly and terrible)

i know it can be fun, we have taken 1st rates with just a privateer/ lynx and a frigate

 

but i think it will be then to easy to screw the match maker when you go with a group of small ships against 1 or 2 bigger ships.

to match the battlerating of a 1st rate with just rattlesnakes or gunboats makes it no fun at all for a SoL. They will not have a change to win

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
koltes    1,983
7 hours ago, Peter Goldman said:

I see a huge problem here as the idea is good in theory and works in WoT, small tanks shot there faster and they all can mostly penetrate through the armour more or less, right? In NA frigates won't get kills or even sometimes assists for SOLs. SOLs will get the majority of kills and assists, thus getting most of the gold/exp/prestige rewards. The SOLs have that huge thickness that it will be a huge problem for 5th rates and smaller ships to be relevant in battle... Most of the ships smaller than 4th rates will be irrelevant IN TERMS OF REWARDS. Of course, the can chain, demast, stern rake and grape, but how is it rewarded? In NA that barely counts to any rewards, these ships very often do not get any assists, nor combat marks, nor other rewards. 

small tanks shot there faster and they all can mostly penetrate through the armour more or less, right?
Small mostly cant penetrate from the front, but can pen sides or backs armor. No different in NA. Can stern rake a Santi in a basic cutter and it will pen.


In NA frigates won't get kills or even sometimes assists for SOLs.
MM in tanks is max 2 tiers difference between lowest and highest tier in a battle. So if we apply this to NA and we are playing frigate (5th rate) you might get to the bottom of the list than maximum size of the ships you are facing is 3rd rates.
If you are on top of the list you will get 7th rates as a bottom tier. If you are in a middle than you get 6th rate below you and 4th rate above.
You wold also get 25v25 of the same tier MM.
You would also get 10+15 vs 10+15 battles where there will be only 1 tier difference.
Make sense?


SOLs will get the majority of kills and assists, thus getting most of the gold/exp/prestige rewards.
Not true at all. with 3-5-7 rule you always have lots of ships to shoot of your tier. 3+5+7 is for tanks which have 15 players on each side. In NA 25 player sides we would have something like 5+8+12, which means even if you are on the bottom of the list you still have 12 targets to shoot of the same rate as yours and 8 targets one rate above. Being in a top rate doesn't automatically means you gonna kill everyone. The is only 5 of you in the top and you're still facing other 20 ships plus their top rates.


The SOLs have that huge thickness that it will be a huge problem for 5th rates and smaller ships to be relevant in battle...
I have taken 1st rates in a 5th rate. You don't go head to head (well in NA its board to board). You stern camp and kill crew. In fact I would much prefer to be in a smaller ship in this case as heavies will become quite vulnerable. You can also shoot sails, kill crew, shoot top and middle masts if you have to go against 2 rate higher ships.


Most of the ships smaller than 4th rates will be irrelevant IN TERMS OF REWARDS. Of course, the can chain, demast, stern rake and grape, but how is it rewarded? In NA that barely counts to any rewards, these ships very often do not get any assists, nor combat marks, nor other rewards.
In a lobby game you can't capture enemy ship and get it rewarded. If you capture this just means you have killed it. The reward will be tied to your earned experience which will become a measure of everything. They will have to give experience for everything. Shooting sails, masts, killing crew, doing damage (largest experience rewards), ramming, staying alive when battle finished, scoring assists, scoring kills, winning the battle etc etc. Shooting and damaging higher tier ships gets you more experience an so on. Everything needs to be tied to it. When you have earned your experience at the end of the battle you will get rewarded accordingly.
 

@admin One thing Legends must NOT do is to make premium accounts affecting average experience per battle statistic like they made in WOT. So no matter if you are on premium or standard (free) account you earn same experience (for your statistics), but if you are on premium you just get experience bonus that is rewarded, but not counted in statistics.

This way we wont need player made ratings, aka WN8, WGR, EFF etc. Players skill will be showed by his Average Experience per battle, which is a true measure of how efficient player is, because experience only rewarded for actions taken.

Edited by koltes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jodgi    2,331
13 hours ago, JeanJacques de Montpellier said:

I hope also in historical scenarios/matches.

Ye, and this game has such a potential for it. In Aces High there are tools for players to set up scenarios, it is almost completely community driven. Down the road we could do the same here. (The same goes for OW version)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many games have a "historical" and realistic intent, aimed at supporting even history enthusiasts (see il-2, Silent Hunter, Red Orchestra, etc.). Sincerely, I don't like the very childlike direction of later games like WoT, WoW, WT (games that developers seem to follow).

Why base the matches on a number (25vs25, 5vs5, etc.) maybe mixing ships and especially nations that have never fought together; when in fact you could make historical scenarios, modeling lots of battles that really happened?

I would also like to spend two words on grinding, xp, etc. These things are not absolutely necessary to the player. Just shit. Obviously it is likely that the intent of the game is instead to spend hours playing to level or alternatively pay money to do that.
This is the philosophy of free games, i sincerely prefer to pay a game 60-70 € but do not have all these BS bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jodgi    2,331
26 minutes ago, JeanJacques de Montpellier said:

I would also like to spend two words on grinding, xp, etc. These things are not absolutely necessary to the player. Just shit.

You're not wrong, but consider that WoT's largest source of income is premium time to accelerate the grind. Grinding was never for the players but rather a way to make a free-to-play game profitable.

Don't forget that grinding in legends can be done with pvp-on-demand, no need to grind boring AI any longer! I don't like grinding in itself but I won't mind it at all when I get to do it against people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This gaming philosophy has created gamers accustomed to this, very arcade and above all unprepared to learn well how to use things. The important thing for them is leveling-up.
Hence the lack of new players prepared (at least in IL2 games, where only the old guard is really effective). This is so sad...

Edited by JeanJacques de Montpellier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jodgi    2,331

True. Some people just grind without applying themselves to learning and getting better. I don't see how anyone can fix pley4fun gamers; Not everyone, by far, take stuff seriously.

They are farmable by serious-face gamers, tho ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Texas Sir    3,669

I'm not so worried about the match making, it's more the grind to get into the ships you want.  Can you pick a type and use that one or will you have to grind xp through half the tree to the ships you prefer to use.  Than when MM sets up are your going to get matched up with a bunch of SOL's on one side and Light Frigates on the other?  Things like that I would like to know more about.   I get a feeling it's going to be nothing more than just small battles set up with a tree to grind through to get to the ships you want.

A lot  of guys are going to be upset they can't just jump right into 1st rates on day one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jodgi    2,331
4 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

A lot  of guys are going to be upset they can't just jump right into 1st rates on day one.

Why? Who is used to that in wows, wardunder, armored warfare, wot, wowp... ?

I also think some of the less popular ships may have their renaissance in legends since the need for a speedy tagger and runner isn't that important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OlavDeng2    1,500
4 hours ago, jodgi said:

Why? Who is used to that in wows, wardunder, armored warfare, wot, wowp... ?

I also think some of the less popular ships may have their renaissance in legends since the need for a speedy tagger and runner isn't that important.

Obviously whenever you start WT or World of tanks you imidietly get access to the Maus and the Me 262 /s

I agree, we also didnt jump into a santi first thing in sea trials... no one was complaining... TBH, i think its better since it gives people more of a chance to learn how the game works(doesnt mean people will though, but they have a better chance)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
koltes    1,983
13 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

I'm not so worried about the match making, it's more the grind to get into the ships you want.  Can you pick a type and use that one or will you have to grind xp through half the tree to the ships you prefer to use.  Than when MM sets up are your going to get matched up with a bunch of SOL's on one side and Light Frigates on the other?  Things like that I would like to know more about.   I get a feeling it's going to be nothing more than just small battles set up with a tree to grind through to get to the ships you want.

A lot  of guys are going to be upset they can't just jump right into 1st rates on day one.

What is the player's individual goal in lobby game other than getting the top ships through the grind? What will happen if you start giving tier 10 tanks to players who just start playing? Recon it wont have any affect on you as their team mate?

Lobby game must have a grind of some sort. As testers we should have access to all ships to start with. This will allow us to tes everything. However, we need to grind too so we could test the grinding process. So at some final stages Legends needs to remove all and lets us grind and test the process. When game is released I expect GL to give us a chunk of experience so we could have at least one nation tree open to 1st rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Texas Sir    3,669
4 hours ago, koltes said:

What is the player's individual goal in lobby game other than getting the top ships through the grind? What will happen if you start giving tier 10 tanks to players who just start playing? Recon it wont have any affect on you as their team mate?

Lobby game must have a grind of some sort. As testers we should have access to all ships to start with. This will allow us to tes everything. However, we need to grind too so we could test the grinding process. So at some final stages Legends needs to remove all and lets us grind and test the process. When game is released I expect GL to give us a chunk of experience so we could have at least one nation tree open to 1st rate.

OH I get it and think it should have a grind. I just think a lot of folks are expecting to jump right in fighting with there fav tank....I mean ship....lol   

Do you ever have the same problem I do some times where I keep wanting to type tank instead ship with this game cause I played WoT for so long (don't any more)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
koltes    1,983
2 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

OH I get it and think it should have a grind. I just think a lot of folks are expecting to jump right in fighting with there fav tank....I mean ship....lol   

Do you ever have the same problem I do some times where I keep wanting to type tank instead ship with this game cause I played WoT for so long (don't any more)?

Yup :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DeRuyter    725

 

On ‎8‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 10:14 AM, JeanJacques de Montpellier said:

Many games have a "historical" and realistic intent, aimed at supporting even history enthusiasts (see il-2, Silent Hunter, Red Orchestra, etc.). Sincerely, I don't like the very childlike direction of later games like WoT, WoW, WT (games that developers seem to follow).

Why base the matches on a number (25vs25, 5vs5, etc.) maybe mixing ships and especially nations that have never fought together; when in fact you could make historical scenarios, modeling lots of battles that really happened?

I would also like to spend two words on grinding, xp, etc. These things are not absolutely necessary to the player. Just shit. Obviously it is likely that the intent of the game is instead to spend hours playing to level or alternatively pay money to do that.
This is the philosophy of free games, i sincerely prefer to pay a game 60-70 € but do not have all these BS bullshit.

Actual battles and what if scenarios based on actual events is an obvious opportunity for NAL (a game mode maybe), it would be a shame to miss it. In WoWS they just ran a Dunkirk co-op event that was a similar idea. The problem of course is the lack of ships so you would have to substitute the corresponding rate - Like 3rd rate or Bellona for most of the British Ships at the Battle of the Nile. etc. They could also have the ships available for all players in this game mode, so you could sail a 1st rate w/o grinding just for that battle.

As for the grind I agree the focus should not be on xp grind to unlock the next ship, but in Sea Trials it did result in battles with mixed fleets. There should be some mechanism for gaining xp on ships maybe a combination of unlocking ship knowledge for modules and general xp for the next ship (like WoWs). I just hope that your crew or captain won't forget how to sail the ship below when the next one unlocks like some of those other games......

 

Hey @jodgi "wardunder" rlly!?! You know WT has historic match up events and sim mode right? What does wot have? tank cliff jumping? tank crews with amnesia? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jodgi    2,331
13 minutes ago, DeRuyter said:

Hey @jodgi "wardunder" rlly!?! You know WT has historic match up events and sim mode right? What does wot have? tank cliff jumping? tank crews with amnesia? ;)

Oh, there's nothing wrong with WT, I just happen to think that the tanks gameplay is more fun in wot. I tried WT planes sim mode a few times, no-one there :(. I'm used to Aces High so I'm unable to enjoy WT planes (pleb modes) or wowp. I'm super-duper-serious-face about planes but a lot more relaxed about anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jodgi    2,331
On 8.9.2017 at 7:59 PM, DeRuyter said:

@jodgi Not to go OT here but being serious about planes do you play ROF or DCS? 

I should try out ROF, even Doran asked me about that a while ago.

I have fired up DCS but I don't have time in my life for study sims of that caliber. I'm serious about the flight dynamics and currently I'm not partaking in the all-the-buttons-on-every-little-thing-in-the-cockpit type gameplay. DCS is great, tho. I played the old Flanker 1.5 a lot! (I was around for the Papadoc's pink flamingo 1v1 duel "multi"player thing) ;)

I've tried most sims. Many are ok, most of them are pretty these days. X-Plane and Aces High are the only ones with massive substance where it matters but they never won any beauty contests. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/9/2017 at 7:59 PM, DeRuyter said:

@jodgi Not to go OT here but being serious about planes do you play ROF or DCS? 

I played and play at air sim (il2 46, il2 CloD, il 2 BoS, RoF, etc etc); the sistem of WT, WoW, and similar, is a shit. Few historical background/contest, only grind of xp and players that want a weapon bigger...

and the skills of old school players are far superior to those from WT games.

Edited by JeanJacques de Montpellier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Archaos    426

I see lots of people making comparisons to WoT and WoWS, I have never played WoT and only briefly played WoWS, and I hope Naval Action Legends is not like that with the team setup where you are randomly grouped with other players in the queue. The big difference that I can see in NAL as opposed to WoWS is going to be the time taken per battle. In WoWS the battles tended to be over relatively quickly while in NAL for the larger battles you could easily battle it out for a couple of hours. Keeping casual players invested for that length of time may be an issue.

I also think that NA requires more coordination and working together as a team to be successful and throwing people together randomly does not foster that teamwork required. By all means have that sort of mode for people who like that, but please also allow battles to be setup between teams who want better organisation. Age of Sail II had a lobby system where battles could be set up and that worked quite well apart from the fact that the game was very buggy and tended to crash a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×