Why use poor metrics like level in the 1st place and use win rate % and games completed on difficulty instead? Using level as an indicator for competence is frankly plain stupid, when you have stats like that available.
They could even set it so that you can’t search games outside your own competency range. This way people couldn’t game their setting so they would get carried (I want only people higher level than me) or people without proven track record couldn’t join to “disrupt” the games of players who care. It could also be a separate queue, so people who don’t care could continue on playing like they used to.
Because you can get boosted through difficulties by competent friends if you barely scrape by difficulty requirements, as well as talents matter, some more than others, but they still do.
Again, instead of hiding levels add filters, quick, simple, and doesn’t waste anyone’s time
Not trying to build a straw man so I am asking whether you are telling me you actually think win rate is worse indicator for competence than player level?
it’s not reliable, besides, as I and others said, talents, you can do fine without them, but I’m not gonna put any faith in randoms, if you play with friends though there should be no restrictions.
You can pick crap talents. Level is very unreliable. What’s your point? Just because something is not 100% reliable it is not a good as level restrictions (which can be gamed even more easily)? Besides they could restrict the win rate percentage to solo play only if they think it’s an issue, obviously.
It can be gained by gaming. For example running off the ledge at the beginning of the map will eventually level you to 30. Playing recruit will get you to level 30. Etc.
ELO is widely used to matchmake across multiple different games (tabletop, PC, etc.) You saying you prefer character level does not change the fact that ELO is generally seen as the much more better indicator for performance than character level in VT2 (ask any chess player). So I don’t think there is anything to argue and I’ll leave you to your preferences.
I think the problem is when you start getting into showing other players win rates you are starting to go down a rabbit hole of other information that players will argue could be just as or more relevant. Things such as their average damage taken on each difficulty and how many average books per run. I think there will always be a specific metric that each player thinks is “good” and base whether they kick or not upon that stat.
I have not even said what kind of framework they should use. They could have a confidence factor to the winrate (or ELO) so it would be harder to game. This is not rocket science.
I never said they’d have to SHOW the winrate/ELO/anything. You can keep it hidden and many games do. They can just offer the option: “Match with players of my skill level” and leave everything else opaque. At lot of games do this at least for casual matchmaking.
Besides I was just making a quick point about why suggesting to use character level to filter, when much better alternatives exist, is inane.
Ahhh ok. That makes sense, I agree that sort of thing could be useful for matchmaking. Although I don’t know how willing FS will be to implement a ELO matchmaking system.
Why is it half of my replies do not show who I am replying to?
people always find ways to exploit any system like that regardless, filters with level requirements is literally the easiest solution, because if you don’t care about low levels you leave it blank and you can have any level 1 pop up in your game, if you don’t want to risk leeches you enter a level minimum that can’t exceed your own, done, it will possibly increase your matchmaking length but it’s better than having to kick people.
that said, you should not be able to put level requirements for Recruit because that would be stupid since it’s supposed to be entry level difficulty.
My whole take away is that if you block a low level player from joining the harder difficulties it inconveniences them for a few hours at most. If you allow them to join then it inconveniences everyone else virtually forever. The bottom line is that since kick still exists people will still kick you if you’re low level. Making a level requirement would just eliminate the need to kick you.
If they implemented an account level, similar to V1, I think you’d see people who have a lot of playtime on a new character not get kicked. People would atleast give them a chance. If you joined and it showed you had a total Hero level of like 60, 70, or whatever, and were on a level 1 character I wouldn’t kick you. I don’t have that information though so I’m going to error on the side of caution.
Again this doesn’t guarantee the higher level person is better, but that is a risk I’m atleast willing to take.
So long as I can still host veteran games at level 1 and the level restriction is a filter you can apply to your matchmaking that would be fine with me.
Filters can be exploited for example in a way to set it up so you can get carried. It would have to be very elaborate system to satisfy all “filtering needs”. Besides filter systems, especially those with a lot of filters, NEED a lot of UX work to be usable (while opaque matchmaking does not). So I disagree that it would be the easiest. IMO background matchmaking based on skill would be the easier solution on the long run, because at some point people will stop complaining about level and start complaining about plain “bad” players, but we can agree to disagree.
that said, you should not be able to put level requirements for Recruit because that would be stupid
This is your preference. Some other guy might not want to carry low level players in recruit. See the problem?
When I said filters, I was talking about level only filters for difficulties nothing else, I guess using plural was my fault since I meant individual level filters for each difficulty, but that’s on me regardless.
And as I said you can’t set requirement higher than your own level, nothing to exploit there
I see what you’re trying to pull here, except that Recruit is tutorial/entry level difficulty, it’s like asking to finish tutorial before being eligible to enter one. Makes no sense, but cute attempt I guess.
The problem is that you want to play with players who don’t want to play with you.
The problem is that as long as they can play quick match without players like you, you are gonna be unhappy, because your playstyle requires exploiting others against their will.
The problem is that the problem would not even exist if people leveled up in lower difficulties before joining veteran, champion or legend first - you can’t get kicked for being low level if you aren’t low level.
btw. this tip is funny:
Consider replying to more people
You’ve already replied 3 times to @Ilex in this particular topic.
Have you considered replying to other people in the discussion, too? A great discussion involves many voices and perspectives.
Empathy is a great thing. Consider what the other players want. Then try to find some solution that would make everybody happy - which in this case are the filters, because everyone can choose quality over quantity - and yes, even allow players to disable low levels or elves for the Recruit if that makes them happy. Everyone deserves to have fun they paid for as long as it doesn’t hurt fun of other people.
I disagree. I think you intentionally paint an unfair picture of my stance. I would hardly call it exploiting if I perform bettern than the rest of the group despite me being lower level. Since you don’t know my performance you calling “my playstyle” an exploitation is just a feeble ad hominem; attack the argument not the one making the argument.
Empathy is a great thing. Consider what the other players want. Then try to find some solution that would make everybody happy - which in this case are the filters, because everyone can choose quality over quantity - and yes, even allow players to disable low levels or elves for the Recruit if that makes them happy. Everyone deserves to have fun they paid for as long as it doesn’t hurt fun of other people.
If you had read the thread you’d see I already proposed a much better system than filters: one based on ELO. I think it accounts for any reasonable biases based on performance and I don’t think Fatshark needs to cater to everyone’s personal biases. With the ELO system you’d be grouped with similar performance based on performance, not some arbitrary number. This would also avoid pairing me with people who try to abuse the filters in order to “get carried” for instance, which I abhor (this was present in VT1 with level filters via QOL mod). Does your suggested filtering system allow me to avoid them? I don’t want to play with them, ergo I should be able to avoid them using the suggested filtering system.
Conclusion: Implementing a limited numbers of filters that do not reflect on performance in order to try and limit people with low performance from joining is stupid, IMO. There are limited number of resources to implement code and design UX and I do not wish it to be used on such a mechanic, especially since it can have negative effect on new player experience (and consequently player retention) due to people’s personal biases. The UX work required to implement a filter system that would satisfy both you and me would probably be enormous (my desire to use filters is conditional on there being a filtering system). If they implemented everything based on “some people want this”, they’d never leave work and I want them to prioritize features that work as intended and desired. I do not think a “simple” filtering system would work as intended or desired for quick queue and ergo I disagree with implementing it. I am not against people creating custom lobbies and enforcing their rules there.