Suggestion for Improving Quick Play

Continuing the discussion from Please allow us to disable one or two maps in QP search:

Been thinking on how to improve Quick Play, and here’s my take on it (this is assuming you picked Quick Play and the game chooses you as the host):

1.) Host will have the ability to exclude two missions from the RNG pool.

Example

  • Host picked Skittergate and War Camp in the first run. Since he picked these two missions, they will not be included in the RNG pool. The game will randomly choose the mission that will be played in the first instance, but Skittergate and War Camp will not be chosen.

2.) The two missions that got excluded in the first run will now have slightly increased chances to be picked in the second run. The host can pick another two missions to be excluded in that second run, but they cannot exclude the missions they excluded in the first run.

Example

  • Since the host excluded Skittergate and War Camp in the first run, they will now have slightly increased chances to be picked in the RNG pool (while still having chances that other missions will be picked as well). The host picked Halescourge and Athel Yenlui to be excluded in the second run, but he cannot exclude Skittergate and War Camp.

3.) There’s an exploit for this suggestion, and that is if the host leaves after the first run has finished and creates another Quick Play lobby (regardless if it is intentional or not). The game will assume that this is the first instance, therefore allowing the host to exclude two of the same missions repeatedly. To encourage the host to do successive Quick Play and not leave, a guaranteed 1x Loot Dice will be awarded on the second run, increasing up to 3x Loot Dice on fourth successive Quick Play runs and up, therefore increased chances for Emperor-quality boxes.

First Instance of Quick Play - None

Second Instance of Quick Play - Guaranteed 1x Loot Dice

Third Instance of Quick Play - Guaranteed 2x Loot Dice

Fourth Instance of Quick Play and Up - Guaranteed 3x Loot Dice

Example

  • Host picked Skittergate and War Camp to be excluded in the first run. Game picked a random mission and his party cleared the first run.
  • For the second run, the host picked Halescourge and Athel Yenlui to be excluded. Skittergate and War Camp will now be available, but they cannot be excluded. Moreover, these two maps have slightly increased chances to be chosen (because they were excluded in the first run). Game picked a random map and they cleared the second run, granting them a guaranteed 1x Loot Dice as incentive.
  • For the third run, host needs to pick two missions to be excluded. Let’s say Into The Nest and Righteous Stand (or they can pick Skittergate and War Camp again, whichever they want), but they cannot exclude Halescourge and Athel Yenlui (since they excluded these maps on the second run), and the two maps will also now have slightly increased chances to be picked. Game picked a random map and the party cleared it, granting them a 2x Loot Dice.
  • In the fourth run, the host excluded Empire in Flames and Hunger in the Dark. He cannot exclude Into The Nest and Righteous Stand since they were excluded at the third run. Game picked a mission at random, and they cleared it, giving them a 3x Loot Dice.
  • Playing beyond the fourth run (5th, 6th, etc) of Quick Play will only yield 3x Loot Dice. That’s the cap for the incentive.

4.) Another exploit can be done, and that is if someone speedruns the Quick Play instances, gets a guaranteed loot die incentive (say, 3x Loot Dice), then invites his friends to his party, letting them enjoy the 3x Loot Dice incentive without any effort. To counteract this, matchmaking will be disabled once the second run starts (you can still invite someone after the first run has been cleared). If someone leaves during the second run and up, it’ll make it harder for the party to clear successive instances, so better plan ahead before starting the second run and make sure to bring reliable people. If you want to invite other people, you have to give up your current progress and start over again.

Example

  • Party cleared the first run. Someone leaves, then another joins the party. They start the second run (matchmaking will now be disabled). During the second run, someone left (regardless of reason). The one who left the party cannot join back, and the party will now have a hard time clearing the second run. The party somehow manages and cleared the second run. Now they’re faced with an important choice to risk doing the third run with minus one member, or disband the party and reset all progress, inviting another player to increase their chances again. Party risks it and does third run. Again, someone left during the mission and they’re with two members + two bots. Somehow they pushed through, and cleared the third run. Seeing that only two members remain, they disbanded the party, allowing them to invite members again, but losing all progress.

5.) Okri’s Challenges can be integrated to this kind of system, like “Clear 10x Successive Quick Play missions in Legend” and the reward is a cosmetic item, frame, or a Commendation Chest (kidding haha).

By implementing this suggestion, I believe it will be beneficial to us players because:

  • increases chances of getting higher quality chests
  • reduces Ranald’s Gift randomness (because getting 3x Loot Dice + 2x Loot Dice from missions like Halescourge’s boss + Quick Play bonus is more than enough for an Emperor-quality box even without Ranald, assuming party gets all tomes and Grimoires)
  • promotes camaraderie between players
  • additional Okri’s Challenges tied to this system will make the game more interesting

Aanndd that’s it. Sorry for the long suggestion. Just had to explain what’s going on in my mind. Constructive criticism is welcome. :slight_smile:

@Fatshark_Hedge - hoping you’ll do some changes in the game in a big way. I like the game a lot, like most of us do here. :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Ppl want to exclude maps , they dont like… so probably noone wants an increased chance on the 2nd run.

For example:

  1. Run: SG/HS and you get RS
  2. Run: WC/IN and you get SG or HS
  3. Run: SG/HS and you get WC or IN
  4. Run: WC/IN and you get SG or HS
    Etc.

Im still for the idea, that the last map cant be the next one if you failed.

And

The last map cant be 1 of the next 2 or 3 , if you finished it.

On the other way , there could be a voting out of 2 maps. But some maps wont be played anytime then, so this is probably sick.

Allowing map exclusion will likely lead to reintroducing problems from VT1: Certain maps aren’t likely to be played at all after that. While there are several candidates for the most disliked maps (Halescourge, Skittergate, Athel Yenlui, Hunger in the Dark at least) and two excluded wouldn’t affect them all, several maps would still be all but removed from the rotation (and thus, effectively reduce the map pool). That was a problem in VT1 with at least the short maps already, and they were left out in VT2 for that reason exactly.

A better solution, I think, would be a weighted system for map selection. At its simplest, automatically exclude the last one, two or even three maps attempted (or successful, or played to at least 50% completion) maps from the selection pool. Or a more complicated version, track the amount of maps played, either personally (for the host or play initiator), globally, or regionally; then assign probabilities in inverse proportion to that. Personally would likely be the most useful one, but would require CPU resources from the host. Global or regional statistics would require more resources on FS’s side, and a little extra Internet traffic. I don’t know about feasibility of either one. To avoid bloating, this should be limited by time: keep only the data for the last week perhaps or even just a few days, or for personal weighting, the last 50 runs.

The weighted selection would remove, or at least highly reduce the chances of, repetition in map selection, while still preventing people from completely excluding maps they don’t like (which would also go against the point of Quick Play, imo).

Here’s another suggestion: Please allow closed Quick play runs. This has been requested before, for several reasons. Some prefer to play alone with bots. Some don’t get a full group. Sometimes one player from the group disconnects, and has trouble reconnecting because the vacancy gets filled immediately. Yes, I know that runs can be turned private after they have started. That’s a clumsy solution.

1 Like

if were talking about modifing quick play , i think simple thumbs up/down system and the matchmaker just prioritises who you are matched with and what map to play. wont guarentee you wont see a map you thumbed down just if theres an option to it will.

i dont think picking host is a good idea , theres already a lot of people loading the host side as it is giving more incentive to that wont help.

id also like an option to carry the system over to the careers we get grouped with.

il say it again im not suggesting hard bans/blacklists. im just saying to give us the chance to put a few requests into the matchmaking and it will do it if its available , if not then we suck it up

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

Why not join the Fatshark Discord https://discord.gg/K6gyMpu