Scenario Matchmaking Rework Megathread

[JohnnyWayne]

I would, however, caution as most of us that have played this game a long time remember when we tried to fix the que system in the past and how quickly we realized that did not work for lower population times. I would suggest a system that would be fluid based on population balance and those in que. Where it went wide open at a certian population queing level and more restrictive the more in que.

Which is why I suggested an ant colony optimization approach. Dynamic ruleset of building matches and working with what you got, over a deterministic ones. You want good matches, not the best ones possible as there is too much uncertainty anyway. The system has to be permeable, to assure people keep playing and even low pop situations get resolved. Still you have to create an environment, that rewards the kind of matches you would like to see - unlike what we have now.

[Dezibagel]

I think weighing it heavily towards matching the comps on both sides is the way to go - all/almost all DPS scenarios, whilst a bit dumb and obv. not representative of any sort of group play is some of the most fun I've had pugging around in discordant even if certain things can become a bit oppressive (dps-specced healers...). It's also so volatile it's almost never completely one-sided.

To be a bit of a bummer - some of the problems I think are also inherent to the nature of the game. Small scale with comps is unforgiving to the point of ex. having one clueless lowbie WE standing in the fire eating crits and doing nothing in return can pressure and hamstring entire group to the point where that player unknowingly loses the sc for the entire team. Or one clueless melee WP tanking the sustain of the entire group to the point it quickly becomes hopeless etcetc.

Reward system is also a bit screwy atm, since the best way to grind rr/crests through scenarios is not being in hard fought ones/a good fight, but farming db's in squash matches. This is compounded with the fact that apart from getting smashed you also get absolutely nothing for losing, even if you try.

I like the idea of guards over barriers as a comeback mechanic - however one worry with that is since there's currently very little incentive to actually win sc's outside of your 5/weekend (since ((almost)) all the rewards are tied to kills) that the 'meta' might become trying to kite and lure the enemy to wc with ranged comps. Which would be beyond lame.

Outside of that there's the obv. population issue - you can't really balance it with 10 ppl queuing each side, but by making comps the same at least I think you minimize the risk of a squash.

Suggestions in bullet points:

* Make the balancer heavily weighted towards making the same comps rather than necessarily good ones - a weird but hopefully more equal fight is way better than any squash from ex. healer imbalance imo.

* Tie sc rewards not straight to db's but individual contribution, maybe weighted with RR. Healing, protection and (contributing dmg>>>total dmg) whist not perfect metrics at all at least would reward a hard fought sc way more than a squash and would reward people for playing well, esp. as a tank/healer in the losing team, rather than just getting lucky with their team. No, I did not include objective score, fight me.

[Omegus]

I don't have comments, just questions.

1) What composition will you be forcing onto scenarios, and why?

2) Why are you compensating for bad players who choose not to organise themselves?

3) What work are you putting into fixing the issues for people who want to group up but cannot get invited?

4) Have you considered putting more work into making it easier to form groups and coordinate instead, rather than resorting to spamming the LFG channel? No, I do not mean auto-groups.

5) How does this fit into the overall design ethos (at least under Mythic) that this is a realm war between order and destruction and is not supposed to be a fair and friendly fight?

6) In relation to #4, part of the original design goals was that all content fed into the campaign, including scenarios. The list of open scenarios was linked to what ORvR zones were open, and winning in scenarios contributed towards the campaign and progress to locking their respective zones. This game far more context to why they were more "unfair" and you were encouraged to find a way of winning as it not only benefitted you but the whole realm. Have you taken this into account when thinking about the new system?

7) How well do you feel cross-realm 6v6 team death-match fits into the design for scenarios (which were based on achieving objectives first and kills as a means of doing so), and do you think cross-realm 6v6 team death-match would ever have been signed off by Games Workshop? Yes, I know this is a very toxic question, but the entire existence of that mode and how it functions is to me at least a huge red flag regarding how the devs perceive what the soul of WAR is.

8) And the big question: in general, what is your vision for how player progression is supposed to function in this game? Originally (on Mythic) it was very much a case of rewarding team work, coordination and skill to progress at a much faster pace. With auto-grouping and MMR you seem to be encouraging success and progression without challenge. There is already progression to Invader level though PVE only, and match-made scenarios with MMR would now add another way progressing (this time all the way to BIS) while avoiding the sandbox.

9) Is this being prioritised over ORvR fixes/improvements and if so, why? RvR has devolved into kill farming (killboard has a big part to do with this) and the campaign is meaningless. Why focus on scenarios first?

--------

I know other games take a "me-first" attitude towards progression, but that is not what Mythic did with WAR and IMO was a big part of what made the game unique. Differences in player success, whether it was skill or gear or renown or whatever, typically were not compensated for. Did Mythic go too far with the differences? Absolutely. But this seems like too far the other way. Things like this just make progression and the overall design philosophy of the game - the realm war - feel more and more meaningless.

It's Realm vs Realm for glory and conquest, not Realm vs Realm in a fair sporting competition.

And before I get the "omg u just wan 2 smash n00bs" replies: on WAR I was terrible and at the bottom of the barrel and still loved the game, knowing full well that a lot of my issues were entirely of my own making. And on ROR I play a healer so "smashing n00bs" is something other people do. I just sit back and try to heal, whether I'm grouped or solo.

In before "you are terrible on ROR too". I see you typing it. Stop

--------

TLDR: encourage player organisation, embrace the sandbox nature of WAR rather than trying to fight it, **** PUGs.

[agemennon675]

I don't have comments, just questions.

1) What composition will you be forcing onto scenarios, and why?

2) Why are you compensating for bad players who choose not to organise themselves?

3) What work are you putting into fixing the issues for people who want to group up but cannot get invited?

4) Have you considered putting more work into making it easier to form groups and coordinate instead, rather than resorting to spamming the LFG channel? No, I do not mean auto-groups.

5) How does this fit into the overall design ethos (at least under Mythic) that this is a realm war between order and destruction and is not supposed to be a fair and friendly fight?

6) In relation to #4, part of the original design goals was that all content fed into the campaign, including scenarios. The list of open scenarios was linked to what ORvR zones were open, and winning in scenarios contributed towards the campaign and progress to locking their respective zones. This game far more context to why they were more "unfair" and you were encouraged to find a way of winning as it not only benefitted you but the whole realm. Have you taken this into account when thinking about the new system?

7) How well do you feel cross-realm 6v6 team death-match fits into the design for scenarios (which were based on achieving objectives first and kills as a means of doing so), and do you think cross-realm 6v6 team death-match would ever have been signed off by Games Workshop? Yes, I know this is a very toxic question, but the entire existence of that mode and how it functions is to me at least a huge red flag regarding how the devs perceive what the soul of WAR is.

8) And the big question: in general, what is your vision for how player progression is supposed to function in this game? Originally (on Mythic) it was very much a case of rewarding team work, coordination and skill to progress at a much faster pace. With auto-grouping and MMR you seem to be encouraging success and progression without challenge. There is already progression to Invader level though PVE only, and match-made scenarios with MMR would now add another way progressing (this time all the way to BIS) while avoiding the sandbox.

9) Is this being prioritised over ORvR fixes/improvements and if so, why? RvR has devolved into kill farming (killboard has a big part to do with this) and the campaign is meaningless. Why focus on scenarios first?

--------

I know other games take a "me-first" attitude towards progression, but that is not what Mythic did with WAR and IMO was a big part of what made the game unique. Differences in player success, whether it was skill or gear or renown or whatever, typically were not compensated for. Did Mythic go too far with the differences? Absolutely. But this seems like too far the other way. Things like this just make progression and the overall design philosophy of the game - the realm war - feel more and more meaningless.

It's Realm vs Realm for glory and conquest, not Realm vs Realm in a fair sporting competition.

And before I get the "omg u just wan 2 smash n00bs" replies: on WAR I was terrible and at the bottom of the barrel and still loved the game, knowing full well that a lot of my issues were entirely of my own making. And on ROR I play a healer so "smashing n00bs" is something other people do. I just sit back and try to heal, whether I'm grouped or solo.

In before "you are terrible on ROR too". I see you typing it. Stop

--------

TLDR: encourage player organisation, embrace the sandbox nature of WAR rather than trying to fight it, **** PUGs.

Lots of points on what you want this game to be like but I think most of these design choices are big contributing factors to games downfall and population bleed happening in this game

[GONDOR]

I don't have comments, just questions.

1) What composition will you be forcing onto scenarios, and why?

2) Why are you compensating for bad players who choose not to organise themselves?

3) What work are you putting into fixing the issues for people who want to group up but cannot get invited?

4) Have you considered putting more work into making it easier to form groups and coordinate instead, rather than resorting to spamming the LFG channel? No, I do not mean auto-groups.

5) How does this fit into the overall design ethos (at least under Mythic) that this is a realm war between order and destruction and is not supposed to be a fair and friendly fight?

6) In relation to #4, part of the original design goals was that all content fed into the campaign, including scenarios. The list of open scenarios was linked to what ORvR zones were open, and winning in scenarios contributed towards the campaign and progress to locking their respective zones. This game far more context to why they were more "unfair" and you were encouraged to find a way of winning as it not only benefitted you but the whole realm. Have you taken this into account when thinking about the new system?

7) How well do you feel cross-realm 6v6 team death-match fits into the design for scenarios (which were based on achieving objectives first and kills as a means of doing so), and do you think cross-realm 6v6 team death-match would ever have been signed off by Games Workshop? Yes, I know this is a very toxic question, but the entire existence of that mode and how it functions is to me at least a huge red flag regarding how the devs perceive what the soul of WAR is.

8) And the big question: in general, what is your vision for how player progression is supposed to function in this game? Originally (on Mythic) it was very much a case of rewarding team work, coordination and skill to progress at a much faster pace. With auto-grouping and MMR you seem to be encouraging success and progression without challenge. There is already progression to Invader level though PVE only, and match-made scenarios with MMR would now add another way progressing (this time all the way to BIS) while avoiding the sandbox.

9) Is this being prioritised over ORvR fixes/improvements and if so, why? RvR has devolved into kill farming (killboard has a big part to do with this) and the campaign is meaningless. Why focus on scenarios first?

--------

I know other games take a "me-first" attitude towards progression, but that is not what Mythic did with WAR and IMO was a big part of what made the game unique. Differences in player success, whether it was skill or gear or renown or whatever, typically were not compensated for. Did Mythic go too far with the differences? Absolutely. But this seems like too far the other way. Things like this just make progression and the overall design philosophy of the game - the realm war - feel more and more meaningless.

It's Realm vs Realm for glory and conquest, not Realm vs Realm in a fair sporting competition.

And before I get the "omg u just wan 2 smash n00bs" replies: on WAR I was terrible and at the bottom of the barrel and still loved the game, knowing full well that a lot of my issues were entirely of my own making. And on ROR I play a healer so "smashing n00bs" is something other people do. I just sit back and try to heal, whether I'm grouped or solo.

In before "you are terrible on ROR too". I see you typing it. Stop

--------

TLDR: encourage player organisation, embrace the sandbox nature of WAR rather than trying to fight it, **** PUGs.

Lots of points on what you want this game to be like but I think most of these design choices are big contributing factors to games downfall and population bleed happening in this game

I don't think balance is what will make people play or be retained - no one really cares how perfectly balanced a game is, only that it's fun. Imbalance can impact fun, but balance doesn't lead to fun.

There are plenty of well-balanced games that weren't fun and have died.

This whole issue isn't about the balance of pugs vs premade; it's about the fact it isn't fun for pugs to play into premade. Auto forcing 2/2/2 is unlikely to fix that too, it hasn't in the past - why would it now?

What we've seen in the past with forced comp queues is queue times explode, and it won't prevent players from not queuing. Solo-ranked queues were a good example of this; you'd see people sitting in queue waiting for 1 more tank or healer for queue to pop. It could be a while to pop, and then one loss later because it got gamed or was crushing, and the queue collapsed.

RoR doesn't have the population to support MMR bracketing either. We've seen this through various ranked seasons, even though participation may have been at a high, the banding kept having to get wider and wider so players could even get a pop - literally making the whole purpose of MMR meaningless.

The whole "we want people to group up, so we will only acknowledge 2/2/2" hasn't worked, and continues to not work. This mess has tried to be resolved with this mentality multiple times, and all the focus on rewarding people for 2/2/2 continues to fail in resolving it. It continues to cost players. It continues to grow negative sentiment - that sentiment carries beyond the confines of RoR too.

"If you always do what you've always done, then you'll always get what you've always got".

[Omegus]

Lots of points on what you want this game to be like but I think most of these design choices are big contributing factors to games downfall and population bleed happening in this game

From experience from PUG to organised, the reasons I typically see people quit are:

1) PUGs: the horrific power loss at rank 40 compared to BIS. This is in both ORvR and scenarios. I personally believe there needs to be overall power squish (nor removal, just squish). You get stomped everywhere, even in dungeons lol.

2) PUGs: Due to the above power gap issues, exclusion from almost all forms of organised content whether it's getting into a dungeon run, a scenario group or an ORvR warband.

3) Organised: leaders (either guild or warband or even or whatever) becoming disillusioned or bored with the project for one reason or another - typically ORvR related - and quitting, which usually causes whomever was following them to also stop playing. If that one person who regularly runs Chapter 22 PUG warbands gets fed up with Chapter 22 bugs/etc and stops running them then tens - or potentially hundreds - of players over time end up losing access to that content as leaders are much rarer than followers. Guild leader stops? Guild might disband and a bunch of people lose their social group and stop playing (seen that one happen way too many times before).

The game had it's highest population numbers during 2020 lockdown for 2 reasons: 1) a huge influx of new players finding out about the game ("Peonwave"). 2) cities launched and were incredibly competitive with new loot which brought a load of vets back. Guild numbers swelled up, entirely new guilds were formed, city numbers were sky high, etc.

Eventually Peonwave reached tier 4 and got smashed everywhere, and the premades farmed cities to death and ran out of content so started dropping off or tried to gear up their 5th alt in Sovereign and at that point the competition had mostly died down. And of course, people had to start going back to work but that doesn't account for the prime-time drop-offs as well. #1, #2 and #3 above. Power gap too big, PUGs excluded from the sweaty content, leaders got bored.

Personally, I am happy if the game has a smaller organised playerbase compared to a larger disorganised one. I would much rather see work put into promoting organisation and fixing the barriers that hinder people trying to engage with others rather than mechanics put in place based around ensuring people do not have to organise themselves and take responsibility for maximising their odds of success.

[Omegus]

I don't think balance is what will make people play or be retained - no one really cares how perfectly balanced a game is, only that it's fun. Imbalance can impact fun, but balance doesn't lead to fun.

Imbalance killed off a huge part of WAR's early population on the Mythic servers, and new players absolutely will quit if it turns out their first/main class they rolled is trash in general or not wanted for any groups. Vets who already have multiple chars can switch between the meta. Typically this is anyone who picked the "wrong" DPS class.

[GONDOR]

I don't think balance is what will make people play or be retained - no one really cares how perfectly balanced a game is, only that it's fun. Imbalance can impact fun, but balance doesn't lead to fun.

Imbalance killed off a huge part of WAR's early population on the Mythic servers, and new players absolutely will quit if it turns out their first/main class they rolled is trash in general or not wanted for any groups. Vets who already have multiple chars can switch between the meta. Typically this is anyone who picked the "wrong" DPS class.

Correct - but the point is imbalance takes away from the fun, and balance doesn't add to it. If it's badly balanced, then people don't have fun, but it can be balanced and unfun to play - that still costs players.

Also meta is also not always a result of (im)balance, and this issue is still present on RoR (hello engineers).

[Detangler]

1. UI window for scenario numbers in queue like ranked showing for all tiers.

Let people know what archtypes are needed and some will swap accordingly.

2. No scenario pop without at least 1 healer on both sides. Even number of healers ONLY. Ignore other archtypes for minimum scenario pop requirements.

You can't stop healers from not taking the queue, but at least give it a chance. You can have some pretty wild battles even without one side having tanks.

3. Pug v Pug or 6 man v 6 man heavily weighted to start a scenario. If 6 man v pugs, give pugs a numbers advantage

9v12 anyone?

4. Matchmaker looks to start a scenario every 3-4 minutes instead of every 1 minute as is live.

Give it more time for numbers to rise to get better scenarios going.

5. Those in queue that did not get a pop at the 3-4 minute mark will be first in line for next MM scenario pop.

No more bad luck no pops for 20 minutes while others get constant action.

6. If too many DPS in queue(like 12+ both sides), dump them all in their own unique scenario deathmatch. First to 30 kills wins.

You know you all want to be in these scenarios.

[Asderas27]

If only people put as much effort in learning the game as they did in writing essays on forums.
What a world that would be