Another Plea To Bungie, Re: Join In Progress Sanity

Matchmaking Sanity Filters.

I've been on this topic for a long while now, but unlike a lot of things in Destiny, this is still not fixed. First, what am I talking about? I very much would like to see the join in progress matchmaking get some very basic rules in place to prevent sheer idiocy. What kind of idiocy? Like me losing a match before my ship has even started its decent from orbit![/i] That's right, I got a loss complete with an Iron Banner Medallion before I was able to play one billionth of a second. That's utter crap. It's stupid and ridiculous and infuriating.

So, what do I expect? Well, when I select a Crucible playlist and press "Launch" I really wish for a full length game that is both fair and fun. Being more realistic, at a minimum I would like to play roughly half a game so I feel like I was able to make a contribution and I would like there to be basic assurances that any game I get starts at least somewhat fair to me. By that I mean that I should be joined in to a relatively even game, not one that is already lot before I get there. Obviously, getting a perfect join every time is impossible. But I would rather wait another minute in orbit if it means I'll get a game where I actually, you know, get to play a single second.

Starting very simple, here is the only rule I think is essential:

- Only join in progress if the game is less than half over as judged by time or score erring a bit on the low side to account for the time it takes to actually load and spawn into a level.

From there things like score differential could be taken into account. If a game is 10,000 to 1,000 then I would much prefer to wait than to simply get stomped into the ground for reasons outside my control. Where should the limit be placed? How far apart is too far and how far isn't? I don't know. That would have to be felt out by looking at historical comeback trends and maybe even a bit of trial and error.

Anyway, that's my rant for the night. Hope you enjoyed it. :)

locked

2011 views

If anything, matchmaking should be MORE aggressive about joining in progress. If someone drops or leaves a game, the best thing is to fill that slot as quickly as possible. That would prevent runaway scoring by the team that's up a player, and would have you join in games that are much closer in score.

The best solution of course is to not play alone. You are very unlikely to join halfway if you have a fireteam.

locked

1870 views

- No text -

locked

1834 views

We don't even know that the join in progress system is doing a bad job. It might be finding and joining suitable players very efficiently. But, similar to what I said to Cody, no matter how aggressive the system is, there is always a chance it will give one of us a bad game if it continues to be allowed to join players into games that are almost over or games that saw players leave because their team was already losing badly.

locked

1848 views

If you join into a losing game, the only thing that happens is you get less rep. Too bad.

However, if you are on and nobody can rejoin more than halfway in the match, any disconnect is a virtually guaranteed loss. Quick replacements allow you to continue.

So, I'd much rather join in and spend 3 minutes getting rep, experience, and bounty progess than spend 10 minutes in the same game where for 5 we're doomed because nobody can join in and it's just me and three level 12 guys using scout rifles on anomaly.

I think it's doing it fine. Implementing your proposition would save you about 2 minutes at the expense of fucking a whole team and wasting much more of their time.

locked

1868 views

If you join into a losing game, the only thing that happens is you get less rep. Too bad.

However, if you are on and nobody can rejoin more than halfway in the match, any disconnect is a virtually guaranteed loss. Quick replacements allow you to continue.

So, I'd much rather join in and spend 3 minutes getting rep, experience, and bounty progess than spend 10 minutes in the same game where for 5 we're doomed because nobody can join in and it's just me and three level 12 guys using scout rifles on anomaly.

I think it's doing it fine. Implementing your proposition would save you about 2 minutes at the expense of fucking a whole team and wasting much more of their time.

Or, I might get no rep at all if I get joined into a losing Iron Banner game. Tonight I go my 5th Medallion because Destiny's complete lack of join in progress sanity had me joining a game that either ran out of time or who's score was complete before I even made it down from orbit. If that had been my 6th coin then trying to join me into that game would have been a complete and preventable waste.

Perhaps five minutes is not the right point to disable joins, but surely there is a right point. Would you be happy with a game that last five seconds after you spawn? How about a single minute? Or two minutes? Etc. Sure, there are times I'm playing for Marks and would kinda not mind a quick loss, but a vast majority of the time I'm playing for fun. Overly short games are not fun to me.

And, on games where losing players has lead to an unbalanced and unrecoverable score difference, the people having a bad time will probably not have a significantly better time just because Ragashingo, or Funkmon or whoever lost along with them some eight minutes in. But to me, there is a world of difference between starting out in a fair, winnable game vs being joined into one where I have no chance.

Basically, what I am proposing is if Destiny can get new player in before the game has gone on too long and before the scores have spread too far then of course it should. But if it can't, then it shouldn't waste our time by putting us into a bad game.

locked

1838 views

Would you be happy with a game that last five seconds after you spawn?

I wouldn't be unhappy. When I get a quick loss in iron banner, I think "Aww yeah, free medallion, no work! Awesome!" And then, 30 seconds later, I'm in a new game. Even if I was at max, free marks, free rep, no work. Only a loss of a little bit of time? No big dealio to me.

locked

1813 views

Would you be happy with a game that last five seconds after you spawn?

I wouldn't be unhappy. When I get a quick loss in iron banner, I think "Aww yeah, free medallion, no work! Awesome!" And then, 30 seconds later, I'm in a new game. Even if I was at max, free marks, free rep, no work. Only a loss of a little bit of time? No big dealio to me.

Ok, serious question: Are you here to have an actual conversation or are you here just to dismiss everything I say? I ask because this feels an awful lot like a few days ago where you could not see DeeJ was talking about a change to the Iron Banner damage curve even though he put it in a list of changes to the Iron Banner. You never did the polite thing and admit you were flat out wrong.

On this issue of join in progress, I admit, the time and score differential cut offs would need to be carefully considered to minimize the number of players trapped in a game with no more help coming. You made a good point. Now, here's the part where you admit that some people play Destiny's Crucible for fun or competition and would rather start a new, full game than press Launch and not get to play for even one second before a match ends.

So, and I ask this as politely as possible: Please either start having a real give and take conversation with me or just stop replying. Because your attitude right now, which I feel is very similar to the one you had last week, is intensely frustrating to me.

locked

1890 views

Actually, I didn't bring it up when it turned out YOU were wrong, and the level scaling was less severe, once the actual curve was posted. You seem to imply I didn't acknowledge it was a change when I specifically gave examples of how it could have been changed mathematically. That discussion was about whether or not there is more level weighting, and, as shown, there isn't really.

As you may be able to tell by playing with me, or indeed reading what I say on this forum, I couldn't care one iota about losing or winning. I believe a few times while we've played I've suggested the strategy "Hey, let's run at them so this is over quicker," while losing. I try to win, until winning requires a level of strategy and camping that becomes unfun, then I stop caring immediately and just have fun.

And is this opinion so unbelievable to you? Have you ever ONCE heard me upset or actually complain while playing the game, even multiplayer? It only happened once, during a Skolas fight, then I largely quit for a week. Do you honestly think I'm fabricating ideas to be contrary to you? Maybe I just have a different opinion on this subject.

As for the "agree with me or stop responding" thing...this is a forum. We are supposed to talk. If you want to only talk to people who agree with you, print out the rant and put it on your fridge. I normally treat this place as water cooler discussion, but when someone soapbox rants, it becomes a time for differing opinions. Again, it's a forum, not a symposium. And, let's keep in mind that you asked me a question. I answered your question.

locked

1811 views

Actually, I didn't bring it up when it turned out YOU were wrong, and the level scaling was less severe, once the actual curve was posted. You seem to imply I didn't acknowledge it was a change when I specifically gave examples of how it could have been changed mathematically. That discussion was about whether or not there is more level weighting, and, as shown, there isn't really.

1. You spent three whole posts denying that there even was a change, most notably stating: "Power still matters is the phrase here. The sentence seems to be competent innocuous to me. If he wanted to say it was different, surely he would have used words that actually implied difference, or left out the part that's exactly the same." It took me posting a second source before you stopped insisting that DeeJ meant to say that nothing had changed.

2. Explain to me how my saying: "So it might even be that 33s are at even more of a disadvantage than they were not too long ago." is wrong when the facts came out as: "33s will take a little bit more extra damage from 34s - 1% instead of ~0.5%. Inverse is also true." Now I also said: "...I think this means the curve now slopes a bit more." and I was not entirely correct there, but neither was I entirely wrong. I made a guess based on the information I had. You, however, were entirely wrong on DeeJ's meaning.

As you may be able to tell by playing with me, or indeed reading what I say on this forum, I couldn't care one iota about losing or winning. I believe a few times while we've played I've suggested the strategy "Hey, let's run at them so this is over quicker," while losing. I try to win, until winning requires a level of strategy and camping that becomes unfun, then I stop caring immediately and just have fun.

And is this opinion so unbelievable to you? Have you ever ONCE heard me upset or actually complain while playing the game, even multiplayer? It only happened once, during a Skolas fight, then I largely quit for a week. Do you honestly think I'm fabricating ideas to be contrary to you? Maybe I just have a different opinion on this subject.

No, your opinion is perfectly fine, for you. I just don't think it is typical or representative of Destiny's player base. That is why I prompted you to acknowledge that others might have a different opinion by saying: "Now, here's the part where you admit that some people play Destiny's Crucible for fun or competition and would rather start a new, full game than press Launch and not get to play for even one second before a match ends."

As for the "agree with me or stop responding" thing...this is a forum. We are supposed to talk. If you want to only talk to people who agree with you, print out the rant and put it on your fridge. I normally treat this place as water cooler discussion, but when someone soapbox rants, it becomes a time for differing opinions. Again, it's a forum, not a symposium. And, let's keep in mind that you asked me a question. I answered your question.

Asking you to have a real give and take conversation is not the same as asking you to always agree with me. I responded to you by admitting that some of the rules I proposed in my initial post might not be ideal. I responded to you by agreeing that there were times that I too would not mind when a game ended quickly. All I am asking is you show the same kind of courtesy in your postings. And yes, if you are incapable of doing so then I would like you to leave me alone. Because at that point you are no longer coming to talk, you are merely coming to state your opinions over and over while ignoring mine.

locked

1809 views

Actually, I didn't bring it up when it turned out YOU were wrong, and the level scaling was less severe, once the actual curve was posted. You seem to imply I didn't acknowledge it was a change when I specifically gave examples of how it could have been changed mathematically. That discussion was about whether or not there is more level weighting, and, as shown, there isn't really.

1. You spent three whole posts denying that there even was a change, most notably stating: "Power still matters is the phrase here. The sentence seems to be competent innocuous to me. If he wanted to say it was different, surely he would have used words that actually implied difference, or left out the part that's exactly the same." It took me posting a second source before you stopped insisting that DeeJ meant to say that nothing had changed.

2. Explain to me how my saying: "So it might even be that 33s are at even more of a disadvantage than they were not too long ago." is wrong when the facts came out as: "33s will take a little bit more extra damage from 34s - 1% instead of ~0.5%. Inverse is also true." Now I also said: "...I think this means the curve now slopes a bit more." and I was not entirely correct there, but neither was I entirely wrong. I made a guess based on the information I had. You, however, were entirely wrong on DeeJ's meaning.

I definitely wasn't. Also, remember, you were not arguing that a change happened, but arguing that a specific change happened, the point of which was that the slope increased. I never insisted it didn't change, ever, once. You're reading into it. So, while your text was technically correct in that you only explicitly stated 33s were more disadvantaged, nothing I said was incorrect, I just expressed doubt, and I still, right now, doubt that deeJ was saying anything but explaining that the curve wasn't arithmetic. The curves are functionally identical, but specifically, down to about 3 levels one gives more advantage, then the other gives more for the rest, which says to me it's less severe. That said, you were right about levels close in. I did not know that's all you were trying to say. The rest of what you said caused me to infer you were talking about the whole damage curve. It may have been a misunderstanding. I don't want to talk about that anymore. It's in another thread and it's over.

No, your opinion is perfectly fine, for you. I just don't think it is typical or representative of Destiny's player base. That is why I prompted you to acknowledge that others might have a different opinion by saying: "Now, here's the part where you admit that some people play Destiny's Crucible for fun or competition and would rather start a new, full game than press Launch and not get to play for even one second before a match ends."

Everyone plays the game differently. To ask that this point be conceded is unnecessary. So I didn't. How would you feel if I said "here's the part where you admit some people play Destiny's Crucible for fun and NOT competition." I'm not going to ask you to admit that, because you're not dumber than an actual brick and I respect your intellectual capabilities.

Asking you to have a real give and take conversation is not the same as asking you to always agree with me. I responded to you by admitting that some of the rules I proposed in my initial post might not be ideal. I responded to you by agreeing that there were times that I too would not mind when a game ended quickly. All I am asking is you show the same kind of courtesy in your postings. And yes, if you are incapable of doing so then I would like you to leave me alone. Because at that point you are no longer coming to talk, you are merely coming to state your opinions over and over while ignoring mine.

I saw you ask me a question and I answered it, plus with some fun hypothetical quotes and reasoning. This is almost the definition of give and take in a conversational sense. That said, I will leave you alone if you want, but I can categorically 100% confirm that if I have something to talk about in regards to a post you made on this forum, I will say it and have no qualms.

locked

1830 views

I definitely wasn't. Also, remember, you were not arguing that a change happened, but arguing that a specific change happened, the point of which was that the slope increased. I never insisted it didn't change, ever, once. You're reading into it. So, while your text was technically correct in that you only explicitly stated 33s were more disadvantaged, nothing I said was incorrect, I just expressed doubt, and I still, right now, doubt that deeJ was saying anything but explaining that the curve wasn't arithmetic. The curves are functionally identical, but specifically, down to about 3 levels one gives more advantage, then the other gives more for the rest, which says to me it's less severe. That said, you were right about levels close in. I did not know that's all you were trying to say. The rest of what you said caused me to infer you were talking about the whole damage curve. It may have been a misunderstanding. I don't want to talk about that anymore. It's in another thread and it's over.

Hold on. You said flat out that: "If he wanted to say it was different, surely he would have used words that actually implied difference..."How you can say that and then claim you were merely talking about the arithmetic nature of the curve is beyond me. It comes right up to the point of outright lying. I also strongly disagree that I wasn't arguing that a change happened. I didn't post screenshots of a change list, without mentioning the curve, and find secondary sources of hotfix notes, without mentioning the curve, because I disagree on the exact nature of the curve! I did so because I took issue with you saying there was no change.

Everyone plays the game differently. To ask that this point be conceded is unnecessary. So I didn't. How would you feel if I said "here's the part where you admit some people play Destiny's Crucible for fun and NOT competition."

To me, it now is necessary for you because you seem completely incapable of admitting others have a point across multiple threads. As for your question, I would immediately admit that sure, of course some people play for fun and not competition. I have no problem admitting when people have valid points.

I saw you ask me a question and I answered it, plus with some fun hypothetical quotes and reasoning. This is almost the definition of give and take in a conversational sense. That said, I will leave you alone if you want, but I can categorically 100% confirm that if I have something to talk about in regards to a post you made on this forum, I will say it and have no qualms.

No. In give and take you give and take. All you do is take. You never admit you are wrong. You never acknowledge someone else has a point. Not until people have to press you on the issue over and over. Even then you just give a half admission while claiming that you were still right all along. Others have called you on this before. I welcome you replying to me, but I will call you on it every single time if you keep up this stubborn refusal to acknowledge others' points of view and keep lying about what you said just so you won't be wrong.

locked

1810 views

I wouldn't be unhappy. When I get a quick loss in iron banner, I think "Aww yeah, free medallion, no work! Awesome!" And then, 30 seconds later, I'm in a new game. Even if I was at max, free marks, free rep, no work. Only a loss of a little bit of time? No big dealio to me.

1) Nothing takes 30 seconds or less to load on Destiny, except maybe the inventory (and even that if you're playing last-gen :p). My experience has been with at least a full minute or two between any Crucible matches.

2) I, for one, care more about playing the game than winning/losing or rep gain/not. If I get dropped into a game where I get to play a lot less than I intended, I will be pissed. If I get dropped into an unwinnable game, but get to play some and kill some folks long enough, it'll be perfectly fine for me.

I can't quite see how getting dropped into a game that ends before the map even loads is, in any way, acceptable, even if I agree that drop-in is crucial to the playing team. To be honest, I'd rather surely lose a game because I lost a teammate 4 minutes in than have a random join in with after we already lost all hope.

And now, my biggest point in favor of Raga's suggestions: Given Destiny's load times (not that there's much that can be done about it, not complaining about them, really), after someone gets matched, the wait between match and load is so big, I honestly thing drop-in should be disabled after some point, like Raga suggests.

locked

1766 views

I agree in that I also don't mind--it's like joining a strike in progress. You'll still end up getting rewards and it will take less time than a full game. Plus, if you stay in matchmaking at that point, shouldn't you then have a really low chance of it happening again, because it will keep you with a team?

I think it is the lesser of the two evils. It benefits me more to have a quick replacement for lost teammates than to avoid an occasional bad join in progress.

I joined a game in progress earlier today and I joined on the winning team with a pretty good lead too, so it's not all bad.

locked

1787 views

Virtually every time I land a game in progress the team is losing so badly that Slaughter rules come into play and I have to matchmake again.

locked

1772 views

Virtually every time I land a game in progress the team is losing so badly that Slaughter rules come into play and I have to matchmake again.

Doesnt that just find you a new enemy team? Or does it return you to orbit/disband YOUR team? I don't remember the details and actually forgot that was a thing because I haven't noticed.

locked

1774 views

- No text -

locked

1751 views

If anything, matchmaking should be MORE aggressive about joining in progress. If someone drops or leaves a game, the best thing is to fill that slot as quickly as possible. That would prevent runaway scoring by the team that's up a player, and would have you join in games that are much closer in score.

Agreed, assuming the game even can be more aggressive about it. I've seen new players join in very quickly and I've seen it take minutes. In the latter cases it might have been that there were no players who met the existing geographic, network, or skill level filters already in place. At some point there simply are not any more suitable players to join into a game. Also, what of games that were backed out of because the score had already ran away? Or games that only have a few seconds left. Right now, Destiny will still happily add me into such games. More aggressive join in progress will not help me there while more join in progress rules would.

I'd rather wait another minute for a good game than waste a couple of minutes on a game that is not fun and ends too soon.

In my opinion, joining a player into an overly short game or into a clearly lost cause does not help anyone and instead merely spreads the misery from those stuck in said lost causes to players who were expecting a fair, even, and full length game. My solution, then, is to disable join in progress once certain criteria are met.

The best solution of course is to not play alone. You are very unlikely to join halfway if you have a fireteam.

That's not a solution Bungie can implement. They can't mandate that everyone always have friends willing and able to play with them.

locked

1847 views

The best solution of course is to not play alone. You are very unlikely to join halfway if you have a fireteam.

That's not a solution Bungie can implement. They can't mandate that everyone always have friends willing and able to play with them.

Sure they can. They can disable matchmaking.

Since, as I understand it (I don't play Crucible/IB much at all) when a game ends, each team goes straight into matchmaking for the next game unless somebody backs out. If the game has just matched a random, or a group of randoms, with a fireteam, then it seems likely to me you'll get put into the same player group for the next game if nobody backs out.

So the point of matchmaking isn't just balancing out the teams, it's about keeping a side together. Instead of waiting for the next game and hoping nobody backs out, Destiny is putting you on a side as soon as it can, even if it means putting you in a game that's about to end, rather than waiting until the game ends. Perhaps the logic is that it's better to do that to individual players than it is to make matchmaking take longer for the rest.

locked

1790 views

The best solution of course is to not play alone. You are very unlikely to join halfway if you have a fireteam.

That's not a solution Bungie can implement. They can't mandate that everyone always have friends willing and able to play with them.

Sure they can. They can disable matchmaking.

Heh. Ok, maybe they can, but they probably shouldn't. :p

Since, as I understand it (I don't play Crucible/IB much at all) when a game ends, each team goes straight into matchmaking for the next game unless somebody backs out. If the game has just matched a random, or a group of randoms, with a fireteam, then it seems likely to me you'll get put into the same player group for the next game if nobody backs out.

So the point of matchmaking isn't just balancing out the teams, it's about keeping a side together. Instead of waiting for the next game and hoping nobody backs out, Destiny is putting you on a side as soon as it can, even if it means putting you in a game that's about to end, rather than waiting until the game ends. Perhaps the logic is that it's better to do that to individual players than it is to make matchmaking take longer for the rest.

True, the logic is certainly hugely complex. In general I think Destiny has quicker matchmaking times than Halo did and part of that might very well be it's method of getting people into games as quickly as possible. The things I'm asking for might very well wreck the system for all I know. It might raise match times from ~30 seconds to three minutes if there aren't enough players around to form two new teams or something like that. I would love to just sit down with those in charge of the matchmaking process talk about and learn about why things work the way they do. Not demand they fix things, mind you, just a pleasant chat about the awesome technologies and trade offs that make all this stuff work.

locked

1781 views

True, the logic is certainly hugely complex. In general I think Destiny has quicker matchmaking times than Halo did and part of that might very well be it's method of getting people into games as quickly as possible. The things I'm asking for might very well wreck the system for all I know. It might raise match times from ~30 seconds to three minutes if there aren't enough players around to form two new teams or something like that. I would love to just sit down with those in charge of the matchmaking process talk about and learn about why things work the way they do. Not demand they fix things, mind you, just a pleasant chat about the awesome technologies and trade offs that make all this stuff work.

Not sure how aware you were of this stuff during the Halo: Reach era - but join-in-progress happened BECAUSE of outcry from the community, in response to quit rates. You're unhappy as the joiner - but the 4-5 joinees are actually more important (from the standpoint of the greater good) than you.

And the arguments made by others - if you stay, you're almost guaranteed a no-jip game, it doesn't take so long, you get free stuff (most of the time) for no work - are true.

It's definitely frustrating to get dumped on loser teams a minute (or less, or even a little more) from the end... but the alternatives are even worse for all the members of the team that lost people.

locked

1776 views

... as compared to the 4 vs. 1 games I routinely played in Halo.

Disagree with everything you said. If bad luck infuriates you so much, does good luck serve as a counter at all?

Hope so.

locked

1767 views

Yes, in a perfect world, Join-in-progress would solve the issue of people quitting, because it can just bring in new people to fill those gaps.

But that's not how it works in practice.

Every single time I've seen someone on the opposing team quit during a match while my team is winning, the following happens:

Bob_7 has joined Bravo.
Bob_7 has left the game.
Frank1991 has joined Bravo.
Frank1991 has left the game.
Bill_99 has joined Bravo.
Bill_99 has left the game.

The net effect being that the team is always a man down, especially since it takes 1-2 minutes for those players to actually spawn in once they join.

People like Raga and myself HATE being joined into losing games. We didn't sign up for that. We want a fair fight. And based on my personal experiences, I think we're the majority.

locked

1782 views

Yes, in a perfect world, Join-in-progress would solve the issue of people quitting, because it can just bring in new people to fill those gaps.

But that's not how it works in practice.

Every single time I've seen someone on the opposing team quit during a match while my team is winning, the following happens:

Bob_7 has joined Bravo.
Bob_7 has left the game.
Frank1991 has joined Bravo.
Frank1991 has left the game.
Bill_99 has joined Bravo.
Bill_99 has left the game.

The net effect being that the team is always a man down, especially since it takes 1-2 minutes for those players to actually spawn in once they join.

People like Raga and myself HATE being joined into losing games. We didn't sign up for that. We want a fair fight. And based on my personal experiences, I think we're the majority.

Capture All Zones!
Bob_7 has left the game.
Frank1991 has left the game.
Bill_99 has left the game.

How are you expecting to get a fair fight at this point WITHOUT join-in-progress?

locked

1763 views

Yes, in a perfect world, Join-in-progress would solve the issue of people quitting, because it can just bring in new people to fill those gaps.

But that's not how it works in practice.

Every single time I've seen someone on the opposing team quit during a match while my team is winning, the following happens:

Bob_7 has joined Bravo.
Bob_7 has left the game.
Frank1991 has joined Bravo.
Frank1991 has left the game.
Bill_99 has joined Bravo.
Bill_99 has left the game.

The net effect being that the team is always a man down, especially since it takes 1-2 minutes for those players to actually spawn in once they join.

People like Raga and myself HATE being joined into losing games. We didn't sign up for that. We want a fair fight. And based on my personal experiences, I think we're the majority.

Capture All Zones!
Bob_7 has left the game.
Frank1991 has left the game.
Bill_99 has left the game.

How are you expecting to get a fair fight at this point WITHOUT join-in-progress?

Depends.

If it's my team, That's not a fair fight. I leave, and all I lose is the time it took to matchmake. Sure I could get a medallion/marks/rewards, but the price of spending 8-10 minutes getting spawnkilled isn't worth that to me.

Otherwise, my team steamrolls and we get an easy win.

locked

1779 views

Join in Progress is always going to be joining you into a game where your team is either behind or ahead, that won't ever change and that's not a bad thing. I've certainly come from behind once I get more people filling out my team. What is bad is that there is apparently no basic check that tries to judge whether there is enough time left to join new players into a game.

To address CyberKN's issue of Join in Progress being thwarted by players continually backing out, I would recommend stiffer penalties to those that choose to back out rather than a complete disabling of the Join in Progress system.

locked

1768 views

Join in Progress is always going to be joining you into a game where your team is either behind or ahead, that won't ever change and that's not a bad thing. I've certainly come from behind once I get more people filling out my team. What is bad is that there is apparently no basic check that tries to judge whether there is enough time left to join new players into a game.

I think that's actually the crux of the discussion here - I don't think ANYONE is arguing with you that being dropped into a game that's about to end is an IDEAL situation. (Most of us on my side of the issue are saying that the negatives involved with that situation are outweighed by the positives that an extra player can bring, overall.)

Coming up with the point of no return is HARD. I don't think I've ever seen a post that picks a time that's made me say "yeah, that works, across the board." You started with "after 5 minutes" - and then conceded that that might be too short. But what's NOT too short? 10 minutes? 7 minutes? A certain score range before the end? A score range with a max delta? Something even MORE complicated?

Nobody's come up with an answer that really works yet - including Bungie. So they just say "join ANY game in progress where the rest of the parameters are a close match". Which works for me, but clearly not for you. ;)

To address CyberKN's issue of Join in Progress being thwarted by players continually backing out, I would recommend stiffer penalties to those that choose to back out rather than a complete disabling of the Join in Progress system.

Okay, so as another data point (as anecdotal as Cyber's) - this almost never happens to me. He says it happens to him all the time. It's not unheard of - but it's FAR more common (in the games I've played) for someone to join - and stick it out.

Maybe that's random chance. Maybe it's a function of the competitiveness of the pools we're in, respectively. Maybe it's a combination of both of those, or maybe it's something else entirely. Until Bungie posts a white paper explaining how the JIP matching works (which will never, ever happen), we won't really know. ;) (I don't know which of us has a more representative experience.)

Either way, though, I'm okay with stiffer penalties for quitters - I've ALWAYS been an advocate for the "wait 5 minutes before being allowed back" plan, going back to Reach days. It's never been implemented, but I think it mostly works. If you quit because something came up (phone call, door bell, kid puking, whatever), those 5 minutes won't bug you at all. If you quit because the game bumped you, it'll probably take SOME time to get back online and ready to play - so the remaining penalty won't be a HUGE hardship (though I will grant that it will be annoying, since you ALREADY got screwed by a server error - the only mitigating circumstance is that most of these happen because YOUR connection isn't perfect, and the server can't keep up, so a short timeout is probably a good idea ;) ). If you quit because that last guy who killed you made you rage - you NEED the 5 minutes. :) But clearly Bungie has never seen it this way, because they've never implemented this. ::shrug::

locked

1821 views

Either way, though, I'm okay with stiffer penalties for quitters - I've ALWAYS been an advocate for the "wait 5 minutes before being allowed back" plan

Last night I was playing Iron banner alone, got an invite, and accepted it. I left the game I was in, to start playing with a group. I'd have hated to wait 5 minutes before we could start.

locked

1789 views

Either way, though, I'm okay with stiffer penalties for quitters - I've ALWAYS been an advocate for the "wait 5 minutes before being allowed back" plan

Last night I was playing Iron banner alone, got an invite, and accepted it. I left the game I was in, to start playing with a group. I'd have hated to wait 5 minutes before we could start.

So your friends got to play with you a few minutes early - but you totally fucked 5 random people.

I'd say that's pretty selfish. Never done that, never will.

To each his own, though.

locked

1792 views

The very few times I have intentionally left people in a Crucible match have been within the very first 10 seconds of the match or still in NLS. It has the exact same effect to a team as a quitter/connection drop/dinner's set.

locked

1760 views

So your friends got to play with you a few minutes early - but you totally fucked 5 random people.

Usually I'm the one who speaks in hyperbole! Yes, leaving an Iron Banner game that had been going for all of 45 seconds, where nothing is on the line really, totally fucked over 5 people.

I'm sure a random was put in to replace me.

I don't feel bad at all about doing that.

locked

1755 views

So your friends got to play with you a few minutes early - but you totally fucked 5 random people.

Usually I'm the one who speaks in hyperbole! Yes, leaving an Iron Banner game that had been going for all of 45 seconds, where nothing is on the line really, totally fucked over 5 people.

I'm sure a random was put in to replace me.

I don't feel bad at all about doing that.

Heh. Fair enough - I was hyperbolic. But I still think you were being selfish, and "I'm sure a random was put in to replace me" is nothing but a rationalization. :)

locked

1802 views

I'm reading this thread, and all I hear in my head is "this is exactly why Bungie won't add matchmaking to Raids" :)

The JIP issue really is a tough nut to crack. One interesting solution I've seen proposed would involve a bit of a change in Bungie's approach to mixing and matching groups of players.

In some other multiplayer games, groups are not shuffled around between games. Unless you go out of your way to leave a group/lobby, you will continue to get matched with the same group of players game after game (swapping team configurations around when possible). In Destiny, it is certainly possible to get matched with the same group of players several games in a row, but the systems seems to be quite fluid. I believe the matchmaking system is actively trying to get you matched up with new players as often as possible.

How does JIP fit in to this? Well the idea is that a matchmaking system built around putting together groups and the keeping them together for as long as possible could prioritize "new" players to be selected for JIP. In other words, when I first log in, I might get pulled into a match that is already in progress, but once I'm in that group, I'm in. I'm not going to be forced into another JIP situation unless my group completely disbands.

The great thing about this proposal is that it automatically adds incentive to NOT quit. If I quit a match early, I'm bumping myself to the top of the pool of players selected to fill other games already in progress.

locked

1790 views

I'm fairly certain Destiny keeps teams together until people back out or until one team beats the other too badly. That's why the people I play with often call for us to back out of the post game lobby if we encounter a laggy team or a team who was just a little too good. That's also why we backed out during the 360 Bungie Bounty, because if we hadn't Destiny would just keep the two DBO teams playing together. And in fact, it tried to do that and was forced to give Claude's team a free win because it started loading the game just before we backed out and started the match only to find there was only one team was left playing!

And, though I can't prove it, I do think Destiny probably does try to get you playing as soon as possible when you first log on. It feels like I often get joined into an ongoing game the first time I play Crucible each day and from then on the likelihood of that happening is much smaller.

locked

1771 views

- No text -

locked

1732 views

Either way, though, I'm okay with stiffer penalties for quitters - I've ALWAYS been an advocate for the "wait 5 minutes before being allowed back" plan

Last night I was playing Iron banner alone, got an invite, and accepted it. I left the game I was in, to start playing with a group. I'd have hated to wait 5 minutes before we could start.

I'd hope the system was smarter than that. Leaving a matchmade team once a session to play with friends should be detected and not punished. Similarly, things like having your internet die or having your power go out should be forgiven assuming they can be properly detected. Penalties would come into play when someone backs out of a game perhaps with less tolerance and more bite when they build up a history of backing out of games.

locked

1759 views

That makes sense. I'd say turn off JIP after 10,000, but then that could be abused in its own right. I always thought about something like this back in Halo 4: I had an idea that if someone quit, there could be an internal timer to accept JIP's for 60-120 seconds before blocking that game off. If multiple people quit, and one person joins in, then the timer would reset for another 1-2 minutes, and so on.

Claude, you're right about the Halo:Reach quitting ban--that was, at least in my opinion, a really good idea that Bungie implemented. And you were right about that too--if you have to quit for real reasons, those 5 minutes won't matter. And the system was foolproof--to me, I'd say. I've only been put on time-out when I knew what I was doing was unproductive. (I used to plug in multiple controllers and boost people needing help on multiplayer achievements, and I got AFK timeouts.)

Dropping you in at the end of the game is a real dick move. I've already expressed my feelings on that. But sometimes, JIP can also be helpful. I don't think anyone disagrees with that, but I think it still had to be said. So I think a quitting penalty+a more objective join policy can really help with Crucible.

locked

1792 views

Join in Progress is always going to be joining you into a game where your team is either behind or ahead, that won't ever change and that's not a bad thing. I've certainly come from behind once I get more people filling out my team. What is bad is that there is apparently no basic check that tries to judge whether there is enough time left to join new players into a game.

I think that's actually the crux of the discussion here - I don't think ANYONE is arguing with you that being dropped into a game that's about to end is an IDEAL situation. (Most of us on my side of the issue are saying that the negatives involved with that situation are outweighed by the positives that an extra player can bring, overall.)

Well, except I've gotten two so far who started off by saying they disagreed with everything I said. :/ That's frustrating even considering my initial post had a pretty big flaw regarding the initial JiP cutoff. (I meant the half game cutoff as a starting point for discussion... except that's not what my post says. My bad. Don't post when you're angry kids!)

Coming up with the point of no return is HARD. I don't think I've ever seen a post that picks a time that's made me say "yeah, that works, across the board." You started with "after 5 minutes" - and then conceded that that might be too short. But what's NOT too short? 10 minutes? 7 minutes? A certain score range before the end? A score range with a max delta? Something even MORE complicated?

I don't think you can just pick "3 minutes" or "4 minutes 28 seconds" or whatever. What makes sense to me is some combination of looking at time remaining and the difference in score with a sanity check that never allows JiP if there isn't enough time to actually load the map. From there I'd look at historical data. What's the biggest score delta that was ever over come in two minutes? Three minutes? Four minutes? I'd work out some formula that says something like "at x time left a score difference of y points is too large to come back from" and disable JiP once a game has crossed that moving line. And maybe reenable it if the game crosses back! But that formula wouldn't be some guess, it'd be backed by actual data and then tweaked to allow some reasonable leeway. On top of that, surely there is some minimum amount of time that most players feel is long enough to make a contribution to the match instead of feeling like the match ends just when they're getting started. What is that amount of time? I don't know. My gut feeling says three-ish minutes based around how long it takes a Super to charge, but it could be much better pinned down with good discussion and play testing.

Lump all that together and you get a set of rules that try and match every player into a good game. Not every player is going to have a good game. Sometimes your team is terrible. Sometime you are terrible. Sometimes there's lag. Etc. Etc. But right now Destiny really does seem to just throw players into ANY game without even basic checks to see if that game will likely be satisfying.

Nobody's come up with an answer that really works yet - including Bungie. So they just say "join ANY game in progress where the rest of the parameters are a close match". Which works for me, but clearly not for you. ;)

I think I'm looking at it from a different angle. Like most, I think the system works pretty well. I'm not bringing up my example of not getting to play a match because it happens to me all the time. (I believe it's only happened once!) I'm bringing it up because I don't think it should happen at all. Then I'm trying to look a little further to see if there are other situations we can all agree upon where JiP doesn't make any sense. I just don't like looking at it from a "there's no solution yet so it's good enough as it." perspective. Should Bungie have done that with Destiny's color blind options? Or the way upgrading a weapon worked in The Dark Below? Sure, maybe improving JiP is something that would cost far too much in terms of server load or matchmaking times or development time. Or maybe it's something like fireteam chat that can be "easily" added and would work well... if only enough people make it an issue.

Either way, though, I'm okay with stiffer penalties for quitters - I've ALWAYS been an advocate for the "wait 5 minutes before being allowed back" plan, going back to Reach days. It's never been implemented, but I think it mostly works. If you quit because something came up (phone call, door bell, kid puking, whatever), those 5 minutes won't bug you at all. If you quit because the game bumped you, it'll probably take SOME time to get back online and ready to play - so the remaining penalty won't be a HUGE hardship (though I will grant that it will be annoying, since you ALREADY got screwed by a server error - the only mitigating circumstance is that most of these happen because YOUR connection isn't perfect, and the server can't keep up, so a short timeout is probably a good idea ;) ). If you quit because that last guy who killed you made you rage - you NEED the 5 minutes. :) But clearly Bungie has never seen it this way, because they've never implemented this. ::shrug::

Agreed.

locked

1740 views

Yes, in a perfect world, Join-in-progress would solve the issue of people quitting, because it can just bring in new people to fill those gaps.

But that's not how it works in practice.

Every single time I've seen someone on the opposing team quit during a match while my team is winning, the following happens:

Bob_7 has joined Bravo.
Bob_7 has left the game.
Frank1991 has joined Bravo.
Frank1991 has left the game.
Bill_99 has joined Bravo.
Bill_99 has left the game.

The net effect being that the team is always a man down, especially since it takes 1-2 minutes for those players to actually spawn in once they join.

People like Raga and myself HATE being joined into losing games. We didn't sign up for that. We want a fair fight. And based on my personal experiences, I think we're the majority.

Not just a man down. A super down. And the cumulative orbs a super can drop. And potential heavy ammo carriers. The chances for a game to snowball go up astronomically with the first dropped player.

So how about the team that's down a man gets an extra scoring multiplier? It could even be, if the team has a player with 0 points, they get bonus points per kill until that player scores points of any kind. I don't think it should be enough to be exploitable, but I think it could be manageably balanced. At least this could be a starting point for discussion.

locked

1789 views

Yes, in a perfect world, Join-in-progress would solve the issue of people quitting, because it can just bring in new people to fill those gaps.

But that's not how it works in practice.

Every single time I've seen someone on the opposing team quit during a match while my team is winning, the following happens:

Bob_7 has joined Bravo.
Bob_7 has left the game.
Frank1991 has joined Bravo.
Frank1991 has left the game.
Bill_99 has joined Bravo.
Bill_99 has left the game.

The net effect being that the team is always a man down, especially since it takes 1-2 minutes for those players to actually spawn in once they join.

People like Raga and myself HATE being joined into losing games. We didn't sign up for that. We want a fair fight. And based on my personal experiences, I think we're the majority.

Not just a man down. A super down. And the cumulative orbs a super can drop. And potential heavy ammo carriers. The chances for a game to snowball go up astronomically with the first dropped player.

So how about the team that's down a man gets an extra scoring multiplier? It could even be, if the team has a player with 0 points, they get bonus points per kill until that player scores points of any kind. I don't think it should be enough to be exploitable, but I think it could be manageably balanced. At least this could be a starting point for discussion.

That could work. It's be tricky to balance, because of the former super/heavy elements you mentioned, but it would be better than what we have.

What I'd really like to see is some form of mercy rule, which will cause the game to end quicker. Bungie mentioned something of this sort in an update waaaaay back before Reach came out, and that was the last we heard of it.

locked

1763 views

Not just a man down. A super down. And the cumulative orbs a super can drop. And potential heavy ammo carriers. The chances for a game to snowball go up astronomically with the first dropped player.

In general, I think JIP is better than no JIP - but I do hate it when I'm dropped into a game 10 seconds after heavies have been picked up (mostly by the other team). THAT happens more than I'd like.

locked

1757 views

So how about the team that's down a man gets an extra scoring multiplier? It could even be, if the team has a player with 0 points, they get bonus points per kill until that player scores points of any kind. I don't think it should be enough to be exploitable, but I think it could be manageably balanced. At least this could be a starting point for discussion.

How bout ratio of players on each team? In 6v6 down a man would give the smaller team a 1.2x (6/5) score multiplier. 6v4 okay you get a 1.5x, 6v3 = 2x. You get the drift. It seems like it would be relatively easy to implement in code.

locked

1739 views

The team with more players ALSO has a scoring penalty, because they don't have as many players to kill (thus netting them points). Imagine a 3v3 vs a 3v1. You'd get score REALLY slowly if you only had one opponent, versus having three.

locked

1755 views

Yep, I remember some Halo games where I managed to beat a team of four by myself mainly because there wasn't enough of me to go around.

locked

1796 views

- No text -

locked

1715 views

So how about the team that's down a man gets an extra scoring multiplier? It could even be, if the team has a player with 0 points, they get bonus points per kill until that player scores points of any kind. I don't think it should be enough to be exploitable, but I think it could be manageably balanced. At least this could be a starting point for discussion.

How bout ratio of players on each team? In 6v6 down a man would give the smaller team a 1.2x (6/5) score multiplier. 6v4 okay you get a 1.5x, 6v3 = 2x. You get the drift. It seems like it would be relatively easy to implement in code.

It would have to be much less. Like +15 points for a 5v6, +10 for each player down beyond. 5v6 is still very winnable; it would also have to go away as soon as a new player was in, or scored any points. If bungie implemented any sort of comeback mechanic based on players dropping, they'd have to fine tune it over numerous patches.

***Also: I wouldn't mind seeing some kind of comeback mechanic built in to super energy gain when you're down players, to compensate for less orbs dropped. That would be really tough to nail down, but it's the biggest cause of snowballing in the crux, and it's not something JIP really can fix, as a new player contributes zero orbs for at least a couple of minutes. Nobody like joining a game late and never getting a super. Imagine if players entering any game on a team down +5k points have super immediately? You'd be way happier about joining late!

locked

1771 views

Fine. I don't understand you either.

What I find lacking among several here is compassion for people who play the game less competitively, who have less skill, and who are more likely to face situations (like having people quit) than they are.

I enjoy playing win or lose. If winning mattered that much to me, I'd probably stick with Trials of Osiris. Even there, though, I played for the first time this weekend. We won only one game, and we had fun.

locked

1767 views

Disagree with everything you said.

I really doubt that.

Are you telling me you (would) like it when you don't get to play a crucible match at all because it ends before you first spawn? I understand not wanting to be stuck by yourself against a full team, I played in the Halo era too, but I find it hard to believe you want to join into a game that ends before you're able to make a contribution.

I don't want to shut off all join in progress. I don't even want to shut off most join in progress. I want join in progress to continue to prevent you from suffering 6 on 1 games, like it does now. But, I also want to play a significant chunk of a Crucible match... not just orbit above a planet and get marks... not just spawn in and only have enough time for two kills. Perhaps cutting off join in progress at five minutes was overzealous, but I do think there are some clear, low hanging issues that could be resolved with a little matchmaking logic.

I think you wants and mine are compatible here.

locked

1958 views

Disagree with everything you said.

I really doubt that.

Are you telling me you (would) like it when you don't get to play a crucible match at all because it ends before you first spawn? I understand not wanting to be stuck by yourself against a full team, I played in the Halo era too, but I find it hard to believe you want to join into a game that ends before you're able to make a contribution.

I don't have to like that to say Join in Progress as implemented is good and worth the occasional instance of that happening--it might be different if a medallion really was the worst thing ever and didn't also coincide with the easiest chance you've ever gotten at earning some good gear.

Payback is when I join the Weekly and get launched directly into the reward screen that gives me a nice legendary. That's happened a few more times to me than your scenario, which has never happened, but it if it did, so what?

I see this as the same as people complaining about the RNG. Getting mad at the game for this (and for most other things) seems overwrought to me. I say that respectfully.

locked

1744 views

I don't have to like that to say Join in Progress as implemented is good and worth the occasional instance of that happening--it might be different if a medallion really was the worst thing ever and didn't also coincide with the easiest chance you've ever gotten at earning some good gear.

Respectfully, stop focusing on the medallion and rewards. Trust me, I'm very sorry I spoke of the loot at all!

Instead, I want you to focus on the system as a whole and on how it might affect me and you. Because I was stuck loading into a game that ended before I got there, I was not available to potentially replace a member of your team in a game that had plenty of time left. The Join in Progress system, as implemented, would have let both me and you down, but it might have given us both what we wanted if there was a simple check in place to prevent players from being joined into games that will end "too soon."

I see this as the same as people complaining about the RNG. Getting mad at the game for this (and for most other things) seems overwrought to me. I say that respectfully.

I (respectfully again) disagree. The RNG system, for better or worse, is deliberate and should not be compared to the things I brought up in this topic. I doubt the matchmaking system trying to join me into a game that ended before I got to play is something that is supposed to happen. Instead, what happened to me was likely an unintended failure of the matchmaking and join in progress systems. I think if such failures can be avoided with no or even minimal impact on the rest of Destiny's players then it should be avoided.

locked

1733 views

I don't have to like that to say Join in Progress as implemented is good and worth the occasional instance of that happening--it might be different if a medallion really was the worst thing ever and didn't also coincide with the easiest chance you've ever gotten at earning some good gear.

Respectfully, stop focusing on the medallion and rewards. Trust me, I'm very sorry I spoke of the loot at all!

Instead, I want you to focus on the system as a whole and on how it might affect me and you. Because I was stuck loading into a game that ended before I got there, I was not available to potentially replace a member of your team in a game that had plenty of time left. The Join in Progress system, as implemented, would have let both me and you down, but it might have given us both what we wanted if there was a simple check in place to prevent players from being joined into games that will end "too soon."

I see this as the same as people complaining about the RNG. Getting mad at the game for this (and for most other things) seems overwrought to me. I say that respectfully.

I (respectfully again) disagree. The RNG system, for better or worse, is deliberate and should not be compared to the things I brought up in this topic. I doubt the matchmaking system trying to join me into a game that ended before I got to play is something that is supposed to happen. Instead, what happened to me was likely an unintended failure of the matchmaking and join in progress systems. I think if such failures can be avoided with no or even minimal impact on the rest of Destiny's players then it should be avoided.

I think the system works exactly the way you described it to Cruel above. Any fix I imagine to the problems you describe regarding Join in Progress I see as potentially introducing other problems. Sometimes the system yields suboptimal results, but I'm pretty sure it's working as intended.

locked

1762 views

Back to the forum index

RSS Feed of thread

DBO Forums

Another Plea To Bungie, Re: Join In Progress Sanity (Destiny)