Call of Duty Black Ops 4 General Discussion Forum

First I need to address an important bit of information before I make this post: Not only am I not and expert, I do not own and have not owned BO 4 and I have not played Black ops 4 in any online matches, and while yes I have played other COD games and Black ops 3, I don't actively have or play BO 4, so this concern could have been dealt with already, or this is a rare extreme case that I am addressing- that being said, I have noticed a flaw in the BO 3 that seems to still be prevalent in BO 4 and that is the match making system, however I also want to address the fact that there is an inherent in both the ideal solutions and (what I THINK is) the current system. I will get to that later.

 

Let me start by linking a video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zpjBkuARz0

You get the idea, watch it all the way, then look at it more carefully, etc. I'm going to try my best to save everyone some time because trust me I can babble forever.

What I want to make note of i not his play style, if he's spawn camping/rampaging or not, blah blah blah, this is not intended to criticize him not paying enough attention to player levels throughout the match (unless he pointed it out in what could have been cut out or could be lag between 8:29 - 8:31) and that might affect how he perceived blah blah blah he could have honestly just not have noticed or didn't think to check blah blah blah, I am not trying to criticize him and feel no malice, he as a person is not the point (don't harass him)- think of him purely by his level, which albeit it yes, isn't a 100% best way to categorize but in this case, his experience seems to be equivalent to his level. Proper actions players should take is an entirely different action to begin with.

At around 8:26, you can catch a flash of the current players, but keep in mind, this is the only time I saw the team levels. Also, people have joined and left the game over time and unless someone, on playstation, can find the missing and additional players and knows their levels before the video was released, this is the best I have. Now assuming that no one is smurfing (An experienced player using an alternate lower level account/ someone else's account), let's take the player levels at face value of their levels and find sums and averages. If you organize the players by their levels, you notice something off:

129 to zero Player levels (organized by in decending order).PNG

The levels on the opposing team are consistently lower than the levels of the other team. Now I'm not a certified expert on the level of impact lower level players can have, if they happen to be naturals, etc. again take it at face value here- Even if we removed our boi from the equation, we are left with a player imbalance though the levels of both teams become closer in sum, and the average becomes more reasonable, the impacts of a 5 v 6 are not as great as similar circumstance than a 4 v 5 or a 3 v 4 but it is greater than a 6 v 7 or 7 v 8, though I don't know team size limits in ground warfare for BO 4 and again, I haven't played online in the game so I cannot judge the level of impact the player imbalance would have, or if would even matter as much due to levels, etc. Let's say we remove the highest level person on the opposing team. This again, has a couple flaws and I can't accurately theorize of the effects of removing other players, however we are currently only looking at face value of player levels. What we are left with then is a dramatic shift in the results. {side note: I would have posted the data in appropriate chunks in order, but I am not trying to make a post so long that if you printed it out on one long sheet of paper, you could have it perforate and use it to wipe for a month. There are the risks of people skimming and cherry picking and etc, I don't care} But even when we do this, the same pattern emerges, and at face value, this didn't seem like a fair fight at face value, but I'm gonna stop here because there are 2 major topics that still need to be addressed at this point.

 

How does the player match making system of BO 4 work? It could be set up to have a variety of levels in semi equal proportions and then randomize whose on what team with or without restrictions (without restrictions is a bad idea for obvious reasons) to how many high and low level players are on each team, It could be completely random, and it is probably completely random, and or it could be based on optimizing to have the lowest ping, It could be the same as BO 3, etc, etc. The disadvantages to completely random have been well noted for many years in most games, so what about a "more ideal" system. Well the system couldn't successfully do it by matching players of the same level in the current leveling system  because it becomes apparent how ludicrous it would be to try it after thinking about it for around less than 5 minutes- but if the level system were to be redesigned, that might work, but the risk is making the levels too broad, everything might as well be tier based.

 

Well let's consider 2 broad options; Making sections or gradients

 

If players were divided by level category, then players could work their way up and get to higher and higher and more seasoned opponents, right? The setbacks would be the players at the bottom of each group might be outmatched against the players that are about to go on to the next groups in the lower to lower middle level groups (I'm not comfortable with using the term tiers- it doesn't seem to be the appropriate word) and for a while the players at a higher levels might not have enough people and people at or near the top wouldn't have many people to go up against, in turn, there's a risk people getting bored and leaving, and the game not being successful, this is, of course, assuming the matchmaking system was like this from day one. This could potentially be remedied by starting out with a system of randomness and then applying this system, though it depends on the success of the game. This could also be solved by having either just 1 to 3 groups of high level players (I would include the distinction 'prestige', but I don't know if that is a thing in BO 4) but that could create the same issue the low level groups would be facing. even before these remedies, the game could take a major hit if a sequel come out and takes a majority of the players leaving a lot of player deficiencies. I should have mentioned this sooner, but not all players are going to be ready to move on, but what if players were allowed to stay until however long until they are comfortable to move on? This can be abused, and players might stay just to keep the feeling of being on the top, or to brag... or both. What if there is a time/match limit? That is a good solution. All that would be left is to decide how long a player can stay before being pushed up.

What about having a gradient system? Having the players that are close in range of levels but not restricted by set groups would be actually be the best option... if it is a realistic system. What we don't know is how much work it would take to make a system that did that, especially due to the number of players that want to play. There can be deficiencies that can't be compensated for in numbers of players, especially if the system started with a general preset ideal way to match players in a way similar to but not the same as the sections system, and again, this could possibly hurt the game if a sequel come out and takes a majority of the players. This, however, isn't to say a sequel is a constant impending threat the whole time, it is only really going to be a problem when the sequel is announced to be released. There may end up not being a sequel at all, etc. What if it started from the middle and spread out? Well if it started from the middle and spread out, a deficiency problem in the can ruin that as well. What if it started from the bottom and went up? What going down instead of up? Certain deficiencies and combinations can affect all three methods, and it might not be an immediate problem before or during the game's golden age, but it can once/ if people start playing less often (if this occurs and it will eventually, how long? who knows)

Not all player deficiencies are going to brutally ruin everything about the gradient system, and a system of total randomness are not as work and or are not weak in the same ways as the two previously extrapolated ideal systems, however there is something else that needs to be discussed.

 

This is all only looking at players at face value. This only judging them by their number. Once other factors are introduced, there are lots of problems that have the potential to grow exponentially, some of which can be solved by the players and in the case of the section system, could be addressed more often and successfully. What about smurfing, hackers and moders, the fact that a player's 'level' doesn't always accurately depict their level, the potential player toxicity. Remember the section system? One of the potential problems is a potential spike in players trying to use hacks and mods to win matches, or there could be a decrease in the number cheaters busted depending on the observations of what I'd assume are seasoned players. This being said, there could be hype for people who want to watch a match of high level players duke it out. Smurfs will do a lot more pain to the players whose levels are being used as a disguise because instead of having to wait and get lucky they would be getting handed to them what they want. Similar can be said for the gradient system, and if there are player deficiencies, the problem can be amplified. Smurfing is fine in a system of randomness; however, they are accepting the risk that someone might report them for cheating. It's when there is a system that filters players by level where smurfing poses as an actual risk. Not anyone who tries smurfing has hostile intent or is a try hard, and some players try it once for craps and giggles and they leave it alone. Another problem is parties. While parties can and are used for people who have been playing the game together for a while, there are also instances where people completely different magnitude of levels are together, and what is the section system supposed to do. There are many different scenarios to go through, and I don't know how often parties like this are in BO 4. Also, how would the 'ideal' systems work in black out? There are so many factors that have to be excluded that are really important when looking at face value level. There are a lot of other potential problems that could arise that didn't make it into this and there is probably stuff I couldn't imagine, but there are possible benefits that can arise if they were to be carefully deployed now that BO 4 has had a decent amount of time out in the water, and consulting the community could definitely help, and there is a risk that depends on what ideas are suggested, how far they are thought out, etc, and that's all dependent on, if in the future, these alternatives could There other problems with a system of randomness has that I didn't mention, but I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that we are all familiar with them all too well.

 

But where does this leave me at in all this?

 

Well considering that this is also marked as a support question, it should be clear my intent is to get everyone's attention with this. Even if this never gains any attention in the community, I want someone who might look at it. Now this someone could get someone else's attention to this post that might be able to do anything, leave a response, share it etc, or the someone who sees it could very well be someone I need to see it, I digress.

 

What if there is a broader sort of approach to the gradient system; rather than completely changing the system, say, make it so that (excluding black out of course) it there is at least some regulation of what players are matched together. If there are prestige ranks, maybe not have master prestige 8 be put in the same match (at least not on the opposing team) of someone who is level 5 without at least there be an attempt to keep the matches somewhat more reasonable. What I'm suggesting could be harder than I think it is, I don't know how a filter would be set up. They idea is trying to decrease the number of times a low to midlow player from facing what they might think is Satan incarnate. Something to avoid is booting people out of lobbies because they are too high or low, but like try to have make so that when someone is joining a lobby that they sorta/ fit in. That isn't to say that a low level player should never play against someone of nearly esports championship level of skill entirely, because a players can learn from that. Just a little regulation would be splendid.

 

Now after all this I could be posting for something that may have already been taken care of or improved, but I at least wanted to get this out there.

Doomnitrox
Likes: 0
Posts: 6
Registered: ‎18-03-2019
17 REPLIES 17

Level is not a measure of skill, it's time played.  Prestiging is a choice, but doing so or not doesn't affect skill level.  Level should have zero impact on matchmaking or team balancing.

the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a LIE.
Q39ESM Level 75
Likes: 2384
Posts: 4099
Registered: ‎17-12-2014

I agree, but just what information do they store/ track and use to sort player if they improve the system? I guess one bit of information could be how long has someone been at the max level required before prestiging... I don't know, it's what the developers decide to look at, not mine, so I tried to think in the most basic terms as possible. I did say that there were a lot of factors that I didn't mention, but I should have mentioned that instead glossing over it.


@Q39ESM wrote:

Level is not a measure of skill, it's time played.  Prestiging is a choice, but doing so or not doesn't affect skill level.  Level should have zero impact on matchmaking or team balancing.

Doomnitrox
Likes: 0
Posts: 6
Registered: ‎18-03-2019

There are already stats like spm, just the level is completely irrelevant towards measuring skill.  Matchmaking should be connection based, what you're talking about is team balancing once the lobby is made.

 

After accounting for the difficulties presented by parties that can't be broken up and people dropping the moment their team is down by 5, the two hardest questions are:

 

1) What stats do you use to try and form take that will have a competitive game, with how much weight given to each one?

 

2) How do you use stats achieved in one game mode to determine skill in a different game mode?  Having a good k/d in TDM doesn't mean you're useful in Dom.

 

 

the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a LIE.
Q39ESM Level 75
Likes: 2384
Posts: 4099
Registered: ‎17-12-2014

So, there is a skill based match making. If I'm wrong correct me. But there is a skill based match making system which people are actually complaining about because they want to play against easier people. What I believe is happening is that there is a background recording (not literal video recording) of your stats and skill during multitude of games. Then when you get into a lobby, the game tries to account for your skill based on recent matches and organize everyone on either of the two teams to make it as even as possible. For example, 2 good players and 4 bad players on one team and 1 exceptionally good player and 5 bad players on the other or whatever it may be. The problem with this is that sometimes a "good" player would have an off day or game and just play poorly. This of course happens a lot more than you know. Sometimes I go 64-1 but sometimes i go 20-23. It is just a off game which seems like the match making is messed up. I think what we have is fine. If less people rage quit, the better the system works in balancing the teams. Hence, in the video you showed, a bunch of "noobs" came into the lobby. We also have to take notice that he is playing with a party which is even harder to balance. They are all communicating and coordinated. This makes it hard to put in new people without pausing the game. So as a temporary solution, they need to add anyone they have to place hold. People quitting is the problem. It is hard to balance against premade teams anyways. The game would have to look for other premades or try to fill the lobby with "good" players. But that's rarely the case since we don't have an unlimited amount of people playing BO4. And even if this didn't exist, an idea of match making based on level is terrible. Imagine a "bad" player grinding to 9th prestige but not learning as fast as others, he would then be forever stuck in a lobby full of "good" players while he is not. Vice Versa can happen too. I am not master prestige, I am prestige 8 level smt smt. But I still get matched AGAINST master prestige and can still beat them. I am not trying to brag but it could be them having an off day or simply grinding the game way more than me. You still get EXP even if you don't do well or win.

wyattpham
Likes: 15
Posts: 33
Registered: ‎29-07-2018
There's nothing to brag about because MP means nothing apart from they've prestiged every time they've reached that level
BettySwollax
Likes: 1115
Posts: 1932
Registered: ‎08-11-2018

Now that you mention it, cod games tend to propose the question Did you enjoy the match...,yes no skip, and the problem with that is the fact that it is hard to tell when someone like me accidently pressing one by accident rapidly or me so annoyed immediately no or yes, cases where I don't answer right away, etc. My memory might be wrong about BO 3, and I don't know if it is asked in BO 4, but even asside from that, yes, that could (not saying that to delegitimize, I'm just not certain because again, I don't know) be the system in place. There has been a lot of time for the dev.s to refine the match making system. A mistake I made was describing a system of complete randomization rather than suggesting that has some paramaters/restrictions. The thinking behind my choice was to address it how people who might be thinking in outrage and short stopped at completely random because of the number of people I have seen or heard remark that the system is broken because there are a bunch of high level players fighting low level players. I completely forgot to mention that he was in a party, and I should have mentioned parties and you did an amazing job of describing the problems parties have. I agree, matchmaking based purely on level would be terrible, but I had to force myself to stay in a narrow window because, again, I was going through what people who think it is souly based on level would propose as a solution. My proposal wasn't meant to be in that same window, but it was under the idea that while, yes prestige is a choice, leveling up is not so, and unless people are ruining their KD intentionally at around 3/4 of the way through a match after sluaghtering 3 dozen people (though I don't know if there is code that tells the game to treat deaths due to suicide or falling of map and being killed by another player are treated differently other than 1 point to "gryffindore"), as you said, they are going to progress through levels whether they like it or not, even factors such your explanation of player level progression, and the unaccounted for fact people play other games, or they take a break, or they sparsely play and rise gradually in level(blah blah blah), etc have to readjust to playstyle and controls, and even going back and forth between zombies and regular multiplayer can mess with a person's head, and the numerous other interferences that should or need not be mentioned, but not all of it is considered and factored for because of there is so much to consider, however, I did make a mistake in my thinking that isn't represented and that is not thinking of factoring in prestiging and considering systems that do have to deal with prestige, and that not everyone immediatly prestiges as they want to finish camo requirements, challenges, etc, which can exponentially change things. I know linking that video and only one video would be enough for a full on discussion, but rather it was, in a way, a trigger, but not in the blind "Look, noobs fighting pros", it was comments like the that of 'khalooosh' made that was my jumping point because while yes there are many factors to consider, there are players that are represented by their level, and there are certain major playstyles to consider- most namely how much a player treats/cares about where opponents spawn. There are players that run around the map in genocidal bliss, but either don't care where the enemies spawn and slaughter away, target enemy spawns, there are people who try to get behind the enemy and ambush them and blah blah blah, player tactics compared to their ettequites morals and attitudes, written by noone- it doesn't exist. A player not even prestige 1 (somewhat regardless of experience, I mean obviously it depends) can crush a mp 12 based on not just what you mentioned, but digital sportsmanship. (For the record I am NOT suggesting that you are doing that. This is in no way in refference to or attacking when you mentioned winning against master prestige). It can go without saying that it can be hard to judge whether someones who raids/camps enemy spawns is smurfing, or is just effectively killing players that don't watch replays (although there are so many different possiblities that would take forever to mention and I think it's safe to assume the idea is gotten)/ players that can't counter/ or have time to react. This is excruciatingly true for tiny maps, though Idk if BO4 has any. And there are other ways that can result in a low level player can crush a high level player. The biggest complication is how to judge not just level, not just experience, but what you mentioned, learning, and it doesn't help that a person's health and body and hands, blah blah blah can skew things as well. People leaving is also an major complication that is I fealt I didn't need to touch base on because it's not hard to imagine how different players of conflicting amounts of experience and level can affect matches as well, and, as you mentioned, rage quitting doesn't help things either. Your response is amazing, thank you for doing so. There are probably other things I'm forgetting to address or consider or factor, and that I'm wrong about, or things I shouldn't have glossed over. Again I don't know what the system is actually is and I'm not a certified expert.

 

[edit]: Also I don't know if I mentioned this and I am too tired to read through again, but while yes, player still earn experience points after not doing well or losing, if all they did was lose and not do well, they would level up at a snail's pace and if they are unnaturally persistent or have played from day one, then would would problems arise, but I think that scenario isn't a big concern, however I can see concern for if someone levels up after consistently losing often, though that there is a can of worms that, if you want you can start because at the time of this edit, I am ready to fall over.

Doomnitrox
Likes: 0
Posts: 6
Registered: ‎18-03-2019

Level  says nothing about skill.

For a skill based match maker how do you determine skill?

In domination I rather have a player that caps and defence the flags than a player that only goes for kills.

 

 

Matchmaker should be connection based at first. So everybody can play normally 

Roll the dice. Life is a gamble
GRaS is OP. Green Stars are OP
SaND get's everywhere
dtuchpunk Level 75
Likes: 4264
Posts: 14611
Registered: ‎09-06-2011

*reads the first line

yeah, I know

*reads the rest

That's what I've been thinking it is- I've been saying a system of randomness, but it have been mistake of separating it as like a possible option. But that's just it- in only worrying about lowest ping and/or who connected first and/or yada yada yada, you end up having what is essentially random match ups. It would be a bad idea not to factor in connection. I treated connection like a side of fries even though it is a part of the main dish because I don't have enough knowledge and certainty to hypothesize how it's done; what I have more certainty in is that there is a high chance that it is a major part of it. And since BO 4 has black out, I wouldn't even know where to begin to process that one because I would have to consider if the servers seperate, or blah blah blah. Maybe I shoould have specified that my argument is that is shouldn't be purely connection based with certain....*sigh* I don't know. I could have worded that better

Doomnitrox
Likes: 0
Posts: 6
Registered: ‎18-03-2019

Let the Devs figure out a connection based matchmaker first.

As your skill/stats can be heavily influenced by lag.

 

And than even in tdm not just one stat says skill.

A player that camps each game in a back corner and avarage goes 5:1.

Great kd. Not much help.

A player that well avarage just 1:1 but gets at least 3 UAVs in a game and destroyed scorestreaks.

That player has better skill.

Roll the dice. Life is a gamble
GRaS is OP. Green Stars are OP
SaND get's everywhere
dtuchpunk Level 75
Likes: 4264
Posts: 14611
Registered: ‎09-06-2011

Studios