Jump to content
Dante Unbound: Share Bug Reports and Feedback Here! ×

Railjack matchmaking needs to be by availability, not map node


(XBOX)KayAitch
 Share

Recommended Posts

Currently there are two ways to start a mission - from the map or from your Railjack, and in either case you pick a node and hope that others are trying for the same node.

This is all wrong, as (veil anomalies aside) we don't care which exact mission we run, what we want is a good team for this team-based mission type.

So, an idea - instead of picking a node (though you could still do that) you can join the Empyrian playlist for a Proxima, and get match-made with anyone looking in the same world.

In this new playlist you can pick a role: Pilot, Defence, Vanguard, and the matchmaking will try to build a team balanced with at least 1 of each. Anything you do as your specified role earns you 25% more intrinsics/loot. If you don't pick a role you get whichever one there is fewest of in the team assigned.

So, if you say you want to go Defence, any gunnery, repairs or engineering gets you 25% more. If you go Vanguard completing objectives and killing things in archwing gets you more, etc.

Obviously, some trolls will say Defence then head straight for the catapult, but just missing out on their own bonus XP.

This might also taxi you to a node you haven't unlocked yet, but where someone else has. This progress will only be within a Proxima, so it shouldn't be a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. If Railjack will continue to be this heavily team-focused, it's really going to need a proper matchmaking system. Warframe's matchmaking thus far has been positively primitive, just matching people together who happen to be playing on the same node. That sort of approach might work for specific combined tasks such as huntin Eidolons or opening Void Relics, but it's not going to work for Railjack where the specific node matters a lot less.

So yes, a matchmaking system where we can wait for a full team before starting, where players can pick their roles ahead of time and where matches can be put together from players across different nodes would be very welcome.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't want to have to alternately click on three different nodes in sequence until one of those clicks finally connects with a squad. Like, maybe instead of giving me a message about how you didn't find any of the 7 open squads you say are on this node, game, just like, wait thirty seconds. Because I am anyway.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, (XB1)KayAitch said:

If you don't pick a role you get whichever one there is fewest of in the team assigned.

And if the party doesn't get the perfect spread regardless,
there's a good chance host disbands party and comes here to talk about how it's broken.
Granted it would still be easier to make a new party match afterwards, so it's an improvement.
Joining by node may be less reliable for good parties, I'll give you that.

Curious what happens if you're looking for an off balance party for a specific strategy or playstyle.
Can you find that? Or will the matchmaking be, "I'm already Tracer," the playlist?

Maybe you list what roles you want first and have different lists to keep the core moving faster.
If that were the case, then the off-meta player lists would be forced into a containment section,
where they otherwise might have found and worked out in a team regardless of role density.
On-meta players would adore this.  "Isolate the losers, and make em' feel like losers with no friends
while you're at it." This would further bolster player sentiment to demand players do as host says
their role is, reinforced with letting them know how disposable they are, and that their personal
choice is a mistake, backed up by the game mechanics.

We have some of that now, but that would certainly help encourage it.
Overwatch is all about that.. and it's also a super toxic place to be despite it's success years ago.
Reason being, players are given an outlet to exert their will over another's choice for the sake of
brevity and efficiency.. which has both it's benefits in performance, and obvious issues as a fun
and inviting place to be for players of all sorts.

Seems to be that in the path to making things more reliable and efficient, real players and their
styles are the fat that gets cut.. and in setting up matchmaking by role density, that may be inevitable.
Imagine if you were halted from joining ESO because you weren't a Saryn, or a Saryn specific support.
Some folks would genuinely love that for how efficient and restrictive that is on variables and imperfect
playstyles.. and those people with imperfect playstyles would be marked for resentment and isolation,
encouraged in a subtle and inescapable way by the game.

I'd be incredibly hesitant to welcome a mechanic that culls us by style for matchmaking, if that's what
would be implemented to simplify things. It would also make it clear, "who the bad players are," by what
they enjoy.. and telling folks how to live knows no bounds, especially in a digital power fantasy.

There's every chance I'm not seeing the full intent of OP's idea and it's implementation, and is in no
way meant to say anything one way or the other about OP.
Far as I can tell, all they're looking for is better matchmaking.
All I mean to say, is to be very careful how, "better," is executed.
The impartiality of matchmaking has it's advantages; invite/friends only is still a work around..
and if the easier method culls casual players, we're on a slippery slope towards elitism.

Might be a catch 22.
Either way, I'm staying out of Railjack until the smoke clears.

Edited by kapn655321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the most efficient method for railjack right now is, letting 3 person to finish crewship/objective while massacring fighters with railjack,  and then when they finish those let them be gunner (last one will be amesha cc or engineer)

That "role" doesn't work at all, especially when engineer gain bonus affinities for repair while also getting fighter affinities from sharing, i don't even know how looting work for this.

At least let me choose "roles" i want instead of prefixed "balanced" roles, i don't like 3 other person getting less affinities or sacrificing efficiency of myself but still better than having useless engy or gunner that doesn't kill any crewships.

And well there is the time i want to go specific node (usually highest level for affinity or lowest level for drops), so it should be separate matchmaking instead of default matchmaking.

Ultimately recruitment chat is better anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. If they force roles into the matchmaking, it'll force groups into a configuration that will undoubtedly not keep up with the meta or be applicable for what everyone's looking for. It's a very non-Warframe way of doing things and people will just lie about their role and circumvent it.

Edited by CopperBezel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Test-995 said:

That "role" doesn't work at all, especially when engineer gain bonus affinities for repair while also getting fighter affinities from sharing, i don't even know how looting work for this.

Everyone gets affinity and loot except for crew ships and away team objectives. DE have said they're going to change that (which they have to if they want defence to be worthwhile).

1 hour ago, Test-995 said:

And well there is the time i want to go specific node (usually highest level for affinity or lowest level for drops), so it should be separate matchmaking instead of default matchmaking

Current nodes would still be there, this would be a new list - think like Strike playlists in Destiny.

2 hours ago, kapn655321 said:

And if the party doesn't get the perfect spread regardless,

I don't think this can make perfect team compositions, just make good ones more likely and reward PuGs.

22 minutes ago, CopperBezel said:

If they force roles into the matchmaking

Not force - the roles would offer bonuses, if you don't stick to them you just get the rewards you do now.

2 hours ago, kapn655321 said:

Curious what happens if you're looking for an off balance party for a specific strategy or playstyle

Same as you do now - make a party and then start the node.

If you want a team of all CC Ameshas for Intrinsic farming (or any other deliberately unbalanced comp) that's fine - you aren't going to find that in public matchmaking anyway and that isn't something this is trying to stop.

1 hour ago, Test-995 said:

Well the most efficient method for railjack right now is, letting 3 person to finish crewship/objective while massacring fighters with railjack

Really? I find leaving 1 person behind while waves of fighters hit the Railjack is a recipe for fail. Either 1 in the ship and 1 Amesha (slowing and killing fighters next to the ship) or that mod that makes the 'jack invisible.

Currently Amesha+Cyngas are much more effective than the ship's weapons, but I don't have any lvl 3 weapons to compare yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Cygnas has a longer TTK than the Cryophon MkIII on the one low-level mission I've taken my own railjack to. But all of my builds could be completely wrong. I was using an Imperator with mostly corrosive damage, some cold, until having the new damage types broken down for me and finishing up formaing up my Cyngas today, so I'm well behind the meta. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely agree with this idea. Would make Public matchmaking a little easier. It would suck for players who struggle with higher-level content, though...

I think at the least, make it so the Captain still specifically chooses the node, while the randos joining can join any node this way. This way we can still control our ability to progress through the nodes to the next Proxima.

10 hours ago, (XB1)KayAitch said:

In this new playlist you can pick a role: Pilot, Defence, Vanguard, and the matchmaking will try to build a team balanced with at least 1 of each. Anything you do as your specified role earns you 25% more intrinsics/loot. If you don't pick a role you get whichever one there is fewest of in the team assigned.

That's actually a good way to describe it. In fact, take it a step further: Pilot, Defense, Vanguard, Interceptor.

I've largely been against the idea of role selection when joining Empyrean content, but... I'm starting to come around to the idea, just because so far it's been a total clusterf***.

  • Pilot: Obviously driving the ship 90% of the time - sometimes helps with boarders, artillery, repairs in a pinch - makes heavy use of Tactical to support team
  • Defense: Handles boarders and repairs most of the time - uses side-guns/artillery when nothing else to do
  • Vanguard: Handles objectives first, crewships second, and then returns to ship to help Defense or Interceptor role
  • Interceptor: Handles crewships first, and otherwise focuses on defending the ship from outside - Amesha heal-bubble, pewpewing fighters, etc

I'm still hesitant on the idea of a "role selection" but by offering incentive to do your role, that would be a not-too-restrictive way to do it.

The ultimate problem, though, is how an ever-changing meta could be restricted by this. I'm not sure if Railjack "roles" will necessarily evolve much, but... they could. I think the roles as named above could at least be able to flow with the meta if needed.

8 hours ago, Test-995 said:

Well the most efficient method for railjack right now is, letting 3 person to finish crewship/objective while massacring fighters with railjack,  and then when they finish those let them be gunner (last one will be amesha cc or engineer)

People keep trying to get ahead of my Railjack to do exactly as you describe. I catch up to the objective while they're in the middle of it and help them out with the "radiators" from outside. Y'all won't get away with treating my ship as a glorified bus.

You're right that one person should be absolutely dedicated to taking out Crewships, however.

8 hours ago, Test-995 said:

And well there is the time i want to go specific node (usually highest level for affinity or lowest level for drops), so it should be separate matchmaking instead of default matchmaking.

I would say... offer this as an alternative matchmaking method that you can toggle in the UI.

8 hours ago, Test-995 said:

Ultimately recruitment chat is better anyway.

It always is. Less trolls that way. Less randos who don't know what they're doing. Can't change that no matter what system is put in place.

8 hours ago, Test-995 said:

That "role" doesn't work at all, especially when engineer gain bonus affinities for repair while also getting fighter affinities from sharing, i don't even know how looting work for this.

Well if I go by what I suggested in this reply... you'd get the bonus affinity/resources like having a partial booster applied, as in Relic missions, but specifically for being in the "right" place for your role.

Pilots and Defenders would get them for being on the Railjack. Vanguard and Interceptor would get them for being in Archwing, crewships, or galleons/asteroids (so, anything outside the Railjack).

Maybe 25% wouldn't be enough, though.

Edited by DrakeWurrum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, (XB1)KayAitch said:

Really? I find leaving 1 person behind while waves of fighters hit the Railjack is a recipe for fail. Either 1 in the ship and 1 Amesha (slowing and killing fighters next to the ship) or that mod that makes the 'jack invisible.

Currently Amesha+Cyngas are much more effective than the ship's weapons, but I don't have any lvl 3 weapons to compare yet.

Well there is 60 seconds of invincibility for every hull breach, and we got 150k+ EHP with maxed gears, as well as 10 lives from the 300 revolite, and also additional 40second invincibility for breach quanta.

It's plenty enough to keep ship alive, and railjack have lot of tools to kill fighters (3 battle avionics, a gun and a ordnance, also better mobility) with just pilotseat, we might need an amesha to cc them, but ultimately that's not "needed" when we compare it to the importance of crewships/objective.

Not really sure about DPS, didn't leveled things that much and collected much of AW gun mods. 2 to 6 shot with cryophon and 1 to 2 with seeker, both depends on crit.

6 hours ago, DrakeWurrum said:

People keep trying to get ahead of my Railjack to do exactly as you describe. I catch up to the objective while they're in the middle of it and help them out with the "radiators" from outside. Y'all won't get away with treating my ship as a glorified bus.

You're right that one person should be absolutely dedicated to taking out Crewships, however.

I think that can be done with just 2 archwing, but it wouldn't be much of difference since fighters will follow railjack anyway.

Quote

Well if I go by what I suggested in this reply... you'd get the bonus affinity/resources like having a partial booster applied, as in Relic missions, but specifically for being in the "right" place for your role.

Pilots and Defenders would get them for being on the Railjack. Vanguard and Interceptor would get them for being in Archwing, crewships, or galleons/asteroids (so, anything outside the Railjack).

Maybe 25% wouldn't be enough, though.

Problem is, "right place" changes, you only need a person to do amesha's 3 once you finish all the objective/crewship, but untill then you need one or two persons to kill crewships asap, and also one or two person to finish objective.

Turret is only useful with conjunction of amesha's 3, they almost always does worse than pilot due to the fact they can't control ship.

 

Edited by Test-995
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DrakeWurrum said:

I'm still hesitant on the idea of a "role selection" but by offering incentive to do your role, that would be a not-too-restrictive way to do it.

Even that would need to be done with some foresight. You don't want a situation where the incentives for one role are so easy to fulfill that everyone picks it for an easy bonus, but to avoid that, you'd need to get into the weeds with what activities correspond to which roles in such a way that you'd risk micromanaging strategies or incentivizing suboptimal play for a particular player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...