"Skill-based" matchmaking

@knurd9369

I've been playing since a few months after launch. The aspect of not knowing how a given crew encounter is going to turn out will still be there. Even new/bad pvpers like to engage. That factor would not be gone. You would just experience it with people around your skill level. Would that not be more fun for pvp players? Going against other good players? An actual challenge, an actual fight.

I think taking data of the pirates that have more ships they sink, player kills, time they take to kill each person, time chasing other boats, kegs used to blow up boats, cannon shots landed would give enough data to see who the sweats are.

I absolutely disagree with "disconnecting 'handing in loot' from 'progress/success'". You have fun doing voyages, taking on skeleton ships, crews, etc, but not being able to hand in the loot you spent maybe 1-3-5 hours collecting (im guessing that's the minimum that's the average time per session) is absolutely going to ruin the fun and the mood for most people. A lot of people don't get to play that often either. Yeah you had fun doing the PvE stuff, but you have more fun in the fact that you're going to make some gold so you have get a nicer ship set, outfit, equipment, etc.

Did I have fun finding and digging up treasure and defeating skeletons? Yes.

Why does losing that treasure afterwards detract from the fun you had? Because you are excited about selling the loot you spent so long getting to get cosmetics you are working towards.

Why couldn't the battle be part of the fun? It can. It's never fun to know that you're going to be sinkable by 90%-95% of the players. Feeling like a fish in a barrel when someone that is very well experienced in Pvp locks onto you. Then it's "I spent x hours getting that loot so I can get x cosmetics, only for everything to be gone in a few minutes". I often have experiences where I can't even get through half a voyage without being blown to bits for 3 chests worth 10k total.

I'm not against pvp. I just think there should be a balance between those who can and can't. I like pvp games. I'm past my sweaty days but I'm pretty good at most. However, this is the only game I can let go and enjoy every aspect of. The graphics/art style are so pleasing to look at. The sound effects and music are soothing. The PvE is really enjoyable.

@jamie-irl9648

So in this case what would you define as skillfulness?

Player ships sunk. BAM, what a brainstorm. This is a topic about PvP, so PvP related numbers/commendations should dictate it (and no, not necessarily only player ships sunk)

And to expand on it - as in all the other ranked skill based games, either highest ranked crewmember dictates the rank of your crew, or the entire crew average is taken.

Yea, there would still be smurfing like in all the other ranked games, you can't completely avoid it. But it would still alleviate a good portion of PvP skill imbalance in the adventure mode.

@burnbacon

Someone learns something new does technically make them more skillful, but there would be a bracket along the spectrum of skillfulness for the skill-based matchmaking. That's my idea of it.

It does take long to play this game. Unless your goal is to make a maximum of 20k gold and get almost no company xp, then it won't. If you want to just run one level five emissary until you sell then get off, you'll be sailing for 30min to an hour at minimum. Then you have to either fight a boss, skeleton crews, dig up multiple treasures on an island, loot sunken ships, etc. Those take time. That's a long time.

What about when its 'Ruined" by a Crew who also don't play as much as you, but still attack other players because "Its part of the game" and they don't play non-stop, its there one day of the week to go full pvp. So....that argument doesn't work.

This argument DOES work. You kind of need to play a lot to get really skilled. Even if you're at a point where you don't get to play that often, but like to pvp when you do, you would do the same things, just in a lobby of other people with the same skill as you. It works..

No offense, but this last one is the dumbest take. Not all players are equal when it comes to pvp or pve. PvE by far is the easiest to get good at, however pvp is not. There are good pvpers and bad ones, mediocre ones and really skilled ones. There are a lot of skilled pvpers in the game that get to sink other people that spent a good amount of time doing voyages and quests for the pvp players to swoop in and steal it without breaking a sweat. But then I guess it's not fun to go up against someone your own size. Someone your own skill level.

@gosva5434

They couldn't even pull something similiar regarding HG so doing it full scale in the sandbox might not be achievable if we are being realistic.

If we're being realistic, it's already in the game, though it's more prioritizing waiting time over "skill".

Sadly SoT doesn't really have a metric by which the skill level of a player can be determined accurately.

The point of this post is well... to have a metric. Hence the suggestion.

Furthermore this would result in dividing the playerbase and cause servers to be empty.

And exactly how? o_o There are no empty servers, simply because the game is merging severs automatically when number of players drop, as it tries to reach max of 6 per server. Whether you have 500 or 5k active players, it doesn't matter.

Due to this, "empty servers" is a myth that's not valid at all. You may not be running into players either due to bad luck or cuz they're good at hiding. But really no such thing as empty servers in SoT.

And in regards to "dividing", the only thing it would change is priority. The game should first try to match people closest to similar PvP ratings, which doesn't warrant you wouldn't get wrecked by some better skill PvP crew, in case servers can't find a crew near your skill.

If you have ever played Rocket League, Fortnite, or basically any other SBMM game you'd know this is how the things work. And yes, it can be implemented. Not saying easily, but it can be, obviously.

@r3vanns said in "Skill-based" matchmaking:

@jamie-irl9648

So in this case what would you define as skillfulness?

Player ships sunk. BAM, what a brainstorm. This is a topic about PvP, so PvP related numbers/commendations should dictate it (and no, not necessarily only player ships sunk)

And to expand on it - as in all the other ranked skill based games, either highest ranked crewmember dictates the rank of your crew, or the entire crew average is taken.

Yea, there would still be smurfing like in all the other ranked games, you can't completely avoid it. But it would still alleviate a good portion of PvP skill imbalance in the adventure mode.

@Gosva5434

SoT doesn't have a large enough playerbase for servers to be consistently filled with enough players.

You people can't make up your mind :D Just the other week someone bragged about SoT having constant 5k active players, and other forum members backed them up, when someone casually dropped a bomb on how the game is dying with a lack of players.

And that was even BEFORE new PSN fish swum in.

So you wanna tell me there's not enough players and metrics to gauge? Please. The only question here is if Rare wants or doesn't want to spend resources on it. Nothing more.

@burnbacon

One day two players are equal "skill" but once one learns something new, that one is more 'skillful' so you be alone.

Yea, so he stays in place until he learns it as well. In the meantime he fights someone who also doesn't have that "skill", while being in the same bracket as he is. That's what SBMM is there for.

Only if you make it. Its the players who make it short or long.

With this I do agree.

What about when its 'Ruined" by a Crew who also dont play as much as you, but still attack other players because "Its part of the game" and they dont play non-stop, its there one day of the week to go full pvp. So....that argument doesnt work.

What are you talking about? xD He didn't mention his day being ruined by losing in a same-skill PvP battle. He mentioned it sucks losing 3-4h of progress getting ripped in few min by a far SUPERIOR crew. Why do you even mention another crew that doesn't play non-stop? It's totally irrelevant here, especially if that crew is far more skilled. We're talking about skill gap, not difference in how much CURRENT play time weekly a crew has. Nonsense.

High Seas, but then again. there are not such thing as "sweaty players that pvp" They are all equal Pvpve players.
Not one or the other.

Yea, no. No sweats in HG? Maybe Yes. Cause that's a dedicated PvP mode.

But egomaniac streamers and non-streamers doing ONLY PvP in ADVENTURE, especially those who seek new/less experienced players? They need not napkins, but a shower for all the sweat. Lol.

EDIT: and just to clear things up one more time - I got nothing against PvPvE aspect in the adventure. As long as it's fair and balanced. And SBMM should help at least a bit with that.

@gosva5434

What happens when there is a duo sloop with 700hours combined for both players and a brig with 700 as well. Do we consider it even or should the brig be put in a higher tier due to the fact that they are three people? Or lower because each one individually has less hours?

Actually, I didn't think about this at all. You do make a fair point there. o_o just this alone is a problem indeed.

I mean yea, different ships different benefits but still.... can't ignore number of players if the skill is equal on both sides.

For HG still might be refined. But yea, for entire sandbox, I admit that I'm not even sure anymore how could they pull it off, even with high active player numbers.... Great points there.