I found a solution for people vs arenas with the new system.

Not so sure about this PvP matchmaking system... they haven't fixed PvE in 2 years. We got the ability to choose multiple instances. We got deserter lockout and instance lockout. We got kick, but that's not really a queue thing. They took away kick and instance lockout for PvP. PvP got auto-kick (which PvE could use). PvP got Suicide Squad / Task Force X. Now we have criteria-based PvP queues, but we still can't get balanced groups.

Not necessarily.

They do not want equal match making. Think about it. Here is an example with say a rating of 1 to 7 with 7 the best and lets just say it works like a bell curve, which I wager it does:

7 = 1% players
6 = 14% of player
3-5 = 68% of players
2 = 14%
1 = 1%


Say 100 people are q'ing up during the course of 4 hours for 5 v 5, with the top 15%, or 15 people, who are above average in 3 seperate premades... So it would like this:

• #1 team vs #2 team (1 wins)
• #3 team vs #4 team (3 wins)

• #1 vs # 3 (#1 wins)
• #2 vs top average team (decent pugs) (#3 wins)
• #4 vs top average team (decent pugs) (# 4 wins)

• #1 waits a round
• #3 vs #4 (#3 wins)
• #2 vs top average pug team (2 wins)
• #1 vs # 3
• #2 vs #4

Rinse and repeat.

This would mean that the top team would more then likely never see any team other the the 2nd - 4th best premade and be waiting for matches. And for the most part every body would be like pretty close to 50/50 win ratio with the exception of the very best and very worst. Thats is NOT going on... there are people loosing 20+ in a row and others winning 20 + in a row or other forms of very slanted records like 20-5 and 5-20. Why?


They do not want fair or equal match making, if they did they would have made it that way.

Or they've just broadened/combined the top 2 and bottom 2 tiers so that this kind of thing doesn't happen at either end of the scale.

Who really knows. I surely don't.

Yes that is exactly it. Which basically means if your are an average premade or good pug player your "reward" is having to face the best possible premades 3 or 4 times for every 1 even match. And the inverse which has the poorer teams face the worst players 3 or 4 times for every 1 time they face a better team.

Works awesome for the not quite the worst players, the average player and the elite teams... but it screws the hell out of the above average premades or the really good pug players who are not at the elite stock piled soders and pvp bombs premade with the perfect role ratio and everything down on chat level. Because as I said they will face those top teams 3 or 4 times before getting to face equal team, If they did not the top teams would either always face each other or not have an team to fight and very very long ques.


Build the system for the elite... take care of the average and poor and screw the hell out of the hard working middle to upper middle class. Hell SOE could run the US government with their system, hell maybe they read the same how to destroy something great manual.

Just have separate queue for premade and pug... problem solved.

I pretty much give up at this point.. the devs clearly aren't doing a good job at implementing an ELO matchmaking system and making DCUO PvP competitive on the level of every other game using these systems. I'm just biding time till wildstar releases as their developer dialog and stance on pvp has already blown this dev team out of the water and they are only now starting beta.

Going 20-5 in 25 matches (or 5-20), even if we assume you were already at the appropriate rating (which a LOT of players probably aren't, especially since the huge gear entry barrier just got removed) and thus should have a 50/50 chance of winning each match, is 2 standard deviations from the mean. That's unlikely, but not astronomically so. For players whose rating was far from the rating they "should" have given their skill and gear, a very skewed win/loss record isn't even unexpected.

Twenty wins or losses in a row is rather more extreme, but not necessarily implausible if the player's rating is still settling out. One should always be wary of reading too far into anecdotal evidence, but if it's widespread enough, that might indicate a problem.