EPTStarCraft: Remastered Developer Update 3 - Page 6
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
| ||
|
hyfrehyfre
Bolivia92 Posts
So..you press "RANK 2v2" and you will join the room that is closest to your P2P network PERIOD, no questions asked... now there are a few things here... For the people playing the "free version" lets say the created a Top vs Bottom game in Fighting Spirit, they will see you joining their channel but with a different color, free people wont be able to "kick" you once you joined, you purchased Remastered anyways, and now they are playing vs someone that is playing a RANK game. I hope this concept is understood. In other words, people that create 2v2, top vs bottom, they will create a game and AT ANY TIME a Rank player might join their game and they will have no way to kick him, if the close the game the RANK player will just see a player leaving. What the system is doing is searching for players, even those that are playing in a private game. Now... you can also "assemble" teams, this works by being "invited to a team" or by "creating your own team", you can have as many teams as you like. Once a team has gotten a certain number of wins it will appear in the "Team Ladder List". Now this teams can be OFFLINE (no player from that team is online), ONLINE-INCOMPLETE (some players of that team are online, or maybe some are playing a game right now), ONLINE (All players of that team are in lobby connected and not playing a game) Also there are 2 states: OPEN (The team is opened for challenge at ANY time), CLOSED (This team doe snot want to receive challenges). Quick about "who decides the state of the team?" easy... you have to options when you create a team you can set 2 options, "leader team" or "Equality team", in the first only the creator or other person assigned by the creator manages the "state of the team", and in equality anyone can turn this triggers ON or OFF at any time. Once a tream has creater with a type it cannot be changed, and the tam will disappear if no activity is detected. In leader the man/girl in charge can kick anyone or invite anyone at any time, in Equality there is a secret vote system. You can obviously assign a logo, channel etc... but only after a x number of games where all the players in the team where connected and playing. A team can be flagged as "weak connection".. nobody can see this flag but the people that are in the team, so they can choose to find a partner with better connection. If the people in a team keep pushing the formula even despite they being flagged as "weak connection" between them, they will get loses as a team when disconnected vs another team that has a "5 star connection quality". About the "Team Ladder List", you search for teams in the "team ladder section", this list will always show you in the main page the teams with the P2P network that is more "stable" to you. If you search for a team in Korea, and you are in Peru, the system will warn you the game being lag and unstable. Now back to RANK When you press RANK all by yourself without a team there are 2 options running in the background "create new room" or "search for room", you cant actually choose this options, the system searches the p2p network directory for you, if they are (ONLINE & OPEN) it chooses that team and open a room, this is where your Team MMR will try to search someone "compatible" with your game level, and always try to set you with people that are better than you. i say "try". When searching solo for TMM you can join a room that was waiting for players, or the game creates an empty room for you. As i said the priority is P2P network stability, so if you are in a country, or have a history of unstable connection you will be most likely send to an empty room. I you land in an empty room you can click an "empty slot" and send invite to your friend list. Also when a friend that is also in one of your teams JOIN a Team Rank game solo you will be notified, and click next to his portrait to join the game fast, or just use a command such as /jf . Now in the other hand you can visit your "Teams Channels" and see if a channel is ONLINE, PARTIAL or OFFLINE, also you can check ALL of your teams either in your profile or in the Team Ladder section. Once a team is selected you can click "assemble" and a message will be send tot he players... if only one joins (in a 3v3 game) then you can click START and you will have created a room a solo player or another team searching can JOIN !. Obviously all this describer "message" and "invitations" can be turned off at any time if you dont want to be bothered. -------------------- Now a few things about this... i would like seeing integrate "Team Speak" in the work, Blizz app voice chat is cool, but in TMM should also have a different system: Also if the "waiting time" is too long you should be able to search other modalities like 1v1 without leaving the room, once a game is found you will have seconds to click "leave room join 1v1 game". ------------ I hope peole actually read this... i know is complicated, but thats how i see it. Long story short, Team Match Making should be like a Social Network, you create or join a team, and then you can challenge other teams (if they wish to be open), you can also try Team Match Making SOLO. The algorithm will always prioritize P2P network stability over MMR, but will also try to keep the game fair. The point is to keep the waiting times LOW. If waiting times are TOO long you can click other options, and even search for private games, as soon as you join a private game or find a 1v1 game you leave the room. If by any reason after playing 1v1 the TMM room is still on you will be joined automatically there again. I would like voice chat to be a thing. People playing the free version that created 2v2, 3v3, 4v4 or top vs bottom games will see people with a different color and status they CANT KICK join their channel. Nothing they can do about it, if they want to avoid RANK players, they will have to create UMS. Polemic i know... ----------- As something extra i have been thinking about...there should also be a FFA ladder, you click FFA and you join a random map with a random set of peole that just want to have a QUICK GAME, waiting times should be LOW, and the map pool should be CRAZY but fair for FFa. --------- Another crazy thing to disccus another day is the fact that maybe you should have 2 different types of Team MMR: * Individual Team MMR * Shared Team MMR There should be bonuses for the people that survived, killed the most longer etc... even if you lose the match !!!, i am not saying that you will get "extra points" just that the points "subtracted" if you lose should be less. Also if the Team vs Team ELO is favorable they Individual Team MMR bonus should be more. | ||
|
Caphe
Vietnam10817 Posts
On December 26 2017 00:01 hyfrehyfre wrote: Honestly? the experience for 10 dollars or is it 15 back again after xmas? is VERY WORTH IT, i Think Blizzard hit the price tag for the value of the product. There are no difference in the "offline features" yet, but some exciting things are coming. About the "community" if you ask so is quite active, but its been going down lately last weeks, you probably already missed where there was a bunch of streamers on Twitch, though AfreecaTV is very active as always, and you will always find at least 2 streamers on Twitch, very nice people all of them. Now the grinding is horrid, you will lose a lot, there is not many "new blood" if you will, they are there trying to learn, but most of them leave after being punched in the nuts by people that actually know the game. Is a harsh game to RANK that's for sure... But at the end is 100% worth it for the price, the lag is a tremendous problem, but is got fixed A LOT in last weeks, and better things are coming. Thanks mate. Already bought the game yesterday, the sale is still on. For 9.99 it's tremendous value actually. Yeah, I would not expect many newbies, but that should not be a problem since I am not new either  .Just played 1 game yesterday and I already feel a strong draw that SCII had never had on me. | ||
|
Golgotha
Korea (South)8418 Posts
| ||
|
Golgotha
Korea (South)8418 Posts
Don't split them up. The ranking and points will gradually have at vs at, at the high end of the ladder. | ||
|
TT1
Canada10011 Posts
The discussion is whether or not we should split AT and RT. Assuming we don't (for matchmaking/queue reasons), what can we do to limit AT abuse (allies playing on lower MMR accounts to boost their friend up, i can see this being a big issue at the highest ranks) and deal with the inherent advantages that ATs have over RTs (race advantage, premade teams are in general stronger than RT players etc.). | ||
|
hyfrehyfre
Bolivia92 Posts
On December 26 2017 12:41 TT1 wrote: hyfrehyfre no offense but you suggest a lot of over-complicated stuff that has never been tested in either BW/SCR or SC2. You need to think of more realistic solutions, the dev team isn't gonna spend a year writing a new matchmaking system from scratch just for 2v2 when we already have 1 in place. If you want a simple "press and play classic room" no problem with it... but i think we deserve and actual team creation system, sorry if its convulsed but that's how it goes. All that i want at this point is BWAPI release for remastered personally. For Team Match Making they could easily just well...when you press RANK 2v2 open a private room and that's it... but do we really deserve that?. And with all do respect simple things don't make things better, at least not in this particular situation at least, you need to be able to have new stuff that better take half a year to make, quality over release time 100% ALWAYS, meanwhile we could have the simple "press and play". If you are fine with the more simple stuff well ok for you... i am not. I would hate the idea of Team Match Making just being well.... a remastered ladder over Top vs Bottom.... Imagine TMM being just that... a classic BW room with a new ladder system. NO THANKS. i want new stuff with Team Channels, logos, being able to kick people form the team you created or making it more democratic, create your own teams, have a global team MMR where you can farm points, etc... Lets see what they do, something tells me it will be just that, you press RANK 2v2 and you join a room and wait people to join, you can invite people and that's it... lets hope NOT. That would be lazzy honestly for a product that has to live over 15 years in the future. Dont be simplistic TT1, be realistic as you say. And also before i forget, about Random Team or Arranged teams i already answered that, as a matter of fact i just said that. Did you read?. If you press RANK 2v2 solo you join a team that has already opened a game room, they cant kick you, the algorithm will try to match someone of your level, but is not garantee. It always prioritizes P2P network stability. You can also create personalized teams and join or create rooms. Your team has an MMR, and you have an individual MMR for Team Match Making, 100% different from your 1v1 MMR. Lets NEVER combine 1v1 and Team Match Making MMR, horrid. Added to this, voice chat, being able to search for games without leaving the room, and people playing the free version will always be joined automatically. You get bonuses by landing in a better place at the end of the game, it wouldn't be fair if you lose the same amount of MMR points because your friend "leaved the game" "was a noob" etc... this "calculation" is a mater of another discussion. Added to this if you WIN you get bonuses based on the Team MMR ELO. Maybe this was more easy to read, sorry i type things long. | ||
|
Golgotha
Korea (South)8418 Posts
On December 26 2017 12:41 TT1 wrote: hyfrehyfre no offense but you suggest a lot of over-complicated stuff that has never been tested in either BW/SCR or SC2. You need to think of more realistic solutions, the dev team isn't gonna spend a year writing a new matchmaking system from scratch just for 2v2 when we already have 1 in place. The discussion is whether or not we should split AT and RT. Assuming we don't (for matchmaking/queue reasons), what can we do to limit AT abuse (allies playing on lower MMR accounts to boost their friend up, i can see this being a big issue at the highest ranks) and deal with the inherent advantages that ATs have over RTs (race advantage, premade teams are in general stronger than RT players etc.). Sorry, should have sifted through the thread more. as for AT abuse, why not have a placement system like sc2? whenever you have a new AT partner, you and that partner play vs ranked teams to decide where they are placed in the ladder. this is what should decide initial mmr. you can't stop smurfing, but in this way, an AT team that is legit, can move onto the higher end of the ladder a lot quicker. | ||
|
TT1
Canada10011 Posts
On December 26 2017 13:20 Golgotha wrote: Sorry, should have sifted through the thread more. as for AT abuse, why not have a placement system like sc2? whenever you have a new AT partner, you and that partner play vs ranked teams to decide where they are placed in the ladder. this is what should decide initial mmr. you can't stop smurfing, but in this way, an AT team that is legit, can move onto the higher end of the ladder a lot quicker. We're mixing AT and RT MMRs. In SC2 AT and RT had separate MMRs, each AT team had their own page with their record/MMR. If we mix AT and RT there's only gonna be 1 leaderboard (like the 1v1 leaderboard). Playing AT games under this system just adds points to your account like it would if you were playing RT (solo queue 2v2) games. Also, say the top 2 players on the 2v2 ladder are 4K MMR. They both Q up for an RT game at the same time, if there's no one close to their MMR (in order to create a balanced game) would the system match them with like two 1.5k MMR players just to have "even" teams? Theoretically both teams would have even MMR but the game quality would be extremely bad, neither the high ranked nor the low ranked players would enjoy the game. | ||
|
Golgotha
Korea (South)8418 Posts
Thus you would have five placement matches against RTs or ATs with various mmrs (doesn't matter if it's all ATs in the placement or RTs, just make sure the placement matches have varying levels of mmr). after the five matches, you are given your initial MMR placement. sucks for hardcore RT guys since it will be much harder to get to the top via RT, but it's what we have to sacrifice to make do with what we got. | ||
|
TT1
Canada10011 Posts
On December 26 2017 13:52 Golgotha wrote: yeah just mix the mmrs under one leaderboard. don't separate like sc2. Thus you would have five placement matches against RTs or ATs with various mmrs (doesn't matter if it's all ATs in the placement or RTs, just make sure the placement matches have varying levels of mmr). after the five matches, you are given your initial MMR placement. sucks for hardcore RT guys since it will be much harder to get to the top via RT, but it's what we have to sacrifice to make do with what we got. Anyway you look at it the system won't be fair for RT players. The smurf account with a high lvl AT partner is gonna cruise to 5 wins and get a big MMR boost. The RT player is gonna have to struggle and grind way more. On top of that i don't see that system deterring a high MMR player if he really wanted to lower his MMR to get easier games/points, it would just be a bit more time consuming. Maybe we can tell the system to prioritize searching for AT vs AT games within an MMR range (i think it kinda works like this in SC2). If two similarly rated AT teams arent available (~300-500 MMR difference) the system could extend the search and match the AT team up vs RT players? And to avoid having extremely low MMR players ally high MMR players in RT vs RT games you'd need to cap the search range to like +/- 500 MMR (just a number off the top of my head). The system would prioritize pairing 4 players of similar MMR in a game, if 4 equally rated players aren't available the system would extend the search by increasing the MMR range (say after 120 seconds of search time), the cap would be +/- 500 MMR tho. It might take longer to find games if 4 players within 500 MMR aren't searching at the same time (especially if high ranked 2v2 players are searching for RT games) but at the very least you won't have mismatched games. If the queue time for the high ranked RT games is too long because the range isn't wide enough then just increase the MMR range (go to 1k max range instead of 500). | ||
|
disquieted
United States5 Posts
https://imgur.com/a/MwFIP | ||
|
TT1
Canada10011 Posts
| ||
|
Golgotha
Korea (South)8418 Posts
| ||
|
Golgotha
Korea (South)8418 Posts
On December 26 2017 14:07 TT1 wrote: Anyway you look at it the system won't be fair for RT players. The smurf account with a high lvl AT partner is gonna cruise to 5 wins and get a big MMR boost. The RT player is gonna have to struggle and grind way more. On top of that i don't see that system deterring a high MMR player if he really wanted to lower his MMR to get easier games/points, it would just be a bit more time consuming. Maybe we can tell the system to prioritize searching for AT vs AT games within an MMR range (i think it kinda works like this in SC2). If two similarly rated AT teams arent available (~300-500 MMR difference) the system could extend the search and match the AT team up vs RT players? And to avoid having extremely low MMR players ally high MMR players in RT vs RT games you'd need to cap the search range to like +/- 500 MMR (just a number off the top of my head). The system would prioritize pairing 4 players of similar MMR in a game, if 4 equally rated players aren't available the system would extend the search by increasing the MMR range (say after 120 seconds of search time), the cap would be +/- 500 MMR tho. It might take longer to find games if 4 players within 500 MMR aren't searching at the same time (especially if high ranked 2v2 players are searching for RT games) but at the very least you won't have mismatched games. If the queue time for the high ranked RT games is too long because the range isn't wide enough then just increase the MMR range (go to 1k max range instead of 500). I am sure you know better than I do on what is best. I am sure Grant and his team will choose the best course for us! | ||
|
disquieted
United States5 Posts
On December 26 2017 15:11 TT1 wrote: yea but i'm almost positive that AT vs AT is prioritized over AT vs RT in SC2, i've played a lot of SC2 team games I think it is too. I only posted that because it seemed like there was a bit of confusion. Might have read the thread wrong, probably have been up for too long.  | ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12240 Posts
On December 26 2017 08:14 ProMeTheus112 wrote: yes I know that the current doesn't do that, I was reacting to excalibur_z comment look, a perfect ladder isn't a ladder where everybody has 50% winrate, the point isn't to control players winrate, it is only to distribute points fairly and match you against close points, and then the players will determine winrates and rank if your point system is good, this is what will match people well, it's all that's needed basically, what I'm saying is mixed AT/RT would likely work real fine with individual ratings without any artificial convoluted bias. AT being a little stronger than RT, players will gain a little more points for being in AT, then they'll face stronger opponents and at the top of ladder you will have mostly AT players. That's fine and logical, since AT is pretty much the best way to play team games competitively, but the ladder ranks everyone not just the top... so its fine let's say that one race is imba. You don't want to bias the system to equalize the winrates. That race may dominate the top of the ladder. That's the normal result of the game, and it's fine. if you want to rank higher, use that race, or try harder with the others. etc from the RT player point of view, the point is to get games.. who cares that the opposing team is arranged if there are individual ratings already. If they are at this place on the ladder it's probably a good match. (cause the environment is mixed to begin with) factor in the population issue / clunky matchmaker => simple mixed ladder sounds best to me (not that everybody exclusively plays RT or AT) just saying, cause I'm seeing something coming I might not be interested in playing, even though I love some 3vs3. player-made games do better than a bad automatic matchmaker.. I think I understand where there might be some confusion. The matchmaker does not care about your win rate, and it doesn't try to influence your win rate. It has never done this, in SC2 or any other game. Let's say you're a 3000 player on a new 1500 account. The game will not put an easy win in front of you followed by an easy loss. The matchmaker has no way to predict that. It just matches you against similarly-rated players within a particular variance. If you keep winning all the way until 3000, maybe your win rate is 90%. The matchmaker is not going to consider you in "loss debt" and throw a bunch of 4k opponents your way to push you back to 50%. The entire time, the matchmaker has some degree of confidence that you belong at your current rating. So it just keeps trying to find fair matches the whole way. Eventually, you'll plateau at a rating where you'll win half the time -- that is, against other 3000s. So if your record upon reaching 3000 was 90-10, but now you're winning half your games, your record will go to 100-20, then 150-70, then 200-120, then 500-420... the point is that it will get closer to 50% the more games you play anyway. The only players who don't have 50% win rates under a functional matchmaker are the ones at the very top and the very bottom, because they're natural outliers. What I was saying before about the handicap is important because you're dealing with two distinct populations who have to be matched in the same pool. If you have a Random Team with a rating average of 1500 and an Arranged Team with a rating average of 1500, I think it's no surprise that the AT has the advantage. If you don't implement a handicap, then it becomes pointless to even match RTs against ATs because you're willingly handing an advantage to all ATs when you declare their ratings to have equal value. But their values aren't equal in reality. "1500" in RT means something different from "1500" in AT because it's easier to get to 1500 in AT. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On December 26 2017 13:42 TT1 wrote: Also, say the top 2 players on the 2v2 ladder are 4K MMR. They both Q up for an RT game at the same time, if there's no one close to their MMR (in order to create a balanced game) would the system match them with like two 1.5k MMR players just to have "even" teams? Theoretically both teams would have even MMR but the game quality would be extremely bad, neither the high ranked nor the low ranked players would enjoy the game. Honestly I have far less experience of 2v2 than 3v3, but in 3v3 this situation is common and makes really fun games. I know on 2vs2 the level of reliance on everything your ally does is so much higher and you get locked by it on your every decisions quite a lot more, but I'm not sure that's still a big issue. [to be fair one reason I rarely play 2vs2 is because it tends to lock and disadvantage more if there is a difference in skill between the two teams, but if you get a rating to equalize that i dont think its really a problem anymore.] You just have to shake your style depending on what the heck your ally does, and if you do well/better than the opposing team at that, likely you win and the game doesn't look like other games you might play at 4K+4K vs 4K+4K. Anyway this is sort of inherent of RT, also you can assume that if you are at 4K there would be people a little closer to your rating to match you with. Generally a point should be to make sure that the point system doesn't create unnecessarily large rating distance between players. The simple fact that there are ratings means that the system should be a really handy tool for playing a lot of fun games, and among these games the higher you go the more often you will be playing tough high skill "no nonsense" games with strong allies. I do believe highly rated RT players would enjoy playing against a highly rated AT team. The one imba composition is Z+Z afaik, which composition is really unwinning against this? can't you still have a chance playing Z+P or T+T or Z+T ? If you have rated really high in RT and want to go higher, you'll just likely start queuing with ally/allies more often. There is also a possibility of doing away with this auto-race pick by again, implementing a simple pre-game lobby where you can pick your race before the game starts (as it would also be good to have for 1vs1 for some people, but even more so for 2vs2 I guess). I mean there's nothing to implement, it's already there, just grey out the cancel button pretty much. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On December 26 2017 19:37 Excalibur_Z wrote: What I was saying before about the handicap is important because you're dealing with two distinct populations who have to be matched in the same pool. If you have a Random Team with a rating average of 1500 and an Arranged Team with a rating average of 1500, I think it's no surprise that the AT has the advantage. If you don't implement a handicap, then it becomes pointless to even match RTs against ATs because you're willingly handing an advantage to all ATs when you declare their ratings to have equal value. But their values aren't equal in reality. "1500" in RT means something different from "1500" in AT because it's easier to get to 1500 in AT. Ok well you see I think, it's not needed to handicap, because naturally the AT will rate higher, and the RT will rate lower, a little bit, and it regulates itself that way. It's like, let's say Z > P (^^), I don't want Z to have a rating handicap, that's not needed, they'll just naturally rank a little higher. The AT guys, if they play some RT games, would find it harder, that's normal. It's not a problem imo. The playing writes how many points its worth for every single player that they are on AT or RT. You can't decide in advance how much that's worth for everyone, so it's best to leave it neutral imo. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
i would tend to say it's not because the matchmaker isn't fast enough now for 1vs1 | ||
| ||
