|
btw i'll just throw this in here,
didn't war3 experience some kind of death after a while after sc2 came out?
is part of this due to the inefficiency of automatic matchmaking on a low population server?
is player-made games the superior system even for ladder? (mmmh, perhaps not, opponent picking)
+pre-game lobby is more natural, race pick, say hi // i suggest again just add a race pick 5sec before game start don't ignore those players who play different mus and also that's the normal rule if you play anyone out of ladder which ladder is meant to prepare you for also
also add a /draw
|
I think you are over complicating stuff... the RANK system/algorithm will ALWAYS prioritize first P2P network stability and waiting times, even if this means the game is unbalanced.
Now RANK will try to make games "Balanced" by taking all the Individual MMR of players adding them up and diving it by the number of players, then comparing. So if there is a team that is 3000 MMR and other that is 1500 MMR like Excalibur says well...it will just launch the game. But before it "launches the game" it will search for other rooms opened and try to change people from rooms. But P2P network stability and waiting times is a priority 100% of the time.
This goes also for the questions "can i invite an under/over powered friend" to a game?.... yes you can, always. In Team Match Making you can invite anyone at any time that is your friend, no questions asked. There is "math" build in the algorithm that takes in consideration the player pool, if there are "other players searching for games" the slot should be filled anyways. At the end in this rooms nobody can kick nobody.
Now you can also set Team Challenges... you create your team, put a logo in it etc... then click "search for game", it will search for "connected" teams, but then if no connected team that is also P2P stable is around.... then it will open a room and make people join. Same principle ANYONE can join.
Thats the thing about Team Match Making, anyone can join at any time, you can have matched that are 800 MMR teams vs 3000 MMR teams any times. I prefer this than waiting any longer for games that are "fair". Practice > Fairness in BW.
Now... don't get me wrong, the RANK algorithm has a buld in function that "searches for fair matches" build in, i know you people are talking about this right now, Arranged Teams vs Automatic Teams "balance", but lets be realistic is a pointless talk as there are not that many players to have this. But it would definitely be buld in the RANK algorithm if any time in the future the player pool goes up.
------------------
Now what i would like to see from Blizzard is something called "automatic RE", simply put, without leaving the P2P network just launch another game !!!, no need to search for another team, as soon as the 2v2,3v3 or 4v4 match is over, open a room with the same people EVERY SINGLE TIME, this is because an Stable P2P connection is such a weird Unicorn that there is no point on searching anymore, one or two people might leave, those slots will be filled quicker than starting a new room.
Also maybe the engine can be build so you can simply "re" and the map would "restart" no need to get out of the game... the map just starts again, different start positions, same map. And also maybe... in a future someone that pressed RANK 2v2 will be asked "there is an ongoing game Team A "5" VS Team B "0" would you like to join team B?" and you are just taken INSIDE THE GAME, no waiting rooms or anything.
|
On December 26 2017 20:55 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
btw i'll just throw this in here,
didn't war3 experience some kind of death after a while after sc2 came out?
is part of this due to the inefficiency of automatic matchmaking on a low population server?
is player-made games the superior system even for ladder? (mmmh, perhaps not, opponent picking)
+pre-game lobby is more natural, race pick, say hi // i suggest again just add a race pick 5sec before game start don't ignore those players who play different mus and also that's the normal rule if you play anyone out of ladder which ladder is meant to prepare you for also
also add a /draw
Should be a combination, people that created Top vs Bottom, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4 "Private games" or "rooms" as you call them should see that people that pressed RANK joined their room. They wont be able to kick them anymore, they can CANCEL the game but in the other side "people that pressed RANK" will just see a player leaving.
So i think both modes should be connected.
Now as you say... i also think that the best "logical" solution is than when you press RANK 2v2 you open a private room, the difference that this room should be in the "outside lobby" and you should be able to chat outside the room, even search for 1v1 games with the room opened. So they are not the classic "private rooms" they are a better version.
EXAMPLE: For instance, lets say you are searching for a "4v4" game, the algorithm is running and people JOIN you get to ar room and you are the only one, but wait times become over let say... 300 seconds, then the option "search for 1v1" becomes available, you click it, another search starts, it find a 1v1 game !!, you click "join game", you start playing 1v1, the game is short, you come out and guess what.
You are still in the 4v4 room !!
And there are other 3 players... so now the option 2V2 is on !!, but ALL players must click "player name: ProMeTheus112 has suggested to start 2v2 game, do you accept?", everyone has to click accept. then you can start another 1v1 game if you will, the room is waiting for you outside.
This is for 4v4 of course etc WAY in the future.
The problem is well the Btnet server stability, we get kicked SO MUCH "disconnected", "logged out", is honestly disgusting. btnet RANK should change in this regard, If you have noticed when you are in private game you can be "loged out from Btnet" without actually leaving the P2P network, you will just play normally etc... if you leave the room you are kicked to the main screen.
For Rank Team Match Making rooms i want the same, with the difference that you are never kicked out of Btnet, you can log in back from there !!!, but you are not really connected, and your room is there, nobody touches it.
NO more being kicked from the Btnet Screen, you just get "disconnected" and you can log back right from there without leaving your room, all the Btnet options are greyed out until you log in back from there no rocket science tbh, common sense
|
it's weird, I am experiencing something quite amusing. only map i have vetoed is FS, but I get FS all the time. haha...
also, I have noticed what others have experienced, lots of games I get matched up, but then no one appears. a loop of searching
|
On December 26 2017 23:27 Golgotha wrote:
it's weird, I am experiencing something quite amusing. only map i have vetoed is FS, but I get FS all the time. haha...
also, I have noticed what others have experienced, lots of games I get matched up, but then no one appears. a loop of searching
Wow so you voted FS as a map you don't want to see and is the only one you see XD hahaha, for me sincerely i think that the VETO votes are shenanigans, but i might be wrong.
About the "loop of searching" this might never be fixed, but as i told somewhere before, what i would like to see is better animations and transitions, not that ugly "CUTE & DRY" things that makes us think that our game has crashed. For instance, once the "start game sound/drum" and the message "game found!" has be showed, always show your portraits the map, and the other side BLANK like waiting for someone... and even if the game really already "knows" that it will have to search again it will have the animation of hiding that screen "sliding it out"... then a message like "Searching again, opponent connection was lost", and make the waiting times not start from 0... very basic.
|
On December 26 2017 23:37 hyfrehyfre wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2017 23:27 Golgotha wrote:
it's weird, I am experiencing something quite amusing. only map i have vetoed is FS, but I get FS all the time. haha...
also, I have noticed what others have experienced, lots of games I get matched up, but then no one appears. a loop of searching Wow so you voted FS as a map you don't want to see and is the only one you see XD hahaha, for me sincerely i think that the VETO votes are shenanigans, but i might be wrong. About the "loop of searching" this might never be fixed, but as i told somewhere before, what i would like to see is better animations and transitions, not that ugly "CUTE & DRY" things that makes us think that our game has crashed. For instance, once the "start game sound/drum" and the message "game found!" has be showed, always show your portraits the map, and the other side BLANK like waiting for someone... and even if the game really already "knows" that it will have to search again it will have the animation of hiding that screen "sliding it out"... then a message like "Searching again, opponent connection was lost", and make the waiting times not start from 0... very basic.
no joke, FS is the only veto and I got it 3 times in a row. I'm not sure how that works.
the searching loop was never a problem in previous patches. It started appearing since the last patch. Not sure why this would be.
|
On December 26 2017 23:56 Golgotha wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2017 23:37 hyfrehyfre wrote:On December 26 2017 23:27 Golgotha wrote:
it's weird, I am experiencing something quite amusing. only map i have vetoed is FS, but I get FS all the time. haha...
also, I have noticed what others have experienced, lots of games I get matched up, but then no one appears. a loop of searching Wow so you voted FS as a map you don't want to see and is the only one you see XD hahaha, for me sincerely i think that the VETO votes are shenanigans, but i might be wrong. About the "loop of searching" this might never be fixed, but as i told somewhere before, what i would like to see is better animations and transitions, not that ugly "CUTE & DRY" things that makes us think that our game has crashed. For instance, once the "start game sound/drum" and the message "game found!" has be showed, always show your portraits the map, and the other side BLANK like waiting for someone... and even if the game really already "knows" that it will have to search again it will have the animation of hiding that screen "sliding it out"... then a message like "Searching again, opponent connection was lost", and make the waiting times not start from 0... very basic. no joke, FS is the only veto and I got it 3 times in a row. I'm not sure how that works. the searching loop was never a problem in previous patches. It started appearing since the last patch. Not sure why this would be.
Probably because the "search game algorithm for rank" has to be very efficient, and has no time to check why it disconnected. What i mean is, it finds a player and open a connection to you, this connection might go down by a bizzillion of reasons:
1. Infrastructure problems.
2. Sudden disconnect.
3. P2P connection failed.
4. Player closed the laptop.
5. Cat walked over the power line.
etc...
RANK because of waiting times has no way of saying which P2P connection will be "stable" they just put player vs player based on country, distance, MMR etc... in that order, and it tries to "balance" the game accordingly as best as it can, but the player pool is not big enough to prioritize MMR over P2P quality i am afraid, maybe in a near future after STUN servers?.
Nevertheless, this is a problem with the animation, and how this transitions look so CUT. It didn't happen before 1.21 you say?, i been seeing this since day 1 i think... probably what is going on is that now they have a system to tell "this game will lag", but this check is done AFTER the p2p network has been established, because well... they have to ping the Network anyways and you cant ping an network that is not established...
|
Hey,
I'm a veteran 2vs2 player and i'm really looking forward 2vs2 matchmaking.
What do you guys think about having the MMR equal to the highest MMR in the team ? This way you can't abuse by having a player creating a smurf and each team will know his MMR and won't have a bad surprise when queued against a team.
|
On December 27 2017 07:56 KenZy wrote:
Hey,
I'm a veteran 2vs2 player and i'm really looking forward 2vs2 matchmaking.
What do you guys think about having the MMR equal to the highest MMR in the team ? This way you can't abuse by having a player creating a smurf and each team will know his MMR and won't have a bad surprise when queued against a team.
I really like this idea because it also handicaps AT players if they match up vs RT teams. It also makes it so that an AT can't lower their MMR by having 1 person smurf on a new acc, so they can't abuse the system.
For RT players you take their average MMR and for AT players the highest MMR on their team = their team MMR.
|
On December 27 2017 08:08 TT1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2017 07:56 KenZy wrote:
Hey,
I'm a veteran 2vs2 player and i'm really looking forward 2vs2 matchmaking.
What do you guys think about having the MMR equal to the highest MMR in the team ? This way you can't abuse by having a player creating a smurf and each team will know his MMR and won't have a bad surprise when queued against a team. I really like this idea because it also handicaps AT players if they match up vs RT teams. It also makes it so that an AT can't lower their MMR by having 1 person smurf on a new acc, so they can't abuse the system. For RT players you take their average MMR and for AT players the highest MMR on their team = their team MMR.
Do you just then accept the legitimate case of an AT between a good player at say 2200 MMR and his noob friend, a legit 1000 MMR, being matched against 2200/2200 arranged or random teams?
|
On December 27 2017 08:36 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2017 08:08 TT1 wrote:On December 27 2017 07:56 KenZy wrote:
Hey,
I'm a veteran 2vs2 player and i'm really looking forward 2vs2 matchmaking.
What do you guys think about having the MMR equal to the highest MMR in the team ? This way you can't abuse by having a player creating a smurf and each team will know his MMR and won't have a bad surprise when queued against a team. I really like this idea because it also handicaps AT players if they match up vs RT teams. It also makes it so that an AT can't lower their MMR by having 1 person smurf on a new acc, so they can't abuse the system. For RT players you take their average MMR and for AT players the highest MMR on their team = their team MMR. Do you just then accept the legitimate case of an AT between a good player at say 2200 MMR and his noob friend, a legit 1000 MMR, being matched against 2200/2200 arranged or random teams?
Pretty much a situation you have to accept, it's basically for the greater good. In that case if they really wanted to get easier games his higher ranked friend could just make a new acc and they'd be a 1500 MMR team. Their MMR would normalize after a few games.
Personally i plan to make 2 accs, 1 RT and 1 AT. The AT acc is just to play with friends for fun.
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
Maybe I'm just tired, but what does RT and AT mean?
|
random team and arranged team
RT means queueing 2v2 solo. so you get paired with a random solo dude to form a team.
AT gets 2 players that have already formed a team in the lobby to join the queue.
2v2 RT should always have been separate from 2v2 AT, AT will always be better and more advantageous over RT.
|
What do you make of the situation of 2 players queuing together for 3vs3 ? They will be 2 eg "AT" + 1 RT vs 3 RT. Do you take the max MMR of these 2 players, then average this with the third?
I think it would be best that you can do that, ppl doing that in 3vs3 often
|
On December 27 2017 08:39 TT1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2017 08:36 L_Master wrote:On December 27 2017 08:08 TT1 wrote:On December 27 2017 07:56 KenZy wrote:
Hey,
I'm a veteran 2vs2 player and i'm really looking forward 2vs2 matchmaking.
What do you guys think about having the MMR equal to the highest MMR in the team ? This way you can't abuse by having a player creating a smurf and each team will know his MMR and won't have a bad surprise when queued against a team. I really like this idea because it also handicaps AT players if they match up vs RT teams. It also makes it so that an AT can't lower their MMR by having 1 person smurf on a new acc, so they can't abuse the system. For RT players you take their average MMR and for AT players the highest MMR on their team = their team MMR. Do you just then accept the legitimate case of an AT between a good player at say 2200 MMR and his noob friend, a legit 1000 MMR, being matched against 2200/2200 arranged or random teams? Pretty much a situation you have to accept, it's basically for the greater good. In that case if they really wanted to get easier games his higher ranked friend could just make a new acc and they'd be a 1500 MMR team. Their MMR would normalize after a few games. Personally i plan to make 2 accs, 1 RT and 1 AT. The AT acc is just to play with friends for fun.
But now it's awkward again, if you need to make new accounts just to regulate the system. I don't know that this isn't just worse than a couple abusers trying to get easier wins and gain less points by making a smurf low account @@ it's translating the smurf problem at the bottom of the ladder, as the best thing to do..?
if our farm abuser team do this, say a fake 1500 + a 3000, they get matched with a 2300 team or so. If they win, they get how many points? Does the 3000 get as many points as the 1500? Not necessarily (shouldn't be that way imo). Make individual point gain depend on their individual ratings, which means if they win a lot they'll end up at the same rating instead of both climbing at same speed. It would make sense, right. Then the 3000 guy would earn a lot less points for playing with the fake 1500 guy. And if they lose, the 3000 guy lose quite a lot of points.
(so in this example, facing a 2300 team, maybe the 1500 guy makes 40 points, and the 3000 guy makes 4 points or less.. if they lose, maybe the 1500 guy loses 4 points, and the 3000 guy loses 40 points...)
So what's this abuse gonna achieve? They're not even likely to get to the top of ladder. Is this worth making ppl awkwardly cant just queue together without being overmatched because you took the highest MMR by default to prevent a small abuse potential?? i don't think so, you wanna be able to just queue together fast & easy.. people want to be able to play on one account and have all their games registered on it, keep their name, don't need to log out log in which is anti ergonomic etc
there is always ways to abuse any system, you only need to make sure that the abuses are small enough, and in doing so try to deal as little damage as possible or none to what's not an abuse
it doesn't matter to me that some noob abusers try to play easier matches by smurfing a low rating
if they are gosu abusers (lol), maybe they rake in some points.. well only the highly rated one, not the one who is smurfing since he's resetting his rating. it's not a big deal at all... he'll only be able to rake in a small amount of extra points by winning a lot of games with his partner smurfing for it on a different account.. if they get pwned once by a decent team, the highly rated will lose lot of points.
in my opinion, it is more important that the whole system is very playable by everyone rather than having the most accurate ranking at the very top of the ladder, too. cause the ranking of a ladder is never really accurate it's just a ladder ranking, people can play as many games as they want etc
preventing easy and large damage abuses yeah sure that's important (such as 80%+ accounts on the ladder being bots right?^^), but small abuses are only worth preventing with measures that don't really affect the rest~
|
I get the idea is that the 3000 guy would actually be able to endlessly farm points and the top accounts on the ladder would all be farming easy wins with a smurf account. But they'd have to be able to win all the time at a rating which increases as the 3000 guy increases in rating. For every 10 wins they score, maybe only 1 loss makes the high rated lose the earnings. So if the point system is right, this abuse might just be worthless. (except as a way to gain icon/portrait points^^ fine^^)
I think the base point system right now gives you 20 points if you are at equal rating, is that correct?
For a ~100 points difference, maybe, you get 10 points instead.
If the point difference is as large as 750 points, maybe you only get 1 point. And if you lose, maybe it's 50 points. I don't know the actual numbers that are in the system now, but it depends on this mostly.
So unless this abuser team is actually able to score 50 wins without losing at 2250 and up... it's unlikely their method is the best way to get to the top. (and it would be slow on top of that so you can potentially beat them by winning more than losing at high rating normally)
like L_Master said, this would actually occur often not as an abuse but normal situation. Overmatching a team with a good player and a bad player isn't good for people with different skill levels to queue together in team games. And that's a problem because its exactly one thing that's great about team games, if you play 1vs1 with your lower skill friend you'll wreck him, not fun (or exhausting), but you can play team games is one of the most fun things to do with him (and good opportunity for the lower skilled to get better!). Don't want to obstacle that... this is one of the main things that the team ladder has great potential for. It's a lot more important than a bunch of abusers maybe getting a fake top rated account. Which they won't even get to do if the points don't reward it..
tldr i think smurf issues are not issues so long as the base system is coherent (which is why there are generally more pros than cons in being able to make new accounts)
the main purpose of ladder is to accomodate good playing/practicing environment with your accounts whoever you play with
the best opportunities to determine who really is the best is some kind of matches or tournaments as always
in the end the whole "AT" and "RT" denominations could be forgotten, you can just queue alone or with 1 or more allies for a XvsX game. (and rank ppl indivually and separately for 1vs1, 2vs2, 3vs3, 4vs4, and why not FFA the same way ie queuing alone or with a number of friends, with different map pools)
although for FFA if you can queue with friends that's kinda hard on those who aren't part of a group^^ lol- so i'd suggest instead only solo queue for FFA. (what about team melee?^^ madness)
PS: there's actually a downside to rating individually in the sense that now highly rated players might avoid queuing with lower rated friends so as not to lose rating... again though if the point system is right, doesn't have to be a big deal. And how many players care more about climbing in rating all the time rather than just play with whoever they want? If you do, you'd play more often only with similarly rated~ so imo its fine, most potential, practical, etc
let's see the base
1500+3000 vs 2250+2250 (averaged 2250 vs 2250)
teams are equal rating, if a team wins they get 20 points, if they lose they lose 20 points
if team A wins, distribute the 20 points between the two players
player 1 : 1500, much lower than 2250, gets most of the points, how much? maybe it's 18.
player 2 : 3000, much higher than 2250, gets few points, maybe it's 2 points.
both the opposing players lose 10 points
if team A loses, player 1 @1500 loses 2 points, and player 2@3000 loses 18 points.
in this case they'd have to have a 90+% winrate against their average to farm points for the highly rated, you can make it harder by making it -1 / -19 at such distances then it's what 95+% winrate against average etc
for example.. sound good to me?
does that make anybody not want to play with their low rated friends with their main account? is this really so abusable? isn't it fine that you can actually make a bunch of points if you manage to win with your lower skilled friend? is the top of the ladder not going to be rather composed of players who only play together at higher ratings? and even if not (unknown), not a big deal? as the best players are those who win the matches or tourneys, a ladder is a ladder, nobody is playing the same amount of games etc
|
So 3k MMR player + 1.5k MMR player = 2250 combined MMR, they'll face other 2250 MMR teams.
With individual ratings the 3k MMR player wins/loses his points based on his team MMR, so a 3k MMR player will gain less points and lose more points if his team MMR is 2250, makes sense. But then we still have the inherent advantage that ATs have over RTs, ATs will have to be handicapped somehow.
|
ok but how exactly?
give them a slightly imbalanced win/loss compared to RT? and how do you differenciate partial AT with full AT? (such as 2 players queueing together for 3vs3, if that's made possible?)
perhaps, at the end of the received rating, if you are AT (didn't queue alone), your losses are increased by 20%, and your wins are decreased by 20%? for balance of total points this should be reflected on the amount won/lost in total. that works, cause then ATvsAT won't give any point disadvantage. If partial AT or ATvsRT, you can give the rest of the points (lost or not gained) to the opposing team, by decreasing their loss or increasing their gain equal amount in total.
i dont rly have an opinion against that, i just think its hard to quantify how much better it is for AT on average.. but i'd be fine with something like that personally, doesn't seem unfair, doesn't seem impractical or anything, something small enough i guess
let me also insist on the /draw or ask for draw option for cancelling out laggy ladder games without point change. won't always be accepted, but should come in handy many times i guess
|
OK people... MMR should not be a prioritizing factor to create a 2v2 game, not at all, just press TEAM then join a waiting list, you can choose "4v4", "3v3", "2v2" or "any" and then you just get into a wait line. Thats it.
Obviously inside the algorithm there will be a way to check for MMT balance, but at the end the player pool will not care, for a basic reason, there are not enough players.
Now if you want a "balance" MMR game create a private game that is "OFFICIAL" for the rank more, people from a whole team will join, and based on the avg MMR/#of of players the game can be fair.
But in your daily TMM RANk wont care about MMR balance that much i am afraid so i think this talk is no very interesting. You probably should be focusing on the stuff like Base Share maps, rule flags like all opponents being zerg, how are the waiting rooms going to be...
|
Hey Blizz, please make the game lobby so that the countdown stops as soon as a player leaves the lobby before the game starts. It would really save a lot of wasted time (especially in team games) so players don't have to rehost and rejoin again. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
