EPTTo get the games starting as soon as possible the system could take a shortcut and match say T and T as they both have same exclusions and further T will just clump up the queue.
Downvoting maps increasing chance of mirror match? - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
danielsan
Romania399 Posts
To get the games starting as soon as possible the system could take a shortcut and match say T and T as they both have same exclusions and further T will just clump up the queue. | ||
|
ZappaSC
Denmark215 Posts
Boom non TvTs, or at least fewer since all the zergs had KR downvoted. | ||
|
Fa1nT
United States3423 Posts
I don't see how people can argue against this. Every zerg downvotes steppes, delta, and jungle, so obviously the remaining maps will have a higher number of zergs to play. | ||
|
Lobo2me
Norway1213 Posts
On January 18 2011 06:03 Fa1nT wrote: This is true. I don't see how people can argue against this. Every zerg downvotes steppes, delta, and jungle, so obviously the remaining maps will have a higher number of zergs to play. It means more zerg games will be played on it, which doesn't mean more ZvZ. I can veto 3 out of 8 maps in the pool. Let's say there are 3 people searching, and each of them are perfect matches for each other. Player 1 vetoed JB, Steppes and DQ. Player 2 and 3 vetoed Blistering Sands, Scrap Station and Lost Temple. Player 1 has 2 out of 8 possible maps if he's up against Player 2 or 3, while 2 and 3 have 5 possible maps they can play on. Does it mean that Player 2 has 2.5 times higher chance of playing against player 3 than he has of playing against Player 1, because there's 5 possible maps instead of 2? Most likely not. I highly doubt the matchmaker goes "let's make a game on Jungle Basin, let's take the first player that searches for it and pair him up with someone else around the same skill level that also hasn't vetoed it". | ||
|
Black Gun
Germany4482 Posts
| ||
|
happyness
United States2400 Posts
Maybe their are a lot of zergs on your level? Because I have the same maps downvoted for the specific purpose of working on my PvZ, but I still get a ton of PvP's | ||
|
danielsan
Romania399 Posts
On January 18 2011 06:11 Lobo2me wrote: It means more zerg games will be played on it, which doesn't mean more ZvZ. I can veto 3 out of 8 maps in the pool. Let's say there are 3 people searching, and each of them are perfect matches for each other. Player 1 vetoed JB, Steppes and DQ. Player 2 and 3 vetoed Blistering Sands, Scrap Station and Lost Temple. Player 1 has 2 out of 8 possible maps if he's up against Player 2 or 3, while 2 and 3 have 5 possible maps they can play on. Does it mean that Player 2 has 2.5 times higher chance of playing against player 3 than he has of playing against Player 1, because there's 5 possible maps instead of 2? Most likely not. I highly doubt the matchmaker goes "let's make a game on Jungle Basin, let's take the first player that searches for it and pair him up with someone else around the same skill level that also hasn't vetoed it". dont think at matchmaking as a process that covers just NOW. a good system always accounts for FUTURE and prepares accordingly. That's how efficiency improves. | ||
|
noD
2230 Posts
| ||
|
hagon
United Kingdom556 Posts
| ||
|
Keitzer
United States2509 Posts
aka... it'll search those maps only, and with like 8 maps in the pool, that makes it quite easy to find ZvZ being a ton of your matchups | ||
|
mindspike
Canada1902 Posts
Lots of confirmation bias going on here is all it is. | ||
|
DOMINOSC
Canada345 Posts
| ||
|
KotaOnCue
United States180 Posts
| ||
|
DashedHopes
Canada414 Posts
| ||
|
Ghad
Norway2551 Posts
7 out of 11 last games: ZvZ. | ||
Dezire
Netherlands640 Posts
e: and i get alot of PvZ's myself, so i guess the amount of zerg players is just increasing | ||
|
Yurie
12118 Posts
On January 18 2011 07:02 Dezire wrote: why would you downvote LT as a zerg? Cliff drops | ||
|
danielsan
Romania399 Posts
On January 18 2011 06:01 danielsan wrote: you shouldnt exclude the possibility of preferences adding some sort of weight though. We know opponents are chosen by MMR so at any point in time there should be a pool of players with roughly the same MMR waiting for a match. To get the games starting as soon as possible the system could take a shortcut and match say T and T as they both have same exclusions and further T will just clump up the queue. On January 18 2011 06:21 danielsan wrote: dont think at matchmaking as a process that covers just NOW. a good system always accounts for FUTURE and prepares accordingly. That's how efficiency improves. i've been speculating about it some more. taking into account the argument of efficiency- it's planning for future matchmaking i assume the system's main goals are: 1. match as fast as possible 2. assure it's future options are not limited by prioritizing on a basis of first-come,first-served This insurance should come by map downvoting analysis. As this is the only example that comes to my mind.... if you're familiar with Einstein's Logic Problem you should know it's easiest to be solved by converting each house to a table/matrix and simple overlays. Now imagine each player with it's map preferences as a matrix. Any duplicate matrix (same race downvotes) would limit future options. So the logical action is to discard them first- mirror matches | ||
|
_anansi
Netherlands3 Posts
Downvoted: Steppes, DQ, Jungle. 122 replays: 1. ZvP: 38% 2. ZvT: 34% 3. ZvZ: 29% No downvotes. 144 replays 1. ZvP: 42% 2. ZvZ: 34% 3. ZvT: 24% So I got more ZvZ's and less ZvT's. My winrate ZvT went from 52% to 72% though  Full data: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://anansi.tweakdsl.nl/downvotestats.PNG) Although my stats apparently were not even below 50% win on the downvoted maps, I still hate em... | ||
|
imareaver3
United States906 Posts
| ||
| ||
