| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Ghad
Norway2551 Posts
Is this trend caused by me and other zergs downvoting JB, SOW and LT, while the other races are downvoting metalopolis, or am I just being dicked with by Battle.net? Sorry if this thread should rather have been a blog post, wasn't completely sure where to post it. | ||
|
Two_DoWn
United States13684 Posts
P.S. The maps suck | ||
|
Yurie
11822 Posts
| ||
|
PhiliBiRD
United States2643 Posts
i have a map downed and i have been getting a ridiculous amount of TvT. however just for the sake of bnets bugginess, ill try unchecking and record my results  and compare themunchecking so far hasnt done anything, at least not yet noticeably. | ||
Firebolt145
Lalalaland34490 Posts
| ||
|
Coutcha
Canada519 Posts
| ||
|
Natt
France253 Posts
| ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
Personally I've downvoted Steppes, Blistering, and Scrap as a T. On January 18 2011 05:33 Firebolt145 wrote: You'll need at least 1000 games worth of records for those results to be reliable. No you wouldn't, you could have less than 100 for them to be reliable. | ||
|
Diderick
Netherlands298 Posts
| ||
|
grimm42
Germany7 Posts
| ||
|
DwmC_Foefen
Belgium2186 Posts
But even without the downvotes I still get alot of ZvZ, like yesterday had 4 zvz's in a row. I was like NO FRIGGIN WAY! RAGE 7POOL!!! Gg's | ||
|
Moa
United States790 Posts
| ||
|
danielsan
Romania399 Posts
so yeah, if youre diamond or upper this could be the reason you're getting more mirror matches if it's opponent first, preferences cant cause mirrors | ||
|
ICA
498 Posts
| ||
|
regulator_mk
United States127 Posts
On January 18 2011 05:43 Moa wrote: I am pretty confident that it is all in your heads. I have heard before (around retail) that you are matched with an opponent and then the map is chosen. This means that both players vetos are taken into account and what maps you have vetoed have no bearing on who you play. I believe this is correct. It's how they did it in war3, and it's really the only logical way to do it. It would make no sense to choose your opponent based on map preferences. | ||
|
Jochan
Poland1730 Posts
| ||
|
Toast.yum
51 Posts
| ||
|
Lobo2me
Norway1213 Posts
| ||
|
MadZ
Denmark111 Posts
| ||
|
ScrubS
Netherlands436 Posts
| ||
|
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
11822 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
| ||
|
peachsncream
United States289 Posts
| ||
|
koolaid1990
831 Posts
On January 18 2011 07:26 imareaver3 wrote: If I recall correctly, Blizz has confirmed that the player you face is chosen before the map is chosen, meaning that map downvotes have no effect on who you face. That agrees with my experience, as well. It does. Go zerg, take out scrap station, xel naga, and metalpolis/losttemple. You will almost never get a zvz. On the other hand, i took out Jungle Basin, delta, and steppes and i ALWAYS get zvz. Its quite simple, all the other zergs your level are taking out the same maps, and the terrans do NOT take out those maps, so you have less terrans to face. | ||
|
imareaver3
United States906 Posts
On January 18 2011 07:28 koolaid1990 wrote: It does. Go zerg, take out scrap station, xel naga, and metalpolis/losttemple. You will almost never get a zvz. On the other hand, i took out Jungle Basin, delta, and steppes and i ALWAYS get zvz. Its quite simple, all the other zergs your level are taking out the same maps, and the terrans do NOT take out those maps, so you have less terrans to face. That's a general statement; I have Steppes, Delta, and JB knocked out and I never get ZvZ's. | ||
|
Essentia
1150 Posts
| ||
|
Lennon
United Kingdom2275 Posts
On January 18 2011 06:03 Razz wrote: Back in the beta i had a long period only getting TvT. So i removed Kulas Ravine and .. delta? Boom non TvTs, or at least fewer since all the zergs had KR downvoted. Delta was around in the beta? I don't remember that... I do, however, remember IZ  | ||
|
fraktoasters
United States617 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". This is the correct line of reasoning. Suppose we have 7 maps in our pool and 3 vetoes per person. In a 1v1, how many unique maps can be vetoed in total? 6 if the two people all veto different maps. With 6 maps vetoed at the most, there will ALWAYS be at least a single map that is not vetoed by either player. Therefore for every 2 people on ladder, there will always be a map that they agree to play on, so there is no reason why any 2 people cannot be matched up, so your vetoes have nothing to do with who you play. On January 18 2011 07:24 _anansi wrote: About a month ago I got sick of some maps and finally downvoted them. Since I run sc2gears all the time I can get some hard data about my matchups: 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 + Although my stats apparently were not even below 50% win on the downvoted maps, I still hate em... There difference here is 5-6 games. That doesn't mean enough. One daylast week I got 50% ZvP and yesterday I got 4 ZvZ, 3 ZvP and a single ZvT. Do those numbers hold any significance? No. Those numbers aren't conclusive. | ||
|
RodrigoX
United States645 Posts
| ||
|
SoulScream
Bulgaria44 Posts
| ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
| ||
|
ALang
Canada288 Posts
| ||
|
Sanski
United States57 Posts
downvoted blistering, steppes, and delta quad. still i get a lot of PvPs | ||
|
_anansi
Netherlands3 Posts
On January 18 2011 08:25 fraktoasters wrote: There difference here is 5-6 games. That doesn't mean enough. One daylast week I got 50% ZvP and yesterday I got 4 ZvZ, 3 ZvP and a single ZvT. Do those numbers hold any significance? No. Those numbers aren't conclusive. Yea, I guess you're right that a few games would make a lot of difference in the numbers. But it's the only real data I have before and after downvoting which isn't based on my impressions of which matchups I get. | ||
|
Silidons
United States2813 Posts
| ||
|
arthur
United Kingdom488 Posts
I never see Zerg on LT, JB or Delta Quadrant for some reason... so the majority of my games are vs T or P... I do believe downvoting maps is having a huge impact on race MU's... And someone said most T downvote scrap station? Why would I down vote scrap station. My natural is very easy to capture there, and the zergs third is very hard to capture. All I have to do is harrass, harrass, harrass and deny his third and I have an easy time there... | ||
|
fUddO
Canada197 Posts
On January 18 2011 08:25 fraktoasters wrote: This is the correct line of reasoning. Suppose we have 7 maps in our pool and 3 vetoes per person. In a 1v1, how many unique maps can be vetoed in total? 6 if the two people all veto different maps. With 6 maps vetoed at the most, there will ALWAYS be at least a single map that is not vetoed by either player. Therefore for every 2 people on ladder, there will always be a map that they agree to play on, so there is no reason why any 2 people cannot be matched up, so your vetoes have nothing to do with who you play. There difference here is 5-6 games. That doesn't mean enough. One daylast week I got 50% ZvP and yesterday I got 4 ZvZ, 3 ZvP and a single ZvT. Do those numbers hold any significance? No. Those numbers aren't conclusive. Best post in this thread. Honestly, this begs the question: Which maps are played on the most on ladder? My guess would be Zel'Naga and Metal. | ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
| ||
|
Dimagus
United States1004 Posts
Could there also be a mechanic that tries to balance out what maps are played on over a given statistical period? Whether it's on a per-player basis or system-wide on the server, if it makes sure players are playing an equivalent number of games on each map then that can skew the percentages of racial matches as well. Say there's 9 maps, and conveniently there are no overlapping downvotes by race. You are Terran 3 maps you would never play on (0%/0%/0%)) 3 maps you would only ever play Terran and Zerg on (50%/50%/0%) 3 maps you would only ever play Terran and Protoss on (50%/0%/50%) Overall you would have a balanced map selection, but a 50%/25%/25% racial matchup ratio if there were an equal number of players for each race. Now imagine if there's a mechanic that makes sure every map gets an equal number of games on it, but there's an overlap between two races downvotes. Since the third race is the only one that allows playing on those 1-3 maps, and those maps are below quota, it will force the third race to play mirror matchups on those maps to make up the difference. It may not choose the exact map you play on until it finds an opponent, but it may be more inclined to find opponents based on what isn't vetoed. | ||
|
ggrrg
Bulgaria2716 Posts
| ||
|
Skank
United States329 Posts
This seems to defy the logic of the OP, which is why I think it's Blizzard's bugginess. | ||
|
shabinka
United States469 Posts
| ||
|
SolidusR
United States217 Posts
Random situation #2: Your MMR is matched with what happens to be another zerg player. You have both downvoted the exact same maps. You subsequently lose 3 maps from the map pool. The choice is made with more possible maps than in the first scenario. This is how it works. It doesn't check to see who has which maps downvoted in order to avoid pairing those people who have opposite maps downvoted from playing each other. You just have a very limited set of maps at your disposal, which is fine. You will experience playing way more zergs than anyother race as zerg if you happen to be playing on scrap station, but that is completely irrelevant to the process of selecting your opponent. It's as random as playing random and getting zerg 4 times in a row, map downvotes don't matter at all. | ||
|
Coramoor
Canada455 Posts
| ||
|
brownthing
United States189 Posts
Also, the bug where you can tell where a zerg player spawned at the start of the game. | ||
lichter
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
BNET, we assume since this is the most logical way, chooses an opponent first based on MMR and availability, then chooses the map. No matter what combination of vetoes you and someone else has, there will always be a map available to play on. You will always have some maps that aren't down-voted by either player. At the very least, vetoing maps will increase your chances of facing certain races on certain maps. ZvZ on Scrap Station will be more common, yes, but ZvZ in general won't necessarily be more common, because there will always be maps where ZvT and ZvP can happen. BNET should not try to let you play on one map all the time, or on all maps all the time. As far as we know the maps are chosen at random after an opponent is chosen. Caveat: some days it feels like bnet favors one map over all the rest.. if this is true then your vetoes can affect the prevalence of mirror matchups. But again we don't know what happens behind the scenes, and it seems illogical for bnet to do this. So again: MAP VETOES can affect the prevalence of mirror matchups on certain maps, but NOT IN GENERAL because there will always be available maps to play on regardless of your combination of vetoed maps. | ||
|
Shrewmy
Australia199 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Esports World Cup
ByuN vs Astrea
Lambo vs HeRoMaRinE
Clem vs TBD
Solar vs Zoun
SHIN vs Reynor
Maru vs TriGGeR
herO vs Lancer
Cure vs ShoWTimE
Esports World Cup
Esports World Cup
Esports World Cup
CranKy Ducklings
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
|
|
|
EPT
