EPTFooling the MMR or how to fix the Matchmaking - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
checkit
United States37 Posts
| ||
|
Kazahk
United States385 Posts
Second even if we were to implement your system think of the people that would need to work on the project plus their pay. Now imagine from the business point of view, is the issue even worth solving for the time/money you need to invest with no return? My point being we shouldn't even be discussing this as it wont happen. EDIT: I think you are really exaggerating the suffering you go through playing superior players. I can almost guarantee you those games last less than 10 minutes. At this point I'm surprised you aren't trying to get rid of ads on cable because of the time they are wasting from your evening trying to watch Game of Thrones. | ||
|
mostevil
United Kingdom611 Posts
On December 13 2014 05:27 Kazahk wrote: First off games can end legitimately under 4 minutes, you will also be punishing players that get cheesed 5 times in a row. First off, set it to 3 minutes and they legitimately can't, short of scouting a proxy gate and leaving on sighting it or a drone rush its going to be more than that. Secondly why should it punish them for being cheesed, it should just not count the game to the MMR. It actually helps a player being cheesed if they come inside the limit. | ||
|
Kazahk
United States385 Posts
| ||
|
Zulu23
Germany132 Posts
On December 13 2014 05:27 Kazahk wrote: Now imagine from the business point of view, is the issue even worth solving for the time/money you need to invest with no return? My point being we shouldn't even be discussing this as it wont happen. EDIT: I think you are really exaggerating the suffering you go through playing superior players. I can almost guarantee you those games last less than 10 minutes. At this point I'm surprised you aren't trying to get rid of ads on cable because of the time they are wasting from your evening trying to watch Game of Thrones. Imagine less and less enthusiastic and average skilled players are interested in the game ... I think it would affect business a lot. It's the community that is brings the money foundation of the game, not so much the Pro-Gaming licenses. If we dont watch we dont play and the game is dead..... and I don't watch Game of Thrones with ads, my VODs are ad free.... | ||
|
Kazahk
United States385 Posts
| ||
|
mikumegurine
Canada3145 Posts
On December 13 2014 05:42 Kazahk wrote: You don't see an issue with people not having their MMR affected by leaving the second they scout cheese? yea some player just send out scout, if they smell cheese they can just quit the game and their MMR stays the same fair huh lol | ||
|
SC2Toastie
Netherlands5725 Posts
On December 13 2014 05:54 Kazahk wrote: It was a joke not meant literally. You bought the game they don't care if you don't play. They do. The fact they still invest hundreds of thousands of dollars into SC2 as a franchise tells us they really do care whether we play the game buddy. | ||
|
Kazahk
United States385 Posts
| ||
|
ProbeAbility
France12 Posts
- if you stop playing for a while your MMR goes down (or rather stays at a fixed value while the average MMR of the playing ladder goes up), this makes you match against lower-skilled players even without loosing games on purpose ! - the game should match people not only using MMR points as a reference, but also using the frequency of play, so that "casual" players (who don't play much) wouldn't be matched against more "hardcore" players (who play a lot) It's not just a question of loosing games on purpose (some higher ranked players use lower ranked accounts for fun, while streaming, or when doing "training courses" to help their students to learn how to play better). It's no secret that more competitive players play "more" than "casuals" who will leave after just a few games lost. I think the simplest solution to this problem is to use the average frequency of games (lost or won doesn't matter). Whether you loose games on purpose, rush/cheese, ladder a lot of games per day to climb up, all players who want more competition/challenge than other players will inevitably grind games instead of playing less it's a very simple principle really. So if the system detects players playing less games than others then it should match these kinds of players against similarly "minded" players. And if or after you play more you progressively get matched against the more competitive pool of players. This would solve most of the problems by moving "aggressive" players away from the less inclined ones. Just my 2 cents. | ||
|
Zulu23
Germany132 Posts
On December 13 2014 06:36 ProbeAbility wrote: For me this all comes down to the fact that the MMR algorithm doesn't distinguish between players playing a lot (like +10 games/day) and the others playing only once in a while (or taking breaks of several weeks/months) ! - if you stop playing for a while your MMR goes down (or rather stays at a fixed value while the average MMR of the playing ladder goes up), this makes you match against lower-skilled players even without loosing games on purpose ! - the game should match people not only using MMR points as a reference, but also using the frequency of play, so that "casual" players (who don't play much) wouldn't be matched against more "hardcore" players (who play a lot) It's not just a question of loosing games on purpose (some higher ranked players use lower ranked accounts for fun, while streaming, or when doing "training courses" to help their students to learn how to play better). It's no secret that more competitive players play "more" than "casuals" who will leave after just a few games lost. I think the simplest solution to this problem is to use the average frequency of games (lost or won doesn't matter). Whether you loose games on purpose, rush/cheese, ladder a lot of games per day to climb up, all players who want more competition/challenge than other players will inevitably grind games instead of playing less it's a very simple principle really. So if the system detects players playing less games than others then it should match these kinds of players against similarly "minded" players. And if or after you play more you progressively get matched against the more competitive pool of players. This would solve most of the problems by moving "aggressive" players away from the less inclined ones. Just my 2 cents. Interesting and how would you deal with players that play a lot teamgames, too but not so many 1v1s? | ||
|
NeThZOR
South Africa7387 Posts
| ||
|
WGT-Baal
France3469 Posts
Another friend of mine on EU (AureS, perhaps you ve heard of him) was demoted to diamond despite having being masters forever, and he went 59 4 and still wasnt promoted. Those games were no fun for him or for his opponents (I imagine). | ||
|
Sjokola
Netherlands800 Posts
Just the delay on being able to cue for a new game seems like a perfect solution. 3 games in a row under a minute? Take a 5 min break. 5 more in the last half hour? Come back in an hour and see if you can play normally. 3 more?! Now we're calling the internet police and put you in a room with just a horny dog. | ||
|
Defenestrator
400 Posts
Many of them have a good sense of timing attacks and good micro/macro. In plat back in the day, a toss wouldn't be able to run an immo/sentry allin before 12 minutes. That's completely changed now. | ||
|
EndOfLineTv
United States741 Posts
| ||
|
WGT-Baal
France3469 Posts
On December 14 2014 00:01 Sjokola wrote: The problem isn't with players having their MMR lowered due to decay. Just the delay on being able to cue for a new game seems like a perfect solution. 3 games in a row under a minute? Take a 5 min break. 5 more in the last half hour? Come back in an hour and see if you can play normally. 3 more?! Now we're calling the internet police and put you in a room with just a horny dog. I dont know, I mean you can just remake. In Brood War you wouldnt usually play right away, there were lag issues, etc etc. But still it was fine. Sometimes your internet (or your opponent s) act up and it s unplayable so you just leave. You shouldnt be punished for that. there s also the problem of ranked vs unranked. I d rather see a return to BW era gamemaking along the ladder we have, where you can make a lobby and play. Add a feature like "counts for ladder" or something and let s roll. Of course with restrictions, like you cant play a given player more than 3 times or smthg. But it would allow people to select their maps and MU and desired skill level. On December 14 2014 00:16 EndOfLineTv wrote: Some of these occurrences are from guys who get their account boosted, for a price, and don't pay up. So the booster will tank 30 games in a row. people do that? Really? | ||
|
JacobShock
Denmark2485 Posts
| ||
|
EndOfLineTv
United States741 Posts
On December 14 2014 00:25 WGT-Baal wrote: I dont know, I mean you can just remake. In Brood War you wouldnt usually play right away, there were lag issues, etc etc. But still it was fine. Sometimes your internet (or your opponent s) act up and it s unplayable so you just leave. You shouldnt be punished for that. there s also the problem of ranked vs unranked. I d rather see a return to BW era gamemaking along the ladder we have, where you can make a lobby and play. Add a feature like "counts for ladder" or something and let s roll. Of course with restrictions, like you cant play a given player more than 3 times or smthg. But it would allow people to select their maps and MU and desired skill level. people do that? Really? Yep.... Kids ask me to boost their account on a daily basis. Some of my Gm friends boost for money all the time. They now ask to be paid in full | ||
|
rotta
5607 Posts
On December 14 2014 01:36 EndOfLineTv wrote: Yep.... Kids ask me to boost their account on a daily basis. Some of my Gm friends boost for money all the time. They now ask to be paid in full Wow, that's really sad. | ||
| ||
