|
Since my previous idea about implementing unranked mode for specific matchups went unnoticed (while it was a great idea), i thought that introducing map vetos for certain MUs is much easier to implement, so i hope devs will notice that.
I just feel that it would be cool to vary your personal mappool a bit by being able to play certain maps vs certain races (cyber forest for instance is a cool map, exept for pvz). I know, there would be comments like "take it like a man and don't veto anything", but since veto system is already in game as a legit tool, why not make it more flexible.
Edit: about my previous suggestion on specific MU (not map) veto system. Intorduce a new game mode (lets call it "practice tool or w/e"), where you can que (separetely from ranked) with certain MUs checked/unchecked. System searches for the opponent (who qued using that new mode (again, not ranked!!!) using your ranked/unranked MMR, but doesn't change your MMR regardless of the outcome. So, basically, it could be just a custom/melee autofinder. I just don't get what's so difficult about it from a coder perspective.
|
I'm all for allowing map vetoes for specific match ups, letting people play a specific races against specific races (e.g. someone plays Zerg vs Terran and Protoss but Protoss against Zerg. Another person plays only Mirrors), have match up specific MMRs, and pretty much anything you can think of.
The technology exists and the arguments against things like that feel like that of a crotchety old man saying "we've always done things this way, so that's how we'll always do them!!!".
|
United Kingdom20157 Posts
^IDD, would make the game better IMO.
Lack of matchup specific MMR's can be a big problem when you have a large skill difference between races - e.g. 70%, 50%, 30% winrate in each matchup.
The strong matchup pulls you to higher MMR's than you're capable of playing at vs the weak race, so your winrate against them gets even worse.
The weak matchup holds you down from playing people that you'd be evenly matched against in your strong matchup, so your elevated winrate is maintained and even increased over long periods of time.
Uncertainty of how good you actually are is increased for everybody as well as many people are significantly better in one matchup than another as the system can't currently know that somebody has a strong or weak matchup, it assumes that all three are equally strong. You might be predicted to have a 60% chance to beat somebody based on their average race MMR but only a 40% chance if you were taking per-matchup MMR's into account.
Veto's per matchup and race selection per matchup could increase queue times but may still be worth it
|
Map vetoes per match-up sounds fine (and has no impact on queue times).
Race-picking while queuing and especially queueing for specific match-ups however has a ton of issues revolving around queue times and could easily run into degenerate scenarios where queue times just keep on increasing for a particular race, so I'm not surprised that Blizzard hasn't opened that can of worms.
|
On March 27 2019 04:21 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Map vetoes per match-up sounds fine (and has no impact on queue times).
Race-picking while queuing and especially queueing for specific match-ups however has a ton of issues revolving around queue times and could easily run into degenerate scenarios where queue times just keep on increasing for a particular race, so I'm not surprised that Blizzard hasn't opened that can of worms. you are aware that people who hate certain matchups enough simply instaleave or quit playing SC2 entirely, right? you're implying that by not allowing racepicking you somehow "force" people to play matchups, which is not the case... instaleavers waste players' time on ladder and when people quit SC2, well... the problem with that explains itself
also, when you say "there are a ton of issues," are you speaking from a perspective having developed or reviewed matchmaking/networking code for games before, or is it just a likely hypothesis you're stating as fact?
|
This is something I would like. There are always maps I end up vetoing because of a certain matchup that I'd like to play in other matchups. This season it's New Repugnancy (because of cannon rushes in PvP) and Cyber Forest (because of PvZ).
|
Czech Republic12116 Posts
On March 27 2019 06:49 brickrd wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 04:21 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Map vetoes per match-up sounds fine (and has no impact on queue times).
Race-picking while queuing and especially queueing for specific match-ups however has a ton of issues revolving around queue times and could easily run into degenerate scenarios where queue times just keep on increasing for a particular race, so I'm not surprised that Blizzard hasn't opened that can of worms. you are aware that people who hate certain matchups enough simply instaleave or quit playing SC2 entirely, right? you're implying that by not allowing racepicking you somehow "force" people to play matchups, which is not the case... instaleavers waste players' time on ladder and when people quit SC2, well... the problem with that explains itself also, when you say "there are a ton of issues," are you speaking from a perspective having developed or reviewed matchmaking/networking code for games before, or is it just a likely hypothesis you're stating as fact? Instaleavers also boost your MMR for no reason. Worst case scenario you can meet them 3 or 4 times(my PB). I don't mind 3 games I leave, but the enemy gets 3 free wins...
|
On March 27 2019 06:49 brickrd wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 04:21 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Map vetoes per match-up sounds fine (and has no impact on queue times).
Race-picking while queuing and especially queueing for specific match-ups however has a ton of issues revolving around queue times and could easily run into degenerate scenarios where queue times just keep on increasing for a particular race, so I'm not surprised that Blizzard hasn't opened that can of worms. you are aware that people who hate certain matchups enough simply instaleave or quit playing SC2 entirely, right? you're implying that by not allowing racepicking you somehow "force" people to play matchups, which is not the case... instaleavers waste players' time on ladder and when people quit SC2, well... the problem with that explains itself also, when you say "there are a ton of issues," are you speaking from a perspective having developed or reviewed matchmaking/networking code for games before, or is it just a likely hypothesis you're stating as fact?
As a matter of a fact, yes, though admittedly I never worked on trying to allow queuing per match-up (we were having enough trouble with too few high MMR players playing at some times of the day to even consider going there). Though really it's pretty obvious that you'll run into issues if, for example, Terrans mostly prefer queueing for TvZ, Protosses mostly like queuing for PvT, and Zergs queue for ZvP.
|
Korea (South)227 Posts
I don't know though. Sure we can veto tough matchups, but doesn't that ultimately take away from the premise of getting better? Sure, not everyone plays to advance in ladder ranks, but I feel that by locking everything you don't do well and focus only on playing in your comfort zone in terms of matchups you're robbing yourself of what you can learn. Sure, it sucks getting bum rushed by things such as speedlings on cross map zones, but I feel that I should learn from my mistakes instead of vetoing them.
Only my two cents, so please no flaming about how I don't consider people who play solely for fun!
|
Canada8771 Posts
Map vetoe would hurt match up variety a lot no?
I mean you have 7 maps, if you veto the worst 2 zvp maps and the toss vetoe the worst 2 pvz maps you will only ever play the same 3 maps, it's not that appealing to me and you mostly never get you favourite map (which I assume are you best one).
A separate race cue time would be cool, but like it was said the issue is that the player bases migrate on there and that the ladder become dull.
|
imagine getting gm playing 2 matchups lol, terrible idea.
|
play the map or don't play the map.. this seems extremely antithetical to the match making system.
|
Czech Republic12116 Posts
On March 27 2019 10:49 Orlok wrote: I don't know though. Sure we can veto tough matchups, but doesn't that ultimately take away from the premise of getting better? Sure, not everyone plays to advance in ladder ranks, but I feel that by locking everything you don't do well and focus only on playing in your comfort zone in terms of matchups you're robbing yourself of what you can learn. Sure, it sucks getting bum rushed by things such as speedlings on cross map zones, but I feel that I should learn from my mistakes instead of vetoing them.
Only my two cents, so please no flaming about how I don't consider people who play solely for fun!
I don't know about others, but I play to have fun. If I think a map is shit for PvZ because "reasons" but it's fine for PvT I'm gonna leave every PvZ. If I think mirrors in this game are retarded to be played(which are for me) I'm gonna leave them. THis is the sole reason I started playing unranked, because if I would be playing ranked I am harshly punished for playing the game to have fun. While yes, I am punished in unranked too, I don't see it.
I leave every mirror, maps I don't like for certain matchups, randoms and barcodes. If I would be able to set the map vetoes per MU and veto mirrors I would know(for example) the vR is nonmirror thus I can try to play them. So from the group of roughly 40 % games I insta-leave it would be left with 5 % at most? Mind you - this means I lose around 10 % of games, because match-making tries to leave me with 50 % win rate ratio. Run the math again - I win 5 times more games than I lose because I leave so many games.
Sometimes I meet the same person 3 or 4 times in a row and leave instantly, this means I just spent 5 minutes(+-) in the queue to do nothing and the same applies to the person I just boosted MMR.
I think that map vetoes would be benefitial but MU vetoes can be ignored.
|
On March 27 2019 16:34 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 10:49 Orlok wrote: I don't know though. Sure we can veto tough matchups, but doesn't that ultimately take away from the premise of getting better? Sure, not everyone plays to advance in ladder ranks, but I feel that by locking everything you don't do well and focus only on playing in your comfort zone in terms of matchups you're robbing yourself of what you can learn. Sure, it sucks getting bum rushed by things such as speedlings on cross map zones, but I feel that I should learn from my mistakes instead of vetoing them.
Only my two cents, so please no flaming about how I don't consider people who play solely for fun!
I don't know about others, but I play to have fun. If I think a map is shit for PvZ because "reasons" but it's fine for PvT I'm gonna leave every PvZ. If I think mirrors in this game are retarded to be played(which are for me) I'm gonna leave them. THis is the sole reason I started playing unranked, because if I would be playing ranked I am harshly punished for playing the game to have fun. While yes, I am punished in unranked too, I don't see it. I leave every mirror, maps I don't like for certain matchups, randoms and barcodes. If I would be able to set the map vetoes per MU and veto mirrors I would know(for example) the vR is nonmirror thus I can try to play them. So from the group of roughly 40 % games I insta-leave it would be left with 5 % at most? Mind you - this means I lose around 10 % of games, because match-making tries to leave me with 50 % win rate ratio. Run the math again - I win 5 times more games than I lose because I leave so many games. Sometimes I meet the same person 3 or 4 times in a row and leave instantly, this means I just spent 5 minutes(+-) in the queue to do nothing and the same applies to the person I just boosted MMR. I think that map vetoes would be benefitial but MU vetoes can be ignored.
i play solely to have fun, too but it almost sounds like you are purposefully deflating your mmr to play against the players you want to face. as much as i hate pvp and as much as a i hate pvp on certain maps, i still ladder to find mmr to get good games. seems like if you leave a lot of games you will face a lot of crap players in the match-ups that you DO want to play and will therefore have less fun :D
|
United Kingdom20157 Posts
On March 27 2019 13:18 Hvvacha wrote: imagine getting gm playing 2 matchups lol, terrible idea.
Nobody suggested that, you'd still have to play at least three matchups.
|
On March 27 2019 11:16 Nakajin wrote: Map vetoe would hurt match up variety a lot no?
I mean you have 7 maps, if you veto the worst 2 zvp maps and the toss vetoe the worst 2 pvz maps you will only ever play the same 3 maps, it's not that appealing to me and you mostly never get you favourite map (which I assume are you best one).
A separate race cue time would be cool, but like it was said the issue is that the player bases migrate on there and that the ladder become dull. Mmm, nope, i guess map veto per MU will instead increase the variety. You can already ban 3 maps out of 7 meaning if you are protoss and your opponent is zerg you could end up playing on 1 map. But, as i mentioned in the beggining, the reasons for map vetoes could vary. Like, for instance, i ban cyber forest because of pvz, but i would definitely like to play pvt and pvp on it. So this change would allow to increase the map pool variety for my pvt and pvp matchups but map variety for pvz will stay the same.
On March 27 2019 16:34 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 10:49 Orlok wrote: I don't know though. Sure we can veto tough matchups, but doesn't that ultimately take away from the premise of getting better? Sure, not everyone plays to advance in ladder ranks, but I feel that by locking everything you don't do well and focus only on playing in your comfort zone in terms of matchups you're robbing yourself of what you can learn. Sure, it sucks getting bum rushed by things such as speedlings on cross map zones, but I feel that I should learn from my mistakes instead of vetoing them.
Only my two cents, so please no flaming about how I don't consider people who play solely for fun!
I don't know about others, but I play to have fun. If I think a map is shit for PvZ because "reasons" but it's fine for PvT I'm gonna leave every PvZ. If I think mirrors in this game are retarded to be played(which are for me) I'm gonna leave them. THis is the sole reason I started playing unranked, because if I would be playing ranked I am harshly punished for playing the game to have fun. While yes, I am punished in unranked too, I don't see it. I leave every mirror, maps I don't like for certain matchups, randoms and barcodes. If I would be able to set the map vetoes per MU and veto mirrors I would know(for example) the vR is nonmirror thus I can try to play them. So from the group of roughly 40 % games I insta-leave it would be left with 5 % at most? Mind you - this means I lose around 10 % of games, because match-making tries to leave me with 50 % win rate ratio. Run the math again - I win 5 times more games than I lose because I leave so many games. Sometimes I meet the same person 3 or 4 times in a row and leave instantly, this means I just spent 5 minutes(+-) in the queue to do nothing and the same applies to the person I just boosted MMR. I think that map vetoes would be benefitial but MU vetoes can be ignored. Well, that looks a bit... akward. I mean, everyone has his own definition of "fun", but you keep facing players far beyond your actual mmr, that's why you have 90% winratio. That means you don't actually improve. Have you ever considered that you leave games solely because you subconsiously are afraid of loosing? And you're just trying to justify that (mirrors not being fun, barcodes, etc.). I got a friend who is into competetive games (a lot) who has the same issue (i mean totally no offense with the phrasing). He seeks all the ways he can to keep positive winratio: starting new accounts, playing on new characters (fighting games), practicing with people below his skill level, etc etc. And it really gets him when he starts loosing more than winning, like he is so pissed off he cant find the motivation to play. I don't think that's particulary bad, just sharing my thoughts. If those things ("lifehacks", "cornercuts", w/e) keep you playing the game i think that's good.
Regarding certain MU veto system. It should definitely be applied to unranked mode (or similar newly introduced mode), not to mess up you ranked mmr. So yep, no PvP specialists in GM.
p.s. Once again, just to clarify my suggestion.
Intorduce a new game mode (lets call it "practice tool or w/e"), where you can que (separetely from ranked) with certain MUs checked/unchecked. System searches for the opponent (who qued using that new mode (again, not ranked!!!) using your ranked/unranked MMR, but doesn't change your MMR regardless of the outcome. So, basically, it could be just a custom/melee autofinder. I just don't get what's so difficult about it from a coder perspective.
|
Czech Republic12116 Posts
On March 27 2019 18:03 insitelol wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 11:16 Nakajin wrote: Map vetoe would hurt match up variety a lot no?
I mean you have 7 maps, if you veto the worst 2 zvp maps and the toss vetoe the worst 2 pvz maps you will only ever play the same 3 maps, it's not that appealing to me and you mostly never get you favourite map (which I assume are you best one).
A separate race cue time would be cool, but like it was said the issue is that the player bases migrate on there and that the ladder become dull. Mmm, nope, i guess map veto per MU will instead increase the variety. You can already ban 3 maps out of 7 meaning if you are protoss and your opponent is zerg you could end up playing on 1 map. But, as i mentioned in the beggining, the reasons for map vetoes could vary. Like, for instance, i ban cyber forest because of pvz, but i would definitely like to play pvt and pvp on it. So this change would allow to increase the map pool variety for my pvt and pvp matchups but map variety for pvz will stay the same. Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 16:34 deacon.frost wrote:On March 27 2019 10:49 Orlok wrote: I don't know though. Sure we can veto tough matchups, but doesn't that ultimately take away from the premise of getting better? Sure, not everyone plays to advance in ladder ranks, but I feel that by locking everything you don't do well and focus only on playing in your comfort zone in terms of matchups you're robbing yourself of what you can learn. Sure, it sucks getting bum rushed by things such as speedlings on cross map zones, but I feel that I should learn from my mistakes instead of vetoing them.
Only my two cents, so please no flaming about how I don't consider people who play solely for fun!
I don't know about others, but I play to have fun. If I think a map is shit for PvZ because "reasons" but it's fine for PvT I'm gonna leave every PvZ. If I think mirrors in this game are retarded to be played(which are for me) I'm gonna leave them. THis is the sole reason I started playing unranked, because if I would be playing ranked I am harshly punished for playing the game to have fun. While yes, I am punished in unranked too, I don't see it. I leave every mirror, maps I don't like for certain matchups, randoms and barcodes. If I would be able to set the map vetoes per MU and veto mirrors I would know(for example) the vR is nonmirror thus I can try to play them. So from the group of roughly 40 % games I insta-leave it would be left with 5 % at most? Mind you - this means I lose around 10 % of games, because match-making tries to leave me with 50 % win rate ratio. Run the math again - I win 5 times more games than I lose because I leave so many games. Sometimes I meet the same person 3 or 4 times in a row and leave instantly, this means I just spent 5 minutes(+-) in the queue to do nothing and the same applies to the person I just boosted MMR. I think that map vetoes would be benefitial but MU vetoes can be ignored. Well, that looks a bit... akward. I mean, everyone has his own definition of "fun", but you keep facing players far beyond your actual mmr, that's why you have 90% winratio. That means you don't actually improve. Have you ever considered that you leave games solely because you subconsiously are afraid of loosing? And you're just trying to justify that (mirrors not being fun, barcodes, etc.). I got a friend who is into competetive games (a lot) who has the same issue (i mean totally no offense with the phrasing). He seeks all the ways he can to keep positive winratio: starting new accounts, playing on new characters (fighting games), practicing with people below his skill level, etc etc. And it really gets him when he starts loosing more than winning, like he is so pissed off he cant find the motivation to play. I don't think that's particulary bad, just sharing my thoughts. If those things ("lifehacks", "cornercuts", w/e) keep you playing the game i think that's good. Regarding certain MU veto system. It should definitely be applied to unranked mode (or similar newly introduced mode), not to mess up you ranked mmr. So yep, no PvP specialists in GM. p.s. Once again, just to clarify my suggestion. Intorduce a new game mode (lets call it "practice tool or w/e"), where you can que (separetely from ranked) with certain MUs checked/unchecked. System searches for the opponent (who qued using that new mode (again, not ranked!!!) using your ranked/unranked MMR, but doesn't change your MMR regardless of the outcome. So, basically, it could be just a custom/melee autofinder. I just don't get what's so difficult about it from a coder perspective. No, I leave just mirrors, vs randoms, vs barcodes and on some maps(on the current mappool none). I am not afraid of losing, I lose some games anyway
Yes, I am bellow my MMR. I know this, there are times when I fall into gold where only smurfs can beat me, I have to claw my way back to upper levels. Yes, those games are not fun because I can literally do anything and still win. But that's how the system works, it's not my fault the system doesn't support the way I play.
Yes, I am not improving. I don't care about improving. I am at the threshold of what I am capable of for years now. I don't know why everyone is talking about improving. Why do I need to improve? I barely have the time to play the game and everyone is obsessed with improving. That's not helping people like me. I want to play as many equal games which fall into the criterias I wrote earlier as possible. That's my fun. If you have fun because you keep improving - fine, keep it. I stopped caring about my league 3 or 4 years ago. I stopped caring about improving in WoL. I need to improve at work, I need to improve at other skills than some stupid Starcraft.
Again, I need to emphasize this - I play unranked, I don't know what's the reality of my w/r. I make a good guess. But it makes sense, if the system is trying to leave me with 50 % w/r (that's how the system works) and I leave roughly 40 % of games(taking into consideration 5 % are randoms, 5 % are barcodes, 30 % are zergs(again, rough numbers)), I will lose only 10 additonal per cents. (more or less)
Sometimes I get to the place where I belong, that's when I have a long enough streak without any of the banned races/people. But otherwise I keep playing the way I like.
I also don't like some units(e.g. adepts) so I don't use them which results in some hilarious losses. Do I care? Hell no, leave the game, next.
I don't care about positive w/r, because I don't know what my w/r is. It may be 40 % total and I don't have any way how to tell. All I know is that sometimes I have to leave 15 games in a row because obviously I haven't played enough ZvZ, ZvR or ZvBarcode(lately I don't play much Protoss).
|
Korea (South)227 Posts
hmmm...while I can totally see what you're getting at, I feel then the game wouldn't be fun at all apart from short lucky bursts. Like, you circumvent, lose ladder, get to a rank much lower than your real skill level, crush some noobs the way you want to play, get back up and then rinse and repeat forever.
Obviously, everyone enjoys the game in different ways so I can't say that the way you play starcraft is right or wrong. But I do feel that the best way to enjoy games in starcraft is to play close back and forth games with all races. I love the 4M marches against ling bling hydra/muta, I love dropping and kiting against protoss and using ghosts or libs to outzone protoss compositions. Do I often get hit with build order BS? Sure. Is it frustrating? Yep. But I still love playing the game even if I'm not getting "better". I just like playing close and fun matches.
Again, you said it yourself, you play the way you want to play. I do think you're definitely missing out on the fun though.
|
On March 27 2019 04:21 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Map vetoes per match-up sounds fine (and has no impact on queue times).
Race-picking while queuing and especially queueing for specific match-ups however has a ton of issues revolving around queue times and could easily run into degenerate scenarios where queue times just keep on increasing for a particular race, so I'm not surprised that Blizzard hasn't opened that can of worms. Vetoing an entire race could increase queue times, but I'm not sure how letting someone play PvZ instead of ZvZ when matched up against a Zerg player would cause too many issues. If two Zerg players are matched up, and one wants to play PvZ while the other would prefer to play PvP or PvT to PvZ, just give them another opponent. The only real possibility of abuse is it could allow you to avoid 1 specific player and that's not a major problem.
|
|
|
|
|