Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Matchmaker wierdness

22 posts, 526 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 2 (22 records)
sort

USrankFealthas
4 months ago
I often see 2 people in 1v1 queue-> no game happens. Same for teams. 4/5 people in queue -> no game still. Maybe its a little too restrictive?
+0 / -0

PLrankFailer
4 months ago
Also (at least when i player last time) 6 player waiting in teams queue -> 2v2 and 2 players still waiting...
+0 / -0




AUrankAdminGoogleFrog
4 months ago
There is an allowed elo range. I don't know the exact numbers anymore, too much has changed since I had direct input on them. The configuration will be something approximating this:
  • Allowed range increases to maximum over a minute.
  • The range for a 1v1 is probably around 300
  • The range for a 2v2 is larger, possibly 400.

+0 / -0

USrankFealthas
4 months ago
That seems like a really low range, considering it means I can only play with 8 people, including myself.
+0 / -0




AUrankAdminGoogleFrog
4 months ago
Propose some MM range function with your aim behind it. Maybe you want to cap elo at some upper and lower bound when searching for games. It depends what MM is supposed to do. Whatever the current range is, it is set to achieve the goal of not creating too many one sided games.
+0 / -0

DErankrenamer
4 months ago
Now look up when and how many MM matches those eight peoplers in your elmo-range played and realize waiting in MM queue is a waste of time.
+1 / -1



CHrankAdminDeinFreund
4 months ago
(edited 4 months ago)

IMO the elo range is too big. Both USranksomekid and AUrankAdminGoogleFrog will be offered games against me, where the vast majority of underdog wins is really just the better player having technical issues, being bored and messing around or drunk driving. I'd say those games belong into the casual category and are definitely not a reliable way for elo to estimate skill (The sigmoid is a lie!)

From what I remember the MM range expansion is already turned up to eleven to give us more games with our tiny community. If you want good games with the current mm population you need to arrange for somebody of similar skill to play with.
+0 / -0


ILrankAdminhokomoko
4 months ago
Solution: let MM create a casual-rated game if players have been waiting long enough and Elo gap is too large.
+2 / -0




AUrankAdminGoogleFrog
4 months ago
I think the window for 2v2 is too small compared to the window for 1v1.
+0 / -0

AUrankhedgehogs
4 months ago
Solution: Hoko's and Steamrelease.

Then we don't have to change anything, while a bunch of other people join ZK and fill up MM themselves.
Simple!

Only problem with Hoko: What if the ELO gap is like 1000 and it's vs Googlefrog, how long must we wait?
+0 / -2


CZrankAdminLicho
4 months ago
Hokomoko's idea is interesting, however how do we communicate that? Atm there is no indication whether the game is ranked or not.

Originally my plan was to simply merge matchmaker games with non-mm games so if some teams game starts, people in teams queue could be automerged into game when it's starting.


+1 / -0


FIrankVermind
4 months ago
You can have am Accept Unranked button appear when an unranked match is found (and no ranked options exist). Something like "Keep waiting, or Accept Unranked"
+1 / -0


JPrankgajop
4 months ago
I'd just scale the elo range to obscene level provided people have waited long enough. The elo win/loss in those cases will be small anyway, so it's essentially like a casual game.
No need to announce/show it in any way, just make it scale dynamically.
Still, I think the biggest problem with MM right now is that you can't play the widely popular big team games, and on some lobbies (SWL) it could be better presented.
+1 / -0




AUrankAdminGoogleFrog
4 months ago
There are times when I would rather wait and never play a game than play an absolute stomp. I'm sure this is common in most people. If MM games can result in you having to play a complete stomp then people will reduce their MM use to avoid to risk.
+2 / -0


JPrankgajop
4 months ago
I think your limit of 300 elo is reasonable if you want to get a competitive game out of it. Perhaps start at about 50, and increase it non-linearly to 500. Although there are other factors to take into account, such as the diversity of matchups.

Maybe in cases of large elo difference, the low-elo players could get a boost (a multiplier to the metal & energy incomes), if more of a challenge is desired.


However I think an equally important goal is to see how we can make MM more attractive, as it's not being used all that much now. If having more flexibility in the system means more players use it (as the games happen more frequently), it's definitely something worth considering.
+0 / -0

AUrankhedgehogs
4 months ago
(edited 4 months ago)

Hey knorke. Dude, if you want to play again, act different.

MM, my solution, once the time has reached a limit, the battle will start regardless of Elo, however, there is a formula which makes elo increased/decreased if they win, so the lower player will get much more while the higher player will receive negligble amounts, so stomping on newbs does nothing, while newbs winning makes their elo go higher

On the other hand, because of our only players being at top, newbs won't be attracted to MM since their's no one of their skill, and so Customs look much better because of that.
+0 / -0

PLrankOrfelius
4 months ago
So how about having a 200 elo difference of matching. then after 4 minutes, each minute in which the match is not found will result in loosening of the elo difference barrier until the players in the queue will be matched.

Ofc the matchmaking will still prefer to match closest to the given value.

This way even if the match is very unbalanced at least they will play at all.
+1 / -0

AUrankhedgehogs
4 months ago
quote:
This way even if the match is very unbalanced at least they will play at all.
the biggest problem is getting stomped, no one really enjoys getting destroyed by the top players when you just started and don't know the difference between Glaive and Scythe is.
+0 / -0


AUrankAquanim
4 months ago
(edited 4 months ago)

I think there is a point beyond which if two people of widely varying skill wish to play 1v1 it is appropriate for them to play in a custom room instead.

Trying to force MM games at the expense of game quality doesn't seem like a good idea to promote MM in the short or long term.
+0 / -0

AUrankhedgehogs
4 months ago
(edited 4 months ago)

So AUrankAquanim , you are proposing a "No elo match" if the elo gap is too large?
I like the idea, but sometimes there are just those that will fight anyway and try their best, however I find the problem to be just too small playerbase, very little players (around 100 pretty much), who are often AFK, and sometimes just quitting, so there is no one to fight.

I whole heartedly agree we need a new MM


Nice try RUrankFirepluk , but I don't care about forum karma, it's a fact, people do resign pretty early. Look at Dancer's case.

+0 / -2
Page of 2 (22 records)