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

Team matchmaking improvement suggestions

8 posts, 351 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
sort

GBrankehtomlol
6 days ago
(edited 6 days ago)

In my opinion, having played several matches, the team matchmaking is in dire need of improvement. Or at least a big red warning to new players saying "do not click, lol".

Reasoning:

1. It puts premades vs random queuers (even when there is a huge elo difference).
2. It puts players with a huge elo difference on the same team, yet still shares mass equally. So 50% of your eco is going to some guy's turret swarm or bertha at 5 min.

For example: http://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/559238 . Me + random vs premade of two players both much higher elo and level than me. Random player makes 4 stardusts to begin, then leaves. Not a good experience at all.

Suggestion:

1. Ban premade, or make it clear and allow people to dodge. The community is too small and this is just a tool to stomp people.
2. Distribute mass by 1v1 elo predict%. So for example if a blue player is with a yellow one, yellow player gets whatever his win% would be in a 1v1 (or something similar), so 20% or whatever the implied probability is.


mod-edit: fix broken link
+1 / -0

BBrankOdlaner
6 days ago
I understand the general issue here. However some people would not even touch the match making pvp without their friend they came to the game with or their buddy they met in some battle. why? well it comes down to Comfort, Cooperation and most of all Trust. Yea sometimes its best to know you have someone with you thats not going to resign when 1 of his wind generators gets got.

However that doesnt stop those players who only care abut that sweet rank to piggy back on the backs of players whom have worked to get the awesome color they have. Which mostly leads to lobsters getting over cooked when young and not playing the game or pvp anymore cuz of the horrible taste that leaves in your mouth.

However Matchmaking having too much or too little freedom is bad in both ways.perhaps stop the awesome colors from queuing with the not so awesome colors to make them play, learn and work for it. Balance is a funny thing to achieve sometimes.
+0 / -0


GBrankthe_green_squig
6 days ago
I have remarked on the second issue in another thread. More recent experience reinforces my impression that the underlying problem is where a team with a high rated players gets drawn against the general pool. Some more recent games in my personal experience:

Multiplayer B558937 4 on Adansonia v4.1
Multiplayer B558767 4 on Onyx Cauldron 1.9

Both lopsided battle from the outset resulting in curb stompings, and my frustration at being drawn against the same higher rated team several times in one day was apparent.

However, when the matchmaker has a higher rated person to put in the pool, the game unsurprisingly becomes properly competitive ( Multiplayer B558950 4 on Shimmershore v1.0 ). If the team's average rating is higher than the matchmaking pool's average, fun stops happening for everyone else. While noting Odlaner's remarks, I still think that removing the ability of premade teams to join the matchmaker queue is one situation where the needs of the many (the general matchmaker pool) outweigh the needs of the few (that subset of players who absolutely insist on playing with their buddy).

The underlying problem remains the small player base. If you're not playing the same people over and over then there is less of an issue (being cooked by a high rated team isn't too big a problem if it only happens once in a session instead of 3 or 4 times), but I do believe allowing premade teams into matchmaker has an overall negative effect with the current game population.

With regards to team quality, ultimately that is the risk you take playing teams. Sometimes you'll have proper team players (unrated novice players can still be good team players if you engage with them, the game provides ample means to do so), sometimes you don't. If you don't want to run the risk of having a weak team-mate, play 1v1 (though I find the 1v1 pool feels like it's usually higher average rated than team pool, no doubt due to higher confidence of the players there).
+0 / -0



AUrankAdminGoogleFrog
6 days ago
We can set a search range width multiplier for battles that include parties. I've reduced it to 65% from 80%. This is a dynamic configuration so the change is live instantly.
+1 / -0

GBrankehtomlol
5 days ago
Thanks for that change, the team games I had recently have been generally better (aside from trolling etc, not much to be done about that tho).
+0 / -0


ITrankmanero
5 days ago
I think the current system of team matchmaking does not work properly. In fact, we need to wait a long time to have a game and not because there are no players but to find those with the same Elo. The excellent system devised by Dein Stein unintentionally creates situations of disparity in the matchmaking team.
The problem of the evaluation of teams according to the system 95% of the games are team 2 vs 2 and this is not due to lack of players but due to the fragmentation in micro games with players of the same elo. In the evaluation of the formation of the teams, the sum of the players involved is the sum,
so in team 1 players A and B have for example an elo 1500 + 1500, while team 2 players C and D have an elo of 2000 + 1000.
Is not the same thing. I lost several games against 2 good players because my partner started the game by ddm or by defending himself or building bertha.
Therefore it would be more natural to make the evaluation of the Elo more elastic because:
1) there would most likely be team matches 3 vs 3 or 4 vs 4, much more fun
2) you would avoid playing room games of 16 vs 16 players, who suffer terribly from lag (it seems sometimes to play in replay mode)
3) the nerf player who wants to face a matchmaking team match, (as it already does ruining the game of others), would be balanced
by the presence of more players in the same team
4) also do not understand why there must be protection for the weakest players, to the detriment of others. In the case of a tournament, everyone plays against everyone therefore those who participate do so at their own risk. If the nerf wants to play 1vs1 with a friend he can easily do it in the room.
+1 / -0

USrankAdminJasper
5 days ago
The balance has been alot better with 65%. It prob could be reduced to 60%. More then a 100 elo diff in teams starts getting unbalanced.
+0 / -0

FRrankEarlGrey
36 hours ago
(edited 36 hours ago)

After a bit of reflexion on the subject, I feel like premades on (ranked) matchmaking should only face other premades.

Many premades I've faced have been very good players teaming themselves for what ends up to be an easy win against average players and to be honest I wonder if it's not related to the rank insecurity "issue" stated here: https://zero-k.info/Forum/Thread/25690 , after all you wont lose your rank if once in a while you stack the odds in your favor.

It kinda breaks the matchmaker: I don't think I'm mistaken if I say its point is to have random balanced games. And Instead with this we have situations where it would have mixed the players for a fair and balanced game but we end-up with too much unbalancing which might be frustrating for some.

It's fine for people to play with their friends, it really is. But don't forget you can still host regular games without having to rely on the matchmaker for that and this way people know what they are facing.
And if you really want the thrills of ranked matchmaking with your buddy, let it be that it's only against another team of premades because to be honest even if we achieve ELO balance, there is always the advantage of knowing how your friend plays and reacts for a much better coordination (and I'm not even speaking of mic issues).

EDIT: maybe we can find some kind of compromise where the party is actually a wish: the matchmaker will take it into account that you want to play with your friend but it will break it and mix the teams if the odds of winning for one team is greater than 60%? This way everyone should be pleased?

My 2 cents, thank you for reading.
+1 / -0