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

Quickplay Autohost Matchmaker

10 posts, 609 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
sort
Right now there aren't enough players to allow playing small team games on the matchmaker. There have been numerous complaints that the teams room's 32 player limit is too liberal. Instead of limiting it, I would like to test the hypothesis that players are willing to play smaller, balanced team games if they were to present themselves.

As a solution, I propose a new feature for the matchmaker. Whenever a game ends on the teams autohost, all players are presented with a matchmaker pop-up, asking whether they'd be interested in a small teams game. All people who accepted will be put in the matchmaker with maximum search range. Games are created instantly without any further pop-ups. If a person declined or couldn't be put in a balanced MM game, they remain in the teams room as before.

The feature would only be active once a certain minimum number of players have joined the autohost. If you declined once, you won't be bothered again for the rest of the day. The Accept/Decline time falls right into the poll-free time described in the other thread, so you wouldn't miss out on any polls. Accepting and entering a match would take away the chance to talk about the last game though.

As in the other thread, what do you think about this? Would it disrupt your ZK play?
+5 / -0
Perhaps offer the option to spectators as well if there are a bunch of them.
[Spoiler]
+1 / -0


5 years ago
I support any change even remotely capable of making two teamgames happen at the same time instead of a single 16v16.
+0 / -0

5 years ago
quote:
As a solution, I propose a new feature for the matchmaker.

It's not solution. Its bloody desperate move to make players play small teams.
It will not be most annoying feature about this pop out. Most annoying thing will be that there will be for sure at least one lobstar who 'wrongly accidentally pressed button'.
I'm not against small teams.
+0 / -0

5 years ago
LVrankSenaven this is just my take on it. It's a little annoying but you can still play every game mode. Would you rather limit all hosts to a small number of players and possibly lose big teams players over it?

USrankFealthas already the case. Everybody who's not afk and hasn't declined before is offered a game. After all you're in a room to play, right?
+0 / -0

5 years ago
quote:
this is just my take on it. It's a little annoying but you can still play every game mode. Would you rather limit all hosts to a small number of players and possibly lose big teams players over it?


I understand your point of view CHrankAdminDeinFreund and also thay players who want to play small teams because they are too annoyed about clusterfucks. My comment wasn't about that this option is worthless and annoying. I'm in side that community should give it try. I think that public poll would be also good to find community opinion.
+0 / -0
This?

What would your preferred maximum match size be on the team vs. team autohosts?

2v2-4v4
18% (93) 18%
5v5-7v7
11% (58) 11%
8v8-10v10
21% (109) 21%
11v11-13v13
2% (8) 2%
14v14-16v16
34% (178) 34%
I don't know 14% (75) 14%
-----(Total votes: 521)-----


18% wanting to play nothing bigger than 2v2-4v4 is a sizeable part of the playerbase. Add some more for those who would still like to allow big battles but also play the samller ones. The matchmaker could also be used for bigger battles, but I first want to see enough players using it to get those small team battles..
+0 / -0
5 years ago
I think anything to put more people in the teams queue would be great. I always enter the teams queue but I almost always get a 1v1 first and choose that.

MM in ZK is livelier than alot of people give it credit for, I'd say on an average day it'd take me the same amount of time to get a ZK1v1 as it would a game of league of legends (2-15 minutes) or many other much much bigger games.

Another random thought is that MM team games are probably the most high-pressure game type. The meta is can be alot wackier, you have teammates to disappoint, it affects your ranking and you don't know what you're up against until the game has already begun. Some of these things are also what makes it exciting but I can see it as a (probably unavoidable) barrier to entry for some players.
+2 / -0
It's good that something is done to try and gently push the community to play smaller team games, because:
- games more likely to be available at all times of day
- less performance issues
- more games running simultaneously, lower waiting times


Currently teams MM share the same "competitive" status and rank as 1v1 MM. Maybe more people would randomly join in if it were casual instead? I would.

Another aspect of this is the lack of incentive to hold ladder positions. There could be awards for holding a top-X position on the competitive ladder at the end of each month, and for N consecutive months.
+1 / -0
5 years ago
I've played other games where the matchmaking feels like 1 point for a win -50 for a loss once you're in the top percentiles. Starts building all this horrible behavior where you try to dodge games you might lose and you might have to play strategies you dont like, all built around not losing.

I have no idea how WHR works but your ladder score is very stable after you play a few games. Its alot more relaxed when you can lose to someone several ranks below and its not going to immediately bomb your rank. Also if the only people playing are much higher rank it dosent really punish you at all. I think its a good system after a bit of getting used to but people probably imagine its like ELO.

One thing id suggest is to merge the bottom ranks so theres no ranks that advertise "im one of the worst players in the game". Reward people for winning games but don't punish them for losing (to the extent its possible)
+1 / -0