| 1 |
Yes,
|
1 |
Yes,
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
I think FFA would work best with matchmaking, but it requires players to be very close in skill. It's much easier to make a balanced team game than to make a balanced FFA. I don't think a FFA matchmaker should make a match where the top rank has distance more than one to the bottom rank. Technically, FFA has the ability to be balanced for all ranks, and its balance isn't tied to how well you play. What it really needs is the ability to communicate well and to do so even while fighting under pressure. Balance is much easier though when players are naturally even in skill.
|
3 |
I think FFA would work best with matchmaking, but it requires players to be very close in skill. It's much easier to make a balanced team game than to make a balanced FFA. I don't think a FFA matchmaker should make a match where the top rank has distance more than one to the bottom rank. Technically, FFA has the ability to be balanced for all ranks, and its balance isn't tied to how well you play. What it really needs is the ability to communicate well and to do so even while fighting under pressure. Balance is much easier though when players are naturally even in skill.
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
and no.
|
5 |
and no.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
With
the
current
MM
activity
I
doubt
we
could
get
enough
players
of
the
same
rank
to
join
at
the
same
time.
I'm
also
not
sure
we
could
even
create
good
FFA
matches
just
by
matching
MM
rating.
A
FFA
rating
would
definitely
make
sense,
but
that
comes
with
many
other
problems.
There
are
also
many
types
of
FFA
such
that
the
matchmaker
will
probably
never
make
what
you
are
looking
for.
I.
e.
some
players
just
want
a
16
way
lobster
pot
on
an
asymmetric
map
with
half
of
the
players
getting
rushed
or
2v1ed
in
the
first
few
minutes,
some
want
a
small
map
with
aggressive
1v1
style
play
from
the
start
and
some
want
to
sit
back
on
a
large
map
with
everyone
building
their
pretty
castle
and
a
large
showdown
in
the
end.
|
7 |
With
the
current
MM
activity
I
doubt
we
could
get
enough
players
of
the
same
rank
to
join
at
the
same
time.
I'm
also
not
sure
we
could
even
create
good
FFA
matches
just
by
matching
MM
rating.
A
FFA
rating
would
definitely
make
sense,
but
that
comes
with
many
other
problems.
There
are
also
many
types
of
FFA
such
that
the
matchmaker
will
probably
never
make
what
you
are
looking
for.
I.
e.
some
players
just
want
a
16
way
lobster
pot
on
an
asymmetric
map
with
half
of
the
players
getting
rushed
or
2v1ed
in
the
first
few
minutes,
some
want
a
small
map
with
aggressive
1v1
style
play
from
the
start
and
some
want
to
sit
back
on
a
large
map
with
everyone
building
their
pretty
castle.
|
| 8 |
\n
|
8 |
\n
|
| 9 |
I also have the feeling that the current MM situation is a bit misleading UI. There are four different MM buttons for a new player to choose from, two, maybe three of which will likely cause the player to leave before they ever find a match. Chobby's main advantage was that it makes it easier to get into a game and reduces the number of ways to get stuck in some obscure spads autohost. I know this might sound a bit antagonistic, but ZK's first play experience is still a far distance from "industry standard".
|
9 |
I also have the feeling that the current MM situation is a bit misleading UI. There are four different MM buttons for a new player to choose from, two, maybe three of which will likely cause the player to leave before they ever find a match. Chobby's main advantage was that it makes it easier to get into a game and reduces the number of ways to get stuck in some obscure spads autohost. I know this might sound a bit antagonistic, but ZK's first play experience is still a far distance from "industry standard".
|
FFA matchmaking queue