| 1 |
Rather than talk vaguely about huge matching bands driving players away I would like answers to specific questions. These are the questions that sit at the core of people's preferences about the MM system so I see no reason to have proxy arguments in the form of abstractions of these questions. Specific questions also lead to actual implementations. Earlier I asked "Where is the tradeoff between an acceptable winrate and finding a game?", but we can get even more specific. For example:
|
1 |
Rather than talk vaguely about huge matching bands driving players away I would like answers to specific questions. These are the questions that sit at the core of people's preferences about the MM system so I see no reason to have proxy arguments in the form of abstractions of these questions. Specific questions also lead to actual implementations. Earlier I asked "Where is the tradeoff between an acceptable winrate and finding a game?", but we can get even more specific. For example:
|
| 2 |
* What is the highest rated player that you should be able to play on your first MM game?
|
2 |
* What is the highest rated player that you should be able to play on your first MM game?
|
| 3 |
* How many opponents should be available to the #1 rated player?
|
3 |
* How many opponents should be available to the #1 rated player?
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
My answer to the second question is probably at least everyone in the top 10, which would imply that @dyth68 should currently match with @Godde.
|
5 |
My answer to the second question is probably at least everyone in the top 10, which would imply that @dyth68 should currently match with @Godde.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
I think an acceptable winrate has to be at most 25%. Note that a difference of 300 is a 15% win chance. My system thus far has been to adjust the ranges in whatever direction I hear a complaint about, because I don't think we have the data processing to notice the result of any experiment. We could set the limit at 300 (given understanding of how the code works, which is a big ask too) but I would expect it to be swamped by natural fluctuation.
|
7 |
I think an acceptable winrate has to be at most 25%. Note that a difference of 300 is a 15% win chance. My system thus far has been to adjust the ranges in whatever direction I hear a complaint about, because I don't think we have the data processing to notice the result of any experiment. We could set the limit at 300 (given understanding of how the code works, which is a big ask too) but I would expect it to be swamped by natural fluctuation.
|
| 8 |
\n
|
8 |
\n
|
| 9 |
With
a
personal
high/low
range
toggle
I
would
be
much
happier
with
setting
a
lower
value,
because
then
people
could
toggle
it
on
when
they
say
that
they
would
prefer
to
get
a
rather
unbalanced
game
than
wait
around.
As
it
stands,
if
the
choice
is
between
the
MM
only
being
populated
by
people
who
are
happy
to
play
an
unbalanced
games
sometimes
and
the
ranges
being
too
low
for
people
to
find
a
game,
then
I'd
rather
have
some
people
playing
than
not.
|
9 |
With
a
personal
high/low
range
toggle
I
would
be
much
happier
with
setting
a
lower
value,
because
then
people
could
toggle
it
on
when
they
say
that
they
would
prefer
to
get
a
rather
unbalanced
game
than
wait
around.
As
it
stands,
if
the
choice
is
between
the
MM
only
being
populated
by
people
who
are
happy
to
play
an
unbalanced
games
sometimes
and
the
ranges
being
too
low
for
people
to
find
a
game,
then
I'd
rather
have
some
people
playing
than
not.
With
an
obvious
enough
toggle
perhaps
the
former
type
of
people
could
keep
the
MM
active
enough
for
more
people
to
join.
|
| 10 |
\n
|
10 |
\n
|
| 11 |
There is also the idea of handicaps. Some sort of handicap that feels good to play could be automatically set on games with wide enough rating differences. This would probably have to be a toggle.
|
11 |
There is also the idea of handicaps. Some sort of handicap that feels good to play could be automatically set on games with wide enough rating differences. This would probably have to be a toggle.
|
| 12 |
\n
|
12 |
\n
|
| 13 |
I am also very aware of the power of defaults. Anything that is behind a toggle may as well not exist for 95% of people.
|
13 |
I am also very aware of the power of defaults. Anything that is behind a toggle may as well not exist for 95% of people.
|
| 14 |
\n
|
14 |
\n
|
| 15 |
[q]My understanding is it only applies to consecutive games in the same day.
|
15 |
[q]My understanding is it only applies to consecutive games in the same day.
|
| 16 |
Also, the -50 elo thing could be made to only apply to the lower ranked player. (essentially acting as a cap on the upper end of the search band)[/q]
|
16 |
Also, the -50 elo thing could be made to only apply to the lower ranked player. (essentially acting as a cap on the upper end of the search band)[/q]
|
| 17 |
I really have no idea. @DeinFreund added this one day so I no longer have a full picture of how the MM system actually works.
|
17 |
I really have no idea. @DeinFreund added this one day so I no longer have a full picture of how the MM system actually works.
|
| 18 |
\n
|
18 |
\n
|
| 19 |
One big roadblock is anyone having a solid idea about how the system actually works as implemented.
|
19 |
One big roadblock is anyone having a solid idea about how the system actually works as implemented.
|
| 20 |
\n
|
20 |
\n
|
| 21 |
[q]I don't understand how that tragedy of the commons would work. [/q]
|
21 |
[q]I don't understand how that tragedy of the commons would work. [/q]
|
| 22 |
The commons is the pool of active MM players and the tragedy comes about from people being motivated to play games that are as balanced as possible. I view the act of playing a slightly less balanced game than you would like as something that makes the MM run better for everyone. The incentives would seem to lead to people letting others play the MM-activity games. That said, I don't think the end state of the incentives is "everyone has a manually set MM band of zero", just that the bands will probably end up smaller than optimal.
|
22 |
The commons is the pool of active MM players and the tragedy comes about from people being motivated to play games that are as balanced as possible. I view the act of playing a slightly less balanced game than you would like as something that makes the MM run better for everyone. The incentives would seem to lead to people letting others play the MM-activity games. That said, I don't think the end state of the incentives is "everyone has a manually set MM band of zero", just that the bands will probably end up smaller than optimal.
|
| 23 |
\n
|
23 |
\n
|
matchmaking