Income multipliers can now be set for each team under Options to serve as a form of handicap. This is a commonly requested feature for coop games, but to take it a step further we're trying it out in a new matchmaking queue.

The '1v1' queue now generates even matches up to a certain skill gap, beyond which it creates unranked games with an income boost for the lower-ranked side. To stick to even games use the new '1v1 Narrow' queue, and for the best queue times use both at once. The '1v1' queue allows a slightly wider skill gap than the previous queue, while '1v1 Narrow' allows a slightly narrower gap.

Handicap and Matchmaking

• Per-team income multipliers can now be set under Options -> Multipliers in battle lobbies.
• Added a '1v1 Narrow' matchmaking queue that creates more evenly matched battles than the previous system.
• The '1v1' matchmaking queue can create either handicap or non-handicap games. If a match would qualify for '1v1 Narrow' then a normal match is played, otherwise the match does not affect ratings and the lower skilled player receives a small income boost.

Behaviour

• Added anti-structure overkill prevention for Lance, Lucifer, Ravager, Crab and Cyclops.
• Reef and Shogun try to stay at max range against all targets.

Other Tweaks

• Added NW vs. SE startboxes for Archsimkats Valley.
• Calayo is back to just being NW vs. SE.
• Tweaked metal spots on Battle for Planet XIV and DeltaSiege Island 8 Way.
• Tweaked the sun and water parameters for a few maps.
• Tweaked welcome text.
• Better support for modding a few things related to the economy (fewer files to override).

Non-Steam users will need to redownload the launcher again since it no longer self-updates.

I like the handicaps. I suggested it 5 years ago.

How does the ressource factor depend on rating difference? Does it only apply to metal rate or also energy / build power?

Edit: In the last match, my opponent got 120% metal, energy and build rate.

RiposteR if there is a handicap then it is set as follows:

if lowerWinChance > 0.20 then
    autoHandicapValue = 1.1
elseif lowerWinChance > 0.15 then
    autoHandicapValue = 1.15
elseif lowerWinChance > 0.1 then
    autoHandicapValue = 1.2
elseif lowerWinChance > 0.05 then
    autoHandicapValue = 1.25
else
    autoHandicapValue = 1.3
end

Some of the values aren't used, but they were there in case the maximum lower win chance for a non-handicap game needed tweaking above 17.5%. The absolute elo of both sides is available in this part of the code so it could be bought into the calculation. Doing so crossed my mind, but the numbers are so uncertain already that I thought it best to get some feedback now and refine the equation in future versions.

People don't seem to think in terms of win probabilities when thinking about whether they'd play a game so I often don't receive much information when I ask about them directly. The initial numbers are gut feelings based on years of occasional conversations/threads about how far up/down the ladder people like to fight, and then working backwards from there.

I would really like it if those that want to go deeper into this feedback would communicate in terms of functions. Like the one above. Functions are good for pinning down an approach - they don't have to be perfect first try.

quote: It would be nice to have the potential to opt out of receiving a handicap, as it makes it harder to improve when the timings and the mexes required to do different things is not constant between games. I don't mind someone getting a handicap against me, but I don't personally want a handicap against anyone.

Something like this could be hacked into the system. I think it would be more complicated than a simple toggle though as I think there could also be a preference against playing ranked non-handicap uneven games from the position of the higher skill player as well. Adding options to the MM is not free as it can split it or reduce clarity.

I considered the issue of timings being thrown off by the nature of the handicap and it could be a big issue. Whether to apply the handicap to the higher ranked player, or even both players, was a bit of a toss up. I went with the current system because it makes for rounder numbers, seems to have the least impact on the importance of starting resources, and doesn't slow the game down. Perhaps the fairest system would be a somewhat symmetric system around 100% for both sides, so they both have the issues related to not having a normal economy. Something extra to consider is the relationship between handicaps and constructor speeds.

Brackman I must have missed that, perhaps because it seemed to be about FFA. Given the points RiposteR raises I don't see a multiplier as a function of ratings difference working.

If you want to crush total noobs without giving them the bonus you can use the 1v1 room.

i didnt understand what is handicap and what it do?

I think a casual 1v1 queue with lower waiting times is great to have. It will probably be impossible to make this handicap balanced for serious games. Hopefully this doesn't come at too much of a cost for the "narrow" queue.

If we keep the handicap values stored in a way that's easy to associate with matches we could run some statistics later to refine it.

Don't like the changes to 1v1 MM at all. I've ran into two out of the top 3 players on the ladder before and beaten them in the past and been rewarded for it; this system means that either I can be in 1v1 narrow queue and never run into them, or get a bonus against them that I didn't ask for and void the results when I can beat players ranked well above me when we're on an even playing field. It also would have slowed the dramatic recent rise of RiposteR, who repeatedly beat players the system thought he had a single digit win chance against.

quote: If you want to crush total noobs without giving them the bonus you can use the 1v1 room.

So currently, there are 4 options to find a 1v1 game.

1v1 Narrow -

For someone at my elo, there are only 17 possible players that I can match with.

1v1 MM -

If I get one of the 17 players, I have an interesting game. Otherwise, I have this totally useless "handicap" game. Additionally, you are putting the onus on me to figure out if this game is handicapped or meaningful, as it COULD be either one depending on the ratings.

1v1 Casual-

This room does not use MM elo, its a completely different animal, as it uses casual/team/ffa elo.

1v1 Pro-

Probably the best option at this point, but there are plently of players that are not "total noobs:" who cannot play here, but would have a very good chance to beat me.

My ideal for the handicap is as follows:

• People that prefer it to a fairly onesided 10%< win chance game enjoy themselves and more people use the matchmaker.
• People who want unmodified games get at least as many opponents due to MM activity, but with better balance.

Whether this can be brought about is unclear, and depends on where the win chance thresholds are set. The recent games and feedback indicated that the numbers were too high so I reduced them. It is hard to prejudge this so I'm planning to iterate for a bit. There are also a few different ratings reported by infra that could be introducing noise ( DeinFreund may be looking into it).

quote: Probably the best option at this point, but there are plently of players that are not "total noobs:" who cannot play here, but would have a very good chance to beat me.

I only became aware of this recently. I'll set the min rank to Giant (yellow) because there are a few giants on the top 50.