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

Matchmaker Options

20 posts, 1074 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
sort

7 years ago
So basicly you will never ever get a 3v3 in matchmaker ever cause it prefers 2v2 so even if there are 6 ppl in the queue it will prefer to make it a 2v2.
So just give 3v3 and 4v4 option,this will make things so much easier to use.

Pretty please.
+7 / -0

7 years ago
Not sure on the code, but I think it prefers 2v2 usually because of the smaller rating range between all player.
+0 / -0


7 years ago
It actually prioritizes bigger battles but you need to have people in elo range..
+0 / -0

7 years ago
Yeah but just having the option to go for 3v3 or 4v4 would be much more reliable then just hoping everyones elo is in the sweet spot.
We have tried to make 3v3 happen in the matchmaker many times and i think it never happend.

I mean why cant we just have MM 1v1/2v2/3v3/4v4 options?
+2 / -0

7 years ago
Because that would dilute the already small player base.

Maybe consider increasing the rating range for larger teams, or wait a larger minimum amount in order to form larger battles.
+1 / -0


7 years ago
We could have 1v1/2v2/3v3/4v4 because people can click all the buttons. Perhaps this is a change to make.
+12 / -0

7 years ago
You... can click all of the buttons?

May I recommend also making that clear near the buttons?
+1 / -0


7 years ago
Argument (not mine) against multiple queues was research and other articles, warning against splitting the queues
+0 / -0

6 years ago
Yes because in most games waiting for longer than 1 min to play a game will result in no one playing the game anymore.
But those games are built around the idea that u get hundreds of active players at any given time.
In zero-k the options you have means that you allways can play a game no matter the player base so i dont think that will hurt anyone.
+0 / -0


6 years ago
Ok, let's add more queue types then!
+7 / -0

6 years ago
ROrankSigero I don't see what makes ZK special. Your last paragraph didn't make much sense to me, sorry... Also why limit to arbitrary 4v4 limit?

I don't think we need a complicated system with millions of options. More patient matchmaking system and wider rating range for larger battles are much more important things imo.
+2 / -0

6 years ago
Please
+2 / -0


6 years ago
We are considering it .. it might spam GUI (untested) and split people more unless they join multiple queues at once.
+1 / -0
6 years ago
Maybe have one button to join PvP and then options to exclude certain sizes?
+1 / -0
6 years ago
How about something like this:

(Join/Leave) Coop
(Join/Leave) 1v1
(Join/Leave) Teams
* (Join/Leave) 2v2
* (Join/Leave) 3v3
* (Join/Leave) 4v4

Clicking the Join Teams button joins all queues 2v2, 3v3, 4v4. Clicking one of the more specific buttons selectively joins/leaves it.
+2 / -0


6 years ago
I've seen several simultaneous 4v4 with the present matchmaker. It seems fine in that regard.
+0 / -0

6 years ago
EErankAdminAnarchid

I respectfully disagree
I have never seen 4v4 matchmaker

an anecdote is not data.

that said if you have data say 4v4 make up [insert percentage here] of all team matchmaking then I would reconsider my position.
+0 / -0
AUrankSortale here you go:

http://zero-k.info/Battles?Title=matchmaker&Map=&PlayersFrom=8&PlayersTo=8&Age=0&Mission=0&Bots=0&Rank=8
+0 / -0
17 4v4 match make over more than 100 [how many?] team match make so we have anything between 5%-17% [very generous assumption since I can see more than 3k of all match making according to serial no here http://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/504634 ]

and more than half are teams of 4 premade

all in all it seems to support the conclusion that the current matchmaking system discourage [or even prevent] spontaneous 4v4 teams
+0 / -0

6 years ago
It's important this use a check marked box, as a check mark is the way you can select multiple things on a list.
+3 / -0