PDA

View Full Version : Matchmaker SNAFU



tnankie
02-25-2013, 02:58 AM
Just got matched against Weedan. Their ranking was ~1380, my ranking was ~1200. fair enough yeah?
I had a team of pure basic units, he had a full rank 1 squad.
I believe Weedan was playing expert mode (30 second timer), I was not.
Think I got matched at about 40 seconds (could be way out here I was alt+tab)
I thought this crap was supposed to be fixed.
:mad:

TL : DR
Matchmaker is really screwed up.
:mad:

raven2134
02-25-2013, 03:20 AM
Tnankie, the fixes to the MM do not mean that you will never be matched like this. It means that the time it takes for this kind of match to happen takes longer, and that players cannot cheat the MM by dropping stats on units to achieve low power level but maintain rank 1 units.

The best way to avoid these kind of match ups is to stop queuing and renter the matchmaker every 30 seconds.

Would just like to clarify that the matchmaker is not screwed up.

Of course, it is a different issue if you would prefer never to get matched when no one within 1-2 power level is online.

(Also note, being matched at expert has no effect on you, it should be an advantage in fact, because your opponent has less time to plan moves with 30 seconds, while you maintain your 1 min timer)

tnankie
02-25-2013, 05:04 AM
The relative power is the _hard_ constraint. The system starts out trying to match you with a zero difference (60vs60, 66vs66, etc...). Over the course of 1 minute it slowly opens up the power window to a difference of 6 (60vs66).

Within your hard power window, it tries to find the best match for you using a combination of power delta and Elo delta, where +200 Elo is treated as +6 Power equivalent. It also weights the match against someone with the same timer (Expert vs. 60 sec). A +30 timer delta is equivalent to +100 Elo.

Currently, if you match against someone with +3 Power, you get an underdog bonus of +1 renown.

In the next build, underdog bonus will scale up with more power delta, possibly Power [2...6] -> Renown [1...3].

Well clearly I have misunderstood this post.
My maths had the rating difference at 180 (ranking) + 200 (unit ranks) + 100 (timer)
so the matchmaker thought that a rating difference of 480 is reasonable. I thought 200 Elo ~ 6 power. So converting this becomes a match with a power mismatch of 12 and a rating mismatch of 80, both to the same player.

I guess my point is that at no point is there a hard cut-off on ranking difference, there should be. My understanding of the MM is that yes a certain power difference is allowable after x seconds but you'd hope that you are playing against a lower ranked player to compensate. To give the much better player a 6 unit advantage is frankly ridiculous. Matches like this are BS Raven and you know it.

Finally this match may be allowable under the current MM parameters (i.e. not a bug), this is not what my post is about. My post is that this match up is a pile of crap that does the game more harm than good (stupid thrashings v's not finding a match). That a match up like this should not be allowed by the MM.

And really finally ;), yes I am still pissed off by this loss, I'd been playing my arse off (with an all rank 0 team) to keep that winning streak and then the RNG that pretends to be a MM gives out things like this.

raven2134
02-25-2013, 05:58 AM
I can definitely understand the frustration Tnankie. And thank you for elaborating using the MM explanation post. I personally do think you're on to something with a hard cut-off. And given the explanation you've illustrated, if that is still being applied (since it looks outdated due to the renown level included in the computation, the new one is solely on rank), it would seem the MM only provides a hard cut-off for renown/power level, with Elo and timer as a secondary consideration.

Based on my own understanding, the MM is like this due to some legacy from the beta. With a small player base, finding matches took more priority than the matches being balanced (which was sorta moot anyway cos of the testing and the renown dump).

Still, rest assured, balanced matches are a serious concern, and one that Stoic isn't taking lightly. In forum chats and in other matchmaking threads, the devs have mentioned on busier playing times and in general I suppose, the matchmaker has been managing 85% match ups (the opposite, as in your case, being called a mismatch).

While getting walloped by a mismatched team can be a foregone conclusion, at least the underdog renown allows the less favored player to earn the renown he couldn't earn from kills (though I do think there needs to be more consolation or a different handle). Underdog bonus should grant 1 renown for every 2 power rating difference. If you manage to kill 1-2 guys, and are outmatched by 6, you can get 5 renown from the battle.

I don't remember where...but I remember suggesting if mismatches end up being inevitable (either as a consequence of the system or as a matter of prioritizing finding games), maybe mismatches need to be handled differently, with a different objective in play or something. That was just a crazy thing I was thinking.

The MM will continue to undergo tweaking, for a long time, as was mentioned when the most recent changes came in. Thanks for the feedback.

Conundrum
02-25-2013, 07:34 AM
Out of interest, why were you playing with a full rank 0 team in order to maintain a winning streak? It sounds like either you were attempting to farm newbies for rating or renown, and got upset when a long winning streak ended up pitting you against someone ranked higher eventually.

(That's not meant to sound like an accusation, that's just how your post comes across, so it might be a good idea to elaborate a bit on your reasoning).

Also, it was my understanding that John's post meant that having 30 seconds more per turn that your opponent is equivalent to +100 ELO - in other words, that the +100 would have been going to you, not Weedan. This results in a difference of 280 instead of 480, which could easily be reached within a reasonable timeframe in the MM. I'm not sure if my understanding is correct, as I've never really thought about it in depth - it's just the impression I got when first reading John's phrasing ("A +30 timer delta is equivalent to +100 Elo.")

Finally, I think it's important not to get too hung up on things like this. If his ELO was truly so far above yours, then you didn't lose much ELO from the loss. You lost your winning streak, sure, but that doesn't cost you much Renown in the long run - and I kinda hope you're not just concerned about the win streak in the Hall of Valor. I'm sure the match wasn't particularly fun, but hey - these issues will be ironed out once we have more players and a better understanding of how the population is going to distribute itself.

Alex
02-25-2013, 08:08 AM
Well clearly I have misunderstood this post.
My maths had the rating difference at 180 (ranking) + 200 (unit ranks) + 100 (timer)
so the matchmaker thought that a rating difference of 480 is reasonable. I thought 200 Elo ~ 6 power. So converting this becomes a match with a power mismatch of 12 and a rating mismatch of 80, both to the same player.

I guess my point is that at no point is there a hard cut-off on ranking difference, there should be. My understanding of the MM is that yes a certain power difference is allowable after x seconds but you'd hope that you are playing against a lower ranked player to compensate. To give the much better player a 6 unit advantage is frankly ridiculous. Matches like this are BS Raven and you know it.

Finally this match may be allowable under the current MM parameters (i.e. not a bug), this is not what my post is about. My post is that this match up is a pile of crap that does the game more harm than good (stupid thrashings v's not finding a match). That a match up like this should not be allowed by the MM.

And really finally ;), yes I am still pissed off by this loss, I'd been playing my arse off (with an all rank 0 team) to keep that winning streak and then the RNG that pretends to be a MM gives out things like this.

Hi tnankie, thanks for the post.

The crux of the problem is that matchmaking works but there probably wasn't anyone else waiting for a match in that 1-minute period.

We know unfair situations can arise. The question that came up is if you're outmatched, should you sit in the queue forever, or should you make an unfair match? At this time we voted that playing the game would be better than not playing the game, so if you're on at an hour when there are absolutely no good matches within 1.5 minutes, it'll take the best available option.

Three things on this: we really expect that once the game goes live (today) this will be a thing of the past. Right now the user base is limited to only early testers. Secondly, we do have a system that grants you bonus renown depending on how outmatched you are (the underdog bonus). You should have gotten some extra renown for sticking it out. Lastly, if someone with a significantly higher Elo beats you, you won't lose much ranking, which is part of how Elo works.

Sorry about the unfair match. We're doing our best to make it fair and hopefully things really open up once the game is live.

stoicmom
02-25-2013, 08:26 AM
Well, for what it is worth . . . i had the courage to go to battle with my upgrades because, even though my wins are few, i felt like i am understanding a little more about how to play the game with each game i loose. i was matched with my friend Slimsy who was maxed with monsters and who is very, very good at this game. After getting over the shock of his stats and line up, i was soundly beaten in six moves, i think. This is only the second time that i have been matched with a "pro" out of the 100 games i've attempted. Not going for wins, but for fun and a very slow learning curve for me. All this to say, there is something in this game for everyone. Thanks!:cool:

quartex
02-25-2013, 10:06 AM
Perhaps a long winning streak is more important to some people than their Elo ranking. What if you added a option to narrow the search parameters to limit available to opponents to only those within a certain ranking of me, instead of playing whoever is available.

Stoic keeps says that once there's lots of players online, this won't be a problem. But I think there will always be slow times on the server. Would it be unfair for players to be able to limit the range of opponents they are paired with? Would it be bad to guarantee that you aren't wildly mismatched in your game? It sounds like tnankie is saying he'd rather not play at all, than be badly outclassed.

tnankie
02-25-2013, 03:52 PM
@Conundrum I was using all basic units because I wanted to get them all to the state that they are ready for promotion. I find that if I take advanced units into battle I have to play sub optimally to get the basic units kills (The advanced ones end up getting all the kills).

I don't think the timer is supposed to rank you against weaker players, I think it is supposed to rank you against tougher players, the advantage of using it is extra renown, the downsides are playing in less time against tougher opponents.

About my winning streak comment, I'd been playing with an all rank 0 team against whoever I got matched up against, I'd beaten some 3 rank 1 teams, I was completely ready for that streak to end. If I'd got matched against Weedan who was also using all rank 0 then it would be fair enough, if I'd got thrown in against a weaker player with all rank 1 fair enough, I realised this is a risk. But to throw me into a match with no chance of winning what so ever leaves me really annoyed.

@Alex, renown doesn't cut it. I am really not sure how much renown I'd need to get before this match didn't piss me off. This is a game that is supposed to be about fun. That was not fun. Honestly I'd rather not be matched than play something like that, hence my more harm than good comment. Three renown is not nearly enough, three figures might be...but I am still not sure I'd be happy.

Furthermore lets assume (for the moment:)) I am a happy go lucky optimistic smiley person, what was I supposed to do in that match? As Raven mentioned there needs to be some other objective when miss-matches of this sort of scale happen (if you think allowing them to happen is the right choice).

I strongly believe that your power cut off that has been implemented at 6 is useless in the game at the moment. The way power is currently calculated any match up is legitimate (as all rank 1 = 6 and all rank 0 = 0), so why have the cut-off at all, waiting for rank 2 or 3? I strongly believe that the cut off should be based on a combination of ranking power and timer. Convert the power difference into a rating difference, add that to the rating difference add the timer difference and set a cap that you are happy with.

Look what I am trying to say is that I don't mind losing when I am out played by my opponent (or by myself, stupid mistakes/miss-clicks etc), but being placed in matches where there is no chance of winning (outside of my opponent leaving the computer/throwing the game) leaves a really bad taste in my mouth and I'd rather not play at all.

Finally while I know you can avoid things like this happening by manually leaving the queue and re-entering it every 20 seconds this is really not good game design it is just busy work. If a mechanism exists to avoid unfair match ups then it really should be available as a setting not in constantly repeating a series of mouse clicks, that is what macros/robots are for.


Pardon the wall o' text [/rant]

tnankie
02-25-2013, 04:12 PM
Two more thoughts:
1) The way it works at the moment always punishes the player with the lower ranked units.
2) I was playing for kills trying to upgrade my team, no chance of achieving that given that matchup.


and a bonus one :)

I was just thinking about how much renown would make me feel good about the match. If a text box popped up with something like this:

"OK, so the match maker just screwed you over. We are sorry, and to make it up to you here is enough renown to upgrade a unit."

That might make me feel better, especially since the game is acknowledging explicitly that was a poor match.

franknarf
02-25-2013, 04:48 PM
Honestly I'd rather not be matched than play something like that...I strongly believe that your power cut off that has been implemented at 6 is useless in the game at the moment.

Yeah, anyone could beat me in a 0v4, 1v5 or 2v6 match; and I, too, like cultivating a streak. I think the power difference between level-0 and level-1 units ought to be doubled.

Alex
02-25-2013, 04:51 PM
Hi Tnankie, just read your long post. Again, it sounds to me like there was 1 opponent available at the time, and after the maximum wait time it matched you with them. It sounds like in a scenario where you would either match an uneven opponent or not make a match, you would vote to not find any match. Would you say this is true?

tnankie
02-25-2013, 05:25 PM
Hi Tnankie, just read your long post. Again, it sounds to me like there was 1 opponent available at the time, and after the maximum wait time it matched you with them. It sounds like in a scenario where you would either match an uneven opponent or not make a match, you would vote to not find any match. Would you say this is true?
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Depends on the degree of miss match, but with the current system of play I'd rather not play. I like playing lower ranked players with advanced units while I use basics (I've won and lost in these circumstances) I find it interesting as it shows how important positioning is, I think that is reasonably balanced. Higher ranked players with advanced units is not ok.

The other issue with this situation is that if we both re-queued immediately after the match we'd probably have ended up in the same battle again...and again...and again.

And yes Alex I think you are probably right that it was only Weedan and I in the queue.

Floyd Ryan
02-25-2013, 05:38 PM
Could we get custom option for matchmaking? Such that everyone could change the default tolerance of the deviation in matchmaking. For example i just played with a rank 1 team a new player on his 3rd game. I felt very bad for crushing him like this so easily.

tnankie
02-25-2013, 05:46 PM
Could we get custom option for matchmaking? Such that everyone could change the default tolerance of the deviation in matchmaking. For example i just played with a rank 1 team a new player on his 3rd game. I felt very bad for crushing him like this so easily.
I honestly don't think it should be custom Floyd, not everyone feels bad about pawning noobs. To Weedan's credit they played reasonably quickly and also acknowledged that this was a bad matchup.

weedan
02-26-2013, 01:29 AM
Hey everyone. I think this may actually be my first proper forum post which I feel kinda irresponsible about given the amount of fun I've gotten outta the beta so far but I thought I'd weigh in as well given that I was part of the scenario that played out.

Would it be possible to make it so that there is a cap where it just won't match two teams of dramatically different power and rankings (as someone mentioned)? While, yes, the servers are more heavily populated now that it has gone public and there will be fewer instances where a major mismatch can take place, there is also the future addition of two more levels of units which will cause further possibilities for overpowered vs underpowered matchings(dramatically so - level 0 vs level 3 anyone?). What if the lesser equipped / ranked of the two teams in queue that are matched have the ability to decline the battle? Should the lower team wish to go after the large prize of a tougher opponent they still can. Either that or just make it such that if the teams are over "x" apart, the decline button is re-instated for both parties?

Make any sense?

Also, what is the possibility of perhaps providing the counter which displays how many users are in the queue? Something along the lines of "# Factions are currently vying for control of Strand"? Too server intensive to implement again or easily feasible? I don't think it would promote trolling or anything but would help users know when the game population is low and poor matchups are more probable if one waits in queue. This is a common statistic in many online games is it not? (Altitude comes to mind for some reason).

Veringatorix
02-26-2013, 10:10 AM
There used to be a counter during the beta that showed the number of other players online, for some reason it was removed. I would love to see it back, and I'm sure others would as well. As far as a hard cap on possible matches, I think there should be a limit, possibly 3 ranked unit deviation, that could be manually overridden by the player if they so choose. To simply allow these types of mismatches to occur is a bad idea in my opinion, and can very well turn off newer players. However since the player base is now much larger perhaps this issue will resolve itself.

jimntonik
02-26-2013, 10:54 AM
@ tnankie - 100% Agree. Unfortunately, Stoic is stubborn and only caters to a small group of players in this regard. You could argue that "pro" players are very happy to sit and play a mismatched game, but it's an absolutely terrible experience for new players, or anyone who's interested in playing a fair game. Stoic is dramatically reducing the quality of play for most players.

There's no doubt in my mind that the current implementation is scaring people away from playing. The question is whether or not Stoic makes a change for the better while they still have some attention from the media.

Alex
02-26-2013, 11:39 AM
@ tnankie - 100% Agree. Unfortunately, Stoic is stubborn and only caters to a small group of players in this regard. You could argue that "pro" players are very happy to sit and play a mismatched game, but it's an absolutely terrible experience for new players, or anyone who's interested in playing a fair game. Stoic is dramatically reducing the quality of play for most players.

There's no doubt in my mind that the current implementation is scaring people away from playing. The question is whether or not Stoic makes a change for the better while they still have some attention from the media.

Well, if by stubborn you mean "have been extremely quick to make changes to the game based on feedback and listening and responding to players", then you're right. Now currently, I'm looking at the metrics dashboard and I see over 800 people playing concurrently, and roughly 790 of them are in matches with identical numbers, and the others are off by 1 point. Is this the apocalypse you're referring to?

Additionally, it takes very little time to get a party of rank 1 characters, by playing normally with no purchases necessary, at which point you've hit the ceiling and there's no way to be outmatched.

Jim, I'd love to hear your suggestion for how we can turn this around for the better. I'm also curious about why you love to give us a hard time. Why antagonize us?

RobertTheScott
02-26-2013, 12:50 PM
Jim,

Since release, I've been playing a 1-point team (i.e. 1 leveled up character, normally the thrasher so that I match new players) in order to build up kill counts so I can have a diverse team of level-1 units for the upcoming tourney. In my past 5 games, I have always been matched up against other 1-point teams; the outcome of these matches have therefore been the result of skill (and in-game luck.)

In short, even though I am an "expert" player (though nowhere near the top 20), I seem to be matched up against units with similar point-values. I also try to make up for the skill gap with advice; I learned this game by losing frequently and paying attention to my opponents' superior strategy, so I figure returning the favor isn't unfair.

jimntonik
02-26-2013, 01:20 PM
@ Robert - Nice to hear your anecdotes. I've personally been mismatched in most games since launch. What makes you think that your experiences trump those of tnankie? Clearly he and others like myself have had a less than stellar experience, and have been asking for changes for quite some time now. Why so quick to dismiss us?

@ Alex - Is it safe to assume that if I respond to your questions honestly I'll be banned again? You haven't created an environment that's conducive to open and honest discussion.

RobertTheScott
02-26-2013, 01:44 PM
Jim,

I assumed that when you said the following, you were implying that this happens in general: "You could argue that "pro" players are very happy to sit and play a mismatched game, but it's an absolutely terrible experience for new players, or anyone who's interested in playing a fair game. Stoic is dramatically reducing the quality of play for most players."

My experience is different, and lines up with those couple of friends who have started playing TBS:F yesterday. Of course, you are right about one thing: both my experience and yours are potentially entirely unrepresentative of the average gamer's experience. If other people have similar complaints, it might be worthwhile for Stoic to set up a poll (as they have done in the past, repeatedly, for many issues) and see how prevalent your issues are.

The only question I have--trying to be helpful--is whether you are playing with a 1-point team or something else. It could be that there's a large number of 1-point players, but almost no 2-point teams; the former are matched against each other while the latter get matched with other teams of various power.

Veringatorix
02-26-2013, 01:47 PM
I find it somewhat ironic that you Jim, are taking the position of caring for the interests of other players. You stand alone (as far as I know) as the ONLY player with a past of active griefing and verbal abuse in this game. I'm not going to bother reading or responding to any reply, just wanted to put your comments in perspective for others so they take your "concern" with a grain of salt.

jimntonik
02-26-2013, 01:50 PM
@ Robert - In many of the games I've been playing, I have the base team with only an upgraded Thrasher. My opponents tend to have 3-4 upgraded units. If the decision is for these games to proceed, it would make sense to upgrade 1-2 of my units for the game, or downgrade some of theirs.

jimntonik
02-26-2013, 01:56 PM
Regarding the possibility of a poll - you really have to question whether you're getting a good sample by putting a poll up on the site, or even in the backer emails. It's more likely to be the already-involved players that respond to those.

I'd argue that the presence of multiple threads about matchmaking is some good evidence that something's off (e.g. http://stoicstudio.com/forum/showthread.php?995-unbalanced-matches-entry-barrier-un-fun).

RobertTheScott
02-26-2013, 03:11 PM
Eh. Pinbot had a bad Sunday morning, but hasn't complained since. (And if he does, I'll listen.) At the moment, I just don't hear a lot of voices crying out. But I may start unofficially polling newbs, just to see if the problem exists for a large number of players. Til then--your voice is heard, but it is only one amongst many.

jimntonik
02-26-2013, 03:22 PM
And tnankie?

General rule of thumb is that people are less likely to complain than they are to just move on and play something else. You might get some people talk about problems in the game, but there's going to be something of a sample bias if you only look at people in-game.

The easy thing is to listen to the fanbois on the message forum. It's much harder to take criticism from the other folks and improve the game. That's why as a general rule of thumb it's wise to weigh negative feedback more heavily than positive.

netnazgul
02-26-2013, 03:48 PM
@ Robert - Nice to hear your anecdotes. I've personally been mismatched in most games since launch. What makes you think that your experiences trump those of tnankie? Clearly he and others like myself have had a less than stellar experience, and have been asking for changes for quite some time now. Why so quick to dismiss us?

I can say that I've got some mismatches in pre-release, but since release it's well matching for now. A storm of lags though :(
In general I don't see too much evident problems in matchmaker (at least from my point of view), but it's always good to see how to improve it and make it better.

PS: And, personally, I too find your messages a bit agressive :p

tnankie
02-26-2013, 03:53 PM
Well thanks for your concern Jim, but as I said my ranking is 1200+ I am not really a new player. I do still think that the matchmaker needs tweaking.

Alex I think the matchmaker is fine when it has a large pool of players to draw from (ie the 800, 790 figures you referenced) however I still think it performs poorly/gives the game a bad reputation when there are less players in the queue. There are, and always will be, cycles in activity; look at the steam concurrent user thing on the steam home page.

I know this is not a direct comparison as there are teams involved but the World of tanks match maker will wait 10 minutes before throwing you into a match. Especially interesting as matches there are a maximum of 15 minutes. Whereas in factions matches are x minutes (I'd guess 20?) on average yet the matchmaker only waits 1 minute before sending you to your doom.

jimntonik
02-26-2013, 04:18 PM
@ tnankie - Didn't mean to imply that you were a newb, I was putting you under the "looking for a fair fight" umbrella (which is where I fall too).

Conundrum
02-26-2013, 04:50 PM
The easy thing is to listen to the fanbois on the message forum. It's much harder to take criticism from the other folks and improve the game. That's why as a general rule of thumb it's wise to weigh negative feedback more heavily than positive.

I'm gonna go ahead and turn this around on you:

"The easy thing is to listen to the vocal minority on the message forum. It's much harder to get a sense of what the playerbase as a whole wants, and improve the game. That's why, as a general rule of thumb, it's wise to treat forum posts as what they are - a very small sample size of the community."

This applies equally to both praise AND criticism. If every developer had a knee-jerk reaction to any complaint on a forum, their game would quickly spiral into chaos (this HAS happened before).

I personally don't appreciate you taking potshots at Stoic after the incredible amount of effort they've put into this game, and into keeping its players happy. Who are you to call them stubborn? And I find it hilarious that you're (again!) accusing people of being dismissive, when your counter arguments often consist of "You disagree with me, so you're wrong". This is exactly what happened last time you were "banned" (read: temporarily suspended) - you weren't "responding to questions honestly", you were being unnecessarily aggressive.

jimntonik
02-26-2013, 05:33 PM
@ Conundrum - My comments were based on tnankie's feedback, and I didn't dismiss anyone's comments. Although to be fair, it would seem that you're guilty of the same in your above post? Pot or kettle?

The point is that positive feedback is much easier to provide than negative feedback. Forum posts are for the most part inversely related to game experience. Think of it as a Fermi equation for negative feedback.If somebody has a bad time, they're more likely to say "This sucks", and move on and download another game than to go to the trouble of signing up for the forum and write out a post explaining their issues with the current implementation. Most players don't have the temperament of beta testers.

Alex
02-26-2013, 05:48 PM
Well thanks for your concern Jim, but as I said my ranking is 1200+ I am not really a new player. I do still think that the matchmaker needs tweaking.

Alex I think the matchmaker is fine when it has a large pool of players to draw from (ie the 800, 790 figures you referenced) however I still think it performs poorly/gives the game a bad reputation when there are less players in the queue. There are, and always will be, cycles in activity; look at the steam concurrent user thing on the steam home page.

I know this is not a direct comparison as there are teams involved but the World of tanks match maker will wait 10 minutes before throwing you into a match. Especially interesting as matches there are a maximum of 15 minutes. Whereas in factions matches are x minutes (I'd guess 20?) on average yet the matchmaker only waits 1 minute before sending you to your doom.

We'll be increasing the amount of time it looks for an accurate match in the next update or two since this should be an easy fix. Finding the "best" amount of time without losing players is something we're trying to balance, and it's one of our foremost concerns. Right now I believe it's 1.5 minutes. We'd also like to give players the option of choosing whether to enter an unfair match or back out if they like, but this will take a little more work on our end.


@ Alex - Is it safe to assume that if I respond to your questions honestly I'll be banned again? You haven't created an environment that's conducive to open and honest discussion.

Pretty sure you got suspended last time for being rude and annoying other posters. So if you're not rude, like literally every other poster on the forum, then you've got nothing to worry about. But if you're going to keep pretending like you have no idea what I'm talking about then we'll never be able to start this relationship on the right foot, eh?

So how would you recommend improving the the matchmaking? I'm happy to listen as we always have been.

Floyd Ryan
02-26-2013, 06:06 PM
The point is that positive feedback is much easier to provide than negative feedback.

Omg, this made me laugh. my stomach hurts.

On the internet? Where people provide negative feedback without ever having played a game and willingly misinterpret information just to shitstorm?

Slimsy Platypus
02-26-2013, 06:24 PM
I certainly can understand the frustration, as I imagine it would be quite intimidating to have a group full of non-promoted units against a fully developed team. I've had a couple matches like this and from the start we both knew it would be an uphill battle for them. I typically always try to spark up a healthy chat so the experience isn't horrible for them, but I know it must suck. Unfortunately for me, I can't directly relate because I snatched the starter pack as quickly as my fingers would let me.

That being said, I'm curious as to about how many games it is taking you guys to get a group of Rank 1 units in the current build? Maybe what could happen, is that whenever a new player starts playing Factions they get's a more strict matchmaking restriction. However, if the player is daring or just desperate for a match, they can choose to click a big red danger button that will put them in the regular queue. Their ability to utilize this would last for about however long it takes to build a team of Rank 1 units. Thoughts?

One thing we have to keep in mind, is that on the other side it is absolutely a blast to be able to see your team grow stronger and to develop your team from zero to hero. I think we just need to find the healthy balance and have a system in place that facilitates a healthy new player experience. I think the elo system and current matchmaking is a great start, but at this point we have found a hole in the system that lets a little un-fun stuff through :)

Veringatorix
02-26-2013, 06:28 PM
I think it took me about 20 games give or take 3. This was before achievements and using 30 sec. clock most of the time. A realistic estimate would be 25-30 I'd guess for most players starting from scratch.

Slimsy Platypus
02-26-2013, 06:38 PM
After rereading and correcting the spelling in my post I just thought of another idea. What if some future achievements granted you a Rank 1 unit as a reward to help speed up the process of getting your team up-to-snuff. Just had a unit die with full armor? Well bang, you get some mercy achievment that gives you a blank Shieldmaster to work with. Got in 10 damage with puncture? Bam - here's a naked Bowmaster. That might be fun and help alleviate that period where new players feel like they are at a an extreme disadvantage (and to boot doesn't require complicating the matchmaking). Simply food for thought.