Season 3 Matchmaking Failure

[Februs]

Being a self-loathing millennial myself, I blame millennials for this issue. 33% to get Gold? Come on SE.

Seriously? lol

In any case, I'm not sure this was avoidable after last season. High-tier players simply dropping Feast wholesale to protect their rank meant that SE was bound to do something about point distribution. Reducing the consequence for a loss isn't all that surprising. Honestly, I wouldn't even necessarily say it's a bad decision ... assuming the matchmaking actually worked, or if they'd been a little more specific about the circumstances.

The thing is, getting into silver with a 25% win rate (lol) is one thing, but keeping that rank is another. The same can be said for gold. If the matchmaking was restricted to adjacent tiers only, then there would still be room for the quality players to climb. They'd still get into the occasional crap match, but the player pool would be much smaller. The odds of having multiple people with low win rates on your team would be reduced, and the ones that you do get wouldn't sting your rank quite so badly. Further, anyone silver and up wouldn't have to live in fear of seeing the "Look Who's Coming for Dinner 1" achievement. Having an inexperienced player on your team is one thing, but having a totally fresh player is practically a guaranteed loss.

[SuperZay]

One of possible explanations is by tiers they consider fixed numbers required for promotion like those you've mentioned (600, 1000 etc). So if a bronze is doing promotion, won 2/5 matches and has 650 rating, he's technically still bronze but system starts matching him with Golds like a Silver because of that 650.

[Kai_Lee]

How much of this influx of players is because of this season rewards?

[Nocte]

How much of this influx of players is because of this season rewards?

I'd dare say a lot (given I'm one of them).

[Avalon1101]

But this is just the beginning of the third season, maybe it'll be better when more ppl get higher tiers

[Guesswhat]

This may be a screwup on SE's part. It may just be they meant adjacent tiers; not 1-tier gap.

If they truly wanted 1-tier-max-gap then the tiers allowed in 1 match have to be determined by the 1st person queuing in the pool not similar to the 1st person queuing.

Example:
personA silver starts q.
personB silver joins q.
personC gold joins q. <- Tiers decided. Only gold and silver may join.

Is this what you're looking for? If not, and it's tier based, both unranked and silver are adjacent to bronze.

Or perhaps it's ordered in a way that the 2nd lowest and 2nd highest tiers are adjacent based while the rest are tier based? That could explain SE's note; they're just pulling a "technical". Something like this (hope it makes sense):

[Avalon1101]

Or perhaps it's ordered in a way that the 2nd lowest and 2nd highest tiers are adjacent based while the rest are tier based? That could explain SE's note; they're just pulling a "technical".

That "will match with similar tier" in note more likely means

If the 1st person in que is silver(with rating points):
People can get in this que must be bronze or gold
If the 2 conditions meet:
Calculate the sum of rating points of 2 sides respectively
If the difference <= 100(or what ever)
Matching success

(Feel like just post few codes will be easier than saying them in sentences lol

[Koltik]

This may be a screwup on SE's part.

If they truly wanted 1-tier-max-gap then the tiers allowed in 1 match have to be determined by the 1st person queuing in the pool not similar to the 1st person queuing.

Example:
personA silver starts q.
personB silver joins q.
personC gold joins q. <- Tiers decided. Only gold and silver may join.

Is this what you're looking for?

This is how it should be, this is how all of the PvPers want it to be, and this is how the patch notes says it is. But it's not.

[Avalon1101]

including points in the equation seems like a no-brainer to me. Victory % rate should be thrown in there as well.

Based on how the matching system worked before, the rating points probably still exist after 3.45
And I don't think victory rate is considered as one of matching factors: especially at the the beginning, how to compare ppl with 70% victory rate but only did 25matches with those ppl who did 200?
If victory rate is considered then have to be considered with tiers and number of matches, don't think any program group will do that lol

[Guesswhat]

.

That sounds like a better system, I agree, but what I read from this:

Matching algorithms have been adjusted to ensure players are matched with others of the same or an adjacent tier.

silvers are gonna be matched up against unranked, 'cause both are adjacent to bronze. Still, from a silver perspective, unranked is not adjacent to my tier, but from bronze it is. In the case of bronze it is true; from silver it is not true. I understand the complaint, but it's still kinda justifiable from that note. That's what I mean by SE "pulling a technical" if they were to defend the unranked-silver based on this note.

.

The match making algorithm doesn't have to weight every factor equally. If they truly want a fair system, then as many variables as possible must be considered. I think one of their biggest challenges here is the relative small PvP player-base, considering queue time and whatnot.