Season 3 Matchmaking Failure

[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.

[Zojha]

silvers are gonna be matched up against unranked, 'cause both are adjacent to bronze.

But...what if a Diamond, a Platinum, a Gold, a Silver, a Bronze and an Unranked all queue up...?

Diamond is adjacent to Platinum, so those get matched. But Gold is adjacent to Platinum, so from the perspective of the Platinum, that would fit in. Enter the Silver who is adjacent to Gold and thus, would fit into the game from the Golds perspective - the diamond just seems out of place, but that one fits for the Platinum! And then there's the Bronze who's adjacent to Silver...

So...either it is possible for a Diamond to play with an unranked, or the game already does what you stated earlier - but after two different tiers joined, rather than one.

[Guesswhat]

...but after two different tiers joined, rather than one.

lol. Yes... That would be rather obvious. More or less.

Example:
Silver q. <- Only adjacent to silver can join the pool.
Another silver joins the pool.
Gold joins the pool. <- At this point platinum may join too; diamond and unranked can not join. Unranked too far from gold and diamond too far from silver.
Platinum joins the pool. <- Tiers decided. Only silver, gold or platinum from now on.

I'm guessing SE does something like this as is. But I really have no idea how they do it. Trying to make sense of it is all. If you read the note as max-1-tier-gap, and that is indeed what SE meant, then SE has screwed up. No way around it (unless, as I said earlier, there are special cases for some tiers, which -if true- SE should have made clear).

[Avalon1101]

The match making algorithm doesn't have to weight every factor equally.

...That's kind of what I mean... But you said victory rate should be considered first that was the reason I said that.
...So what re you trying to say here lol

Large player base can solve all matching problems as always lol

[Guesswhat]

...So what re you trying to say here lol

... If they truly want a fair system, then as many variables as possible must be considered...

Talking relative variables of course. But due to the relative small pvp base, and role restrictions, etc, SE have to drop some of these variables to not entirely kill off the mode. For example: victory rate. But that does not mean that victory rate is not important when making a fair system.

The ultimate point here is that a 100% fair system would kill the mode pretty fast. Some things have to be compromised to make the system reasonable fair while still keeping it alive. You say that victory rate is one of those things, and that's fair. SE is, according to multiple complaints, not able to balance this **** out. And I agree. We brainstorm here to see how the system can be fixed, and hopefully SE will listen.

[Avalon1101]

The ultimate point here is that a 100% fair system would kill the mode pretty fast. Some things have to be compromised to make the system reasonable fair while still keeping it alive. You say that victory rate is one of those things, and that's fair. SE is, according to multiple complaints, not able to balance this **** out. And I agree. We brainstorm here to see how the system can be fixed, and hopefully SE will listen.

Feels like larger player base can solve everything lol

We get a better matching system(at least better than S2) it's time to do something attract more players do pvp, like put a mount for reward
(And cause almost all non pvp players' complaints like what they're talking in general discuss now lol)

[Zojha]

Feels like larger player base can solve everything lol

It can't solve people having a bad day when they end up in your game!

But that aside, a bigger populations means a lot.
1. More people are playing at all times so queues for highly popular roles go/stay up and queues for highly unpopular roles/Grand Companies become instant (People are just waiting on the bottleneck).
2. More different people means more points of comparison means ratings become more accurate
3. More people means matchmaking can afford smaller rating differences with the same queue time, as the likelihood of someone with a matching ranking queuing up is higher
4. More people means a higher priority on the development list and thus a bigger budget spent on that kind of content

It can solve a lot. But I can tell you right off the bat that rewarding the top 100 players of a datacenter of several ten-thousand players is not going to make PvP at large popular, because it's plain and simple not something most players consider achievable - at least, without resorting to cheats. That's like making exclusive rewards for World First progression raiders in the hopes of increasing the Savage population - it's not gonna work. We'll now see a surge of people at the start, the top guys will secure their rating in high diamond (because the rating inflation makes diamond the new gold and we got no higher ranks), then the mode will die and the most desperate turn to wintrading - at least that is fought a little because you need to trade a lot more wins now than you used to.

I don't think this PvP community really wants to grow however. Consider, the player pool it can draw from are only the people who enjoyed the base game up to 60 and the majority of them are not very skilled, don't really like competition, don't like angry people either and only play casually. These are the people you would need to cater to to grow the playerbase - and that's already assuming people enjoy the burst meta gameplay. Good luck trying to make that compatible with the demands of the more hardcore PvP playerbase - it's pretty much the polar opposite.

[Avalon1101]

I can tell you right off the bat that rewarding the top 100 players of a datacenter of several ten-thousand players is not going to make PvP at large popular, because it's plain and simple not something most players consider achievable - at least, without resorting to cheats. We'll now see a surge of people at the start, the top guys will secure their rating in high diamond (because the rating inflation makes diamond the new gold and we got no higher ranks), then the mode will die and the most desperate turn to wintrading - at least that is fought a little because you need to trade a lot more wins now than you used to.

Im not in that general discuss part now why still talking about win trade

This is the third time i'll say: I wasnt in S1 so i cant say, but in the 900+matches i played I NEVER saw ppl stand there and let some side win

[Februs]

in the 900+matches i played I NEVER saw ppl stand there and let some side win

You're a very lucky person, then.