Create a casual noob-friendly matchmaker queue (to increase player retention)
-
@maudlin27
You make a good point about the sprawling map types chosen for ladder being a large factor in making them more stressful for noobs. I think a decent amount of effort/polling should take place to determine noob-friendly maps that could go in the casual matchmaker. -
It's already being considered when the map pools are being created, the noob map pools have less, smaller and easier maps. Surveys have already been made in the past and they've concluded that, what a surprise, bigger maps are more stressful and worse for new players.
-
For the rotation and casual I would suggest a pretty opaque "Quick Match" option.
Based on available players it goes through several pools of options, no option is solo.
- 6+ matchable players: Regular but easy Teamgames, Mini Dual Gap?
- 3+ matchable players: 2v2, 3-5 vs. AI
- 2 matchable players: 2 vs. AI, short campaign missions
I think the Player Councillor should play a big role in identifying popular and disliked options for the "Quick Match" matchmaker, and act quickly if needed or opportune.
-
different team sizes in the same queue are not supported at the moment.
-
The majority of stuff in this thread is not supported at the moment. The point is to throw out ideas for what might be worth trying to implement.
I quite like that idea of a quick match/adaptive queue that can scale to different game sizes depending on the number of players. That might be a solution for lack of players in larger queues.
-
I mean, it depends on the details how the queue should behave exactly, but can't a lot of that be mitigated by just queuing for multiple queues in parallel?
-
An asymmetric FFA queue using map gen that can then launch a game once 3 or more people are in queue (and timer reaches 0) could work if an adaptive queue is set up.
-
@blackyps said in Create a casual noob-friendly matchmaker queue (to increase player retention):
I mean, it depends on the details how the queue should behave exactly, but can't a lot of that be mitigated by just queuing for multiple queues in parallel?
Was going to suggest that.
Is there any technical reason why we can't have 10 parallel matchmakers to just throw out a number?
-
Uhh, ui space maybe. But from a really technical point I don't think there are any downsides.
But we should keep in mind to make the ui not overwhelming, especially for new players. Would be bad to need a tutorial on what the 367 queues are. -
Realistically as we add more queues the UI will have to change to use the space more efficiently
-
The more queues, the less players per queue.
My play time sometimes only have 2-3 players all though I think a casual will draw some players
-
You can queue for multiple queues at once so there is no reason it would reduce player count
-
Reminder that the TMM UI was drafted for 6 queues. This is on a 1080p space, so making more is pushing it.
Theoretically, how taxing on the server would it be to launch the matchmaking timer every 3 seconds instead of every minute and a half?
-
Not sure but I think at our current number of players the performance cost is negligible. Especially since matching more frequently also means fewer people in queue at each pop.
-
I don't think rating matters a lot for genuinely new players (not low rating experienced players). 4v4 queue should work fine for beginners imo, along a beginner mappool like on ladder. One thing that would be nice to have though is some "Play vs AI" button. Setting up a game lobby is more difficult and confusing than you'd expect. Also just the convenience of 1-click-play is very nice.
-
@blodir said in Create a casual noob-friendly matchmaker queue (to increase player retention):
I don't think rating matters a lot for genuinely new players (not low rating experienced players). 4v4 queue should work fine for beginners imo, along a beginner mappool like on ladder. One thing that would be nice to have though is some "Play vs AI" button. Setting up a game lobby is more difficult and confusing than you'd expect. Also just the convenience of 1-click-play is very nice.
Would it be possible to make these games ranked?
We can just add every AI level to the TrueSkill system once. Especially given the massive amount of games the AI's will play their rating should develop naturally. With an honestly developed rating, beating AI actually becomes a useful milestone. Suppose the AI reaches 400 rating, then it is the 400 rating milestone.
-
@valki said in Create a casual noob-friendly matchmaker queue (to increase player retention):
@blodir said in Create a casual noob-friendly matchmaker queue (to increase player retention):
I don't think rating matters a lot for genuinely new players (not low rating experienced players). 4v4 queue should work fine for beginners imo, along a beginner mappool like on ladder. One thing that would be nice to have though is some "Play vs AI" button. Setting up a game lobby is more difficult and confusing than you'd expect. Also just the convenience of 1-click-play is very nice.
Would it be possible to make these games ranked?
We can just add every AI level to the TrueSkill system once. Especially given the massive amount of games the AI's will play their rating should develop naturally. With an honestly developed rating, beating AI actually becomes a useful milestone. Suppose the AI reaches 400 rating, then it is the 400 rating milestone.
I think we should only have 2 ratings: 1v1 rating and teamgame rating. Teamgame rating should apply for 2v2 3v3 4v4 matchmakers. For AI games there should be no rating, but you get to choose which AI you want to play against. AI games can't be rated since that fucks with the integrity of the rating system.
-
@blodir said in Create a casual noob-friendly matchmaker queue (to increase player retention):
AI games can't be rated since that fucks with the integrity of the rating system.
We are talking about regulated AI's exclusively in matchmaker here.
How does it fuck with it? - it might depress some 0-200 rated people, maybe boost some 400 rated - but the amount of people joining at that level distorts it anyway -
TrueSkill is relativist based on the people participating in a queue, there is no meaning behind being 300. I’m not going to rank AI games when 300 in global and 300 in ladder are not even the same thing.
-
Dont rank a PvE game or maybe have a low cap like 300.
Rank the ai side though, would be nice to see where they end at and if it lowers or raises from changes in playerbase
-
V Valki referenced this topic on
-
A Anachronism_ referenced this topic on
