Matchmaker Pool Feedback Thread
-
@stormlantern said in Matchmaker Pool Feedback Thread:
The different options are awesome. Thanks developers!
But as (hopefully) more useful feedback/opinion:- I dislike the ranking systems with the divisons. It seems there arent enough players to really work well. And also the skill level of people is only moderately correlated with the rankings on there. I also dislike how the original rankings were removed from the client.
- UI buttons for the pools are a bit amateuristic, both graphic wise and with labelling. The UI in general (for instance the UI around having a party to play with and inviting them etc.) seems to lack intuitive design, which can demotivate new casual players looking for a quick game with friends.
- The distinction between 4v4 fullshare and no share is useless imo, since playing with no share invites pretty dumb play. Also the no share que doesn't get filled anyway and the option only clutters the screen.
- I have no complains map-wise. I think there is a nice variety and well chosen maps.
The divisions system is entirely up to the development at this point, and is something that will likely stay as it is quite similar to what other games use. No one shows someone's ELO rating without digging.
The UI can certainly improve, although I think for the intent and purposes of this thread this is the wrong place to raise such concerns. I would suggest creating a post with feedback about the client itself. I will mention it to the devs, though, see if we can improve upon it.
4v4 No Share is pretty much going to get removed. I was going to run a poll to confirm this but it is pretty clear that is not necessary.
Glad to hear it! There is not a lot of maps to choose from - sadly - but we do seem to have enough to keep things interesting.
-
I just had half my team cntr+K once we loaded into Setons (replay 16422008). If this ends up being the standard modus operandi on that map, better remove it from the pool.
Adaptive Kusoge is another map I could do without. Its just too open and spread out.
-
I think the current matchmaking maps are good, at least my 1v1, 2v2 and 4v4 experience has been good but I mostly play 1v1 so not sure about the other two.
-
@sladow-noob @Xayo:
As an avid setoner I have been arguing for the removal of setons from the 4v4 pool since before tmm even went live, for those exact reasons!If I want to play setons I can just do so, and if I want to play something fresh and queue up for the tmm, I don't want to randomly get thrown into an unbalanced setons that must devolve into cancer to be playable.
Making Setons the "map of the day" once every couple months or something, similar to mapgen week on ladder, may be a better solution.
Regardless, Setons shouldn't be in the default 4v4 map pool.
-
I agree - if I'd end up playing setons on matchmaking I expect it to be a drag. The rating does not represent the skill of the player for that map - it would be unbalanced.
-
Setons is a skill like any other. If someone happens to be more proficient at it, getting the map should help him get more rating. Removing it from the pool would be unfair for the setons player, who will not see his higher skill level translated into higher rating. Also its argueably one of the best maps for 4v4 (gauging from popularity alone), so it would be silly to not include it. If people ctr k at the start they should get banned for a few weeks. Simple.
-
@StormLantern Based on popularity, Gap of Rohan and Astro Crater 4x4 are the best 4v4 maps.
The matchmaking system is introduced to create fun, interesting games between players. Typically this means the game is balanced and therefore challenging. A key component is a good representation of the skill of the player.
The skill of people in Seton's Clutch is all over the place and not represented by the matchmaking system. It is a map with specialized BOs due to years of playing. Those that happen to know such a BO can easily have 100 - 400 more 'rating' over their opponent. That makes the game (too) unbalanced, removing the challenge.
I think a 2v2 or a 1v1 on Setons is still interesting, as the meta is 4v4. But a 4v4 game on Setons with one or two setoners on your opponents team means you've essentially already lost, especially when you warp in on the beach location.
-
@jip Well yes, I think those maps should be in the pool as well, even though I dont particularly like them myself. I think the addition of these most popular maps would add to the overall enjoyment and succes of the matchmaker. Allthough u would lose quite a few players from the higher bracket who like to ridicule these maps.
I just dont think it is a very good rationale to remove maps just because the skill level is not well matched with their rating.
-
It depends on the goals for the matchmaker if maps like Seton's or dual gap should be included. If the goal is just to get as much play count as possible in the matchmaker, then yes, they should be included.
If the goal is to provide a variety of maps and to give a entry point for new players then they should not be included. The most popular maps don't need a dedicated matchmaker because you can already fill lobbies with them in custom games relatively quickly. The matchmaker also provides global rating for new players so after a starting phase they can also play custom games without getting kicked for being new.
So bottom line is, if you want to play astro, dual gap or Seton's you play custom games and if you want to play anything else you play matchmaker. -
yeah thats a good point
-
We have decided to (atleast for now) remove Seton's from future 4vs4 TMM pools. Thank you for your feedback.
-
How do people feel about the size and number of maps in the 4v4 matchmaker pool, and the rating bracket breakdown? That is the only other important question I was going to ask in the official poll system, so if we can answer that here that should cover everything the matchmaker team would inquire.
-
@morax The variaty and size is perfect imo. I keep getting the same maps over and over again but not sure if that's intended or just bad luck.. Besides that it's fine though - also heard from quite many trainees that they're happy with the maps overall as well
-
@sladow-noob said in Matchmaker Pool Feedback Thread:
@morax The variaty and size is perfect imo. I keep getting the same maps over and over again but not sure if that's intended or just bad luck.. Besides that it's fine though - also heard from quite many trainees that they're happy with the maps overall as well
Glad to hear it! I figured creating a pool that was much larger than 1v1 would be a good move as quite a few people will be playing and want to see a lot of variety.
The reason for repeat maps is likely due to the fact that TMM ratings have not increased enough to bring everyone into the higher tiers. As shown in the matchmaker pool post one needs to be in a game with everyone at the rating bracket to see the higher ones. For example, if you are in a game with 7 people at 1500+ but one is 1200, you will unfortunately be locked into <1500 maps.
Hope this gets better in time, if not, I will work with the matchmaker team and devs to remedy the situation. No one likes redundancy in maps, myself included.
-
@morax That's interesting, always thought it's the other way around aka lower ranked ones get high ranked maps if they play with us. I think that indeed explains why I keep up getting the same maps over and over again
-
played 4v4
Win
Game was not rated: unknown resultIs this normal on ladder?
-
Setons is the perfect 4v4 map.
-
@kdrafa91 said in Matchmaker Pool Feedback Thread:
played 4v4
Win
Game was not rated: unknown resultIs this normal on ladder?
No, but this is also a thread about the maps used in the pools. I would recommend discussing this in the "I need help" forum (and its sub forums) or the #technical-help channels in the FAF discord:
-
Addition of adaptive lone Eagle should be imo reconsidered by the TMM team due to bad texturing and terrain sculpting which doesn't allow players to tell what is a hill or not at first glance, instead requiring to zoom in close and even free-cam to find the reason why engineers aren't capable of reaching the reclaim and mexes. It literally costed me 2 idle engineers in the beginning of the game due to how poorly the elevation and impassable terrain is conveyed on this map which imo is inexcusable.
-
Yeah I played one game on there and my build on it got cancered thinking I could walk to the hydro behind me. Was a very gassed start because I couldn’t tell the terrain wasn’t passable. Maybe that’s a me problem though
