Matchmaker Team Sentons 4v4 TMM Inclusion

@bulliednoob said in Matchmaker Team Sentons 4v4 TMM Inclusion:

@morax said in Matchmaker Team Sentons 4v4 TMM Inclusion:

If there has been a huge shift in wanting map design to be what Blodir outlined (12+ mexes, lot of reclaim, asymmetric), that is news to me: please provide some info / discussions with others to back this up. I think there should be a variety of maps that have all sorts of ranges of resources / reclaim rather have rules like this. I have not seen a single person write this in the matchmaker feedback thread.

mapgen, especially 10km, tends to generate maps with low reclaim and ~6 safe mexes per player. all other mexes are towards the middle. this promotes gun acu gameplay.
Since gun acu is very powerful with a low skill requirement, there's not a whole lot a 2300 player can do to stand out from an 1800 player. this goes for man-made maps too, of course, if they have a similar mex layout

In other words, maps with low mex count per player kinda have a low skill ceiling and it seems odd to have a low skill ceiling (or at least depreciative skill value) in a high rank competitive game. at the very least maps where i dont have much to work with arent very fun, in my opinion.

was a bit short on time, so i'm editing this post now: lot of reclaim is optional, but its nice if theres atleast enough reclaim (~2k) to make decision between t2 mex/t2 land/t2 air (again, maps with barely any mass are usually dominated by gun acus)
asymmetric maps are nice because symmetric maps usually end up in stand-offs. i mean, what else can you expect when two equally skilled players are given an equal amount of resources. symmetric maps aren't bad, but i personally think asymmetric is more interesting

Great feedback.

I wholeheartedly agree that "gun acu" maps are kind of annoying in that your cannot truly use your skill advantage for almost anything to fight. This is why I love 15x15 map sizes as 10x10 can get to be a little lame; however, they work well for lower-level brackets.

2300 player can do to stand out from an 1800 player

jeeezz haha I was hoping you would say 1800+ vs 1500 less but gotcha. If 2300+ is the bar for creation we need to rethink our pool brackets as we have 1500+ as the top level.

It is funny you mention the "asymmetry" part as a lot of people have complained about going up against a player on the direct "lane" with 1.5 to 2 their own mexes (lot of map gens do this really badly...). Teamwork is needed to get by this and sadly not a lot of coordination happens at times, but it is not a good excuse to refrain from this style.

How do you feel about asymmetric maps like Selkie Isle where there is not a huge amount, but certainly there?

One final consideration: you are likely seeing more of the lower-bracket intended pools, unfortunately, as the current method for selecting a map is based on the queues (both team's) lowest-rated player: https://forum.faforever.com/topic/5170/matchmaker-update/3

We have discussed and pushed this idea to resolve low-level content resulting for higher-rated players for sometime now. The release is dependent on some other factors and hopefully it comes sooner rather later.

@morax said in Matchmaker Team Sentons 4v4 TMM Inclusion:

jeeezz haha I was hoping you would say 1800+ vs 1500 less but gotcha. If 2300+ is the bar for creation we need to rethink our pool brackets as we have 1500+ as the top level.

certainly not impossible for a 1400 to crush an 1800 because he clicked gun upgrade while the 1800 clicked a t2 mex, so the argument still works.

i understand complaints about asymmetrical maps because it can be unfun to be hopelessly crushed, but if you look at the bigger picture, asymmetric maps tend to play out more interestingly than symmetric maps (setons is a great example of this). lack of coordination is the player's fault

i think selkie is a good map, asymmetry matters a bit less there though because i feel it's all a lot more dependant on mid and air performance
prioritizing higher bracket mappools sounds pretty nice, thanks for the work

Nah selkie has pretty important asymmetry. The bottom right/top left slots lose long term due to the insane reclaim available to their opponent. They need to play proactively, I don't see it that much differently than how beach will lose to a rock that is allowed to boom in peace long term.

@azraeel said in Matchmaker Team Sentons 4v4 TMM Inclusion:

@casternumerouno imo TMM should be only random gen B)

This but unironically.

Don't support. Plenty of settons lobbies in custom, I'll join one of those if I feel like turning my shitty pc into a handwarmer.

From a numbers perspective, where people clearly stated "for" or "against:"

For Setons in Pool [7]: Rezy-Noob, Lord_Asmodeus, BulliedNoob, FtxCommando, ThomasHiatt, Black_Wriggler, Blodir, ovenman

Against [13]: Maudlin, Jip, Sladow-Noob, MarcSpector, Tryth, haifron, Chisato, Xayo, PerciThunercock, Zeldafanboy, Cyborg16, BananaSmoothie (Banani), IndexLibrorum

For those who want to be add to this, please state clearly your stance.

I support adding it, mostly because i find it fun. As for the argument that it would increase toxicity, i think that is stupid, that logic applies to all maps. There is always a chance that you get a player that is good or bad at a specific map and its just part of the game.

I also support adding it, I don't really see any issues with it.

Just FYI, the final numbers are not going to determine its usage; this is simply just to show where it stands.

I've argued against the inclusion of setons in the original thread and in the pre tmm release map pool discussion thread.

So yeah, please keep setons out of the tmm pool.

I'm for adding it for a a few reasons. Obviously people here know my bias towards it, but here's why:

• It's a good and dynamic map that has at least a bit of everything. Very few maps have everything in the way that Seton's does imo.

• More navy maps in pool is nice

• It's a very high skill cap map - I don't really like the Setoner's have BOs argument. My reasoning for that is similar to what FTX said in the thread Cheese linked: You can go with aggressive non-meta play and absolutely trash most Setoners under 1800. There aren't a lot of traditional Setons only players that wouldn't work pretty consistently against. You can just go first bomber from any slot and crush your opp if they mostly just play setons and you have at least some level of competency in eco scaling in general. Should we remove EOTS (I think that's the right map I'm thinking of...) from ladder pool because it's free win if you know the meta of winning through air dominance and you opp doesn't? Should we remove Seraphim glaciers because having optimal transport timing making use of the spread out reclaim at start optimally can easily win the game for you? What about The Ditch and other maps where if you have a basic BO it gives massive advantage over someone who doesn't? I don't really hear much about those outside of lower ranked people complaining about people having BOs for ladder maps. This sounds the same.

• At least with Seton's even if people have sweaty BOs the meta is obvious what you do in general, the whole supposedly not knowing the meta on that map makes no sense. Sure I'm biased, but the meta on setons is more obvious than most other maps in tmm pool imo. Clear cut air and navy slots, clear mid mass that should be obvious to walk your com to pretty quickly, etc. It's not like other maps where no one knows they should be t3 air or whatever.

• The toxicity argument sounds like complete bs as Spikey pointed out, outside of my next point.

• People who ctrl k are being dicks and that's a them problem. Maybe they should actually be getting warnings from mods when ctrl k'ing in tmm matches and wasting people's time. I don't ctrl k on shitty 4v4 10x10 guncom rush maps even though I hate that shit, it's boring, and has a super low skill cap.

• Some have complained about the lag in late game seton's, a couple things there: Jip's wonderful work has largely made that a thing of the past outside of people playing on potatoes and there are other 20x20 maps with high mex and reclaim counts in the pool as well and no one is arguing those should also go away.

Edit, one more point: I think I saw somewhere where someone said a setoner could beat someone 300 rating higher by virtue of knowing the map. I really don't think most 1500 rated setoners are beating a (solid) 1800 rated tmm player unless the 1800 is beach and that's mostly fine anyway. Only exception might be on air, and definitely if you get a certain 1500 who is way stronger on air than other slots. Can count on one hand the number of people who fall into that category though and none of them play tmm afaik

@exselsior

Should we remove EOTS (I think that's the right map I'm thinking of...) from ladder pool because it's free win if you know the meta of winning through air dominance and you opp doesn't? Should we remove Seraphim glaciers because having optimal transport timing making use of the spread out reclaim at start optimally can easily win the game for you? What about The Ditch and other maps where if you have a basic BO it gives massive advantage over someone who doesn't?

While I get your point (and agree with it), the correct sequence of answers to the questions you presented is: yes, yes and yes.

Remove all natural reclaim from the game for perfect no BO gameplay poggers

Setons (all maps really) are "fine" in TMM if you only look at the >1.8k crowd.

Even if they don't have a BO, none of them will get navy locked at minute 6 or surprised by a strat at min 10.
And even if they do, or get out eco'd, they can just play unconventionally and still have good game.

In the <1.5k range though, Setons becomes complete trash if you have an unequal number of setoners on each team.

In that range, a player with an air BO vs a player without one ends the game.
Not in a fun way, it will still take 30 min until the score screen shows, but it will be essentially over before the first order was given.

If you must add setons into the pool, please only do so in the highest possible rating bracket only.
Even then I doubt it will be fun though.

Hmmmm, @archsimkat @Tagada perhaps we could wait to put Setons in until the 'average rating' is used rather lowest? I am still in favor of trying it once more this January, but def feeling the lower-level pain...

Definetely should start by putting it in the highest bracket first. I don't see how average rating will help lower rated players not get Seton's, it will actually do the opposite

@tagada said in Matchmaker Team Sentons 4v4 TMM Inclusion:

Definetely should start by putting it in the highest bracket first. I don't see how average rating will help lower rated players not get Seton's, it will actually do the opposite

In current, the map is selected based on the rating of the lowest rated player in queue, correct?

If the "use the average rating of the queue (all 8 players)" is used how will that not help prevent lower rated from getting Setons? Am I misunderstanding the intent?

Let us say we have a queue with the following players:

Team 1: 700, 1200, 1500, 2000
Team 2: 1200, 1300, 1800, 1600

With the current algorithm to determine the map used:

The map to be selected will simply be drawn based on the 700-rated player, and prevents using a 1500+ map.

You can see this is working as intended as a match with 836 rated player brought in a queue of highly-rated players here: https://replay.faforever.com/18784598

We discussed in the matchmaking team channel how this is undesirable and higher-rated 1500+ should not be getting maps in the lower rated brackets.

With the desired "queue average rating" algorithm to determine the map used:

Queue's ratings: 700 + 1200 + 1500 + 2000 + 1200 + 1300 + 1800 + 1600 = 11,300

Queue's avg rating: 1,412.5

As discussed in our request with the dev / client team, this would not allow Corinas Hourglass to be selected for the linked replay. Instead, you would see maps in the 1000-1500 or above as Corinas Hourglass is only applied for a rating of <500 and 500-100

Source: current 4v4 tmm pool bracket

So @Tagada , @BlackYps @Sheikah can you tell me why Tagada is thinking it would not help to use average rating?

Because it will be possible for an 800 rated player to get setons while with the current min system it would be impossible.

Change the ratings a little in the example you used and they could get maps from the 1500+ pool.

If there is a 700 rated player in 1500 average game then the system already fucked up. This is one of the reason I stopped playing at all, cuz honestly it was just not worth it when every second game you have people vastly under your own rating.

@casternumerouno said in Matchmaker Team Sentons 4v4 TMM Inclusion:

If there is a 700 rated player in 1500 average game then the system already fucked up. This is one of the reason I stopped playing at all, cuz honestly it was just not worth it when every second game you have people vastly under your own rating.

Could you also state that here in this thread to BlackYPS request as to whether people would be willing to accept the time increase?

https://forum.faforever.com/topic/5329/what-makes-you-more-or-less-likely-to-join-the-2v2-matchmaker-queue

IMO, i would rather wait and get a good game than just be depressed. it is getting really awful to the point where I am playing 1v1 again.... : D

At this point, I am very convinced after seeing replies here and talking to people that the TMM is just getting a worse and worse future if we keep allowing such poorly balanced games.

@sheikah said in Matchmaker Team Sentons 4v4 TMM Inclusion:

Because it will be possible for an 800 rated player to get setons while with the current min system it would be impossible.

Change the ratings a little in the example you used and they could get maps from the 1500+ pool.

Yes, good point; however, you also need to implement the rating difference code to disallow such a large skill discrepancy.

800s and 2000s should not be in the same game, end of story.