@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.
"Design is an iterative process. The necessary number of iterations is one more than the number you have currently done. This is true at any point in time."
Newest map:
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
@morax Can you get stats on how many people ‘give up’ on waiting for a match on TMM (ideally also historically before the recent changes)? My worry is that further reducing rating differences allowed risks making TMM worse by making the wait times so long that fewer people try and get a game leading to a vicious cycle.
Also my understanding is some of the larger rating differences mentioned here are due to a bug - my comments are for if the intention is to go beyond fixing the bug and make it take longer for most games to find a match.
M27AI and M28AI developer; Devlogs and more general AI development guide:
https://forum.faforever.com/topic/2373/ai-development-guide-and-m27ai-v71-devlog
https://forum.faforever.com/topic/5331/m28ai-devlog-v87
@maudlin27 said in Matchmaker Team Sentons 4v4 TMM Inclusion:
@morax Can you get stats on how many people ‘give up’ on waiting for a match on TMM (ideally also historically before the recent changes)? My worry is that further reducing rating differences allowed risks making TMM worse by making the wait times so long that fewer people try and get a game leading to a vicious cycle.
Also my understanding is some of the larger rating differences mentioned here are due to a bug - my comments are for if the intention is to go beyond fixing the bug and make it take longer for most games to find a match.
Sure, there is certainly a trade-off to consider. How much time is too much? In most of my recent discussions it seems that people are more annoyed that there simply IS a time to wait while in other games you get a match in almost no time.
Rocket League (i don't really play it) takes like 3 seconds, CS:GO or Destiny 2 PVP is usually less than a couple minutes.
Given we have so little people that play FAF I imagine 5 minutes is not that big a deal, and it is more about how many people are actually searching rather the parameters used in the code.
Even in current I know archsimkat and Blodir for instance have to search for hours to get a game due to the timezone. At that point, it is kind of a lost cause and does not seem to justify it hurting the quality of games for people WHO DO have enough searching.
I know that really sucks for folks in bad timezones, but I will try and work it out with others to see how long the wait times are, and what they would be should this get implemented.
