How come you don't play ladder?

I do play ladder, but I must say that 1 vs 1, the same 4-5 maps ALL the time gets old really fast.

Having random maps / map gen would really spice things up.

I'll post this here too since it's easy to miss on discord:

Meanwhile the total number of games has gone way up:

High level ladder is dead.

Doesn't TMM count as Ladder now?

No, it's TMM not 1v1 ladder.

I would love a 1v1 random map gem only with multiple sizes (5x5, 7.5x7.5, 10x10 and so on...)
Also the idea of anonymous ladder sounds very good to me.

@blodir said in How come you don't play ladder?:

I'll post this here too since it's easy to miss on discord:

Meanwhile the total number of games has gone way up:

High level ladder is dead.

LET'S GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If mapgen only ladder came back I would play it but the current maps are just no fun because you either lose a transport or a few engies and its completely lost which is not fun.

Losing transports and engineers being game deciding isn't unique to non mapgen maps. It's still an issue on mapgen, because its an issue with 1v1 in general

Yes that is true bullydozer but it's much less sharp and sometimes the stuff you have to drop is much closer to your base which makes the game less sharp and transport rush dependent.

Some non-forum feedback here: https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecommander/comments/11yzau1/feels_bad_man/

@derpfaf said in How come you don't play ladder?:

Some non-forum feedback here: https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecommander/comments/11yzau1/feels_bad_man/

Just out of curiosity: what gaming community IS welcoming to noobies? I constantly see and hear about people wanting to take measures to "improve new player experience" but no one has shown any examples of a place that does it well, at least not what I have seen.

When it comes down to it, the game takes a massive amount of effort and time to teach, so people that want to just play - which is understandable given busy lives - I do not really think it is all that crazy for people to not want to deal with folks that do not know what to do.

I started FAF with 1v1 ladder but stopped playing because to me the game was only about make the live of the opponent miserable instead of large battles. But when I am a bit better, I think ill give it a try.

@morax The only welcoming example i can think of is the Final Fantasy Online one, and that's an almost exclusively PVE based MMO.

I do play ladder.... but not 1v1, as I'm simply not good enough.

However, there are also some practical matters that the devs could look at, that might encourage the queues to fill again.

• I am finding that in the 4v4, it seems often take 20+ players before you get a "match". I've seen a 20+ player queue miss cycle after cycle after cycle, and dwindle to zero without a match.
• I could be wrong, but it feels like it can only launch one match per cycle.
• 90 seconds for the ladder to cycle is way too long for the number of cycles it seems to miss.
• It would be good to know where you are in the queue. Am I even in consideration for a match, yet?

I actually see no reason to wait the 90 seconds to indicate a possible match. If it's "missing" because it can't match, then surely the trigger for it trying again, should be people joining. (maybe with a short client refresh like 30 seconds - or possibly a push?)

• It should attempt a match as soon as the minimum number is satisfied.
• If it can't match, then it should try again, every time someone joins.
• If there's no match, then it should say why. I have no idea what the criteria are, but I know I'm waiting cycle after cycle after cycle.

I don't have the bandwidth right now to get familiar with this codebase, but I hope that's some food for thought.

The only reason why here is no match when enough players are in the queue is that it can't create good enough games with the people in the queue. That's also the reason why people pile up. Keep in mind that these players are possibly spread over the entire rating range.
It is possible but rare to launch more than one game at once.
Making the cycle shorter won't fix anything about this, because the matchmaker doesn't "miss" matches by accident.
Having these regular cycles makes it easier to track how long people have been waiting in the queue than if we matched at irregular intervals.
I think the only solution to improve the user experience would be to show an estimated wait time instead, but that is complicated to implement.

I think adding some explanation about how the system works on the client might help with the confusion, though it creates a tight coupling between that client helptext and the system so i thas to be changed any time the system is changed.

@blodir What about a link to a wiki article that explains it? Still have a similar issue with needing to keep it updated, but it would be easier to update (since far more people can update it and can update it immediately), and also of use more generally since people may look for the information on the wiki.

@blackyps I didn't mean it "missed a match by accident"... I meant it missed a cycle. (i.e. could not find a match)

As I said - I've watched people abandon 26 person queue because it won't match an 8 player game for many cycles. I know there's criteria for a match... but it's not discernable to the user.

The idea for shortening (or eliminating) the cycle would:

• permit one (or more) games to launch quickly if a queue change made one or more matches work.
• allow it to loosen it's criteria quicker. (I assume this happens after a while?)

I know I frequently abandon the queue for a custom game for these reasons.. I can't be alone.

Perhaps we need a casual queue - or some adjustable ranges... I certainly wouldn't mind losing if it meant I actually got a game.

Anyway, those are some thoughts.

There is always a perpetual argument about bad game vs no game. The criteria for matching also does get looser the longer you stay in queue.

@leonpie said in How come you don't play ladder?:

<snip>...stopped playing because to me the game was only about make the live of the opponent miserable

Yeah, I feel ya... This is the reason I stopped playing quake. When the true winning strategy is to deny your opponent the ability to even meaningfully participate, it feels pointless.