Matchmaker Pool Feedback Thread

@xerxesgrondnoob

What about the questions I asked you?

I don't know if this thread is really a good place for this discussion, I think a github repository with the list of maps or something would be better, but I would like to raise the issue of the matchmaking generating 4/5 player maps for 3v3 games. It doesn't ever really result in balanced games, especially in point symmetry. One player mostly get way less mexes than the others, and when matched with an opponent barely has any chance to win, because they simply have twice their mexes/hydros. It would make a lot more sense to increase the mex count on the map instead, but a 3 player game should be played on a 3 player map or at most a 6 player map, so that each player gets about the same number of mexes.

Asymmetric maps where one person has more mexes then their opponent is generally enjoyed more by players, especially at the higher rated brackets. This because it results in a less static game. But I have heard your complaint before, so some really dislike it. It could be good to make sure that there are more maps in the lower rated bracket, with an amount of player slots that match the amount of players.

With my rating of 1000, there are very few cards to play, only 6 pieces are available, in 2 weeks I am already sick of such limitations, something needs to be done about it.

Its 8 maps.. But okay thanks for your feedback, I'll keep it in mind. I really haven't heard a complaint like this before though. What matchmaker are you referring to? 1v1?

@air_player

Starting from July, we'll make some changes to the pool so that <1.5k players will get maps with uneven mex distribution less often.

@theweakienoob said in Matchmaker Pool Feedback Thread:

No, there are not enough good 3v3 maps. Twin River for sure is not a good one because you literally have two separate 1v1s and an airplayer which is 0% interesting gameplay, also since it's basically just t1 spam and gun.

There are plenty of maps that can be adapted for 3v3. Paludarium was in 4v4 pool for some reason. It can be played 3v3 with disabled air slot easily. Same goes for Tourmaline, Miracle, Nomadiah, The Pyramid V2, salembay. They all are fine for 3v3 with disabled air slot. And that's considering only those map that were in map pool already, just not 3v3 pool.

Selkie Isle, wonder open 6v6 v2, monument valley, Miracle, Sands of Ablicka (slots 1,3,9) are all well-suited for 3v3 games.

@sainserow MatchMaker always only uses the first spawns and not specific ones. Adaptive maps won't spawn additional mexes.

@theweakienoob Ok, I didn't know that. But:

1. that's not a technical limitation and can be fixed
2. that's not an issue for a lot of mentioned maps at all or for the most part.

For example, Tourmaline has the air slot as the last one. So it will be fine at 3v3 map pool with no changes required. Same goes for Nomadiah and The Pyramid V2.

Adaptive Palundarium also has 4th air slot. Adaptive won't spawn air mexes? Ok, so'll be it. It won't make gameplay worse.

Now about spawns. Swapping them isn't a technical limitation or a big problem. It can be done under 15 minutes by any experienced map maker. It took be a bit more time. Here is example for Ablicka fix. First 6 spawns now.

Seems to work, I've started without crash. Similar thing could be done with any other map, if required.

Miracle and salembay and sands of albicka are definitely not good 3v3 maps, these are all make gun and walk into enemy base maps while one player goes t2 air.

If anything alicka is better as a 3v3 map with the 1-6 slot distribution now (I think top right vs bottom left?) than that distribution. The setup you posted could be fine for lower rated players, but that’s just horrible for high rated gameplay because the gameplay is insanely reductive.

@ftxcommando I'm not proposing them as 1500+ maps, we don't have any common maps in 3v3, even for <500 & 500-1000 bracket. Top vs bottom for Abliska is a good proposition and can be implemented by swapping spawns just as well. By default would leave all bottom 4 bases (2 on each side of the river) empty, which won't be good.

The one you posted is fine for 500-1000 since that bracket tends to dislike asymmetrical spawns

@sainserow
I do not have the knowledge if you can just re-create maps with spawns or if there are problems with the permissions to do that;

Overall usually the technical things are not the limit, the manpower is.
If you have any map suggestions, you can always reach out to me via Discord (Or another Matchmaker Team member), I'll take a look and if something seems good, I'll post it in the MM team channel. Applying is also always an option.
I'll stop posting here for now as I want to wait until someone with more knowledge than I do responds, just FYI so it doesn't seem like I'd just ignore you.

@Jip or @MadMax would know the rules

If the map has a license that allows you to do it then that's fine. All the maps of @IndexLibrorum , @CaptainKlutz and I think @MadMax and my own maps have such a license.

Otherwise you need permission of the author.

And in case of my maps, just send me a PM and I'll fix issues

@stormlantern Re changing the uneven mex distribution frequency, how much less often are we talking? I enjoyed the variety that the asymmetry provides and it encourages teams to work together more, so will be a shame to see it feature much less; I’m at around 1.3-1.4k. Appreciate you can’t please everyone so I was inputting just to avoid the risk of the impression that everyone at <1.5k dislikes the mapgen asymmetry.

Depending on the rating of those disliking the asymmetry could a scaled system be done instead (eg <750 average - very unlikely; 750-1500 slightly less likely; 1.5k+ as it currently is)?

@maudlin27

We'll be changing the two encircled maps to having 6 slots. So for your bracket that only means a somewhat added chance for getting a more balanced distribution of mexes. For the lower brackets the chance becomes almost 100%.