Matchmaker Rotation/System Comments
-
@FtXCommando said in Ladder Rotation/System Comments:
Pool bracket is decided by the player with the lowest rating.
I watch the majority of 1800+ ladder replays and this isn't how it's coded. Example from 11 hours ago (that won't launch for me): https://replay.faforever.com/13324989
Edit: use this search code and you'll find a bunch of them. Including games where neither player is over 1800 and the 1800 pool has activated, eg: https://replay.faforever.com/13325076
(mapVersion.map.displayName=="*z-d rasty*",mapVersion.map.displayName=="*desert planet*",mapVersion.map.displayName=="*arcane*",mapVersion.map.displayName=="*seraphim glaciers*",mapVersion.map.displayName=="*emerald crater*");featuredMod.technicalName=="*1*";playerStats.player.ladder1v1Rating.rating=lt="1800" -
@FemtoZetta said in Ladder Rotation/System Comments:
@nemir
Take a look at this: https://forum.faforever.com/topic/706/new-map-veto-system-for-tournaments-help-neededThat’s not really related to the FAF client/ladder itself. That’s a function for tourney players and casters themselves. Since tournaments don’t operate with varied pools by rating range, it doesn’t need to take it into account.
For nemir, if you’re interested pm me next week about it, I’m busy with exams now.
And if the rating brackets are working differently, then there’s a bug. That is how they’re intended to function. I’ll look into it some point in the future.
-
Well yeah that's obviously what I'm saying, the code is bugged.
-
I hate the idea of a veto for anything except the top 1-2 brackets. For lower-rated and middle-rated players, part of the point of ladder is to push your comfort zone so you can learn about different kinds of maps.
For higher-rated players, if they prefer to have a veto, we should respect that. If adding a veto means there will be more high-rated ladder matches, then it's probably a good thing.
Also, or in the alternative, I think it would make sense to give 1300+ players the ability to "opt-in" to the 1800+ pool. It would be bad if we threw them all in to the 1800+ pool because not everyone wants to learn build orders for 6 new maps every time the ladder pool changes, and we don't want to chase away 1500s. Some people only want to play 5-10 matches per month. But if some of them are especially active and would prefer the larger pool, allowing them to opt-in would be good.
Another way to do it: get rid of the 1300+ pool, those players would all be forced to use the 1800+ pool. BUT they get at least 5 vetoes. By default, 5 of the vetoes are applied to the 5 "1800-only" maps. The 1300s could go into the veto menu and change it up. So if they never bother to meddle with the veto menu, they get the vanilla 1300+ pool because of vetoes. BUT they can easily move the vetoes around (or just veto nothing at all) if they take the time to open the menu.
-
This conversation is probably irrelevant, people have been asking for a veto or a return to the Zep pool for years and apparently the dev time and interest for working on it don't exist. But I really don't understand how you figure the top of the ladder, where the pros and tryhards are, should be designed to support participation while the rest of ladder, where the casuals are, should be about forcing people to push themself and having less fun for the purpose of getting better at a niche game in a niche gaming genre. Matchmaker should be just that - a way to get a match - and if vetoes help* and are technically possible then they should be applied for everyone.
*While I would personally like vetoes, it's not a deal maker/breaker for my ladder participation and I'm not sure it would actually help much, especially at high levels where people have mastered game mechanics and are looking for a fresh challenge through map variety. So I can understand why devs don't wanna spend a lot of time on it, would be happy to be proven wrong though.
-
the casual level is the rating itself as to me,can't really assume that ZLO is a casual or any other high rated ladder boi.
might just be the amount of people that aren't comfortable with the ladder basics -
I've tried reading that a couple of times and I still can't be sure what you're trying to say. Are you... posting just to say you agree that casuals aren't high rated...?
-
Yeah,i don't think there're a casual high rated players in ladder.
At least I haven't seen any,correct me if i am wrong. -
@FtXCommando Before @Brutus5000 implements Ladder Pool 41 please get a fix for Emerald Cliffs, it is imbalanced due to one of the Hydros being unbuildable.
https://i.imgur.com/w7F3oIc.png
https://i.imgur.com/Cd7QwcR.jpegWould be nice if there was a requirement for maps to be playtested more than 0 times before they were put straight in the pool, not just for this kind of basic bugfixing but you would get less of it.
-
New pool is up, no games on Emerald Cliffs yet but the version in the vault and linked the Map List in 1v1 matchmaker is broken.
-
I'm happy about the decision and logic regarding map pools and division. As a low rated player I definitely don't want huge maps during the low rated divisions, especially since we already struggle on smaller maps.
-
Adjusting the 2v2 pool by removing 5x5 maps, let me know if this is better or worse (mainly if you're a newer player).
-
https://replay.faforever.com/13791358
The map pool system is still not working. I've played a bermuda locket game while being under 1800.
-
It is working, it uses mu instead of shown rating now.
-
Mu ? What is that stat ? It' would be more intuitive if we could link the stat shown in your post (1800+) to the number we actually see in our profil, rather than a hidden stat we can't see. It's not very important, but i bet i won't be the last to be confused by it ^^
You could just rename your categories. If 1800 Mu = 1600 real rating just rename 1800+ into 1600+ ?
-
No I think the rating breakdown as it is works fine, im just going to move everything up by 300 instead to reflect player mu. This will still confuse people as mu is not shown rating, but odds are we are going to just toss shown rating as some sort of measure for the matchmaker and instead just give people their mu alongside a placement period for new players prior to them being given a rating.
So essentially, we're in between a systemic change but everything is working as intended.
-
@cocAurico Yea, there is a bug where the 2v2 queue is using your 1v1 rating when selecting the map: https://github.com/FAForever/server/pull/702. This fix will be deployed during the Feb. 13 server update.
Like FTX said, it also uses your trueskill mean, so not your displayed rating which is
mean - 3 * deviation. I checked your ladder rating which is mean 1882 and deviation 65. Since 1882 > 1800, this explains why you got a map from the 1800+ map pool. -
Maps should be done by rating, not mu, because rating is known to the players. People should always be able to know which maps they might get.
-
@FtXCommando said in Matchmaker Rotation/System Comments:
This will still confuse people as mu is not shown rating, but odds are we are going to just toss shown rating as some sort of measure for the matchmaker and instead just give people their mu alongside a placement period for new players prior to them being given a rating.
So essentially, we're in between a systemic change but everything is working as intended.
-
@arma473 In a perfect world we would have the client filter out the maps for which your own rating is too low in the map pool view, then you don’t need to know what your rating is to get that info (remember one of the goals of TMM is to de-emphasize rating), but of course this will require someone to implement it, so it will take time. Even with that though, you might not be able to get all those maps for a particular match, since the map selection also depends on the rating of your opponents.
And yea, we really want the trueskill value to be an implementation detail, and have people’s skill represented by a league/division. Soon
️
