Matchmaker Pool Feedback Thread

0

@jip Well yes, I think those maps should be in the pool as well, even though I dont particularly like them myself. I think the addition of these most popular maps would add to the overall enjoyment and succes of the matchmaker. Allthough u would lose quite a few players from the higher bracket who like to ridicule these maps.

I just dont think it is a very good rationale to remove maps just because the skill level is not well matched with their rating.

1

It depends on the goals for the matchmaker if maps like Seton's or dual gap should be included. If the goal is just to get as much play count as possible in the matchmaker, then yes, they should be included.
If the goal is to provide a variety of maps and to give a entry point for new players then they should not be included. The most popular maps don't need a dedicated matchmaker because you can already fill lobbies with them in custom games relatively quickly. The matchmaker also provides global rating for new players so after a starting phase they can also play custom games without getting kicked for being new.
So bottom line is, if you want to play astro, dual gap or Seton's you play custom games and if you want to play anything else you play matchmaker.

0

yeah thats a good point

6

We have decided to (atleast for now) remove Seton's from future 4vs4 TMM pools. Thank you for your feedback.

0

How do people feel about the size and number of maps in the 4v4 matchmaker pool, and the rating bracket breakdown? That is the only other important question I was going to ask in the official poll system, so if we can answer that here that should cover everything the matchmaker team would inquire.

1

@morax The variaty and size is perfect imo. I keep getting the same maps over and over again but not sure if that's intended or just bad luck.. Besides that it's fine though - also heard from quite many trainees that they're happy with the maps overall as well

1

@sladow-noob said in Matchmaker Pool Feedback Thread:

@morax The variaty and size is perfect imo. I keep getting the same maps over and over again but not sure if that's intended or just bad luck.. Besides that it's fine though - also heard from quite many trainees that they're happy with the maps overall as well

Glad to hear it! I figured creating a pool that was much larger than 1v1 would be a good move as quite a few people will be playing and want to see a lot of variety.

The reason for repeat maps is likely due to the fact that TMM ratings have not increased enough to bring everyone into the higher tiers. As shown in the matchmaker pool post one needs to be in a game with everyone at the rating bracket to see the higher ones. For example, if you are in a game with 7 people at 1500+ but one is 1200, you will unfortunately be locked into <1500 maps.

Hope this gets better in time, if not, I will work with the matchmaker team and devs to remedy the situation. No one likes redundancy in maps, myself included.

0

@morax That's interesting, always thought it's the other way around aka lower ranked ones get high ranked maps if they play with us. I think that indeed explains why I keep up getting the same maps over and over again

0

played 4v4
Win
Game was not rated: unknown result

Is this normal on ladder?

1

Setons is the perfect 4v4 map.

0

@kdrafa91 said in Matchmaker Pool Feedback Thread:

played 4v4
Win
Game was not rated: unknown result

Is this normal on ladder?

No, but this is also a thread about the maps used in the pools. I would recommend discussing this in the "I need help" forum (and its sub forums) or the #technical-help channels in the FAF discord:

50f99bf4-d9bd-43e7-b672-f435a12c5cb9-image.png

0

Addition of adaptive lone Eagle should be imo reconsidered by the TMM team due to bad texturing and terrain sculpting which doesn't allow players to tell what is a hill or not at first glance, instead requiring to zoom in close and even free-cam to find the reason why engineers aren't capable of reaching the reclaim and mexes. It literally costed me 2 idle engineers in the beginning of the game due to how poorly the elevation and impassable terrain is conveyed on this map which imo is inexcusable.

0

Yeah I played one game on there and my build on it got cancered thinking I could walk to the hydro behind me. Was a very gassed start because I couldn’t tell the terrain wasn’t passable. Maybe that’s a me problem though

3

@E33144211332424 @Exselsior FYI:

PNG image 8.png

We will be removing it from future pools until the author updates the map.

0

The Bjarg map is not one i like, very misleading unreclaimable wrecks that should be removed from the map, or map removed from pool

0

that's just part of the Maps aesthetics it take you 1 game to know that certain wreck arent reclaimable + if you just one quick Ctrl+shift you can clearly see that they have no mass value

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" - Spock

1

No other map I have ever seen has this. It is just needless, unfriendly and unintuitive. Seems very silly to introduce this mechanic for a single map. The it takes 1 game argument does not hold up.

2

There was a large amount of feedback regarding visuals of the map being difficult to read as well, so it likely won’t be in folding pools until it is updated a bit.

I will mention this to the author as well.

0

I would enjoy a reduction of the percentage chance that I get a map gen pool map whilst searching in the competitive mode, I have been experiencing, through bad luck or whatever other factors are at play, 3/4 map gen matches in succession. Seems a bit much. I thank you all, much love

0

Hi, was playing 2v2 ladder and got the map Xellaria. The map is way too dark to play on and is really difficult to see the terrain changes. Also with fog of war and radar pings it basically blends into the background, When the game ended and put us into obvs view it was actually a lot brighter and easier to see. any chance it could be made to that light level permanently

sorry, just seen the map is already being removed for next pool ect