Matchmaker Team Sentons 4v4 TMM Inclusion
-
@morax Awesome!
-
@blodir Most of the maps in most of the pools are arguably worse, far worse than setons.
And how is setons one of the most hated maps? Players hate dual gap and astro crater, but not really setons.It's all subjective preference at the end of the day. Except, a map like setons happens to be one of the most played maps in the history of the game, and for good reason!
-
@nvpiurgbp0uiwrbf said in Matchmaker Team Sentons 4v4 TMM Inclusion:
And how is setons one of the most hated maps? Players hate dual gap and astro crater, but not really setons.
The fact that we have a thread with this many people arguing for/against shows how divisive of a map Setons is.
-
@taunoob1 How many active players in faf? And how many players replying in this thread? I'd say it was a very small, insignificant amount which in no way indicates any sort of divisiveness for the map that is setons.
-
@nvpiurgbp0uiwrbf said in Matchmaker Team Sentons 4v4 TMM Inclusion:
@taunoob1 How many active players in faf? And how many players replying in this thread? I'd say it was a very small, insignificant amount which in no way indicates any sort of divisiveness for the map that is setons.
Believe it or not, this is actually one of the most replied-to "please give feedback" threads in my memory aside from player council voting.
-
@blodir said in Matchmaker Team Sentons 4v4 TMM Inclusion:
@morax said in Matchmaker Team Sentons 4v4 TMM Inclusion:
@nvpiurgbp0uiwrbf said in Matchmaker Team Sentons 4v4 TMM Inclusion:
@morax Please don't decide the fate of adding it to tmm solely on the extreme poultry few that bother to find and reply to this post. Just add it. It's 1 map, of many. Except it just so happens to be one of the most popular maps in the history of the game, it makes perfect sense to have it in the occasional pool.
It is in the up and coming pool. We will reevaluate once January goes by.
While I'm personally in favor of Seton's (would like to play it in tmm), I advice you don't add it to the pool. Never add maps that have a high chance to single handedly make many players not search tmm (which appears to be the case here!). You need to cut out the most hated maps (even if they are loved by many) or the negative impact of people not playing outweighs the positive impact of people enjoying the map pool.
Good to know your thoughts here, Blodir. I talked it over with arch and we are going to give it one go in January, keeping in mind it will likely be the last.
-
I might not be the person to refer to here, but - how does the TMM team-forming and map-choosing work? What I'm thinking is, you could maybe implement a sort of 'blacklist' for players to mark maps they dislike. Then, based on the blacklists of people at the top of the queue a map is chosen.
How it would work could be as follows (again, assume 4v4, but maybe the same could be used for 2v2 as well):
Scenario 1 - majority blacklist:
The 8 players at the top of the queue are checked. For each map in the maplist, you evaluate how many people in the chosen 8 have it in the blacklist. If majority (so 5 at least), that map is not considered for a random-choice of a map. Say 5 players have Setons blacklisted and 6 Gap of Plateau - those 2 maps are not in the roster to be picked - the rest of the procedure is as it is currently.This functionality is "always active".
Scenario 2 - minority blacklist:
The 8 players at the top of the queue are checked. As in Scenario 1, majority-blacklisted maps are not considered in the roster. Out of the maps considered in the roster one is picked at random. If the map chosen is blacklisted by a particular player(s) in minority, a new player from the queue is chosen in order, and checked to see if the chosen map is not blacklisted - in which case, the 'ejected' players are added to the top of the queue (pushback), and the newly picked players are added to the current player roster of 8.This is active only if there are enough people to form another team (so queue_size >= game_size * 2).
Backfall scenarios:
- Scenario 2 - small queues:
Given the size of the community, it is more than likely queues won't be big enough to allow for player shifting - one of the reason being, you don't want to push people back in the queue, if they've been waiting for a while, without being sure they will get a 'replacement' game fast. - Scenario 2 - no substitute:
If an appropriate 'substitute' is not found in the remainder of the queue. - Scenario 2 - long wait / multiple pushbacks:
If players have been waiting in a queue for a long time, or an unlucky random map selection would cause a player to experience multiple pushbacks, you could get negative experience due to extended queue times. In such cases, threshold limits could be defined (say, 8 minutes and 2 pushbacks max).
If any of these, and presumably any other marginal situations I couldn't think of from the top of my head, were to transpire, the minority blacklists will be ignored - for example, if there is no way to replace a player(s), or a player(s) has been waiting for a long time, then the map chosen by the TMM system will be used regardless of any minority blacklists.
The result:
What this kinda system would achieve is, it would allow for players that blacklist certain maps to see those less often. Even more-so if, at particular rating, there is a general dislike of a particular map. But in case where it is not possible to achieve this, which can be presumed to happen often given the size of the community, it won't prevent players from joining games - albeit at cost of playing on maps they might not prefer.Additionally, to maybe avoid players accidently locking themselves out of games, a limit to amount of maps blacklisted could be implemented, say 1 + 10% of the amount of maps in the maplist. You could also, for simplicity-sake (not sure how complex player-pairing to balance rating is), just use the 'scenario 1' functionality.
- Scenario 2 - small queues:
-
I worked out a way for a veto system to work for the matchmaker already, it's mainly a problem of getting somebody motivated to actually code the implementation.
-
@ftxcommando i started looking it a little, but ive been quite sick since my Christmas break started. Hopefully i can get more done once my fever goes away.
-
@fichom said in Matchmaker Team Sentons 4v4 TMM Inclusion:
I might not be the person to refer to here, but - how does the TMM team-forming and map-choosing work? What I'm thinking is, you could maybe implement a sort of 'blacklist' for players to mark maps they dislike. Then, based on the blacklists of people at the top of the queue a map is chosen.
How it would work could be as follows (again, assume 4v4, but maybe the same could be used for 2v2 as well):
Scenario 1 - majority blacklist:
The 8 players at the top of the queue are checked. For each map in the maplist, you evaluate how many people in the chosen 8 have it in the blacklist. If majority (so 5 at least), that map is not considered for a random-choice of a map. Say 5 players have Setons blacklisted and 6 Gap of Plateau - those 2 maps are not in the roster to be picked - the rest of the procedure is as it is currently.This functionality is "always active".
Scenario 2 - minority blacklist:
The 8 players at the top of the queue are checked. As in Scenario 1, majority-blacklisted maps are not considered in the roster. Out of the maps considered in the roster one is picked at random. If the map chosen is blacklisted by a particular player(s) in minority, a new player from the queue is chosen in order, and checked to see if the chosen map is not blacklisted - in which case, the 'ejected' players are added to the top of the queue (pushback), and the newly picked players are added to the current player roster of 8.This is active only if there are enough people to form another team (so queue_size >= game_size * 2).
Backfall scenarios:
- Scenario 2 - small queues:
Given the size of the community, it is more than likely queues won't be big enough to allow for player shifting - one of the reason being, you don't want to push people back in the queue, if they've been waiting for a while, without being sure they will get a 'replacement' game fast. - Scenario 2 - no substitute:
If an appropriate 'substitute' is not found in the remainder of the queue. - Scenario 2 - long wait / multiple pushbacks:
If players have been waiting in a queue for a long time, or an unlucky random map selection would cause a player to experience multiple pushbacks, you could get negative experience due to extended queue times. In such cases, threshold limits could be defined (say, 8 minutes and 2 pushbacks max).
If any of these, and presumably any other marginal situations I couldn't think of from the top of my head, were to transpire, the minority blacklists will be ignored - for example, if there is no way to replace a player(s), or a player(s) has been waiting for a long time, then the map chosen by the TMM system will be used regardless of any minority blacklists.
The result:
What this kinda system would achieve is, it would allow for players that blacklist certain maps to see those less often. Even more-so if, at particular rating, there is a general dislike of a particular map. But in case where it is not possible to achieve this, which can be presumed to happen often given the size of the community, it won't prevent players from joining games - albeit at cost of playing on maps they might not prefer.Additionally, to maybe avoid players accidently locking themselves out of games, a limit to amount of maps blacklisted could be implemented, say 1 + 10% of the amount of maps in the maplist. You could also, for simplicity-sake (not sure how complex player-pairing to balance rating is), just use the 'scenario 1' functionality.
This is a nice idea but really diverging from the original thread topic. If you and whoever replies to this do not mind, please start a topic!
- Scenario 2 - small queues:
-
I understand that I will write nonsense. I don't support it, because I have a weak laptop.
-
@matecarter55 said in Matchmaker Team Sentons 4v4 TMM Inclusion:
I understand that I will write nonsense. I don't support it, because I have a weak laptop.
So, are you going to also be in favour of banning other 20x20 macro maps?
-
@xiaomao said in Matchmaker Team Sentons 4v4 TMM Inclusion:
@matecarter55 said in Matchmaker Team Sentons 4v4 TMM Inclusion:
I understand that I will write nonsense. I don't support it, because I have a weak laptop.
So, are you going to also be in favour of banning other 20x20 macro maps?
Please do not instigate - we are not going to include feedback such as this. The game has a fairly high demand on CPU for large 20x20 maps with 1000s of units for years and years now, so restricting usage on something like this will not validate a move by the matchmaker team.
-
@xiaomao said in Matchmaker Team Sentons 4v4 TMM Inclusion:
@matecarter55 said in Matchmaker Team Sentons 4v4 TMM Inclusion:
I understand that I will write nonsense. I don't support it, because I have a weak laptop.
So, are you going to also be in favour of banning other 20x20 macro maps?
As much as it's unfortunate, but yes. I would forbid bigger maps anyway. It's not my fault that my rating was getting better and bigger maps became available in the map pool.
I understood that I was harming my own and the enemy team with my slow sim. And they ask me to leave the game.
Therefore, I am very much waiting for the veto to be implemented. -
Veto would never allow you to restrict an entire category of maps, even if you worked together and coordinated vetos with the enemy in queue.
