5v5/6v6 tmm?
-
Are there any plans or thoughts about 5v5, or even 6v6 tmm being introduced?
Would be nice to get more 4v4 games but 3v3 tmm has had a big impact on it. I wonder if a 5v5 tmm would then have an impact on 3v3 so we get more games with more players.
Just a thought.
-
It'd also significantly increase the risk of connection issues, require far more people to be in the queue for a game, and likely take players away from the 3v3 and 4v4 TMMs (at least my general impression of custom games is that only a small number of games are large mapgen or on non-popular (astro/DG/setons) maps). Without a sudden influx of new players it'd therefore likely lead to much longer waits for games in TMM since people would be spread out over a larger number of queues (and while in theory people can join multiple queues not everyone will).
-
Sure it may. But this is no different than any other custom hosted game with 10+ players right? Which is probably half of all games anyway.
Not sure I follow an argument for taking away players from 3v3/4v4. You can argue that introducing these formats took away from 1v1 massively, but here they are . I think people would play 5v5 or even 6v6 queues. I think at least half of all games consist of games with 10+ players (gap/custom mapgens). At least it would be an option for people to queue for anyway.Might I also suggest some fun tmm queues like 2v1, where a higher rated player is matched with 2 lower rated players, or 3v1/3v2/4v2 or something.
-
I'd expect connection issues to be worse for TMM 5v5 than custom game with 10 players. For custom games if someone cant connect then they just dont get to join the lobby. For TMM it stops the entire lobby and everyone has to re-queue.
Re not following the argument about taking away players, the main point is that having 4 queues means you have fewer people per queue on average than if you have 3 queues. Fewer people per queue means longer queue time, unless no-one joins 5v5 at which point it's a waste of dev time (and it will go the way of the no share queue).
-
I actually think it’s an idea worth exploring. When 4v4 launched I was convinced that there wouldn’t be enough players for it to find any games, and yet they showed up. I’m no longer convinced by the “queues will take away players from other queues” argument as I was before. I suspect that people would actually show up for those larger games who don’t play matchmaker at all now.
That said, I do think the connection troubles could be a barrier, although Jip has once again done some great work to improving the matchmaker initial connection code which might make it viable?
Anyway, I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss the idea on the basis of those arguments, since people (including myself) made exactly the same arguments before 4v4 was launched and that seems to have turned out fine. My opinion, try it and see…
-
I am not sure.
I managed to implement a rejoin-like functionality. It allows a player to attempt to rejoin the lobby after X seconds when the lobby did not manage to connect to all peers. It is similar to a player rejoining a custom lobby. See also #6479.
However, I noticed that the lobby implementation is brittle. The rejoin tends to fail by... crashing the game. And I'm not doing anything special there - when I exit the lobby it occasionally crashes. Maybe that is because I run multiple instances on the same machine, I do not know. At the moment it is disabled.
If we do want to take this road then I feel we need much more statistics. Grafana (a tool to see how many lobbies there are, etc) recently got back up with thanks to Sheikah and Brutus. We'd need to expand that to track other lobby-related statistics . One of them is the local status of a player. And when a player attempts to rejoin. And whether that succeeded.
