Here, I made you a mod that let's you see your storages and also your net drain so you can extrapolate when you will stall:

Oh wait, it is already in the game. You are so lucky! I recommend watching those bars regularly.

The DoT idea and the name of the unit gave me an idea. I present to you the real firebeetle: https://imgur.com/a/rdL7f9q

You assume that people are making a conscious effort to pick a vault from the map and then play that. But they don't.
Nobody is digging through the whole vault to find the perfect map he desires.
Many people don't even know how to host games/don't want to host, so their options are instantly reduced to currently hosted maps. Then they choose maps that they already know and voila you have arrived at the feedback loop that has been described many times.

The idea is that people aren't playing the types of maps produced because those maps are missing something that people just love above horses.

And that is being familiar with the map, plus confidence that the map will fill quickly. People are afraid of pvp environments, so they want mitigate their fear by playing in a familiar environment. Also many players just want to have a game quickly and don't care so much about the particular map.

People are unconsciously choosing the maps that create the best overall experiences for their time invested in the game.

They don't even know all the maps from the vault. They can't choose the best one.

A lot of the community here is unfortunately in denial about that

No, they just refuse your claim that all the gap and astro players chose these map specifically because they would have the best experience out of all maps on these.

What even is the problem here? The split was agreed upon by the players. There were other showmatches that got a 100€ price pool. I guess the one without one was because the players didn't ask for one, because I can see no match in the showmatch thread being denied money. Also what will you do if FtX simply answers yes to your last two questions? 4head

About the shaming: It happens regularly that someone has an idea that is not well thought out. E.g. separate rating for Astro or Dual Gap. When FtX points out that it is not feasible or not desirable then he will say so. Proceeding to whine about "dictatorship" will accomplish nothing. The reality is that FtX listens to arguments, but they have to be good, if you actually want to convice him. I have not seen yet that he denied proposals without a good reason to do so. Or even blocking people from contributing for that matter.

Your and Suzuji's application feel like you just don't like the current player councillor and want to get rid of him. barely anything of what you wrote warrants to be PC to be able to do it or even falls in the area of responsibilty of the PC. So please answer biass's questions, because I feel they are very relevant to this thread.

Nobody claimed that retention is not relevant. It is just not relevant to the question "Is faf growing?" This is in the FAQ section and aims to provide a short answer to a short question.
Discussion about how we can measure retention and how it changes over time is probably best discussed in a different thread. (Because it is indeed a relevant topic, but should not clutter this only semi-related topic in the FAQ section imho.)

But the patchnotes that Thomas mentioned are already doing this. So this is solved?
I don't even understand why this thread is still continuing.

Hello everyone,

As you may have heard, there is a league system in the making to bring back divisions like you know them from many other competitive multiplayer games. The backend logic is almost finished now, and we are actively working on client integration.

There is only one thing missing now: The actual names for the divisions plus icons to represent them.
We will have a tiered system: There are five tiers with five subdivisions (I-V) each and then one top tier that has no subdivisions.
For the graphic side of things, we plan to show small icons in the matchmaking tab, so they should be 20 pixels high and no more than 40 pixels wide.
We also want to show a big version in a new leaderboard tab. The design there is not finished yet, but I estimate that there will be around 150-200 pixels of height available. You can see a first idea for the new leaderboard below. The big division graphic goes where the empty rectangle is. Of course the rating plot will later show the division distribution instead of rating.

If you have ideas for division names, or are capable of making nice graphics for them, just reply here.

I like that you conveniently ignore that, as multiple people have stated, you can just make a ranked balance mod for maps that need a different balance than the main balance.

I don't know why you insist that your proposed changes are easy to do when multiple people have told you they are not.
You even disregarded the attempt to get the source code as half-witted, just because it didn't work. maybe it didn't work because square enix in fact does not have the source code? No amount of money will change that.
I advise you to do some research about compilation and decompilation of code and especially about the problems of the latter to get a better understanding why your proposed changes are not realistically possible. Everybody wants better pathfinding, it is not developers "playing hard to get".

make clients an input output engine focused on graphics

this is essentially a rewrite of the engine anyway, and that requires manhours worth millions of dollars.

Your samples are too small to make any meaningful conclusion. Can you keep tracking your ladder maps and see if this persists?

Or maybe query the api a bit for ladder games

What even is the problem here? The split was agreed upon by the players. There were other showmatches that got a 100€ price pool. I guess the one without one was because the players didn't ask for one, because I can see no match in the showmatch thread being denied money. Also what will you do if FtX simply answers yes to your last two questions? 4head

About the shaming: It happens regularly that someone has an idea that is not well thought out. E.g. separate rating for Astro or Dual Gap. When FtX points out that it is not feasible or not desirable then he will say so. Proceeding to whine about "dictatorship" will accomplish nothing. The reality is that FtX listens to arguments, but they have to be good, if you actually want to convice him. I have not seen yet that he denied proposals without a good reason to do so. Or even blocking people from contributing for that matter.

Your and Suzuji's application feel like you just don't like the current player councillor and want to get rid of him. barely anything of what you wrote warrants to be PC to be able to do it or even falls in the area of responsibilty of the PC. So please answer biass's questions, because I feel they are very relevant to this thread.

If it would ignore the height difference for the target calculation, the shot would land in front of the target and not behind it, if you are shooting uphill. There has to be a different reason for this bug.

Actually it's less complicated to not add another rating

So, did you just volunteer to do it?

I don't think I understand what you want to say. Are you talking about the map pools? The matchmaker won't use rating brackets at all. There will also be no further explanation of the matchmaker inner workings in the client. The end user just queues up and will automagically get some nice balanced games (hopefully).

This is from the python statistics module. It calculates the population standard deviation
https://docs.python.org/3/library/statistics.html#statistics.pstdev
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/statistics-probability/summarizing-quantitative-data/variance-standard-deviation-sample/a/population-and-sample-standard-deviation-review

I assume all players in that list have a newbie bonus of 0?
Search(['p7', 'p8', 'p9'], 925.3333333333334) means those 3 players are in the queue together, and 925 is their average rating?

Yes to both.

The match array just holds the two teams, so the rating imbalance is just the difference between the sum of the ratings of the two teams.

As ftx explained a top player has >1600 mu.
This way the newbie bonus gets only awarded if the team has no pro players. But now that I think about it, I am not sure anymore if this is a good idea.

Just for clarification: The system in that thread is not live yet. Currently the 2v2 matchmaker uses a different system. I am working on a replacement that allows us to have bigger team sizes.

I don't have a lot of examples because I have just started making some, but here are a few for you:
(Keep in mind that a game quality of 0.5 is the cutoff here for a game to be considered)

A "Search" is a party of players that is searching for a game. the "pX" are the player names, so you can see how many players there are in the search. The number at the end is the average rating of that search party. The game quality uses the formula that I explained in my previous post.

team a: [Search(['p12'], 842), Search(['p15'], 738), Search(['p1', 'p2'], 781)] cumulated rating: 3142   average rating: 785.5
team b: [Search(['p11'], 745), Search(['p5', 'p6'], 788), Search(['p16'], 816)] cumulated rating: 3137   average rating: 784.25
bonuses: 0.0 rating disparity: 5 -> fairness: 0.9916666666666667 deviation: 44.917806881013234 -> uniformity: 0.8502739770632892 -> game quality: 0.8431883605877618

team a: [Search(['p5', 'p6'], 788), Search(['p16'], 816), Search(['p13'], 971)] cumulated rating: 3363   average rating: 840.75
team b: [Search(['p1', 'p2'], 781), Search(['p12'], 842), Search(['p17'], 951)] cumulated rating: 3355   average rating: 838.75
bonuses: 0.0 rating disparity: 8 -> fairness: 0.9866666666666667 deviation: 79.45399612354309 -> uniformity: 0.7351533462548563 -> game quality: 0.7253513016381249

team a: [Search(['p3', 'p4'], 1004.5), Search(['p17'], 951), Search(['p16'], 816)] cumulated rating: 3776   average rating: 944
team b: [Search(['p13'], 971), Search(['p12'], 842), Search(['p5', 'p6'], 788)] cumulated rating: 3389   average rating: 847.25
bonuses: 0.0 rating disparity: 387 -> fairness: 0.355 deviation: 92.79134859996378 -> uniformity: 0.6906955046667874 -> game quality: 0.24519690415670953

team a: [Search(['p7', 'p8', 'p9'], 1011.3333333333334), Search(['p12'], 842)] cumulated rating: 3876   average rating: 969
team b: [Search(['p13'], 971), Search(['p3', 'p4'], 1004.5), Search(['p17'], 951)] cumulated rating: 3931   average rating: 982.75
bonuses: 0.0 rating disparity: 55 -> fairness: 0.9083333333333333 deviation: 67.96035149261664 -> uniformity: 0.7734654950246113 -> game quality: 0.7025644913140219

team a: [Search(['p7', 'p8', 'p9'], 1011.3333333333334), Search(['p11'], 745)] cumulated rating: 3779   average rating: 944.75
team b: [Search(['p10'], 1047), Search(['p15'], 738), Search(['p14'], 1032), Search(['p13'], 971)] cumulated rating: 3788   average rating: 947
bonuses: 0.0 rating disparity: 9 -> fairness: 0.985 deviation: 125.21026066181636 -> uniformity: 0.5826324644606121 -> game quality: 0.5738929774937029

team a: [Search(['p7', 'p8', 'p9'], 925.3333333333334), Search(['p15'], 1328)] cumulated rating: 4104   average rating: 1026
team b: [Search(['p13'], 1115), Search(['p16'], 1231), Search(['p3', 'p4'], 998)] cumulated rating: 4342   average rating: 1085.5
bonuses: 0.0 rating disparity: 238 -> fairness: 0.6033333333333334 deviation: 152.77004778424336 -> uniformity: 0.4907665073858555 -> game quality: 0.2960957927894662

team a: [Search(['p7', 'p8', 'p9'], 925.3333333333334), Search(['p13'], 1115)] cumulated rating: 3891   average rating: 972.75
team b: [Search(['p3', 'p4'], 998), Search(['p5', 'p6'], 918.5)] cumulated rating: 3833   average rating: 958.25
bonuses: 0.0 rating disparity: 58 -> fairness: 0.9033333333333333 deviation: 84.13976467758869 -> uniformity: 0.719534117741371 -> game quality: 0.6499791530263718

team a: [Search(['p7', 'p8', 'p9'], 925.3333333333334), Search(['p12'], 846)] cumulated rating: 3622   average rating: 905.5
team b: [Search(['p5', 'p6'], 918.5), Search(['p1', 'p2'], 810.5)] cumulated rating: 3458   average rating: 864.5
bonuses: 0.0 rating disparity: 164 -> fairness: 0.7266666666666667 deviation: 79.85612061701971 -> uniformity: 0.733812931276601 -> game quality: 0.5332373967276633

Well, the concrete values are what I am trying to get from this thread. 4head

The actual code is this:

newbie_bonus = 0
time_bonus = 0
ratings = []
for team in match:
    time_bonus += team.failed_matching_attempts * config.TIME_BONUS_WEIGHT
    if not team.has_top_player():
        newbie_bonus += team.has_newbie() * config.NEWBIE_BONUS_WEIGHT
    for mean, dev in team.raw_ratings:
        rating = mean - 3 * dev
        ratings.append(rating)

rating_imbalance = abs(match[0].cumulated_rating - match[1].cumulated_rating)
fairness = max((config.MAXIMUM_RATING_IMBALANCE - rating_imbalance) / config.MAXIMUM_RATING_IMBALANCE, 0)
deviation = stats.pstdev(ratings)
uniformity = max((config.MAXIMUM_RATING_DEVIATION - deviation) / config.MAXIMUM_RATING_DEVIATION, 0)

quality = fairness * uniformity + newbie_bonus + time_bonus

The preliminary config values are:

self.NEWBIE_MIN_GAMES = 10
self.TOP_PLAYER_MIN_RATING = 1600
self.MINIMUM_GAME_QUALITY = 0.5
self.MAXIMUM_RATING_IMBALANCE = 600
self.MAXIMUM_RATING_DEVIATION = 300
self.TIME_BONUS_WEIGHT = 0.1
self.NEWBIE_BONUS_WEIGHT = 0.2

Explanation:

@BlackYps said in TMM Rating Allowance Needs to Use Ladder 1v1 Matching (or close to it):

I am currently writing a new matching algorithm to make a 4v4 queue possible. From my understanding trueskill doesn't factor in rating disparity between players when calculating the game quality so in order to get onl y games with similarly rated players we need to introduce our own quality metric. I will now explain my first draft for this so you can discuss if you think that is a good formula and make suggestions to improve it.
Currently I calculate quality = uniformity * fairness + newbie bonus + time bonus
Uniformity goes from 0 to 1 and is 1 if all players in the game have the same rating and is zero if the standard deviation of the ratings if all players is greater than 300
Fairness works the same but looks at difference in total team skills, so it is 0 if the rating difference between the teams is higher than 600.
The newbie bonus is to faster match new players and is a flat bonus if a new player is in one of the teams.
The time bonus increases with every time you were not successfully matched.

Additional explanation:
The deviation is roughly one third of the biggest rating difference if we assume a somewhat even rating distribution in the team.
If both uniformity and fairness are about 2/3 we barely reach the quality threshold of 0.5. That means that a game that has 200 team rating difference and a 300 difference between individual players is the borderline case of what is acceptable. One of these metrics can be worse if the other one is better.