I would love to know the win/loss stats on games where there's a match up between a team with two lower rated players and one player 300 pointrs stronger than everyone on the opposition.
My suspicion is that the stronger player pwns all.... Though that might just be at around my own level where that happens.
the biggest problem is there arent enough people in matchmaking for a system like that
I get that the player numbers are declining. And I get that shrinking the range I can match against means that I will have to wait a lot longer for a game.
But that game will be awesome and worth the wait.
Also... if you just want to get into a game, and you don't mind bashing a noob, or getting bashed by a god, then you can choose to open up your range.
The thing about making it an option in the client is that you get to choose. You can even alter it depending on your mood, or the time of day, or what you ate for breakfast.
So.... This game is the greatest game ever when you get to play someone that is close to you in skill.
When a game is 25 minutes in, and it's been to and fro, and you have no clue who is winning and you are having to work hard to get victory.... It's just the greatest.
When games are one-sided... For me at least, not so much.
For reference, I am rated around 600.
In the beginning, FAF's automatch would not pair people up who had a difference in rating of 100 points or more. For quite some time now, it's frequently matching me against 200, 250 and sometimes even approaching 300 difference if I've been waiting for a while.
These matches invariably are extremely un-fun. And a monumental waste of time.
Why can't there be an option in the client where I can set the range for me to match against?
I get that will mean that I might have to wait longer - I would much prefer to wait longer for a better match. I have other things I do to fill time when I am waiting.
Thanks for your consideration.
It seems pretty random, maybe about ten percent of the time. It happens on all queues, too.
It's a little more likely to happen in 3v3 or 4v4 queues as there's more chance of a player dropping out or not connecting with the game and the system misattributing that.
And a lot of the time, it doesn't matter much. Because if it only happens once in a session, you just get your warning and carry on. But sometimes, as for me last night, it happens several times. I was in the middle of a ten minute timeout when I posted this. I went back and immediately got timed out for half an hour.
Does grafana show enough detail about who is responsible for matchmaking failures? Or just that there are failures and it points at someone. I am pretty sure that the testing for it is not 100% right, given my experiences.
Especially after watching the ICE reconnection message when someone saw the map and dropped out of the game. I waited another 45 seconds, and only dropped out myself when the launch timer was down to about 15 seconds, so I could get back into the next queue.
I definitely recognise the need for this, just feel that maybe it's not necessarily picking up the right culprit all the time.
For ages, the matchmaking detection vexed me.
Then for quite some time, it seemed not to.
Recently, the nightmare has returned.
I sit in the queue. I get a game. It launches. I see an ICE error letting me know that my opponent has noped out of this game before it even starts.
I wait for some time longer. The message in the client saying "match launching" disappears.
So... I quit the game to rejoin the queue.
And I get the message that I caused the error.
Or worse.... I just wait and wait and wait and then the game times out, and I get another error.
Only this time, I am timed out for ten minutes. Next time, it's 30!!!
I only have one life. I have a lot to do. If the detection was accurate it might be fair, but it's just not.
Can you turn it off until it's more accurate please?
Occasionally, (well, very rarely but sometimes) I end up on a generated map that is close to awesome.
I think to myself, I should make the teaks necessary to actually make it awesome, and then upload it so others can also have fun.
But there's a rule that says that is not allowed. Is that just an arbitrary decision, or is there some technical reason why?
If it is just arbitrary could we maybe revisit the reasons...? I can think of some, but also think of counters.
Hi Speed. I have some free time and am keen to support you in this in any way I can.
Let me know if there's anything you need.
Hrm. I take back what I said abouyt the Windows Firewall. After completely flushing it's config and restarting it, It re-asked for permission to allow faf to the internet and then started working.
Sorry to bother peoples.
Hi THere!
Since the update, (or installing the latest client) I am unable to connect to games.
I get this error:
Client Version: 2024.5.0
java.util.concurrent.CompletionException: org.springframework.web.reactive.function.client.WebClientResponseException$GatewayTimeout: 504 Gateway Timeout from GET https://api.faforever.com/featuredMods/0/files/latest
at com.faforever.client.patch.GameUpdaterImpl.lambda$update$5(GameUpdaterImpl.java:93)
at java.base/java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture.uniExceptionally(CompletableFuture.java:990)
at java.base/java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture$UniExceptionally.tryFire(CompletableFuture.java:974)
I can ping the api server..... What port is it trying to use? IS there something more than "double check windows firewall settings" that I could do? (I've already tested that)
Cheers!
So... As the title says, I join the ladder queue, the game launches, goes through much of the process of connecting, then says failed to launch.
After the second I rebooted.
It happened again and gave me a ten minute timeout from the queue.
I waited 15 minutes. It happens yet again.
Now the timeout is 30 minutes!
I am not doing anything except waiting for the client to launch and connect to a match.
Can someone help me undertand what is going on?
And also why this feature exists...?
Cheers!
Given that this thread seem to have derailed into cool colour ideas:
I would like to be able to select the colours of everyone in the lobby for my game, and not affect them. That way, on my screen I can always be pink and so can someone else.
@eternal said in Do not add new colors - discussion:
Lets just stay old and boring
I don't think you have any choice E!!
(ooo burn!!!!)
Surely the losers are going to be more in need of training than the winner?
^_^
Nice!
Thanks everyone on the team for the awesome work!!
With regards to the ten minute ranked thing... Can you differentiate between a game that was played and one where someone just ctrl-k?
I have done some testing on achiefvements
The only two that I have found that aren't working at the moment are:
o) finishing a ranked game in under ten minutes
o) Building Czars.
Curiously, building Czars counts for the experimentals acheivement, just not that specific acheivement
I did also throughly test about 25 other categories, and they were all working perfectly. I couldn't test the rest because by the time I noticed it needed testing, my account had already many acheivements completed.
Is it possible to create criteria by which you could keep some replays for longer... IE if it was a game with stronger players it gets kept longer... Or if it was a game with a certain number of downloads... Or 5 star reviews...
That might be a cool thing. It would be a decent way to raise the overall value of the replay library.
Exactly. Maybe we could remove the flags from the client?
The probelm is mostly in people's heads. Nothing but educating the comminity can fix it. There are two very big and very real problems with that:
o) People are extremely boneheaded, and once an idea is in there it's really hard to remove.
o) Some ISPs in Australia really really suck, so every now and again there's confirmation that /all/ australian's suck.
There's also the FPS experience. Most gamers have seen how much difference a 40ms ping plays to an 80ms ping in FPS, and then they see a 400ms ping in a lobby here and just reject it out of hand.
I've spent over a decade now trying to get people to give aussies a chance, and at least look at them on an individual case by case basis. My campaign wil continue.
