Group ranked

[Qwurdilu]

Talking about 8v8s SOLO. Exactly why would solo 8v8 ranked be bad can you explain that. If people queue easily 24/7 for regs, people would queue for SOLO 8v8 ranked.

 

There is a thread about that topic, please leave that discussion there. I explained there why your idea is bad and why it wont work in real life.

 

Leave this thread about GROUP ranked please.

[mhobin]

Here is the thing, we need a mega server to have proper matchmaking for 4s.

 

I would be the "food" you guys are talking about. I have never been a top end player, but I have been an above average player. I can carry a reg team, and be a solid member on a yolo ranked team (about 1400 rating most seasons). Never getting gold. I have played with people like Cap, and they are and will always be better then me. I know and accept that.

 

Fact is, I don't want to play his team. It is not fun. And most nights there are two teams like his sitting in groups, beating each other up an sometimes a random team walks in an gets murdered and stops queueing.

 

But, I would say a majority of the players are like me. They would play 4s, and have been wanting to play 4s for a long time. But we want to play against players of equal skill. I don't want to faceroll teams, but I do not want to walk into a situation I know I will lose.

 

In order to do this, we need a big pool of players for the ELO to equal out. If we had meg servers I could see there being 15 team in the queue a night. And if thats the case I can play at my 1400 level and leave you 2k players where you are.

 

There is also the fact that everyone I know left the game so I could not form a team if I wanted to. But I could see players getting together to make new teams if we were all on a mega server.

 

Cheers,

Hobi

[Qwurdilu]

Here is the thing, we need a mega server to have proper matchmaking for 4s.

 

I would be the "food" you guys are talking about. I have never been a top end player, but I have been an above average player. I can carry a reg team, and be a solid member on a yolo ranked team (about 1400 rating most seasons). Never getting gold. I have played with people like Cap, and they are and will always be better then me. I know and accept that.

 

Fact is, I don't want to play his team. It is not fun. And most nights there are two teams like his sitting in groups, beating each other up an sometimes a random team walks in an gets murdered and stops queueing.

 

But, I would say a majority of the players are like me. They would play 4s, and have been wanting to play 4s for a long time. But we want to play against players of equal skill. I don't want to faceroll teams, but I do not want to walk into a situation I know I will lose.

 

In order to do this, we need a big pool of players for the ELO to equal out. If we had meg servers I could see there being 15 team in the queue a night. And if thats the case I can play at my 1400 level and leave you 2k players where you are.

 

There is also the fact that everyone I know left the game so I could not form a team if I wanted to. But I could see players getting together to make new teams if we were all on a mega server.

 

Cheers,

Hobi

 

This perfectly fits my impression aswell.

But i dont agree on the analysis that a big playerpool (megaserver/crosserver) is the solution. Season 1 had a very large playerpool of ranked players on tofn more than we have now worldwide, but even then invites declined. Theres deeper problems imho that are not so easy solved by simply increasing playerbase.

The biggest problem is: The way the system is now, the weakest team has no incentive to que. And no matter how big the playerbase is, it will allways have a weakest team and thus will allways have a worst team that will stop queing. So its actually not a sustainable system. This system lead to the biggest pvp servers dying, and now we have the remainings fled to pve servers, but even there we can se a decline in games played. The system needs to change to a sustainable version

 

So we need two things:

1. good matchmaking

2. sustainable system

 

So what is good matchmaking? id like cite a game designer from another game here:

 

 

"At a most basic level, the matchmaker is trying to put you with 11 other people. But it doesn’t just randomly select 11 people. It takes into account a number of factors (more than I am going to list and not necessarily prioritized).

 

The first factor is time. The matchmaker will try to find you match quickly and not force you to wait too long. A very common thing that happens is that a player will become dissatisfied with a match and say “I don’t care how long you make me wait. I’d rather wait 20 minutes and have a good match than get matchmade into a match like you just put me into.” What we’ve seen is that when the time crosses a certain threshold, players begin to complain about it taking too long to find a match. It sounds good… waiting for that perfect match. But when the reality of waiting too long comes down on most people, they end up vocalizing their discontent on the forums. Also, there is an unrealistic expectation that if a player waits longer for a match, the “better” the match will be. The concept of “better” when it comes to matchmaking is a really hard one to define.

 

If I were to summarize match results into 5 broad buckets it would be these:

 

1. My team won. We beat the other team by a long shot.

 

2. My team barely won.

 

3. My team barely lost.

 

4. My team lost. We lost by a long shot. It wasn’t even close

 

5. It was a broken match somehow. Maybe someone disconnected,

was screwing around or we played with fewer than 12 people.

 

(of course there are more cases than this – I am overly simplifying here)

 

Most players will say that they want a match to be either type 2 or type 3 as I described above. Those sound even. Barely win or barely lose. But I believe when psychology comes into play, most players actually expect type 1 or type 2 to be the result. Even an amazingly close type 3 match can turn into a highly negative experience for a lot of players. And if you keep “barely losing” it’s not a very fun night. Winning is fun and good. Losing is less fun than winning.

 

So waiting a really long time to lose by a long shot is obviously not good. But waiting a really long time to barely lose is also a negative experience. And if we assume that your chances of winning are 50%, that means that even waiting a really long time for a “better” match means that you’re going to wait a really long time to probably lose half the time… If your expectation was that you were going to wait a really long time for an awesome match where you either 1) Won by a long shot or 2) Barely won… but still won nonetheless, your expectations for what the system can or should do are in the wrong place. We do not generate bots to take losses so you can win more than 50% of the time. Those are real people losing on the other end of every loss you take." https://us.battle.net/forums/en/overwatch/topic/20745504371#post-3

 

 

What can we translate to star wars? I think fast ques is something we can definately work on. Currently there exists a large group of players that i`d call farmers. Some of them achieved cxp lvl 300 already. They did so with various tricks, one of them farming the uprising fractured a lot. Its a boring, repetetive gameplay. They however enjoiy the grind part of it. We need to take those players and their will to slave themself through boring gameplay and use them as a base for group ranked. They can be the base for the above described type 1 outcomes. They can be the base that attracts average players to team ranked. Lets go two steps further and replace solo ranked que by a groupfinder for team ranked.

 

The 50% win/lose will be much more difficult to achieve, and i dont think its possible right now to have a system that achieves that. But what we can have is more variety. Current elo system doesnt really work when theres only 3-5 teams in que, it needs way more to actually work properly. But in reality we never have that much teams in que. So lets not base matchmaking on elo, but on difference. Right now when theres 4 teams in que, what is likely to happen is that two pairs will constantly fight each other. But it would be way better if each team would face 3 different opponents.

of course this means that everyone has to face the best team, but this also ensures that noone has to face the best team twice. Theres also a combat system rudimentary based on rock-paper-scissor so fighting different opponents is always good as it reshuffles cards.

Edited December 30, 2016 by Qwurdilu