Register    Login    Forum    Search    FAQ Awesomenauts



Post new topic Reply to topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Perfect example of irrefutably broken matchmaking
 Post Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 2:58 am
Posts: 976
Location: My Computer
Where do you have to land in the ratings for solo-queue matchmaking to be "fine?" Or even moderately workable?

_________________
GROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Fan Naut - Dr. Talbot
Mah Scribblins
https://www.twitch.tv/real_marshmallow_fox


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Perfect example of irrefutably broken matchmaking
 Post Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 3:50 am
Posts: 1486
i have zero obligation to make an analytical "debate like" response to a post that ignores everything my OP said and just repeats the SoloQ is good.

Quote:
The entire issue has everything to do with playerbase, yet all these posts do nothing to actually solve it, instead it's solely a topic of hot air for you to vomit into whenever you want have a game you don't agree with.


Kinda like this one, I mean all I can do is refer to my OP where I specifically described a situation that a larger playerbase wouldn't have solved. Like, what, if there 3k concurrent players, would Edd have been on the opposite team? Is that how it works? And I did nothing to solve? Can you explain to me what "This would have happened without doubt if Ronimo implemented hard limitations to rank matchups like every single developer of a non dying game does to their matchmaking." means? (thou i did mean to say wouldn't have in that sentence lol)

that is literally attempting to solve the problem. You may disagree with the problem, you may disagree with my solution, but it is objectively trying to solve it.

Now if someone reads through my post and disagrees with, more power to them. But if we're going to have a conversation about this, what exactly is the reply to not addressing anything I said and then just going "lol soloq's fine, playerbase is the problem"

like my god forgive me for pressing discussion on the actual talking points. I should have just made an OP that said "soloq isnt fine and its not the playerbase" and left it at that, seems like it'd be far more acceptable at your standards. apparently by attempting to re-direct the conversation from "yes it is/no it isn't" to actually talking about the underlying logic of said opinions is just pure close-mindedness.


and just so we're on the same page, I fully acknowledge the pitfalls of assuming a skill correlation between time and rank. However I have nothing else and you know what I'm gonna hedge my bets that the 100 hour player that I saw feed real bad multiple games wasn't L1, if I turn out to be wrong I'm wrong. When the opportunity to get more precise information, like I could with the rank 517 player I referenced, presents itself I will be happy to update the OP with such data.

_________________
Mains: :thumb: :derp: :worship: :think: :facepalm: :shady: :rocco: :jimmy:
steamcommunity.com/id/MrPillow92/
stream: twitch.tv/mrpillowthegreat
Awesomenauts Rumble Tournament: http://steamcommunity.com/groups/AwesomenautsRumble


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Perfect example of irrefutably broken matchmaking
 Post Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 10:24 am
Posts: 1450
Location: In the fantastical realm of Fan-Made Creations—please do not tap on the glass: it startles us.
This is the quality discussion that we all yearn for.

You gave your own anecdotal evidence for matchmaking being bad, and Eddster gave theirs to the contrary—if theirs is somehow less vaid than yours simply because it is different to yours, both are irrelevant for the purposes of the argument.

However, Pillow did (try to) make a point that everyone seemed to (willfully) ignore: should it be possible that a player with so few hours, irrepective of their actual leaderboard position, be placed with those of us that have thousands of hours? The idea that you stop learning after the 100th hour is frankly ridiculous. If that were true, the game would be awash with Niki-tier gameplay. Time played is a good indicator of skill the way that good practice is (unless every single game played is wasted).

In an idea world, it might be possible to segregate the veterans from the newer players, but Awesomenauts simply does not have the playerbase for it.

_________________
Say no to SAM wrote:
Give this guy a duck for making such a good job with this thread

Nekomian wrote:
Give this guy a duck lololol

DeezNauts wrote:
Nobody can see it. Maybe instead of asking for ducks, you should put it in your signature.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Perfect example of irrefutably broken matchmaking
 Post Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 3:50 am
Posts: 1486
The Lord Protector wrote:
This is the quality discussion that we all yearn for.

You gave your own anecdotal evidence for matchmaking being bad, and Eddster gave theirs to the contrary—if theirs is somehow less vaid than yours simply because it is different to yours, both are irrelevant for the purposes of the argument.

However, Pillow did (try to) make a point that everyone seemed to (willfully) ignore: should it be possible that a player with so few hours, irrepective of their actual leaderboard position, be placed with those of us that have thousands of hours? The idea that you stop learning after the 100th hour is frankly ridiculous. If that were true, the game would be awash with Niki-tier gameplay. Time played is a good indicator of skill the way that good practice is (unless every single game played is wasted).

In an idea world, it might be possible to segregate the veterans from the newer players, but Awesomenauts simply does not have the playerbase for it.


my primary point is that in my match, Edd should have been on the opposite team. It's not a problem of "hey there was a game with league 1s and new players" it was a game where there could been L1s on opposite teams but for no apparent reason they were grouped together.

I listed another example, that being Sam's match, of how it could actually have had segregated skill levels that matchmaking round but I acknowledged at the end how I could at least seen how Galactron would have logically formed that match. But I've yet to read a reason that addresses why Edd was put on the same team as me/Nick to face league 2/3s when the game could have been more balanced by having him on the opposite team.

_________________
Mains: :thumb: :derp: :worship: :think: :facepalm: :shady: :rocco: :jimmy:
steamcommunity.com/id/MrPillow92/
stream: twitch.tv/mrpillowthegreat
Awesomenauts Rumble Tournament: http://steamcommunity.com/groups/AwesomenautsRumble


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Perfect example of irrefutably broken matchmaking
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 6:11 pm
Posts: 1183
Location: A bunker in prep for the first AI war
Nauts matchmaking tries to minimise ping differences between players on opposite teams. It doesn't care at all about ping to your own teammates. Given that the game in question had players from EU and NA with varying connections the MM presumably distributed the players by prioritising this more than the skill difference (which uses rating instead of hours).

Nauts MM is by no means perfect but to say this is an irrefutably broken example is misinformed at best.

also sorry for using bad words and getting a warning vs someone actively trying to slander me by lying.

_________________
My steam profile: https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198055582507

Check out my streams: twitch.tv/the_eddster27
Make sure you follow the MS Paint off!


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Perfect example of irrefutably broken matchmaking
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 3:50 am
Posts: 1486
eddster27 wrote:
Nauts matchmaking tries to minimise ping differences between players on opposite teams. It doesn't care at all about ping to your own teammates. Given that the game in question had players from EU and NA with varying connections the MM presumably distributed the players by prioritising this more than the skill difference (which uses rating instead of hours).

Nauts MM is by no means perfect but to say this is an irrefutably broken example is misinformed at best.

also sorry for using bad words and getting a warning vs someone actively trying to slander me by lying.


do you have a citation for that? if so then youre right and i concede, i thought i was aware of everything the matchmaking uses to 'discriminate' on its matches

_________________
Mains: :thumb: :derp: :worship: :think: :facepalm: :shady: :rocco: :jimmy:
steamcommunity.com/id/MrPillow92/
stream: twitch.tv/mrpillowthegreat
Awesomenauts Rumble Tournament: http://steamcommunity.com/groups/AwesomenautsRumble


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Perfect example of irrefutably broken matchmaking
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:40 pm
Posts: 1726
Joost wrote:
For example, in Awesomenauts we've chosen to ignore ping with teammates: the matchmaker only looks at ping with enemies. This is because you can't hit your teammates anyway, so if there's more lag there then that will be much less of a problem. In an ideal world we would also want a low ping with teammates, but in practice we can achieve better ping with enemies if we ignore ping with teammates, and thus in our case this is a good choice to make.


It's on his devblog. I kinda dislike how Joost argues that you can't 'hit' your teammates when we have several AA's and abilities that do hit your teammates. I guess it's still much better than laggy opponents though. And yeah, no idea what's up with forum moderation these days.

_________________
Whether it is sound or sight, true beauty resides in curiousity.

~ Embrace your dreams.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Perfect example of irrefutably broken matchmaking
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 12:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 8:54 pm
Posts: 214
The Lord Protector wrote:
This is the quality discussion that we all yearn for.
However, Pillow did (try to) make a point that everyone seemed to (willfully) ignore: should it be possible that a player with so few hours, irrepective of their actual leaderboard position, be placed with those of us that have thousands of hours? The idea that you stop learning after the 100th hour is frankly ridiculous. If that were true, the game would be awash with Niki-tier gameplay. Time played is a good indicator of skill the way that good practice is (unless every single game played is wasted).
In an idea world, it might be possible to segregate the veterans from the newer players, but Awesomenauts simply does not have the playerbase for it.

On Mr Pillows point of player time, I went over that with a response, If disagreeing with it and pointing out the issues is considered ignoring it then get over it the point itself is a dead end to debate.

Learning curves:
The rules of a learning curve dictate that the more you play the less there is to learn, There will be learning walls for example every time a new naut is added it acts as a temporary wall as people learn methods of countering and handling said character.
That said the level of subjectivity means some people can pick up the game and learn faster then others of likewise, slowe. On the other hand there are also other games the user has played, for example a megaman twitch based responsive player should have no problem being good at this game extremely fast.
So yes, in 100 hours I think I can safely say you will have learnt a lot about how to play Awesomenauts.
I agree with your point on splitting the playerbase though.

Mr Pillow
Also Mr pillow, you may have zero obligation to respond in a constructive manner, but you made this post, so why bother?
MrPillowTheGreat wrote:
Kinda like this one, I mean all I can do is refer to my OP where I specifically described a situation that a larger playerbase wouldn't have solved. Like, what, if there 3k concurrent players, would Edd have been on the opposite team? Is that how it works?

3k Concurrent users
Not sure if this question was serious, but sure this is what would happen, with 3k concurrent users the top l1 - l2 players will have more competition hence have to be better to retain their position.
So you might still get paired with Eddster, but you will also have a higher chance of being paired with a lot more other players instead, and the match quality regardless of the Eddster factor you enjoy using will increase.

your choice
You can ignore the points made for solo queue, and enjoy your echo chamber of confirmation bias, but that's not how public forums work, if you won't bother to respond to the points made and defend your statement of matchmaking being broken other than stating you don't have to respond to "solo q is good" comments, then what is the point, delete this topic you clearly do not want to bother actually making this worthwhile.

_________________
bool care;
if (!= care) { Debug.Log("Go Away");}
else { Empathy.Display = true; }

Main: Raork(Clunk)

Total kills: 39344
Total Clunk kills: 26305
http://www.twitch.tv/raorkxd


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Perfect example of irrefutably broken matchmaking
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 1:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 10:54 pm
Posts: 1697
Location: Côte D'azur
I wouldn't say broken matchmaking, because broken mean that it always mistmatches you.

However, I notice that sometimes, couple of games are kind of good (slighty balanced in term of skill), and couple of others, and because of this * rating system that can boost players too high compared to their elo, can lead to games where the game consider they're of similar rating of you, while in fact, it's not the case.

_________________
Steam :raehands:

Discord français d'awesomenauts

Dominik305 wrote:
people who only play meta in any game should be gunned down at the street and skinned alive


CraftedNightmare wrote:
i'm trying to enjoy this *
Doppelganger wrote:
where's my popcorn bag


_olaffff wrote:


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Perfect example of irrefutably broken matchmaking
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 2:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 10:35 pm
Posts: 183
Raork wrote:
3k Concurrent users
Not sure if this question was serious, but sure this is what would happen, with 3k concurrent users the top l1 - l2 players will have more competition hence have to be better to retain their position.
So you might still get paired with Eddster, but you will also have a higher chance of being paired with a lot more other players instead, and the match quality regardless of the Eddster factor you enjoy using will increase.


Eh, this is just guessing. You don't know this for certain.
We do know for certain that matchmaking still matches players wrongly from time to time.
For me it's obvious Eddster should be placed in the other team (except if it the enemy team was completely pre-made). Putting 3 L1's against 3 L2/3's is no no.
Matchmaking isn't perfect. It's better than it used to be, but having 3k players won't magically fix all the problems.

Did everyone forget how much worse (than today) matchmaking was during the free2play launch when we had this big influx of new players?


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic Reply to topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next