Jump to content

Photo

Matchmaker Updates v2

- - - - -

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
39 replies to this topic

#1
capnjosh

capnjosh

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 262 posts

We just launched some more matchmaker updates based on feedback over the past 24 hours.  Here they are (prepare for some reuse of internal variable names)

 

 

  • Region Expansion is now *only* experienced by players below the "segregationHigh" threshold (now set to 1450, up from 1380 before).  This means the matchmaker will only consider surrounding regions' matches for new-ish or lower-skill users, but only if they have been waiting in queue for longer than 34 seconds.  Worldwide matches will be considered after waiting for 85 seconds (but not for players above 1450).
  • High-skill players will not be permitted to join servers that are below the "segregationHigh" threshold, currently set to 1450.  We were seeing the skill spread from joining matches via the server browser regularly being more than 500MMR higher than the server (sometimes much higher), while via the queue it was on average 60 points below the server threshold.  This should notably help prevent the dilution of the high-skill pool.
  • We added some more granularity to telemetry.
  • As mentioned above, the "segregationLow" threshold has been bumped up to 1340 (from 1270) and the "segregationHigh" threshold has been bumped up to 1450 (from 1380).
  • Region expansion will start to happen after 34 seconds (up from 22), and expansion to global server consideration will happen after 85 seconds (up from 63).
  • Tweaked some deployment scripts to make future updates even smoother.

 

 

Expectations are that we will see tighter MMR spreads for matches, fewer "global expeditions" to servers far afield for you, and some slightly longer queue times (on average).  So, give us some feedback on your experiences, *especially* if you're brand new to Hawken :)

 

 

-capnjosh


  • Nachoeslach, Miscellaneous, eth0 and 3 others like this

#2
DerMax

DerMax

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 908 posts

Cool stuff, but sooner or later you'll have to implement mmr brackets akin to those in other comp games, e.g. Bronze, Silver, Gold, Diamond, Elite or something to that effect.


  • Rajitha, DieselCat and Zebanchi like this

#3
capnjosh

capnjosh

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 262 posts

Cool stuff, but sooner or later you'll have to implement mmr brackets akin to those in other comp games, e.g. Bronze, Silver, Gold, Diamond, Elite or something to that effect.

 

Agreed.  The way we are headed is that there will be a separate skill rating metric for ranked play, and it will be much like what you describe.


  • DerMax, Guns_N_Rozer, Miscellaneous and 4 others like this

#4
_incitatus

_incitatus

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 994 posts

Agreed.  The way we are headed is that there will be a separate skill rating metric for ranked play, and it will be much like what you describe.

 

Very excited to see ranked play on the horizon. 

 

Please add Wood bracket for OdinTheWise.


  • coldform, DerMax, crockrocket and 9 others like this

#5
Acguy

Acguy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 170 posts

How is a server's mmr calculated? Average? Highest? 

 

"High-skill" players people above the "segregationHigh" value, right? It seems like the only thing that's significant is being above or below that value, what does "segregationLow" even do?


Edited by Acguy, 05 January 2017 - 01:53 PM.


#6
wischatesjesus

wischatesjesus

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 186 posts

Do you plan on making the public rank just an extrapolation of the MMR system we have now, or will there be a more complex system?

 

In my opinion the bronze-silver-gold-plat-diamond ranking is really tired. I'd like to see more Hawken universe specific names for each tier.

 

Will any of the stuff mentioned in the op be communicated in game? It might not be an issue, but I can imagine a case where it is confusing to a player why the matchmaking places him in high ping games.


  • Zebanchi likes this

oFFOtRH.jpg

 

High Tier Cabal (Noun): A group of people who used to play Hawken.  


#7
Nov8tr

Nov8tr

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 679 posts

Hmm looks interesting. I'm gonna log in and play and see how it works. No opinion yet as I haven't logged in yet today.


"Nov8tr" is pronounced "INNOVATOR"

aEGHJsh.gif?1

Yes I'm really 64 yrs old. July 6, 1953


#8
capnjosh

capnjosh

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 262 posts

How is a server's mmr calculated? Average? Highest? 

 

"High-skill" players people above the "segregationHigh" value, right? It seems like the only thing that's significant is being above or below that value, what does "segregationLow" even do?

 

A Server's MMR (aka Skill Rating) is the average MMR of all players connected to the server.  There have been issues in the past where the average seemed to be fine, but the standard deviation was atrocious.  We're hoping to reduce that MMR range, broadly speaking.

 

Regarding "high skill" it's a bit more complicated, but not by much.  Here's a sentence that uses all the variables related to MMR thresholds:

"Players above 'segregationHigh" MMR cannot get into a server that is below "segregationLow" MMR, ever.  Players above "HighSkill" MMR can always get into a server that is above "HighSkill" MMR, and those players are all in a single matchmaking pool, where they will have roughly equal chances of being placed in matches, though the matchmaker tries to first put you into the closest-MMR match."

 

"segregationLow" and "segregationHigh" is an attempt to keep low-skill and new players in their own pool, and the "HighSkill" threshold addition creates a sort of transition range between "segregationLow" and "HighSkill", since players between "segregationLow" and "segregationHigh" can possibly see matches above "segregationHigh".


  • eth0 likes this

#9
capnjosh

capnjosh

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 262 posts

Do you plan on making the public rank just an extrapolation of the MMR system we have now, or will there be a more complex system?

 

In my opinion the bronze-silver-gold-plat-diamond ranking is really tired. I'd like to see more Hawken universe specific names for each tier.

 

Will any of the stuff mentioned in the op be communicated in game? It might not be an issue, but I can imagine a case where it is confusing to a player why the matchmaking places him in high ping games.

 

We will be creating an independent skill rating stat, and, yes, it'll be more complex.  Our perspective will be that of the Hawken universe corporation executives - they want to know which pilots excel in a few different quantifiable measures.  If that gives any hint on how we are approaching the ranked play, it will be more fitting to the Hawken universe than just mashing in "gold, silver bronze".

 

We aim to get some more clarification in-game client on how the matchmaker works.  Especially for that case of ending up in higher-ping servers.


  • DerMax, Miscellaneous, eth0 and 4 others like this

#10
hestoned

hestoned

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts

please remove co-op from any game mode search. this guarantees i will only get into co-op. this is already the case for console. if i choose any game mode then its almost 100% guaranteed i will be put into co-op tdm if any player from the .01% of the population thats even close to my mmr isnt already in a server. all you have to is watch my stream for a couple mins to see what a failure that decision was for console.



#11
Rainbow_Sheep

Rainbow_Sheep

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 658 posts

please remove co-op from any game mode search. this guarantees i will only get into co-op. this is already the case for console. if i choose any game mode then its almost 100% guaranteed i will be put into co-op tdm if any player from the .01% of the population thats even close to my mmr isnt already in a server. all you have to is watch my stream for a couple mins to see what a failure that decision was for console.

I guess the ideal solution would to have tick boxes where you can decide which modes you want to queue for, but then that takes gui additions.


  • coldform, Miscellaneous, Kindos7 and 2 others like this

Spoiler

#12
hestoned

hestoned

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts

I guess the ideal solution would to have tick boxes where you can decide which modes you want to queue for, but then that takes gui additions.

 

that could work too but i would prefer they just left it as it was. if you want co-op you can search for that. if you want vs than you search for that. it should be like that on console but all modes are grouped up so im forced to search vs tdm or not play at all



#13
SS396

SS396

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 691 posts

Yes Josh, how dare you make a change that has a positive effect on 98% of the population, and a negative effect on 2% of the population.  What on earth were you thinking.


[DELETED]

 

fuzzy bunny you CZeroFive 


#14
Acguy

Acguy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 170 posts

Regarding "high skill" it's a bit more complicated, but not by much.  Here's a sentence that uses all the variables related to MMR thresholds:

"Players above 'segregationHigh" MMR cannot get into a server that is below "segregationLow" MMR, ever.  Players above "HighSkill" MMR can always get into a server that is above "HighSkill" MMR, and those players are all in a single matchmaking pool, where they will have roughly equal chances of being placed in matches, though the matchmaker tries to first put you into the closest-MMR match."

 

"segregationLow" and "segregationHigh" is an attempt to keep low-skill and new players in their own pool, and the "HighSkill" threshold addition creates a sort of transition range between "segregationLow" and "HighSkill", since players between "segregationLow" and "segregationHigh" can possibly see matches above "segregationHigh".

 

So if I were to make a numberline of server mmr values, it would be like...

 

[0]-

 

players beneath 1450 only area

 

-[1340 server mmr]-

 

anyone can join here

 

-[1450 server mmr]-

 

players over 1340 only area

 

-[to infinity, or whatever the max mmr is]

 

...?

 

I feel like I'm not right.


Edited by Acguy, 05 January 2017 - 02:56 PM.


#15
hestoned

hestoned

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts

Yes Josh, how dare you make a change that has a positive effect on 98% of the population, and a negative effect on 2% of the population.  What on earth were you thinking.

 

thats not an argument. are you saying 98% of the player base is intending to get into a co-op game made when they choose search any game mode? if thats the case then wouldnt it be easier to have coop and vs servers be in separate search ques? think before you speak



#16
talon70

talon70

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 264 posts

Welcome back.

 

I think the mmr algorithm also needs to be tweaked  to adjust more quickly. There must be ways to increase the  smurfing player's mmr more rapidly and accurately. So a smurf account  should adjust in a match or two or  an hour or two not 10-15hrs. Smurfs distort and even ruin the matchmaking ability repeatedly.

 

The grouped players mess up balance and people purposely stack the teams. It seems to me on most odd man match starts, the team a player down always gets the top player to 'balance' it. Then the next player that joins goes by default to the stronger team that was a man down. Happens often imo. Perhaps make manual server  joining only available for some servers and private ones. Not servers on the matchmaking system.

 

Matchmaker should only add in pairs of similar  mmr rated pilots and matches should start with even amounts of players , 3v3, 4v4, ect then add in pairs. Queued for longer to get better matches is fine with me.

 

If the player base would only allow for it,



#17
Hecatoncheires

Hecatoncheires

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 171 posts

I'm understanding that the mmr used as the basis for matchmaking is joining-player mmr compared to the average mmr of the server. Doesn't that mean a stray low mmr player (possibly a smurf or the curious player) may lower the average mmr of a server by joining a higher mmr server through the server browser? This could cause possible problems in the future, such as servers being rated for lower mmr players than general.

 

If this is the case, I'm wondering if biasing high mmr influence in the server average may be a good idea. This would only be in the case of a "low" outlier, however, where one or a minority of low mmr player(s) stands apart from the rest; opposite doesn't matter, since you've already blocked off high mmr players from entering low-mmr servers.

 

Example:

the average of the sequence: 1983, 1834, 1950, 2130, 2105, 2086, 1974 = 2008.8

while

the average of the sequence: 1983, 1950, 2130, 2105, 2086, 1974, 1200 = 1918.2 (after replacing the lowest number with 1200)

If you replace the highest number, you get an even larger difference, an average of 1876

 

This may only be an issue in tight, high mmr matches, though, and may also lead to server mmr remaining static or tending to grow.


Edited by Hecatoncheires, 05 January 2017 - 03:41 PM.

What the Heca-


#18
Acguy

Acguy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 170 posts

I'm understanding that the mmr used as the basis for matchmaking is joining-player mmr compared to the average mmr of the server. Doesn't that mean a stray low mmr player (possibly a smurf or the curious player) may lower the average mmr of a server by joining a higher mmr server through the server browser? This could cause possible problems in the future, such as servers being rated for lower mmr players than general.

 

Captain crunch stated that they've seen high standard deviations in the past while using averages, presumably for that reason. I think the expectation now is that the tiering brackets and matchmaking order will passively fix that.

 

I do think adding weight to the influence of higher mmr players on the server average might be a good idea though. I mean, just generally speaking, a room with one or two bad players and a bunch of good ones isn't as bad as a room with one or two guys carrying the rest of the room, at least as far as long-term climate goes. A bunch of new players who see an old player carrying are going to have no way of knowing if it's his skill or his equipment that's winning, and might hastily default to blaming the latter. On the other hand, a bunch of experienced players who've got one weak link in their room are going to know fully well that he's just new and likely won't make any generalizations about game-balance that might cause them to quit, while the weak link player is going to be forced to recognize that people in all different sorts of suits are doing well instead of just "that one guy in the scout is evil, how did the devs let such a suit be so powerful?!".


Edited by Acguy, 05 January 2017 - 05:00 PM.


#19
capnjosh

capnjosh

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 262 posts

please remove co-op from any game mode search. this guarantees i will only get into co-op. this is already the case for console. if i choose any game mode then its almost 100% guaranteed i will be put into co-op tdm if any player from the .01% of the population thats even close to my mmr isnt already in a server. all you have to is watch my stream for a couple mins to see what a failure that decision was for console.

 

I agree with the other mention on this subject of being able to select which gamemodes you want to queue for.  That's actually how the back-end is expecting it.  We've going to have to queue that feature up for a following update though.

 

For now, what if this was set to only include BotsTDM for the low-skill threshold when the user has selected "any mode"?


  • DerMax, Miscellaneous, _incitatus and 1 other like this

#20
SS396

SS396

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 691 posts

thats not an argument. are you saying 98% of the player base is intending to get into a co-op game made when they choose search any game mode? if thats the case then wouldnt it be easier to have coop and vs servers be in separate search ques? think before you speak

 

Last time I checked ANY GAME MODE meant exactly that ANY GAME MODE.  Here let me think about it again.  Yep, same conclusion.  Does ANY GAME MODE mean something different to you?  Maybe I'll draw you a venn diagram if you don't understand how ANY GAME MODE can encompass multiple different kinds of game modes.

 

Its not about it being easier, its about the final result Josh determined, and that was to help get players into ANY match rather than nothing at all.  For your specific case you are unhappy with the results even though it worked as avertised, but that does not mean that for the majority of the population they are unhappy also.  Some players just want to play any game at all, instead of looking at the waiting screen.

 

 

Captain crunch

 

----snip----

 

Who is this mysterious Captain crunch guy?


  • PoopSlinger likes this

[DELETED]

 

fuzzy bunny you CZeroFive 


#21
capnjosh

capnjosh

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 262 posts

So if I were to make a numberline of server mmr values, it would be like...

 

[0]-

 

players beneath 1450 only area

 

-[1340 server mmr]-

 

anyone can join here

 

-[1450 server mmr]-

 

players over 1340 only area

 

-[to infinity, or whatever the max mmr is]

 

...?

 

I feel like I'm not right.

 

 

I think you'll have to look at it from player rank perspective:

 

0-1340: Can get into any server, will never see players above 1450.

1340-1450: Can get into any server, will sometimes see players above 1450

1450-1750: Can get into any server above 1450, will sometimes (maybe often) see players above 1750

1750+: Can get into any server above 1450, should most typically be in servers above 1750

 

At small CCU times, I suspect we might see a lot of the 1450+ group somewhat erratically mashed together.  As populations increase, I think we'll see a trend toward there being more 1750+ servers and more 1450-1750 servers.


  • eth0 and Zebanchi like this

#22
capnjosh

capnjosh

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 262 posts

Welcome back.

 

I think the mmr algorithm also needs to be tweaked  to adjust more quickly. There must be ways to increase the  smurfing player's mmr more rapidly and accurately. So a smurf account  should adjust in a match or two or  an hour or two not 10-15hrs. Smurfs distort and even ruin the matchmaking ability repeatedly.

 

The grouped players mess up balance and people purposely stack the teams. It seems to me on most odd man match starts, the team a player down always gets the top player to 'balance' it. Then the next player that joins goes by default to the stronger team that was a man down. Happens often imo. Perhaps make manual server  joining only available for some servers and private ones. Not servers on the matchmaking system.

 

Matchmaker should only add in pairs of similar  mmr rated pilots and matches should start with even amounts of players , 3v3, 4v4, ect then add in pairs. Queued for longer to get better matches is fine with me.

 

If the player base would only allow for it,

 

 

Both of your main points are on our radar when we start work on the competitve PvP systems.  They will require work on the gameservers, both to adjust MMR changes in ways that reflect a roflstomp, as well as to make them more intelligent about autobalance and what they ask for from the matchmaker.


  • MomOw, eth0 and talon70 like this

#23
capnjosh

capnjosh

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 262 posts

I'm understanding that the mmr used as the basis for matchmaking is joining-player mmr compared to the average mmr of the server. Doesn't that mean a stray low mmr player (possibly a smurf or the curious player) may lower the average mmr of a server by joining a higher mmr server through the server browser? This could cause possible problems in the future, such as servers being rated for lower mmr players than general.

 

If this is the case, I'm wondering if biasing high mmr influence in the server average may be a good idea. This would only be in the case of a "low" outlier, however, where one or a minority of low mmr player(s) stands apart from the rest; opposite doesn't matter, since you've already blocked off high mmr players from entering low-mmr servers.

 

Example:

the average of the sequence: 1983, 1834, 1950, 2130, 2105, 2086, 1974 = 2008.8

while

the average of the sequence: 1983, 1950, 2130, 2105, 2086, 1974, 1200 = 1918.2 (after replacing the lowest number with 1200)

If you replace the highest number, you get an even larger difference, an average of 1876

 

This may only be an issue in tight, high mmr matches, though, and may also lead to server mmr remaining static or tending to grow.

 

You're right, players on the edge of acceptable tolerances can still "drag" the server's Avg MMR by a bit.  Right now, the server advertisement's average skill is set by the gameservers, and as with a number of other aspects of the gameser-specific balancing systems, it's very rudimentary.  We plan on adding some more sophistication to it when we start on the ranked PvP systems.

 

Last time I checked ANY GAME MODE meant exactly that ANY GAME MODE.  Here let me think about it again.  Yep, same conclusion.  Does ANY GAME MODE mean something different to you?  Maybe I'll draw you a venn diagram if you don't understand how ANY GAME MODE can encompass multiple different kinds of game modes.

 

Its not about it being easier, its about the final result Josh determined, and that was to help get players into ANY match rather than nothing at all.  For your specific case you are unhappy with the results even though it worked as avertised, but that does not mean that for the majority of the population they are unhappy also.  Some players just want to play any game at all, instead of looking at the waiting screen.

 

 

 

Who is this mysterious Captain crunch guy?

 

 

There is a bit of a bias toward getting hard-to-match players into BotsTDM, but it's mainly due to the fact that BotsTDM can accommodate high-skill players alongside low-skill players without as much risk of the low-skill players flipping out about "the hackers killed me".  That, and most [new] players never even knew BotsTDM existed.  I agree, however, that there are ways to improve the game mode selection.

 

One thing that will be going in to the next update is better flex to the skill of the Bots, so at least on that front they won't be quite as boring - it's an interesting experience, because as the bots "improve" there is a steady increase in the intensity of the game, at least from my humble MMR position.  hah.  Not that this addresses the desire to *only* play PvP; that will have to come in time.


  • PoopSlinger, SS396, Miscellaneous and 4 others like this

#24
Acguy

Acguy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 170 posts

1750

 

Oh, didn't see that number... anywhere else in the thread. 



#25
Morquedeas

Morquedeas

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 161 posts

I agree with the other mention on this subject of being able to select which gamemodes you want to queue for.  That's actually how the back-end is expecting it.  We've going to have to queue that feature up for a following update though.

 

For now, what if this was set to only include BotsTDM for the low-skill threshold when the user has selected "any mode"?

 

This sounds good.  Being able to choose multiple gamemodes to queue for without queuing for everything is a good idea.  I honestly don't want to play BotsTDM so I'd rather not be forced into it.

 

Actually, another option that I've seen other games do is force new players to play ~5 games against bots before being put against real players.  This and making the tutorial mandatory again would be good I think.  It would also act as a mild smurf deterrent since playing through a tutorial and 5 bot matches before starting to stomp noobs each time would be annoying.

 

Another thing, I'm somewhat opposed to the idea of "ranked" vs "casual" being introduced to Hawken, barring some kind of miracle, the community isn't going to be big enough to be splitting it any time soon.



#26
hestoned

hestoned

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts

Last time I checked ANY GAME MODE meant exactly that ANY GAME MODE.  Here let me think about it again.  Yep, same conclusion.  Does ANY GAME MODE mean something different to you?  Maybe I'll draw you a venn diagram if you don't understand how ANY GAME MODE can encompass multiple different kinds of game modes.

 

Its not about it being easier, its about the final result Josh determined, and that was to help get players into ANY match rather than nothing at all.  For your specific case you are unhappy with the results even though it worked as avertised, but that does not mean that for the majority of the population they are unhappy also.  Some players just want to play any game at all, instead of looking at the waiting screen.

 

 

there are different game modes for vs and different game modes for coop. im sorry this is hard for you to understand. please refrain from trying to make a diagram, i dont want you to hurt your self. coop and vs are very distinctly different game modes. no one is hoping on to hawken to play some pvp and going oh man i hope i get into a bot server. 

 

players can already get into a game after being queued for a certain amount of time. no one is sitting at the waiting screen all day. i mean honestly you are just so ignorant of how the games works. before josh and company came along thats how it USED to be. i could sit in queue for an hour at a time before i got lucky enough to be put in a server that was within my mmr range. after the update to mm a couple months ago i can now get into a server after just waiting a couple mins at most. mm will force me into the closest mmr average available, even if the range is more than 1000. you clearly never had this problem. thats what you dont get. you never experience these issues because your mmr range is average at best so you cant even begin to point out where problems are. from your perspective everything is working as intended. i bet you can even open the server browser and have the option to pick one. last time i could do that was maybe 3 years ago.

 

the bottom line is there was no reason to change that one particular aspect of match making. it very clearly states what game modes are vs and which are coop only. all this does is make it harder for people wanting to play vs get into a vs server.


  • Kindos7 likes this

#27
hestoned

hestoned

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts

I agree with the other mention on this subject of being able to select which gamemodes you want to queue for.  That's actually how the back-end is expecting it.  We've going to have to queue that feature up for a following update though.

 

For now, what if this was set to only include BotsTDM for the low-skill threshold when the user has selected "any mode"?

 

that would alleviate mine and alot of other players problem with mm right now but i still think its just unnecessary work for you to do that. i really think you should just keep it the way it was and then change console to how pc works. separate coop from vs and let players choose what to queue for. after a certain time of waiting then force the player into the closes mmr range to a server available. if i just want any vs mode then im good to go. no other steps required.



#28
hestoned

hestoned

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts

 

One thing that will be going in to the next update is better flex to the skill of the Bots, so at least on that front they won't be quite as boring - it's an interesting experience, because as the bots "improve" there is a steady increase in the intensity of the game, at least from my humble MMR position.  hah.  Not that this addresses the desire to *only* play PvP; that will have to come in time.

 

are you saying the bots as they are now arent difficult enough? i really suggest you use your admin powers to inflate your mmr and then try out bot-tdm. trust me when i say they are not boring at higher levels. if im by my self in a server then bots have perfect aim from across the map, lead tows with perfect accuracy and can dodge your tows on command from 20 ft away. of course if other players are there with me than the mmr average of the server gets dragged down and they become dumb as rocks.



#29
capnjosh

capnjosh

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 262 posts

are you saying the bots as they are now arent difficult enough? i really suggest you use your admin powers to inflate your mmr and then try out bot-tdm. trust me when i say they are not boring at higher levels. if im by my self in a server then bots have perfect aim from across the map, lead tows with perfect accuracy and can dodge your tows on command from 20 ft away. of course if other players are there with me than the mmr average of the server gets dragged down and they become dumb as rocks.

 

It's more a case that the bots will now adjust based on actual match performance, whereas before they would only have a chance to set their "skill" based on the actual MMR of the players at the start of the match, and typically it seemed to be a conservative estimate that erred on the side of being too easy.


  • Miscellaneous, _incitatus, eth0 and 1 other like this

#30
hestoned

hestoned

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts

It's more a case that the bots will now adjust based on actual match performance, whereas before they would only have a chance to set their "skill" based on the actual MMR of the players at the start of the match, and typically it seemed to be a conservative estimate that erred on the side of being too easy.

 

thats sounds dope



#31
SS396

SS396

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 691 posts

there are different game modes for vs and different game modes for coop. im sorry this is hard for you to understand. please refrain from trying to make a diagram, i dont want you to hurt your self. coop and vs are very distinctly different game modes. no one is hoping on to hawken to play some pvp and going oh man i hope i get into a bot server.

It wasn't hard for me to understand, I don't understand how you don't understand what ANY means.  I explained it to you earlier how ANY GAME MODE actually meant ANY GAME MODE when you asked me, remember?  Drawing a circle around a listing of the game modes it includes isn't all that difficult in Mspaint, and I certainly wouldn't hurt myself doing it.  I could even do it on paper with a crayon and take a photo of that, as I feel that might be closer to the 3rd grade style you might need, what color would you like?  Cotton Candyass Pink maybe??  I think the venn diagram might actually help you conceptualize the meaning of ANY though.

ANY GAME MODE now means BOTH VS AND CO-OPBOT.  The definition was redefined by Josh, what it used to mean is completely irrelevant.  Things changed, learn to deal with it, move on. 
  

players can already get into a game after being queued for a certain amount of time. no one is sitting at the waiting screen all day. i mean honestly you are just so ignorant of how the games works. before josh and company came along thats how it USED to be. i could sit in queue for an hour at a time before i got lucky enough to be put in a server that was within my mmr range. after the update to mm a couple months ago i can now get into a server after just waiting a couple mins at most. mm will force me into the closest mmr average available, even if the range is more than 1000. you clearly never had this problem. thats what you dont get. you never experience these issues because your mmr range is average at best so you cant even begin to point out where problems are. from your perspective everything is working as intended. i bet you can even open the server browser and have the option to pick one. last time i could do that was maybe 3 years ago.


Yes way more QQ, waggle your e-peen around some more and assert your dominance, thats always impressive on the forums, and makes your argument stronger.
 
Josh decided to try a change for some unknown reason.  He is the producer, so I disagree with your entire assumption that things don't work that way at all anymore and all of your crying is irrelevant and unneeded excess drama.  I think he is in a position to know more about the subject of matchmaking than you and I combined.  If he thought there was a valid reason to change it then as he says "I'm ok with it" too.
 
Just because you are being a whiney biatch about being placed in a co-op match WHEN THERE ISN'T A VALID VS GAME AVAILABLE for you to join doesn't mean the rest of the peasants are unhappy whiners too.  Why is it so tedious and hard for you to select quit match, and try again if you don't want to play a CO-OP match? 

 

the bottom line is there was no reason to change that one particular aspect of match making. it very clearly states what game modes are vs and which are coop only. all this does is make it harder for people wanting to play vs get into a vs server.


Jesus Christ, do you even read? He GAVE YOU A REASON.  He said he wanted to try something new and create a situation where difficult to match players would be placed with others on the same team instead of against them.  This isn't about you, its about the entire population.  It will be fixed fully and people given the option when a future patch rolls out, until then fuzzy bunnyng deal with it or don't pubstomp, its really not all that difficult.  


Edited by SS396, 05 January 2017 - 09:09 PM.

[DELETED]

 

fuzzy bunny you CZeroFive 


#32
ThirdEyE

ThirdEyE

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 163 posts

Tried matchmaking out for a bit earlier today, and seemed pretty buggy still.  The server browser would show many servers as 2 star and available, yet I couldn't join them thanks to the good old reservation failure.  After repeated failures, I tried joining through queue and it ended up just making a new server for me even though there was an existing server with 4/12 players and >1500 MMR.  Maybe the server was reporting higher than true MMR due to a party, but either way there should be unique messages for each case if it wasn't just another reservation failure.

 

Glad to see that you guys are trying to improve upon the current system, good luck!


  • PoopSlinger, Merl61 and Zebanchi like this

oSpBaPA.png


#33
Acguy

Acguy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 170 posts

It's more a case that the bots will now adjust based on actual match performance, whereas before they would only have a chance to set their "skill" based on the actual MMR of the players at the start of the match, and typically it seemed to be a conservative estimate that erred on the side of being too easy.

 

Hestoned is a console player I believe. For what it's worth, the bots are comparatively more threatening compared to other players on console than on PC due to the controls the players have to use. On console, people miss me quite a bit more than they do on PC, whereas the bots remain the same either way, so while on PC the players are much better than bots, on console they're a lot closer to their human opponents. This also slightly affects the value people perceive in things like turrets and homing weapons, you'd be surprised at the number of people who stack up the rocketeer as though it were the meta. Though in pubs it almost is since it's thick enough to sometimes prevent me from killing them as fast as they kill my teammates.

 

Also, in general, what really makes bots exploitable is that they just forget about people very easily and often don't pursue people who're free kills. They should have a chance to be more aggressive based upon some confidence value determined by how close it's allies are, how far away you teammates are, how many teammate's positions of yours are actually known, and how much health it has compared to you. Though "more aggressive" is fairly vague, I guess.


Edited by Acguy, 06 January 2017 - 09:04 AM.


#34
Meraple

Meraple

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts

Hestoned is a console player I believe.

No.

 

 

...on PC the players are much better than bots...

High-MMR bots are much better at dodging/leading secondaries than the vast majority of players, as well as aiming hitscan weaponry.



#35
devotion

devotion

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts

Hestoned is a console player I believe.

he's been around 2900~ mmr on pc iirc.


  • Zebanchi likes this

#36
Acguy

Acguy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 170 posts

Just went off the fact that I saw their name up on the console leaderboards

 

High-MMR bots are much better at dodging/leading secondaries than the vast majority of players, as well as aiming hitscan weaponry.

 

Either way it still holds that their ability to aim should make more a difference on console



#37
Bergwein

Bergwein

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 491 posts

nice to hear from you, captain


  • capnjosh and Zebanchi like this

#38
SS396

SS396

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 691 posts

Hestoned is a console player I believe.

 

 

Best post of 2017.  For sure.  That is worthy of putting in someones signature.


[DELETED]

 

fuzzy bunny you CZeroFive 


#39
Acguy

Acguy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 170 posts

They are though. They're just also a PC player.


  • SS396 and Rainbow_Sheep like this

#40
capnjosh

capnjosh

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 262 posts

Thanks for the feedback, everyone.  I'm locking this thread and creating a new one, again, as a means to keep the feedback clearly attached to then-current versions of the matchmaker.


  • Rainbow_Sheep and Zebanchi like this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users