Matchmaking can be very unbalanced

[novationx]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/pnsoa38wanm2k ... lance5.jpg
The definition of unbalanced

+ So much other players were ready to play. Why choose the lowest & put them versus the highest:/

[magnetik]

I took some of the tests using the bad example you gave to test the new system:


https://www.dropbox.com/s/tarsi19ippi8d ... lanced.jpg
Will give:
team 0: monstah | steeveh | koxbox |
team 1: dreamy | phy | astii |

---

http://i.imgur.com/YuyvpoM.jpg
Will give:
team 0: sens | steeveh | nerversaid |
team 1: nampo | luffy | tropic |

--

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5sidzc2v4abbv ... anced2.jpg
Will give:
team 0: Ayimbawe| Enibib | screw |
team 1: steeveh | dreamy | Roo |

--

I've tested this running the algorithm with only theses 6 players. Not taking in account any wait time or other players.
The "shuffle" looks much better in every case

The new algorithm should be live (no update needed) this week.

[novationx]

Nice!! I think that the other person here in this topic was right. Maybe its a mega coincidence but whenever 2 players were allied it became unbalanced!

Ill test it and keep reporting

[franny2]

Imagining how many difficult problems you had to solve to create such a fantastic game as this, I don't get why there is so much trouble with such a simple thing as matchmaking.

Q: Given that there are x people in the lobby waiting for a match, how should be determined which 6 people join the next match?

A: Pick the player that is waiting for the longest time and the 5 players that come closest to him in rank (regardless of their waiting time).

Q: Given this 6 players, how should balanced teams be formed?

A: Balanced teams should look like stated below. Player 1 is the player with the highest rank, Player 2 is the player with the second highest rank, Player 3 is the player with the third highest rank and so forth...

Team Red:
Player 1
Player 3
Player 6

Team Blue:
Player 2
Player 4
Player 5

Q: Sometimes players are allied in such a way that no balanced match-up can be achieved. An example would be 2 allied players that have both much higher or lower ranks than the homogenous rest of the players.

A: My suggestion is that in such a case the link between the two allied players should be broken, what means that the two allied players will join different teams. The primary intention of setting someone as ally is to get in the same match with him and not necessarily in the same team (if doing so would lead to a huge imbalance). Such a broken alliance should be noted in the matchmaking panel.

Q: How to deal with smurfs?

A: I don't know if there is some reliable way to identify a smurf on a statistical basis. If there is, that would be great, but probably that matter is too complicated and should be left alone.

There is no guarantee that a balanced matchmaking (based on rank as indication of the strength of a player) will lead to a balanced match anyway. How a match takes place is dependent on many random factors and players know and accept this.

Players don't expect the matchmaking system to see something that cannot be seen or that needs rocket-science to be figured out. What players expect is that the matchmaking system makes a conceivable choice from players waiting in the lobby (= players with similar ranks) and produces the best possible match-up given the rank of players and simple (!) arithmetics.

(I could imagine that the flaw of the current algorithm is that it tries to take too many factors into account.)

[weerwolf]

I waited awhile before posting

2 teams perfectly balanced. What do u get? An endless match. Just like tic tac toe.
Walk over a team is joyfull, getting walked over too, because it tells us to either
get better at shooting or change team tactics.

Matchmaking is there for team based modes. There are too many eyes at the personal skillz. As
i also mentioned in my article about siege.

Edit: Oh, btw - i cant really remember a cup/match in tm being balanced for ladderranking - all where welcome to try to get the best team at the end

[novationx]

an endless match is awesome! what are you talking about man.
When its balanced you get epic matches.

[franny2]

I agree with novatinox. It would be better to play one perfectly balanced match until the point limit is reached than playing two or three short but severely imbalanced matches that just consist of facerolling/getting owned. (You can't tell me it's fun.)

That said, a balanced matchmaking in terms of rank will not lead (in most cases) to a perfectly balanced match. The reason is that the rank of a player is the best way to estimate his strength, but it is far from being a perfect reflection of it. So you don't need to fear that a balanced matchmaking will lead to endless matches all the time.

And let me add a further argument for balanced teams in terms of rank: Contradictions against simple arithmetics just fly in the face of most people. Even if such matches would be fun people would say "that matchmaking" etc.

[magnetik]

I disagree on the fact that it's not difficult to have a good matchmaking
Also, the goal with allies is to play WITH your team-mate, not against.
We are not doing the order you give but 1 4 5 - 2 3 6 witch seems more fair.

See this post for details.

I think we currently have a solid first algorithm and we will be able to tweak during the coming weeks.

[franny2]

See this post for details.

I just wrote a few suggestions for improvements into that thread.

[novationx]

Thank you for the hard work Magnetik! Its way better now!