So this is the new algorithm, right? It would be interesting to see the old one for comparison.
I am playing often in the "MX Maps of the Week" lobby (Elite), which at the moment unfortunately lacks players and which has typically 0 to 12 players. We had serious troubles with the old algorithm, so I want to judge the new algorithm from that perspective. (An algorithm that works well with few players should be working even better with more players.)
1.) The algorithm should make matches with 2,3, 4 or 5 players if for a certain time (let's say 10 minutes) no new player joins into the lobby and no players are currently in a match. That would help to motivate players to join an empty or low populated lobby.
2.) I think that the algorithm should not feature a part like "lowered of 0.5 echelon (5 000 LP) per minute". The interval should be increased to let's say 2 minutes, but if this 2 minutes are over, the algorithm should 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) and
make a match. The reason is that we need a
matchmaking algorithm and not a no-matchmaking algorithm.
In the "Maps of the Week" lobby I experienced many times the situation that 1 game was running (6 player playing) and 6 players were ready, but no match was made. Many players left the server frustrated if there still was no match after 3, 4 or 5 tries although 6 players were ready.
3.) "The maximum distance to have a match is 15 000 LP." If I see this right, that would mean that in some circumstances the system will insist in not making a match although there are 6 players. That is just illogical, there should not be such a restriction.
4.) "If there are no allies, the match is: 1 4 5 - 2 3 6 (players number ordered by ladder points)."
That is very simple and very good.
5.) In cases involving allies, the matchmaking system should allow exceptions from "1 4 5 - 2 3 6" but just up to a certain point. 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. 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 (but still are in the same match). I think (or know) that players will accept (or even endorse) such broken alliances if keeping the alliance would lead to a huge imbalance.
6.) There should be no option to chancel a match.
