|
United States12181 Posts
On December 25 2017 09:42 TT1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2017 08:54 Alejandrisha wrote:i'm thinking 2v2 ranked is never going to happen without ~5 minute queue times. they waited too long if they mix solo q'ing players with premade teams the q time wont be bad, the premade teams are going to have a big edge but at least we'll be playing games
That's at least mathematically solvable. All you have to do is find out the delta.
Let's say you have records of 1,000,000 Random Team vs Arranged Team and 1,000,000 Arranged Team vs Arranged Team matches, all at identical ratings. The AT vs AT matches prove to go 50/50, so you know your matchmaker is tuned correctly for team vs team. The RT vs AT matches go 45/55. Let's say a 45/55 matchup translates to 80 MMR. You simply match the AT as though they were 80 MMR higher than they are. Run the next data set of 1,000,000 matches, and find that now your RT vs AT games are 50/50.
The delta will vary by rating (maybe it has a larger effect at 2000 MMR than it does at 1000 MMR), but as long as your samples are kept local, you can still figure out that the necessary adjustment is 80 at 1000 and 160 at 2000. You just keep running simulations and leveraging real data until you find which offset works to make your matches 50/50.
This is what systems designers have done in SC2 and Overwatch (and also other games like Dota).
|
The issue i have is the racial edge AT teams will have over RT teams. AT teams will always have an edge because they'll have a Z whereas the RT team will have random race pairs (and as everyone knows not having a Z in 2v2 is a big disadvantage).
Even if you adjust the MMR so that AT teams always end up being the favorite it still won't change the fact that they're gonna win the majority of the games which makes for a pretty frustrating gaming experience.
|
United States12181 Posts
On December 25 2017 12:50 TT1 wrote: The issue i have is the racial edge AT teams will have over RT teams. AT teams will always have an edge because they'll have a Z whereas the RT team will have random race pairs (and as everyone knows not having a Z in 2v2 is a big disadvantage).
Even if you adjust the MMR so that AT teams always end up being the favorite it still won't change the fact that they're gonna win the majority of the games which makes for a pretty frustrating gaming experience.
You could determine that also. For teams that pre-queued something+Z, if their win rate is abnormally high (like beyond normal variance), you can further handicap them by matching them against harder RT opponents such that both sides have a 50% win probability. I don't believe this has actually been used anywhere, but it can be done.
It would probably break down at the very top top top end of the ladder a bit (where Zerg ATs will dominate the top) just because there are fewer potential opponents, but for a huge majority of players the advantage is calculable.
|
Anyone having a terrible time queuing for matches in ranked? Last 3 days it's almost unplayable. Wait like 2 minutes, get matched up with someone then it just stalls there and most times shows I'm against nobody. Then will wait again for this to happen again and again and again... Then I just give up and go do something else. My MMR isn't high at all, I made a fresh account to see if I could get matches there and it's a bit easier but still difficult to get matches. And this is with no maps vetoed. Is the ranked population just abysmally small or what?
|
On December 25 2017 16:31 JungleTerrain wrote: Anyone having a terrible time queuing for matches in ranked? Last 3 days it's almost unplayable. Wait like 2 minutes, get matched up with someone then it just stalls there and most times shows I'm against nobody. Then will wait again for this to happen again and again and again... Then I just give up and go do something else. My MMR isn't high at all, I made a fresh account to see if I could get matches there and it's a bit easier but still difficult to get matches. And this is with no maps vetoed. Is the ranked population just abysmally small or what?
I have never had problems with finding matches from MMR's 1500-2100. However there were some days / times of day when it slowed down a little bit, but was still playable. I hope BW doesn't calm down anytime soon, we need new players. But unfortunately among my friends most of the casual players who picked it up already dropped it again. I think the lack of team matchmaking and the very shitty state of the game when it released did too much damage.
|
On December 25 2017 17:41 CoL_DarkstaR wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2017 16:31 JungleTerrain wrote: Anyone having a terrible time queuing for matches in ranked? Last 3 days it's almost unplayable. Wait like 2 minutes, get matched up with someone then it just stalls there and most times shows I'm against nobody. Then will wait again for this to happen again and again and again... Then I just give up and go do something else. My MMR isn't high at all, I made a fresh account to see if I could get matches there and it's a bit easier but still difficult to get matches. And this is with no maps vetoed. Is the ranked population just abysmally small or what? I have never had problems with finding matches from MMR's 1500-2100. However there were some days / times of day when it slowed down a little bit, but was still playable. I hope BW doesn't calm down anytime soon, we need new players. But unfortunately among my friends most of the casual players who picked it up already dropped it again. I think the lack of team matchmaking and the very shitty state of the game when it released did too much damage.
I couldn't get a single game and I tried with 3 different accounts. After being queued for like 20 minutes I just got frustrated and went to do something else. It was around 10-11pm PST (at the time it said that US West had around 1000 players online).
|
Hi guys, I've not post a single post for like 4 years now. Just bumped into SC: Remastered today. I want to go back to play, how is the state of the community in general?
|
On December 25 2017 14:38 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2017 12:50 TT1 wrote: The issue i have is the racial edge AT teams will have over RT teams. AT teams will always have an edge because they'll have a Z whereas the RT team will have random race pairs (and as everyone knows not having a Z in 2v2 is a big disadvantage).
Even if you adjust the MMR so that AT teams always end up being the favorite it still won't change the fact that they're gonna win the majority of the games which makes for a pretty frustrating gaming experience. You could determine that also. For teams that pre-queued something+Z, if their win rate is abnormally high (like beyond normal variance), you can further handicap them by matching them against harder RT opponents such that both sides have a 50% win probability. I don't believe this has actually been used anywhere, but it can be done. It would probably break down at the very top top top end of the ladder a bit (where Zerg ATs will dominate the top) just because there are fewer potential opponents, but for a huge majority of players the advantage is calculable. I don't like this type of artificial adjustments, they gotta have some bad repercussions. AT vs RT is not necessarily fair, but I guess its kind of a recurring situation anyway not unbeatable still makes fun games.. Plus for many players it won't be interesting to try and play in AT all the time, the rating not being individual, you'll probably not want to play always with or at the same time as these two teammates.. then you have multiple AT ratings for every team you play with.. or is it just individual ratings? it seems to work better, if it just won't differenciate between AT and RT, more easy to play, stats just go to the same place for "2v2" or "3v3"? that way you can also queue 2 players together for a 3vs3 which is something you'd do with custom games so it brings that function etc I dont think that the point of the ladder is to create scenarios where you go to 50% win probability ?_? the win probability should be considered unknown, just ladder rewarding wins and losses equally depending on points and try to match ppl with close points..
at the end maybe some imba composition/rushes often win in team games, but that's ok, it's still good
|
On December 25 2017 22:43 Caphe wrote: Hi guys, I've not post a single post for like 4 years now. Just bumped into SC: Remastered today. I want to go back to play, how is the state of the community in general?
Honestly? the experience for 10 dollars or is it 15 back again after xmas? is VERY WORTH IT, i Think Blizzard hit the price tag for the value of the product.
There are no difference in the "offline features" yet, but some exciting things are coming.
About the "community" if you ask so is quite active, but its been going down lately last weeks, you probably already missed where there was a bunch of streamers on Twitch, though AfreecaTV is very active as always, and you will always find at least 2 streamers on Twitch, very nice people all of them.
Now the grinding is horrid, you will lose a lot, there is not many "new blood" if you will, they are there trying to learn, but most of them leave after being punched in the nuts by people that actually know the game. Is a harsh game to RANK that's for sure...
But at the end is 100% worth it for the price, the lag is a tremendous problem, but is got fixed A LOT in last weeks, and better things are coming.
|
United States12181 Posts
On December 25 2017 23:21 ProMeTheus112 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2017 14:38 Excalibur_Z wrote:On December 25 2017 12:50 TT1 wrote: The issue i have is the racial edge AT teams will have over RT teams. AT teams will always have an edge because they'll have a Z whereas the RT team will have random race pairs (and as everyone knows not having a Z in 2v2 is a big disadvantage).
Even if you adjust the MMR so that AT teams always end up being the favorite it still won't change the fact that they're gonna win the majority of the games which makes for a pretty frustrating gaming experience. You could determine that also. For teams that pre-queued something+Z, if their win rate is abnormally high (like beyond normal variance), you can further handicap them by matching them against harder RT opponents such that both sides have a 50% win probability. I don't believe this has actually been used anywhere, but it can be done. It would probably break down at the very top top top end of the ladder a bit (where Zerg ATs will dominate the top) just because there are fewer potential opponents, but for a huge majority of players the advantage is calculable. I don't like this type of artificial adjustments, they gotta have some bad repercussions. AT vs RT is not necessarily fair, but I guess its kind of a recurring situation anyway not unbeatable still makes fun games.. Plus for many players it won't be interesting to try and play in AT all the time, the rating not being individual, you'll probably not want to play always with or at the same time as these two teammates.. then you have multiple AT ratings for every team you play with.. or is it just individual ratings? it seems to work better, if it just won't differenciate between AT and RT, more easy to play, stats just go to the same place for "2v2" or "3v3"? that way you can also queue 2 players together for a 3vs3 which is something you'd do with custom games so it brings that function etc I dont think that the point of the ladder is to create scenarios where you go to 50% win probability ?_? the win probability should be considered unknown, just ladder rewarding wins and losses equally depending on points and try to match ppl with close points.. at the end maybe some imba composition/rushes often win in team games, but that's ok, it's still good
The best way to handle AT is to do what SC2 did and have unique MMRs per AT. So A+B would have one MMR, A+C would have a different MMR, and so on. With AT, you basically need a rating that defines your skill level together as a unit.
The tightness of ladder tuning is a philosophical debate that has existed since the dawn of automated matchmaking When SC2 first launched, the matchmaker was very aggressively tuned to find very close 50/50 matches. Later, they relaxed that tuning because players found it to be a tense experience. Further iterations saw the creation of "rides" (a casino term referring to the highs and lows of rollercoasters) where players have the "most fun" experience by playing some harder matches followed by some easier matches, leading to more games played overall. The core, unchanging philosophy is still that you want every player to be accurately ranked, meaning they win half their games, you just leave an allowable variance such that you're not putting the player into unwinnable matches (maybe you disallow individual matches that are beyond an 80/20 win prediction, for example).
|
On December 25 2017 16:31 JungleTerrain wrote: Anyone having a terrible time queuing for matches in ranked? Last 3 days it's almost unplayable. Wait like 2 minutes, get matched up with someone then it just stalls there and most times shows I'm against nobody. Then will wait again for this to happen again and again and again... Then I just give up and go do something else. My MMR isn't high at all, I made a fresh account to see if I could get matches there and it's a bit easier but still difficult to get matches. And this is with no maps vetoed. Is the ranked population just abysmally small or what? Same issue for me the last few days as well. I also cant host games at all anymore.
|
On December 26 2017 01:28 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2017 23:21 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On December 25 2017 14:38 Excalibur_Z wrote:On December 25 2017 12:50 TT1 wrote: The issue i have is the racial edge AT teams will have over RT teams. AT teams will always have an edge because they'll have a Z whereas the RT team will have random race pairs (and as everyone knows not having a Z in 2v2 is a big disadvantage).
Even if you adjust the MMR so that AT teams always end up being the favorite it still won't change the fact that they're gonna win the majority of the games which makes for a pretty frustrating gaming experience. You could determine that also. For teams that pre-queued something+Z, if their win rate is abnormally high (like beyond normal variance), you can further handicap them by matching them against harder RT opponents such that both sides have a 50% win probability. I don't believe this has actually been used anywhere, but it can be done. It would probably break down at the very top top top end of the ladder a bit (where Zerg ATs will dominate the top) just because there are fewer potential opponents, but for a huge majority of players the advantage is calculable. I don't like this type of artificial adjustments, they gotta have some bad repercussions. AT vs RT is not necessarily fair, but I guess its kind of a recurring situation anyway not unbeatable still makes fun games.. Plus for many players it won't be interesting to try and play in AT all the time, the rating not being individual, you'll probably not want to play always with or at the same time as these two teammates.. then you have multiple AT ratings for every team you play with.. or is it just individual ratings? it seems to work better, if it just won't differenciate between AT and RT, more easy to play, stats just go to the same place for "2v2" or "3v3"? that way you can also queue 2 players together for a 3vs3 which is something you'd do with custom games so it brings that function etc I dont think that the point of the ladder is to create scenarios where you go to 50% win probability ?_? the win probability should be considered unknown, just ladder rewarding wins and losses equally depending on points and try to match ppl with close points.. at the end maybe some imba composition/rushes often win in team games, but that's ok, it's still good The best way to handle AT is to do what SC2 did and have unique MMRs per AT. So A+B would have one MMR, A+C would have a different MMR, and so on. With AT, you basically need a rating that defines your skill level together as a unit. The tightness of ladder tuning is a philosophical debate that has existed since the dawn of automated matchmaking When SC2 first launched, the matchmaker was very aggressively tuned to find very close 50/50 matches. Later, they relaxed that tuning because players found it to be a tense experience. Further iterations saw the creation of "rides" (a casino term referring to the highs and lows of rollercoasters) where players have the "most fun" experience by playing some harder matches followed by some easier matches, leading to more games played overall. The core, unchanging philosophy is still that you want every player to be accurately ranked, meaning they win half their games, you just leave an allowable variance such that you're not putting the player into unwinnable matches (maybe you disallow individual matches that are beyond an 80/20 win prediction, for example). but then any time you want to play with a different team, you get reset to a low rating and get many easy games? I prefer the simple way it seems more natural to me, 50% win rate isn't necessary, that means boosting you faster to where it thinks you'll lose often and then taking you down faster so you'll start winning more it's just weird i don't see the point of it lol. If you are really good of course your win rate should be more than 50%. If you are at the top, but also if you are not at the top, why not? if it avoids matching you really hard, you get more time to get wins with your good style and refine it.. it's fine. And if you're not so good and prone to losing more than winning? why give you a fake reward by matching you against lesser skilled players instead of letting you figure out your mistakes and play them out normally losing against equal skilled and slowly going down? in my mind team game is not as competitive as 1v1, the best fun I have is when I don't take it 100% seriously and especially let myself play with ppl I don't know or who have different skill levels, play random etc, maybe that's not the point of auto matchmaking in team ladder and then i'll just keep playing custom games as normal I feel like there isn't really much of a downside of just putting RT and AT together with individual ratings, there is quite a downside of not doing that
for me SC2 was a failure as far as team games go. Not only because of this ladder system, but because the game itself also kinda sucked for team games imo. But even the ladder system felt pretty much awkward and there didn't seem to be that much fun activity there, speaking of xp playing with friends and not etc and I think everybody saw the nowhere hole that the top designers gave as a direction by obsessing with winrates instead of quality of the experience it's really a backwards way to think about how to make and play a game I think haha. Not a model by any means, just a anti-model if you ask me, what not to do lol it is a way to give artificial reward to any player regardless of how well they are doing. twists your progression and make it harder to practice in stable environment. it destabilizes
|
is there going to be RT in this ladder or just AT? and with the low populations.. what makes the activity easily boost up is when players make games and play some partial arranged team vs a random team etc if you split and create MMR distances it reduces the occurence of games.. that's why overall i think the simple system that doesn't distort your matchmaking to go for artificial 50%, rates players individually and allows AT vs RT mixed up is best you'd have your top ATvsAT competitive games at the top of that ladder likely and within you could give a small bonus to RT or malus to AT but I feel that's unnecessary and artificial as well, can't tell how many points its worth if at all so variable..
|
What's artificial about the 50% winrates? If a system is designed to match you with players of equal strength and you end up winning half of these games, your winrate of 50% seems quite real to me.
|
I assume there's going to be RT ladder, wouldn't make sense otherwise. There's players who'd rather play RT instead of AT because it's more challenging. Also, you're not always gonna have an ally to 2v2 with but you still might wanna play team games. Sadly Z RT players will have an advantage over T/P RT players but that's the inherent nature of the game. Figuring out what to do with AT players is the real dilemma imo.
RT is straightforward, a player plays games and he accumulates MMR over time, basically the same way 1v1 works. AT is a bit harder to figure out. Should we have separate ladders for AT and RT (AT vs AT // RT vs RT)? That'll have an impact on queue times but it might be our only option (you'd also need 2 leaderboards, 1 for RT players and 1 for AT players).
Assuming we want to cut down on queue times, we would have to mix AT and RT players together but that system is easily abuse-able. A high end player could make a new account and ally his friend in order to allow him to rank up easier. So say there's two 3k MMR players, instead of them being a 3k MMR team 1 player could play on a new account (1500 MMR) and that would make them a 2250 MMR team (3k + 1.5k divided by 2). On top of that they have all the other advantages that comes with being an AT.
To have a fair system i think we're forced to split the 2v2 ladder into 2 formats, RT vs RT and AT vs AT. Even then AT players can still abuse the system the same way if we don't split their MMR for every individual ally. Basically the RT leaderboard would have individual players with their MMR and the AT leaderboard would have team MMRs, for example:
AT leaderboard:
Rank 1: Excalibur_Z + ProMeTheus112 // 130 wins - 20 losses - 3100 MMR Rank 2: ProMeTheus112 + TT1 // 130 wins - 40 losses - 2800 MMR Rank 3: Excalibur_Z + Dazed. // 90 wins - 30 losses - 2600 MMR
etc.
|
but it's not a big deal, that some guys would use mixed AT+RT to smurf some wins whereas it's a pretty big deal that the ladders would be split? it's not like there isn't always a way to abuse any system, the smurf abuse is such a small issue if the main point of the ladder is to find games easily, I feel like it doesn't really matter that some guys would do this type of stuff, besides it should have the side effect of lowering the amount of points they gain for a win (the higher rated players on that team with a smurf low player) its the type of abuse where mostly the abusers are only hurting themselves, because they are not practicing against equally strong opponents, and their allies are still not gaining as many points for that too so they don't have incentive to encourage it
and also the point is, that as long as you can queue in ladder in AT as well, then you can expect the best AT teams their players will be at the top of ladder anyway where it will likely be mostly ATvsAT (so it doesn't hurt the competition) it's just really awkward in terms of rating and matchmaking if teams are rated on a ladder like this and also split from random teams, it works for a tournament but for a ladder and a ladder with low pop, i think it's a bad idea to split / rate teams instead of players
there is another big downside that whenever you are playing with a new team you are supposed to rank back up from the bottom (if team based rating)... (each time get many easy wins at first for being underanked, if your goal is to climb gotta predict you will play many games with that team, which makes everything heavy and inertia, less incentive to play with others sometimes etc) i really don't think this approach was good, it was started with warcraft3, i don't really think it gives good result, war3 didn't rly have much of a striving 2v2 3v3 scene afaik.. again the game isn't starcraft, but seriously I think this approach is awkward
keep in mind the matchmaker right now is really having a hard time finding games consistently even in 1vs1. This may not be as true at the most active layer of the ladder, in some rating ranges where most people play everyday and do lots of games, but if you try making a new account you will see that you can hardly get a string of 2 or 3 games these days. Maybe it finds your first game after 50sec, then no second game at all, etc. not saying I trust the system that there isn't anybody to match me with when I'm queuing, but that's the results ppl seem to be getting around 1500-1800, kinda scarce games (takes me days to climb just because I can hardly get many games played)
(which btw ties back to the problem where the environment isn't great for new players to get into practicing)
|
On December 26 2017 04:22 Sr18 wrote: What's artificial about the 50% winrates? If a system is designed to match you with players of equal strength and you end up winning half of these games, your winrate of 50% seems quite real to me. because the only way that I see that it could do that is by matching you against too strong players to give you losses or matching you against too weak players to give you wins whenever you are off the 50% let's say you play some games, and you realize something new in the game, some flaw in your build, and implement the solution. Where you are in the ladder, you could start getting a lot of wins. But if the ladder wants you to have 50%, it will quickly match you against much stronger players, and you get losses. It's artificial winrate, because if it wasn't artificial, your winrate is unknown, you get matched at your rating and gain rating if you win lose if you don't. If you do well you will get to a certain rating with a nice winrate, etc. And if you start climbing cause you do things better, without a "50% bias" you will get more time to test your new good stuff get some wins with it refine it.. not artificial.
It's also artificial because if you are one of the best players in the world, your winrate should not be 50%. Nor if you are the worst player. It also tells you something if you can get to a certain point on the ladder with a certain winrate. Whereas all the 50% says is that the ladder tried hard to make sure you would lose after you won, or win after you lost.. it's actually going to undermatch you if you have lost a few games, or overmatch you if you have won a few games. useless extra variance to brag that the ladder does 50% winrate and the game is balanced lol <= what they did with the whole SC2 fake genius design
you know, if the ladder tries to get 50% results, it will actually reduce the likeliness to play close games on a close game, the outcome is unknown, it's not 50%. if you play many close games (when the ladder matches you well), it's unknown your win percentage after a series of games. It's only known (highly probable) if it will on purpose match you less fairly to guarantee that winrate... it's really backwards thinking lol
seriously, don't take a model out of what the guys who made SC2 did, they are terrible designers ok lol, the way i see it they were obsessed with numeric results to justify their whole game design and call it good you know, even if its brood lords + infestors 1 dimensional mind numbing for months it's characteristic of their trying to control and predict everything rather than create something that has a lot of potential
|
A 50% win-loss ratio might be "artificially" chosen for the matchmaking system, although I don’t see why that is a bad thing. If you want your match-making system to have players playing against those with a similar strength, they should win as much as they lose. Higher or lower suggests a large skill difference and can compromise the quality of games played on ladder.
On December 25 2017 12:46 ProMeTheus112 wrote: without a "50% bias" you will get more time to test your new good stuff get some wins with it refine it.. not artificial.
Ladder should match you with players of an appropriate performance. If you don't perform as well because you choose to play differently, the system should reflect that in order to respect fairness. If you want to practice an unfamiliar style without risking your rating, you could always find other players to practice in private with that are around your level.
It's also artificial because if you are one of the best players in the world, your winrate should not be 50%. Nor if you are the worst player.
A 50% win-loss ratio as a target to maintain match quality does not predetermine that your win rate must be 50% in a pool of players at any given time. You only have so many players to play against. There is going to be a point where you’re going to have trouble finding players that are worse than you, or finding players that are better than you.
it's actually going to undermatch you if you have lost a few games, or overmatch you if you have won a few games. useless extra variance to brag that the ladder does 50% winrate and the game is balanced lol
If the queue times at 3000MMR are any indication, the current ladder system doesn’t do this. Can’t say how many times I’d go to watch Scan’s stream to see the queue timer over 5 minutes.
on a close game, the outcome is unknown it's not 50%. if you play many close games (when the ladder matches you well), it's unknown your win percentage after a series of games. It's only known (highly probable) if it will on purpose match you less fairly to guarantee that winrate.
The matchmaker isn’t supposed to guarantee a winner, just put people that it thinks are appropriate matches for each other together. I do think that there are matches where one player is favored over the other, yet the outcome is rewarded/punished proportionally to what the system expects. Play someone much higher than you? Expect not to lose as much MMR as you would playing a more even opponent. Most match-making systems function this way, and I am fairly certain that SC:R isn't any different in this manner.
|
yes I know that the current doesn't do that, I was reacting to excalibur_z comment
look, a perfect ladder isn't a ladder where everybody has 50% winrate, the point isn't to control players winrate, it is only to distribute points fairly and match you against close points, and then the players will determine winrates and rank if your point system is good, this is what will match people well, it's all that's needed
basically, what I'm saying is mixed AT/RT would likely work real fine with individual ratings without any artificial convoluted bias. AT being a little stronger than RT, players will gain a little more points for being in AT, then they'll face stronger opponents and at the top of ladder you will have mostly AT players. That's fine and logical, since AT is pretty much the best way to play team games competitively, but the ladder ranks everyone not just the top... so its fine let's say that one race is imba. You don't want to bias the system to equalize the winrates. That race may dominate the top of the ladder. That's the normal result of the game, and it's fine. if you want to rank higher, use that race, or try harder with the others. etc
from the RT player point of view, the point is to get games.. who cares that the opposing team is arranged if there are individual ratings already. If they are at this place on the ladder it's probably a good match. (cause the environment is mixed to begin with) factor in the population issue / clunky matchmaker => simple mixed ladder sounds best to me (not that everybody exclusively plays RT or AT)
just saying, cause I'm seeing something coming I might not be interested in playing, even though I love some 3vs3. player-made games do better than a bad automatic matchmaker..
|
On December 26 2017 08:14 ProMeTheus112 wrote: yes I know that the current doesn't do that, I was reacting to excalibur_z comment
look, a perfect ladder isn't a ladder where everybody has 50% winrate, the point isn't to control players winrate, it is only to reward points fairly and match you against close points, and then the players will determine winrates and rank if your point system is good, this is what will match people well, it's all that's needed
basically, what I'm saying is mixed AT/RT would likely work real fine with individual ratings without any artificial convoluted bias
The win-ratio is a means of ensuring that matches are even, rather than a strict declaration players will win half the time. Reading what you've posted here, it sounds like we're all in agreement for this particular point. I apologize for not making that more clear in my previous post.
In order for players to get an optimal experience, we've got to set the parameters ourselves. Otherwise the ladder system won't mean anything. Just because the system is "biased" with the goal of ensuring games are fair and competitive does not make the system any less genuine.
You don't want to bias the system to equalize the winrates.
What do you mean by this? How else would you get a system that gives players an even match? The win-rate is only a symptom, not a direct cause. It is a sign that you are being matched evenly with other players. Considering the performance of an arranged team is generally higher, they as a team, should share a rating in order to provide others with the fairest match possible. Personally, I would be less inclined to play if I were to discover that most of my matches weren't fair. I'd venture to say that this isn't an uncommon sentiment.
|
|
|
|