|
On February 25 2018 08:03 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2018 04:56 FabledIntegral wrote:On February 24 2018 06:32 Incomplete..ReV wrote: They didn't drop the ball. They got feedback and adjusted accordingly. Most people seem to want to prioritize good latency and similar skill levels over short queues. Then they obliged. 100% prefer this route On February 25 2018 04:00 Jealous wrote:On February 25 2018 00:20 Navane wrote: Why can't everybody just set their own MMR, TR and latency requirements. There is no reason why it would be globally the same for everyone.
Then the picky players can wait their 5 minutes, the high ranked players can have different settings then the people at 1400. Generous people play a lot of games. Seems so ridiculously ready to solve. If I'm already getting matched with people who are 1100 and 2200 simultaneously, it means that perhaps there aren't enough players to go around at every MMR at every hour of every day. If all of those players set their MMR requirements to +/- 50 pts, I would probably sit in queue for half an hour at a time or something. The main issue is that I get 80% of players who are lower than me, and I get 1-5 points per win, but I know that if I lose, I will lose like 40 points. I feel like I'm that guy who stomps D rank to B- and that it makes MMR even more unreliable than it was. If there was a system that allowed you to play one player below you, one player above you, rinse repeat, that would be much preferable than playing through 5 D- players and then getting whooped by an A-. It just doesn't feel like I'm improving in any tangible way. TR12 Low and +/- 100-150 feels relatively fair to me. I'd be very surprised if you were getting 1,100 and 2,200, I haven't seen even remotely near that range. I'm around 1,750 and probably see between 1,500 and 1,950. Maybe the VERY occasional 1,450 or 2,050 but we're talking 1/12 - 1/15 games or so. The vast majority of my games are +/- 100-150 too. TR 12 sucks though, I love the new TR 16, it's like that at least 66% of my games..? Note: I just played one and got +4 for beating 1520 MMR when I was 1742. So those extremes you're talking about are pretty big. Although I do have some more even matches in between the outliers, I would say that over 70% of matches are more than 150 points away from my MMR. Here is a brief compilation: + Show Spoiler +
So, what you're really telling us here is that you lost to someone who was rated 1466?
|
On February 25 2018 09:16 AManHasNoName wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2018 08:03 Jealous wrote:On February 25 2018 04:56 FabledIntegral wrote:On February 24 2018 06:32 Incomplete..ReV wrote: They didn't drop the ball. They got feedback and adjusted accordingly. Most people seem to want to prioritize good latency and similar skill levels over short queues. Then they obliged. 100% prefer this route On February 25 2018 04:00 Jealous wrote:On February 25 2018 00:20 Navane wrote: Why can't everybody just set their own MMR, TR and latency requirements. There is no reason why it would be globally the same for everyone.
Then the picky players can wait their 5 minutes, the high ranked players can have different settings then the people at 1400. Generous people play a lot of games. Seems so ridiculously ready to solve. If I'm already getting matched with people who are 1100 and 2200 simultaneously, it means that perhaps there aren't enough players to go around at every MMR at every hour of every day. If all of those players set their MMR requirements to +/- 50 pts, I would probably sit in queue for half an hour at a time or something. The main issue is that I get 80% of players who are lower than me, and I get 1-5 points per win, but I know that if I lose, I will lose like 40 points. I feel like I'm that guy who stomps D rank to B- and that it makes MMR even more unreliable than it was. If there was a system that allowed you to play one player below you, one player above you, rinse repeat, that would be much preferable than playing through 5 D- players and then getting whooped by an A-. It just doesn't feel like I'm improving in any tangible way. TR12 Low and +/- 100-150 feels relatively fair to me. I'd be very surprised if you were getting 1,100 and 2,200, I haven't seen even remotely near that range. I'm around 1,750 and probably see between 1,500 and 1,950. Maybe the VERY occasional 1,450 or 2,050 but we're talking 1/12 - 1/15 games or so. The vast majority of my games are +/- 100-150 too. TR 12 sucks though, I love the new TR 16, it's like that at least 66% of my games..? Note: I just played one and got +4 for beating 1520 MMR when I was 1742. So those extremes you're talking about are pretty big. Although I do have some more even matches in between the outliers, I would say that over 70% of matches are more than 150 points away from my MMR. Here is a brief compilation: + Show Spoiler + So, what you're really telling us here is that you lost to someone who was rated 1466? LOL #banenation
|
As long as there remains a substantial variance between players, we can honestly say that b.net no longer has a ladder, it doesnt even have a match maker, it has a game finder.
I mean this literally. A ladder is a system whereby players are hierarchically ranked, there is a progress and therefore distribution, but if the games are so untethered to your position within the ladder, then your place on the hiearchy is meaningless. Theres virtually no point in which you can actually grind away from newbs* [or practically anyway, I dont know if eon is getting newbs or JUST extremely long wait times, but for the majority of us, this is our fate].
*and by that i mean someone who is sufficiently worse as to be largely non competitive against you.
|
On February 25 2018 04:56 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2018 06:32 Incomplete..ReV wrote: They didn't drop the ball. They got feedback and adjusted accordingly. Most people seem to want to prioritize good latency and similar skill levels over short queues. Then they obliged. 100% prefer this route Show nested quote +On February 25 2018 04:00 Jealous wrote:On February 25 2018 00:20 Navane wrote: Why can't everybody just set their own MMR, TR and latency requirements. There is no reason why it would be globally the same for everyone.
Then the picky players can wait their 5 minutes, the high ranked players can have different settings then the people at 1400. Generous people play a lot of games. Seems so ridiculously ready to solve. If I'm already getting matched with people who are 1100 and 2200 simultaneously, it means that perhaps there aren't enough players to go around at every MMR at every hour of every day. If all of those players set their MMR requirements to +/- 50 pts, I would probably sit in queue for half an hour at a time or something. The main issue is that I get 80% of players who are lower than me, and I get 1-5 points per win, but I know that if I lose, I will lose like 40 points. I feel like I'm that guy who stomps D rank to B- and that it makes MMR even more unreliable than it was. If there was a system that allowed you to play one player below you, one player above you, rinse repeat, that would be much preferable than playing through 5 D- players and then getting whooped by an A-. It just doesn't feel like I'm improving in any tangible way. TR12 Low and +/- 100-150 feels relatively fair to me. I'd be very surprised if you were getting 1,100 and 2,200, I haven't seen even remotely near that range. I'm around 1,750 and probably see between 1,500 and 1,950. Maybe the VERY occasional 1,450 or 2,050 but we're talking 1/12 - 1/15 games or so. The vast majority of my games are +/- 100-150 too. TR 12 sucks though, I love the new TR 16, it's like that at least 66% of my games..? Note: I just played one and got +4 for beating 1520 MMR when I was 1742. So those extremes you're talking about are pretty big.
once again, you prefer this route because you are below 2000. your queue time is very manageable. As soon as you see queue time of 300 sec+ along with bad players you have to face over again and again you will quickly turn yor back
|
On February 25 2018 09:16 AManHasNoName wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2018 08:03 Jealous wrote:On February 25 2018 04:56 FabledIntegral wrote:On February 24 2018 06:32 Incomplete..ReV wrote: They didn't drop the ball. They got feedback and adjusted accordingly. Most people seem to want to prioritize good latency and similar skill levels over short queues. Then they obliged. 100% prefer this route On February 25 2018 04:00 Jealous wrote:On February 25 2018 00:20 Navane wrote: Why can't everybody just set their own MMR, TR and latency requirements. There is no reason why it would be globally the same for everyone.
Then the picky players can wait their 5 minutes, the high ranked players can have different settings then the people at 1400. Generous people play a lot of games. Seems so ridiculously ready to solve. If I'm already getting matched with people who are 1100 and 2200 simultaneously, it means that perhaps there aren't enough players to go around at every MMR at every hour of every day. If all of those players set their MMR requirements to +/- 50 pts, I would probably sit in queue for half an hour at a time or something. The main issue is that I get 80% of players who are lower than me, and I get 1-5 points per win, but I know that if I lose, I will lose like 40 points. I feel like I'm that guy who stomps D rank to B- and that it makes MMR even more unreliable than it was. If there was a system that allowed you to play one player below you, one player above you, rinse repeat, that would be much preferable than playing through 5 D- players and then getting whooped by an A-. It just doesn't feel like I'm improving in any tangible way. TR12 Low and +/- 100-150 feels relatively fair to me. I'd be very surprised if you were getting 1,100 and 2,200, I haven't seen even remotely near that range. I'm around 1,750 and probably see between 1,500 and 1,950. Maybe the VERY occasional 1,450 or 2,050 but we're talking 1/12 - 1/15 games or so. The vast majority of my games are +/- 100-150 too. TR 12 sucks though, I love the new TR 16, it's like that at least 66% of my games..? Note: I just played one and got +4 for beating 1520 MMR when I was 1742. So those extremes you're talking about are pretty big. Although I do have some more even matches in between the outliers, I would say that over 70% of matches are more than 150 points away from my MMR. Here is a brief compilation: + Show Spoiler + So, what you're really telling us here is that you lost to someone who was rated 1466?
I lost to him 3 in a row. 1-3 head-to-head rating. I'd like to think he was a troll who lowered his rating on purpose. He also claims to be from Europe, Bulgaria if I remember correctly, but also claims to be studying at Harvard and in a Korean clan, so I don't know what to believe.
|
On February 25 2018 10:13 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2018 09:16 AManHasNoName wrote:On February 25 2018 08:03 Jealous wrote:On February 25 2018 04:56 FabledIntegral wrote:On February 24 2018 06:32 Incomplete..ReV wrote: They didn't drop the ball. They got feedback and adjusted accordingly. Most people seem to want to prioritize good latency and similar skill levels over short queues. Then they obliged. 100% prefer this route On February 25 2018 04:00 Jealous wrote:On February 25 2018 00:20 Navane wrote: Why can't everybody just set their own MMR, TR and latency requirements. There is no reason why it would be globally the same for everyone.
Then the picky players can wait their 5 minutes, the high ranked players can have different settings then the people at 1400. Generous people play a lot of games. Seems so ridiculously ready to solve. If I'm already getting matched with people who are 1100 and 2200 simultaneously, it means that perhaps there aren't enough players to go around at every MMR at every hour of every day. If all of those players set their MMR requirements to +/- 50 pts, I would probably sit in queue for half an hour at a time or something. The main issue is that I get 80% of players who are lower than me, and I get 1-5 points per win, but I know that if I lose, I will lose like 40 points. I feel like I'm that guy who stomps D rank to B- and that it makes MMR even more unreliable than it was. If there was a system that allowed you to play one player below you, one player above you, rinse repeat, that would be much preferable than playing through 5 D- players and then getting whooped by an A-. It just doesn't feel like I'm improving in any tangible way. TR12 Low and +/- 100-150 feels relatively fair to me. I'd be very surprised if you were getting 1,100 and 2,200, I haven't seen even remotely near that range. I'm around 1,750 and probably see between 1,500 and 1,950. Maybe the VERY occasional 1,450 or 2,050 but we're talking 1/12 - 1/15 games or so. The vast majority of my games are +/- 100-150 too. TR 12 sucks though, I love the new TR 16, it's like that at least 66% of my games..? Note: I just played one and got +4 for beating 1520 MMR when I was 1742. So those extremes you're talking about are pretty big. Although I do have some more even matches in between the outliers, I would say that over 70% of matches are more than 150 points away from my MMR. Here is a brief compilation: + Show Spoiler + So, what you're really telling us here is that you lost to someone who was rated 1466? I lost to him 3 in a row. 1-3 head-to-head rating. I'd like to think he was a troll who lowered his rating on purpose. He also claims to be from Europe, Bulgaria if I remember correctly, but also claims to be studying at Harvard and in a Korean clan, so I don't know what to believe.
You have never met a Bulgarian studying at Harvard, who also plays SC:BW at a high enough level to be in a Korean clan? Pffft... Come on man.
|
There are actually some new numbers on starlog. So for example US West peaks with about 1.2k users concurrently online daily (https://starlog.gg/en/gateway-status?timezone=Europe/Amsterdam). If we look at the rating distribution we see two things. First there are about 20k users above 1.2k MMR, which means about 6% of all US. West accounts are online mostly on a daily basis. Lets say you are 2k MMR and you want a TR 16 match, so we narrow it down just to US. West and you want an opponnent from 1950-2050 MMR.
So all the players from 1950-2050 MMR on US. West are 316 people. Now even if on the higher ranges there are 10% online and not just 6% you have roughly 31 people (the 0.6 is you, give you that) you can queue in. Now thats a rough estimate. But US. West is the most populated western server. EU peaks at about 500 and US. East at 300. So for EU you while have to half the numbers at least, and for US.East its a quarter. Ofc you can meet all reqs between two different regions to match up, but i just wanted to give an idea what the numbers are. And if youre hitting regions way above 2k MMR its gets way worse.
|
It does take a pretty long time for me to get games at the moment as well.
|
On February 24 2018 05:29 jinjin5000 wrote: Rather wait longer than get matched up vs people 300-500mmr above/below you it could be made customizable ..
|
On February 26 2018 20:11 niteReloaded wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2018 05:29 jinjin5000 wrote: Rather wait longer than get matched up vs people 300-500mmr above/below you it could be made customizable ..
Yeah this is pretty standard when it comes to chess. Everyone just sets their own range so that no one ever gets an unwanted matchup. I don't see why SC:R should be any different.
No high rated chess player ever gets a "surprise" matchup against a 1400 player unless they specifically allowed it. That simply wouldn't fly with all the sandbaggers roaming around.
|
well koreans are happy with the latest patch and is not a secret this game was made for them anyway,so sadly we are not the priority,and at the same time i understand koreans complaining,they want to play the game clean as lan,they dont want to play people outside Korea. Starcraft 1 population is so low that maybe matchmaking was never suposed to work ?
i dont see a solution,everything is so dark right now.
|
im noticing a lot longer queue times as well. was there something wrong with the MM back in the day? cuz I would face people within 50 MMR consistently and be matched very quickly. not anymore. I'm waiting a lot longer.
edit:
been playing since the early korea launch. never had queue times this long. Still waiting after 600 seconds...the longest i've ever had to wait was 3 minutes. which was rare. this is ridiculous. lol
edit:800+ seconds...still going. wtf.
|
On February 27 2018 02:03 Golgotha wrote: im noticing a lot longer queue times as well. was there something wrong with the MM back in the day? cuz I would face people within 50 MMR consistently and be matched very quickly. not anymore. I'm waiting a lot longer.
edit:
been playing since the early korea launch. never had queue times this long. Still waiting after 600 seconds...the longest i've ever had to wait was 3 minutes. which was rare. this is ridiculous. lol
edit:800+ seconds...still going. wtf. https://www.twitch.tv/videos/232280872
dude i did spend 1 hour :D
|
Yea this sucks, I'd rather play only vs Koreans all day and not have to Que up and wait forever, i'd really rather not play SC2 only b/c of Que times lol...
|
On February 27 2018 02:11 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2018 02:03 Golgotha wrote: im noticing a lot longer queue times as well. was there something wrong with the MM back in the day? cuz I would face people within 50 MMR consistently and be matched very quickly. not anymore. I'm waiting a lot longer.
edit:
been playing since the early korea launch. never had queue times this long. Still waiting after 600 seconds...the longest i've ever had to wait was 3 minutes. which was rare. this is ridiculous. lol
edit:800+ seconds...still going. wtf. https://www.twitch.tv/videos/232280872dude i did spend 1 hour :D
wtf...I have no words. that's grounds for a refund and an apology letter from blizzard. unacceptable...
|
Well I think custom MM settings would be the best solution for everyone. Because the players can tune all needed parameters themself and blizzard can tick it off their to-do list.
|
this and option to also use custom games for ladder on a crossserver chat with channels for some point bracket in case MM problem, if MM doesnt work, custom games should do it and/or fill the gap might see games pop in custom games list 1v1 1600 FS or whatever, you can lock it to using one of the maps in the current map pool when using "ladder" game mode.. finally, add a ask/accept draw option for cancelling laggy games and then fix whatever interface bugs remain or newly occur and make it faster
|
Why now I can´t even see the estimated time indicator? xD I just see a "-"
|
averaged 800 sec queue time today with my 1800 acc.
|
havent found a ladder game since the last patch
whats going on?
|
|
|
|