Sabotage Matchmaking

24

Comments

  • CyrianCyrian Member
    ShadeDev said:
    Oh man, I really enjoy seeing all of these good thoughts that we offered up a year ago to fix matchmaking.  Siege wasn't the problem, Sabotage is not the problem, the matchmaker is and has always been the problem.  The amount of unfair or ridiculous matches that people are thrown into is what causes them to leave. 1 bad match, eh, whatever.  Repeated one side matches is not okay. 

    Blaming the population only gets you so far. I think you are just too lazy to find and implement a fix. 
    If you have 6 players in a matchmaking queue: 1 3-man level 100 party, and 3 solo level 1 players...   

    How many combinations do you have to make a match?  One.

    The matchmaker will try for several minutes to make a better match and eventually just give up.

    We can make the system wait longer for a match, but that's been historically even more unpopular.
    Change the daily quest to "Play 2 matches of Sabotage", instead of "Win".  Bam.  I have fixed your problem.  Instantly more people queueing for Sabotage and therefore, more variety of bodies for the matchmaker to pick from.

    I have never played Sabotage once, because forcing PvE players into any type of PvP competition for a reward is stupid if the reward is not purely PvP focused.  The "Win games" requirement is essentially saying "Play through 30-40 minutes for nothing if you lose."  Awesome.  I don't have time to waste for nothing.  However, I'd gladly sit through 40 minutes of a game mode I'm not crazy about, if I know I'm going to get the chest reward for time spent.  And, if you make it so that winning gives super skulls or XP or 1 coin or whatever, that's a motivator to dissuade people from joining and afk-ing for the chest.  You might have to put additional punishments or something in, like a 30-second afk timer kick with a matchmaking ban for X minutes for leaving, but either way, net gain to the matchmaker on body count and overall, a positive impact on the mode.

    Instead, because of the "Win" requirement, I don't even try, because I don't have time to waste sitting in queue, then joining a game, having it last 20-30 minutes, and don't get the reward.
  • mdragoonmdragoon Member
    edited May 18
    ShadeDev said:
    Oh man, I really enjoy seeing all of these good thoughts that we offered up a year ago to fix matchmaking.  Siege wasn't the problem, Sabotage is not the problem, the matchmaker is and has always been the problem.  The amount of unfair or ridiculous matches that people are thrown into is what causes them to leave. 1 bad match, eh, whatever.  Repeated one side matches is not okay. 

    Blaming the population only gets you so far. I think you are just too lazy to find and implement a fix. 
    If you have 6 players in a matchmaking queue: 1 3-man level 100 party, and 3 solo level 1 players...   

    How many combinations do you have to make a match?  One.

    The matchmaker will try for several minutes to make a better match and eventually just give up.

    We can make the system wait longer for a match, but that's been historically even more unpopular.
    All games that have matchmaking systems run into this problem and population is always a key factor in it. Even Overwatch which reports higher numbers and a faster rise than a large number of titles runs into 6+ minutes queue times when new modes or game times are added. I've personally had matches where I've played against the same team 3 or more games at a time because they were both premade and the closest to my rank that were online at the time, possibly the only group that was near me. ultimately a loss is better than literally never having a game joined because the matchmaker would only allow "fair" matches. fairness would only be achieved by banning premades and forcing players to learn the game and play with random teams to win.

    Without voice features and time limits for options this is super difficult and this is part of the reason sabotage is a bit difficult to deal with, can't really sugar coat that at all. Not to mention the rage that high level players have at playing with newer players who have lower leveled traps and a limited character selection. A lot of players would also be livid about not being able to play with premade teams here as that's how you heavily influence your own win rates and summarily the rewards you receive.

    the only real solution to disregard player population is lobbied games but that introduces more issues that I'm not sure want to be tackled yet. I would personally just like to see the chest quest changed to "complete 2 sabotage games" instead of win due to winning being biased due to the matchmaking and pop. issues.
    Archivist of the Order, feel free to ask me any questions you have!
  • SeanPoeSeanPoe Member, Early Access
    edited May 18
    ShadeDev said:
    If you have 6 players in a matchmaking queue: 1 3-man level 100 party, and 3 solo level 1 players...   

    How many combinations do you have to make a match?  One.

    The matchmaker will try for several minutes to make a better match and eventually just give up.

    We can make the system wait longer for a match, but that's been historically even more unpopular.
    There are ways to make that forced matchup more fair though.  Instead of throwing a bunch of low-ranked players against a bunch of high-ranked players the lower ranked team could be given a handicap to make things more fair.  This handicap could be as simple as just effectively lowering the average level of the mobs on the map they're on.  The hard part would be figuring out how much of a reduction would be fair.  It's also going to be very complicated to figure out how MMR changes should be impacted when a team loses to a lower ranked handicapped team though.  A handicapped team will obviously be playing at a level higher than their rank so they should probably be treated as a higher ranked team as far as MMR gains/losses are concerned.  So I'm not necessarily saying this is a system this game needs right now, but there are definitely ways to make matches less one-sided. 
  • VarthftwVarthftw Member
    Its clear that you have to 3 stack to win and the devs arent going to change it. Where the rank on the leader board means how well did you 3 stack. It is kind of sad it won't really reflect personal skill because of the very poor matchmaking process. The survival and game mode leaderboards are broken up into 1 player, 2-player, 3 player, but sabotage isnt? I do not see how it cant be done to have all three sabotage modes be the same way, 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 where groups are placed accordingly. I will galdy wait however long if its fair.
  • VarthftwVarthftw Member
    mdragoon said:
    ShadeDev said:
    Oh man, I really enjoy seeing all of these good thoughts that we offered up a year ago to fix matchmaking.  Siege wasn't the problem, Sabotage is not the problem, the matchmaker is and has always been the problem.  The amount of unfair or ridiculous matches that people are thrown into is what causes them to leave. 1 bad match, eh, whatever.  Repeated one side matches is not okay. 

    Blaming the population only gets you so far. I think you are just too lazy to find and implement a fix. 
    If you have 6 players in a matchmaking queue: 1 3-man level 100 party, and 3 solo level 1 players...   

    How many combinations do you have to make a match?  One.

    The matchmaker will try for several minutes to make a better match and eventually just give up.

    We can make the system wait longer for a match, but that's been historically even more unpopular.
    All games that have matchmaking systems run into this problem and population is always a key factor in it. Even Overwatch which reports higher numbers and a faster rise than a large number of titles runs into 6+ minutes queue times when new modes or game times are added. I've personally had matches where I've played against the same team 3 or more games at a time because they were both premade and the closest to my rank that were online at the time, possibly the only group that was near me. ultimately a loss is better than literally never having a game joined because the matchmaker would only allow "fair" matches. fairness would only be achieved by banning premades and forcing players to learn the game and play with random teams to win.

    Without voice features and time limits for options this is super difficult and this is part of the reason sabotage is a bit difficult to deal with, can't really sugar coat that at all. Not to mention the rage that high level players have at playing with newer players who have lower leveled traps and a limited character selection. A lot of players would also be livid about not being able to play with premade teams here as that's how you heavily influence your own win rates and summarily the rewards you receive.

    the only real solution to disregard player population is lobbied games but that introduces more issues that I'm not sure want to be tackled yet. I would personally just like to see the chest quest changed to "complete 2 sabotage games" instead of win due to winning being biased due to the matchmaking and pop. issues.
    If you want to talk about overwatch matchmaking it is a longer wait as you get higher rank. That is because it wants you to be matched with players of SAME SKILL. the top 500 players are matched against other top 500 players for a reason. If you are top 500 you will have to wait longer than someone who isn't there because of same skill matchmaking. I really do not see a problem with a matchmaking like overwatch. Even with the huge population of it you still have long queue times the higher you get.

    I do not see how it would be difficult to match players of similar level together even with the low player base waiting would ensure more fair game and ensure that the game isn't just which team trio stacked better.

    Also A game like heroes of the storm will place parties of people against higher ranked people on purpose. This is because the matchmaking assumes you are able to perform better in a group because you are in voice comms or in a party and can talk to each other better. Why not have a system that takes the average level of the party of 2 or 3 and puts it in a group of players that are average level of 10 or higher for example (could be higher average but this is an example). By the way Hots is way less population than overwatch. there are waits in a game as popular as Overwatch and a less popular game as HoTS. This is because the matchmaking makes it as close to a fair game as possible (50%)

    There are plenty of more games that have low population but fair matchmaking and the excuse of low population isn't a excuse for those games. So hearing the devs talk about population as an excuse for matchmaking isn't really an excuse. Please change the matchmaking it is so silly to have to 3 stack and have a skewed leaderboard and have a level 1 on your team when playing a trio stacked.
  • NoWhammyNoWhammy Member, Master Founder, Early Access
    By the time they fix it it will be to late... Its the same problems as siege... Sabotage was "launched" without any beta testing or community feedback. You only get one chance at "launch" and they launched a half baked game. 
    Shoo Troll... Don't Bother Me.
  • VarthftwVarthftw Member
    NoWhammy said:
    By the time they fix it it will be to late... Its the same problems as siege... Sabotage was "launched" without any beta testing or community feedback. You only get one chance at "launch" and they launched a half baked game. 

    If they want to launch a half baked game mode than remove the chest quest from it and make the chest quest different. I do not need xp when im around level 90. Make it something interesting like the skull quests which can be fun. Because the main problem is once you farm all of rift lord and other content will all characters you still want a way to have rift lord chests and when you force players into a broken system of games then you lose people's interest and lose population. Then blame the matchmaking system on a low population. Its low because they dont want ot fix matchmaking or listen to what players want to fix it.
  • Sabotage is a nightmare for me. When I see my partners' traps, I know I will lose again. Those players are bad because they don't use strategy about traps, and they only use arrow walls and spike floors. They don't notice anytimes a grinder and tar floor is better againts fast minions. 

    I am level 100, with 22 traps upgraded to 7th level, with 47/49 five stars battleground. Sabotage is suffering a lot to only get a chest what give more gibs or useless trap cards. 
  • lordbeeflordbeef Member
    If you make the quest "play 2 games" you'll have people playing sabotage to intentionally lose. Then people will post "how did the devs not see this coming???"

    Having to win 2 can be frustrating and there may be a better solution but that's not it. 
  • VarthftwVarthftw Member
    ShadeDev said:
    Oh man, I really enjoy seeing all of these good thoughts that we offered up a year ago to fix matchmaking.  Siege wasn't the problem, Sabotage is not the problem, the matchmaker is and has always been the problem.  The amount of unfair or ridiculous matches that people are thrown into is what causes them to leave. 1 bad match, eh, whatever.  Repeated one side matches is not okay. 

    Blaming the population only gets you so far. I think you are just too lazy to find and implement a fix. 
    If you have 6 players in a matchmaking queue: 1 3-man level 100 party, and 3 solo level 1 players...   

    How many combinations do you have to make a match?  One.

    The matchmaker will try for several minutes to make a better match and eventually just give up.

    We can make the system wait longer for a match, but that's been historically even more unpopular.
    How is matching a group of solo level 1 players against 3 lvl 100 group even a thing for your matchmaking to consider? You want people to not play the game that is a good way to do it. that wont even be fun to play for both sides. They will probably lose wave 1 and be even more upset at the game, and maybe think the game is too hard, or something and then stop playing the game. You are just hurting the population even more if that is the only way. If players have trouble beating the tutorial than how to do you think a level 1 will do against level 100's?

    A good solution to this is to at least make the group of three wait. If you want to group as three that is fine just know that you will have to wait longer to ensure a more balanced game. The group of level 1 can be put into another group where the average level is the same either put them with duo party or another solo group of three solo players.

    Tell me which system where you wait for a match (because it even skill matching) has been unpopular. I can tell you at least three games that have millions of players that have long queue times that are by no makes it unpopular. I also can give you games that are low population in comparison and have a long wait system at higher ranks for balance, but still very fun for the player base.
  • CyrianCyrian Member
    lordbeef said:
    If you make the quest "play 2 games" you'll have people playing sabotage to intentionally lose. Then people will post "how did the devs not see this coming???"

    Having to win 2 can be frustrating and there may be a better solution but that's not it. 

    Can't have it both ways.  Take the ongoing Heroes of the Storm / Overwatch cross-promotion.  I am terrible at MOBAs, and would really never voluntarily play HOTS.  But, because the HOTS team clearly has some vested interest in boosting their numbers for April/May, I suffered through 20 games this month (sucking horribly and pretty sure pissing off my teammates) to get the OW loot.  Totally worth it, by the way, Officer D.Va skin is amazing.

    Honestly, it would have been faster to play and lose purposefully to get the stuff.  But, it's either that, or I would not have played it at all, and their numbers boost would not have happened (assuming there are others that think like me).

    You have to entice the population in somehow.  Telling them that they have to win in order to get stuff is stupid.  If I knew I was getting a Rift Lord chest for suffering through 2 games of Sabotage, I might try it.  Since I have no guarantee of that, and could potentially waste hours getting nothing, it's absolutely not in the cards.  If they want bodies in Sabotage, they know how to do it.  Otherwise, it can sit there and keep the trainwreck burning.
  • LorelleLorelle Member
    edited May 18
    Another MMO I was playing had a dungeon that auto scaled itself to your level, but the auto-matching for a party for it only matched up players who were close to each other in level.

    End result was ridiculously long queue times just to get a party, which sucked!  I think most people would rather that not be the case for Sabotage, but I guess if it's possible to add an optional toggle called "Match me with similar strength players", people could see and choose for themselves which they'd prefer.  Not sure how doable that is, though.

    ........but yea, to reiterate, I imagine if you just change the daily sabotage quest to include Sabotage matches that just make it to the end of the final round even if your team still loses, that would alleviate pretty much all of the complaints, I'd hope, without compromising how people play Sabotage as well.  Making an "Or" option for a quest might be even harder than a toggle though. Dunno.
  • phattonyphattony Member
    Communication is key to winning when you are paired with a lower level teammate against any team tbh. Lower level players lower the level of the mobs so higher level players have a much easier time killing things. 

    More than 90% of the lower players will do what you ask of them and follow your strategy if you aren't a dick about it. They do want to win not lose lol. 

    Sure you won't win every match but even the top players lose. And there is always the chance to comeback with some lucky sappers taking out a key barricade ( been on both sides of this lol) so don't give up if a few minion's get in early. 

    As as far as queue times go, not everyone is queueing for sabotage at same time therefore it would not be fair to all players to force them to wait for someone near their mmr to hop in queue just to get into a game. I've sat in queue for over 10 mins at gold 5 pre patch just waiting for more players to queue. Top players could literally have to wait hours just for another "team of top players" to queue. 

    As as far as I've noticed, the game prefers to put you against teams of 2 or 3 people when you duo queue. I see no problem with this. I don't mind being the duo with a low guy against of full team of 3 higher levels. It just feels that much better when we win. 

    Don't get your feeling hurt because you lose a game with a lower level on your team. Not everyone you queue with is going to be a top tier player but everyone can improve. We were all low level players once and had to learn things same as newer players now. If you talk to and teach them it will go a long ways to a better sabotage experience. (There's a reason you have like 5 mins b4 the wave actually starts ) 
  • This thread is getting very negative. 

    Here is some positive. 
    The amount of players now playing is more than we have had for the last year :smile: 
    Be happy we have got more players =)
    We got the premium shop :+1: 
    Keep it secret, Keep it safe.
    New? Here are some Game Tipz.
  • 1.  Still on the decline to the real problems that are being ignored.
    2.  I would, if the players we are getting would be given a fair shot at playing the game without getting romped by teams.
    3.  Something that shouldn't actually be needed, but is a bandaid for the problem of allowing their Chests to give duplicate items beyond what can be used.  

    There's your positives.
  • Well to start with no level 1 players should be in Sabotage.  Clearly this game mode should have a gate on it of some sort.  Either have you completed at least 1 level of each map in the map pool with at least 1 star or a straight level gate of around 30.  Random new players should not be trying to get 2 wins a day for a apprentice chest they should be dropping the quest to get the new exp quest instead and leveling by playing survival.  Sabotage is the current end game.  Treat it as such.  Team sell should also be the default.  With such a stiff penalty system for losing I would rather wait twice as long for a match then get a loss.  A win moves you up a couple of places.  A loss drops you like 6 slots on the leaderboard.  Today as a Platinum 2 I won 5 in a row.  Moved from around the 11 ranked Platinum 2 to the 3rd ranked.  Lost one.  Put me 6 slots down.  One loss made all my wins moot.   Then won another put me back 3 slots.  Why does a loss make you lose two to 3 times as much progress as a win?  It would be one thing if the bad match maker made me lose 15 mins of progress but for every game I lose I have to spend 45 mins at least to get back my progress.  So yeah I would rather waste 5 extra mins in the match maker to waste 45 mins for one loss.  Most of the time I 2 man queue and some times I solo queue, but regardless I don't want to be put with someone that doesn't know the basics of the game. 

  • The amount of players now playing is more than we have had for the last year :smile: 

    Are you certain of that?  http://steamcharts.com/app/427270#1y  It looks like we got a launch bump and a steady decline ever since.
  • LorelleLorelle Member
    Random new players should not be trying to get 2 wins a day for a apprentice chest they should be dropping the quest to get the new exp quest instead and leveling by playing survival.  
    Currently the quest already defaults to winning two survival matches each day for 75 exp, and you have to drop it in order to get the quest for 2 sabotage wins for a chest.

    Extremely frustrating for those of us who don't care for 75 exp that you can get in two 6 minute apprentice bath runs, as it forces you to use your ONLY daily cancel just to get the sabotage quest, meaning if your other quest is something stupid like kill friggin' 250 enemies with Max's In Your Faces, you gotta deal with it.  However, at least it now no longer funnels newbies to Sabotage by default and now funnels them to survival (at least until someone else finally mentions to them or they find from the forums that they can cancel that quest to get the sabotage chest quest)
  • VarthftwVarthftw Member
    In would seem that something needs to change with the current system and there seems to be a lot of good opinions in here for devs to pull from. Hopefully something is changed because it seems a lot of players are not happy with the current system
  • I know the game currently can give you the xp quest instead of the Sabotage quest but that is a separate issues.     As far as this topic of changing the quest to play 2 sabotage games you can instead change it to complete x rounds of Sabotage ( Lets say 16 ie 2 full games).  So if you lose on the first wave you get 0 progress. If you lose on the second wave you get 1/16.  If you lose in overtime you get 8/16. No one will afk matches in that rule set if they do you just change it to get to round 4 in a Sabotage match in X games. They will play to win or play to lose, but they will play it out.   Either way much better then win 2 matches. 

    Also they should change it so if you queue as a 3 or 2 man team if no match is found after X mins it just disbands your team and throws you out of the queue with a message to queue with less players to find a match. This allows players to choose to wait a long time for a set team or to find a faster game. It also doesn't split the queue.

     All 3 of the changes I suggested would be more "fair" and would mitigate a lot of the badly designed current match making / sabotage game rules. 
Sign In or Register to comment.