Sabotage Matchmaking

13

Comments

  • mdragoonmdragoon Member
    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. 
    Completely agree with the first point, second one wouldn't be without friction but it might be a good idea to rip the idea from overwatch where you force premades vs premades and THEN fill in nearby skill levels. My belief is that the devs want teams to be known in sabotage as it adds some nuance to the mode.

    I would change it so it increments on wave start though, sabotage games take long enough to find that no one would really queue dodge because the amount of time to find a game is worth a few waves if not a whole game.
    Archivist of the Order, feel free to ask me any questions you have!
  • ChrifChrif Member
    Mate and I love orcs must die. We recently got shot up the rankings with the new system and so far our experience has been horrid. Constantly going up against 3 man teams, being put with someone who would not be gold rank. People forcing us to play their way of doing things and losing because of it because we can't sell there traps.

    I would be fine if the chest was just on completion. Probably just going to go back to playing survival and endless. We love playing 2v2 but 3v3 has brought mostly frustration.

    If the community limitations are such an issue why is it 3v3? If the community size is such an issue make it only 1v1 and 2v2, I don't really get why it is 3v3. It would reduce the load times for thing (this is not just coming from the fact that I play as a 2 man). 3 seems like a crowd on these small maps with collisions.
  • LVmonkeyLVmonkey Member
    ShadeDev said:
    We do not have the population to separate the matchmaker into multiple queues.

    If a fair match doesn't exist, we cannot create one.
    Then would that not point to a content issue? I mean that's one of the big reasons to make a game multiplayer; the lessened need to worry about content creation (as the other players become the content).

    if your games content is largely influenced by the other players... and you do not have the population to adjust the experience for said players... then do you not have a broken game for all the players? The difficulty is no longer scaled properly for anyone.

    Its the downside to multiplayer games... so then you'd hope you have your solo game down, so that people have something to work with... or at least work up trap levels with...  but even the solo games feel like they are really designed for multiplayer (co op at the very least). Some of them are really tough to balance solo.

    I personally really loved and miss the first and second Orcs games. With this push to multiplayer, it really takes out the strategy part and makes it more of a twitchy and constant game of  'trying to make up for what the other player is lacking' feeling, imho.

    What worked for those games has been some what lost in this one and it makes me sad. =/  
    The Free to Play multiplayer model doesn't work if there is not enough people. This game feels very shoe horned into that Free to Play model.
  • LorelleLorelle Member
    LVmonkey said:
    ShadeDev said:
    We do not have the population to separate the matchmaker into multiple queues.

    If a fair match doesn't exist, we cannot create one.
    Then would that not point to a content issue? I mean that's one of the big reasons to make a game multiplayer; the lessened need to worry about content creation (as the other players become the content).

    if your games content is largely influenced by the other players... and you do not have the population to adjust the experience for said players... then do you not have a broken game for all the players? The difficulty is no longer scaled properly for anyone.

    Its the downside to multiplayer games... so then you'd hope you have your solo game down, so that people have something to work with... or at least work up trap levels with...  but even the solo games feel like they are really designed for multiplayer (co op at the very least). Some of them are really tough to balance solo.

    I personally really loved and miss the first and second Orcs games. With this push to multiplayer, it really takes out the strategy part and makes it more of a twitchy and constant game of  'trying to make up for what the other player is lacking' feeling, imho.

    What worked for those games has been some what lost in this one and it makes me sad. =/  
    The Free to Play multiplayer model doesn't work if there is not enough people. This game feels very shoe horned into that Free to Play model.
    Honestly, there isn't really anything the developers can do about that.  If your issue with the game is the fact that it's online and multiplayer and all the design pros and cons that come along with such a thing, at that point you might as well ask them to make a new different game than this one, because they aren't going to make this game a not-online not-multiplayer not-free-to-play game any time soon (and by any time soon, I mean ever).
  • ElanorElanor 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.
    Are you thinkin really its your best thing that you can do?
  • JacowboyJacowboy Member, Early Access
    Elanor said:

    Are you thinkin really its your best thing that you can do?
    Well, do you think they wouldn't do it better if it was possible?? come on people, it's not like they do things out of spite... u_u
  • It's definitely possible.  

    I don't think they do it out of spite.  I think they do things because the design team is so out of touch with the actual experiences of the players.  Hell, you saw it yourself.  Anecdotes mean nothing.  Data is king.  

    They're slowly losing data again though, so perhaps one day the actual stories from the players will have an impact on the game.


    Here is a thought though.  If the matchmaker can't make a fair match, then you should probably let it do just that.  Nothing.  Don't have it give up and give players a bad experience.  That helps no one.
  • ShadeDevShadeDev Member, Robot Entertainment, Early Access, Apprentice Founder, Featured Developer
    It's definitely possible.  

    I don't think they do it out of spite.  I think they do things because the design team is so out of touch with the actual experiences of the players.  Hell, you saw it yourself.  Anecdotes mean nothing.  Data is king.  

    They're slowly losing data again though, so perhaps one day the actual stories from the players will have an impact on the game.


    Here is a thought though.  If the matchmaker can't make a fair match, then you should probably let it do just that.  Nothing.  Don't have it give up and give players a bad experience.  That helps no one.
    We've tried that, too.  It was very clearly worse.
    Doug Houserman
    Robot Entertainment | Lead Balance Designer
  • VarthftwVarthftw Member
    ShadeDev said:
    It's definitely possible.  

    I don't think they do it out of spite.  I think they do things because the design team is so out of touch with the actual experiences of the players.  Hell, you saw it yourself.  Anecdotes mean nothing.  Data is king.  

    They're slowly losing data again though, so perhaps one day the actual stories from the players will have an impact on the game.


    Here is a thought though.  If the matchmaker can't make a fair match, then you should probably let it do just that.  Nothing.  Don't have it give up and give players a bad experience.  That helps no one.
    We've tried that, too.  It was very clearly worse.
    Something needs to be changed if my alternate account cant win 2 sabo matches because im level 25 with some tier 3/4 and most people in caht wont group with a lower level for sabotage, and trying to queue solo just results in a lose because regardless of trying to setyup decent traps kill boxes the teammates are just not able to play correctly at all at my level against a group of stacked 3's group. taking 2+ hours to get one win at my level is a failure to the matchmaking. The only time I win is if the group of two are 80+ in levels with teir 6+ becuase they know what they are doing and are high level for dmg scaling. I shouldn't need to play for 4 hours to try to get two sabo wins.

    You the devs said you didn't want long queue times but if it takes 4+ hours to get two wins as a lower level than its even worse then having a longer fair queue time.
  • GrayDuudGrayDuud Member
    Varthftw said:
    ShadeDev said:
    It's definitely possible.  

    I don't think they do it out of spite.  I think they do things because the design team is so out of touch with the actual experiences of the players.  Hell, you saw it yourself.  Anecdotes mean nothing.  Data is king.  

    They're slowly losing data again though, so perhaps one day the actual stories from the players will have an impact on the game.


    Here is a thought though.  If the matchmaker can't make a fair match, then you should probably let it do just that.  Nothing.  Don't have it give up and give players a bad experience.  That helps no one.
    We've tried that, too.  It was very clearly worse.
    Something needs to be changed if my alternate account cant win 2 sabo matches because im level 25 with some tier 3/4 and most people in caht wont group with a lower level for sabotage, and trying to queue solo just results in a lose because regardless of trying to setyup decent traps kill boxes the teammates are just not able to play correctly at all at my level against a group of stacked 3's group. taking 2+ hours to get one win at my level is a failure to the matchmaking. The only time I win is if the group of two are 80+ in levels with teir 6+ becuase they know what they are doing and are high level for dmg scaling. I shouldn't need to play for 4 hours to try to get two sabo wins.

    You the devs said you didn't want long queue times but if it takes 4+ hours to get two wins as a lower level than its even worse then having a longer fair queue time.
    For this, you should not blame the matchmaker. Most people lose due to a lack of Teamplay. Everyone tries to enforce his tactics and thereby creates an ineffective formation of traps. So you should try to play with them instead of forcing them to play your way.

    I use only solo q and seem to have fewer problems than you have to. At the same time, I try to always be nice to other players.

    Sure, you always come to players who destroys all barricades, but you should  remember that you could have been too. ;)


  • VarthftwVarthftw Member
    GrayDuud said:
    Varthftw said:
    ShadeDev said:
    It's definitely possible.  

    I don't think they do it out of spite.  I think they do things because the design team is so out of touch with the actual experiences of the players.  Hell, you saw it yourself.  Anecdotes mean nothing.  Data is king.  

    They're slowly losing data again though, so perhaps one day the actual stories from the players will have an impact on the game.


    Here is a thought though.  If the matchmaker can't make a fair match, then you should probably let it do just that.  Nothing.  Don't have it give up and give players a bad experience.  That helps no one.
    We've tried that, too.  It was very clearly worse.
    Something needs to be changed if my alternate account cant win 2 sabo matches because im level 25 with some tier 3/4 and most people in caht wont group with a lower level for sabotage, and trying to queue solo just results in a lose because regardless of trying to setyup decent traps kill boxes the teammates are just not able to play correctly at all at my level against a group of stacked 3's group. taking 2+ hours to get one win at my level is a failure to the matchmaking. The only time I win is if the group of two are 80+ in levels with teir 6+ becuase they know what they are doing and are high level for dmg scaling. I shouldn't need to play for 4 hours to try to get two sabo wins.

    You the devs said you didn't want long queue times but if it takes 4+ hours to get two wins as a lower level than its even worse then having a longer fair queue time.
    For this, you should not blame the matchmaker. Most people lose due to a lack of Teamplay. Everyone tries to enforce his tactics and thereby creates an ineffective formation of traps. So you should try to play with them instead of forcing them to play your way.

    I use only solo q and seem to have fewer problems than you have to. At the same time, I try to always be nice to other players.

    Sure, you always come to players who destroys all barricades, but you should  remember that you could have been too. ;)



    GrayDuud said:
    Varthftw said:
    ShadeDev said:
    It's definitely possible.  

    I don't think they do it out of spite.  I think they do things because the design team is so out of touch with the actual experiences of the players.  Hell, you saw it yourself.  Anecdotes mean nothing.  Data is king.  

    They're slowly losing data again though, so perhaps one day the actual stories from the players will have an impact on the game.


    Here is a thought though.  If the matchmaker can't make a fair match, then you should probably let it do just that.  Nothing.  Don't have it give up and give players a bad experience.  That helps no one.
    We've tried that, too.  It was very clearly worse.
    Something needs to be changed if my alternate account cant win 2 sabo matches because im level 25 with some tier 3/4 and most people in caht wont group with a lower level for sabotage, and trying to queue solo just results in a lose because regardless of trying to setyup decent traps kill boxes the teammates are just not able to play correctly at all at my level against a group of stacked 3's group. taking 2+ hours to get one win at my level is a failure to the matchmaking. The only time I win is if the group of two are 80+ in levels with teir 6+ becuase they know what they are doing and are high level for dmg scaling. I shouldn't need to play for 4 hours to try to get two sabo wins.

    You the devs said you didn't want long queue times but if it takes 4+ hours to get two wins as a lower level than its even worse then having a longer fair queue time.
    For this, you should not blame the matchmaker. Most people lose due to a lack of Teamplay. Everyone tries to enforce his tactics and thereby creates an ineffective formation of traps. So you should try to play with them instead of forcing them to play your way.

    I use only solo q and seem to have fewer problems than you have to. At the same time, I try to always be nice to other players.

    Sure, you always come to players who destroys all barricades, but you should  remember that you could have been too. ;)


    This wasnt due to forcing people into my way or not being nice. I was nice and explaied what type of enimies would be expected each wave and we should build in a way to be ready for it. I was never rude about it or forceful about anything its literally only because they are low level and cant play the game well.
  • When did you try that?  Back with siege?  I remember 30 minute queues then.  I also remember a lot of people loving the mode and not hating that matchmaking made them wait, but that the design team would make the community wait for 2 months before exploits would be taken care of.  It wasn't a broken matchmaker that started the populations dwindling.  

    What killed your community and what still is, is the lack of speed used to fix problems plus a huge separation between the community and the design team on most issues. 

    It's amazing how many voices can express their opinions to you and you just turn a deaf ear to them.  I guarantee the community would be much healthier and a whole lot nicer in general if they did not have to deal with broken game mechanics for months at a time. 
  • VarthftwVarthftw Member
    again the problem on my lower account having difficulty was winning was every game was against a high level stacked 3 group and having two other low level teammates because the matchmaker thinks it fine after 2 mins to have a game like that.
  • Varthftw said:
    If players have trouble beating the tutorial than how to do you think a level 1 will do against level 100's?
    actually, there isn't much those level 100's can do to these level 1's. Minion health and damage are scaled according to the average team level. The only thing opponent team can do is those sabotage spell cards, whose power is independent of team levels and is way too weak anyway.

    It doesn't matter if these level 1's are facing level 100's or another level 1's team, if they can't defend, they can't defend. Sabotage is rather pve than pvp.
  • VarthftwVarthftw Member
    Varthftw said:
    If players have trouble beating the tutorial than how to do you think a level 1 will do against level 100's?
    actually, there isn't much those level 100's can do to these level 1's. Minion health and damage are scaled according to the average team level. The only thing opponent team can do is those sabotage spell cards, whose power is independent of team levels and is way too weak anyway.

    It doesn't matter if these level 1's are facing level 100's or another level 1's team, if they can't defend, they can't defend. Sabotage is rather pve than pvp.
    expect for a couple of things, which would be them having tier 6-7 traps and four useful traits that will give them a huge advantage.
  • Varthftw said:
    Varthftw said:
    If players have trouble beating the tutorial than how to do you think a level 1 will do against level 100's?
    actually, there isn't much those level 100's can do to these level 1's. Minion health and damage are scaled according to the average team level. The only thing opponent team can do is those sabotage spell cards, whose power is independent of team levels and is way too weak anyway.

    It doesn't matter if these level 1's are facing level 100's or another level 1's team, if they can't defend, they can't defend. Sabotage is rather pve than pvp.
    expect for a couple of things, which would be them having tier 6-7 traps and four useful traits that will give them a huge advantage.
    not really, again, minion health/HP is scaled by the average team level. Yes high account players have high tier traps and good traits, but minions are also tougher and hitting harder. The fact is that a team with all 3 lvl 100s will have a much harder time fighting minions than a team with lower levels.
  • When did you try that?  Back with siege?  I remember 30 minute queues then.  I also remember a lot of people loving the mode and not hating that matchmaking made them wait, but that the design team would make the community wait for 2 months before exploits would be taken care of.  It wasn't a broken matchmaker that started the populations dwindling.  

    What killed your community and what still is, is the lack of speed used to fix problems plus a huge separation between the community and the design team on most issues. 

    It's amazing how many voices can express their opinions to you and you just turn a deaf ear to them.  I guarantee the community would be much healthier and a whole lot nicer in general if they did not have to deal with broken game mechanics for months at a time. 
    Guess what guys? I didn't like waiting 30 minutes for a game. They removed siege get over it already. 

    The design team have improved a lot recently they are patching the game every 4 weeks or so and providing hot fixes when needed. So we are no longer waiting months, only a month now. And if it is a huge issue they will fix it in a week.
    Keep it secret, Keep it safe.
    New? Here are some Game Tipz.
  • LorelleLorelle Member
    I actually got into a Sabotage match with two players who had only red traps and the most basic of traps (to the point where I wouldn't be surprised if they were fresh out of the tutorial).   It was kinda funny how easily the enemies died to me because of the averaging scaling, although what really impressed me was that somehow those two managed to hold off the first of the two paths (Thuricvold Village, first path) in Sudden Death to the point where the orcs never reached the guardian instead of just crumpling and we actually managed to win (the enemy team wasn't a premade but they had premium heros like Temper and Tundra so I assume they were more experienced than the newbies I was with unless they just cashed at the start).  Not sure how a newbie Blackpaw and Max team managed to pull that off.  Most of that lane was filled with their newbie spike traps and a few concussive pounders where they could fit them.

    Although I did have to show them how to use barricades (another thing that makes me believe they were fresh off the tutorial).  At first they didn't place any barricades at all and even spike trapped the outside of the lanes where no minions would probably go without barricades to force them there.  Good thing you have a lot of time in the first set up phase.

    .....but yea, minions do indeed get autoscaled to go with the level of the team.
  • mdragoonmdragoon Member
    Lorelle said:
    I actually got into a Sabotage match with two players who had only red traps and the most basic of traps (to the point where I wouldn't be surprised if they were fresh out of the tutorial).   It was kinda funny how easily the enemies died to me because of the averaging scaling, although what really impressed me was that somehow those two managed to hold off the first of the two paths (Thuricvold Village, first path) in Sudden Death to the point where the orcs never reached the guardian instead of just crumpling and we actually managed to win (the enemy team wasn't a premade but they had premium heros like Temper and Tundra so I assume they were more experienced than the newbies I was with unless they just cashed at the start).  Not sure how a newbie Blackpaw and Max team managed to pull that off.  Most of that lane was filled with their newbie spike traps and a few concussive pounders where they could fit them.

    Although I did have to show them how to use barricades (another thing that makes me believe they were fresh off the tutorial).  At first they didn't place any barricades at all and even spike trapped the outside of the lanes where no minions would probably go without barricades to force them there.  Good thing you have a lot of time in the first set up phase.

    .....but yea, minions do indeed get autoscaled to go with the level of the team.
    knowledge goes a long way and i think a fallacy a lot of players fall into is that "Everything i learned in survival works here" when it isn't the case. survival is a race against a timer and the minions spawning where Sabotage is a lot of planning for possible threats which means you need a diverse setup that can handle almost everything in the game on every map.

    increasing enemy pathing length and increasing the amount of time enemies spend in trapped areas is often more important than traits and trap levels.

    The most solid advantage any three person team has in sabotage is communication and experience playing with the other people in their group and i agree this is hard to do with random matchmaking and even harder to overcome when matched right.

    I've played with quite a few players personally who refuse to cooperate with their teams and newer players who have a sound grasp of the game and play very well despite having anymore than very basic traps. People also assume the early traps are weak which is also a falsehood in itself.
    Archivist of the Order, feel free to ask me any questions you have!
  • I'm just so frustrated right now.
    Players in a party should not be able to participate in sabotage.
    Or at least make it "party vs party" instead of "party vs 3 solos".
    It gives the party such an unfair advantage.
    They are usually super high level players.
    Meanwhile, my party consists of low level players thanks to match making.
    It happens way too often!


Sign In or Register to comment.