49 replies to this topic

[Amidatelion]

But that's his greatest redeeming quality!

 

You spelled "only" wrong.

[hestoned]

you guys dont care about MMR because you dont have any.

[StubbornPuppet]

...snip...

However, when at the end of a match you see way too evident unbalanced scores in between teams completing a match then I find that to be pretty obvious about that team balancing internals must be tweaked a.s.a.p. Does not occur often but some times that becomes in the well known situation we're discussing from many perspectives in the forums..

...snip...

 

The team balancer actually works very well.  The problem with imbalanced teams cannot be solved with our current low player-base count.  The imbalances are a result of matches starting without being full - or when a few players leave mid-match.

 

The ways to solve the team-balance problem actually create more problems than they solve:

One of these "solutions" requires restricting matches from starting without being full (or at least 'mostly' full)... or you have to force players who join a match in progress to 'sit' in limbo until another player of equal skill also joins... or for enough other players to join to find a way to distribute them in a manner that creates balance.  PROBLEM:  Nobody wants to sit in limbo waiting... and waiting... and hoping that another player or two joins that satisfies the matchmakers criteria for balance.  And since smurf accounts break this system anyhow - it's a big "nope".

 

Another way is to force a shuffle of teams mid-match every time a new player joins (or quits).  People are already mad as hell when they get force switched during an imbalanced match - imagine if it happened to a bunch of players and happened multiple times per match.  It's just not fun to put your best into a game and then suddenly be forced to play for the other team - especially since you have to be 'killed' in order for the game to do so.  So, this is a big "nope" as well.

 

When/if the day comes that Hawken has a huge pool of players, the current matchmaking algorithm can be adjusted back to the way it used to (preventing huge MMR spreads) and the requirement for mostly full matches before starting could work.  Beyond that, the balance will always be open to some lopsidedness due to bad player behavior.

[harmless_kittens]

Does this suggestion sound unreasonable?  When there are equal numbers of players on both sides (say, 4 v 4), and another player joins, have them automatically go to the side that is losing the battle at the time?  Instead, the way it works now seems to be that if my team received the last player to join, then the next new player to join will automatically go to the other team.  But if my team is already losing my 5 or more, the MM has likely made the situation WORSE by adding another mech to the enemy side.  This results in more players on my team quitting mid-match, which is not a good thing, and then you have a lopsided 40-15 match by the end :(

 

I'm not suggesting allowing one team to have 2 more mechs than the other team.  Only that when there is an equal number of mechs, the losing side could definitely use the boost of another player, rather than MM just "taking turns" by adding new mechs to each team alternatively.

 

Also, I don't feel that friends should be able to "team-up" in TDM matches.  I've seen multiple cases where my fellow "noobs" were stomped on by two 500+ points vets who admitted they were teaming up.

[StubbornPuppet]

Does this suggestion sound unreasonable?  When there are equal numbers of players on both sides (say, 4 v 4), and another player joins, have them automatically go to the side that is losing the battle at the time?

 

That IS how it works now.

 

When a new player joins a match they are given the following priorities for placement:

 

1. Placed on team with fewest players.

2. If teams are 'even', player is placed on losing team.

[Amidatelion]

Does this suggestion sound unreasonable?  When there are equal numbers of players on both sides (say, 4 v 4), and another player joins, have them automatically go to the side that is losing the battle at the time?  Instead, the way it works now seems to be that if my team received the last player to join, then the next new player to join will automatically go to the other team.  But if my team is already losing my 5 or more, the MM has likely made the situation WORSE by adding another mech to the enemy side.  This results in more players on my team quitting mid-match, which is not a good thing, and then you have a lopsided 40-15 match by the end :(

 

I'm not suggesting allowing one team to have 2 more mechs than the other team.  Only that when there is an equal number of mechs, the losing side could definitely use the boost of another player, rather than MM just "taking turns" by adding new mechs to each team alternatively.

 

Also, I don't feel that friends should be able to "team-up" in TDM matches.  I've seen multiple cases where my fellow "noobs" were stomped on by two 500+ points vets who admitted they were teaming up.

 

Immediate counter: a situation where one team is now losing by 1 or 2 because a high-tier joined 3 minutes ago. They are still losing, but momentum says they will be winning within a minute. A high-MMR player is assigned to that team. The situation is exacerbated.  

 

Also, go ahead and name the vets. Partying up only exacerbates an extant problem, and they should a) know better and b) be more eager to play someone at their level - you know, an actually engaging gameplay experience.

[StubbornPuppet]

^Oh, don't get me started on the stupidity of the party system always keeping players on the same team.  It should have NEVER been done that way.  If you want to be in a party, great!  But it should split the parties onto separate teams according to what creates the best balance - if you and your buddies in the party can be on the same team and balance is still retained, fantastic.  But a big NO, NO, NO!!! to always being guaranteed to be on the same team.

[crockrocket]

Yeah parties need to be able to go on opposite teams. A party feature to get into the same lobby is fine, but with parties going to the same team it really throws off balance.

[harmless_kittens]

I'm glad to hear the MM does assign the odd player to the losing team.  Thanks for that info.  Sad to hear about the teaming up part not being addressed though.  I think teaming up should only place you in the same match, but follow normal matchmaking rules otherwise for what team you go on.

[ATX22]

I'd rather see the party system removed completely for the near term. If the community were large enough, people in a party should be in a completely separate queue than your lone wolf PUG players.

If retained, then yeah guarantee players end up on the same server, but not the same team.

People on the same team, in a party, especially when using a 3rd party VoIP app isn't helping the balance issues (or grief-Ing others into bailing out of the server) Provided they're any good at playing Hawken.

Edited by ATX22, 20 April 2016 - 12:27 PM.