5 replies to this topic

[brackets]

When the autoqueue looks to add additional players to unbalanced matches, it should consider how frequently the player tends to abandon matches. This is to prevent cases where the autobalancer adds a player who frequently abandons matches (particularly when they are losing) and that player proceeds to quit,  leaving their team in an even worse position than before.

[bacon_avenger]

And what would the system do with a player that passes the threshold of quits?  I'm assuming something not good (AKA punished)...

 

The problem with this approach is how does one tell if the quits from earlier matches are from dodgy 'net connections, computer crashes, etc, and not legit 'ef this, I'm out' quits?  Also, what time frame would be looked at?  Does the count drop after a set amount of time?  And how does one account for alt accounts?

 

It would suck to be punished for things that are outside of ones control.

[brackets]

The idea isn't to punish players. Maybe it'll be slightly harder for players who frequently quit to find matches, but they'll be able to join matches at the start just fine and they'll be able to select matches from the server list as they normally would. The autobalancer, however, will avoid placing them in an unbalanced match. The purpose is to put players in unbalanced matches who will stay in those matches to make them less unbalanced. The question is, how do you determine how likely a player is to stay in a match.

 

There are a lot of factors which contribute to whether a specific player will leave or quit, a few of which you've pointed out. These factors can't reliably indicate whether or not a specific player will abandon a match, however, because they are often unpredictable and different players respond differently to different factors. The most reliable metric to use, then, is how frequently they've abandoned matches in the past -- which isn't perfect but is better than nothing.

[VisionCloud]

An idea I had along time ago went something like this:

If you abandon a match, you can't join any game (except the game you left, back on the team you left) until either:

1. That game ends.
2. That game fills up.

Rage-quitting really is one of the biggest banes of Hawken and the largest reason for matches being "unbalanced." If we could reach the right balance, everyone would be better off.

 

This would make it so people aren't penalized if their internet cuts out or their game crashes, or their power goes out, or they need to go for that real life stuff, but make it so that people are far less likely to rage quit.

For the most part it is a pretty simple methodology. If people think that is too harsh, it could be a timer instead, and maybe a stacking timer based on how many games they quit. Quit one game in a certain time period, and you have to wait 60 seconds to join a new one. Quit two games, and you have to wait 3 minutes. 3 games: 10 minutes. I mean I'm spitting out arbitrary times, but you get the picture.

Edited by VisionCloud, 30 March 2015 - 07:52 PM.

[Anichkov3]

Why is online all constantly want to punish the output of the matches? Why no one wants to think - why people come out of the game?

YES I DO! Because of the often bad balance teams. 

So explain to me why a person should get punished because he was not comfortable in the match?

If he see out the match he gets the money and experience. If you walked out of the match, he gets nothing. It is an honest approach.

You must not think about how to cause more inconvenience to the player. You have to think how to improve the balance in the game, right?

We know that in the first half of the match, the system works Auto Switching from one team to the difference in the number of players on the team for >2. 

 

So why not to rebalance the teams in the first half of the match? 

In the following way:

If the number of players per team is odd (ie 3/4, 4/5, 5/6), and the match comes a new player. 

Then it becomes an even number of players (4/4; 5/5; 6/6). The system then automatically analyzes teams autobalance the teams. And if there is a strong bias in the balance switches teams of two players on the team. Ie every team chooses one player; which is followed change of the team. 

 

Thus the balance will be achieved teams in the first half of the match in the event of a change of teams (someone came out, someone came).

 

Are you unhappy that you switch to another team? Kindly gentlemen, then there is nothing to whine like a baby here in the forum in search of "fairness" - "punish these players," "remove this mech", "remove the weapons," "nerf one, two, three," etc.

[vonbach]

A better matchmaking system to keep low levels and high levels separate would go a long way to

breathing more life into this game.