Opt-in matchmaking to improve the quality of PVP

[bethekey.8314]

One of my biggest gripes about PVP is being placed in a match that is very clearly 1 good player and 4 mediocre players versus the same. Not only do these players often have different motivations to queue (e.g. competition vs. just a game, bro), but the difference in skill level is frustrating. Good players are forced into playing professions or builds that are capable of "carrying" just to feel like they aren't subject to the whims of the inexperienced majority. Mediocre players get smashed and demoralized. Frustrated advice is taken as personal criticism and the match devolves into a blame game.

Games where skill level is balanced well across all players on a team are enjoyable. Both winning and losing feel earned. Sadly, these games are a rarity with the declining PVP population. Match-making does its best (I assume) to accomplish this, but I feel it could be better. What about integrating an opt-in system for match-making, where players choose the skill level they'd like to be paired with (up to the player's level) at the cost of additional wait time? For example, a plat player could choose to only be matched with plat and gold players, wait longer, but experience more enjoyable games.

With an opt-in system, games would meet a player's expectations. If you want a difficult match with your peers, sure, just wait longer. If you want to mess around with new builds or play a large volume of games, sure, don't filter players out. This has the great benefit of reducing toxicity. If you purposefully accept a certain caliber of player beforehand, the consequence of that decision is now on you, not them.

Has this been suggested before? What drawbacks do you see? To be clear, it would be a voluntary system where no input from the player equates to the status quo.

[Mbelch.9028]

IMO, that's ranked vs unranked. The problem with the offseason is all the ranked players go into unranked.

[bethekey.8314]

I've heard many people complain about poorly balanced ranked matches.

[Ario.8964]

I may just be misunderstanding this, but doesn't that leave the door open for high level/skill players to purposefully select that they'd like to be paired against people lower than them for potentially easier matches (if they duo or triple q)?

[bethekey.8314]

@"Ario.8964" said:I may just be misunderstanding this, but doesn't that leave the door open for high level/skill players to purposefully select that they'd like to be paired against people lower than them for potentially easier matches (if they duo or triple q)?

Good point. I imagined it as a choice between "hard" or "normal", with the current system including the widest variety of players. Opting in would only filter out lower tiered players, increasing the difficulty but also the enjoyment (for some).

[Stand The Wall.6987]

@Ario.8964 said:I may just be misunderstanding this, but doesn't that leave the door open for high level/skill players to purposefully select that they'd like to be paired against people lower than them for potentially easier matches (if they duo or triple q)?

you could disable or severely limit point gain past a certain threshold.

[rwolf.9571]

I would love for anet to implement this, sadly it won't pass. When you are already waiting 2-3x the average que time, to get paired against ppl who are in 1 whole division above you every other match (In low mid-gold, playing against ppl with titles in top 100 / 25 aka plat 2 / 3). It's highly unlikely with this low population.

All you can do pretty much is hold on for a rough ride, when half the matches are blowouts. Last season being the worse at 3/4 times the match is a blow out (Win or Lose)

The only time (maybe with rose tinted glasses) there was balanced matchmaking was in the first 4? seasons. But the caveat that top tier players had to wait up to 1 hour for a ranked match. (but around 15-20min if your above average player)

[GoQ.1048]

• select ranked game according to my divison (q times can take longer)

no other option required that would put players purposfully into higher or lower brackets.

good suggestion. i gladly wait half an hour or longer instead of a mental rollercoaster.

[bethekey.8314]

@shinta.8906 said:

• select ranked game according to my divison (q times can take longer)

no other option required that would put players purposfully into higher or lower brackets.

good suggestion. i gladly wait half an hour or longer instead of a mental rollercoaster.

Thanks, that's probably the simplest and best way to implement it. I do wonder what the queue times would become, however.

[Generalissimo.8602]

With an already small player-base, adding ways to split it further just seems like a fundamentally bad idea.

[bethekey.8314]

@Generalissimo.8602 said:With an already small player-base, adding ways to split it further just seems like a fundamentally bad idea.

Yes, filtering out players increases wait times. However, this is voluntary.

Instead, the current system forces players to play with those much less experienced than them. I'd argue that this frustrating experience disproportionately pushes out the best players, who have the biggest impact on player base (e.g. through teaching, streaming, tournaments).

[Generalissimo.8602]

@bethekey.8314 said:

@Generalissimo.8602 said:With an already small player-base, adding ways to split it further just seems like a fundamentally bad idea.

Yes, filtering out players increases wait times. However, this is

voluntary

.

Instead, the current system

forces

players to play with those much less experienced than them. I'd argue that this frustrating experience disproportionately pushes out the best players, who have the biggest impact on player base (e.g. through teaching, streaming, tournaments).

Even if it's voluntary, adding another queue would still negatively affect everybody else as it would reduce the pool of players for the normal queue, which would lead to either longer wait times, even more mismatched teams or (probably) both. If the nature of the problem is that there aren't enough players for the matchmaking system to do it's job properly, any extra sub-divisions of the player-base is going to make that problem worse.

[bethekey.8314]

@Generalissimo.8602 said:

@bethekey.8314 said:

@Generalissimo.8602 said:With an already small player-base, adding ways to split it further just seems like a fundamentally bad idea.

Yes, filtering out players increases wait times. However, this is

voluntary

.

Instead, the current system

forces

players to play with those much less experienced than them. I'd argue that this frustrating experience disproportionately pushes out the best players, who have the biggest impact on player base (e.g. through teaching, streaming, tournaments).

Even if it's voluntary, adding another queue would still negatively affect everybody else as it would reduce the pool of players for the normal queue, which would lead to either longer wait times,

even more

mismatched teams or (probably) both. If the nature of the problem is that there aren't enough players for the matchmaking system to do it's job properly, any extra sub-divisions of the player-base is going to make that problem worse.

It does not significantly affect everyone; it disproportionately benefits and hinders the top players. I believe the benefits outweigh the potential downsides though.

Assuming a normal distribution of ranked players, the majority would experience minor changes in wait times and team composition because their player pool is large. Games for them should already be filled with their peers. If the best or worst players choose to restrict matchmaking to their rank, then yes, I could see it potentially increasing queue times for their peers. However, those who don't restrict matchmaking could still enter games with those who do. In other words, the sub-divisions aren't as hard as you're making them out to be.

Without actual data for the queuing population of players over time, how many people would use this option etc., both your and my arguments are largely speculative though.

[Vicariuz.1605]

I would use this option ~90% of the time, I'm more concerned with match quality than volume. There are points during the season where I would queue without this filter to grind pips for the chest as it is still very valuable, but ultimately I prefer to play with and against those of my own skill level, regardless of wait time.

For reference I'm a plat3/legend player, and waiting 30 minutes for an actual game would be more "fun" to me than a roller coaster ride every time I queue.

[MrFrusciante.2438]

@"Vicariuz.1605" said:I would use this option ~90% of the time, I'm more concerned with match quality than volume. There are points during the season where I would queue without this filter to grind pips for the chest as it is still very valuable, but ultimately I prefer to play with and against those of my own skill level, regardless of wait time.

For reference I'm a plat3/legend player, and waiting 30 minutes for an actual game would be more "fun" to me than a roller coaster ride every time I queue.

Exactly this, I WANT GOOD GAMES. I don't want shitty 500-150 games where im bored out of mind or getting salty at someone who has no business in my matches. I just want good fights regardless of win/loss. This is especially hard when the average gold 2 doesn't even understand basics or bothers to read the map. I don't want to waste my time yelling at the engi who just zerged mid leaving home for freecap only to roll and lose 2 points because they cant be bothered to look at the corner of their screen and watch enemy rotations which should be one of the first things they learn to do multitasking wise. That player has no business queing and the best part of it is that when you tell them to read the map they take it like its an insult.

something needs to change. a lot of people including myself are getting fed up with these awful ques and just plain leaving the game. I literally play like 50 games at the beginning of season now regardless of wins/losses just for minimum games, quit til late mid/end season que and then finish season high plat with duo partner. we shouldn't be forced into playing at certain points or timezones if we actually want to get to where we normally place just so we have good matches....

I should be able to log in at any point and be qued with people of EQUAL skill it shouldn't be conditional.

[Impact.2780]

I honestly don't know how the devs can make the matches as good as they were 4 years ago, short of rolling back 4 years worth of updates. The year before HoT release was the peak of PvP match quality and competition. I think maybe if a lot of much needed changes were made earlier, or at launch, it would have lasted longer, and maybe even rolled over into subsequent releases.

You can see it's not an "L2P" issue for everyone who gets frustrated from loss streaks. When the seasons started, people placed in plat2+. Then lower, and ANet adjusted the boundaries. Several seasons later, people who placed plat consistently are now placing gold. People who placed gold are in silver etc. but overall it's closer together because matchmaking is a mess, compositions are a mess, and more people have no idea what they are doing than ever, which often puts 4 of them with 1 poor soul trying to actually climb and improve, looking for those competitive matches.

One needed feature which would still help tremendously, is role-allocation. Based on the stats from your amulet/runes, a new "first level" of the matchmaking system should identify any roles based on those stats that any given player fits into, and the matchmaking engine should then seek to build a workable composition. e.g. someone with healing above a certain value is identified as support, and another with a high toughness value as a team fighter or "bruiser." Obviously it'd be hard to go further and determine how they would actually play, i.e. as a holder or point assaulter for example, so it needs to be kept general. But even that would be enough to enable better matches, because we could get teams with 2-3 damage dealers, 1-2 bruisers, 1-2 supports. If more people play these others roles then others will learn how to play WITH them in their team, and matches will improve. Workable compositions consistently through matches is one of the reasons mobas are so successful in PvP.

If you want competition, you need competitive builds, compositions and strategies. We can't force builds or strategies but we can do compositions. Otherwise, the next best thing is matching class-to-class.

[De Bourgogne.9642]

@bethekey.8314 said:

@"Ario.8964" said:I may just be misunderstanding this, but doesn't that leave the door open for high level/skill players to purposefully select that they'd like to be paired against people lower than them for potentially easier matches (if they duo or triple q)?

Good point. I imagined it as a choice between "hard" or "normal", with the current system including the widest variety of players. Opting in would only filter out lower tiered players, increasing the difficulty but also the enjoyment (for some).

It is not 'hard' vs 'normal' it is rather with and against same skill level of players vs getting worse players on your and enemy team. In second scenario you have many negative scenarios:

• you completely smash enemy team and learn nothing from that game,
• you can't win because your team mates happen to be worse than the enemy team and you are frustrated by their gameplay (especially macro decisions),
• you destroy everyone in a 1v1 learning nothing from it,
• you win a 1vX which would be practially impossible against players of your skill level and you might try doing that in a game vs your skill level of players and die.

[MrFrusciante.2438]

InB4 you guys say something Forum Moderator.5907 just came through and wiped my thread about MMR mismatches with no explanation and to my knowledge no ToS breakage.

I guess people cant speak their minds here....

[bethekey.8314]

@McPero.3287 said:

@bethekey.8314 said:

@"Ario.8964" said:I may just be misunderstanding this, but doesn't that leave the door open for high level/skill players to purposefully select that they'd like to be paired against people lower than them for potentially easier matches (if they duo or triple q)?

Good point. I imagined it as a choice between "hard" or "normal", with the current system including the widest variety of players. Opting in would only filter out lower tiered players, increasing the difficulty but also the enjoyment (for some).

It is not 'hard' vs 'normal' it is rather with and against same skill level of players vs getting worse players on your and enemy team. In second scenario you have many negative scenarios:

• you completely smash enemy team and learn nothing from that game,
• you can't win because your team mates happen to be worse than the enemy team and you are frustrated by their gameplay (especially macro decisions),
• you destroy everyone in a 1v1 learning nothing from it,
• you win a 1vX which would be practially impossible against players of your skill level and you might try doing that in a game vs your skill level of players and die.

By "normal", I just meant the current matchmaking system. Labeling equal matchups as "hard", compared to some of the awful team imbalance situations you run into with current matchmaking, might be a mistake. I think everyone agrees the ideal situation is having two equal skill teams. How far are we willing to go for that though?

@MrFrusciante.2438 said:InB4 you guys say something Forum Moderator.5907 just came through and wiped my thread about MMR mismatches with no explanation and to my knowledge no ToS breakage.

I guess people cant speak their minds here....

I think they can be touchy about language.

[Trevor Boyer.6524]

Something like this is a great idea. I'm not sure why this thread isn't getting more attention.

The best implementation of this that I can think of, would simply be allowing players to choose how long they are willing to wait in their queue. If you want a quick match with risky match matching, select 3-5 minute queue. If you want better match making, select 5-7 minute queue. If you want the match making to work the way it was intended to work, select 10-15 minute queue.

So this essentially would allow the community to sort of naturally sort this issue out, by allowing them to choose their own wait times.

Of course the details behind this and under the queue button are complex, but I'll save discussing that for if anyone shows further interest.

[White Kitsunee.4620]

I hope your ready for long ques LOL.

I was just listening to a video about this very problem in TF2, where if you get the top rank your ques go longer then games do since if refuses to que you with lower level opponents.

[zoopop.5630]

@White Kitsunee.4620 said:I hope your ready for long ques LOL.

I was just listening to a video about this very problem in TF2, where if you get the top rank your ques go longer then games do since if refuses to que you with lower level opponents.

what's the issue with that ?

If i'm In plat 3 and getting paired against a full plat 1-2 team while it's just myself and low plat/gold players i'll take the longer que time without an issue. IF i'm going to lose 17-21 points for a horribly match up game that's going to get me pissed off then i'll rather take my chances for a 15-20min wait JUST to have a FAIR game. At least then i'll be LESS salty over it and I know someone won't be AFK sitting on mid or running aimlessly toward mid every single time they come off respawn.

Some of you guys probably Never played in any other Rank game before at all. In League of legends Rank High plat and low Diamond que times are usually way over 8 mins. No one complains about it as much because it's always a balance match up.

[White Kitsunee.4620]

@zoopop.5630 said:

@White Kitsunee.4620 said:I hope your ready for long ques LOL.

what's the issue with that ?

20 to 30 minute ques is a problem, there is no question about that.Now I'm not saying pursuing better que options is a bad idea, I'm just saying be careful what you wish for.

[bethekey.8314]

@White Kitsunee.4620 said:20 to 30 minute ques is a problem, there is no question about that.Now I'm not saying pursuing better que options is a bad idea, I'm just saying be careful what you wish for.

While I wouldn't want 30 minute queues myself, there are definitely people who would for a guaranteed high-level game. With queue options, you'd always get what you signed up for though. It's hard to be upset at a 30 minute queue or a fast, mismatched queue if that's what you chose ahead of time.

I'm imagining something like a slider between higher quality matches or faster queue times.

[Trevor Boyer.6524]

A few things to note:

1. Most plat 1+ players almost entirely unanimously agree that'd they'd be willing to wait 20+ minutes for high quality games. This is what I have been hearing from everyone, whether in forum or in game or in discord.
2. There is plenty to do while waiting in a queue for a match. 1) Warm up in ffa. 2) Warm up in a 1v1 server. 3) Go into wvw. 4) Work on a map clear. 5) Talk to people in map chat. 6) ect ect ect. Too many people imagine that a 20 minute queue means standing there doing nothing, but doing that is every individual player's choice.
3. Many people are already meta gaming wait times between 20-30 minutes before queuing matches, if not several hours or days so they can get better quality matches. <- This is an unfortunate fact, and highly responsible for why things seem inactive at times. Ironically enough, by trying to keep this fast queue times in low population seasons where 1300s go against 1700s, it is actually encouraging avoiding play as much as you can, rather than playing as much as you want, because of how ridiculously risky it is to hit that queue button right now.

I really believe that a little bit of added wait time to enhance the precision of the algorithm, would actually encourage more participation in ranked seasons, when people aren't worried about who's team has more high plats vs. who's team has the most low golds & silvers.

A statement in my own words:

"I would rather play only 2 or 3 games in the span of 2 hours that had very precise match making, than play 8 games in 2 hours that felt like dice rolling."

For those of you who ONLY played unranked/ranked, I'm not so sure you guys recognize what you're missing out on, concerning how fun this game actually is when the match is balanced. Because I'll tell you what, after a good night of scrims where two teams are very evenly matched, it can be hard to go back and stomach ranked play sometimes.