disable random players vs at teams

I think you didnt understand what I was saying. AT vs randoms is a non-issue because you can count the amount of actual tryhard-squads in CoH2 with 1 or 2 hands. The rest of them are some casual noobs playing together who either dont use voicechat or who talk about what they had for lunch today.

I win at least half of my random games versus arranged teams, because it's teams like this which you meet many times:


And keep in mind this is a "top 200" team of 4. No matter who my teammates are, it's pretty much a balanced match.


"Better coordination", yeah I'm sure Random McGee and his casual friends who play coh2 for 3 hours per week are gonna pull off some insane plays against you. And for the rare case you meet actual tryhard squads with bad teammates, you do the exact same as when you get trash random matchmaking: surrender or leave after few mins.

I am very sorry to ruin your coping.

If people are this penile about fighting better people, then why bother playing the game to begin with?

Shit is bad in coh2 as a randumb in team games simply because there are only ~6000 players online on average and each of them are fractioned up in different game modes or simply only do comp stomping.
(Also why on earth would you endure randoms in this game?)

If, and that is a big IF, Relic doesnt poop out another mediocre game, then AT's wont be a problem in coh3 simply because of a larger playerbase and the leaderboards working (in theory).

Alternativly, simply dont have CELO running and just play the game. I only play coh with my friends a couple of times per week and not all premades are terminators like aerafield, ishtari or sturmpanthe premades.

I am very sorry to ruin your coping.

You rly need to stop dropping the cope lines man, you do that every time when you have nothing sensible to say anymore

Aerafield saying premades are not good is hysterical. Hi, I am a statistical outlier that represents all players

And I laughed when I watched Sib playing some casual 4v4 games and stated "Oh man those guys lost 500 rank to us".

Yeah. Relic can go f*ck themselves. They are complete trash. Anyone who even thinks about buying coh3 has drunk the Kool Aid and has no right to even post on this website.

We can ask for a new website called RelictookadumponmyfaceandIlikedit.com for you morons.

There's kind of 2 auto-match threads going now, but I'll add here as well: The issue isn't arranged teams, it's how they're handled. On paper, it should be possible to match any arranged team (except for the absolute best) against a random team; a 4-stack of 5,000 rank players will not beat a random collection of top 200s, for example. The issue is the handling of arranged teams is extremely naive right now.

Firstly, as Rosbone pointed out, any new combination of players is handled as a completely new team: 4x "top 10" players playing together? Totally new team with no way of knowing their skill level until they play 10 "placement" games. Then, if 1 person leaves the group, and a different "top 10" player joins, despite it being 75% of the same team, automatch says "no, this is an entirely new team. 10 placement matches please". This is pretty much the worst way of handling it. Instead, use the data we do have (maybe they played 1v1 a lot), and use that as a starting point. Even better, use an over-all "hidden ELO" score that tries to rate the players "average" skill level for all factions and all modes that they've played, if only to place them better when trying a new mode/team/etc.

Secondly, as pointed out by Rosbone and others in this thread, the match-making system can give some really terrible matches. While it does give even matches sometimes, in less popular modes, or in less popular regions/time zones, it gives some truly awful matches. Or perhaps sometimes it gives awful matches regardless of the situation. In any event, it clearly needs to be worked on, as the current system is just not very good, and it ends up giving a lot of players a poor experience.

Thirdly, even if the existing system worked flawlessly, the actual implementation of arranged teams is pretty bad. As-is, it assumes that a 4-stack is exactly equal to 4x randoms provided their ranks are the same. This is pretty flawed, as chances are that the 4-stack has voice communications, experience playing with each other in the past, and pre-made strategies/combinations that they like. Meanwhile, the 4x randoms have none of this, and might not even communicate in the same language. As a result, even if the "ranks" are the same, we need to assume that the 4-stack will be playing much, much better. Perhaps something like:

Team ELO = ((arranged team size) / (game size)) * 1.2

This would mean that a full pre-made team would match with players with 20% higher ELO than they actually have, and it would scale for a 2-player pre-made in a 4v4 game, for example (a 2-stack in 4v4 would give +10%).

If people are this penile about fighting better people, then why bother playing the game to begin with?

Shit is bad in coh2 as a randumb in team games simply because there are only ~6000 players online on average and each of them are fractioned up in different game modes or simply only do comp stomping.
(Also why on earth would you endure randoms in this game?)

If, and that is a big IF, Relic doesnt poop out another mediocre game, then AT's wont be a problem in coh3 simply because of a larger playerbase and the leaderboards working (in theory).

Alternativly, simply dont have CELO running and just play the game. I only play coh with my friends a couple of times per week and not all premades are terminators like aerafield, ishtari or sturmpanthe premades.

Theory in COH2 has died years ago.

If a game gives the same possible ELO outcomes to 2 strangers vs 2 player AT, then the game is FUBAR.

There's kind of 2 auto-match threads going now, but I'll add here as well: The issue isn't arranged teams, it's how they're handled. On paper, it should be possible to match any arranged team (except for the absolute best) against a random team; a 4-stack of 5,000 rank players will not beat a random collection of top 200s, for example. The issue is the handling of arranged teams is extremely naive right now.

Firstly, as Rosbone pointed out, any new combination of players is handled as a completely new team: 4x "top 10" players playing together? Totally new team with no way of knowing their skill level until they play 10 "placement" games. Then, if 1 person leaves the group, and a different "top 10" player joins, despite it being 75% of the same team, automatch says "no, this is an entirely new team. 10 placement matches please". This is pretty much the worst way of handling it. Instead, use the data we do have (maybe they played 1v1 a lot), and use that as a starting point. Even better, use an over-all "hidden ELO" score that tries to rate the players "average" skill level for all factions and all modes that they've played, if only to place them better when trying a new mode/team/etc.

Secondly, as pointed out by Rosbone and others in this thread, the match-making system can give some really terrible matches. While it does give even matches sometimes, in less popular modes, or in less popular regions/time zones, it gives some truly awful matches. Or perhaps sometimes it gives awful matches regardless of the situation. In any event, it clearly needs to be worked on, as the current system is just not very good, and it ends up giving a lot of players a poor experience.

Thirdly, even if the existing system worked flawlessly, the actual implementation of arranged teams is pretty bad. As-is, it assumes that a 4-stack is exactly equal to 4x randoms provided their ranks are the same. This is pretty flawed, as chances are that the 4-stack has voice communications, experience playing with each other in the past, and pre-made strategies/combinations that they like. Meanwhile, the 4x randoms have none of this, and might not even communicate in the same language. As a result, even if the "ranks" are the same, we need to assume that the 4-stack will be playing much, much better. Perhaps something like:

This would mean that a full pre-made team would match with players with 20% higher ELO than they actually have, and it would scale for a 2-player pre-made in a 4v4 game, for example (a 2-stack in 4v4 would give +10%).

Decent points.

I would observe that the vast majority of people are FOR them, however a small but vocal minority opposes them in order to not "ruin" their plasmatically good streaks.

Most of them would suck in random 2v2 and I am willing to bet good money on this.

There's kind of 2 auto-match threads going now, but I'll add here as well: The issue isn't arranged teams, it's how they're handled. On paper, it should be possible to match any arranged team (except for the absolute best) against a random team; a 4-stack of 5,000 rank players will not beat a random collection of top 200s, for example. The issue is the handling of arranged teams is extremely naive right now.

Firstly, as Rosbone pointed out, any new combination of players is handled as a completely new team: 4x "top 10" players playing together? Totally new team with no way of knowing their skill level until they play 10 "placement" games. Then, if 1 person leaves the group, and a different "top 10" player joins, despite it being 75% of the same team, automatch says "no, this is an entirely new team. 10 placement matches please". This is pretty much the worst way of handling it. Instead, use the data we do have (maybe they played 1v1 a lot), and use that as a starting point. Even better, use an over-all "hidden ELO" score that tries to rate the players "average" skill level for all factions and all modes that they've played, if only to place them better when trying a new mode/team/etc.

Secondly, as pointed out by Rosbone and others in this thread, the match-making system can give some really terrible matches. While it does give even matches sometimes, in less popular modes, or in less popular regions/time zones, it gives some truly awful matches. Or perhaps sometimes it gives awful matches regardless of the situation. In any event, it clearly needs to be worked on, as the current system is just not very good, and it ends up giving a lot of players a poor experience.

Thirdly, even if the existing system worked flawlessly, the actual implementation of arranged teams is pretty bad. As-is, it assumes that a 4-stack is exactly equal to 4x randoms provided their ranks are the same. This is pretty flawed, as chances are that the 4-stack has voice communications, experience playing with each other in the past, and pre-made strategies/combinations that they like. Meanwhile, the 4x randoms have none of this, and might not even communicate in the same language. As a result, even if the "ranks" are the same, we need to assume that the 4-stack will be playing much, much better. Perhaps something like:

This would mean that a full pre-made team would match with players with 20% higher ELO than they actually have, and it would scale for a 2-player pre-made in a 4v4 game, for example (a 2-stack in 4v4 would give +10%).

Sums up the matter very well.

Thirdly, even if the existing system worked flawlessly, the actual implementation of arranged teams is pretty bad. As-is, it assumes that a 4-stack is exactly equal to 4x randoms provided their ranks are the same. This is pretty flawed, as chances are that the 4-stack has voice communications, experience playing with each other in the past, and pre-made strategies/combinations that they like. Meanwhile, the 4x randoms have none of this, and might not even communicate in the same language. As a result, even if the "ranks" are the same, we need to assume that the 4-stack will be playing much, much better. Perhaps something like:

This would mean that a full pre-made team would match with players with 20% higher ELO than they actually have, and it would scale for a 2-player pre-made in a 4v4 game, for example (a 2-stack in 4v4 would give +10%).

I'd be interested in a decent working way of calculating a good ratio of elo handicap AT vs randoms. What would be a good way to do that?

I'd be interested in a decent working way of calculating a good ratio of elo handicap AT vs randoms. What would be a good way to do that?

It would probably take a fair bit of work and testing; my initial suggestion of
Team ELO = ((arranged team size) / (game size)) * 1.2
might work, but it also means that if your entire group is in the top ~10% of players it'll take ages to find a match, as your team ELO will end up being higher than any actual players. It also doesn't work too well with large skill ranges.

After looking at it some more I think there are two other adjustments I'd want to make. Firstly, the 'penalty' needs to increase with raw number of players on the pre-made team. While a pre-made 2v2 is better than a random 2v2, coordinating with 1 random player (and getting a good random player) is a lot easier than 3 - so I would suggest a 4-stack in 4v4 should be penalized more than a duo in 2v2. Similarly, I also don't think taking a "raw average" is entirely valid, either; 3 'ok' players and 1 'top tier' player all on voice comms will do much better than 4 slightly-better-than-ok players, even if their average ELO is the same, as the 'top tier' player will be able to coordinate and advise the lower skilled players on builds, counters, and what to expect/do. As a result I'd suggest a weighted average where we estimate a group's skill to be slightly higher than the numbers suggest.

After a bit of work, this formula might do the trick; or at least work as a starting point.

Group ELO = (((Combined ELO / Group Size) + ((Highest ELO - Lowest ELO) * 0.15)) * (1.05 + (0.10((Group Size)/4)))

That's kind of a mess and maybe someone who's a math expert can clean it up. However, what it's doing is weighting the average ELO slightly towards the better player(s), and then scaling the "group penalty" up by 5% per group-filled player slot (i.e. 10% for 2 players in a group, 12.5% for 3, 15% for 4).

In the case of "mixed" teams (i.e. 2 groups, 1 group and a random, etc.) we multiply each "Group ELO" by the percentage that the group makes up; so 0.75 for a 3-stack in a 4v4, 0.5x for 2x2-stacks, etc. This is done instead of taking a simple average, as we want to put slightly more weight on having a large pre-made team.

Let's use an example of a 4-stack: 2200 ELO, 1500, 1300, 1200.

First half of the equation:
((2200 + 1500 + 1300 + 1200) / 4) + ((2200 - 1200) * 0.15) = (6200 / 4) + 150 = 1700 ELO average

Second half of the equation:
(1.05 + (0.10(4/4)) = 1.05 + (0.10(1)) = 1.15

Combined:
Group ELO = 1700 * 1.15 = 1955 Group ELO

By comparison, their average ELO is 1550 - so playing as a "4-stack" in 4v4 penalized them by 20.8%. Their best player will still be better than the opposing team by a slight amount (by 245 elo), but the remaining teammates will be facing strong opponents for their skill level (455, 655 and 755 elo higher).

Here are some other examples (and the work):
Show Spoiler

I'm sure there are better systems to use, and there might already be some out there, but this is what I can think of right now.

It would probably take a fair bit of work and testing; my initial suggestion of
Team ELO = ((arranged team size) / (game size)) * 1.2
might work, but it also means that if your entire group is in the top ~10% of players it'll take ages to find a match, as your team ELO will end up being higher than any actual players. It also doesn't work too well with large skill ranges.

After looking at it some more I think there are two other adjustments I'd want to make. Firstly, the 'penalty' needs to increase with raw number of players on the pre-made team. While a pre-made 2v2 is better than a random 2v2, coordinating with 1 random player (and getting a good random player) is a lot easier than 3 - so I would suggest a 4-stack in 4v4 should be penalized more than a duo in 2v2. Similarly, I also don't think taking a "raw average" is entirely valid, either; 3 'ok' players and 1 'top tier' player all on voice comms will do much better than 4 slightly-better-than-ok players, even if their average ELO is the same, as the 'top tier' player will be able to coordinate and advise the lower skilled players on builds, counters, and what to expect/do. As a result I'd suggest a weighted average where we estimate a group's skill to be slightly higher than the numbers suggest.

After a bit of work, this formula might do the trick; or at least work as a starting point.



That's kind of a mess and maybe someone who's a math expert can clean it up. However, what it's doing is weighting the average ELO slightly towards the better player(s), and then scaling the "group penalty" up by 5% per group-filled player slot (i.e. 10% for 2 players in a group, 12.5% for 3, 15% for 4).

In the case of "mixed" teams (i.e. 2 groups, 1 group and a random, etc.) we multiply each "Group ELO" by the percentage that the group makes up; so 0.75 for a 3-stack in a 4v4, 0.5x for 2x2-stacks, etc. This is done instead of taking a simple average, as we want to put slightly more weight on having a large pre-made team.

Let's use an example of a 4-stack: 2200 ELO, 1500, 1300, 1200.

First half of the equation:
((2200 + 1500 + 1300 + 1200) / 4) + ((2200 - 1200) * 0.15) = (6200 / 4) + 150 = 1700 ELO average

Second half of the equation:
(1.05 + (0.10(4/4)) = 1.05 + (0.10(1)) = 1.15

Combined:
Group ELO = 1700 * 1.15 = 1955 Group ELO

By comparison, their average ELO is 1550 - so playing as a "4-stack" in 4v4 penalized them by 20.8%. Their best player will still be better than the opposing team by a slight amount (by 245 elo), but the remaining teammates will be facing strong opponents for their skill level (455, 655 and 755 elo higher).

Here are some other examples (and the work):
Show Spoiler

I'm sure there are better systems to use, and there might already be some out there, but this is what I can think of right now.

interesting, thanks for your post.

My guess would have been a statistical approach, where you look in what elo difference range between ATs and Randoms the winratio was 50/50. THere should be some stuff like that already existing in other games. Does anyone know something about that?

YES YES YES!!!

Only player who like this are play on arranged team for seal clubbing because small penis mind (cultural saying).


Scenario 1:

Arrange team vs. Random: 90% time it is 5 minute waiting for queue then 15 or 20 minutes of stupid lopsided game, then it end, usually many player drop because why botehr?

Total time wasted: 20-30 minute

Scenario 2:

Random team vs Random team or Arrange teeam vs Arrange team: wiat time 10 minute but game is 70% more better/good game.

Facts.

You can also lose ladder rank on random team vs arranged, sometimes you lose A LOT. It is so so stupid.

https://ibb.co/NyS09j8

NS aerafield 111 - 1 / 67 winning streak. is taht you ? if yes why u even talking here lmao

A 67 win streak?

Jesus bois chill out and just have some fun already lol.

I can hear the cover being denied by barbed wire 0.0013 seconds into the match from here XD

We play every other week as an arranged team. We lose to better players in arranged teams, and we lose to better players in random teams. Stop trying to make matchmaking take longer than it already does.

It's not like arranged teams are all super hardcore pro gamers, most people just want to chat with their friends and have a fun time. Don't pretend they're all hivemind like. If you don't want to fight arranged teams on principle, play 1v1.

We play every other week as an arranged team. We lose to better players in arranged teams, and we lose to better players in random teams. Stop trying to make matchmaking take longer than it already does.

And I play in arranged team as allies, with casual mates, who A move blobs and dont use cover. We win against better arranged and random teams, because in discord I can tell them what to do, where to go and what to build.

Your point?

I really enjoy part of the community, who states AT arent a big deal. This argumentation is probably fully backed, by the fact that almost all games competitive games with MM are trying to match AT teams against other AT teams.

But hurr durr I am casual boomer, who just wants to play some WW2 RTS and move squads around, I have a car to fix and loan to pay, I dont want to wait additional 5 mins to get into fair game.

CoH2 already lost god knows how many players, simply because, aside from some masochists who dont mind, being put in unfair games is no fun for normal people.

And I play in arranged team as allies, with casual mates, who A move blobs and dont use cover. We win against better arranged and random teams, because in discord I can tell them what to do, where to go and what to build.

Your point?

I really enjoy part of the community, who states AT arent a big deal. This argumentation is probably fully backed, by the fact that almost all games competitive games with MM are trying to match AT teams against other AT teams.

But hurr durr I am casual boomer, who just wants to play some WW2 RTS and move squads around, I have a car to fix and loan to pay, I dont want to wait additional 5 mins to get into fair game.

CoH2 already lost god knows how many players, simply because, aside from some masochists who dont mind, being put in unfair games is no fun for normal people.

Exactly that my mate.

People who do nothing in life but play videogames cannot understand that, and resort to the classic "hurr durr learn to play noobcuck" while in reality, they are the cucks that spend every waking moment and time of their life in developing a skillset in a decade old rts that, by some miracle, still survives.

By day I am a mathematician trying to make it into the shitty academic world, and I get to play COH2 for MAYBE 5 matches a week, while at the same time working on 3 papers at once. I play COH2 to relax my nerves and this shitty MM system puts all the pressure in the "average" player. And everytime I bring that up, half the people here (who I presume are younger than 12 year olds) tell me to "suck less".

Wow gg.

AT isn't fun when you stomp your opponents unless that's your objective more than playing good games.

See the amount of smurfs as an indication of just how many players prefer ez mode stomps.

Also see the hilarious lowbies that drophack to preserve their ladder rankings.

As allies, I usually search up to see if the enemy team is in a premade while loading. Then if the ranks don't add up or they display overtly sweaty behaviour then I'll /l out of there. Plus axis premades have a bizarre habit of being toxic af.


I play this game to chill and have fun.

SS-OBERVIKINGDIVISION-SS and his 3 similarly larpish mates play it to fulfil some bizarre fetish.

We are not the same.

SS-OBERVIKINGDIVISION-SS and his 3 similarly larpish mates

Axis players who have names like this (on top of a wehrmacht field marshal as pfp) are also utter trash at the game every time so it makes no sense to dodge in the first place

As allies, I usually search up to see if the enemy team is in a premade while loading. Then if the ranks don't add up or they display overtly sweaty behaviour then I'll /l out of there. Plus axis premades have a bizarre habit of being toxic af.


I play this game to chill and have fun.

SS-OBERVIKINGDIVISION-SS and his 3 similarly larpish mates play it to fulfil some bizarre fetish.

We are not the same.

i felt attacked