4v4 - perceived balance and match making

If you're also going to segment arranged and non-arranged teams, then pretty much nobody will be getting games with the small number of people searching at any given time. This problem will be amplified with larger team sizes. The current situation is not ideal, but splitting is definitely not the solution. Poor matches are (marginally) better than no matches - see CoH1 automatch for AT.

Food for thought - if there are so few allies, then they should be getting matched with an equivalent axis of close skill level. Since there's so many Germans across all skill ranges, an allied team had the benefit of choosing the closest one. Unless, that is, players who have searched over 5 minutes get priority in the queue over equal skill opponents (who are searching less than 5 mins). Then in that case this prioritization is causing the gross mismatch between games.

If you're also going to segment arranged and non-arranged teams, then pretty much nobody will be getting games with the small number of people searching at any given time. This problem will be amplified with larger team sizes. The current situation is not ideal, but splitting is definitely not the solution. Poor matches are (marginally) better than no matches - see CoH1 automatch for AT.

No they are not. There is no point in playing a game where you already know at the loading screen that you will never win. It's a waste of time for all sides involved, but especially for the losing one. And yes, I very much look to the coh1 automatch as proof that the playerbase is no issue with it. Hell you can just implement a freaking checkbox that says "Also match to premade teams" when you are searching as randoms. Not that a single random player is likely to keep it checked.

Food for thought - if there are so few allies, then they should be getting matched with an equivalent axis of close skill level. Since there's so many Germans across all skill ranges, an allied team had the benefit of choosing the closest one. Unless, that is, players who have searched over 5 minutes get priority in the queue over equal skill opponents (who are searching less than 5 mins). Then in that case this prioritization is causing the gross mismatch between games.

No, because of how flawed the system is. It's not even about prioritization of long searching teams, it's simply that the system is looking for an elo match, people searching for a long time count as any elo value, and so you get instantly matched to them because it's the easiest matching for the system.

Indeed perceived balance is an important thing to look at. Nice input also, which i want to repeat and then add a little. First, the skill, or experience gap between players involved. The quoted posts below very nicely elaborate on that.

Based on a year of experience with random teamgame matching, the expanded search is purely onesided, ie. if an axis team has been waiting for a long time and has thus expanded their search to a humongous range, if any two players join the allies queue, they can get instantly matched to the axis players no matter how large the ELO differences are. So with the current generally 100% axis searching pattern, you get absolutely horrible matchmaking as allies which leads to even less players wanting to play allies.

There's also the issue of the system not differentiating between randoms and arranged teams, leading to even poorer matches. But this applies to both factions.

...The Solution would be to either, make Allies cooler, or change the Matchmaking algorithm, so that no matter how long you wait, you wont get paired with players way worse than you.

The negative effect of this would be, that Axis waittimes would be increased even more, but in the end the problem is here right now already. With the changes, you will need ages to find a balanced game, now you need ages to find a balanced game. But the added positive would be that maybe some more people would play Allies.

Another thing to factor in is the amount of coordination the favored gameplay needs. With randomly matched teams and the casual playerbase in general, to succeed in doing what the factions are proposed to do by the meta, allied play is more demanding in terms of coordination. With axis the objectives are pretty clear, the herd does the rest. With allies you have to keep the momentum, flank around, play as a team, use all directions for attacking.

Antoher perception deceiver is the scaling of players involved (2v2->3v3->4v4), withoug scaling the maps they are played on respectivly. Faction Design is made for a certain dynamic between factions and the possibilty of success is determined by the possibilty to follow the laid path. Maps are in relation very small, im certain map size is another reason allies feel less balanced; or are much harder in bigmodes.


How to solve those? Jumping into a game as allies for a quick joy, beeing matched horribly getting owned within 10 Minutes, dragging the game for another 15. Or on the other side going into rotation getting randomly matched, with most games ending in a decicive but not very fun victory. Since it indeed spoils enjoyment for a lot of players it is somehting to be solved, after all we love the game, right?

1.

Lichtbringer pretty much named the most obvious solution to what cruzz described. So, hardcap the allowed skill difference. Or incorporate a way to decide. Maybe an ample system with the possibility to confirm beeing matched against a team with much better elo rating.

2.

Improve random game mode. Make it search teams, possibly with amples. Confirm and go for the hunt. Still gives the possibilty to join teamgames when no one you know is arround, and increasing the Team aspect by featuring it hard. Allies need to coordinate. Out of 4 games i joined in 2 people dont communicate at all, ignore freindly hellos and questions about strategies. Beeing forced to start a game just to realize your teammates are defmute and dont know the hotkey for retreat is a bummer which would be avoided.

3.

Maps. Make. Them. Bigger. Im not sure if the amount of points in general should go up, or space alone would do. I'd love it if there would be a supersized map of one of the more problematic 4vs4 maps to check it out in practice.

From the previous posts, here is the solutions, i see implemented ASAP to improve 3vs3 or 4vs4:

-A random match button:
(1)The fastest matching option;
(2)Increased chances of drop; (Optional additional incentive if needed)

-A maximum Elo range (+/-) in which you can be matched; (Can be set to :
(1)Disable
(2)Set to a max of (X) or a max of (Y) a max of (Z)

-Always automatch arranged team vs arranged team and random team vs random team; (Can be disable with a check box for solo players)

-A enforce options check box :
(1)Set : No matching if criterias are not met.
(2)Disable : Will try to use the criterias first, but will ignore them progressively as waiting time increase.

Thanks for the great ideas, hoping Relic will hear us.

From the previous posts, here is the solutions, i see implemented ASAP to improve 3vs3 or 4vs4:

-A random match button:
(1)The fastest matching option;
(2)Increased chances of drop; (Optional additional incentive if needed)

-A maximum Elo range (+/-) in which you can be matched; (Can be set to :
(1)Disable
(2)Set to a max of (X) or a max of (Y) a max of (Z)

-Always automatch arranged team vs arranged team and random team vs random team; (Can be disable with a check box for solo players)

-A enforce options check box :
(1)Set : No matching if criterias are not met.
(2)Disable : Will try to use the criterias first, but will ignore them progressively as waiting time increase.

Thanks for the great ideas, hoping Relic will hear us.

Good ideas Voltar. I think (IIRC) DOTA2 and League of Legends already feature some of your suggestions.


These mobas have a "max" elo range to search. That way, you can get into a game faster, but generally the games will be fairly even. When you are searching as an arranged team, there is a very high chance you will as be matched against arranged teams as well.

@ OP

Noun's ELO explanation

Would you mind to elaborate your input?
(i can't see any context with the issue i'm trying to describe)

...
-Always automatch arranged team vs arranged team and random team vs random team; (Can be disable with a check box for solo players)...

Please don't separate randoms and ATs. That would limit overall games too much.
ATs just should have an ELO penalty when they play vs randoms, meaning they will face slightly (!) better random players on average, or obviously other ATs in their skill range.

Btw.: does anybody have more information on how new ATs get rated? Seems like they often start with a way too low ELO.
There should be some sort of personal AT rank, which de- / increases the initial ELO of the new AT in a way more agressive way than it currently seems to do (without the penalty though, because it's a new team).
> might be also a good thing for the leaderboard.



In my opinion the perceived balance is more broken than the actual balance - at least for the majority of players (not talking about pro vs pro here).
There's no point in granting some top players free wins, but alienate hundreds of others, who will stop playing before they ever become decent.

Would you mind to elaborate your input?
(i can't see any context with the issue i'm trying to describe)




Please don't separate randoms and ATs. That would limit overall games too much.
ATs just should have an ELO penalty when they play vs randoms, meaning they will face slightly (!) better random players on average, or obviously other ATs in their skill range.

Btw.: does anybody have more information on how new ATs get rated? Seems like they often start with a way too low ELO.
There should be some sort of personal AT rank, which de- / increases the initial ELO of the new AT in a way more agressive way than it currently seems to do (without the penalty though, because it's a new team).
> might be also a good thing for the leaderboard.



In my opinion the perceived balance is more broken than the actual balance - at least for the majority of players (not talking about pro vs pro here).
There's no point in granting some top players free wins, but alienate hundreds of others, who will stop playing before they ever become decent.

I don't think it would "separate" at and random, just ATs would get paired against AT of similar ski,lll more often. I would rather get a fair game rather than a quick game.

I don't think it would "separate" at and random, just ATs would get paired against AT of similar ski,lll more often. I would rather get a fair game rather than a quick game.

I was referring to this part, which i interpreted as a complete separation:

-Always automatch arranged team vs arranged team and random team vs random team; (Can be disable with a check box for solo players)

Of course they should focus on facing another AT, but it's not always possible.
That's why i suggested to throw in a slight penalty. You basically face slightly better random enemies, while having the teamplay advantage, which leaves you with a way larger overall player pool, and therefore results in more balanced games (maybe).