Login

russian armor

Arranged teams should have their own MM pool.

6 Jan 2016, 11:02 AM
#1
avatar of Maschinengewehr

Posts: 334

I'm sick of it. Basically every time I crack the top 400 2v2 with USF I'm always facing arranged teams with a random teammate from auto. So they have better communication and coordination from the get go. How is that fair exactly? Voice com + organised strategies vs some randoms who probably don't even speak the same language is just crap.

ATs need their own damn matchmaking pool. Search times be damned in order to create fairer matchups. Cry away you damn pubstompers..

Edit: They already have their own separate leaderboard category. Why not in game also?
6 Jan 2016, 11:19 AM
#2
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

If you care for rank that much, get AT.

There won't be separate que, because there is not enough players.

This horse was beaten to death 3 years ago.
6 Jan 2016, 11:26 AM
#3
avatar of JohnnyB

Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1

Basicaly OP is right. The 2v2 pool is so empty that you will basically wait 15 minutes + if there will be separate pools for AT and randoms? Maybe. Then at least lelic should create an option for the random 2v2 seekers through which they are able to choose if they agree to include ATs in their search. I don't see how this would harm. If they want to wait for 20 minutes in order to get a game, should be their choice.
6 Jan 2016, 11:37 AM
#4
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 4314 | Subs: 7

It looks everything beatiful on paper but imagine how many teams are playing at once ? Really small amound.

When I was playing some time AT with achtarcher , we get 2 times team and other times it was 10 minutes waiting and then getting someone random.

It is really beutiful if we hav playerbase , but I dont want to wait 1 hour for game only because im in top 100 (almost top 50) best players.



try to find some 2v2 buddy to play. Someone will surely want to play on your rank
6 Jan 2016, 11:46 AM
#5
avatar of TheMachine
Senior Caster Badge

Posts: 875 | Subs: 6

There was a separate queue for arranged team 2v2 on Coh1, and it failed due to there never being enough people to make it work. Coh2 doesn't have enough of a player base for that to work.
6 Jan 2016, 11:53 AM
#6
avatar of AmiPolizeiFunk
Admin Black Badge
Patrion 15

Posts: 16697 | Subs: 12

Having separate matchmaking pools is unfeasible. Splitting the already small multiplayer playerbase is not the solution.

IMO the solution lies in actually showing MMR (or ELO+, whatever you want to call the player ratings) for ranked and showing the +/- of what you gained or lost at the end of the match. If the matchmaker struggled to find you an even match, and it took a really long time, then the chances are that you were indeed in a lopsided game. But the rating system should account for that in how many points you won or lost at the end. The problem is that Relic never shows you those points.

If you got crushed by a higher ranked team, you should lose less MMR. If you knew that at the end, you wouldn't be so upset about it. Conversely, if you crush some other noob team, you won't gain that much MMR.

The real fun is when you achieve an upset. If you beat a higher ranked team, you gain tons of MMR. If Relic simply showed you the points you gained you could experience the full joy of your triumph. Every game I enjoy playing in multiplayer does this (dota2, online blitz chess), and it makes the experience a helluva lot more fulfilling.
Phy
6 Jan 2016, 12:03 PM
#7
avatar of Phy

Posts: 509 | Subs: 1

Back in coh1 2vs2 AT was like a desert. Rarely you could find a balanced game so the complains were because you wanted to play with a friend but was impossible because of the lower playerbase.

I know it can be frustrating, but I prefer this system rather than split 2vs2 and being unable to have a balanced match in AT and Random aswell.
6 Jan 2016, 12:04 PM
#8
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

. The problem is that Relic never shows you those points.


They actually did in DoW2.
Post game you could see how much you gained or lost as well as opponents, there were still placement matches too.
And normal leaderboard on top of it all.
6 Jan 2016, 12:11 PM
#9
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 4314 | Subs: 7

6 Jan 2016, 12:34 PM
#10
avatar of Maschinengewehr

Posts: 334

Or what about reworking how each win/los is recorded for AT vs random?

Like i.e AT wins over randoms. AT win is recorded, random loss is not. Random win is recorded, AT loss is not. When its AT vs AT/Random vs Random then each win/loss is recorded as normal. Would present a more accurate representation no?

6 Jan 2016, 16:18 PM
#11
avatar of pigsoup
Patrion 14

Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2

Yesterday, Midconflict, Ohme and I "played" the game for an hour and half. But we played for half an hour.

Search for 20 minute, a potato computer causes the other team to leave after 5 minute of waiting in the loading screen... Search for 20 minute, a CELO using pussy quits in the loading screen so we convince other team to surrender and game lasts 5 minute... Next game, we find it after 5 minute of searching and another pussy quits after being flanked at 2:00 mark without losing a squad... pressed for time, we just play 3v2, trolling to get some fun out of this miserable night, making the game last 26 minute.

6 Jan 2016, 16:22 PM
#12
avatar of Inverse
Coder Red Badge

Posts: 1679 | Subs: 5

CoH1 AT was separate and it was fucking awful, at off-peak times you'd be waiting literally an hour or more to play. I remember practicing for a 2v2 tournament with Peacekeeper and literally waiting 2 hours to play a 10-minute stomp. Not to mention 3v3AT and 4v4AT would never in a million years work as separate queues because there wouldn't be enough teams searching.

Combining the AT and random pools is the best thing CoH2 has done for the multiplayer community. Separating them again would hurt 2v2AT and kill 3v3/4v4AT.
6 Jan 2016, 16:38 PM
#13
avatar of AvNY

Posts: 862

Having separate matchmaking pools is unfeasible. Splitting the already small multiplayer playerbase is not the solution.

IMO the solution lies in actually showing MMR (or ELO+, whatever you want to call the player ratings) for ranked and showing the +/- of what you gained or lost at the end of the match. If the matchmaker struggled to find you an even match, and it took a really long time, then the chances are that you were indeed in a lopsided game. But the rating system should account for that in how many points you won or lost at the end. The problem is that Relic never shows you those points.

If you got crushed by a higher ranked team, you should lose less MMR. If you knew that at the end, you wouldn't be so upset about it. Conversely, if you crush some other noob team, you won't gain that much MMR.

The real fun is when you achieve an upset. If you beat a higher ranked team, you gain tons of MMR. If Relic simply showed you the points you gained you could experience the full joy of your triumph. Every game I enjoy playing in multiplayer does this (dota2, online blitz chess), and it makes the experience a helluva lot more fulfilling.


Take it a step further. Show how many points you will win/lose based on the COMING match. Perhaps that relieves the sense of "injustice".

Personally I like the idea of a button that allows you, as a random, to opt out and wait longer. If the AT teams don't like this, they too can choose to go random and play with shorter wait periods.
6 Jan 2016, 16:45 PM
#14
avatar of AvNY

Posts: 862

CoH1 AT was separate and it was fucking awful, at off-peak times you'd be waiting literally an hour or more to play. I remember practicing for a 2v2 tournament with Peacekeeper and literally waiting 2 hours to play a 10-minute stomp. Not to mention 3v3AT and 4v4AT would never in a million years work as separate queues because there wouldn't be enough teams searching.

Combining the AT and random pools is the best thing CoH2 has done for the multiplayer community. Separating them again would hurt 2v2AT and kill 3v3/4v4AT.


I played a 4v4AT game once (we were the first one in years. I think now there is a record of 3 having been played). But it was proof of how messed up automatch can be.

The guys in my clan "arranged" a 4v4 AT but couldn't decide who would play axis/allies, so both teams queued as "random" factions. Automatch showed 8 players matching as Allies for some 5-10 minuts. So to get a game we quit and separated into axis/allies. Auto is not well designed. :(
6 Jan 2016, 18:23 PM
#15
avatar of Tobis
Senior Strategist Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4

The playerbase is too small to support this.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

670 users are online: 670 guests
0 post in the last 24h
3 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48740
Welcome our newest member, ashleeerowland
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM