Tiered Automatch

What would people think of this idea - have two tiers of automatch. For the first tier, let anyone join. For the second tier, make players have to win a game against an expert computer in order to play in 2v2, 3v3, or 4v4 automatch.

What would people think of this idea - have two tiers of automatch. For the first tier, let anyone join. For the second tier, make players have to win a game against an expert computer in order to play in 2v2, 3v3, or 4v4 automatch.

Tier 1: Custom Match

Tier 2: Automatch

What would people think of this idea - have two tiers of automatch. For the first tier, let anyone join. For the second tier, make players have to win a game against an expert computer in order to play in 2v2, 3v3, or 4v4 automatch.

Honestly you want to seperate in two tiers: where one consists of complete noobs that will get into troubles trying to improve themselves - and the other one consists of players that are able to cheese with wires and blob to beat (double the ressources and maphack while still failing to complete any strategic relevant maneuvers)?

I can only recommend you to take Automatch either less serious especially with random teammates or to stop playing automatch and start playing with or against friends. [Either way really good games are a rarity so rather try to enjoy all games or atleast most]

Random teammate automatch is always going to be a disaster. If people can blame their teammate, they will.

Random teammate automatch is always going to be a disaster. If people can blame their teammate, they will.

^this

1v1 Blame map.
Team games: Blame team mates.

I would rather see some sort of up/down voting on players.

So many team games are ruined by:
- Players crash after waiting 10 minutes to load.
- Players AFK
- Player gets left alone and quits even if team is winning. Cry babies.
- Player is complete noob. Starts BMing team.
- Player is complete noob BMs enemy after winning.
- Player is a blobber. Has high damage but holds NO points all game. BMs team when he retreats his whole army back to base and lone player gets rekt by multiple opponents.

There are a lot of things that make team games bad. Some worse than others, so different levels of toxicity would be required by the vote.
1 - Bugsplats. Print notice to restart after 2 games.
2 - Noobs and Blobbers. Put them in lower rank games next play.
3 - AFK. If player doesnt move any units for 2:00, time them out and let AI take over. Then ban them for 1 hour.
4 - BMs. Accumulate BM votes until about 20 are reached then time ban. Maybe warn at 10.
5 - Map hackers, cheaters, etc. These require proof. Perhaps store replays for 1 day so a game can be reviewed if multiple votes come in?

...

I would love for the Dota 2 system to be implemented. I might actually not waste some time on team games if I didn't play queue simulator 9/10 times it feels like.

https://dota2.gamepedia.com/Ban

there is also something along the overwatch, endorsement/commendation system (they have that in dota as well).

^this

1v1 Blame map.
Team games: Blame team mates.

I would rather see some sort of up/down voting on players.

So many team games are ruined by:
- Players crash after waiting 10 minutes to load.
- Players AFK
- Player gets left alone and quits even if team is winning. Cry babies.
- Player is complete noob. Starts BMing team.
- Player is complete noob BMs enemy after winning.
- Player is a blobber. Has high damage but holds NO points all game. BMs team when he retreats his whole army back to base and lone player gets rekt by multiple opponents.

There are a lot of things that make team games bad. Some worse than others, so different levels of toxicity would be required by the vote.
1 - Bugsplats. Print notice to restart after 2 games.
2 - Noobs and Blobbers. Put them in lower rank games next play.
3 - AFK. If player doesnt move any units for 2:00, time them out and let AI take over. Then ban them for 1 hour.
4 - BMs. Accumulate BM votes until about 20 are reached then time ban. Maybe warn at 10.
5 - Map hackers, cheaters, etc. These require proof. Perhaps store replays for 1 day so a game can be reviewed if multiple votes come in?

I really like suggestion #3. I think AFK's ruin a lot of games. Also, I'm not sure why but the Allied AI seems much worse than the Axis AI. The Allied AI seems to want to spam light vehicles late game. I don't have any data to back it up, but it seems like that's what I see.

I'm not sure about the voting, unless players were somehow vetted before they could vote. I've had two games in the last day or two when one player completely went off BM'ing another player on my team for not building caches. The interesting thing about both instances was that we were all OKW.

By the way, your examples were spot on. Sometimes it is the same player in your 4th example and your 5th.

Honestly you want to seperate in two tiers: where one consists of complete noobs that will get into troubles trying to improve themselves - and the other one consists of players that are able to cheese with wires and blob to beat (double the ressources and maphack while still failing to complete any strategic relevant maneuvers)?

I can only recommend you to take Automatch either less serious especially with random teammates or to stop playing automatch and start playing with or against friends. [Either way really good games are a rarity so rather try to enjoy all games or atleast most]

It isn't really a case of taking the games too seriously, it's just that good games seem rare, and playing with friends only cuts the problems in half.

Tier 1: Custom Match

Tier 2: Automatch

yes, like this