Matchmaking in Quick play/ranked or standard style Lobbies?

[Protoss|]

what do you guys want?

I am fully for matchmaking, but I saw alot of people liking lobby system and I dont htink playerbase can support both. For me lobbies should just be there for friends and mod games not the general public.

[roirraw]

I am for matchmaking. It has to include 10v10s though. There is a large group of the population that enjoys that game mode.

[Zeonist decolonizer]

I am all for matchmaking, but I do agree with Protosszocker's concern about the number of player base to it functional.

On the other hand I do have a few suggestions to improve both systems whatever Eugen chose.
1. Player profiles should be linked to steam and stored in Eugen's server, players should not be able to temper/reset their profiles, this imho is where all the problem originated.

2. Eugen's default mode of playing the game should be popularize and motivated to the player(like unlockables or currencies can only be gained when playing in such mode)

For auto matchmaking:
3. Re-construct the matchmaking UI and process, players should pick their side only and will be put into a preparation lobby after the match was made where they know the map and their teammates, at that lobby they have 20s to select their deck.

4. As roirraw mentioned the match making should cover 10v10 as well as other modes of games.

5. Maybe re-enable blue-on-blue?

For lobbies:
6. Introduce a auto-balance lobby option, which works like #3 but players don't pick sides just join in the lobby, when the lobby is full the game will arrange the teams to get the closest combination for those players.

7. Host should have the ability to set up a level or winrate restrictions instead of checking profiles in WG or starting the game blindly in SDN44.

These are the once that came to my mind for now, and I really wish Eugen will improve the systems.

GLHF and wish Eugen will read this discussion.

[CheeseMerchant]

I am for matchmaking as well IF:

1.Map voting will be possible in team games

2, you will be able to invite friends to play Quick match/ranked team games

I would rather have the Lobby system as well as a matchmaking system. but this all depends on the Size of the SD2 community. Personally i am more in favor of a lobby system. being a team player myself most of the time and not caring to much about 1v1 competitive(for which ranked works best). but for the competitive guys there should be a much better ranked matchmaking option then in SD44.

having no lobby system at all would be a huge Mistake. this means even less room for casual players to move around in. allot of people do not want to be forced to play in ranked knowing that every defeat will leave behind a permanent record on their stats, instead those people want to play Matches purely for fun without it having impact on their stats. that is the big advantage of playing in lobby,s and having a lobby system.

[Protoss|]

Originally posted by Weaponized Autism:

I am for matchmaking as well IF:

1.Map voting will be possible in team games

2, you will be able to invite friends to play Quick match/ranked team games

I would rather have the Lobby system as well as a matchmaking system. but this all depends on the Size of the SD2 community. Personally i am more in favor of a lobby system. being a team player myself most of the time and not caring to much about 1v1 competitive(for which ranked works best). but for the competitive guys there should be a much better ranked matchmaking option then in SD44.

having no lobby system at all would be a huge Mistake. this means even less room for casual players to move around in. allot of people do not want to be forced to play in ranked knowing that every defeat will leave behind a permanent record on their stats, instead those people want to play Matches purely for fun without it having impact on their stats. that is the big advantage of playing in lobby,s and having a lobby system.

well doesnt have to be ranked outside of 1v1, quickematch is fine for me, (even though a bit of hidden matchmaking to make teams a bit fairer would be nice).

[CheeseMerchant]

Originally posted by Protosszocker:

Originally posted by Weaponized Autism:

I am for matchmaking as well IF:

1.Map voting will be possible in team games

2, you will be able to invite friends to play Quick match/ranked team games

I would rather have the Lobby system as well as a matchmaking system. but this all depends on the Size of the SD2 community. Personally i am more in favor of a lobby system. being a team player myself most of the time and not caring to much about 1v1 competitive(for which ranked works best). but for the competitive guys there should be a much better ranked matchmaking option then in SD44.

having no lobby system at all would be a huge Mistake. this means even less room for casual players to move around in. allot of people do not want to be forced to play in ranked knowing that every defeat will leave behind a permanent record on their stats, instead those people want to play Matches purely for fun without it having impact on their stats. that is the big advantage of playing in lobby,s and having a lobby system.

well doesnt have to be ranked outside of 1v1, quickematch is fine for me, (even though a bit of hidden matchmaking to make teams a bit fairer would be nice).

But how would a quickmatch system work in your perspective? will it work the way that 1 host makes a game,chooses a map,presses a button and automaticly gets matched against similair skilled opponents? with also the possibility to join a different host instead of hosting yourself.or do you see it working a different way?

i am so used to Lobby systems in RTS games that it is very difficult for me to imagine an allround good Quick match and ranked match system. this ofcourse could be because most RTS games do not have very good ranked and quick match systems to begin with.

[Protoss|]

Originally posted by Weaponized Autism:

Originally posted by Protosszocker:

well doesnt have to be ranked outside of 1v1, quickematch is fine for me, (even though a bit of hidden matchmaking to make teams a bit fairer would be nice).

But how would a quickmatch system work in your perspective? will it work the way that 1 host makes a game,chooses a map,presses a button and automaticly gets matched against similair skilled opponents? with also the possibility to join a different host instead of hosting yourself.or do you see it working a different way?

i am so used to Lobby systems in RTS games that it is very difficult for me to imagine an allround good Quick match and ranked match system. this ofcourse could be because most RTS games do not have very good ranked and quick match systems to begin with.

well I would take the Coh2 or SC2 (2 biggest RTS on the market that are modern, counting out stuffl ike AoE2). You pick your faction/division, you ban maps you dont wanna play. You click on search quickgame, and you get a quickgame with other people put up into 2 teams, with maps based on everyones map bans.

[CheeseMerchant]

Originally posted by Protosszocker:

Originally posted by Weaponized Autism:

But how would a quickmatch system work in your perspective? will it work the way that 1 host makes a game,chooses a map,presses a button and automaticly gets matched against similair skilled opponents? with also the possibility to join a different host instead of hosting yourself.or do you see it working a different way?

i am so used to Lobby systems in RTS games that it is very difficult for me to imagine an allround good Quick match and ranked match system. this ofcourse could be because most RTS games do not have very good ranked and quick match systems to begin with.

well I would take the Coh2 or SC2 (2 biggest RTS on the market that are modern, counting out stuffl ike AoE2). You pick your faction/division, you ban maps you dont wanna play. You click on search quickgame, and you get a quickgame with other people put up into 2 teams, with maps based on everyones map bans.

Sounds like a really good system the way you explain it. Especially if it allows for team battles based on skill and stats of the players involved. as long as private matches are still a possibility then i see no problem with the quick match system.

[Zeonist decolonizer]

Note there was in fact a quickplay matchmaking system in SDN44 just no one use it since the first month, so I think the problem to now to motivate/force players to use the matchmaking system.

[Protoss|]

Originally posted by yinleung{HK}:

Note there was in fact a quickplay matchmaking system in SDN44 just no one use it since the first month, so I think the problem to now to motivate/force players to use the matchmaking system.

Well it missed Map bans and it was pretty bad at launch, it got one update allowing for searching all different game sizes later, but at that point it was to late already.

[Zeonist decolonizer]

Originally posted by Protosszocker:

Originally posted by yinleung{HK}:

Note there was in fact a quickplay matchmaking system in SDN44 just no one use it since the first month, so I think the problem to now to motivate/force players to use the matchmaking system.

Well it missed Map bans and it was pretty bad at launch, it got one update allowing for searching all different game sizes later, but at that point it was to late already.

True, but I think we can both agree that even now that system definitely need some improvement, so my question still stands.

On the other hand I think the match making system from R6S can draw some inspiration as mentioned earlier.

[Thork]

Well, I've made this kind of post already a few times... Yet again...

I never really went into MM in SD44 and am not very interested in competitive play, but a few things to consider.
Even though MM could probably be improved, imho, the main reason it "failed" was missing competitive players and a rather low playerbase in general. There are many other games and a lack of SP content and the importance of luck doesn't help either.
It's all fine if you still want to play competitve, but making it the main focus in SD44 was bound to cause trouble, imho.
I think there are lots of players that simply want a relaxed SP experience, meet with a friend in co-op, or rather uncompetitively watch tanks explode ;)
If you simply want a competitive RTS experience, there is almost no need to make it overly realistic/historic, or go into WW2 setting. Even though the setting fits pretty good, imho.

I personally think that the SD44 deck system might have been better for competitive play than what was in WG and might be in SD2. Few(er) and clear choices often work better to weight options/counters and adjust.
How much time can/do you really spend judging/adjusting decks before a ~30 minute match?

It might offer more options, but the ceiling of making informed decisions will prob. be a lot higher. Many might then simply read up (again) instead of experimenting.
It might trick players in thinking it is better, but what it often really does is create metas everyone will adapt to in the end. Who really got all that time to figure it out for themselves?

Of course, some really like to spend a lot of time into deck building etc., but that does not mean it is better for competitive play. Having more options means nothing if most are not viable.
You see a lot less units in SC2 MP than in SP for a reason. You see lots of confused LOL veterans for a reason...

Also consider that many MM systems are not only trying to match Elo, but often also have some aditional mechanics to balance out winrates/premades etc.
While 1v1 Elo based MM might be just fine, I found most of those other mechanics rather infuriating. I found that very few actually understand even the basics. No wonder there are so many toxic players.

I've played some games rather competitive, CS and Jedy Knight2 even in ESL back in the day. However, at the time it was either public/private (lobby) servers or arranged (Clan) matches.
To go a bit further, I find it rather strange that there are seriously players that make lots of money, basically promoting games. It was simply a hobby back in the day and I (more or less) quit the scene when my friends went to university and ringers showed up.
Yes, the competitive gaming scene adjusts more and more to every other pro sport. Not a lot of fun left in pro gaming if you ask me.
/rambleend

[Thork]

Well, if you already played in '98 (I was most active ~2000-2005), I can almost assure you that you've long outgrown your max potential in RTS/FPS games ;)
If you want to apply all your experience, there are also turn-based and/or wego systems. Usually more puzzle gameplay like Panzercorps or Combat Mission. You can really take your time when you exchange turns by mail ;)
Look at the age of those pro players f.ex. in SC2... Even though there are lots of reasons, and you also require experience/knowledge in those games (they change LoL so often that noone can really ever hope to catch up), the difference at the top will often be reaction times/APM. Many (former) pro players above ~25 (Boxer, TLO etc.) are really not concidered competitive at the top anymore...

The thing about matchmake is that every player can feel "good", even the lousiest, because they get matched against others just as lousy and therefore still get ~same winrates... Imho, that's not really competitive, but mostly a nice little carrot to keep you playing.
We've even seen (at least) concepts on how to manipulate matchmake to make you buy content in games where that and/or progression is available. Pro players sign contracts to use such content for promotion...
I'm just pointing that out because there is/can be a lot of manipulation in matchmake systems.
It can be far from basic Elo rank/ladder-systems as used in many sports.

At least in my mind, there is not much of a point playing "competitive" if you don't aim for/mess with the best and/or it is a hobby enjoyed with friends ;)
A public/private (lobby) server system (on the other hand) and/or clans will at least sometimes make you meet players far below/above. Maybe a lot more frustrating, but also can make you learn a lot faster... Same as schools with mixed classes can do. Probably even better if you aim to be competitive....

As said, it might be fine (for some), but I've mostly grown tired of it...

[roirraw]

My biggest thing with MM is getting games quicker. I'm not one for competitive play just to brag. The game breeds competition on it's own and ranking is subjective by most descriptions. Some people are only good in small games and quit after losing a few units key to their plans. Other's just want the social aspect of playing with friends. Some are in the middle of all these things.

Speeding up the time between starting multiplayer and deploying units is where my focus is. Having more games, more often and whatever gets that is a win for me, and I assume the community.

If you want your 1v1 ranking and icon next to your name that says "you're the best", I guess that's something to work for. Making a system that only services these people will make the game fall into that "try hard" vs " casual " community. We should strive to get away from this and it will attract newer gamers in turn.

Matchmaking for game speed and not for bragging rights. Stats are already kept and it would be interesting to expand on these things, if people really care. Like how many units of what type were killed, streaks and whatever other information that could be used to create personal battle stats - like we read about from units past.