Jump to content


Verified members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

123 profile views
  1. I believe mistake 2 has been rectified for years - people can 4q amongst friends if they would like. A lot of different people have made some good pointson this thread and I have done my best to reply to them, but I am hoping @ElementUser could share his perspective from FB on what can realistically be implemented etc.
  2. Anecdotally, I agree that this sort of shit has been happening far more frequently than in the past. Although it's still a demoralizing 15 minutes, losing -1.6 MMR is a consolation somewhat - that is if you care about MMR, which I feel like most people still do to an extent. There are frequent enough cases where if the enemy team has a 3q stack and the MMR disparity isn't high enough between teams (e.g. due to smurfing/silver-gold accounts on the stack), you'll still get the +/- 5 MMR which is considerably worse.
  3. Agreed. Even if people don't outright give up, the chances of your team getting someone who would grief (at least 4x rolls of potentially getting a griefer across 4x team slots) v.s. enemy team (1-2x rolls across 1-2x team slots) are significantly higher, which makes for an even poorer quality game. I am wondering what potential obstacles exist to tweaking the MMR gain/loss systems with respect to group q v.s. Solo Q, and if EU has feedback. I would +++++++++++++++ be willing to donate to address this issue.
  4. Do we have some kind of notion as to what target groups marketing would be useful to? For example, I'm skeptical we can attract people that are new to the MOBA genre given the massive learning curve to the game and competition from big titles, but it feels more plausible to attract players from other MOBA games who generally know how the genre works and may already be the equivalent of a Silver/Gold player starting out at HoN as opposed to being the bottom of Bronze. I just donated to marketing $, but I'm curious to what other players/EU think about this - and perhaps to obtain community
  5. Firstly, it's clear people think there are major issues with the existing system for high-ranked players (Legendary II and above), and to a lesser extent more incentive to play on high-ranked accounts. The gains/loss system I described that distinguishes group Q v.s. solo Q players should address the worst aspects of how prevalent 3-5qs are amongst high-ranked MMR players (Immortal queuing with gold/silver as 3-5q since you get static +/-5 MMR upon reaching Immortal, irrespective of MMR disparity), but positive incentives should definitely be on the table as well. Even without season removals,
  6. Variations on this idea was proposed before, and the biggest argument from FB was that preventing friend groups from playing together is a line in the sand. I do agree with this, especially as the Legendary-Immortal community has never been smaller or more connected. Still, this doesn't mean that we can tune MMR gains/losses commensurate with whether someone is Group Q or Solo Q, and therefore still allow their Rank/MMR to be a relatively accurate measure of their skill level.
  7. A major problem in the current matchmaking (MM) system is how it easily rewards Group Q (defined as people queuing together as 3-5) while worsening the experience for Solo Q players. This is an issue for the majority of brackets - from Gold to Immortal due to the massive teamwork, communication, coordination, and griefing-resistant advantages that comes with Group Q. Additionally, it was pointed out by posters in the forums that at high brackets (1800+) the MMR algorithm ostensibly favors Group Q for finding games, making it even more frustrating for Solo Q players. Given such a disparity bet
  8. If you click "Whisper Only" chat mode after holding down the 'z' button for chat box, the only messages/chat you'll see are from whispers. You can do it yourself manually at the start of each game but bear in mind a lack of communication usually leads to worsened team coordination and morale. If you think the benefit of tuning out noise and possible negativity from team chat is worth the cost of zero communication, then by all means. Just keep in mind at the end of the day yes it's a game and yes you can do whatever you want, but it's also a team game and so your actions can lead to evne
  9. "I think when queuing with much lower bracket players, the algorithm allows lower rated players to find game much faster so the higher ones benefit from that." - i think this is true, so the way you described it makes sense. That being said, I think this is more of an MMR algorithm issue than a group q v.s. solo q issue. When I 2q with peopel +/- 50 MMR around me at 1800, I don't notice q-time difference so it's likely that preventing large MMR disparities from finding games faster is what needs to be addressed. The +/- 5 MMR after 1950 also clearly needs to be addressed. As one option, h
  10. Sure, yeah. The numbers and brackets for which such modified gains/losses take effect can always be tweaked, and considering how there's no major "Donations" project (outside of Marketing) that's going on, not to mention having wrapped up Honniversary, I think this is the best time to really start moving forward with making the MM system more equitable. And if there are logistical/other barriers along the way, that we can discuss ways of circumventing them as a community and move this along.
  11. I have to say, this is the first that I'm hearing group q times < solo q times. Historically, and I mean any time up until about 3 years ago, 3-5q would almost always take longer than solo q. I do a mix of solo q and 2q at 1800+ and I'm not sure if I can tell the difference, though it's fair to say my experience is limited. You play more games at 1900+ so maybe this is true, and maybe more of an issue than I think it is. Maybe EU has data on this? Being on the opposing side of 3-5q far more often than not, I strongly agree the system should be tailored towards reducing punishment to so
  12. 1. would worsen que times for both solo and groups since there just aren't enough people, and makes the game near-impossible to play with friends 2. would be a much better alternative
  13. Alright. If we can't restrict group queuing, could we provide more incentives for solo que/not queuing in stacks e.g. reduced MMR gains/larger MMR losses with 3-5 stacks? As it is, games already disproportionately favor stacked teams in the first place and results in worsened game quality for solo q people. I understand you're concerned about how this could lead to increased smurfing/stat abuse, but there are options to circumvent this: 1) reduce MMR losses and increase MMR gains for solo q people opponents against 3-5 man stacks (this sometimes happens, but not always, and seems to be mo
  14. To be honest, I'm skeptical as to how frequent high MMR players (1900+) would have friends below 1750 MMR to the extent this disparity would actually hurt them, as most of the high frequency queuing friend groups I'm aware of are usually in close skill level populating 1800+ MMR together. Leaving that aside, putting a que cap of max. 3 doesn't seem as controversial and can promote faster que times.
  15. I'm all for something like this, though the gap could be larger e.g. > 1900 can't que with < 1750. Reworking MMR gains/losses from group que is also a worthwhile consideration to reduce 1) leaves and 2) smurfing. The general quality of high MMR (>1800) games these days imo is decent, but some of the biggest issues e.g. 1900s practically griefing/leaving in +/- 0.5 games as well as > 3q group stacks that make games supremely imbalanced can direcly benefit from these changes. I remember EU mentioned this wasn't a high priority a few months ago, but seeing as this is the summer right
  • Create New...