Jump to content

Fix team balance


Recommended Posts

Personally i think the balance between players is the worst part of the game. It's unacceptable and so unfair for a player who played 500+ matches to be in the same team with  someone new. Started from 1500 mmr. Five thousand matches later still 1500 mmr. So unprofessional. The first and the second year of release i liked it a lot but now i can't enjoy the game. It just became a bad habit because everybody curse one another for some kills. Yours sincerely

Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually ignore those players. I would more like if they could add an option that you have to choose your role and when the game starts you know your role so then there can be no confusions, and the player who doesn't play his role gets banned. Easy solutions.

Edited by epiculti
Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely agree with this post. The match making algorithm might be ready for a much needed update. Maybe some win streak mmr bonus could be introduced, and or several other different mechanics. Usually 3 or more people grouping together will also outperform their individual mmrs. Perhaps a players lvl could be a multiplier to "weight" the persons mmr. There are many different approaches, but I certainly feel that players aren't represented well by their MMR as it currently stands.

 

A little reading on the ELO rating system, the one HoN's MMR is based on I assume, if anyone is interested:

 

https://medium.com/purple-theory/what-is-elo-rating-c4eb7a9061e0

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/introducing-nfl-elo-ratings/

https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/234673/how-to-modify-elo-algorithm-when-number-of-games-is-low-to-reduce-outliers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ain't it fun that Legendary Players are teaming with Silver players for +0,5/-0,5 MMR and both have 90% winquote?

That's literally every 5th game atm, when u are Gold / low Diamond.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with the OP.

 

I remember when I got this account to 1985 (immortal), I  solo q'ed and had Gold 2/Diamond 3 Teammates against a 1900 stack which was probably one of the worst matchmaking balances i'd ever encountered.

 

I also feel for lower rated players who have to endure games with and against 'smurfs' who are not playing on their higher main accounts because there is 0 incentive to climb the ladder, nor balanced games in the higher bracket.

Furthermore, it is unfair for these lower rated players to be in higher skilled games, simply because the algorithm is so poor - I've heard countless players join into games and at the pick phase they write 'Why am I here?' They usually then proceed to give up and play with a victim mentality and therefore ruin the fun for themselves and their teammates, because they don't want to be in a game with players 200-300 mmr above them.

 

Something needs to be changed

Edited by `Geminai
Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the low playerbase, I've rarely had big issues with the team balance. Most often it's been while solo queueing on odd hours. However, below is a recent game where we 4 man queued on hellbourne and I can only assume they 4 man queued on legion as well. I get that getting games on higher ranks is tough, but games as unbalances as this isn't really fun for anyone involved. Not sure if things will or can change with the current player base, but I'm hoping we won't have to deal with more of these games in the future.

spacer.png

Edited by TobakaZ
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, tunsiany said:

I think it is time to have the MM algorithm take more than just MMR in balance, for example GPM, K+AD etc.

A couple of years back I did some machine learning to calculate what each stat that is collected should result in (to predict the mmr progression of players as best as possible). There were some fun things inside of that. One remarkable thing was game length - the longer the games, the lower you should be ranked (basically because most numbers that are tracked are beneficial). Iirc correctly deaths didn't even matter at all.

So if FB would implement something like this, it would - after some time - get public knowledge what is part of the ranking and people would take stupid (and wrong!) assumptions like "we have to cc as fast as possible or we will loose more rating" or "dying doesn't affect rating, so I can just feed all day without loosing mmr".

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Manu311 said:

A couple of years back I did some machine learning to calculate what each stat that is collected should result in (to predict the mmr progression of players as best as possible). There were some fun things inside of that. One remarkable thing was game length - the longer the games, the lower you should be ranked (basically because most numbers that are tracked are beneficial). Iirc correctly deaths didn't even matter at all.

So if FB would implement something like this, it would - after some time - get public knowledge what is part of the ranking and people would take stupid (and wrong!) assumptions like "we have to cc as fast as possible or we will loose more rating" or "dying doesn't affect rating, so I can just feed all day without loosing mmr".

Yes but that is ok because it will even out the more games you play and it will single out smurfs who tend to steamroll their games because of the skill difference, the goal is to be able to rank a 1550 mmr smurf higher than a 1550 2k games player as an example

Edited by tunsiany
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, tunsiany said:

Yes but that is ok because it will even out the more games you play and it will single out smurfs who tend to steamroll their games because of the skill difference, the goal is to be able to rank a 1550 mmr smurf higher than a 1550 2k games player as an example

Both systems work similar against this - the better the ranking itself, the better it prevents this issue. The issue isn't that they are treated equally, the issue is that they don't have a rating which reflects their skill better than the current rating.

The problem with most people that are still 1550 after 2k games is that their skill simply isn't enough to reach better, while new players (or fresh accounts) are still on their way up. So boosting the initial games should help - and it does. However no one that's playing decently should have 1550 after his initial games - for the first couple of games (6 iirc) you get a lot more mmr - especially for streaks. It's not too hard to reach 1700 (the limit of this boosting) with this.
The only issue here is, that it only works well for people that play roles that get kill-streaks. So if you play support those 6 games, you will probably not reach much higher than 1600.
That's the issue I see with this boosting system, imho it should also involve team dominance (like team kills vs team deaths), assists and overall KD (not just the highest sprees).

But then I don't really see a problem with new smurfs anymore - most of the (now few) smurfs I encounter have hundred of games as well since they play on old (sub-)accounts since new sub-accounts are expensive now 😉.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...