Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Hi,

I noticed that this is the problem for the few solo players, but I will address it anyway.

Often it takes a 1850+ solo TMM player 20+ minutes to find a game, while at the same time, 1950+ players queuing in a group of 2-5 took 15 seconds to find game. This favors group queue and this creates a lot of problem for TMM balance.

As you may or may not notice, most Immortal players earn their rank through constantly being matched up against diamonds and golds at a 75-25 winrate match-up. Meanwhile for solo players, it took them 50x the waiting time to find a balanced but large gap in MMR game.

So I described 2 issues that affect user experience, especially lower rated players because they constantly having to play with tryhard groups above their rank, but my main concern is the queue time for solo players. Can you do something about it?

Edited by Acnowlogia
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah tell them Gakky ,i dont even know why 4-5 man ques are allowed ,i understand to some extend that friends wanna play together ,but in high rank its purely tryhards that sign up for free wins 

Link to post
Share on other sites

People grouping together to boost their MMR beyond their capability is actually not a big problem. Most people use that as a valid reason to complete an achievement. Just think of that as playing a RPG game on Very Easy difficulty.

What matters to me is the suffering of those who solo, having to wait 20-30 mins between each game because their games are snatched away by tryhard stacks. This TMM match-up algorithm gotta change, and the easiest way to boost user experience is probably to ban group TMM overall.

If friends want to play together, there is always the option of scrim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think banning group queue is never gonna happen and probably it would do more harm than good... I would just add some restrictions like

1) max 3 q

2) if a member is above 1850 mmr then he cannot group with someone that is below 1750

Something like that

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Mr`Cactus said:

I think banning group queue is never gonna happen and probably it would do more harm than good... I would just add some restrictions like

1) max 3 q

2) if a member is above 1850 mmr then he cannot group with someone that is below 1750

Something like that

Good idea, but then most Immortal players will find it very difficult to win games, you know

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

How about just reducing the mmr gain based on number of players in the queue, the more players you queue with the less mmr you gain, this would somewhat balance the advantage you gain by playing with people you know and trust. I see many times players in the 1700s that play like 1550 when they arent with their group of buddies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From my experience there is a high chance mm will screw you if you solo q on a 1900+ acc. Mm will put you with 4 1600 vs 5 1800 and think it's balanced (simplified).

The high MMR groups might q together because they are friends or people are just tired of playing unbalanced games and would rather take their chances of finding a good game with people they like. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Will probably encourage more smurfing. We've already seen that with certain players that are in the higher bracket.

Edited by Ladonien
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 7/4/2021 at 5:17 AM, Mr`Cactus said:

I think banning group queue is never gonna happen and probably it would do more harm than good... I would just add some restrictions like

1) max 3 q

2) if a member is above 1850 mmr then he cannot group with someone that is below 1750

Something like that

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 now and we just ended (what hopefully was) a good fundraising term from HoN birthday that we can revisit this issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We won't do that & here is why:

Players want to play with their friends. Disparity restrictions like this in other games (Heroes of the Storm Ranked, for example) really make it suck if the friends are of different skill levels.

Edited by ElementUser
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ElementUser said:

We won't do that & here is why:

Players want to play with their friends. Disparity restrictions like this in other games (Heroes of the Storm Ranked, for example) really make it suck if the friends are of different skill levels.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Same thing. Players have groups of 4 or 5 more often than you think and they want to play with all of their friends. 

 

If you remove that you alienate those players and they likely won't stay for long. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, ElementUser said:

Same thing. Players have groups of 4 or 5 more often than you think and they want to play with all of their friends. 

 

If you remove that you alienate those players and they likely won't stay for long. 

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 more of a function of MMR disparity across teams), 2) reduce MMR gains and increase MMR losses for 3-5 man stacks only above a certain MMR cutoff e.g. 1800-1850 MMR so that those smurfing < 1700 won't have it easier to stat abuse. If you feel this is more appropriate to discuss in a new thread, I'll gladly make it.

Edited by permias
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, ElementUser said:

Same thing. Players have groups of 4 or 5 more often than you think and they want to play with all of their friends. 

 

If you remove that you alienate those players and they likely won't stay for long. 

How about just have the restriction on 1800+ or 1900+ games where it really matters?

Also, what about my other suggestions in the other thread? Options like:

1. Allowing players the option of being matched up against groups or not

2. Calibrating MMR balance for solo versus group queue (incentive for solo + penalty for group)

 

Finally, I believe most players solo in this game. Can something be done about the solo queue time?

Edited by Acnowlogia
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Acnowlogia said:

How about just have the restriction on 1800+ or 1900+ games where it really matters?

Also, what about my other suggestions in the other thread? Options like:

1. Allowing players the option of being matched up against groups or not

2. Calibrating MMR balance for solo versus group queue (incentive for solo + penalty for group)

 

Finally, I believe most players solo in this game. Can something be done about the solo queue time?

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

Edited by permias
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, permias said:

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

So players are given the choice to queue together but those who solo don't get to choose?

I don't agree with you on the first point.

Solo players should be given this chance. They can make decision to be matched up against other solo players or small groups at the expense of queue time.

Personally I don't think that's going to significantly affect queue time for group, as group queue is already blessed with 10x faster queue time than solo players, especially at higher ratings. In terms of queue time, it affects the solo player more than the group if he wishes to select this option.

Lastly, if you set the default option as allowing match-up vs any group size, I don't think many people will change that option unless they really want to, so it's another thing that wouldn't affect queue time a lot.

If you are prioritizing the groups, then know that the solo players can get frustrated too if they are constantly matched up against group players in vastly imbalanced games. Group players can leave the game for good? Solo players can too!

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, permias said:

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 more of a function of MMR disparity across teams), 2) reduce MMR gains and increase MMR losses for 3-5 man stacks only above a certain MMR cutoff e.g. 1800-1850 MMR so that those smurfing < 1700 won't have it easier to stat abuse. If you feel this is more appropriate to discuss in a new thread, I'll gladly make it.

Out of all the mmr rebalancing talk I've read in the forums this stands out to me.

Point 1 would probably be the more controversial one, but both seem fine in my eyes. And even if implemented with just a lessening of mmr lost for the solo Qers. You could temper it even further with a threshold of ~1700?+ mmr. I mean if I'm playing a 4-man stack of gold players as a diamond...maybe then you can argue reducing my mmr loss(and possibly increasing mmr gain) against them isn't justified.

Yet and still, I think soloQ vs teamQ should skew just a little in favor of the soloQ in terms of MMR loss/gain. The power of teammates you know what to expect from and roles they will occupy in the upcoming game is powerful in and of itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Acnowlogia said:

So players are given the choice to queue together but those who solo don't get to choose?

I don't agree with you on the first point.

Solo players should be given this chance. They can make decision to be matched up against other solo players or small groups at the expense of queue time.

Personally I don't think that's going to significantly affect queue time for group, as group queue is already blessed with 10x faster queue time than solo players, especially at higher ratings. In terms of queue time, it affects the solo player more than the group if he wishes to select this option.

Lastly, if you set the default option as allowing match-up vs any group size, I don't think many people will change that option unless they really want to, so it's another thing that wouldn't affect queue time a lot.

If you are prioritizing the groups, then know that the solo players can get frustrated too if they are constantly matched up against group players in vastly imbalanced games. Group players can leave the game for good? Solo players can too!

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 solo q players in such imbalanced games versus group q. I just don't know if adding more restrictions to q options is the way to do so with my main concern being that a lot of 1800+ players do q with friends, and making it harder to play with friends is bad for game longevity especially in higher brackets. I disagree with EU that you explicitly need to allow 4-5 q to achieve this, since if you have a decently large friend group you can always do 2x 3qs or just run an inhouse game, and capping groups at 3q still gives solo q opponents more of a chance to win - if still an uphill battle.

On this particular note "

Lastly, if you set the default option as allowing match-up vs any group size, I don't think many people will change that option unless they really want to, so it's another thing that wouldn't affect queue time a lot." - since we're talking about high bracket games, I think it's fair to say most players there will be more cognizant of queuing mechanics and so will likely change the option more often than not, which effectively acts as a restriction for people to group q.

As I've posted before, and reiterating one of the suggestions you've made, I'm strongly in favor of MMR rebalancing as the means to reduce punishment for solo q players and increase punishment for group q as games are heavily advantaged to the latter. This way, we reduce frustration for solo q players going up against group q by minimizing potential MMR losses and maximizing potential MMR gains - giving them an incentive still to do their best, and to make use of a low-risk high-reward opportunity to increase MMR - while still allowing people to group q with friends acknowledging that by doing so, they have positioned themselves at an advantage against solo q teams and so will suffer more MMR losses should they play poorly.  

 

Edited by permias
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gimj said:

Out of all the mmr rebalancing talk I've read in the forums this stands out to me.

Point 1 would probably be the more controversial one, but both seem fine in my eyes. And even if implemented with just a lessening of mmr lost for the solo Qers. You could temper it even further with a threshold of ~1700?+ mmr. I mean if I'm playing a 4-man stack of gold players as a diamond...maybe then you can argue reducing my mmr loss(and possibly increasing mmr gain) against them isn't justified.

Yet and still, I think soloQ vs teamQ should skew just a little in favor of the soloQ in terms of MMR loss/gain. The power of teammates you know what to expect from and roles they will occupy in the upcoming game is powerful in and of itself.

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.

Edited by permias
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, permias said:

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?

I solo queue most of the time and it often took me 15-20 minutes to find games on a 1800-1850 account. At the same time, Esthon playing on his 2000+ account and queuing with his 4 silver to legendary teammates and it took him <5 mins to find game. 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.

7 hours ago, permias said:

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.

Personally, I'm gonna donate if changes to balance the MMR system is taken into account. For example, every game above 1950 MMR ends up giving the player +/- 5MMR regardless of the balance of the game, which creates huge incentives for players like Esthon to 4-5 men queue with friends on silver account to boost his rank. Imagine how boring that must feel for gold/diamond solo players to be matched up against 5 legendary players in silver disguise.

More importantly, it returns a sense of achievement with the old MMR system. In the old days, once you reach 2000 MMR, you consider it a big achievement. Nowadays, anyone can reach 3k mmr provided enough group queue. In the old days, if you reach the top 1 rank on the ladder, you can still try to break your own highscore. Now, once you reach Immortal 1, that's the end of the line, there isn't much incentive to go on further.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2021 at 4:46 AM, Acnowlogia said:

I solo queue most of the time and it often took me 15-20 minutes to find games on a 1800-1850 account. At the same time, Esthon playing on his 2000+ account and queuing with his 4 silver to legendary teammates and it took him <5 mins to find game. 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.

Personally, I'm gonna donate if changes to balance the MMR system is taken into account. For example, every game above 1950 MMR ends up giving the player +/- 5MMR regardless of the balance of the game, which creates huge incentives for players like Esthon to 4-5 men queue with friends on silver account to boost his rank. Imagine how boring that must feel for gold/diamond solo players to be matched up against 5 legendary players in silver disguise.

More importantly, it returns a sense of achievement with the old MMR system. In the old days, once you reach 2000 MMR, you consider it a big achievement. Nowadays, anyone can reach 3k mmr provided enough group queue. In the old days, if you reach the top 1 rank on the ladder, you can still try to break your own highscore. Now, once you reach Immortal 1, that's the end of the line, there isn't much incentive to go on further.

"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, having the +/- 5 MMR apply ONLY when the player is solo q AND if the average MMR in the game is at least 1850 or thereabouts should eliminate the abuse loophole.

Would also donate to any plans to improve existing MMR system that minimizes penalties for solo q players v.s. group q players, eliminates incentive for 1950 players to abuse the system with high MMR disparities, and also provide a static -5 MMR penalty for all games you dc'ed and were terminated from regardless of whether you started out with +/- 0.5 MMR in the picking phase. This last point only affects high rank players IF they happen to find +/- 0.5 MMR games in the first place, so is unlikely to be abused for stat manipulation considering the combined (un)likelihoods of someone willing to tank their 1900+ accounts and finding +/- 0.5 MMR games at sufficient frequencies, not to mention evading the RAP system.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

A similar model like in CS:GO could help. Restricting queues to +-250mmr and allowing to queue with anybody regardless of the rank when in a group of 5. 

The main problem imho is that it's not really painful for higher players to queue with lower players. As an example, if a 1800 player queues up with few 1400 players, he would get +-0.x mmr. Assuming the average group mmr would be around 1550mmr, he would still be basically smurfing. In that case he should be losing more MMR in case of a loss while only winning a small amount. Like +0.x/-6 - just as an example.. MMR would be based on how far away from average the player is. Downside would be that it encourages boosting - there could be some mechanism to prevent that, e.g. if group disparity is > xxx mmr, lower rated player will get a static +-0.x mmr.

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