Jump to content

Proposed Changes For Fairer MM System


Recommended Posts

 

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 between a team with a Group Q and a team consisting of mostly Solo Q players, the system should be tailored towards reducing punishment to Solo Q players while making the MMR gain advantagees of Group Q commensurate with the fact that they are playing as a group and not Solo Q.

To address this issue, and having refining such thoughts from discussions in other threads, the following ideas are proposed:

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 Group Q 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. 

These changes will reduce punishment and frustration for Solo Q players and makes Group Q less abusable for climbing up the MM ladder. To be sure, these changes do not prevent friends from queuing with each other. Indeed, the proposed changes can be amended e.g. having the reduced MMR gains and increased losses for 3 Q or more only work above a certain MMR (1700+) to prevent abuse in low tier brackets, but with still reduced MMR losses for their Solo Q opponents. This way, we give otherwise daunted Solo Q players an incentive to do their best while still allowing people to Group Q with friends and 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.  

Finally, on a related node, someone also pointed out that the static +/- 5 MMR after reaching Immortal rank provides massive incentive to que with friends on Silver/Gold accounts and abuse the MM system. Forcing the static +/- 5 MMR only if Immortal-ranked players solo Q or two Q at most (without significant MMR disparity) should help minimize this issue, and remove the incentive for Group Q abuse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, we need something like that.

 

Or my idea: Make it solo-q only from legendary rank upwards. Means once you reacah legendary you can only solo-queue. That would make the games much more interesting and would also show the "real" skilllevel of the players.

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Froschbein said:

yes, we need something like that.

 

Or my idea: Make it solo-q only from legendary rank upwards. Means once you reacah legendary you can only solo-queue. That would make the games much more interesting and would also show the "real" skilllevel of the players.

Regards

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a way to dodge newly created accounts? I'll wait 20+ minutes for a queue so I don't get a new account player. The issue I've been running into lately is people creating new accounts and then throwing (doing literally the bare minimum to not get suspended or banned) so that they can get into a lower bracket; So then they can get "games faster" with the lower elo.

I just had a game with someone who had over 500+ games. Over 1.0KDR/KDA. Over 400GPM per game. Over 50% win percentage. Gold II. Was queuing with a newly made account "friend" and they were pretending not to know how to combine weapons with recipes in their inventory.

I could careless about winning or losing. I just want to have a good game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I almost exclusively solo-queue, with a very few exceptions; and I do think that the MMR system requires some change. I personally like the fact that there are no seasons and whatever rank you have is the rank that you keep, but I have seen many unpleasant events - to name a few; 3-man-queue legendary/immortal smurfs plowing through Gold-Diamond (As a solo queue player I have very little control of what will happen in that game, and mostly all there is left for me is to embrace the defeat and try to enjoy whatever there is to enjoy that game); 2-3 queue Immortal teams vs mostly solo/duo pairs in significantly lower ranks, creating mostly a 95%win/5%lose game scenario.

I do not know what will make the system better, but I do know that it can be better than it is right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But there is no incentive to be high on mmr, quite the opposite, the more you lose the faster the queue times, there should be some sort of incentive for reaching and maintaining a rank, for example make it so if you reach x rank and play a minimun of x games a month you earn some nice rewards like plinko tickets or a cool tp effect, after month ends your game count resets so you cant just keep your rank without playing. This would make it so people have a reason to play better, not disconnect and be more friendly since they want to win.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2021 at 1:00 PM, Lunarios said:

I almost exclusively solo-queue, with a very few exceptions; and I do think that the MMR system requires some change. I personally like the fact that there are no seasons and whatever rank you have is the rank that you keep, but I have seen many unpleasant events - to name a few; 3-man-queue legendary/immortal smurfs plowing through Gold-Diamond (As a solo queue player I have very little control of what will happen in that game, and mostly all there is left for me is to embrace the defeat and try to enjoy whatever there is to enjoy that game); 2-3 queue Immortal teams vs mostly solo/duo pairs in significantly lower ranks, creating mostly a 95%win/5%lose game scenario.

I do not know what will make the system better, but I do know that it can be better than it is right now.

 

On 8/1/2021 at 2:00 AM, GiveUpBra said:

But there is no incentive to be high on mmr, quite the opposite, the more you lose the faster the queue times, there should be some sort of incentive for reaching and maintaining a rank, for example make it so if you reach x rank and play a minimun of x games a month you earn some nice rewards like plinko tickets or a cool tp effect, after month ends your game count resets so you cant just keep your rank without playing. This would make it so people have a reason to play better, not disconnect and be more friendly since they want to win.

 

On 7/26/2021 at 10:55 AM, Froschbein said:

yes, we need something like that.

 

Or my idea: Make it solo-q only from legendary rank upwards. Means once you reacah legendary you can only solo-queue. That would make the games much more interesting and would also show the "real" skilllevel of the players.

Regards

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, I distinctly recall the War Effort event was highly popular and it would likely cost FB nothing (besides implementation) to introduce similar initiatives.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2021 at 3:49 AM, Slingslang said:

Introduce 'Behavior score' like in Dota 2. Nice people will play with nice people and bad people will be queued up togheter. Good system overall but not sure how good it will work with HoN's communitypool

I could agree with you, but knowing the type of community that we have, I do seriously dbout that could work.

 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I almost only solo queue in 1700 bracket, and if the matchmaking system puts you into a high bracket game with 1800 players, it can be very frustrating to play versus those 1800 triple-premades. Those games are 90% lose and people tend to give up right from the start. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Radon96 said:

I almost only solo queue in 1700 bracket, and if the matchmaking system puts you into a high bracket game with 1800 players, it can be very frustrating to play versus those 1800 triple-premades. Those games are 90% lose and people tend to give up right from the start. 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Match ID : 162026992

How am I supposed to even think of winning these types of games (happening more and more often) where solo Q 1700s lined up vs 4 1900s queuing together. With average mmr gain/loss being +6.8/-1.6 or something. Sure I get it its minimal mmr loss but its an instant lost game with team and me giving up mentally so it really doesn't help me enjoy these types of matches.

I'm not saying that those guys are WRONG to queue together (playing with friends is awesome*) its just unfair at the other end. This type of tmm is super demoralizing and its not compelling for HoN imo.

HoN really needs to do something about this balance tho for Solo Qs vs queued up teams.

*But some players have a reputation of Queuing with pals for wins at this point it gets more try-hard than Fun with pals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2021 at 1:53 PM, haradon said:

Match ID : 162026992

How am I supposed to even think of winning these types of games (happening more and more often) where solo Q 1700s lined up vs 4 1900s queuing together. With average mmr gain/loss being +6.8/-1.6 or something. Sure I get it its minimal mmr loss but its an instant lost game with team and me giving up mentally so it really doesn't help me enjoy these types of matches.

I'm not saying that those guys are WRONG to queue together (playing with friends is awesome*) its just unfair at the other end. This type of tmm is super demoralizing and its not compelling for HoN imo.

HoN really needs to do something about this balance tho for Solo Qs vs queued up teams.

*But some players have a reputation of Queuing with pals for wins at this point it gets more try-hard than Fun with pals.

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. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know HON wants to do their own thing and be different. HoN should do a structure like Riot's League/Valorant. Even though in the past these type of changes have hurt the player base I think going forward this will have a bigger impact for people who are still playing and for new players.

Two sets of ratings one for SOLO/DUO queues and 3+ queues.

Also brand new accounts cannot play ranked immediately. (I know this was implemented in the past - this will help stop the "smurfing" problem or the "idc this is a newly created account I'm throwing" )

I know this will separate the community and make queues longer but I think this does create a more fair TMM.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, RUS_AGENT007 said:

We can not prevent friends from playing together. The mistake HoN made that concerns friends was

 

1: Removing Russians from the client. 
2:Removing 4man queues 

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/18/2021 at 1:48 AM, permias said:

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. 

yes they can. Same with mistake 1, russians can play now. 


But before they reversed it players left for Dota or other games. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Matchmaking is fine as is. It's been talked about ad nauseum, and HoN's player base situation needs to be in a good spot before we can even consider something like this. We cannot change the matchmaking algorithm as that carries the risk of instability.

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