Jump to content

Idea: Matchmaking Based On Win Ratio


No replies to this topic

#1 Trismegistus

    Rookie

  • 6 posts

Posted 02 April 2017 - 11:41 AM

My suggestion is to balance the queues based on player win ratios so matches are based on making a fair game instead of just the quickest match possible.

I recently had a group queue game where the enemy team had 2 of the top units and we got stomped as you might expect. I looked up my team on rankings and none of them hid a high win ratio. Why were those guys put onto the same team?

It's clear that the current matchmaking system is designed with one goal in mind: to minimize queue times. It works we have very short queue times despite a relatively small community. For example in LoL it takes about 3 times as long to find a game and they have far more players.

Unfortunately the result is massively uneven games the vast majority of the time. It's not balanced based on players win rates or anything else that remotely works. You don't even play against people of similar tiers and given that the tier system isn't even well done it's a mystery why it even exists.

I wondered if maybe it was just a really snowbally game but after scrimming vs a close team I see that in 10 straight matches 8 resulted in 3 or fewer mechs surviving and not once did a team get a clean ace even when we made a massive mistake at the beginning.

My suggestion is to hire a programmer with experience making queue systems and to get a real elo system to massively improve the quality of games.

The problem is both solo and group. Group que at least balances against large comps by limiting their tonnage, the single and only balancing factor in either queue.

I have hovered between recommending and not on steam for a while. I am on the fence because it's a really good game with a good community and I don't want to discourage new players but it's honestly hard to sincerely recommend this to new players given the sad state of the queue system, even after being as old as MWO.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users