357 replies to this topic

[Paul Inouye]

@Will9761 - The way the UI is built is essentially using widgets that are common across as many screens as possible. That being said, it can be looked into as to what we can do to message differently using data from the event system (which doesn't exist yet)


As for the video... just waiting on the upload. It's only 50MB and 5-ish mins long and should be up quickly.

[Paul Inouye]

Proposed changes to the FP Match Maker



Sorry for the delay. Audio took me a while to cut out all the dead air/stumbling.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Paul Inouye, on 31 August 2018 - 09:39 AM, said:

Proposed changes to the FP Match Maker

As presented, it will help.

If you add in skill rating sorting for the groups, it will help even more (assuming that there are groups of equal size and differing skill in one faction's queue).

I recommend defaulting to a longer queue time, with a timer in game and notification when you have been given priority for the queue. (Adjust to shorter queue times only when the population supports it.)

I also recommend a "call to arms" style notification when the numbers in the queue are imbalanced (one side of a conflict consistently has to bump players to the next queue), sent to all non-loyalists currently not affiliated with the overpopulated faction, and you adjust the rewards for those who sign up to support a faction that is underpopulated in real time.

Edited by Kageru Ikazuchi, 31 August 2018 - 10:29 AM.

[Nightbird]

Paul Inouye, on 31 August 2018 - 09:39 AM, said:

Proposed changes to the FP Match Maker

If a group of solo players are prioritized after not getting a match for Faction A, and in the next cycle, one group of 12 show up for both Faction A and Faction B (plus some solo players), does the group of prioritized solo players get matched for the group of 12 in Faction B or do they keep waiting for the next cycle (and the 12 man groups play each other)?

Edited by Nightbird, 31 August 2018 - 10:45 AM.

[Paul Inouye]

Nightbird, on 31 August 2018 - 10:44 AM, said:

If a group of solo players are prioritized after not getting a match for Faction A, and in the next cycle, one group of 12 show up for both Faction A and Faction B, do the group of solo players get matched for the group of 12 in Faction B or do they keep waiting for the next cycle?

They are still used in the Solo queue system, only they will take top position in the solo queue. It's not meant to take solo players who got prioritized and slam them against a 12 man right off the start.

[Nightbird]

Paul Inouye, on 31 August 2018 - 10:46 AM, said:

They are still used in the Solo queue system, only they will take top position in the solo queue. It's not meant to take solo players who got prioritized and slam them against a 12 man right off the start.

Sounds good for solo players. What about if a 2-man team is left over from the previous cycle? Do they get prioritized spot for the 12 man? (This will likely not be an issue during events, but during regular days)

I guess I'd like to propose that groups do not get prioritized if they miss a cycle. Solo pugs can be. That or the 2-man group is only prioritized within all the 2-man groups. If the MM is looking for a 2-man, they will get picked first. This can be done easily by sorting the timestamp of the groups of X-size entering into queue and picking them in order.

Edited by Nightbird, 31 August 2018 - 11:03 AM.

[Nightbird]

I also just realized, if you drop in a 11-man, you'll likely get a prioritized solo queuer and not the best SSR soloer. This is fine with me, will make pug of destiny more interesting.

[Navid A1]

The big question here would be...

What is SSR?

If its the same as PSR, then we all know that its not a skill measure, and basing MM on something that is not related to skill is gonna be a disaster.

Imagine an average player that has trouble carrying his own weight but with PSR high enough to be in Tier1 being pitted against opponents with only groups (the most likely scenario).

[Big Tin Man]

Paul Inouye, on 31 August 2018 - 09:39 AM, said:

Proposed changes to the FP Match Maker



Sorry for the delay. Audio took me a while to cut out all the dead air/stumbling.

Paul,

In general I like it. I would suggest one tweak starting with your match #4. I'll use your example to explain it:

Once Faction B ran out of groups, it was Faction A's largest groups vs. Faction B's solo players, leading to a likely stomp. Could this be changed that once one Faction ran out of groups, the algorithm flips around? Start matching solo players v solo players until you have to add in groups to complete matches. Then start with the smaller groups with pugs until no more matches can be made.

In your example, match #4 would have the 8 solo players and two groups of 2 from faction A vs. 12 pugs from faction B. The remaining 8 man in Faction A would then get priority status for the next match, or if there are more spiders behind you (pugs suddenly appear!), that match would be the 8 man group + 4 pugs vs. 12 pugs. This has the potential to be better than a 8 man + 4 man vs. 12 pugs and a 12 v 12 of pugs.

Navid A1, on 31 August 2018 - 11:27 AM, said:

The big question here would be...

What is SSR?

..............................................Solaris Skill Rating

Better go play Solaris

[Daurock]

Nightbird, on 31 August 2018 - 11:14 AM, said:

I also just realized, if you drop in a 11-man, you'll likely get a prioritized solo queuer and not the best SSR soloer. This is fine with me, will make pug of destiny more interesting.

That does bring up a good point -

Assume for the moment that the "Top" (Let's say half, for simplicity's sake) half of the pugs get picked for one set of games, and rest of them get "Carried over" to the next set of games - for that second set, that trend would get reversed - I.E. the Worst pugs get picked first, and the "Good" Pugs get in at the end.

Essentially, instead of the "top" pugs consistently getting in at the top of the list, and playing against the best available teams, you get a "Carousel" of players being chosen, more or less meaning that the quality of pug you get would still be random.

Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of using PSR in Pug-Choosing in the first place?

Edited by Daurock, 31 August 2018 - 11:58 AM.

[Nightbird]

Daurock, on 31 August 2018 - 11:49 AM, said:

Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of using PSR in Pug-Choosing in the first place?

I would prefer random honestly, then a group of the worst random pugs together.

[Daurock]

Nightbird, on 31 August 2018 - 11:58 AM, said:

I would prefer random honestly, then a group of the worst random pugs together.

Aside from not having priority at all for the pugs, (And along with that, the possibility of bad players to not ever even get a match, which isn't exactly a great idea). I'm not entirely sure it's avoidable anyway, to be honest. I also have concerns about how the"Pug list" goes when there are two sides to grab players from. If the players on one side of the list are the left-over "Priority que" players from the bottom of the list, and the second team has the "Top of the list" Players, it could end up in a pretty rough game for the priority players.


As a sidenote- I wonder how priority is going to flow with groups. Is a 2-4 man that got bumped going to get first tabs on the strongest team in the next match? If so, it also kind of end-runs the system.

Edited by Daurock, 31 August 2018 - 12:03 PM.

[Nightbird]

Daurock, on 31 August 2018 - 12:01 PM, said:

Aside from not having priority at all for the pugs,

Well, first come first serve is fine for pugs. Sorting by SSR just ensures the best and worst pugs are grouped together without any regard for the strength of the other team. It would be up to luck to that the worst pugs isn't placed against the best team.

Daurock, on 31 August 2018 - 12:01 PM, said:

As a sidenote- I wonder how priority is going to flow with groups. Is a 2-4 man that got bumped going to get first tabs on the strongest team in the next match? If so, it also kind of end-runs the system.

I think a priority 2-man would face a 12 man, I asked the same question earlier.

[Daurock]

Nightbird, on 31 August 2018 - 12:10 PM, said:

Well, first come first serve is fine for pugs. Sorting by SSR just ensures the best and worst pugs are grouped together without any regard for the strength of the other team. It would be up to luck to that the worst pugs isn't placed against the best team.

Yeah, with the way it's currently laid out, it may end up that way. Using Sorting in general, (Whether it be PSR, group size, or anything really) when combining it with a "Priority que" is gonna end potentially ugly, as it just leads to a "Carousel" instead of a "Top to bottom" sorting in each game set.

Nightbird, on 31 August 2018 - 12:10 PM, said:

I think a priority 2-man would face a 12 man, I asked the same question earlier.

Well, if i am worried about it after being bumped in my 2 man, i can at least exit que, and join it again on the second set, ensuring i drop to the "Bottom" of the group pile. Unlike the Solos, I won't be at the exact bottom of the list, and would still have a good chance of getting a game.

Edited by Daurock, 31 August 2018 - 12:21 PM.

[Nightbird]

Daurock, on 31 August 2018 - 12:21 PM, said:

Well, if i am worried about it after being bumped in my 2 man, i can at least exit que, and join it again on the second set, ensuring i drop to the "Bottom" of the group pile. Unlike the Solos, I won't be at the exact bottom of the list, and would still have a good chance of getting a game.

Good point, as long as the user has control and can choose to exit and re-queue, it should be fine. Well, if people don't automatically unready when you exit, that can get annoying

That been said, there is usually a population imbalance, one side always waits longer. The 'Carousel' will ensure that 2 and 3 mans with solos pulled in are going to get priority against 12mans at a high frequency, which leads to the new 12man joining in to get small teams and pugs on the other side. It will really be completely up to luck for this system to work the way shown in the video.

Edited by Nightbird, 31 August 2018 - 12:34 PM.

[Eisenhorne]

Nightbird, on 31 August 2018 - 12:29 PM, said:

Good point, as long as the user has control and can choose to exit and re-queue, it should be fine. Well, if people don't automatically unready when you exit, that can get annoying

That been said, there is usually a population imbalance, one side always waits longer. The 'Carousel' will ensure that 2 and 3 mans with solos pulled in are going to get priority against 12mans at a high frequency, which leads to the new 12man joining in to get small teams and pugs on the other side. It will really be completely up to luck for this system to work the way shown in the video.

Hmm... what if the system simply goes from selecting largest groups + highest SSR solos in one round to selecting smallest groups and lowest SSR players in the second round, with no priority? It could just alternate every other round, between high skill / large group and low skill / small group. That way it will always ensure largest groups vs largest groups when possible, and it will prevent the issue with some players never gettting chosen because of low skill if the priority system is never implemented. Might lead to longer waits for some, but I think it would ensure everyone always gets a match eventually.

I think the priority system, while it's important to always get everyone, kinda throws a monkey wrench into the whole thing.

Edited by Eisenhorne, 31 August 2018 - 12:43 PM.

[Daurock]

Nightbird, on 31 August 2018 - 12:29 PM, said:

Good point, as long as the user has control and can choose to exit and re-queue, it should be fine. Well, if people don't automatically unready when you exit, that can get annoying

That been said, there is usually a population imbalance, one side always waits longer. The 'Carousel' will ensure that 2 and 3 mans with solos pulled in are going to get priority against 12mans at a high frequency, which leads to the new 12man joining in to get small teams and pugs on the other side. It will really be completely up to luck for this system to work the way shown in the video.

I kind of think that "Priority" Quieing should only be a thing for the solos, honestly. No Group "Priority" at all, aside from the "Size" sorting should make the top of the list sort itself correctly. The small groups should never end up at the end of the que, and should be OK I would think, assuming the imbalances in population don't get so far out of hand that the entire group+Solo que can't match just the group que of one side.

Couple that with the "Solos" not being sorted at all (By psr, or any other means), getting "Priority" queing instead, and i think we might have something.

Edited by Daurock, 31 August 2018 - 12:44 PM.

[Nightbird]

I think I got it, instead of groups and solo, have 3 ladders (or more). The first ladder is 12 mans to 7 mans, the second is 6 mans to 2 mans, the third is solos. The rest is the same as described, priority within the ladder if you don't get a drop. It's not a real bucket, so it doesn't affect queue times and puts together better matches in that a priority 2-man is never prioritized against a large group if there is a large group in your faction queued.

When I say 'or more', you can do four ladders: 12-9, 8-5, 4-2, solos, and it won't affect queue times on average. Of course, you can do even more granular ladders if you want for marginal benefits.

Edited by Nightbird, 31 August 2018 - 12:56 PM.

[Daurock]

Nightbird, on 31 August 2018 - 12:52 PM, said:

I think I got it, instead of groups and solo, have 3 ladders (or more). The first ladder is 12 mans to 7 mans, the second is 6 mans to 2 mans, the third is solos. The rest is the same as described, priority within the ladder if you don't get a drop. It's not a real bucket, so it doesn't affect queue times and puts together better matches in that a priority 2-man is never prioritized against a large group if there is a large group in your faction queued.

I'm assuming this means that a 2/3 man will never "jump" a 7 man or larger, when it comes to finding a team fight. (And, that the MM always works from the top down, finding all the available 12 mans, 11, 10s, and so forth down to the 7s before going to that prioritized small group.)

Assuming that, it might have a shot at working, actually. It just becomes a question of "How many buckets can we have before people start getting perma-left out."
Where that limit is between 1 group bucket (I.E. full priority que) and 12 group buckets, (No priority at all in que) I don't have a clue.

Edited by Daurock, 31 August 2018 - 01:09 PM.

[Cy Mitchell]

This is an interesting approach. If this bears fruit and the lore based events continue then you just may lure me back to Faction Play. I have not played a game there since December of 2015 when it was still Community Warfare.