Let's Talk about Matchmaking


#21

@Jythri

One thought I wanted to throw out there/question I wanted to ask:

If I understand correctly, the “competitive” queue isn’t strictly for people that are top players, but for people of all skill levels that would prefer to wait a bit longer and get a match that is closer to their own skill level. Is that correct?

If so, I think the term “competitive” might put off some people who are, in fact, more “casual” players, not understanding intuitively that they might be more likely to get matched up wildly out of their skill bracket in the casual queue.

As such, I think you might want to consider renaming the options to something more along the lines of “quick” vs “matched” or another alternative that doesn’t give the impression that newer players necessarily should lean toward the casual queue.


(Randandestroyer) #22

What I want to know, is what will become of the current matchmaking options that we have now?
Like are the new Casual and Competetive modes being added as additional playlists or are they completely replacing what we have now?
Honestly, the idea of having a mode that only does Paradise over Coldsnap, etc… Would be annoying and eventually bland. It would be even worse if it forces players to be thrown into a playlist that incorporates Meltdown, Capture, and Incursion, when I would sooner just play Meltdown for example.

I’m all for better player matching, but if it comes at the cost of no map variance or mode choice, I feel it will do more harm than good. Like, I like Meltdown most of the time and dislike capture. I feel many players have their preferred modes as well. Ultimately, I can foresee a lot of players quitting matches should they wind up playing a mode they didn’t intend to, or go into the lobby and see that they have no choice but to play Paradise everytime, rather than having the refreshing back and forth of Coldsnap. Furthermore, because of the different map that gets voted for, I find myself prefering different characters on each of the maps: Like Marquis on Coldsnap and Phoebe on Paradise, but not the other way around… All I’m saying is that I feel this overhaul and assumed lack of map variance per mode will push more people away rather than make people feel more welcome.

What I would put in place is continue to allow players to choose their preferred mode, then it brings up a sub menu of Casual or Competitive. From there Casual would Play like normal Battleborn matchmaking, whereas Competitive would bring up another menu featuring Paradise or Coldsnap. Then you chose the map you prefer, find a group of like-minded players and go from there without voting.
If the matchmaking only shows the most popular map, like you said, then how will this new mode even incorporate the dlc maps planned for July without going against what the most popular map is?

I know you guys said you wanted to test things out and play with the system over the next few weeks, but if all possible, I would implore you to offer both the current matchmaking options we currently have alongside the new one. That way, you could have a compare and contrast between which system the community prefers.

TLDR: Not giving players a mode choice will cause more players to quit out of matchmaking. The main reason players quit currently is because they get destroyed by players with greater skill than them, get fed up and lose a will to continue, thus leading to more and more players voting for surrender at their earliest convenience to end their sufferings quicker. Therefore the skill matching is essential. If players get forced into a game type they didn’t intend to play, they’ll most likely lose moral and not try as hard as they would have in their preferred mode. Furthermore, no map choice will bring about blandness no one really wants.


#23

I think it is entirely possible people will leave matchmaking if they don’t get the mode choice they want. Hopefully they have planned for that in some way.


(Randandestroyer) #24

Like certain characters shine more in certain game modes too. Ghalt shines in Capture with traps, but might not be favourable in Incursion. If you wake up wanting to Ghalt some people and you get incursion, Ghalt might leave… Same for Marquis players that know he excels in Meltdown and Incursion, but in the wide-openness of Capture, they might also quit. That’s literally what I’m most concened about; losing our vote of both map and mode…


(Rickbaker88) #25

…You bring up a very good point… I really dont like change apparantly.


(Rickbaker88) #26

Its going to be a disaster. My wife and brother HATE meltdown and capture, so I can guarantee they are going to force us to dodge whenever we dont get incursion…


#27

Keep in mind they have already said this is an experiment, they are trying new things. I wonder if it might be possible to add in a “checklist” of modes people are willing to play.


#29

I was referring to this. Perhaps “experiment” was the wrong word, but the point is that they want feedback on the changes to help shape further iterations.

The matchmaking is a big source of frustration for people. They are trying to get creative to make it better within the constraints of the playerbase. I applaud them for at least trying.


(Nitpick Rank 100) #30

I agree with the naming concerns. “Quick” and “Matched” sounds a lot better than “Casual” and “Competitive”.

Three things come to mind:

  • What is your plan to combat quitters who will leave if Incursion isn’t chosen? I expect this to be a very frequent occurrence. Will the report function be enough? What if it discourages players from playing at all?
  • How are you going to accomodate the three new maps into this? I’d rather have the possibility to vote on all nine of them than have a random pool of three to choose from.
  • Please consider implementing a smart voting system.

This sounds like Competitive will be Paradise, Overgrowth and Outback, with no chance given to the other maps, including new ones.


(TheFunfighter) #31

Can you imagine how eagerly I awaited this? Not the changes, this type of being open. Way to go!

Next step is backing up your changes with statistical data, if you want to crank it up a notch (rather applies to balance changes). You can only win understanding.

On the changes themselves: Looks interesting. I’ll await them and then see how it plays out. The obvious concern is people being forced into maps they don’t like, but I guess when the matches are more enjoyable it will be an overall win.

How’s your stance towards changing to “player-distribution”, replacing the current “5v5-package-matching” system? I think that might make balancing matchups easier (the algorithm would be slightly more complex though).
-> find 10 players and make 2 teams based on the age-old “2 captains select their football-team”-method, rather than throwing teams together and then trying to match two of them up.


(Bobobaz) #32

Yeah, I agree with the Randandestroyer, I pretty much exclusively play Meltdown and I only play the other two with certain friends every once in a while. If I end up with people only wanting to play incursion or capture, I’m not going to be having fun and since I don’t want to be reported for leaving whenever that comes into play, I really don’t see myself trying to play at all until it’s switched back to the current system or some kind of hybrid where I can just play Meltdown.


(Chucknorris405) #33

Personally, I think this is absolutely awful! I rarely have problems finding games, 3 min wait time is fine by me. I ONLY play incursion and have no interest what so ever in any other mode. So now ill get reported for quiting a match every time its not incursion (its all I want to play with my limited time) and my wait times will explode because of this and being reported for quiting. I know some people may like it and I guess thats good, but for me and my friends this is gonna kill the game for us and I defiantly can’t recommend this game to anymore friends as I see myself leaving shortly after the do this, since I’ll get constantly reported for quiting.
I WILL quit every time its not Incursion. Penalties wont help because I only want to play incursion and if I cant play it, I dont want to play anyway, at all, so I dont care about the penalty.

I’ve given every game mode plenty of tries and really only enjoy incursion.

I want whats best for this game, it just sucks this “fix” is gonna alienate me personally. If its what is best then it is what it is. I just dont see it that way at all.


#34

Just wanted to give kudos to you and others that are expressing the concerns they have about the proposed system without getting nasty about it.

I hope you will give the other modes a try again, rather than stop playing, if it comes down to that. Still, respect the ability to discuss it rationally/calmly/etc


(afrotronic) #36

I like the fact that you guys are trying to improve matchmaking, and understand that it can be hard to please everyone, but i dont like this plan.

There are a couple reasons

  1. I dont like not being able to choose my game type. I mostly play meltdown. I dont like capture at all, and i find incursion an alright break to change things up from time to time. Not being able to choose is almost a deal breaker. I would rather not play, than be forced to play something i dont want to play.

  2. On top of not choosing my game type, i also no longer get a vote on the map in competitive. Tired of paradise? Sick of overgrowth? To bad, they are the most popular so they will be the choice for competitive

3 . People will leave. Its a certainty. Someone will not get the mode/map they want and will just quit, leaving the teams unbalanced, and or kicked back to que repeatedly.

Thats my 2 cents. Ill give it a try but im almost sure ill end up frustrated before long.


(12326kjr) #37

To the posters saying if they cant play X game mode they will quit.

How would you fix it? You cant have 6 playlists, more once new modes get implemented, the player base is just too small for that to work. How it is now isnt working (skill gap too large). How it was before wasnt working (wait times too long). This sounds like the best solution.

And this is different than it is now how? 99% of my games are on overgrowth and paradise


(TheFunfighter) #38

Point noted, but it’s important to keep them available for the sake of actually giving a choice.


#39

That’s not really a good change???
I liked being able to choose the mode and map I wanted. The unpopular maps will surely go even more unused than before.
Overall not being able to choose the mode is the worst about this. I like all modes, but I know many people hate capture.


(XB1: ZabuzaMomochee) #40

It looks like they are trying really hard to give us Ranked but have run into the issue of “If we add another mode, the queue times will end up so long noone gets into a match.” Meaning it is either this, or sorry no Ranked or Ranked-esk modes as it were.

I suppose the third option is to give in to demand and let the player base die because GBX got fed up with being told how it should work only for us to realize that we have now broken the game beyond repair.


(Xevren) #41

Any word on groups getting matched up versus groups or something like that? Happy about this but really hope it will stop matching up solo queue’s versus a 5 man and the like. It stinks on both sides.


(Jjand302) #42

For those upset: they do provide a pretty solid explanation. Matchmaking is on there legs. Time, skill, and options/pool size. They’ve consistently tried to maintain open options for what mode you play and then find a balance between time and skill. That proved difficult so they decided to try and change what type of options you had without diminishing the players in a pool because of having too many options. Give it a chance. If it doesn’t work, we can tell them and they can reconsider how to Balance the 3