An ideal match occurs within the algorithm.
(Plat, Gold, Silver, Silver, Bronze) is against (Plat, Gold, Silver, Silver, Bronze)
The class comps are even balanced.
(Tempest, Herald, Reaper, DH, Daredevil) vs. (Tempest, Herald, Reaper, DH, Daredevil)
The algorithm has actually done it’s job perfectly from the perspective of sorting ratings/classes amongst two separate teams. This is the most balanced match ever. What could go wrong here?:
- One of the players is a guy who normally plays low plat. He has signed into his gf’s bronze account to mess around for a few hours. He isn’t even trying to match manipulate. He’s just bored.
- One player has reached his gold on the only character he’s proficient with, but today he has decided to grind for pvp wings so he is playing on a class that he has never played before.
- One of the plats signed in after a bad day, he’s playing like kitten and can’t carry his assumed weight within the algorithm.
- One of the silvers signed in on a good day, learns a meta spec and becomes effective. The silver player is now playing more like a high gold.
- One of the silver players entered the match and forgot to change his pve weapons to his pvp weapons.
- Someone smells smoke in their kitchen and must afk to check out what’s going on.
- Someone is honest to god lagging.
- One of the plats is duo with a bronze and they are smurfing with one of the silvers.
- ect.. ect.. ect.. the list of random circumstances goes on.
Given even a couple of the above circumstances in play, the match could easily turn into a blowout and feel like “bad match making” But this is not the algorithm’s fault.
Could any of us have done a better job balancing this match, considering we were made to create it amongst a pool of accounts being played by people that we do not know? No, we couldn’t.
The algorithm does it’s theoretic job perfectly but it cannot see or identify the types of circumstances listed above. Ranked mode is one big gamble, especially with solo/duo only. Between those three or four open PUG slots, the circumstances listed above and flat out match manipulation, it is one big gambit. The above circumstances are real and can never be sorted out from ranked mode, not entirely anyway. The only way to help eliminate such gambits and frustration is to que five man teams, whether ranked is fixed back to 1-5 or we simply go and start doing automated tournaments. That way, we know exactly who is on a team and what to expect.
This season, even more people have lost interest in ranked. With solo/duo only, due to the above circumstances, the match outcomes feel about 20% due to individual contribution and 80% circumstance gamble. If you’re talking duo que, it’s more like 40%/60% but still the point being is that players feel like their individual contribution takes a backseat to the gamble. This is an unsatisfying feeling for any gamer in any game that would lead the gamer to believe that the game’s resolve would be based on skill and not gambling. This isn’t good for attracting players to the game mode.
So what is it that I’m discussing here? Match making really, how it gets botched even though it works perfectly and why it feels bad most of the time. Are there any ways to fix this? Is it even fixable? Is there even anything wrong with the algorithm? I don’t know, you tell me. I can say this though, in a solo/duo only ranked conquest mode, where an individual’s participation represents only 20% of his team, where an individual cannot avoid circumstantial gambits that effect match outcomes, it would feel good to be ranked fully or mostly on personal performance. Leave team win/lose progression to automated tournaments. This way, no matter how bad a match is, an individual can still perform well and have it be counted for. This would make worrying about gambits negligent and conveniently discourage any and all reasons to create match manipulations for the sake of win/loss progression. It even encourages players to keep trying instead of give up and AFK. It all makes sense.
~ That’s my opinion
(edited by Trevor Boyer.6524)