An Improvement That Could Fix Ranked

(Verrukter_Mann1) #1

So we all know a key issue of Ranked: the matches are almost always greatly unbalanced. Balanced matches are rare. While I was sitting waiting in the ridiculously long queue for such bad matches I though of an improvement to balancing.

The idea is this: assign each rank a value. When the matchmaker creates a group, add up the rank values on both sides. If they are close, continue with the match. If they are not, then reorganize the teams until they are. However, if a group of 5 golds queue with a bunch of silvers, then there will not be a way for the teams to be even unless the party was broken, which cannot happen. So, in that case, reject the match attempt and find another one.

The idea is for this to all be done while the matchmaker is finding the match. If this worked, it would balance 10 randoms of varying ranks fairly well; one side could have a cobalt and a bunch of bronzes and the other side silvers, as an example.

I’m happy to accept criticism and other people’s thoughts on this idea.

(ClemClem7) #2

I don’t want to crush all your hopes, but I think the algorithm is already like you said, but it may not work properly, or give too long waiting time and people will complain.
In fact the problem is the playerbase, too small to have balanced match, because 5v5 is not big enough so a very good player (cobalt) will always dominate the other team, even if there is a good player (gold) in it.

This gamesize is too hard to balance with the playerbase this game has.

(Verrukter_Mann1) #3

I do not believe it is as I continue to get imbalanced matches. If it was existing or working correctly, wouldn’t the teams of silvers vs gold+ not exist?

(Melinder) #4

@Verrukter_Mann1 said:
I do not believe it is as I continue to get imbalanced matches. If it was existing or working correctly, wouldn’t the teams of silvers vs gold+ not exist?

It definitely does function as @ClemClem7 mentioned, what you have to keep in mind is that the system is willing to make compromises where it has to. These compromises are the relationship of balance vs time, which is shown visually by the matchmaker widening the skill range as time goes on.

Issues also arise with the introduction of open-party matchmaking, where the system has to deal with the complicated task of also sorting between party sizes that don’t match together. You may have 10 equally skilled players, but if the party arrangement is for example two 3’s and a 4, the set would be discarded.

I strongly believe that if the game had 10x the population with the exact same matchmaker, we would be seeing frequently well-balanced matches. When a designated group of players queues simultaneously, the matchmaker creates a lobby with those players in a matter of seconds, which arguably confirms that it’s working.

(Verrukter_Mann1) #5

Thanks for responding in such a detail!