Competitive mode: solo queue vs premade

(Anti) #41

Out of interest when you folks suggest Solo do you mean true Solo (one person) or parties of up to 2/3/4? I’ve seen various implementations done in other games and, with the current community size, a split between 5-man teams and everything else might be better than true solo queuing, to avoid long wait times.

(OenX) #42

I think solo up to duo queue and a seperate party queue would suffice.

(Ceres) #43

Solo queue for up to 2 players, (like LoL) might even limit it to 1 person for the true SOLO QUEUE experience. Teams and big parties should NEVER be getting matched against 5 random players. It defeats the purpose of solo queue.
Party queue for as many as people want.
Overall, there should be 2 options when searching for a match, solo/party.

(MoonOnAStick) #44

Are the percentiles for the various ranks public?

(PixelTwitch) #45

The current feeling is You+1.
I think a +2 (so 3 friends) can be simply too strong in Dirty Bomb. You cover all essential roles (Fragger, Sawbones and Engineer/Sniper). That combo can often compensate much more beyond what a teams solo rank would have been.

Personally It would make sense if you MAXED out at You+2 and then have You+3 and You+4 on the other que. I feel most solo players would be happy to join fairly equal teams even if they are pre-made. However like I mentioned, I feel You+2 and You+3 is too strong for that cue. However, I see the issue of not including a cue for 3 man groups so would suggest they go into the “solo” cue section. I mean providing it keeps a random distribution of team sizes (People don’t deliberately cue for 3 man games to make ranking easier) the issues we have currently would be massively reduced.

(Anti) #46

Nope. As we’re still calibrating and balancing it I doubt we’ll make them public for some time (maybe never, who knows)

(Szakalot) #47

I solo queued, got put up against an AUS team of 5. One of our players never joined lobby.

To my surprise we got put in AUS server!!

I definitely never selected anything else but europe for matchmaking, neither did my buddy who managed to solo-queue himself into the same game.

Game went on regardless of being 4v5, with us 4 having 380pings; and the 5 player AUS Clan had 20pings.

Not the best game ever.

I don’t really EVER want to be put into 150+ ping servers; I’d rather it didnt matchmake me with AUS people at all, unless they come to our european server (which is what happenned two games earlier when I fought them on EU and US east)

(Zenity) #48

I second this. OR maybe make exceptions based only on whether matching the solo and parties would lead to a balanced match (with the team containing more solos being at least equal in rank to the stacked team). The biggest issue of course is that stacked teams of strong players are matched against 5 weaker solos. 3 or 4 stacked strong players would be pretty much guaranteed to have the same result.

(Strid) #49

Personally, I think “solo queue” should restricted to solo and duos… a group of 3 who plays together often and communicate well is enough unbalance a match IMHO.

I wouldn’t mind waiting a bit more if it means I’ll have a better match. But I think it would be less of a problem if a a solo/duo would be put in a 4-player or 3 player group against another premade team(5-player, 4-player +solo, 3-player +duo).

The real problem is when you have a group of randoms put against a 5 man premade… It’s unlikely solo queues will win, unless all 5 guys are new to the game and unorganized.

Still, I think premade groups should have some kind of “virtual elo boost” as someone suggested in this thread, 5-player should have a bigger “boost” than 3-player +duo for example.

(Zenity) #50

Also, could we perhaps get at least the average Elo rank of each team after a match, and how many points you won/lost from it? Perhaps that could help convince people to stack a bit less, if they see that it doesn’t do much anymore at some point. It could also help make the weaker team feel a bit better, knowing that they didn’t lose much and the stompers didn’t gain much (especially if you add the virtual Elo boost for stacked teams).

CS:GO shows all player ranks after the match is over, which would be another nice touch IMO.

(Ecano) #51

Don’t know the population but a logic like this may work.

5 players in a single party link with 5 players in a single party
if not parties of 5 players available
Link with 2 groups (2-3) (1-4)
if not parties of 5 players in 2 groups available
Link with 3 groups (1-2-2) (1,1,3)
if not parties of 5 players in 3 groups available
Link with 4 groups (1-1-1-2)
if not parties of 5 players in 4 groups available
Link with 5 solo players

(Anti) #52

[QUOTE=Zenity;529689]Also, could we perhaps get at least the average Elo rank of each team after a match, and how many points you won/lost from it? Perhaps that could help convince people to stack a bit less, if they see that it doesn’t do much anymore at some point. It could also help make the weaker team feel a bit better, knowing that they didn’t lose much and the stompers didn’t gain much (especially if you add the virtual Elo boost for stacked teams).

CS:GO shows all player ranks after the match is over, which would be another nice touch IMO.[/QUOTE]

We’re working on showing ranks on the scoreboard after the match. Agree it is needed.

(Anti) #53

[QUOTE=Ecano;529692]Don’t know the population but a logic like this may work.

5 players in a single party link with 5 players in a single party
if not parties of 5 players available
Link with 2 groups (2-3) (1-4)
if not parties of 5 players in 2 groups available
Link with 3 groups (1-2-2) (1,1,3)
if not parties of 5 players in 3 groups available
Link with 4 groups (1-1-1-2)
if not parties of 5 players in 4 groups available
Link with 5 solo players[/QUOTE]

A bit like how it works now, population is just quite small for ranked play currently.

(Anti) #54

[QUOTE=Szakalot;529686]I solo queued, got put up against an AUS team of 5. One of our players never joined lobby.

To my surprise we got put in AUS server!!

I definitely never selected anything else but europe for matchmaking, neither did my buddy who managed to solo-queue himself into the same game.

Game went on regardless of being 4v5, with us 4 having 380pings; and the 5 player AUS Clan had 20pings.

Not the best game ever.

I don’t really EVER want to be put into 150+ ping servers; I’d rather it didnt matchmake me with AUS people at all, unless they come to our european server (which is what happenned two games earlier when I fought them on EU and US east)[/QUOTE]

Very aware of this, discussing solutions to it literally this second :slight_smile:

(Amerika) #55

I would like to see a ranked solo queue (or a party of up to 2) that doesn’t allow teams to queue up along with the team queue. Let people select whether they want in a solo queue or don’t mind potentially going against pre-mades. I don’t want to be in a pre-made and stomp out new people just as much as I don’t want to be stomped out if I queue solo against a pre-made. Or at least prioritize a solo queue against other solos similar to what other games do.

(AssortedStuff) #56

[QUOTE=Szakalot;529686]I solo queued, got put up against an AUS team of 5. One of our players never joined lobby.
… Game went on regardless of being 4v5, …[/QUOTE]
I completely disagree with not replacing leaving/missing players in competitive matches.
I remember Silvanoshi replying that it was “working as intended, missing players don’t get replaced”. But just take this situation as an example, a missing player from the start, AND they’ll be playing 2 rounds :frowning: sigh
I definitely cannot agree with that decision.

(Amerika) #57

Yeah, it’s a bad situation. Bots most likely aren’t an option due to the complexity of the game (objectives, classes etc.) and implementing a system that encourages players to join an already in-progress game might take away too much dev time from a still developing game. And forcing a person to join an in-progress match sucks. So, they chose what they feel is the least awful choice in just forcing the match to go on 4v5.

Hopefully a system is eventually put into place where a person who is queuing is told that there is a match already in progress and they will get X amount of credits extra if they join it. World of Warcraft (and probably other games) eventually put in a system similar to this and it worked out great and I think it would work fine an an FPS for ranked match play too.

(Szakalot) #58

[QUOTE=AssortedStuff;529703]I completely disagree with not replacing leaving/missing players in competitive matches.
I remember Silvanoshi replying that it was “working as intended, missing players don’t get replaced”. But just take this situation as an example, a missing player from the start, AND they’ll be playing 2 rounds :frowning: sigh
I definitely cannot agree with that decision.[/QUOTE]

i completely disagree with replacing leaving/missing players.

a) game should not have started until 5v5 was ready
b) if people ragequit - nothing to be done about that. they lose their potential $$$, and get a penalty
c) the rest of the team should have the option to ‘surrender’ a game. so that you dont have to draw out an unbalanced crazy situation.

(MoonOnAStick) #59

[QUOTE=AssortedStuff;529703]I completely disagree with not replacing leaving/missing players in competitive matches.
I remember Silvanoshi replying that it was “working as intended, missing players don’t get replaced”. But just take this situation as an example, a missing player from the start, AND they’ll be playing 2 rounds :frowning: sigh
I definitely cannot agree with that decision.[/QUOTE]One problem with replacing players is that it messes up your Elo. It’s possible to scale contributions by time but not ideal.

Wouldn’t mind a surrender vote but can’t you already leave without consequence once one player has quit?

#60

Slightly offtopic but

sdQW2Mp.png1920x1080

Is this supposed to happen? (After everybody accepted)