With Legendary Edition + 50 Starplayers it should be time for a new kind of Matchmaking !

With the Legendary Edition and the 50 Starplayers ist time for a new kind of Match Making at least to stop that kind of Match Making via Team Value wich never was a good idea.
To Simulate League Play, Match Making should be be handled with the number of Matches both Teams have played.
For Example If Team A has played 30 Games it should only Match to a Team that has + - 10% the same Numbers of Games played. In this Example to a Team which has between 27 - 33 Games played.
In Addition, there is still a Plague by a lot of Players that will quit the Match immediatly when the Apo is used or it looks they may not win a game - there should be an option to quit a Matched Team if the Opponent has quit more than 10% or 20% of his games before the End of a Match without Penalty. This should Lead also to more Matches played till the End of Game.
Also it should solve the Problem with this Cheated Teams where a player Starts with 4 Chaos Killer Warriors at Level 5-6 and 7 Goats without any Skills only build to destroy other Teams.

How is this better than TV matching? What actual issue does it solve?

I also think your proposal (or similar one) regarding conceding was already discussed at Steam forums. Not really a solution to anything, as it basically will give "conceders" what they want, many times (as they usually concede when odds in terms of TV are not in their favor; thus coaches with high TV, when seeing such coach with high concede rate, will just use the ability to disengage, to not waste their time - exactly what conceder needs!) Also, with current ability to create a lot of accounts, it won't really be useful, as they may start playing the other one instead.

I'm copy here my own thoughts on how to battle this:

  1. Reasonable cooldown for MM for all their teams on this account (or even better, for all teams on all accounts bound to this key). Like, after DC or any unreasonable conceding he needs to wait 10-30 minutes before playing anybody in MP again. Of course, he is still allowed to reconnect to his current match, if it's still there. This could be implemented to use some progressive scale, like, 1st conceding will just force you to wait 10 mins, next one 15 mins, and so on. Also may be additionally influenced by you recent conceding/DCs statistics.

  2. AFAIK, atm, in case you took some injuries in ongoing match and disconnected for any reason, those injuries won't be applied. If it's true, this MUST be fixed asap, it just cries for abuse, pixel-huggers will keep doing it even if said cooldown is added, until you'll remove the reason why they do this.

So, the idea is to both reduce reasons to concede or disconnect, and punish those who abuse those things too much with keeping them out from MP for some time. Unfortunately, it also has huge drawback - those people may be discouraged to continue play this day at all, seeing large cooldowns placed on them. Some of them will probably stop playing MP after that. And that will reduce number of active players (because they still play with somebody, obviously, just not with you)

BB2 Champion Ladder Admin Team

To Simulate League Play, Match Making should be be handled with the number of Matches both Teams have played.

Ignoring the fact that most leagues very quickly don't match by games played at all, but actually match by success rates (winners go up, losers go down), there's this: https://voodoomath.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/match-by-games-played-analysis/

And regarding this Apo thingy (conceding/DCing if had to spend Apo) - I would specifically addressed this case by next home rule for MM alone:

  1. In case of DC (w/o subsequent re-connect) or Concede (unless under terms allowed by CRP, when you can't field at least 3 players at the start of a drive), if Apo is already wasted, a randomly chosen player on your team does an injury roll (because attacked by disappointed fans, of course :) ) Perhaps, we also could allow the opponent to decide whether to apply this. As additional incentive, we could even make this injury roll to happen even if Apo hasn't yet spent - just in this case if any long-term injury is caused, a re-roll is done automatically, and the less harmful effect is chosen; in case when both choices are hard to distinguish for AI (like, what is worse, -ST or -AG?), choice is done again randomly.
last edited by Mori-Mori
BB2 Champion Ladder Admin Team

The problem with any sort of permanent team effect on DCs is that they do sometimes happen legitimately: power outage, for example. And you have to tread DCs and concessions identically (or at least treat concessions better than DCs) otherwise people will simply DC instead of conceding.

@dode74 said in With Legendary Edition + 50 Starplayers it should be time for a new kind of Matchmaking !:

The problem with any sort of permanent team effect on DCs is that they do sometimes happen legitimately: power outage, for example. And you have to tread DCs and concessions identically (or at least treat concessions better than DCs) otherwise people will simply DC instead of conceding.

That's true, but, imo, MM in any case is not a serious game mode at all to be overly concerned over a few punishes for "totally justified" DCs. First, there is ability to re-connect if you had a brief outage. I also believe that such situations (blackouts etc) happen far rarely than ones created by the coaches itself. And in the end, there are a lot of unlucky events that happen in course of BB match, so this one (one more injury roll in case you were DCed and couldn't reconnect) won't change the general picture that much :) But will significantly decrease incentive for abusers to do this, also if couple with cooldowns, proposed above. Of course for leagues using schedules it's not needed. I would also make it optional feature for private leagues as well, as they are properly administered. So it needs to be mandatory only in COL and similar MM leagues.

last edited by Mori-Mori

Also, by allowing the opposing coach to decide whether to apply it, it can be mitigated. Of course he needs to be presented with DCer's DC/Concede latest statistics first :) So many coaches will decide to not punish opponent if he seems like a decent person, after all.

last edited by Mori-Mori

@Mori-Mori said in With Legendary Edition + 50 Starplayers it should be time for a new kind of Matchmaking !:

That's true, but, imo, MM in any case is not a serious game mode at all to be overly concerned over a few punishes for "totally justified" DCs.

If it's "not a serious game mode" then why would we waste our time punishing people over concessions, especially in a permanent fashion like doling out damage to their team?

I think there should be a short lockout period after a concession (regardless of the reason) such as 15 minutes... simply to discourage people from conceding to quickly re-queue for a "better" game. Beyond that it's hard to justify the punishments.

@VoodooMike said in With Legendary Edition + 50 Starplayers it should be time for a new kind of Matchmaking !:

If it's "not a serious game mode" then why would we waste our time punishing people over concessions, especially in a permanent fashion like doling out damage to their team?

Because there are not just "deadly serious" and "childishly playful" marks on this scale, and COL's MM is somewhere in-between, yet less serious than some moderated private league which kicks you out for such behaviour very quickly.

Edit:
Simply locking out their teams for 15 mins won't also prevent described behavior with dropping out of match when Apo has been spent. Such kind of player is overly concerned with his pixels, and won't mind to spend 15 minutes waiting if he may save them. Thus he spoils game experience for everyone else, while not seeing serious backfire.

last edited by Mori-Mori

@Mori-Mori said in With Legendary Edition + 50 Starplayers it should be time for a new kind of Matchmaking !:

Because there are not just "deadly serious" and "childishly playful" marks on this scale, and COL's MM is somewhere in-between, yet less serious than some moderated private league which kicks you out for such behaviour very quickly.

So its "not serious" enough to worry about punishing people who don't deserve it, but it "is serious' enough that we need to punish people for conceding games? I'm not sure I share your view of where each one falls on the subjective "seriousness" scale. In fact, I suspect most people think "collateral damage is no big deal" is less morally acceptable than "an eye for an eye" or the ilk. Obviously I can't speak for anyone but myself reliably, but I'd be surprised to find myself wrong on that point.

@Mori-Mori said in With Legendary Edition + 50 Starplayers it should be time for a new kind of Matchmaking !:

Simply locking out their teams for 15 mins won't also prevent described behavior with dropping out of match when Apo has been spent. Such kind of player is overly concerned with his pixels, and won't mind to spend 15 minutes waiting if he may save them. Thus he spoils game experience for everyone else, while not seeing serious backfire.

The lockout prevents that person from being matched with the person they conceded against, giving the latter person time to find an alternative opponent. It also discourages people from ditching games early to quickly get a shot at a "better" match because they have to sit out all games for the lockout period. Again, you're defining having to start a new match as a more "serious" problem than arbitrary and permanent team damage. I'm not sure that's going to turn out to be the more common viewpoint especially when doled out to people who simply had an internet outage or the like.

@VoodooMike said in With Legendary Edition + 50 Starplayers it should be time for a new kind of Matchmaking !:

So its "not serious" enough to worry about punishing people who don't deserve it, but it "is serious' enough that we need to punish people for conceding games?

Yes, that was the point.

@VoodooMike said in With Legendary Edition + 50 Starplayers it should be time for a new kind of Matchmaking !:

than arbitrary and permanent team damage

You make it sound extremely spooky, while what was mentioned is just a single injury roll. And there will hardly be a match without a dozen of such, at least. So it isn't a thing to worry about much, if you can't tolerate it, you can't tolerate BB at all. Still it's exactly the reason why I now think it will be useless (not because of fear of accidentally injuring a player on a team which disconnected due to outage) - it's just a single injury roll. Those who disconnect if Apo was used too early, or because they think the opposing team is too powerful and they may take heavy losses, will still keep doing it, as they will be expecting much more injury rolls anyway.

The problem could be solved by increasing number of such rolls proportionally to turns-not-played in the match (like, if dropped from match on 2nd turn, you get 14x1 injury rolls, if dropped on 14th turn - 2x1, or something like this; may be using armor rolls will be better in this case, then it should be more like "2-3 armor rolls per turn" instead). Optionally, this could only start applying after some threshold of DCs/Concedes reached, like 2-3 of those per 24 hours. Thus leaving some decent "window of trust" for a those who indeed may DC unwillingly, or concede because RL knocks at the door. And those week soles searching for easy way will be basically limited with 2-3 attempts to find a match of their dreams per day, and then will either have to leave, stopping spoiling others fun, or bear consequences.

I'm myself perfectly fine if this would apply to my own team in case of DC, as to me MM in public leagues is just a training-/play-grounds, nothing more than that, so I don't care much about a couple of injuries I'll get from some unlucky outage. In worst possible case I just delete the team and will start again. I also think those with a bad connections spoiling others games on regular basis shouldn't make it someone else's problem, and go sort it out with their ISP - or accept the consequences.

But anyway, I'm pretty much sure Cyanide won't do something that harsh, they lack balls for that )))

last edited by Mori-Mori

@VoodooMike said in With Legendary Edition + 50 Starplayers it should be time for a new kind of Matchmaking !:

The lockout prevents that person from being matched with the person they conceded against, giving the latter person time to find an alternative opponent.

I think it's not the actual concern of most complaining about concedes/DCs, but the fact there are a lot of different people like that. So you won't be matched against the same one, but there is a bunch of others in the pool

@VoodooMike said in With Legendary Edition + 50 Starplayers it should be time for a new kind of Matchmaking !:

It also discourages people from ditching games early to quickly get a shot at a "better" match because they have to sit out all games for the lockout period.

I don't think so. As they concede out of utter fear of odds being against them, or that something may harm their team badly, most of them still will prefer to go watch a movie or play some other game a bit, waiting for cooldown, than actually accept a match against a team with TV 300-500 higher than their (what is usually a case). The only thing it mostly does is to render them inactive for some time, preventing them from spoiling more games.

In this case I now think the original proposal of allowing other coaches to simply reject matches with teams with a bad DC/Concede statistics without any negative effects right away could be a good addition to this lockout idea - at least they wouldn't waste their time on them. May be even a checkbox when you start MM, telling the system you don't want to be matched against such coaches at all? Of course, it only works if you are not such coach yourself, thus abusers will be matched only with abusers - and this should work for all their teams, so they wouldn't be able to just go to another league with MM and continue it there. Let them play only with each other, what can be worse punishment here? )) So if you reach some DC/Concede threshold (which is reset at midnight and is fairly low, like 2-3 such incidents; you don't expect more per day, unless your connection (and life) is in total turmoil, in which case it's your own problem), you suddenly become unable to find any matches with a decent coaches at all, as most of them don't want to be paired with you. That sounds like a really neat solution now :)

Of course, it should work like that for all their accounts bound to the license key, otherwise it can be easily circumvented by logging into another one.

last edited by Mori-Mori
BB2 Champion Ladder Admin Team

The only thing it mostly does is to render them inactive for some time, preventing them from spoiling more games.

This is surely the aim, though? An increasing scale within a 24-hour period would prevent continued disconnection by dramatically reducing the number of times they can connect in the first place. 15mins for the first offence, an hour for the second, 4 hours for the 3rd within a 24-hour period (for example) and that's almost a quarter of a day.
And if they do want to go do something else then the goal has still been achieved: other matches haven't been "spoilt" by them. Why the need to punish beyond that?

Community Manager

I understand that you value more the community leagues and other competition formats, but Champion Ladder is definitely a big deal for Cyanide/Focus.

We wouldn't set up 3 prizepools of €950 and need more than a dozen community admins for a minor competition.

@Mori-Mori:
I posted a data analysis regarding the matchmaking not too long ago. you can finde it here. On page 2 of the document you will find some statistics regarding the number of people in one pool. If it is too long to read: roughly 50% of the pools only resulted in either one or two match-ups - this shows what the main concern about matchmaking: It is the lack of players to choose from and if you start blocking players, you would reduce that number even further, this would either result in no matchmaking at all or in match-ups which would be considered less fair (e.g. with higher tv-difference, which is also a mayor complaint about the mm-system).

@Mori-Mori said in With Legendary Edition + 50 Starplayers it should be time for a new kind of Matchmaking !:

Yes, that was the point.

I vehemently disagree with your assessment, then. I think you have how "serious" the two concepts are reversed.

@Mori-Mori said in With Legendary Edition + 50 Starplayers it should be time for a new kind of Matchmaking !:

But anyway, I'm pretty much sure Cyanide won't do something that harsh, they lack balls for that )))

Well, my take is that they're smart enough not to implement something that has a high chance of alienating people by punishing them arbitrarily, while not benefiting the community as a whole sufficiently to justify it.

@Mori-Mori said in With Legendary Edition + 50 Starplayers it should be time for a new kind of Matchmaking !:

I think it's not the actual concern of most complaining about concedes/DCs, but the fact there are a lot of different people like that. So you won't be matched against the same one, but there is a bunch of others in the pool

All of whom are likely to either end up locked out of queuing simultaneously, or find that they don't like the wait and thus reduce the frequency with which they concede.

@Mori-Mori said in With Legendary Edition + 50 Starplayers it should be time for a new kind of Matchmaking !:

I don't think so. As they concede out of utter fear of odds being against them, or that something may harm their team badly, most of them still will prefer to go watch a movie or play some other game a bit, waiting for cooldown, than actually accept a match against a team with TV 300-500 higher than their (what is usually a case). The only thing it mostly does is to render them inactive for some time, preventing them from spoiling more games.

"Other things" including playing other games, which will generally lead to them being away for more than 15 mintues (assuming thats our theoretical lock-out time) extending their lock-out voluntarily. If they do this enough, they'll simply get used to not playing the game at all, and the chronic concession folks will likely lose interest in bothering to try having a match... while the people who concede frequently for convenience's sake will likely reduce their concession rates to ensure they actually get to play more.

Presently concession lets you shrug off one game and immediately get a different one (pool willing), hopefully with a different person. Add in a lockout timer of any length and the convenience evaporates.

@VoodooMike @dode74 @Arne @Netheos

Then how about implementing it like was mentioned above:

  1. Threshold for DCs/Unjustified Concedes is introduced, set at 2-3 such incidents per 24 hours (You don't expect more stuff like this per day, unless your internet connection (and life) is in total turmoil, in which case it's your own problem, not your opponent's). It should affect all accounts bound to a license key, otherwise it can be easily circumvented by logging into another one. After it's reached, the coach is classified as "DCs/Concedes abuser" until the counter is reset at midnight.

  2. A new checkbox is added to UI when you start MM, which, if it's set (it shouldn't be, by default), tells the system you don't want to be matched against such coaches at all. Of course, it only works if you are not such coach yourself, thus abusers will be paired only with other abusers - and this should apply to all of their teams (preferably, on all accounts too), so they wouldn't be able to just go to another league with MM and continue it there. Let them play only with each other, what can be worse punishment here?

This can still be coupled with lockout mechanics discussed before, to create additional incentive and deterrent. As well as with what @Sir_Twist originally proposed, like, when the threshold is reached by the abuser, each time he is paired with somebody (let's suppose some coach decided to not set the flag and prefer to gauge each individual case, to find more games potentially), his opponent is presented with a warning sign, showing the offender's today's and recent DCs/Concedes statistics, and presented with an option to reject match with him without any repercussions)

It accounts for some possible networking/RL issues any decent coach may have daily (threshold), while at the same time isolates those potential abusers in their own world where they can harass only each other and those few decent coaches willingly accepting risks of spoiled games. Still, as counter is reset each 24 hours, and DC/Concede statistics only cover today's and recent activity (thus clears after some time of ethical behavior) it allows those who reconsidered their behavior to easily integrate back into community. Also doesn't do any permanent damage to teams.

Edit:
Perhaps, it should still be an optional feature for those managed private leagues with MM. It also would be very nice if their Commissioners would be notified of such abusers by the system, allowing them to react immediately.

last edited by Mori-Mori

I can see one drawback in it myself: it may facilitate arrangement of negotiated matches, allowing 2 coaches to easily get into [possibly] more narrow MM pool of "abusers" where it may be more easily to get paired together and farm SPs. If I'm not mistaken, it was bane of public non-moderated leagues in previous game anyway, so should it be seen as an issue at all? It probably will happen anyway. Perhaps some heuristics could be used to not allow for too blatant farming, flagging "abuser vs abuser" matches in which too much SPs were generated and too much TDs scored, so Commissioners could check it out easily?

last edited by Mori-Mori

A more radical measure to prevent such kind of SP farming could be that SPs accumulation is totally switched off for "abuser vs abuser" matches, and they are conducted in a "limited rez mode", so neither they get any permanent injuries, nor any money for the match. Thus if they just wish to play some games for fun with other abusers, they can. Otherwise they can wait till counter is reset. In case if they are paired with a regular coach, it's a normal match, though.

last edited by Mori-Mori

@Mori-Mori
To be honest, I didn't read everything in detail, I just noticed, that you made the common mistake of overestimating the pool sizes a bit (I didn't write that in a judgmental way - I don't expect you to know this). I tried to be of an objective help.

If you want a more subjective opinion:
There are of course many reasons why people concede and a lot of the time the players concede for kind of childish reasons (which is what annoys you, I guess). However, I think there are many times in which concedes are totally justified and in which a concede doesn't bother me at all. Thus, I wouldn't like to see people punished for such behavior -> so I don't like your suggestion at all. (and this is even before I start arguments about the reduced numbers of players)

If you really want to fight concession, you should think about, why people concede and should try to fight these reasons. I think if you ask VoodooMike, he will tell you which factors make a player to concede a game (I am too lazy to search for that script right now :D). One possibility would for example be, that a rez mode is introduced -> people wouldn't be afraid to loose their player anymore. You could even go one step further and ask for full TVPlus*.

*I am still critical about it, but it may be something you would like

Remark: For fairness sake, I will mention now, that I mainly play on CCL and only played just recently a few games on COL, so I don't experience this kind of behavior so frequently

last edited by Arne

@Arne said in With Legendary Edition + 50 Starplayers it should be time for a new kind of Matchmaking !:

@Mori-Mori
To be honest, I didn't read everything in detail, I just noticed, that you made the common mistake of overestimating the pool sizes a bit (I didn't write that in a judgmental way - I don't expect you to know this). I tried to be of an objective help.

I understand the pool is narrow. Yet, we still have a lot of coaches who are disappointed with this situation of a lot of people abusing DCs and Concedes. Coaches who don't mind to play uneven matches when odds are not in their favor, a decent coaches, who just want to play.

The pool won't magically become wider, so we can't do a thing about this. We only can either punish, or isolate those who demonstrate unsportsmanlike behavior from the rest of playerbase. My last suggestion deals with the latter approach. It doesn't punish anybody, it just give other coaches opportunity to put a wall between them and such "abusers" (for some time, at least). Those who abuse those features, should just be moved (temporarily) in a separate pool where they can only play with other abusers, and those few coaches, which willingly agree to be paired with them.

I'll just repeat this again: we can't do a thing about the pool. But coaches who don't shun of "uneven" matches (what is a nature of BB) shouldn't be inconvenienced by those who do. We owe them nothing, and not obliged to waste our time because of their complexes and insecurities.

last edited by Mori-Mori

Perhaps, to additionally address the "pairing fairness" issues, a new control could be added to MM. Where each coach could specify the maximum TV difference he is ready to tolerate. Then he is never paired with those of greater TV, even if it means no games at all for him. It also should somehow display the current situation in the pool, like which TV ranges contain how much opponents searching for a game, so he could see right away nobody is here at his preferred range and perhaps decide to increase it

It still should be coupled with proposed cooldown and the threshold/abuser pool features to discourage cherry-picking which still will be happening, though perhaps less frequently.

last edited by Mori-Mori
BB2 Champion Ladder Admin Team

You're aware, of course that there are two ladders: one for people who "just want to play" and another for coaches who are more casual and don't mind conceding so much. I feel you're making the issue far more complex than it needs to be by trying to pander to everyone's needs rather than simply offering them options.

a new control could be added to MM

Ideally COL would be a challenge league like Auld in BB1: effectively you can either spin for a random opponent or you can filter the list of viable opponents by just about any parameter. CCL would remain as is, but with some new team protection.

@dode74 said in With Legendary Edition + 50 Starplayers it should be time for a new kind of Matchmaking !:

Ideally COL would be a challenge league like Auld in BB1: effectively you can either spin for a random opponent or you can filter the list of viable opponents by just about any parameter. CCL would remain as is, but with some new team protection.

So it will be a breeding ground of mutant dream-teams, created through negotiated matches arranged by challenging your friends, like Auld was in BB1? :) Seems like it brings even more problems with it. I'm not sure what are those filtering options you are talking about. Some new feature of LE?

last edited by Mori-Mori
BB2 Champion Ladder Admin Team

Create the mutant dream-team if you like, but it'd be far easier to do it with the team editor ;) And people don't have to accept play against your team there, so if you go silly in your team builds then you can expect to not play. Challenge is the most popular form of BB in every environment where both Challenge and MM have been available, and produced the environments with the best diversity of teams.

The filters were in BB1: coach name, team name (to help you find specific opponents, used in conjunction with a chat lobby "LFG 1500TV" etc), race, TV max, TV min etc etc.

@dode74 said in With Legendary Edition + 50 Starplayers it should be time for a new kind of Matchmaking !:

The filters were in BB1: coach name, team name (to help you find specific opponents, used in conjunction with a chat lobby "LFG 1500TV" etc), race, TV max, TV min etc etc.

So you mean filtering the list to challenge somebody? I didn't use challenge that much, so can't remember. I believe those filters didn't affect MM there back then? At least I didn't use them for MM.

@dode74 said in With Legendary Edition + 50 Starplayers it should be time for a new kind of Matchmaking !:

And people don't have to accept play against your team there, so if you go silly in your team builds then you can expect to not play.

They still need to understand I did ;) Like, go researching my previous matches etc. Only a few will waste their time on this. Even checking the roster thoroughly won't be done by most of coaches who just want a game. So ability to develop ideal team shifts fairness we are so hyped about here as well, and I'm not quite sure it couples well with prizes in real money @Natheos mentioned before, it just cries to be exploited in such case.

last edited by Mori-Mori
BB2 Champion Ladder Admin Team

Yes, you could filter. And no, it did not have an effect on MM. No reason it couldn't, though.

As for being conducive to prizes, who said anything about applying this stuff to CCL? I'd be entirely against that: it's a play-who-you-get league. If you want to be more picky there is COL.

@dode74

And what exactly does prevent players from such behavior (cherry-picking) at CCL? Except from the fact it affects final score to some extent, and perhaps that it drags in a more engaged coaches, who supposedly won't do it that often. Still, for those not aiming to be famous and rich, it's still seems perfectly possible to employ cherry-picking by DCing/Conceding, technically. Is it better administered and they are being kicked out from there?

last edited by Mori-Mori
BB2 Champion Ladder Admin Team

Yes, they are booted out. Cherry-picking is also looked for, although there are limits due to pool sizes as Arne suggests.

It's not just "better administered", it's actually administered as opposed to COL which is not administered at all.

last edited by dode74

Looks like your connection to Focus Home Interactive - Official Forums was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.