I assume the section about “separate pipes” in the bugfix section was about separating AT and RT player pools. I don’t know if the new developers know this, but combining the pools was a feature of WC3 Reforged, not a bug. Our player base is very small. As someone who plays at night in the west coast with an AT partner, I am very concerned that we will no longer be a be able to find 2v2 games. The majority of people we play are RT— and we lose more than 50% of the time! It saddens me that this change may make it very hard for IRL friends to play WC3 together.
AT was always a waiting game.
The problem with AT and RT matching together is, moreso than other games, it creates match quality issues that aren’t easy to mitigate. Due to premade teams usually using voice together and just people who know each other generally work better together, Arranged teams have an inherent advantage over non AT players of the same basic skill level. This could be mitigated by pitting ATs against higher rated solo players, but its a difficult balance line to walk and I’m sure you’d have ATs complain of unfair matches just as solo players do now. But if they are seperated, you’re correct that queue times would increase, especially for ATs. But if I’m being honest with you , I often see players leave the game if the opponents are an arranged team and they are not. So that’s no better than if the game never happened.
That said: We don’t know that this is what that patch note actually means. It’s a really cryptic way of stating AT/RT seperation if that’s the case, so it could mean something else.
This is anecdotal completely, but the fact that there is a major change to ladder coming and there are two people that are talking about it is indicative of how there are not enough people in our player base to support a split.
Just wish more people played the game then I wouldn’t care about the separate queues.
As I said before, we don’t know what this really means, it’s hard to generate either excitement or anger when we don’t really know.
Also, not that many people post on the forums, it’s not really representative of whats going on in game. Aside from the people who are having difficulty getting games at all due to a bug/issue, I’ve never had to wait long for games, so I don’t think it’s as bad as you suggest.
The MMR value will change as the number of matches increases in both solo and group play. There will be an increasing tendency for players of the same level to be lined up together.
So there is no need to worry at all that team and non-team players will play unfairly together. As long as you stick to the MMR ranking system, you won’t have opponents or teammates with huge differences in level after accumulating a certain number of games.
There is always an inherent advantage to being in a group at any given MMR value. the MMR system inherently can not be accurate when comparing ratings of groups with ratings of individuals.
Elo-type matching systems like this were only designed to work in a 1v1 environment, i.e. chess, which is where the numerical rating systems we use all over the place today come from.
Yes, they will rise up/fall down to where they belong as will the rest of us, but the reality is when they win against non-grouped players, their rating will be artificially inflated when they face another AT group. So it’s a really flawed mechanic whether you’re the solo player or the group player.
The only “valid” reasons to keep things the way they are is queue times and for the fun of people who for whatever reason don’t want to play at their actual skill level.
Maybe add another queue that is shared between RT/AT players, so each player/team can decide if they want to be able to play against another kind of team.
We should ask every other major company to remove parties vs randoms from competitive games like valorant, call of duty, apex legends while we’re at it too!
I’ll never understand these sad excuses that are made by the players and the worst part is that they might listen even though it’s one of those things they shouldn’t.
Call of duty - has team modes, it’s up to every player in each team to put effort into the match.
Valorant - same thing, literally. Hell there are players there that can clutch 1v5s.
Apex legends - same thing, teams of 3 where usually you depend on each other. But again, you can literally solo queue ON PURPOSE and still win vs dozens of teams of 3 by yourself if you are good enough.
The ‘solo’ part I described can’t be comparable to warcraft 3 obviously but it just shows that wc3 isn’t the only one with this apparently “unfair” system. It’s just the fact that this game has one of the most toxic playerbases and people just continuously spit and hate on each other.
What can the developers do with the toxic or poor skilled players we don’t like? Nothing, every game has toxicity in it
What does removing AT/RT matchup do? You will continue to get random people you don’t like on your team only this time the same will happen on the other team.
That’s what League does, there’s solo/duo queue which only allows solos and duos in the 5 man teams, and there’s flex queue which allows groups.
Silly slippery slope argument is silly.
Those games weigh groups more heavily in terms of MMR so that the group advantage is offset, at least partially. Other games like League have seperate queues as described above. Solos can still enter the queue designed for groups, which helps fill in gaps, but people who want to avoid the group influence can enter a seperate queue that’s designed for their interest to avoid being matched against full groups.
Yes, it is silly for those who don’t know what they’re talking about.
You mean like you? because it certainly doesn’t seem like you know what you’re talking about, whereas I definitely do.
No one said anything about removing parties. But parties should fight each other, not groups of solos. You can get away with it in games like LoL that don’t have tons of micromanagement, but even there, they have seperate queues for premades vs solos/duos. You can queue solo in both, but you’re going to be matched to a group of less than 5 on your team and so the disparity is likely to be a lot smaller.
There is a very real advantage in ATs over solos, especially in a micro heavy game like this. That said, if they were to adjust the matchmaking so that the AT is the lower rated of the two sides, it would be somewhat more fair.
I most “certainly” do, considering I have played all those games vastly and that you’re the one who wants to learn more and get into ladder games (from what I understand from your recent post).
Like I said, nothing that they do will fix this game’s biggest problem: toxicity. However, WC3 classic never had AT vs RT in the first place so if they decide to remove (or already removed it, I haven’t been playing this game that much) based on that fact, then that’s totally fine. If they’re just gonna do it based on “oh no, i don’t like having this player on my team against a squad of buddies” then that is what I’m against of.
The best thing they can do (or already done it, I don’t know like I said) is alleviate mmr loss when matched vs a set team and that team’s MMR as a whole is used to match with players (RT or AT) of the same MMR range. Or just leave AT vs RT to unranked matches if people are hurt that much.
But considering you have players on the leaderboards with 192318317 wins and losses and top 10 players with 0 games played, I wouldn’t hold my breath on that
As have I.
I’ve never disputed that, but it isn’t really relevant to the topic either (well… clarification below)
I won’t say this never happens, but the main problem with AT vs RT is that the matches are inherently unfair. It’s little to do with "oh i dont want to play with this guy and more to do with “AT’s always win so I’m gonna quit.” I totally admit to doing that myself, and lots of other people do, they quit because they’re at a disadvantage. You seem to think that players only think this because they think their teammate is bad. I can’t speak fdr everybody but I will leave games against AT at the start often because not only is it vs an AT, but the system matched them against me when they already had a substantially higher MMR. ATs already have an advantage, so when there’s an obvious skill gap, I’m not motivated to play. It’s extremely discouraging when an AT pops up. Sometimes in the interest of not ruining things for the other guy(s) on the team, I’ll play it out, but the result is nearly always the same: The AT crushes the RT like a bug. Toxicity (i.e. ppl calling me bad/s**t/The R word/the N word) is also a problem and has made me leave games before as well, but that’s not exclusive to AT vs RT and well, I don’t think there’s much that can be done about it. I think the WC3 community is even more intolerant of skill gaps than the LoL community.
I see ATs often enough that I don’t think there would be a major issue with queue times if they were seperated. But failing that, they need to improve the system to reduce matching disparities so players aren’t intimidated into giving up before the game really begins.
Fair enough, I guess I was speaking from my own view and experience
I understand where you’re coming from, and I agree that toxicity is an issue and I wouldn’t want some jerks to ruin something for everyone else. But really, the bigger issue is matching premades against solo players is inherently unfair without adjusting the matchmaking to account for it.
forget about any of this, separating matchmaking queues is a ton of work for devs.
blizz will be doing number tuning and minor bug fixing for war3 reforged.
queues are staying as they are now.
Thanks for your excellent contribution to this thread.
That said: Some work is worth doing. Once you’re done with the campaign, online multiplayer is the core of the game (okay, soon we’ll have custom campaigns again…)
And it really isn’t much work to not match solos and ATs together. Not at all.
If Team 1 = [Solo,Solo]
{
If Team 2 = [AT,AT]
Then int Matchable = 0;
}
I think this pseudo-code could be fair for everybody:
if (team1.type != team2.type)
{
if (team1.type == AT)
{
teamArranged = Team1;
teamRandom = Team2;
}
else if (team2.type == AT)
{
teamArranged = Team2;
teamRandom = Team1;
}
}
Call_Match(teamArranged, teamRandom);
if (teamArranged.win == TRUE)
{
// do not increase or decrease MMR for anybody
}
else if (teamRandom.win == TRUE)
{
DecreaseMMR (teamArranged);
IncreaseMMR (teamRandom);
}
That doesn’t really work, because you’re saying that the AT shouldn’t gain MMR for winning a game, that isn’t fair to them, they may have an advantage but they still have to play to win. WIth this kind of code, they’d be playing for a draw unless the other team is also an AT.
The only really acceptable alternative to not matching them at all is to adjust the MMR algorithm to slightly favor the RT to balance out the group advantage. Of course this requires the system to actually balance matches in the first place, as sometimes I see matches where out of four players in a 2v2, it puts the weakest two players on one side and the two strongest on the other instead of having one stronger and weaker player on each team.
My code is working fine.
If 2x AT team , then normal code: MMR will be increased for one, decreased for other.
But if 1 AT and 1 Ranom than is just not fair to increase AT’s MMR. Otherwise we could have AT teams with extremely high MMR , and beat everybody => others dissapointed.
Or we can tune : first 5x MMR increases than nothing for next 8 hours for the same AT team. Is not hard to do it, technically, they just put one extra attribute for an object.