The last 7 games I’ve played, I have been teamed with another high-ish ranked player against 2 new players… and got 0 points. It is ridiculous that the two high rated players have been teamed together all the time
10 Likes
this happens because the low rate opponents decided to stack together and most likely they were the only ones wanting to play 2v2s at that time, so you got them. Imo it would be better to wait forever than to get these kind of games.
4 Likes
Yeah, I have no wish to play people -1000 elo, and they probably have no desire to play me either. Even more of a waste of time for both parties than waiting for proper game. Now I’m up to 14 games where I have got 0 points…
We are talking about matchmake? or stack teaming?
Matchmaking. I’d prefer to wait indefinitely than play a team of very new players as both its not fun for me, and it can’t be fun for them either
4 Likes
This is unchanged 4 months later, it’s terrible. I even get hugely unbalanced games after less than a minute of waiting.
2 Likes
Bump, it is very, very bad. Literally half my team games are terrible matches.
1 Like
What would be wrong with allowing players to specify an elo range for the game? You could set it to +/- 500 if you’re just looking for a quick game and don’t really care about a fair match up or you could set it for +/- 100 if you’re willing to wait for the perfect matchup. Elo earned/lost depends on the other players elo and the law of averages means it should work out to be fair over time. Could see how picking your opponent like in Voobly could be abused. Don’t see how a system such as this could be abused.
1 Like
I think the main reason for the current system is making the threshold for playing ranked as small as possible. You don’t have to look for a nice game where you fit in, just click the button and go. Making it easier to play gets more people in the habit of playing ranked multiplayer, growing the player base. At least, that would be the theory.
Where I’m going with this is that pretty much anything can be changed about this system and keep that strategy intact, as long as people still get matched within roughly two minutes or so. Adding options that increase that time, even if they’re completely optional and even if they lead to significantly more fun games, is questionable (though not an automatic don’t, just something to think about), based on that business model.
Wait. 4 months and this hasn’t been addressed? Can we see some attention devoted to this, please?
1 Like
Yes this might be one of the most urgent topics atm. All ranked TGs would need is that ppl can set a limit with ratings. Only ppl within that limit can match.
2 Likes
Is it really going to grow the player base when new players get constantly stomped? And the good players don’t bother with TGs because the matches are so bad.
I agree. I am not a pro ELO is around 900. I know I get matched up with 1500 and up. It is a little crazy I am just on to mess around I am not trying to win a championship or anything.
It is the worst of two situations at the moment. My current rate is 2k4 and I really don’t want to have to play 0 gamers or < 1700s. Today a played a game with two other 2k4s (all of us searching seperately) vs 3 800s… I mean come on. It wastes our time. and we feel bad for obliterating new players who SHOULDN’T have to play us.
8 Likes
It sounds like searching for team games in matchmaking without having a pre-made party is an exercise in frustration. I have personally had good games with pre-made teams though.
Right now the only alternative appears to be 1v1s or to find some players near your own skill to party up with.
Fixing the skewed ELO calculations for team games would go a long way toward fixing this, I think. But how are you supposed to fix lack of players? It seems most people trying to play competitively are just hitting the 1v1 queue instead.
1 Like
Indeed there should be a limit of like 200 ELO difference, beyond which you won’t be matched together no matter what.
I think the selction of opponents in Matchmaking has to be improved:
My friend and I are at 1000 ELO and about 1/3 of the games we match with 1700 - 2000 ELO opponents, this can be really frustrating… especially for new people.
We played already 80+ games so there is really no need to match us with those strong players?
Sometimes you get a match with smurfs, that’s fine nobody can really prevent that, but why play competitive against twice as good players?
Did you make same experiences?
Sort of,
Team elo and solo elo are two different things. Maybe they are 1700 elo in solo but far worse in team game. I never encountered so much difference in team elo. The maximum difference i saw was 500 summed team elo between our team. 500 summed team elo difference is a loooot, but the game took 8 minutes to find a game, so i guess he decide to be less restrictive.
Anyway team matchmaking isn’t balanced at all. 50% of our match is a stomp, in an direction or another. Kinda frustating
1 Like
So you mean not enough players are available in our ~1000 ELO? Strange… yes finding a game sometimes takes quite long, but we are playing at “normal” times, 7-11PM european timezone…
- the queues are long sometimes due to lack of players
- the match making is almost worthless, i dont think ive played more than 3 games out of 40 where the teams were balanced
- you’re playing an arranged team and you’re whinging about unfair matching??? do you not realise how much of a boost an arranged team gives you compared to 2 randoms joining up. I hate facing arranged teams regardless of the elo. sometimes i think you guys should have your own queues thats how annoyed i get sometimes, when im paired up with 寝ているアヒル who won’t even build a wall 30min into the match and ignores all pinging and google translated attempts to get the guy to build a wall…
1 Like