These games are played consecutively.
Dear developers, if you like your game so much, play it yourself.
Dear developers, if you like your game so much, play it yourself.
Most of those players are premade teams. Premade teams always ruin all the ranked matches. If premade teams didn’t exist, all teams would be balanced. Because of premade teams, there are matches where your team has players with 700 ELO points while the rival premade team’s players all have 1400 ELO. Isn’t that a waste of time? The worst part of all is that if the team with the 700 ELO player has a player with 1400 ELO, that player will unjustly lose like 20 ELO points. PREMADE TEAMS ARE AN OBSTACLE FOR EVERYONE TO RANK UP
Isn’t OGENNYJ a pro player? da fook is this.
Me and my compeletly newbie friend just got matched with the goat matrieus.
This happens regularly. I haven’t played for a few days. I log into the game to check and immediately get match 2844vs3172. The matchmaking system works to prevent anyone from playing team games, I understand right?
By the way, the Chinese guy resign, but still got points.
Of the last 16 games, only 3 were matched equally. It’s insane. This is unusable. It doesn’t work. The system is broken.
I just checked other players, the situation is exactly the same.
Teams are not matched equally in 82% of cases.
It looks like it was meant to be that way.
And I tested it again on my own example. I resign in the middle of the game and still got Elo points when my team won.
More than meant to be it simply takes the teams on queue closeer to one another and matches them. It takes the average of the teams elo. Sadly sometimes there Just too few people and so on those times more matches are like that
Yea its based on overall team. You either all win or all loose. I guess its made that way si if you get eliminaste but contributed all game you wouldnt be punished.
1 Like
You can demagogue as much as you want. But out of the last 30 games, 87% were picked incorrectly. I don’t give a shit how this system works, I have a result and it makes the game 87% unplayable.
Not only do we not punish the player for resign, but we also reward him, right?
You asked how it worked i answered how it worked. Idc how you feel about it nor am i defending the system. im Just providing the explanation. Theres a post by another player about a better way to solve the tg queue.
Pretty much, its a side effect of the probably intended scenario u mentioned earlier. But thats Just guessing.
When the game starts, your teammates are matched up with every other teammate. This means the teams are matched in a mirror image: one dude is matched up with the other dude.
Who your opponent is in the team game is all around the color position the player chooses. Has nothing to do with their elo. You can know before exploiring which is your direct opponent out of the 3 based on what color each player has.
For example, in the standard model (the game base color set) Blue will always match grey, and move upwards if theres no grey and so on.
what? Is this saying that it alternates?
1 Like
Players join the lobby every other player. Your teammates never join in a row.
Player 1 - Team 1
Player 2 - Team 2
Player 3 - Team 1
Player 4 - Team 2
and so on
Yes, it does go like that.
But the map spawn order is based on the color, not that. If you change your color in the lobby you will spawn in a different order, same team, just the order changes.
When did he resign? If he resigned too early, I’m sorry but then this system is absolute dog feces. I understand that making a multiplayer game is incredibly difficult. BUT COME ON! THE GUY LEFT A GAME THAT WAS TOO CLOSE AND WAS WRONG AND YOU ARE REWARDING HIM? Im super mad tbh cause I have won many 2v3s and the fact the A-hole of the team got points makes me super hopeless.
The matriuess match got me thinking that maybe instead of deducting low elo we could give like a bonus to the team with disadvantage (like 10%) and make the elo difference a bit more meaningful. Cause poor guy is playing every match and gaining just one elo.
One solution to fixing this problem is to make options in ranked games very limited, Either make it 3v3/4v4 only. Or instead of having 3 different options just add “Team games” and make it include all of them and the game keeps matching with the available players. Like if there are too many people online then the game will match 4v4 s and if there aren’t many players searching it will search for 2v2s of course if your team size is 3 players then it will only search for 4v4s and 3v3s.
This would force people to play 4 vs 4 when they Just wanna 2 vs 2 or 3 vs 3. Imo would make it worse for anyone that wants to play with friends and not random players and benefit those that Just send it with all options tagged.
Basically you would only get 2 vs 2 if theres only 4 people in queue is what you are saying? If theres 8 instead of 2 2 vs 2 you would force them into 4 vs 4 (assuming the are all pairs)
1 Like
Yea something like that.
Although I do agree that 2v2s are very different from 3v3s and 4v4s (They are much more similar to 1v1s) but most 3v3 players woudn’t mind playing 4v4s. Also I think the player base is so small that it justifies this action. The balance of the games isn’t good.
I think people would prefer play a balanced 3v3 rather than a total stomp of 2v2. To be honest they should just standardise one of the team games. The current system gives too much freedom to the point it is causing chaos and games are unbalanced.
This action will speed up queue times and also make games much more balanced.
Dont really think basically removing a Mode is a good idea.
I mean the part thst matters is if you are forced to play with people you didnt que up with. If you are 3 friends you now cant 3 vs 3 because some one decided you gotta be in 4 vs 4 with a random guy.
By that logic you could split pairs and trios and send them all into 1 vs 1. You would speed queue times and get more balanced matches. All at the cost of removing the choice of what to play for the players.
Even if its a team game 2 vs 2 is a lot different than 3 vs 3 and those 2 are different from 4 vs 4. Im terms of strats and how the game is played.
4 vs 4 is closeer to 2 2 vs 2 than what happens in 3 vs 3 where the pocket player had to pay attention on multiple fronts and usually and help back and forth its allies.
I’m not removing it. Just optimizing it. If you are a pair and only want to 2v2 there is a good chance you will get a 2v2.
1v1s are different from every aspect. If you force team games players to play 1v1s they will definetly leave the game and never return. But if you make a 2v2 player play a 3v3 match he might be annoyed but he will end up feeling neutral about it.
Accordong to what you said and later confirme you wouldnt see much 2vs2. Chances are you are only getting 2 vs 2 if theres no much else in queue.
I as sure you the people that only play 2 vs 2 would leave if you force them to play the other modes, its the same dynamic. Thats why they only play 1 of the 4 options.
Its the same if people that like 4 vs 4 now were forced into 2 vs 2 (which isnt your scenario Just pointing it out).
Thats false imo, 2 vs 2 is more. Similar to 4 vs 4 than 3 vs 3 is to any of them.
Some people hate being pocket and feel preassured to have to be on several places.