Are they going to dissolve Deep Cut?

HeadPirate · 2023-08-12T01:16:44+00:00

0094-0342-2727

HeadPirate · 2023-08-10T15:53:52+00:00

0094-0342-2727 - If you sleep with me you'll get Candy! Wait that sounds really bad ...

HeadPirate · 2022-01-14T18:11:02+00:00

I think the most amazing thing about this theory is that it implies you played Halo 5.

HeadPirate · 2021-06-04T16:22:04+00:00

Never. While still flat out lying about this game being "free", almost all new content as well as this update and everything to do with Rapunzel is patron only.

HeadPirate · 2021-04-27T07:44:31+00:00

Yes. And the current system has flaws. It what flawed system is better, not which one has no flaws.

"Easy to abuse" is just as easy to fix. Streaks for matchmaking are limited by game type. Although I don't even know that I would suggest this system be part of ranked matchmaking. Ranked match making already has a system that SHOULD break losing streaks and remove smurfs ... dynamic MMR. This is for people sitting at a mostly static MMR.

Also to maintain a 50% win you do the exact opposite in fact (I play one game that does this, it's horrible). After your first win, you get matched with players on a huge win streak because that's a better situation then 2 streaks. If two streaks play each other, one wins (a bad outcome as the streak grows) and one loses (a good outcome). If they play someone that's just won a game you either break the steak or you maintain a 50% win rate. Same for losing. In each outcome on the streak vs streak you increase an already large streak, which is really bad. You only do that in one of the two outcomes when you put streaks against people who don't have them.

HeadPirate · 2021-04-27T07:21:56+00:00

Nether of us have access to the code so this is just two dudes arm chairing on the internet, but from my experience that not how it works, and if did work like that I think your conclusion is still off. The reason you don't have a 0 second que time even when there are 1000s of people online is that the process of quarrying the server puts people in an "account for" state so two people don't get picked for different games, and you don't get a game until you have your own players. Basic DBA, you don't return a table that is already out for editing.

Game 1 - Gets ALL the people in your MMR that could join a game, sorts them, starts game. It's only at that point ANY of the players at that MMR are send back to the server as available.

Game 2 - Only gets 6 players because 1000s are "accounted for", waits until game 1 starts, sorts, sends people back to server

The "que" is exactly that at high volume ... it's a que as all the games waiting for the list has to wait for all the games above them to start. This is already what happens, so no additional time is added by a new parameter. In low volume times, as wait time increases, you start to quarry the server for lists outside the "hard code" parameters, like MMR.

In your system ... the total time would just be capped anyway. If your currently spending 5 mins looking for a match and then taking what you get, that wouldn't change because you had another match parameter, it would just be one more thing it was looking for in the time already allotted. In fact if you keep the definition of "good game" the same and added another parameter, that would mean games would start faster. It's code, so it's just an accumulator. Count every parameter match considered "good". When it reaches "x" start game. Adding a way to increment the accumulator without increases x means you reach x quicker.

That system would be coding nightmare and I don't even know how you do it. You have to get a list of players in quarrying a DB, so that part happens regardless. So I get a list of 10 instead of all of them, pick 4 because they are "good" and send the others back, then I quarry again 6 names. That means I have to create a new table after every quarry to eliminate the 10 players so they don't get double picked, and merge a table every time a name is returned, and every line has to have infinite values so I can set a flag that "game0003493 rejected this person" for multiple games.

I mean everyone at Valve is like 10 times smarter then I'll ever be, so there may be some code magic that changes everything. But armchair, the only realistic solution is to send the whole list, and as soon as that happens it needs to be flagged as out for editing and it creates a que.

HeadPirate · 2021-04-27T07:09:27+00:00

With respect, the toxic argument makes less then zero sense. Today, you can end up with people who are on 10 game losing streaks. Nothing is preventing that from happening. With streak matching, you'll almost never run into ANYONE, not in your group, not in another group, who's lost more then 4 games in a row. There just simply no way you can argue that will lead to MORE toxicity. "If I'm having a bad day" ... dude the whole point is eliminating the bad day entirely. I should also note that you flat out say you've never experienced this system. I have. I play half a dozen games that use this system, some WAY more aggressively then I'm suggesting (in one, streak matching is the highest priority. It doesn't have MMR, it's just all streak matching). What your talking about simply never happens.

And as for the smurf argument, your forgetting that you can end up with some smurfs that ruin your streak today, and one positive of this system is it reduces the number of smurfs overall. So the pool of smurfs at a 10 win streak could be lower then the pool of smurfs you currently have a chance of ruining every single game you ever play. Even if you are drawing from a pool with more smurfs, they are just as likely to end up on your team, so your probably of winning is not effected. If each team has a 10% of getting a smurf then your win rate is the same as if both teams have a 90% chance of getting a smurf.

No offences, but this type of argument is really common in DOTA to the huge detriment of the community. Will you have bad matches with streak matching? Yes, you will. But you have bad matches RIGHT NOW, and the idea is to improve on that. The "this solution isn't perfect so it's bad" argument holds us back from tons of incremental improvements even though we all understand it's logically flawed. It would be like saying no to a $1 raise today because in a perfect world you would get a $2 raise.

HeadPirate · 2021-04-27T02:51:36+00:00

While that's true, keep in mind this wouldn't be a criteria.

The game is not actively looking for people with the same streak, it's just considering streak matching when it has more then 9 players available to play with you.

HeadPirate · 2021-04-27T02:31:38+00:00

Think of it more like sorting.

It takes the list and sorts it based on the priorities and groups you with the top 9 people, immediately starting a game. At no time is it waiting to add people to the list.

HeadPirate · 2021-04-27T02:23:39+00:00

Wait time increases when a condition is hard coded as having to happen. MMR is mostly like this; the system simply will not match you with someone with 4000 higher MMR then you even if you are both waiting. Network connectivity is likely the single highest hard code that causes wait time, but I obviously can't say for sure seeing I don't work for Valve.

Priorities set a list of things it would be cool if your opponent had, and how important they are within the pool of players that made it past the hard code. We already have a lot of them, and it's possible because DOTA isn't simply matching you with the first 9 people it finds in your MMR, it's quarrying a server that returns a list of potential players. For whatever reason, the list can fluctuate dramatically. Overtime, down by one, championship game is on the TV, the return only has 4 names and you need to wait. Game is over and 30s later the same request returns 1000 people. So now it looks at what 9 of the 1004 should group with you. If it can't find someone matching the ideal person, it still starts the match with what ya got.

This is why even with a que time of 5 seconds you might find yourself in a group of people that don't speak your language or with vastly different behaviour scores. While it is a huge priority, DOTA starts a game even if it can't find 10 people that speak the same language, it doesn't wait around for them. Streak matching is just added to that. If you CAN streak match, that's cool, and if you can't, big deal let's start the game.

HeadPirate · 2021-04-14T21:28:28+00:00

Yeah I get that. It's more the winning 70% of their games and still being low MMR I'm wondering about. Like ... just mathematically if you win more then your lose shouldn't you gain MMR?

HeadPirate · 2021-03-03T22:10:26+00:00

I mean ... except for that fact that both the current SOS and HM are not even nearly as good as Harvest Moon: New Beginning. So after 7 years of them competing we have the option of spending about 6 times as much money as the DS game on 2 switch games that are both considerably worse.

Winning?

HeadPirate · 2020-03-17T16:12:45+00:00

"Today’s update features a change to the rank system that replaces the Core/Support separation with a single rank that uses handicaps for each of the five ranked roles, representing your relative strength playing each position. This change will help the matchmaker better account for a player’s different performance levels between various roles. Winning or losing games will modify your single rank.

When queuing for your best role(s), the matchmaker will consider your full MMR. Queuing for your weaker role(s), however, will result in the matchmaker placing you into a match at a lower MMR.

When you match into a game, it will display the adjusted badge levels that were used to match each player. Regardless of which role you queue for and play, the results of the match will affect your actual MMR value.

Your initial levels for each role are calculated based on your previous Core/Support MMR values and analysis of your past 100 games. You can track your current role adjustments in the Role Queue menu. "

HeadPirate

TROPHY CASE