TheBearded
Member
I'm sorry but how is a Emissary player in a Phantom three lobby?
71443416
Did the matchmaker just shit itself to death?
71443416
Did the matchmaker just shit itself to death?
Bad Matchmaking Thread
- Thread starter Yoshi
- Start date
Tianes
Member
71455267Played after a week of inactivity, feels like whatever decay might've happened put me in a pool of people playing for very different reasons
little to no coms, I don't think a word of english has been spoken, and from what little I could pick up in chat, all coms were also just smack talk
ghoststationtv
New member
henriquedefreitasserra
New member
Match ID:
71459495
71477680
71459495
71477680
Last edited:
lolggctest
Member
71393132
71400646
71407851
71414881
71420959
71425623
71463105
Queueing for 10 minutes just for a trash game. If there’s no ranked anymore, the matchmaking should take less than 3 minutes. It's all garbage regardless.
71400646
71407851
71414881
71420959
71425623
71463105
Queueing for 10 minutes just for a trash game. If there’s no ranked anymore, the matchmaking should take less than 3 minutes. It's all garbage regardless.
enricojr.tuvera
New member
71473804 we lost, the opposing team had nearly a 60k lead on us and none of us could really keep up
kirbychwan
Member
71485719
To be brutally honest, I think the matchmaking is possibly in one of the worst spot it has ever been when it comes to smurfs. I dunno if it's the player pool shrinking or what, but it's been uniquely miserable.
Out of my last 30 games, almost every *single* one has had a smurf, duo or stack that completely dominates the lobby without effort.
Edit:
71494833
For instance, here's a game I just won. I was a key player, but what the hell is our seven doing in this rank? He did twice my damage and went 17-4, decimating the lobby.
To be brutally honest, I think the matchmaking is possibly in one of the worst spot it has ever been when it comes to smurfs. I dunno if it's the player pool shrinking or what, but it's been uniquely miserable.
Out of my last 30 games, almost every *single* one has had a smurf, duo or stack that completely dominates the lobby without effort.
Edit:
71494833
For instance, here's a game I just won. I was a key player, but what the hell is our seven doing in this rank? He did twice my damage and went 17-4, decimating the lobby.
Last edited:
Elnath
New member
71486976
Matchmaking put a team of 6 in-meta primarily spirit characters against characters with a mix of damage types
There are 6 spirit resiliences on the enemy team.
There should not be games where the solution to an entire team's damage is a 3.2k item. Even one character who does mixed damage swapping over for a primarily spirit character would've balanced this out.
Matchmaking put a team of 6 in-meta primarily spirit characters against characters with a mix of damage types
There are 6 spirit resiliences on the enemy team.
There should not be games where the solution to an entire team's damage is a 3.2k item. Even one character who does mixed damage swapping over for a primarily spirit character would've balanced this out.
awakeanda1ive
New member
'm a support player, and I sincerely don't understand why there's still no distinction between party and solo matchmaking. I just sit on the same rating, playing either with a party of strong players or with a party of weak players. As a result, my win rate is 50%. Please make the obvious, necessary changes:
1. Separate solo and party matchmaking.
2. Separate the search by role. (Matches are often lost because there are either no carries or most of them. It's just pure randomness.)
3. Remove the choice of 3 heroes. (This is the most idiotic decision I've ever seen in a game. Maybe it made sense when heroes were scarce, but that's no longer the case. A huge percentage of players want to play one hero and are willing to spend a long time searching for a game just to get it. Why force them to play someone they don't want? During the new hero events, I lost dozens of games because people picked Bebop and Haze, ran around with a negative score, and whined about not wanting to play them, but rather to have a better chance of picking the hero they really wanted. Right now, in my opinion, there are quite a lot of heroes; choosing from 3 heroes is a completely unnecessary feature.
4. Picking heroes one at a time after the game starts is uncommon. Losing lanes or difficult situations often result from your hero being counter-picked accidentally. People don't have the opportunity to think and choose the best option for a specific game and opponent; everything comes down to luck. In competitive games, even in a casual pub, this is unacceptable.
I understand that the next patch will change matchmaking. I sincerely hope to see these 4 points, because this is the minimum necessary base at this stage of the game's development.
1. Separate solo and party matchmaking.
2. Separate the search by role. (Matches are often lost because there are either no carries or most of them. It's just pure randomness.)
3. Remove the choice of 3 heroes. (This is the most idiotic decision I've ever seen in a game. Maybe it made sense when heroes were scarce, but that's no longer the case. A huge percentage of players want to play one hero and are willing to spend a long time searching for a game just to get it. Why force them to play someone they don't want? During the new hero events, I lost dozens of games because people picked Bebop and Haze, ran around with a negative score, and whined about not wanting to play them, but rather to have a better chance of picking the hero they really wanted. Right now, in my opinion, there are quite a lot of heroes; choosing from 3 heroes is a completely unnecessary feature.
4. Picking heroes one at a time after the game starts is uncommon. Losing lanes or difficult situations often result from your hero being counter-picked accidentally. People don't have the opportunity to think and choose the best option for a specific game and opponent; everything comes down to luck. In competitive games, even in a casual pub, this is unacceptable.
I understand that the next patch will change matchmaking. I sincerely hope to see these 4 points, because this is the minimum necessary base at this stage of the game's development.
mr.fox001
Member
71500298 - One word ... Dogshit I cant explain it without slurs and yes i leave game at end because imagine to having couple of matches like this unwinnable match
Im gonna say Standard mode has the worse matchmaking ever seen in any game
Yes Street Brawl also has MM problems but at least its fun to play but standard? Getting's far good match it's like winning a ticket to south pacific ...
Im gonna say Standard mode has the worse matchmaking ever seen in any game
Yes Street Brawl also has MM problems but at least its fun to play but standard? Getting's far good match it's like winning a ticket to south pacific ...
71520171
Of course my first game of the day was going to be complete bullshit. Felt like it was a team of retarded solo queuers against a 4 or 5 stack. How has nobody fucking figured out how to make solo queueing not fucking absolute hell to play. Always protecting your precious fucking queue times to justify not implementing brain dead easy solutions
reallyamfeels
New member
match id 71512678
I have a very simple suggestion for attempting to fix the matchmaking. The biggest trend I notice in all my games that go this bad is that looking at the last 10 games for my team vs the enemy team, the enemy team has anywhere from 3 to 6 people on their team that have positive winrate in the last 10 games.
the average game that goes this bad the number seems to be 4 positive winrate players, and one player with a 50% winrate in last 10 games on the enemy team. My teams on the other hand often have minimum 4 players with negative to very negative winrate in the past 10 games (including myself) and one player with a 50% in the last 10.
when I win, it's often a stomp on my team with 5 players with positive winrate excluding myself.
As I seem to often have this situation (disregarding possible confirmation bias) I think that a simple solution to test (however it may be statistically improbable to be that helpful for high elo) is to look at the 2 frontline characters you are given every game and check their winrate, then assign them based on that.
one of the biggest problems I see is that often the 2 frontlines on my team have negative winrate, while the enemy team has positive. While it isn't always the case, it seems to be an unfortunate pattern in many elo's as well including high elo from streamers I watch.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to start on the matchmaking by trying to have a simple rule of trying to land 3 or so players on each team with a negative winrate in the last 10 games. if the 6 resulting from this are not available, then have the matchmaker move on to players that have a 50% winrate in last 10. if those are not available, then perhaps look at other basic stats to start with.
If there are players with a low number of games to reference, have the team assigner check their general stats in the games they do have, and if they aren't at a certain threshold or they aren't trending upwards, perhaps add one more positive winrate player to the team they get put on.
also lastly, I am not asking for matchmaking itself to change, just the team balancing after the match is made looking at winrates at a minimum when placing teams. the thing that frustrates me most is looking at both teams after a game and seeing that 5 of my team goes negative, and 6 of theirs go positive.
It being a team game it doesn't mean that it's a ideal metric as some games will be out of your control, but I would think it's a start considering matchmaking is seemingly the biggest issue for the playerbase. I would just like something to be tried regarding this, as right now, the bad games are far too consistent. thank you.
I have a very simple suggestion for attempting to fix the matchmaking. The biggest trend I notice in all my games that go this bad is that looking at the last 10 games for my team vs the enemy team, the enemy team has anywhere from 3 to 6 people on their team that have positive winrate in the last 10 games.
the average game that goes this bad the number seems to be 4 positive winrate players, and one player with a 50% winrate in last 10 games on the enemy team. My teams on the other hand often have minimum 4 players with negative to very negative winrate in the past 10 games (including myself) and one player with a 50% in the last 10.
when I win, it's often a stomp on my team with 5 players with positive winrate excluding myself.
As I seem to often have this situation (disregarding possible confirmation bias) I think that a simple solution to test (however it may be statistically improbable to be that helpful for high elo) is to look at the 2 frontline characters you are given every game and check their winrate, then assign them based on that.
one of the biggest problems I see is that often the 2 frontlines on my team have negative winrate, while the enemy team has positive. While it isn't always the case, it seems to be an unfortunate pattern in many elo's as well including high elo from streamers I watch.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to start on the matchmaking by trying to have a simple rule of trying to land 3 or so players on each team with a negative winrate in the last 10 games. if the 6 resulting from this are not available, then have the matchmaker move on to players that have a 50% winrate in last 10. if those are not available, then perhaps look at other basic stats to start with.
If there are players with a low number of games to reference, have the team assigner check their general stats in the games they do have, and if they aren't at a certain threshold or they aren't trending upwards, perhaps add one more positive winrate player to the team they get put on.
also lastly, I am not asking for matchmaking itself to change, just the team balancing after the match is made looking at winrates at a minimum when placing teams. the thing that frustrates me most is looking at both teams after a game and seeing that 5 of my team goes negative, and 6 of theirs go positive.
It being a team game it doesn't mean that it's a ideal metric as some games will be out of your control, but I would think it's a start considering matchmaking is seemingly the biggest issue for the playerbase. I would just like something to be tried regarding this, as right now, the bad games are far too consistent. thank you.
Tamara Mochaccina
New member
This was the Billy's fifth ever match. I'm in Arcanist II, and the lobby's average level was Arcanist I / Alchemist VI.
The ID is 71530680.
The ID is 71530680.
