The Isolation of Random Matchmaking

[Therumancer]

I tend to disagree here. Generally speaking the big arguement being made was that not everyone wants to face an endless series of evenly matched, gruelling play. However I feel that if your not interested in that, then you shouldn't be doing competitive online games.

Truthfully I think what is happening is Blizzard is beating around the bush the same way they have with balancing WoW and even Diablo. What they are basically getting at is that it's fun to be a bully, and they feel that if they remove this aspect of the game it will drive away the bullies and griefers who pay their money/buy their products for that experience. You know the guys who pop into message boards or shared vent servers and like to say "hey guess what happened when I met this n00b today....".

At any rate the solution to the problem is very, very simple. All they need to do is create ranked and unranked matches. Be draconian about skill in matches that are ranked. When it comes to unranked matches make it entirely random.

Of course then again part of the problem with this is that a lot of players are going to shun unranked matches.

What's more along with bullying part of the issue is a related point that when "competitive" players play, they want good rankings. So if they wind up in a loss streak in those 50-50 games, they want to be able to be able to smack Newbs around to get the numbers back up enough to a 1337 enough level, something that to me destroys the entire point of rankings.

The bottom line is that Blizzard isn't entire sure if it wants to design a competitive scene with integrity. I think they should, but I do understand their thought processes.

One thing I will mention though is that under no circumstances should Blizzard make it easy to put another player on an "avoid" list. While doing fighting games I found that pretty much every player I beat wound up putting me on "avoid" for unsportsmanlike conduct . I'm not the only one with this problem. You put a system like that into place, and you'll see players simply putting anyone they feel could challenge them in their ranking climbs onto an avoid list.

 

[Chipperz]

And in shooters, see Johnny Gat said in Saint's Row 1.

"Bullets still kill mothafuckas, right?"

Dude... I... You just got some massive respect points from me, right here. Everyone and their dog has played Saints Row 2, but I have a hard time finding anyone who's played the first one, let alone quotes it!

OT - I welcome anything that forces good players to stay away from me while I'm still trying to learn the game. Battle.net is still the biggest hive of scum on the internet as far as I'm concerned, and it'd be nice to be able to go online and not get a barrage of comments that seem to imply that I'm some kind of "nub" (which I always thought was the bit on the end of a pencil, live and learn I guess) and that they want to have sexual intercourse with my mother which, well, I don't think I could allow because they seem like twats.

If the system somehow forces me to keep playing against players of my skill level (which at this point include hampsters, trees and the clinically dead), I might actually be able to improve slightly.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

One thing that equal ranking doesn't take account for is "Those off days". Days when you couldn't catch a cold, never mind beat off a Mothership. On those days, you really want to play at a level you can cope with.

But, if you log on on those days...you're met with an "equal", and you'll get butchered - which means that on the days you're feeling ugh...like with a cold, headache or something where you just want to splurge in front of the screen...it's the worst time to play.

Or on those days just after the school/office when you just want to relax, you're fighting for your life...which is when the ragequits come in.

I can see for skill-building that an equal match is gonna be a godsend, but sometimes you just wanna kick back and kick butt, without...Oh crap...there's a bloody Zergling swarm coming.

 

[Anterean]

I disagree.

While I agree that you learn something from pitting you self against a more skilled opponent, I have a hard time imagining that I'd learn much from being crushed by some super pro guy before I have even build my vespene gas refinery.

Competing against someone slightly more skilled, certainly that will be a learning experience.
Competing against someone who could beat me blindfolded... not so much.

So quite frankly I think this matching system is a good idea as long as I can set up matches with friends as well.

 

[John Funk]

Is the matchmaking the only way to play on Battle.net? Surely you have some sort of friends list, or the ability to create a private game and invite specific players, if you find some sort of group to hang out with. Are you basically looking for a ranking system similar to UT that allows you to join a totally random game, regardless of skill level, even if it has little to no effect on your ranking if you win? It seems like you still have the group aspect of it.

There are custom games, you can easily set up a party with friends and just play games together - or join as teams. It works really well.

I tend to disagree here. Generally speaking the big arguement being made was that not everyone wants to face an endless series of evenly matched, gruelling play. However I feel that if your not interested in that, then you shouldn't be doing competitive online games.

Truthfully I think what is happening is Blizzard is beating around the bush the same way they have with balancing WoW and even Diablo. What they are basically getting at is that it's fun to be a bully, and they feel that if they remove this aspect of the game it will drive away the bullies and griefers who pay their money/buy their products for that experience. You know the guys who pop into message boards or shared vent servers and like to say "hey guess what happened when I met this n00b today....".

At any rate the solution to the problem is very, very simple. All they need to do is create ranked and unranked matches. Be draconian about skill in matches that are ranked. When it comes to unranked matches make it entirely random.

Of course then again part of the problem with this is that a lot of players are going to shun unranked matches.

What's more along with bullying part of the issue is a related point that when "competitive" players play, they want good rankings. So if they wind up in a loss streak in those 50-50 games, they want to be able to be able to smack Newbs around to get the numbers back up enough to a 1337 enough level, something that to me destroys the entire point of rankings.

The bottom line is that Blizzard isn't entire sure if it wants to design a competitive scene with integrity. I think they should, but I do understand their thought processes.

One thing I will mention though is that under no circumstances should Blizzard make it easy to put another player on an "avoid" list. While doing fighting games I found that pretty much every player I beat wound up putting me on "avoid" for unsportsmanlike conduct . I'm not the only one with this problem. You put a system like that into place, and you'll see players simply putting anyone they feel could challenge them in their ranking climbs onto an avoid list.

Ranked = ladder. Unranked = the custom games section? Kinda, anyway. Or, just play in a bracket you don't care about, like FFA or the like

 

[Haywire]

I know no-one likes being talked at, so I'll try and keep any criticism as nice as I can

With my limited time with the starcraft 2 beta, I have been mightily impressed at its ability to match me with players who definitely can offer me a challenge, while still giving me a chance to beat them. The game seeds players in their respective leagues by giving you 5 throwaway practice matches and then 10 placement matches. I liked this introduction as it gave me comfort to know that if I lost in a practice match, It was purely a learning experience and if I lost a placement match it just meant I shouldn't be playing someone of that calibre anyway.

While many players will certainly see their score as the major thing to take away from their matches, people forget the real fun comes from playing the game. The game will never be more fun than that one time you lost your whole base and rebuilt on the other side of the map before your opponent realised where you were, or that time when you killed your opponents whole army only to have him hold you off for ten minutes with whatever units he could make as you slowly ate away at his base, until he... and so on.

The most satisfying matches are the ones you have to fight for, the ranking of your opponent is the arbitrary factor, how a game plays out is the real reward and the matchmaking system is set up to more or less deliver that chance of an awesome win or loss.

I'm a mid level player with a some talent for RTS games but I do have one thing to say to all the people here putting themselves in hamster class.
Pretty much everyone I know puts themselves in that class, even when they shouldn't. People who don't visit the forums, who never set out to master the game, and who consistently underrate themselves. I'm confident that come Starcraft 2 there'll be a massive amount of people who find all the parts of the game as difficult or easy as you do. Especially the cuddly fluffy wheel-runners :3

The main problem with RTS games is that they are tiring unless you hold back, but the main problem people seem to state is that no-one out there could possibly be as bad, as slow, as unaware as they are (I've been talking to a lot of my gamer friends recently about SC2 because of the beta, and while plenty are keen to try, I must have heard every excuse in the book). It's sad that a simple matter of self-confidence is what keeps some people away from a type of gaming that is as much fun (to me) as single player campaigns, fps servers, adventure games, fighting games, turn based strategies, third person action/adventures and the like.

Just to be clear, I of course realise that online RTS gaming is not for everyone.

One of the best parts about returning to that Unreal server is that it gets you in your comfort zone. You know what to expect from the players on that server and that can never come when you play matchmaking. The only way to be comfortable in matchmaking is to expect an evenly matched game, and pray it all works out in the end.

tl;dr: The greatest thing people lack when they play RTS games is confidence. So many people will be dabbling with SC2 that it'll be worth checking out if you think you might like it. Oh and a fun match is what matters, not what your opponents record is.

 

[bjj hero]

I think its a great system, from what I've heard. It stops people just squashing noobs all day. This does more than just pad stats for bullies, it alienates new players. I imagine there are a lot of people who tried RTS, got repeatedly crushed by someone with "uber micro" and never went back.

I don't mind losing if I have a fighting chance.

You have custom matches if you want to try new strategies or relax and mess around. Leave the new kids to learn and develope without smashing their confidence.

 

[Oyster^^]

Have any of you guys played Dawn of War 1? You know, the one with the good multiplayer.

It had a "autoplay" feature that was almost completely unused after the population of players began to decrease. So instead I'd join a game and have everyone's record's available to everyone else. The autoplay games affected a ladder score (ripped right out of starcraft 1) and "custom" games just affected your win-loss record. That game obviously had a population that was tiny compared to what SC2 will have, but the custom matches actually worked fairly well. Even with cripplingly bad community tools I still met a bunch of decent players who I'd have a great time playing with. It was pretty frustrating early on though. A new account meant playing some terribly crappy games for a couple of weeks until I got enough wins for the big boys to let me participate.

So basically what I'm saying is that the custom-game approach can certainly work for RTSs as well (note though that DoW games are a LOT faster than SC games...)

That being said I don't have any trouble with auto-matching as the main game assignment system. I understand that sometimes it would be nice to force a really difficult game, but if you're not being challenged by the auto-matches then it won't be all that long until you're automatching against the pros all the time. As long as the ranking system is pretty accurate (i.e. more complex than just wins and losses) and as long as I have the option to play some custom match-ups on the side that aren't ranked at all, I'm happy

Lets face it I'll just be happy as soon as I get to play that darn game. Blizzard saw fit to ignore all of my emails promising bribes for beta status. The jerks.

 

[Twilight_guy]

I think they really should have a way for people to join specific "areas" like a chat room or lobby or such that can be created by players and altered to there whim. This will encourage community and group behavior. I also feel that players should be allow to pick their game, (so they can play with people they know), but I also think the random matchmaker should still be included. Random matches will thrust people into a different environment with new people and force them to interact. Combined with other groups, it will also bring together people of diverse interest and introduce new people to existing groups. On top of that some poor smucks, like me, don't have friends and don't relate to people well so being with random people will diffuse the tension of walking into a room where you don't belong, nobody belongs in a random game.

I have the felling in the pit of my gut that I'm going to need an opponent with an IQ equal to shoe size to have a fair match too. I like Starcraft but suck at it so very much.

 

[UnusualStranger]

You, sir, struck just about every point I was looking at when I read that Starcraft II was too good at matchmaking.

Randomly fighting an opponent who can wipe the floor with me, after I just won a hard fought match? What did I screw up?

I'll never know, because the game just decided to throw a random superstar at me, then made them vanish.

I would love to see some clans on there. I sometimes feel like playing a professional game....but a lot of the time I like to be a little bit crazy. I'll try just using a lot of DTs to destroy my enemy's willingness to move out of their base. Or, I'll just make a huge, basic army. It would be fun if I was in I could hang with a group who would just try random strategies that would normally fall flat on their faces.

But alas...I am hopelessly convinced that Starcraft has become a game of professionals. And in the game of professionals, I am just a bump in the road.

 

[Flying Dagger]

No way does the comparison between UT and SC work, because :

1. You can turn your mind half way off and still play at least decent in UT. Playing a "decent" match in SC means you need at least a hundred apms and brain power to keep thinking what and how to proceed next. After a 30 minute match of SC with a opponent on par I, at least, feel a bit tired and if I want to keep playing I probably won`t go for a second helping of brain melting exercise.

2. Playing with far better opponents, especially the way SC2 is evolving, is not going to be any fun because if you have 100 apms and the micro to go with it and you are playing against some Chan Chi Mao dude with 400 apms and direct brain interface to all his units you are not just going to lose, you are going to lose for ever and ever because not all people can play this game the way pros do it.

The idea of getting to know the competition and all that seems nice though.

From what I've read about shamus playing UT, he puts at least as much thought into playing an FPS as an RTS. Just because some people play purely on instincts doesn't mean everyone does.

Experienced Points: The Isolation of Random Matchmaking

StarCraft 2's match-making could leave players out in the cold.

Read Full Article

Have you written about difficulty levels like this before? The five skill levels of gaming thing seems to ring a bell...
I think if i'm seeing recurring topics come up from reading nearly your entire archives... I probably need to find something better to do with my time too.

 

[Meemaimoh]

An excellent article. I have a general sense of unease about the matchmaking system, and I think this clarifies why - and extrapolates.

Then again, maybe I'm just mad because Battle.net will never be able to find a suitable StarCraft opponent at my level unless Blizzard lifts their strict "no chimpanzees" policy.

I feel the same. I love RTS. I grew up on it. But I'm simply terrible at it. I'll play with you.

 

[Shjade]

I'm a mid level player with a some talent for RTS games but I do have one thing to say to all the people here putting themselves in hamster class.
Pretty much everyone I know puts themselves in that class, even when they shouldn't. People who don't visit the forums, who never set out to master the game, and who consistently underrate themselves. I'm confident that come Starcraft 2 there'll be a massive amount of people who find all the parts of the game as difficult or easy as you do. Especially the cuddly fluffy wheel-runners :3

While embarrassing to admit, when I confess a lack of proficiency with RTS games, it's a statement made from experience rather than intimidation.

I cannot remember having ever won a match of Starcraft. Against anyone. Not in the regular game. Sure it's possible I'm forgetting a win somewhere, but I think I'm getting the point across.

I often can't beat the computer on low difficulty settings in regular game modes. >.>

Basically I'm good/great at micromanagement - I can be fairly successful with a small group of units against a larger force - but I'm terrible at big picture, base progression, infrastructure...basically everything else involved in most RTS games. Starcraft doesn't work if you play it as though it were Dawn of War 2 or Myth where there's no base to worry about, just the guys you have from the start and some limited reinforcements later on.

Just a counterpoint that some of us who provide extremely modest self-critiques of our RTS abilities...um...aren't actually being modest. We're being honest. x.x;

That said, I enjoyed Starcraft's single-player campaigns which weren't designed as equal base-building competitive engagements. There was a set of objectives to complete and strategies to employ against whatever encampment the AI had to start out and little hero units (which I abused horribly - see above on small group management) that make things significantly different from straight up multiplayer matches. I had fun replaying some maps just to build the base differently and set up lots of defensive structures and take my time strip-mining the whole map. All kinds of random stuff...just none of it useful for competing against other players who knew what they were doing. Oh well. Fun is fun.

Still probably not picking up the sequel, though. No real use for it.

 

[Anacortian]

I so very much agree with this article. I think Blizzard made a mistake (although I was at first very exited to see it) when they introduced random grouping in the LFG system of WoW. It has really taken the community out of a lot of partying by taking out the ability to choose with whom one is grouping. I think Blizzard would do well to let the player make an informed decision by merely reporting and backing-off.

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

I see the benefits of letting people kind of skew it one way or the other, though.

This. The optimal solution for me would be to keep the (somewhat) fuzzy matchmaking, but to add some kind of slider you could adjust when looking for games. Turn it all the way down and you'll almost never face someone above your own skill level, turn it all the way up and you'll get someone higher-ranked than you almost every match. Add in a system that gives you greater rewards for playing against better players, and you can pick and choose your own risk/reward ratio.

In addition, the community-building thing could easily be done by dividing the whole thing in ranked matches and unranked matches. Ranked matches would use the automatic matchmaking service with some kind of Elo rating system in place, while the unranked matches would allow you to choose a specific player or group of players to play with. Stuff like that has been around in many other games, including Blizzard games, so it's not a scary new idea and in fact I'd be surprised if they didn't do something similar for SC2.

 

[Jared]

I think its somewhat good and bad. I dont mind the idea of people been able to go against similar levels as it allows you not to die totally right at the beginning of a match.

But, I can see the problems with it...when, you want to fight agaisnt some pbetter to push yourself, and to make yourslf better it would be nice to have the option

 

[DYin01]

You make a good point, but I do think there's a difference between Unreal Tournament and Starcraft. In Unreal Tournament, you get a lot of shots at a lot of kills and scoring one kill can feel like a little victory. In Starcraft, you work your way to one big kill throughout a match and you'll either feel very victorious or very crushed. I wouldn't mind being one of the lowest scoring players on a server in UT for a while if I still get some kills but when I lose 9 out of 10 Starcraft matches, it starts getting on my nerves.

 

[Whispering Death]

Shamus, outside of Yahtzee, you're the only artiles I read on this site. Thanks for them, they're always good!

The last part of your article, almost an afterthought, was the most salient.

While the rest of the world is moving towards community building (twitter, facebook, social media, multi-million-dollar advertising campaigns to create interactive sites and brand communities) you have the gaming world taking this odd step towards trying to fracture communities.


Modern Warfare 2 - no dedicated servers, no "home" for a player. No place to go to meet people, become a part of a community and become brand-loyal. Instead, you'll either play with friends you already have or just flow through our matchmaking system like water in a river.
Left 4 Dead 2 - no server browser means no way to play with the same strangers more than once, no way to make friends, no way to build community.
Starcraft - Game is god. We decide who your opponents are for you. Other humans aren't people to be interacted with or form communities with - they're merely more advanced AI opponents.