| 1 |
The population size isn't anywhere near big enough to ensure that any game will be fair, but adding an option to configure a matching range to search for will help increase the number of even-ish games (at the cost of reducing the total number of games that can be played. This trade is probably worth it for you, and I think it's worth implementing in the game to at least give users some control over their matchmaking experience). In https://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/924583, you got a match as far away from you as the matchmaker currently allows, and that's almost certainly going too far into the "get a game at any cost" direction.
|
1 |
The population size isn't anywhere near big enough to ensure that any game will be fair, but adding an option to configure a matching range to search for will help increase the number of even-ish games (at the cost of reducing the total number of games that can be played. This trade is probably worth it for you, and I think it's worth implementing in the game to at least give users some control over their matchmaking experience). In https://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/924583, you got a match as far away from you as the matchmaker currently allows, and that's almost certainly going too far into the "get a game at any cost" direction.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
Even
with
a
large
user
population
and
configurable
matching
width,
I
think
the
nature
of
Zero-K
will
result
in
relatively
swingy
games
even
with
two
equally
skilled
players.
The
game
lacks
a
strict
execution
barrier
and
has
a
wide
range
of
maps
and
factions,
so
some
games
will
be
won
based
on
strategy
(
e.
g.
picking
a
better
build
on
a
map
than
the
opponent)
or
luck
(
one
player
blunders
basically)
.
The
win
chance
is
pretty
accurate
for
a
series
of
games
with
the
same
opponent
once
your
rating
is
stable,
but
the
outcome
of
any
individual
game
will
be
fairly
random.
|
3 |
Even
with
a
large
user
population
and
configurable
matching
width,
I
think
the
nature
of
Zero-K
will
result
in
relatively
swingy
games
even
with
two
equally
skilled
players.
The
game
lacks
a
strict
execution
barrier
and
has
a
wide
range
of
maps
and
factions,
so
some
games
will
be
won
based
on
strategy
(
e.
g.
picking
a
better
build
on
a
map
than
the
opponent)
or
luck
(
one
player
blunders
basically)
.
The
win
chance
is
pretty
accurate
for
a
series
of
games
with
the
same
opponent
once
your
rating
is
stable,
but
the
outcome
of
any
individual
game
will
be
fairly
random.
So
while
lowering
the
maximum
allowed
deviation
will
help
reduce
the
number
of
poor
games,
they
can't
be
avoided
fully.
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
(This is compared to a game like Starcraft 2 where the APM barrier more or less guarantees you're not winning if your mechanics aren't as good as your opponent, other than by a lucky cheese they fail to defend. It is much simpler to propose an even game where a large part of the difficulty is in fighting the game UI itself and the elo rating can build on that. APM really doesn't translate as well into a victory in Zero-K, and the variance in performance of most players across games is pretty high.)
|
5 |
(This is compared to a game like Starcraft 2 where the APM barrier more or less guarantees you're not winning if your mechanics aren't as good as your opponent, other than by a lucky cheese they fail to defend. It is much simpler to propose an even game where a large part of the difficulty is in fighting the game UI itself and the elo rating can build on that. APM really doesn't translate as well into a victory in Zero-K, and the variance in performance of most players across games is pretty high.)
|
Matchmaking is broke