Jump to content

Hutt Ball type maps pops 2 out of 3 maps constantly


TrixxieTriss

Recommended Posts

Hey everyone,

 

There has been some good discussion in thise topic about both how you believe our map selection works right now in matchmaking, and thoughts on where we can improve it. I want to add some clarity to the former, and then we can talk about the latter.

 

How does map selection work?

This is pretty simple on the surface. When a player (or players) queues for an unranked Warzone the matchmaker does two things (I am ONLY talking about map selection here, not about what the matchmaker does to work towards even teams).

  1. Looking at what matches are currently active and the number of players in the queue, the matchmaker decides whether it will pop an Arena or a Warzone.
  2. The matchmaker then rolls in that game type pool for which map it will pop. All maps have the exact same weighting.

 

This means that Huttball and 3-pt control both have the highest odds of being selected since they each have 3 maps respectively (Novare could be argued that it is separate from Yavin/Alderaan though). But ultimately each individual map has the exact same chance of rolling here.

 

How can we improve this experience?

There have been a lot of great ideas in this thread, and definitely keep the ideas coming. This is a topic we have talked about a lot internally (allowing players to select exactly which Warzone they want to play, for example). There are some challenges with that level of granularity (queue times mostly). We have talked about adding exclusions as well, so a player could pick 2-3 Warzones they don’t want and then they fall into the rest of the pool. These changes are fairly large in what it would take to implement and so they would need to happen as a part of other large systemic changes. This in no way means we won’t ever do it, just that it would need to be in a large update and it isn’t currently planned on the schedule.

 

With that said, there are possibly some smaller fixes the team can do in the interim which they are discussing. We may be able to tweak the individual pop values on each map in the PvP queue which would give more weighting towards game type, then map, for example. I don’t have any specifics right now but the team is in active discussion on this topic and I will pass on more info as I have it.

 

Question for you all to give us your feedback on...

Matchmaking weighting could effectively work one of two ways.

  • We can give even weighting to individual maps. As in, every single map has the same chance to pop so you see more map diversity. This is how it works today.
  • We can give equal weighting to each game type. As in, you will see less map diversity overall, but you are more likely to see each map type more often. AKA you will see Voidstar as much as you see Huttball.

 

Let us know your thoughts! Thanks everyone, keep the feedback coming.

 

-eric

 

Eric, I have some serious doubts that Huttball has the same probabilty as the other maps. And I mean each of the 3 different Huttball maps, not because there are 3 of them. Please double check that.

Anyway, even if I am wrong, in any case it should be a no brainer that you should go with this 2. option. The question here is why you didn't do that from start?:

 

"We can give equal weighting to each game type.[/u] As in, you will see less map diversity overall, but you are more likely to see each map type more often. AKA you will see Voidstar as much as you see Huttball."

 

And ONLY Huttball and maybe Yavin and it's mother map should be put into seperate groups. And then each group and single map should have the same probabiilty, same should be true within groups. That's it. Still wondering why anybody did that different EVER.

Edited by Khaleg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My personal preference would be the second Option. And Having Novarre in it own group and not with Civil War and Yavin. I find Novarre to be very different even if it also 3 node cap.

This way there would be 6 groups:

1/6 for HB (3 HB options)

1/6 for (Civil War+Yavin)

1/6 for Novarre

1/6 Hypergates

1/6 Voidstar

1/6 OPG

Id even be good with:

1/7 OPG

1/7 Voidstar

1/7 hypergates

1/7 novere

1/7 civil war/yavin

1/7 2-oldest huttballs

1/7 new huttball + 4vs4s

 

Even with this breakdown, HB as a whole would only be 20% of the time, 4v4 would still pop, and the parity of each grouping would still be relatively even. As each new WZ is released, maybe move the old "new" WZ into their grouping, and move the new "new" WZ with the 4v4 grouping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, thanks for addressing this!

 

Second...

 

  • We can give equal weighting to each game type. As in, you will see less map diversity overall, but you are more likely to see each map type more often. AKA you will see Voidstar as much as you see Huttball.

-eric

 

I vote that one. Overwhelmingly I vote that one.

 

Edit... however, if possible, I'd vote this one higher...

 

My personal preference would be the second Option. And Having Novarre in it own group and not with Civil War and Yavin. I find Novarre to be very different even if it also 3 node cap.

This way there would be 6 groups:

1/6 for HB (3 HB options)

1/6 for (Civil War+Yavin)

1/6 for Novarre

1/6 Hypergates

1/6 Voidstar

1/6 OPG

 

And even higher, of course, would be a way to let us pick somehow what we want.

Edited by Banderal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if you are going to look at the second option, then you need to keep it so that the 3 Hutt Ball maps are the only ones grouped together as one type. All the other maps should continue to carry the same weight as they do now or we will be back to square one.

Trixx

 

This is a terrible idea, there should be no exception for HB. HB maps are just as much different from each other as NC-CW-Yavin.

 

I suggest option two should be combined with the option to pick 2 maps you don't want to do. For example, I like HB, but I hate Quesh Pit, because it seems you are never going to fix operatard teleportation lag server issue and the hindrance of JK/SW leap on top platform. Also, this map is most dependent of group composition, so might get totally out of rotation for good. It would not be a waste.

 

And I would definitely open a bottle of champaigne if I never had to see AH again.

 

Also, there should be a separate option to exlude regular arenas. I bet if you allowed that, it would become extinct as well. PVPers interested in arenas are either doing SR/TR, which is enough. I leave in an instant if a regular arena pops.

Edited by varietasplus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a terrible idea, there should be no exception for HB. HB maps are just as much different from each other as NC-CW-Yavin.

 

I suggest option two should be combined with the option to pick 2 maps you don't want to do. For example, I like HB, but I hate Quesh Pit, because it seems you are never going to fix operatard teleportation lag server issue and the hindrance of JK/SW leap on top platform. Also, this map is most dependent of group composition, so might get totally out of rotation for good. It would not be a waste.

 

And I would definitely open a bottle of champaigne if I never had to see AH again.

 

Also, there should be a separate option to exlude regular arenas. I bet if you allowed that, it would become extinct as well. PVPers interested in arenas are either doing SR/TR, which is enough. I leave in an instant if a regular arena pops.

 

I think you misunderstood a lot of what I wrote. What you quoted needs to be taken in context. My comments were solely based on the 2 options he gave us for tweaking the current situation.

Eric said they couldn’t make big sweeping changes easily, but maybe able to tweak some of the current queue settings in the short term while they looked at other options.

 

(I’ve a much better idea on how to make queue choices matter. But that is for the future, not now. You can read it here :

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=961368)

 

I love Hutt Ball. It’s been one of my favourite types of pvp since the game launched. I even like Quesh Ball with all its bugs and problems. I don’t want them to die out or to stop popping, but we do need the “Hutt Ball” type maps to stop popping as much as they do because they are over represented. (FYI, Musco said over 2 years ago that leap restriction in Quesh Ball was a bug)

 

Personally I hate Odessen Proving grounds and would be happy for it to never pop again. But I have to look at this objectively because Odessen falls into its own unique type of map and deservers equal weight in the queue.

 

Yavin, Civil War and Nova coast do not pop anywhere near as much when comparing to Hutt Ball type maps, even if you define them as the same type of map.

I know this because I’ve been tracking all my pvp matches since the 6th March. I had intended to wait till the 19th March to post the results, but I’ll post some preliminary ones now.

 

Here are the pop break downs into maps types from 122 matches.

 

Original Hutt Ball - 14

Quesh Hutt Ball - 9

Vandin Hutt Ball - 15

(Total HB maps - 38)

 

Odessen Proving - 10

 

Nova Coast - 7

Civil War - 7

Yavin - 7

(Total 3 point maps - 21)

 

Void Star - 17

Hypergates - 16

Arena(s) - 21

 

If you look at that mix, you can see that Hutt Ball as a “type” of map is over represented compared to all other map types.

I also pop a lot more Arena’s because of lower queue numbers. Which is how Arena is currently set up. When the queue can’t support 8v8 matches, it reverts to 4v4. This is something that needs to happen or pvp doesn’t pop at all during those times.

But Ive never agreed that Arena shouldnt still pop while queues are higher. I think it should be part of the mix, but if it is, then it should be considered it’s own group and all arenas should be weighted as one during regular queue numbers. It’s only during low queue numbers that Arenas should all be given seperate weight when the system is trying to decide on the next map.

 

I would suggest a tweak to the system that would work like this

 

Each type would have its own equal weighting during high queue numbers. But I don’t think CW, Yavin or NC should be grouped together.

 

1/8 - All Hutt Ball Maps combined

1/8 - Odessen Proving Grounds

1/8 - Void Star

1/8 - Hypergates

1/8 - Civil War

1/8 - Nova Coast

1/8 - Yavin

1/8 - All Arena Maps combined

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My personal preference would be the second Option. And Having Novarre in it own group and not with Civil War and Yavin. I find Novarre to be very different even if it also 3 node cap.

This way there would be 6 groups:

1/6 for HB (3 HB options)

1/6 for (Civil War+Yavin)

1/6 for Novarre

1/6 Hypergates

1/6 Voidstar

1/6 OPG

 

You do realise that would mean OPG would pop more often than each individual Civil War or Yavin? And it already seems to do that.

Edited by TrixxieTriss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you misunderstood a lot of what I wrote.

Oh, I understood it crystal clear.

 

Yavin, Civil War and Nova coast do not pop anywhere near as much when comparing to Hutt Ball type maps, even if you define them as the same type of map. Here are the pop break downs into maps types from 122 matches. If you look at that mix, you can see that Hutt Ball as a “type” of map is over represented compared to all other map types.

 

First of all, 122 matches are not representative with this many unique warzones. Second - and this is an IT issue - random numbers generated by a program are not really random (I omit technological explanation).

 

I suggest there should be brackets containing all maps (or all types). Randomization only applies to the order in the bracket. Whenever someone queues, they should see the upcoming warzones (or at least 2) and unselect the ones they would not like to participate. Matchmaker should then consider who to let into the warzone. If a DPS is fine with both upcoming warzones and another one does not want to do the second, then the latter gets priority for the first upcoming warzone.

 

This way every player can manually skip warzones they don't like. If you see two in a raw that does not interest you (not necessarily you don't like it, maybe just had enough for that day), you save time and look for other stuff to do. On the contrary, if population is low (no parallel warzones running), you are not going to have any warzone repeats in a single bracket for there is one from each and you can participate all.

 

It’s only during low queue numbers that Arenas should all be given seperate weight when the system is trying to decide on the next map.

 

I don't want arena pops at all in regs. If you queue for an operation, you don't find yourself in a flashpoint. I know that at first glance it does not seem to be a proper analogy, but the reason for that is arenas should have never been mixed with warzones. Different game type, different queue. I don't care if PVP queue population is low, I'd rather read or watch videos while I am waiting than doing an arena with - no offense - beginners.

 

Each type would have its own equal weighting during high queue numbers. But I don’t think CW, Yavin or NC should be grouped together.

 

I have read many of your posts over the years, but this is a statement that clearly falls out of the stream of logic. The fundament of the 3-point warzones are the same, only a single major difference separates them (time requirement/method of capturing/parallel damage output), whereas Hutball maps have far more, though less significant differences (path axis, number of traps, quick travel, etc.). Given the same team compositions, the victor is determined regardless which 3-point or HB map they play (theoretically there are exceptions, irrelevant at this point).

 

So either have all warzones in a bracket or pack the 3 pieces of 3-points and HB maps into one, but stop pseudo randomizing, remove arenas from the bracket (provide a different queue for players that want to practise for SR/TR) and let us foresee what is coming next and unselect it rather than having to join it and then leave it.

Edited by varietasplus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realise that would mean OPG would pop more often than each individual Civil War or Yavin? And it already seems to do that.

 

Again, no offense, but you are a little shortsighted about this matter, because it is obvious that your original suggestion revolves around your personal warzone preferences, not objective facts. You do not want to acknowledge that 3-point warzones are by no means any more unique than Hutball maps. You want CW, NC and Yavin represented separately, because as a side-effect, Odessen - which you don't like - would pop less frequent as if the 3-points were a group.

 

And BTW, Odessen is the best warzone ever created in this game. Hutball is brilliant in its own category, but Odessen pushes teamwork even further and totally moves away from the deathmatch aspect to a strategic approach. Why people dislike it in general is beyond me. What I do know, you can hate any map with an imbecile team, but that is off-topic.

Edited by varietasplus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, no offense, but you are a little shortsighted about this matter, because it is obvious that your original suggestion revolves around your personal warzone preferences, not objective facts. You do not want to acknowledge that 3-point warzones are by no means any more unique than Hutball maps. You want CW, NC and Yavin represented separately, because as a side-effect, Odessen - which you don't like - would pop less frequent as if the 3-points were a group.

 

And BTW, Odessen is the best warzone ever created in this game. Hutball is brilliant in its own category, but Odessen pushes teamwork even further and totally moves away from the deathmatch aspect to a strategic approach. Why people dislike it in general is beyond me. What I do know, you can hate any map with an imbecile team, but that is off-topic.

 

Actually, you are putting words in my mouth or misrepresenting my point (in your last 2 replies). I want Odessen to have exaclty the same weighted chance to pop as CW, NC or Yavin.

But you are correct in pointing out I don’t like Odessen (because no one plays it properly and if you aren’t in a premade, there is no team work). So if I really wanted it to pop less, I would be advocating it be put in with Hutt Ball or removed entirely.

The difference is I understand everyone has favourites and dislikes, which is why I believe Odessen should be treated the same as the other unique maps like Void Star and Hypergates (both of which I like). If anything, I’m trying be as non biased as I can be with regards to Odessen.

 

I actually like Hutt Ball. It’s always been one of my favourites types of pvp. If you’d asked me 2 years ago, I would have told you I could play HB all day (guess I should be careful what I wish for).

The problem now is HB as a type of map is loathed by a big portion of the player base or they are sick of it popping more than any other map type (because there are now 3 maps). So people constantly leave or refuse to play it properly. That actually ruins my favourite type of pvp because they don’t try.

 

People don’t really differentiate HB maps from each other the way the do with CW, NC or Yavin. They don’t pop one of those and say, “OMG, not another 3 point objective combat map”. But when they pop any HB map, you hear people say, “OMG, not another HB” and then you start seeing people leave. This rarely happens with CW, NC or Yavin.

 

For better or worse, there is a majority of pvpers now who would rather just run around killing stuff and topping the dps numbers instead of trying to win, this goes for all maps, not just HB. It is ruining pvp for players who are trying to win by playing objective. Sadly, HB and also OPG are nearly pure Objective type maps. The team with biggest numbers will rarely win the matches because numbers alone don’t win pure objective pvp.

 

Of all the 8v8 maps, Hypergates is one map you want to make sure you kill people so you get points and the next is Voidstar. After that you have the middle 3 maps which are a balance between combat killing-dps number crunching and objectives. Then you have HB maps and OPG as more objective over combat (still need to fight, but not as much killings ir number crunching.

 

This 3 middle maps, Yavin, CW and NC appeal to more people than HB or OPG because they are more about combat and numbers. Grouping them together so that they only hold a 1/3 of the weight that OPG has or making them equal as HB pops will make those combat driven players even more upset and less likely to try in HB or OPG.

 

I get you would like CW and Yavin to be put into its own grouping. I’m not attacking your preferences or you intelligence (ie, suggesting I’m being illogical). Saying “no offence” and then offending doesn’t make it ok.

I’ve tried to point out why Hutt Ball is a different situation to CW-Yavin-NC for Eric to pass on my feed back to the team, not to be ridiculed by you.

Edited by TrixxieTriss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, you are putting words in my mouth or misrepresenting my point (in your last 2 replies). I want Odessen to have exaclty the same weighted chance to pop as CW, NC or Yavin.

 

The difference is I understand everyone has favourites and dislikes, which is why I believe Odessen should be treated the same as the other unique maps like Void Star and Hypergates (both of which I like). If anything, I’m trying be as non biased as I can be with regards to Odessen.

 

Yes, I understand it clearly, that is where the contradiction lies. You consider HB maps identical, whereas you ignore CW/NC/Yavin fundaments are just as well identical. Also, you use the word: unique. Voidstar, AH, Odessen are unique indeed. HB and 3-point maps are not unique, only their base type is unique.

 

People don’t really differentiate HB maps from each other the way the do with CW, NC or Yavin. They don’t pop one of those and say, “OMG, not another 3 point objective combat map”. But when they pop any HB map, you hear people say, “OMG, not another HB” and then you start seeing people leave. This rarely happens with CW, NC or Yavin.

This is a fresh perception related to a current pseudo RNG problem that needs to be addressed in a different manner.

 

For better or worse, there is a majority of pvpers now who would rather just run around killing stuff and topping the dps numbers instead of trying to win, this goes for all maps, not just HB. It is ruining pvp for players who are trying to win by playing objective. Sadly, HB and also OPG are nearly pure Objective type maps.

This is a design failuire which needs to be resolved by making the gap between victory/defeat rewards significanttly greater. As for DPS number crunchers/objective ignorants, they should be driven away from regs towards arenas (that is why I suggested different queue for that) or PVP Challanges or simply introduce them to the training dummy and parsers.

 

This 3 middle maps, Yavin, CW and NC appeal to more people than HB or OPG because they are more about combat and numbers. Grouping them together so that they only hold a 1/3 of the weight that OPG has or making them equal as HB pops will make those combat driven players even more upset and less likely to try in HB or OPG.

Okay, this part lacks objective evidence, this is only your perception and assumption. Also, I fail to see how wz ratio affects combat driven players' contribution to objectives in HB/OPG.

 

Finally, I appreciate the effort you put into these PVP threads and by no means did I intend to offend you. I did not imply that you as a person are illogical, I claim your suggestion is contradictory. Also, messing with pop ratios is a poor solution for the underlying problems you pointed out. We are looking for a solution for a percieved HB pop ratio anomaly, not on players ignoring objectives/teamwork. The latter needs a different approach, therefore I am against your original suggestion. I support packing 3-point WZs and HB into one pack each, but against treating HB differently.

Edited by varietasplus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I understand it clearly, that is where the contradiction lies. You consider HB maps identical, whereas you ignore CW/NC/Yavin fundaments are just as well identical. Also, you use the word: unique. Voidstar, AH, Odessen are unique indeed. HB and 3-point maps are not unique, only their base type is unique.

 

 

This is a fresh perception related to a current pseudo RNG problem that needs to be addressed in a different manner.

 

 

This is a design failuire which needs to be resolved by making the gap between victory/defeat rewards significanttly greater. As for DPS number crunchers/objective ignorants, they should be driven away from regs towards arenas (that is why I suggested different queue for that) or PVP Challanges or simply introduce them to the training dummy and parsers.

 

 

Okay, this part lacks objective evidence, this is only your perception and assumption. Also, I fail to see how wz ratio affects combat driven players' contribution to objectives in HB/OPG.

 

Finally, I appreciate the effort you put into these PVP threads and by no means did I intend to offend you. I did not imply that you as a person are illogical, I claim your suggestion is contradictory. Also, messing with pop ratios is a poor solution for the underlying problems you pointed out. We are looking for a solution for a percieved HB pop ratio anomaly, not on players ignoring objectives/teamwork. The latter needs a different approach, therefore I am against your original suggestion. I support packing 3-point WZs and HB into one pack each, but against treating HB differently.

 

Let me just explain this as simply as possible so you don’t misunderstand again.

 

I personally don’t consider each HB map to be generic and Yavin, CW, and NC to be unique. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The point I was trying to make is that many players don’t see the distinction between the different HB maps. They just see HB and their heckles rise in response.

 

Next, I’m giving the feed back Eric asked for regarding the two proposals he put forward. These are both band aid fixes and will not be a real solution to the problems, but they may alleviate some of the issues people are having.

There is actually a link in my response to him with suggestions on how to improve a lot of the problems. Might I suggest you read that and if you want to discuss it, post there so we don’t keep derailing this thread.

 

My perceptions are based on thousands of hours of pvp in this game (over 10,000). Over the years, more and more players in regs have forgotten that objectives are just as important as killing stuff. Now we have a bunch of people who don’t try to win and just grind dps by running in a gank pack all over the maps. Most of these guys are not remotely capable of playing ranked because they can’t even kill one person without the help of 4 other people. Which is the only outlet they currently have a choice to queue for because Arena has been removed from the pop rotation during high queue numbers.

 

Personally I have always felt that reg lvl arena should have had its own queue. But that’s not something Bioware have been willing to do.

 

I respect that you think Yavin, NC and CW should have their own group and be treated the same as HB. You are welcome to your opinion. It’s not for me to tell you that you’re wrong or right. Your feed back should also be listened to when Eric reads it. But please stop arguing with me. I’ve made my points and my recommendations based on my personal experiences, not yours. It’s now up to Eric to pass on the feed back from “everyone” and see where it goes.

 

Lastly, if you look back at my response to Eric, you will see that I’ve suggested he run a poll. Only then will they get some unbiased idea of what people like the most.

Edited by TrixxieTriss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I respect that you think Yavin, NC and CW should have their own group and be treated the same as HB. You are welcome to your opinion. It’s not for me to tell you that you’re wrong or right. Your feed back should also be listened to when Eric reads it. But please stop arguing with me. I’ve made my points and my recommendations based on my personal experiences, not yours. It’s now up to Eric to pass on the feed back from “everyone” and see where it goes.

 

Lastly, if you look back at my response to Eric, you will see that I’ve suggested he run a poll. Only then will they get some unbiased idea of what people like the most.

 

On a final note, I still believe having the option to set a flag individually on undesired warzones (and arenas) is a better overall solution than messing with pop ratios in general. I'd rather number crunchers din't join HB/Odessen at all.

 

As for polls, the number of players reading forums are very likely to be an insignificant fraction of those playing PVP, therefore a poll would definitely not represent the will of the majority of players. That is something I would not advise to do.

 

However, flags on warzones implicit represent the will of players and would indirectly affect pop ratio. That of course includes the risk of reduced number of HB/Odessen pops, but it is still better than unmotivated people spoiling others' fun. Or if that is technically challenging, at least let every player choose from two or three upcoming warzones while they are in the matchmaking queue.

Edited by varietasplus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point I was trying to make is that many players don’t see the distinction between the different HB maps. They just see HB and their heckles rise in response.

 

This is mostly true imo. However, I will say if the original HB pops, I am more apt to stay in it even multiple times whereas if Quesh pops I almost always drop it on the second pop. I can do Quesh once, but when the game starts to shove it down my throat I start leaving it.

 

I also do the same on OPG, unless I am in an OPG mood. Sometimes if I don't feel like pushing numbers OPG is a good break just to run around objectively not worrying about performance other than grabbing proper mods and using them appropriately.

 

Most people seem to lump in all the HB maps together when they are considering the frequency of HB map pops. I know it's not fair to the poor HB maps, generalizing them and such, but it's true. They are viewed as one and the same by many players. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey everyone,

 

There has been some good discussion in thise topic about both how you believe our map selection works right now in matchmaking, and thoughts on where we can improve it. I want to add some clarity to the former, and then we can talk about the latter.

 

How does map selection work?

This is pretty simple on the surface. When a player (or players) queues for an unranked Warzone the matchmaker does two things (I am ONLY talking about map selection here, not about what the matchmaker does to work towards even teams).

  1. Looking at what matches are currently active and the number of players in the queue, the matchmaker decides whether it will pop an Arena or a Warzone.
  2. The matchmaker then rolls in that game type pool for which map it will pop. All maps have the exact same weighting.

 

This means that Huttball and 3-pt control both have the highest odds of being selected since they each have 3 maps respectively (Novare could be argued that it is separate from Yavin/Alderaan though). But ultimately each individual map has the exact same chance of rolling here.

 

How can we improve this experience?

There have been a lot of great ideas in this thread, and definitely keep the ideas coming. This is a topic we have talked about a lot internally (allowing players to select exactly which Warzone they want to play, for example). There are some challenges with that level of granularity (queue times mostly). We have talked about adding exclusions as well, so a player could pick 2-3 Warzones they don’t want and then they fall into the rest of the pool. These changes are fairly large in what it would take to implement and so they would need to happen as a part of other large systemic changes. This in no way means we won’t ever do it, just that it would need to be in a large update and it isn’t currently planned on the schedule.

 

With that said, there are possibly some smaller fixes the team can do in the interim which they are discussing. We may be able to tweak the individual pop values on each map in the PvP queue which would give more weighting towards game type, then map, for example. I don’t have any specifics right now but the team is in active discussion on this topic and I will pass on more info as I have it.

 

Question for you all to give us your feedback on...

Matchmaking weighting could effectively work one of two ways.

  • We can give even weighting to individual maps. As in, every single map has the same chance to pop so you see more map diversity. This is how it works today.
  • We can give equal weighting to each game type. As in, you will see less map diversity overall, but you are more likely to see each map type more often. AKA you will see Voidstar as much as you see Huttball.

 

Let us know your thoughts! Thanks everyone, keep the feedback coming.

 

-eric

 

I've heard a lot of people say they'd prefer to be able to select what warzones they go into, similar to how you do flashpoints. Personally i agree with idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add to the great points that have been suggested here (weighting towards map type instead of each individual map), I wanted to ask if there's the possibility of creating a couple of free-for-all type maps (basically 8v8 arenas, just larger.) If a large amount of people are craving that type of pvp, it could be worth it to toss a few of them in there.

 

I love objectives personally (voidstar and HG are my favorites) but sometimes people just want to fight it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How you get so many hutballs? :) I would love to play it all the night long, but usually get 2-3 per week at most. Not fair at all.

 

But I vote to have option to turn off 4 vs 4. Everything else is just fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoy a 4v4 -- but rarely get them (because it's at busy times?)...

 

Never liked huttball -- but it's even worse that most people in it are like me & are really bad at huttball. At least the other objectives are things you can TRY to do while most of your team is goofing off. Huttball is 1 ball and anyone who touches it will die.

 

All the other objective-based levels I enjoy things about them.

 

....So yeah, weighting focused more on varying play style would be nice...

An ability to uncheck WZ that we don't want to queue up for might be even nicer. Then people could form their own huttball league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I vote for Option 1. "..even weighting to individual maps". (Hopefully this is a Straw Poll)

 

Once a map or match type gets a negative bias programmed to its odds of showing up, that means other maps and match types will be showing up more. The pendulum swings the other direction and 6 months from now we will be talking about how we are sick of these maps showing up all of the time and how we miss Hutt Ball.

 

I have seen mentioned, and agree with, the problem about getting the same map several times in a row. We all have seen that happen and scratched our heads. On the other hand, not liking a specific game type is a personal preference that can be affected by our Class, level, knowledge of the mechanics, etc. Depending upon my class, I am happy or concerned when a specific 4v4 shows up. I used to be more stressed when a Hutt ball showed up until I got comfy with throwing the ball and knowing where to look for somebody to throw too & I would never had gotten to that point if I did not HAVE to play Hutt ball.

 

If there is going to be an officially programmed negative Bias applied against certain maps or match types (which I disagree with), it should be at the 70th level PVP only. If we do not have our future PVPers playing every thing available, I am afraid we might be cheating them out of reaching their full potential. Also, better make sure you are getting the input of all your PVPers as opposed leaning heavily on this Brainstorming session.

 

Just one story about an "Anti-Hutt ball" guild mate. He would quit when Hutt Ball showed up. I stressed to him it was about being able to throw the ball. We got his Rishi Stronghold set up and played Hutt ball on the sky deck where we were both on the same team. After about 15 minutes of throwing the ball to each other, he was so pumped up about Hutt ball that he started inviting other folks to the stronghold to play Huttball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey everyone,

 

There has been some good discussion in thise topic about both how you believe our map selection works right now in matchmaking, and thoughts on where we can improve it. I want to add some clarity to the former, and then we can talk about the latter.

 

How does map selection work?

This is pretty simple on the surface. When a player (or players) queues for an unranked Warzone the matchmaker does two things (I am ONLY talking about map selection here, not about what the matchmaker does to work towards even teams).

  1. Looking at what matches are currently active and the number of players in the queue, the matchmaker decides whether it will pop an Arena or a Warzone.
  2. The matchmaker then rolls in that game type pool for which map it will pop. All maps have the exact same weighting.

 

This means that Huttball and 3-pt control both have the highest odds of being selected since they each have 3 maps respectively (Novare could be argued that it is separate from Yavin/Alderaan though). But ultimately each individual map has the exact same chance of rolling here.

 

How can we improve this experience?

There have been a lot of great ideas in this thread, and definitely keep the ideas coming. This is a topic we have talked about a lot internally (allowing players to select exactly which Warzone they want to play, for example). There are some challenges with that level of granularity (queue times mostly). We have talked about adding exclusions as well, so a player could pick 2-3 Warzones they don’t want and then they fall into the rest of the pool. These changes are fairly large in what it would take to implement and so they would need to happen as a part of other large systemic changes. This in no way means we won’t ever do it, just that it would need to be in a large update and it isn’t currently planned on the schedule.

 

With that said, there are possibly some smaller fixes the team can do in the interim which they are discussing. We may be able to tweak the individual pop values on each map in the PvP queue which would give more weighting towards game type, then map, for example. I don’t have any specifics right now but the team is in active discussion on this topic and I will pass on more info as I have it.

 

Question for you all to give us your feedback on...

Matchmaking weighting could effectively work one of two ways.

  • We can give even weighting to individual maps. As in, every single map has the same chance to pop so you see more map diversity. This is how it works today.
  • We can give equal weighting to each game type. As in, you will see less map diversity overall, but you are more likely to see each map type more often. AKA you will see Voidstar as much as you see Huttball.

 

Let us know your thoughts! Thanks everyone, keep the feedback coming.

 

-eric

 

I have an idea, once a que has enough people a popup would appear with the map type and the possibility to vote which one the players want to do, for example like in 8v8 once you got at least 12 ppl in q popup and choice between 3 random game type, eg 3 point, huttball, voidstar whichever gets most votes, gets played.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have an idea, once a que has enough people a popup would appear with the map type and the possibility to vote which one the players want to do, for example like in 8v8 once you got at least 12 ppl in q popup and choice between 3 random game type, eg 3 point, huttball, voidstar whichever gets most votes, gets played.

The minority WZs would never pop, which is worse than it is now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The minority WZs would never pop, which is worse than it is now.

 

I’ve a solution (maybe) to that. http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=961368

 

It’s not exaclty the same method as queuing, but it has a similar mechanism for some choice.

The idea is too still get people to queue for the least liked maps. The only way you do that is with incentives. The same as Bioware do now to lure people into pvp and ranked who may not play it without the incentives.

 

I’m still trying to get Eric to acknowledge he’s read the thread and passed it onto the team ?? ;)

Edited by TrixxieTriss
Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...