8 ms·

The Starcraft II beta is kind of horrifying--their excellent matchmaking ensures games are always very intense. Pardo actually commented on this at the Game De

The Starcraft II beta is kind of horrifying--their excellent matchmaking ensures games are always very intense. Pardo actually commented on this at the Game Developer's Conference: "If your matchmaking is really good, it means that for every single game, you're kind of the edge of your seat," Pardo said. "After you play an hour or two of games like that, you're kind of exhausted. So we're actually talking about, 'Is that the right matchmaking approach?' You might want to add a little sloppiness to the matchmaking. Maybe that means sometimes you get stomped, but sometimes you have easier games. And sometimes you have the really competitive games. It's got better pacing. (From http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/99211-Battle-net-StarCraft-II-Matchmaking-Too-Good http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/99211-Battle-net-S...) So there's that interesting human element there--how wide do your want your matchmaking algorithm to get? Personally, I enjoy the nightmare intensity; it means I more easily get my fill for the night. Is only being able to play a few games at a time actually a bad thing? I guess it might be from Blizzard's perspective. If you're in the beta, try playing 2v2 with a friend against the Internet. If you're losing you can at least lose together. Think of it as a co-founder ;)

hristov 16y ago
Well, I am not in beta but I like this approach. It is much better to play a close game than to get destroyed by someone that is so much better than you that there is no contest. And of course while it is sometimes fun to stomp on a newbie, that gets old too. You learn the most from close games. You learn nothing from beating someone much worse than you. And when you are destroyed by someone much better you also usually do not learn much because you are so far behind that usually you do not know what hit you.
- technoweenie 16y ago
  I end up getting demolished on every round. Starcraft 1 was so long ago.....
  - metamemetics 16y ago
    If you're in Bronze league, seriously just reaper rush every game.
- mattmaroon 16y ago
  I find I learn the most just watching replays on YouTube.
tsally 16y ago
I've been in the beta for a while now and I can confirm this is the case. I actually laughed when I read your post, because I definitely play 2s to relax after an intense 1s session.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
ohashi 16y ago
From what I think I've noticed... It tries to match you as evenly as possible to start. If you get hot, it will find better players. If you lose a bunch, it will try matching you with worse ones. (based on ranking) I play platinum 2v2 and gold 1v1 and that's been what i've noticed. It feels like it's sorta testing out where you belong and fit in at every point in time. It also widens the matching if it can't find anyone rather than waiting... those games can get ugly fast in any direction. PS - cheesy strats sometimes work on really good players because they forget how silly they are. I cannon rushed a guy sitting in the top of platinum league yesterday and I haven't seen anyone rage that hard in a while.
- mattmaroon 16y ago
  I'm pretty sure it's just using a slightly modified Elo rating, and the updating the ladders on a weekly cron. The reason I say this is that when I first signed up, it assigned me to Silver league. I lost a bunch (it was before the beta was opened more widely and everyone there was good) at first. Then I got considerably better and won something like 17/20 games, but got bumped down to Bronze. I can't think of any reason why I could get bumped down after a considerable winning streak other than a cron, especially since it always told me my opponent was a favorite over me and was presumably a higher Elo. It had to have been accounting for the 20 or so games I lost before I figured out what I was doing, otherwise I would have been bumped down far sooner. (Bronze was a cakewalk, I won most games in a few minutes.) Then they did a reset and now I'm in Silver and winning more than not. I might actually make Gold whenever the cron runs next.
  - ohashi 16y ago
    I don't think it's a cron, I've been promoted instantly the first time I was playing after winning a lot and getting ranked #1 in the division.
    - div 16y ago
      Indeed, if the system is really elo based then updates should be basically instant. A cron job is only required for rankings in which everyone scores relative to eachother.
hassy 16y ago
Since this seems to be the thread for beta participants who wants a game?
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- mattmaroon 16y ago
  I'm themaroon there.
- mquander 16y ago
  designori.cta, platinum, US server.
mattmaroon 16y ago
So after playing LoL for awhile, which has a much sloppier matchup algo (it's harder to do accurately in 5 v 5 than 1 v 1) I have to tell you, better is better. The intensity of matches is part of what's made me switch to SC2. The problem with the sloppy algo is that it's rarely fun. 45% of the time you're crushing the other team so easily that it's kinda boring. 45% of the time you have 0 shot of winning, and know this in a few minutes but it takes a half hour or more. 10% of the time it's close and then it's actually fun.
- mawhidby 16y ago
  I agree completely regarding LoL. Their matchmaking system is supposed to give you a 50% chance of winning any given match (according to their wiki). I usually pre-made with 2-4 friends, and we almost always lost. We were low levels (10-15) being matched up against five level 30's. Needless to say, we were getting crushed every time. I think I had a 15 game losing streak or something when I pre-made. Their wiki says they make the matches harder when you pre-make with friends because they figure that you will be harder to beat. I got so tired of the uneven matchmaking that I can't bring myself to play it anymore.
  - mattmaroon 16y ago
    They do. They add 120 to each player's ELO when queuing as a premade. The actual advantage you get from playing together ranges from much more than that (with a full team of players who coordinate well) to much less (a 2 man and a 3 man combined who don't coordinate well). We win almost every 5 man we play because we coordinate well, and none of us are that great individually so when we solo play our ELO drops. Also, as I told Tom "Zileas" Cadwell, you can easily have a matchmaking algorithm that ensures you win 50% of the time but is not fun. If 50% of the time you're playing against hopeless newbs, and 50% of the time you're playing against the top guys, you'll win half but have fun on 0. LoL is not far from this. LoL's matchmaking has 3 main problems that I can tell. 1. Radically different advantages to premades. Some premades get much more benefit than others. Starcraft 2 takes this into account by giving each unique premade its own rating. So if I play a 2v2 with my friend John, he and I will get a unique rating that doesn't affect matchups when I play 2v2s with my friend Chad. I'm not sure if this is an option for LoL given that it's often 5v5 (might work better on Treeline, which is 3v3) and a team is often comprised of one small premade and a few randoms, or 2 smaller premades. 2. Traction. They don't have enough people in the queue at any given point to create good matchups in a reasonable timeframe. 3. Elo. Elo ratings were meant for deterministic heads up matches. In chess, Elo works because the player who won simply played better. LoL tries to compensate by determining why your team won or lost (and what part of that was your skill or lack thereof) when handing out the points. This is VERY hard to do well.
baddox 16y ago
If it takes less than say 3 minutes to find a match, and I can win at least say 25% of the matches, I'll be happy.
- NickPollard 16y ago
  I've been playing the Beta for several weeks, I think the longest I've waited for a game has been about 20 seconds, and apart from the initial few placement matches (to enable it to rank you at the beginning), they've all been reasonably close, entertaining games. I can only assume that at retail with even higher numbers of players it will be even quicker to find a game.
Psyonic 16y ago
2v2's are fantastic, but sometimes a chosen team gets matched against a random team, which usually results in a lame game. Hopefully this is due to the beta having fewer people

hristov 16y ago

Well, I am not in beta but I like this approach. It is much better to play a close game than to get destroyed by someone that is so much better than you that there is no contest. And of course while it is sometimes fun to stomp on a newbie, that gets old too. You learn the most from close games. You learn nothing from beating someone much worse than you. And when you are destroyed by someone much better you also usually do not learn much because you are so far behind that usually you do not know what hit you.

technoweenie 16y ago
I end up getting demolished on every round. Starcraft 1 was so long ago.....
- metamemetics 16y ago
  If you're in Bronze league, seriously just reaper rush every game.
mattmaroon 16y ago
I find I learn the most just watching replays on YouTube.

tsally 16y ago

I've been in the beta for a while now and I can confirm this is the case. I actually laughed when I read your post, because I definitely play 2s to relax after an intense 1s session.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

ohashi 16y ago

From what I think I've noticed... It tries to match you as evenly as possible to start. If you get hot, it will find better players. If you lose a bunch, it will try matching you with worse ones. (based on ranking) I play platinum 2v2 and gold 1v1 and that's been what i've noticed. It feels like it's sorta testing out where you belong and fit in at every point in time. It also widens the matching if it can't find anyone rather than waiting... those games can get ugly fast in any direction. PS - cheesy strats sometimes work on really good players because they forget how silly they are. I cannon rushed a guy sitting in the top of platinum league yesterday and I haven't seen anyone rage that hard in a while.

mattmaroon 16y ago
I'm pretty sure it's just using a slightly modified Elo rating, and the updating the ladders on a weekly cron. The reason I say this is that when I first signed up, it assigned me to Silver league. I lost a bunch (it was before the beta was opened more widely and everyone there was good) at first. Then I got considerably better and won something like 17/20 games, but got bumped down to Bronze. I can't think of any reason why I could get bumped down after a considerable winning streak other than a cron, especially since it always told me my opponent was a favorite over me and was presumably a higher Elo. It had to have been accounting for the 20 or so games I lost before I figured out what I was doing, otherwise I would have been bumped down far sooner. (Bronze was a cakewalk, I won most games in a few minutes.) Then they did a reset and now I'm in Silver and winning more than not. I might actually make Gold whenever the cron runs next.
- ohashi 16y ago
  I don't think it's a cron, I've been promoted instantly the first time I was playing after winning a lot and getting ranked #1 in the division.
  - div 16y ago
    Indeed, if the system is really elo based then updates should be basically instant. A cron job is only required for rankings in which everyone scores relative to eachother.

hassy 16y ago

Since this seems to be the thread for beta participants who wants a game?

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
mattmaroon 16y ago
I'm themaroon there.
mquander 16y ago
designori.cta, platinum, US server.

mattmaroon 16y ago

So after playing LoL for awhile, which has a much sloppier matchup algo (it's harder to do accurately in 5 v 5 than 1 v 1) I have to tell you, better is better. The intensity of matches is part of what's made me switch to SC2. The problem with the sloppy algo is that it's rarely fun. 45% of the time you're crushing the other team so easily that it's kinda boring. 45% of the time you have 0 shot of winning, and know this in a few minutes but it takes a half hour or more. 10% of the time it's close and then it's actually fun.

mawhidby 16y ago
I agree completely regarding LoL. Their matchmaking system is supposed to give you a 50% chance of winning any given match (according to their wiki). I usually pre-made with 2-4 friends, and we almost always lost. We were low levels (10-15) being matched up against five level 30's. Needless to say, we were getting crushed every time. I think I had a 15 game losing streak or something when I pre-made. Their wiki says they make the matches harder when you pre-make with friends because they figure that you will be harder to beat. I got so tired of the uneven matchmaking that I can't bring myself to play it anymore.
- mattmaroon 16y ago
  They do. They add 120 to each player's ELO when queuing as a premade. The actual advantage you get from playing together ranges from much more than that (with a full team of players who coordinate well) to much less (a 2 man and a 3 man combined who don't coordinate well). We win almost every 5 man we play because we coordinate well, and none of us are that great individually so when we solo play our ELO drops. Also, as I told Tom "Zileas" Cadwell, you can easily have a matchmaking algorithm that ensures you win 50% of the time but is not fun. If 50% of the time you're playing against hopeless newbs, and 50% of the time you're playing against the top guys, you'll win half but have fun on 0. LoL is not far from this. LoL's matchmaking has 3 main problems that I can tell. 1. Radically different advantages to premades. Some premades get much more benefit than others. Starcraft 2 takes this into account by giving each unique premade its own rating. So if I play a 2v2 with my friend John, he and I will get a unique rating that doesn't affect matchups when I play 2v2s with my friend Chad. I'm not sure if this is an option for LoL given that it's often 5v5 (might work better on Treeline, which is 3v3) and a team is often comprised of one small premade and a few randoms, or 2 smaller premades. 2. Traction. They don't have enough people in the queue at any given point to create good matchups in a reasonable timeframe. 3. Elo. Elo ratings were meant for deterministic heads up matches. In chess, Elo works because the player who won simply played better. LoL tries to compensate by determining why your team won or lost (and what part of that was your skill or lack thereof) when handing out the points. This is VERY hard to do well.

baddox 16y ago

If it takes less than say 3 minutes to find a match, and I can win at least say 25% of the matches, I'll be happy.

NickPollard 16y ago
I've been playing the Beta for several weeks, I think the longest I've waited for a game has been about 20 seconds, and apart from the initial few placement matches (to enable it to rank you at the beginning), they've all been reasonably close, entertaining games. I can only assume that at retail with even higher numbers of players it will be even quicker to find a game.

Psyonic 16y ago

2v2's are fantastic, but sometimes a chosen team gets matched against a random team, which usually results in a lame game. Hopefully this is due to the beta having fewer people