coh3 still a arrange team fk the solo ladder players game?

Elo comes from a desire to match people up with similarly skilled opponents. Is it even relevant in random team mode?

How much worse would it be to have just random matching? Newbies and vets flung together, it's certainly more realistic.

If vets want to be tested they should be able to queue specifically for an elo-rated game, solo or as a team.

If there are more newbies than vets in the population, then probability dictates that, over time, random teams will be a couple newbs and a vet. Not the curb stomping vet Vs newb train that game designers seem to fear.

In short, I hate elo for random play, but like it when I want to test myself.

Elo seems more fashion than science. It's often implemented so thoughtlessly

Elo seems more fashion than science. It's often implemented so thoughtlessly

Sad but true everyone wants ranked matchmaking but nobody thinks about how it's going to work out. Hell, even Valve after 10 years needs to recalibrate the game every now and then (most recent recalibration was I think 20 days ago) so think about what happens when you leave the game with the same algorithm for almost 10 years without touching a single line of code... yea....

To me, COH does not need ranked matchmaking at all.

Elo comes from a desire to match people up with similarly skilled opponents. Is it even relevant in random team mode?

How much worse would it be to have just random matching? Newbies and vets flung together, it's certainly more realistic.

If vets want to be tested they should be able to queue specifically for an elo-rated game, solo or as a team.

If there are more newbies than vets in the population, then probability dictates that, over time, random teams will be a couple newbs and a vet. Not the curb stomping vet Vs newb train that game designers seem to fear.

In short, I hate elo for random play, but like it when I want to test myself.

Elo seems more fashion than science. It's often implemented so thoughtlessly

I think it can work for matchmaking, problem with coh2 is that it was implemented in the worst way possible for multiplayer where it matches teammates of similar Elo first, then after the team is arranged it matches the opponents. This is why you always have things like 2 rank 50 players playing against 2 rank 300 players creating the vast majority of 2v2+ games completely lopsided and shitty.

Most RT vs AT wind up in the match being done and dusted within 5-20 minutes and are not enjoyable to anyone, except those worms that like playing unfair seal clubbing BS.
So add that to 5 minute queue time and you have far, far more time wasted waiting for a 'good match' than if you would just split the player pool into a RT and AT sections, give people that play randoms the choice to opt in to matching against arranged teams if they want.

The problem with splitting matchmaking pools is the wait time. It's already long enough, especially off peak hours, and splitting the playerbase up would lead to longer wait times and more imbalanced games for everyone.

I think a primary issue are an arranged teams first ten games. Especially in 4s, the first 3-5 games are almost always easy stomps. But after that fifth game and especially after a team has a visible rank the games tend to be much tougher as the system has more data to go by.

I think a better system would be to reduce the number of qualifying games to get you a rank or having the system pull from or pull a higher weight from other modes to improve match quality

The problem with splitting matchmaking pools is the wait time. It's already long enough, especially off peak hours, and splitting the playerbase up would lead to longer wait times and more imbalanced games for everyone.

I think a primary issue are an arranged teams first ten games. Especially in 4s, the first 3-5 games are almost always easy stomps. But after that fifth game and especially after a team has a visible rank the games tend to be much tougher as the system has more data to go by.

I think a better system would be to reduce the number of qualifying games to get you a rank or having the system pull from or pull a higher weight from other modes to improve match quality

Looks like the majority of games you play are arranged teams.....

Here's your data. Less than 10% of the players of the game are arranged teams.

Hence, putting them in different queue will make life harder ONLY for them. Do I care that I will make 10% life harder if that means 90% will have better quality games?

Nope.

There's your reasoning.

That's also not data, that's a claim.

Anyway, I think a reasonable one. According to stats that SiphonX posted a couple of years ago, there's huge differences between modes. 2v2 features probably around 40-50% or AT, that mode would absolutely be hit hard unless player counts stably grow to at the very least double the number.

3v3 has approximately 20%-ish of AT teams, although bear in mind that his data is actually biased towards having a higher ratio of randoms, so it could be more. Nevertheless, 3v3 could probably take the hit if the game grows a little.

4v4 surely can take it, there's apparently not many ATs, although I assume there is a high ratio of 4 people just playing a couple of games before being ranked, but overall the majority will be randoms.


Since the majority of my games are AT games, obviously I am biased towards keeping AT games playable. However, claiming that just splitting the playerbase will make it better for the majority is oversimplifying quite a bit.
Most complaints at least here on the site are mostly about 3v3 and 4v4, and not necessarily about AT vs RT. This makes inherent sense, since these are the largest mode regarding player counts, but it is also a sign that the matchmaker itself is the major problem. Second, AT win rates are definitely higher, but not "unwinnably" higher. This definitely needs fixing, but can be tweaked by just artificially upweighting the ELO of ATs so that they get matches with more skilled randoms.
Next, even having only 80% of the player available in the case of 3v3 (assuming similar player counts as current CoH2, and CoH2 has never been in better shape player wise than now), will diminish the player base overall. Matchmaking in 4v4 can be very shoddy already, despite mostly randoms being around there. That's again mostly a matchmaking issue. And finally, it is doubtful if splitting the modes would overall help the player base. You'd likely get more randoms into the games since they are overall less frustrating, on the other hand many players probably would play the game less or not at all if some modes they like are basically dead. At least for me I can guarantee that I would not play CoH3 if I knew that 2v2 and 3v3 AT are functionally dead modes, I wouldn't buy the game for the random games I do.

Splitting consequences of splitting the modes is mostly speculation, but the easiest way to go about it is probably really to just upmatch ATs until their winrate matches the ones of RTs. There will still be odd issues at both ends of the ladder, but those already exist now, so no harm done.

Looks like the majority of games you play are arranged teams.....

Well, sure, but that's a poor way of dismissing my point. I enjoy the social aspect of playing with a team and a few bad instances of awful teammates made me play 1v1 if I want to be alone or with my pals on Discord at The Angry Bears.

the best solution is play 1v1 or 2v2

The IQ level of this thread:

>Point out a very obvious and well acknowledged problem.
>People who play AT say it's not as huge as you say it is.
>Provide details that it's actually disproportionately affecting the majority of the people playing it with randos.
>People who play AT say it's a fault on relic's side.
>Ask for COH3 to fix this by implementing different queues.
>"Won't work, it will split the fanbase too much".
>Point out that it will only split those who play AT from the rest of the population, which is no greater than 8-10% of the players.
>"Just play 1v1 or 2v2 bro".

That's also not data, that's a claim.

Anyway, I think a reasonable one. According to stats that SiphonX posted a couple of years ago, there's huge differences between modes. 2v2 features probably around 40-50% or AT, that mode would absolutely be hit hard unless player counts stably grow to at the very least double the number.

3v3 has approximately 20%-ish of AT teams, although bear in mind that his data is actually biased towards having a higher ratio of randoms, so it could be more. Nevertheless, 3v3 could probably take the hit if the game grows a little.

4v4 surely can take it, there's apparently not many ATs, although I assume there is a high ratio of 4 people just playing a couple of games before being ranked, but overall the majority will be randoms.


Since the majority of my games are AT games, obviously I am biased towards keeping AT games playable. However, claiming that just splitting the playerbase will make it better for the majority is oversimplifying quite a bit.
Most complaints at least here on the site are mostly about 3v3 and 4v4, and not necessarily about AT vs RT. This makes inherent sense, since these are the largest mode regarding player counts, but it is also a sign that the matchmaker itself is the major problem. Second, AT win rates are definitely higher, but not "unwinnably" higher. This definitely needs fixing, but can be tweaked by just artificially upweighting the ELO of ATs so that they get matches with more skilled randoms.
Next, even having only 80% of the player available in the case of 3v3 (assuming similar player counts as current CoH2, and CoH2 has never been in better shape player wise than now), will diminish the player base overall. Matchmaking in 4v4 can be very shoddy already, despite mostly randoms being around there. That's again mostly a matchmaking issue. And finally, it is doubtful if splitting the modes would overall help the player base. You'd likely get more randoms into the games since they are overall less frustrating, on the other hand many players probably would play the game less or not at all if some modes they like are basically dead. At least for me I can guarantee that I would not play CoH3 if I knew that 2v2 and 3v3 AT are functionally dead modes, I wouldn't buy the game for the random games I do.

Splitting consequences of splitting the modes is mostly speculation, but the easiest way to go about it is probably really to just upmatch ATs until their winrate matches the ones of RTs. There will still be odd issues at both ends of the ladder, but those already exist now, so no harm done.

Why are you against longer wait times if it means more evenly matched games?
The only reason people on AT want to play randos is to seal club.

How about this solution:

after like 2 min wait time the game gives you the message like this:

there don't seem enough players in your elo range.
Do you want to continue search
click yes/no

Why are you against longer wait times if it means more evenly matched games?
The only reason people on AT want to play randos is to seal club.

People here assume that as soon as you separate AT from RT, suddenly every match will be somewhat fair. But that is not the case as we clearly see from the 4v4 mode, where matchmaking even with randoms only can be quite broken.
That's probably a result of both a broken matchmaking system as well as too little players that the matchmaker can actually draw from. If I quickly check the data and make some (shoddy estimates):
2v2 and 3v3 have ~30k and 50k games running per month. I'll do the calc explanation for 2v2 only:
30k games a month mean 1k per day or 42 per hour on average. Most CoH2 matches last between 15-45 minutes - let's say 30 min - plus a ~5 min queue time, meaning that ~14% of players are available for games. So basically, if you press search, the matchmaker has to draw 2 out of 12 people for the enemy team and 1 out of the other factions pool of 12 people to find a decent match. If you play during peak hours, player counts are roughly 50% up from average, so about 18 other players will be available. Those 12/18 players can be anywhere on the ladder and it is difficult to guess how they are distributed, but it is pretty safe to assume that there will be some mismatch in skill because your level is just not available at the moment.
For 3v3, the numbers will go up to drawing 3 players out of 30 (45 during peak hours) for the enemy and 2 out of 30/45 for your own team.

There's obviously more to this calculation: More experienced/better players will play the game more than the average Joe that has time for a handful of games per week at best and many others that we don't know. This is also not taking into account, that there are AT and RT in the queue.

In my experience, the current state regularly gives me matches with players that are +/- 300 ranks of me. This is in some part surely Relic having a shoddy algorithm, but probably also hints that the situation is actually worse than I estimate with the calculation. Just look at 4v4, the calculation should actually be best here due to most players, yet I somehow doubt that you'd get the most balanced games there, actual unit balancing aside.

Splitting AT from RT will roughly split 2v2 in half and and 3v3 into 20/80%. Unless CoH3 substantially grows, this will make 2v2 a dead mode overall (I assume few people are willing to wait 10-15 min to get a 30 min game that is as balanced as it is currently. That's about one third of your overall game time being waiting, at this point at least I would switch to a different game because it is just not worth it, especially if games will still be ruined by crashes and drops, meaning it will lead to an even smaller player base. In essence, 2v2 will probably be dead both for RT and AT.
3v3, as I said in the previous post, is a bit different: RT will take a hit but probably still be okay, AT will be dead as well.
4v4 RT will probably be as it is today, AT is deleted.

Overall, this suggestion will basically kill 2v2, damage 3v3 RT and delete AT from all modes. It is impossible to guess if this will net an overall plus and if so how large this will be even for randoms. Assuming their game quality improves, there will be higher random player retention at the cost of probably an overall lower player pool, since some people won't play CoH or play it less if some of their modes are missing.


The main issue is in Relic's matchmaking, therefore I'd argue to tackle that first.

That is data for a 10 year old geam!!! PleasE@!

Ok
All you in favor would rather lower wait times so arranged teams can have shitty seal club waste 40 minutes matches and everyone else is in an completely unplayable state, because that is what rank 500+ in 4v4 is at now, it is completely unplayable due to the matchmaking and arranged team seal clubfests.....vs longer wait times and more even matches.

This is a bad argument.

Most RT vs AT wind up in the match being done and dusted within 5-20 minutes and are not enjoyable to anyone, except those worms that like playing unfair seal clubbing BS.

I agree. Especially 4vs4 is a deeply flawed system and I think Relic will lose casual players and money if they don't fix this unfairness. At the very least fix 4v4.

Also, 4vs4 team unfairness is not just related to skill and ELO rating.
The unfairness is also related to AT synergistic effect of specialized commanders/factions which the current matchmaking does not take into account.
As with a perfectly designed AT setup with factions/commanders I could make the argument that 4vs4 AT has the potential to become P2W (synergistic effect) vs RT with random factions/commanders (no synergy).

A solution to this?
Let the random team choose factions/commanders in two stages before the game start;
1) Individual faction/commanders setup before searching for a match, 2) as the match is fixed RT makes a second setup to counter AT faction/commanders.

If lack of players is a big problem, cut 3vs3 and/or make 4vs4 base game FTP. Alternatively, keep 2vs2/3vs3/4vs4 on the old system while doing 4vs4 experimentation with a new system.

Most PvP fans hate unfairness and want a level playing field. That's why they hate P2W microtransactions.

How CoH3 can make money from players, the lifecycle;

In short, the casual players make money and the hardcore players make the community content/engagement.