I hope this doesn't have unintended negative consequences, like bronze-lifers being matched out of their league because they amassed countless games without getting better.

It seems that the same thing could be accomplished by being more conservative with points handouts and/or starting the points lower, so that you don't have new players at 3.5k after 8 games.

This artificial restriction essentially acknowledges mmr is unreliable without enough games (which is true), but now if there is no mixing at all, i am uneasy about what happens as people cross that threshold, will the mmrs line up or be totally misaligned?

Still, i am glad that action is being taken. It is a good start.

Or, and this is just spitballing here, restrict qm's to 5 level increments i.e. 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, etc.

I mean this isn't rocket surgery here and with so many mobas out there to learn from you guys are making some really dumb mistakes

07/16/2015 09:38 AMPosted by Raz415

What about those AWFUL team comps like Abathur, Murky, Nova and 2 other unfortunate souls?

We wiped the floor with a team like this. Abathur /Murky / Nova. Was awesome!

07/16/2015 11:17 AMPosted by BlackSphere

Or, and this is just spitballing here, restrict qm's to 5 level increments i.e. 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, etc.

I mean this isn't rocket surgery here and with so many mobas out there to learn from you guys are making some really dumb mistakes

No Blizzard's current solution works better because not all level 40s are the same. Some have played 2000 games some only 150. You get out of the "level" thinking once you've been long past level 40.

07/16/2015 10:49 AMPosted by Hollowness

we need a special rules as "Support vs Support" but this time for "Tank + Support vs No Tank + Support". when you dont get tank and the enemy team get a support+tank you GET REKT so hard 9/10 times :(.

This isn't true. Or at least it wasn't true back in April when Blizzard implemented the "support vs support" rule. Back then Blizzard released their numbers on "warrior vs no warrior" in qm and it was surprisingly even. Only 50.47% in favor of the team *without* a warrior.

Even support vs no support was surprisingly balanced, at 55.14% in favor of the team with a support (yet they chose to implement the support rule anyway).

You can read about it here: http://us.battle.net/heroes/en/blog/18543837/conversations-around-the-community-matchmaking-4-3-2015

Things may have changed since then, obviously, but it should at least reassure you that Blizzard is monitoring stuff like this. Things are probably nowhere near as bad as you think.

I would prefer there to be no team composition rules of any kind, as I enjoy the different situations that crazy compositions can provide. I'm even against the support vs support rule, since minor imbalances don't bother me. I'd prefer the variety, especially in a "just for fun" mode like quickmatch.

I also believe that the random nature of a no rule system will help the meta evolve faster and in more interesting directions. If the current strongest composition is hardcoded as the "correct" one, even better compositions will be harder to find.

You forgot about hero league.

This is a much welcome update.

Do you have any news of a fix to the healer vs support scenario as Tassadar/Tyrande do not fit into the support role as well as the other supports which has led to many people including myself not willing to join into QM as Tassadar or Tyrande due to the high probability of being matched vs a better healer, where the odds of winning are stacked against you.

Also iv noticed a huge trend in mirror comps in QM(3+ same hero either side), while i can understand this being pushed towards balancing games, it kind of saps the fun out of QM. It would be nice if it was more randomized.

Thanks

the real problem is the composition of team in quick match. can be made standartized? for exemple only 1 healer for team or max 2 tank or rule similar, many times i had to lose game because we have in team 2 healer no assasin

Ok so what about 2500 mmr players being matched with people in the top 400?

07/16/2015 11:06 AMPosted by Spyrian

To play devil's advocate... While feedback that the team comp experience in QM can be frustrating is understandable, I also think we need to be careful about having too many of these sorts of rules. A couple of them is probably fine, but we also probably don't want to dictate what an 'ideal' team comp would be for every game -especially when the meta can turn on its heel month over month (or after a major tournament). Just my own two cents on this topic.

5 specialists has been pretty viable against quite a few team comps.

#SpecialEducation

Finally!!!! GJ Blizzard. Now do the same for hero league and dont mix a rank 1 with rank 30+ player!!! Give it +-10 rank for a player and this game will be amazing. The matchmaking is the weakest point of this game

Hey thanks!

How about also putting a rule in regarding their "Hero Level". The difference between a level 5 Abathur, and a level 10 Abathur is substantial... Games played is a good rule addition, but I also believe it should take Hero level as well (experience not with game itself, but with the particular hero)

this definitely sounds like a step in the right direction.

Next step: completely overhaul/re-do the ranked system.

But thanks for working on some of the problems, we do appreciate it.

As I was reading through the thread my queue time for quick match had reached 400 seconds and it took me a couple minutes to read this thread fully. >_> level 18 with not a whole ton of games played. First time I've had a queue last longer than 3 minutes

edit: lost the game horribly then next queue took like 20 seconds guess it was just my queue was bugged or something :(

This is most definitely a step in the right direction. Not all can happen in one big boom. Crawl, walk then run and jump.

On the plus side, this should help with the QM queue being filled with Hero Leaguers abusing QMs matchmaking. Not having to worry about a rank 1 premades getting matched against new players, because of win-loss %'s, will be a nice change.

07/16/2015 11:25 AMPosted by Spyrian

07/16/2015 11:12 AMPosted by oboeman

I hope this doesn't have unintended negative consequences, like bronze-lifers being matched out of their league because they amassed countless games without getting better.

It seems that the same thing could be accomplished by being more conservative with points handouts and/or starting the points lower, so that you don't have new players at 3.5k after 8 games.

This artificial restriction essentially acknowledges mmr is unreliable without enough games (which is true), but now if there is no mixing at all, i am uneasy about what happens as people cross that threshold, will the mmrs line up or be totally misaligned?

Still, i am glad that action is being taken. It is a good start.

If I'm understanding you correctly, then I think I can help clear this up a bit.

The new 'games played' rule doesn't require that everyone play a certain number of games before their MMR is taken into account in matchmaking. Players (even new ones!) are still matched primarily based on MMR. The new rule is an addition to the system that's already in place. So it's based on MMR AND games played, and not just one or the other.

That does add some clarity, thank you, but it's not exactly what I was getting at.

In a perfect world, MMR would have already taken care of that: newbies would not be matched with veterans because the veterans have higher MMR because they are better.
Realistically, that won't always be the case because a newbie's MMR will take many games (100? 250?) to converge, and before that point he could be vastly inflated or underrepresented and end up in all kinds of the wrong games.

This solution of adding game count to the matchmaker will help keep unconverged players playing with each other instead of overflowing into the main ladder pool, until they are more accurately ranked (more games).

My concern is that if there is insufficient mixing between unconverged and converged players, the new players may be converging to a different baseline and we'll see some wonky effects as they get more games and start matching with the "old guard".

07/16/2015 09:50 AMPosted by Overlord

Therefore the issue of playing "inexperienced" players doesn't exist in hero league.

not sure if serious or just trolling.

the number of times i have been paired with, and faced off against idiots with no clue how to play the game who have bought the heroes they want with cash and have managed to reach level 30 through sheer time spent is astounding, so saying this is either EXTREMELY naive of you, or you are in fact joking and using this phrase in an ironic manner, (hoping and praying it is the latter than the former).