Feedback talk:User/Raine Valen/Improve Alliance Battles: Matchmaking and Handicaps

How would you make a ladder system for a game type that throws teams on the same side randomly? This isn't Battle.net 2.0. Also, why does AB need a ladder system? It's pve. ~Shard 21:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

By... not throwing them on the same side randomly? Getting rid of some of the random in the matchmaking system was kind of the point. is for Raine, etc. 22:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I quite like this idea, but I have a few questions/comments. These refer to Individual Ratings by the way:

1. Would you be able to view your own rating and that of the team?
2. Would your rating be per character or per account? I assume per account.
3. Would you be able to see other people's ratings somehow? (And if not, one could judge by the change in team rating when they join)
4. Wouldn't this result in a lot of "LFG with 100+ (or whatever) AB rating!" Therefore creating more elitism?

Hope you can answer! Thanks in advance. Shadow Runner 22:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the questions. I'll see if I can clarify things for you:

1. Players would be able to view their own rating.
2. Individual Rating would be per account.
3. You'd be able to see other players' ratings (the top 5000, at any rate) by looking at the ladder, similar to the way Hero Battles used to be. The total team rating wouldn't be visible under the Individual Rating system. You could ask players, but it shouldn't become an issue.
4. It might create elitism, but it wouldn't be inherent or anything like necessary. Unlike HA, where you play against teams regardless of their ranks (and, thus, increase your chances of outranking the other team by having more high-ranked players), this system would pair teams of similar ratings: if you have players with low rating, you would be more likely to play against players of lower rating. Because of this, there would be little benefit to stacking groups.

I hope I cleared things up for you. is for Raine, etc. 22:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the informative reply! That did indeed clear things up. It does seem to be a good idea and possible solution to the map-lock. It would also provide better AB games in general in my opinion, regardless of the map. Shadow Runner 22:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This can't and won't be implemented. elix Omni 22:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It can't because..? is for Raine, etc. 22:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No resources, would require entirely new code and mechanics. Simply unrealistic, like 99% of feedback here. elix Omni 22:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

That seems more like a won't than a can't to me. Vili 点 22:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

They won't because they can't. elix Omni 22:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I'm sorry but I gotta agree with felix here. Feedback suggestions must take into account workload vs how many people are gonna use it. AB has been around for about three years and most people who stopped playing it view it as a thing of the past. It's just too late. Furthermore to have a ladder system, they'd have to tear down the "3 random groups of 4" thing, which is a core element of AB. I mean a ladder is there to show you how you've improved, and when you've improved, fit you against equal foes. If 2/3s of the people you're going with are random, that's too high a randomness for a ladder system to work. And having TWELVE people want to form together, the alternative, is just not gonna happen at this stage in the game.Greep 02:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit: I think the only realistic positive change you're gonna get at this point might be the randomization of AB maps rather than the old lingering "who wins determines the map" thing, which was only good for about 6 months. It is likely a very easy fix Greep 02:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"If 2/3s of the people you're going with are random, that's too high a randomness for a ladder system to work. And having TWELVE people want to form together, the alternative, is just not gonna happen at this stage in the game."

They're not 3 random teams: they're 3 teams of similar ability.

RA could have a ladder, under the same principles. is for Raine, etc. 02:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

RA, if you ignore its name, could have a ladder and a system like this because you are a single person being paired up with other people. When you can choose your teams, like in AB, how will the game figure out your rating? Me + Katina would be a way better team than Me + Xx Dark Sin Killer Xx. ~Shard 02:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said, registering teams would be the most accurate way - a team is more than the sum of its parts.

However, your rating with certain people would become apparent even with only an individual rating system - if you play with Katina more often, your rating would be higher on average because you would do better on average. Relatedly, you'd probably be more likely to play with Katina, wouldn't you? is for Raine, etc. 03:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes but a ladder is to show improvement, among other things. A ladder with random people doesn't show this at all and would be innaccurate. For instance, suppose your team is getting better but is pitted with equal rating individuals who are not and cause your team to lose. Your difference in rating would not be shown well in a ladder. Not to mention, Anet wil also have to make new k values for the rating system and figure out how to do ratings changes for 3 groups fighting 3 groups, which is not very easy. It's just too an high amount of work. Greep 03:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This ladder isn't to "show improvement" (is any?), it's for matchmaking purposes. That aside, it would "show this at all". Keep in mind that your opposition is in the same situation: those who would do best on average are those who actually are better at what they are doing. is for Raine, etc. 03:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I only responded to half of your post, for some reason. Let's say your team is getting better and they reach a level close to a team who has actualized their potential and has stopped getting better. These two teams would have similar ability (assuming their ratings have more/less equalized), so what would be wrong with pairing these teams? We're pairing teams based on performance (which is measurable), not potential (which is not). On a related note, ladders are very good for showing performance.

Yes, anet would have to make k values, etc. Will it be easy? It'd take some work, but I don't imagine it'd be difficult. How do you assign rating gain/loss based on 3 teams? Simple: use the mean or median. If anet has the resources to generate new mob spawns, add story arcs, introduce new items to the game, and all of the other things that they've recently done, why can't they do some simple math for a few minutes? is for Raine, etc. 03:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Those things are all easily created through the scripted developer tools, because they're a basic part of the game engine. It's entirely possible that Joe Kimmes didn't have to do any work for these things, and nothing new was actually created. All models and icons were recycled. Different types of work take different amounts of time and different people. elix Omni 04:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but math doesn't need to be localized into 15 languages, so it's easier. Vili 点 04:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

They could probably salvage the vast majority of it (the basic system) from existing features. The rating, ladder, and matchmaking systems themselves already exist; they'd need to be tweaked, and a couple of new bits of code would need to be added, but this certainly isn't building anything from scratch, either. is for Raine, etc. 04:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)