HiRezAjax

That all makes sense.

But if we make a pick/ban system that DOESNT allow people to ban Cthulhu or Tsukuyomi then what players are we actually making happy with this system?

If we change a meta to make Mage ADCs better, but then everyone bans them, why did we even change the meta?

It just creates some really strange scenarios where no matter what we are adding tons of rules and complexity to only make a small amount of players happy.

Friend rank can be accessed in the dropdown where you choose what ranked division you want to look at

EDIT #2: Seems like League does offer a normal Draft Pick Normal mode, but they do have far less modes and more players than us, but i think most of my points here still stand. I wont change any of the text i had typed before

So if we wanted to use LoL as a reference (which we dont always want to do, our games are different in many ways)

This would be a good argument for changing the Ranked Ban system to be slightly faster and more agency from all players instead of the top MMR player.

Currently I think our ranked players value Ranked and SPL being the same pick/ban system, but I might be wrong.

None of this encourages us to add it to casual modes tho.

EDIT: Seems like League does offer a normal Draft Pick Normal mode, but they do have far less modes and more players than us

Last i checked, this is their "ranked" mode system, but i may be mistaken.

We wouldnt add this to Conquest for the same reasons i said above. New gods would have 100% ban. Top Meta / Recently buffed gods would have 90% ban. That 4.5% stat is greatly misleading.

creates all the problems in point 2 on a very large population. risky, still.

Saying "up to half" really, and any combination of those players being split is all bad, right?

• 10% go to bans conq, 90% stay - new mode matchmaking is BAD, old mode barely changes
• 50% go, 50% stay - matchmaking gets worse for everyone

Even as a MOTD this "mode" is more likely to be like the first situation, low play count, bad matchmaking, 5 mans vs solos, etc. But hey you can play conquest with no Tsukuyomi!

I still think the positives are minimal. Play ranked.

We currently have no plans to implement this. Heres why:

1. Splitting the Conquest playerbase. This type of design has the potential to cut the Normal: Conquest player pool in half, which would be devastating to matchmaking quality or would require much longer queue times. This would be totally reasonable if SMITE didn't already have so many modes. Our mode variety has been a big part of our success, but adding more at this point poses a large risk.

2. Player Experience. A huge amount of SMITE players want to play the game in a specific way, meaning they have a specific god they intend to play before they even queue up. Banning away gods would often leave players dissapointed in the match lobby. Many players want to play the newly buffed, newly meta, newly added gods. Also this process takes a considerably longer time. Many players just want to get in game asap.

3. Redundancy. This is really just ranked but allowing larger party sizes and s...

yes is intended, the side areas are both larger than actual 180 degress semi-circles

its meant to feel most accurately tracked to the trajectory the kusarigama takes

Not forgotten! Just still being worked on! (Ran into some messy stat aggregation stuff on crossplay accounts and some inconsistencies in the ways these icons have been given out)

Might take another Update or two but its making progress.

Server maintenance and improvements were recently made to OCE, SEA, and Brazil.

It sounds like OCE is still going strong but possibly problems have returned to SEA and Brazil.

Can anyone give me more specific information on the issues timeline? What modes are you playing and what region? Did you experience constant issues?

Near the launch of Mid-Season (the first weekend after launch i believe) Brazil servers were adjusted, and I thought we had feedback that the rubber banding had improved. Maybe the issue returned with todays update?

The team is looking into the server issues as we speak, and multiple other changes have been made recently to multiple regions to improve performance.

good bot, much important info here

LOL

We monitor the feedback closely. We have seen a huge influx in new and returning players lately which is expected to come with some matchmaking complaints.

Over the past few years the in-game metrics have constantly improved, and player complaints have largely decreased. (Although i see you whip up a comment to almost every single matchmaking complaint post)

I disagree with your analysis on this topic.

I dont know when you spoke to Pon but many things have changed with how we do resets over the last year, maybe thats what he was referring to? And we are here today again to tell you we still have more planned, and that its really not as bad as people think.

It seems once people get caught up in the negativity and obsessions of matchmaking, its very hard to break free from that mental state...

the 100% to 5% is actually just a player driven value that shows how its changed. This corresponds to a completely different value on our end.

Which means im saying - we can change the actual variance to decrease it, but we still planned on showing you 100% - meaning youre at the highest possible value.

Thats more of a sidestep of the question though, i still understand that you mean it should be lowered regardless of how its portrayed.

I think your example is a bit of hyperbole, but we understand the concern. We have talked about decreasing this, but without pairing it with a hard resets it provides a lot of favoritism to players who rose in rank before the change.

Some of the reasons these pitches wont work is because the system has been functioning a specific way already. Changing it partially in the middle causes different players to have different rules applied to their MMRs, which leads to even worse matchmaking.

Pon already answered that question elsewhere in the thread.

No plans to include personal stats as MMR modifiers, even in extreme cases. We encourage you to win, nothing else.

This is a team game and role "performance" is very diverse, any sort of system like this would almost certainly be unfair to certain roles or would be gamed for individual gain and hurt overall match quality.

Also, I dont appreciate your loaded questions stuffed with negativity. Ive seen how you talk on here, and if you want your feedback heard you might want to work on your word choices.

There are no casual MMR or Variance resets. Not for any modes.

Possibly they are just referring to large influxes of players having those effects on them?

Variance is never reset in Normal Modes.

To make for the mathematically best matchmaking possible, Variance shouldnt be reset in ranked either, but we added it due to player feedback and because resetting it does 2 things well.

1. It makes sure no one is really hard-stuck. When variance resets, you get a huge amount of power to break out from your current rank

2. It checks players over time. To keep your rank you have to survive through resets. If you slack off or lose your edge, youre going to drop after those resets, and thats likely the right place for you to go.

Even though you "barely held your own" in gold, you did it, and you won, and on your first ranked game?! You definitely deserve to be around or slightly above gold, and the system is doing exactly what its intended to do to find the right spot for you.

SMITE's minimum variance is already generally higher than recommended from most MMR studies, and higher than most games. This was done intentionally because the early leads of SMITE felt that people should never be hard-stuck, even though it was considered mathematically risky at the time.

We have discussed increasing it further, but it comes with a lot of risks of putting people into places they dont belong based on win or loss streaks. It effectively makes it much more likely to create the problems that this thread is claiming exist already.

I have no control over whats posted here.

However, that post clearly has a lot of toxic language and personal bias.

We did review that post as well before we replied here, and I don't think the player was correct in their analysis, nor was there much useful information contained within.

Except for "OP hates matchmaking"

which is valid feedback and something we would like to minimize.

Masters players overwhelmingly wanted duo queue to return.

There is no easy solution to these challenges. There are huge teams of people spending years reviewing data and making tweaks to matchmaking systems and yet every game players complain. Dont put pressure on yourself to find anything perfect right here and now.