Talk:Automatic MatchMaker

I don't think Automatic MatchMaker should be merged with Warcraft III. That page is too big already. I like the idea of splitting up the content, especially as AMM is a more in-depth topic than most readers will want to know about Warcraft III's multiplayer features.Csc14us 07:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the AMM needs a page of its own, plus it needs a lot of work, look at the comment I added below about the patches after 1.14. Spazm 18:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

AMM Patch controversy after 1.14

This should be discussed in the AMM article. After the 1.14 patch the AMM was radically changed. The Warcraft 3 community is split on whether the change was for the better or for the worse. Looking at the threads on Battle.net forums, there are many many posts about "wishing battle.net would revert to the 1.14 AMM". At 1.14 and prior patchs, a level one account was assumed to be a new user (noobie). You would be matched agaisnt other people level one to level six. Now to combat the perceived problem of smurfing, level ones are matched against the average b.net player. This means you will be playing level twenty players when you create a new account. Anyone who really is new to the game, gets extremely frustrated with this, because you have to lose 10 games in a row to start to get matched against people of your own skill. The level twenty players, on the other hand have to waste time facing people who are level one and winning a pathetic game. Even worse, if the level twenty is playing a team game, they could be matched with a level one teamate while they are facing two other level twenties, all because the level one is assumed to be average. Spazm 18:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Great! I suggest you take the lead on this discussion, as I did not start playing wc3 on Battle.net before 1.18 (last summer). There is one statement above I don't agree with, however. I am a level 24 solo player (about average). I often get very strong lvl opponents (smurfs) who destroy me. I actually think my win % vs. lvl 1-3 is <50%. So, I'm not sure it's not actually a good idea to let a lvl 1 play vs. a lvl 20-25 to confirm they're actually noob.

So you are saying that a level one solo should start playing agaisnt a level even higher than 25? So the AMM should assume that the level one might be ever better than average? Based on you losing to level 1s a lot? This may be true in solo, I almost always play team games, so I am looking at it from that angle. The main problem I see is that with people totally new to wc3 bnet get very frustrated because they have to lose over and over again to face other people who are 'true' level ones (what the game would call having a EEL of level one). I know several people that liked the game, wanted to play on bnet, but got fed up with losing over and over again, because they where new to the game. I have been playing wc3 for a few years, and I never saw smurfing a huge problem, it always seemed to even out. You would get a smurf on your team, or the other team sometimes, but once you where past level 10, you wouldn't have to worry about it to much becuase you only get matched to people that are +6 to -6 levels from you. Now level 1s can get matched on either team regardless of actual level. It seems like the games are spoiled now, i get many easy losses, and easy wins, whereas before I seemed to get in more close matches. I would love to write a section on this, I just have to collect all this into one coherent article section. Also, I would like to have a section on bnet slang, when I first started playing wc3 it was like learning an other language. I looked but I couldn't find it in any of the warcraft pages, they don't even mention it, and I am not sure where it would fit.Spazm 21:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

What I think I'm saying is that smurfing on the solo ladder is common. Blizzard has taken steps to discourage this by making lvl 1 accounts play up on the 1st game. A lvl 1 noob could just as easily lose to a lvl 1 smurf and get frustrated as a lvl 20 who actually plays at his or her rating.

Yeah i see what you are saying. This may be true for solo, I don't know as i don't play solo much. I do know that it really screws up team games. Spazm 18:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean arranged teams or anonymous 2v2 (or more)? I've played these myself a fair amount. They don't seem that balanced in general, as one really good player just wins outright. It seems likely that Blizzard did the best it could to discourage smurfing on the solo ladder, which annoyed a lot of players. I'm not saying it's a perfect system: it's an imperfect system for an imperfect group of players, some of whom just love preying on noobs. AMM on the solo ladder is working well for me. I'm getting paired against players of comparable skill in 75%+ of my matches, which makes for a very enjoyable experience. I don't really see how it could be much better. But you're point is well-taken, though. I think it's fine for a lvl 1 account to play a 20-25 player on its first game (and maybe someone in the 10-20 range if they lose, so the anti-smurf policy doesn't become entirely formulaic and easy to beat). But if they're clearly a noob, the system should be able to get them paired against other new players within about 5 games. When the ladder was reset in September, it didn't seem like it took that long for me to get games against good opponents.

You are right, it probably works well for 1v1. I play a lot of 4v4 random team (the most popular game type[[1]]), and you're right, it's not balanced very well right now, I think it was much more balanced before the anti-smurfing change.ANYWAY, my whole point was that this should be discussed in the AMM article. It is probably the most controversial event in the world of bnet AMM, at least in the 3+ years i've been playing.Spazm 20:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree it should be in the article. Could you put something together about it?