Does it really? You mean that all your experience from previous pantheon would not count toward in match making for the next pantheon?

Well whenever I start a new pantheon I get matched with people who its their first online game. If ranking was working correctly, that should never happen. As far as I am aware, everyone starts each new pantheon with 1000 exp.

Whether or not ladder rank influences matchmaking, I don't know, but from experience I'm gonna say no cos I literally never see any of the guys in the top 100, even though I am consistently ranked there on the overall ladder.

After looking around a bit at people's recent matches, most of the matches are lower rank guys against 1 high rank + 1 middle rank.

It also could be because only those people are available during the matching though, and the system is build to put people into game ASAP. So, if the system think the rank is similiar enough after doing some square root and multiplying, they will go ahead and let it happen. While holding the player on wait if the numbers don't add up.

If it is a system that only put similar rank people playing, you will only have a few 100 people to fight across 24 hours and 7 days a week. I think you would be waiting there forever.

Just a guess here.

well i think its kinda crap to get uneven teams all the time. even if there would be a even-skilled 2vs3 there is always a good chance one of the 2 guys is leaving, cause he thinks its unwinable. the matchmaking has to be a lot more transparent!

well, i liked to quit some times myself because of the map, cause i dont want to play with 4 people on a 10 players map! (i didnt quit, but the game sucked, cause the map was (suprise suprise) just to big...

i also see the problem, that there are just not enough players to match those few even-skilled! whenever i entered pantheon there were at best 7 players looking for a game. same with skirmish.

well i think its kinda crap to have players disco when they don't like what they see all the time.  Because then you pretty much guarantee those that remain and try to play end up with uneven games - and (just as bad) make those that remain wait even longer.

If you keep this up, the players are going to screw it up all by themselves without any help from the matchmaking system.

From the in-game IRC chat, I'm saw one person mention the 3v2 thing - and the immediate response was to advise that player to drop and reconnect until they get 2v2.  Whatever problems exist with Pantheon match-making is getting made significantly worse because of the misinformation given in responses to topics like this one and the in-game IRC chat.

[Adding: I hate seeing program code thrown at a people-problem, but I am not sure of any other alternative but to suggest that pantheon matchmaking take into account # of disconnects.  This way, all the ones with high rates of disconnects can play together.  Or rather, spend their game time connecting and reconnecting and making each other wait all day.]

There will always be a low number of people looking for matches, because the matchmaking system is a lot faster than the amount of time it takes to play a game, so people will always be in games, and not the queue.

I didn't realise this about matching 3v2.

That is the by far the worst idea I've heard in multiplayer matchmaking in the history of RTS games.

I'm starting to wonder if the guy in charge of the multiplayer portion of DG has EVER played an RTS game.

Pantheon basically doesn't work (which is mostly attributed to people leaving the queue on purpose in order to play as a premade... I find that extremely hard to believe but if you say so....), there are no useful community features and now this INSANE rule is introduced.

I was getting used to Pantheon matchmaking being bad due to a ropey system but to find out that some of these ridiculous match-ups are intended is like a kick in the GONADS.

For the love of god, let 6 people join and start the game. If you get a 3v3, fine. If someone drops and it's a 3v2, let the game kick someone off so u get a 2v2. If you get a 2v2, great. If you only get 3 players, kick someone and make it a 1v1.

EQUAL NUMBER OF PLAYERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

I win lots of 2v2(with ai on my side) and 3v2 (on the 2 side).  Course I'm rated in the double digits.  But that said, its lame, most of the time it doesnt even try to match 6 people it seems to just go for 5 and EVERY time, EVERY time there's a hintani or some other AI on there.  I'm OK doing some 2v2 with an AI, just so long as I know that if I win its reflected in my rating.  AI should probably be rated near last place and if a player drops mid game, then wait the outcome 1/2 AI 1/2 dude who couldnt take it. 

Just a suggestion.  But yeah, its not even trying 3v3.  Did like 20 matches and none of them even tried 3v3 all were 3v2 or crap like that.  And oh yeah a 5v0, was in on that... dunno how that played to my rating but we won... go figure.  Whatever changed 2 days or so ago was for the worse.  Before that I was getting 2v2 consitantly and maybe 50% were actually filled with people.  As a serious player I'm resigned to play out the crappy 2v1s and 2v2Ais even when they're dominate, just to get that win.  I'll even wait in a long queue so you can put another high rated opponent against me.  But like I said, weight the outcome, if you put me and another <100 rated player in a match where 1 of us has an AI buddy, dont trash our rating for the loss.  And put concede in there(I know its coming, cant wait) so I can let dude auto-win, or vise-versa.  I know who the good people are out there and I know when its worth my time to go 1v2 on people. 

Great game, hopefully we can cut through the crap to play some good matches.  As it is now, I'm not playing anymore panth until the patch.  This coming from someone who only plays panth.  Its a waste of time atm.

Ok, that solution you offer pretty much guarantees that any multiplayer matchmaker you design or develop will fail.  Really.  Think about what you just said: You want a system that kicks players.  Awesome idea.  Now ask yourself this: How often are you going to play an MP game that kicks you out of a queue?  I'll tell you my own answer: I won't play that game.

Why would it fail?

Let the system kick you without losing any points.

It means that u don't waste time playing a game with an unequal number of players.

Really, think about it a bit more.

it means that you do waste time getting kicked and not playing at all.

Really, think about it a bit more.

Edit: And just to be crystal clear on this, put your own self in the position of the person being kicked.  Then ask yourself if you want to play that game.

Depends what kind of person u are.

If you like to play a game where it's unbalanced, then sure, play on.

I'd rather play a fair game with equal number of players.

Considering I'll quit as soon as I see an unbalanced team, it won't make any dfference to me if I'm kicked.

I guess you're the type of person who get put into a 3v1 domination and think you're excellent for staying at it and going for the win.

Some may applaud u, I say you have too much time.

Your solution wouldn't even apply to you.  Just drop it - like you do your connection when you don't like what you see.  It's got nothing to do with 'type of player' or how much time I have on my hands.  Because what you, and others that decide to drop connections (and then point fingers at the game's matchmaking code) are doing is cutting into my game time.

I just played a 2 vs 1 on a Patheon dominate game... is that a joke? There never was 4 players in the connection info. So the matchmaking set it up that way. I don't mind playing a fortress or conquest game with unfair odds. But a dominate game cannot be win with such a setup. I hope this get changed.

Read what you are writing.

Supposedly, the 2 main concerns of Pantheon are rage quitting and people looking for premades.

In the former instance, people quit when they are killed and go into hissy fit. The latter is when people quit cos they can't play with their buddies.

What I do is none of the above. If I get into a game (like the poster above me, a 2v1 dominate), I quit immediately since it's impossible.

If the game had automatically kicked one of the opposing team, the above poster would have had a decent game.

The guy who got kicked could've just found another game that was fair. In that way, the Pantheon stats would start meaning something. Currently, it's mainly decided by how many people join a game.

You and Frogboy are in a very small minority who think that having unequal amount of players is a good thing.

I got in a game yesterday that was 3v2 in my favor and I actually said in chat saying it was harsh for them.  We got completely schooled, I'm pretty good with Sedna, have taken on 2 people on my own several times but my team were quite inexperienced and there was no way I was taking on these 2 on my own, they were really good.

Feeling that I'd learnt something I went on and ended up in a Regulus / Sedna combo against 3 players and we managed to get all 3 to rage quit within about 2 minutes.

I'm not convinced it's a bad thing so far, although I have no idea how you would win vs 2xUB and a QoT as that combo to be fair

What's more concerning is the matchmaking still feels really broken, yesterday being matched as a 3v3 and when the game starts all 3 enemies are AI, happened twice, I don't believe all 3 of them crashed/quit/DCed in 2 of my games, I didn't play that many.

Yes, u CAN win games even if you have less members (or vice versa) but it's outstandingly rare. (I had a game yesterday where I was in a 3v2... my team mate wanted to play so I did... one guy on the other side ragequit the first time I killed him... which immediately gave my side an advantage since we could hit his AI replacement. Again, that's a pretty stupid game... start with uneven sides which then turns into an advantage for my side cos of their extra AI player...)

My point is that with the problems you have with Pantheon matchmaking, why implement something that introduces another variable?

ie try and get as many people in and let the system give you a fair game. If they're better, and you lose, fair enuf. That's random encounter Pantheon, the way it should be.

GPG need to introduce a pure 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 ranked ladder if people want individual/premade rankings.

Pantheon should remain a FFA and it's the first side to get to 1 mill points.

ie

Click FIGHT.

You take your chances.

You fight for your side.

You should also get some sort of status thing if your side wins Pantheon. Obviously, you need to have signed up for one side within a couple of days of the Pantheon starting. Just a bragging right thing like SupCom had.

As I understand it the system was changed some time back to not do imbalanced player counts as readily. So right now, a fair number of the lopsided teams are being caused by people quitting as the match loads because they didn't get the premade they wanted.

So, you think that 80% of my games are unbalanced due to PreMade quitting?

I find that hard to believe.

Anyway, I ask Frogboy more in this thread:

http://forums.demigodthegame.com/357073

You know a couple of times it really felt like people were working together way too well in Pantheon, now I get it.

Any chance you guys are working to resolve that issue?

How about a 2 v 2 AI match?

To get into the match i had to wait 6-7 minutes, most time spent in the "connecting to players" screen, with the map loading background.

And one thing i fail to understand is how people expect to get in the same match with their friend(s)? Panth is made by joinig random people according to their ranks, not joining them with their friends. So i don't get the "a fair number of the lopsided teams are being caused by people quitting as the match loads because they didn't get the premade they wanted."

Nooo, 1 is yourself!

So that's a: you+AI v 2 AI!

But it's prolly cos srdave111 quit cos he likes to play pantheon with his partner srbob111.

They like to team up to play against people who are looking for random teams instead of going to Custom and trying to play against other premades.

They started miewmiewing when I was in a 3v2 against them and they got mashed. 'We would've won if it had been fair teams', they complained... oh the irony.

If your ladder rank is between 1-1000 you can expect that a good number of your games will be stacked against you.

If you don't like playing against the odds, you can either lose a ton of games so you aren't ranked so high anymore or play Custom or Skirmish.

In Dead Ghost Example, you where actually paired up against 2 players but they dropped or timed out because Demigod took too long to start the game. I see this happen every so often. It is annoying because if you don't wait out the 5-15 minutes it counts as a loss against you. I think this issue is due to the fact that the Match Making Service run by Stardock uses code that allows most people to connect with each other but the Demigod Client still uses older code so when the Match Making Service hands the connections over to Demigod it doesn't always manage to get them to work. Hopefully v1.1 will help alleviate that problem.

About as often as I'd play a game that deliberately creates matches with uneven amounts of players.

Thank god for custom games.

Well, doooh...

I think they all quit because the match was taking so long to be made. After 5 minutes of waiting, i was tempted to cancel it too, but i've stayed so i can see how long it will take and what the result will be. My curiosity was rewarded.