sprockitz wrote: ↑05 March 2020, 04:48
Without seeing tables and without trying to recreate the scenario it is impossible for me to be sure...as I can't say for certain that I had 2 things as first choice (but I thought I did) when it failed to join as it may have been okay...and again kinda hard to test on our end without easily visible tables (which would be nice just don't list who the players are
).
I understand how you feel, but actually seeing the tables would just create more confusion, since all the info is not immediately visible (especially if not showing who the players are). I can't count the times when sourisdudesert told me "this is not working, look at this" and I went "oh, no, I have to check again" then checked and answered "it works, you just forgot to take that into account" (that being player levels, red thumbs or whatever). So we would just be drowned in false "this is not working" reports, and we don't want that, when we spend time on false positive we are not using our time to move the site forward
This is a case where more visibility would actually undermine trust more than help it, because it needs real expertise and a lot of time to evaluate properly what happens.
I would add that this system generates 7 Gbytes of logs every day, so you can see that it's not a volume where we can examine everything manually. We have built some tools for checking to make reasonably sure that it's going well, but overall the main thing we look at now is the number of matches, with alerts if it drops below a certain level, so that we can check if something is going wrong.
sprockitz wrote: ↑05 March 2020, 04:48
Not knowing how often the algorithm actually searches for tables created by someone else in all the categories outside the 3 where your tables are created also makes it hard to tell...hopefully more often than just at start, +4 hr and +12 hr searches for other tables are being done.
Not sure if that's what you want to know, but currently matchmaking is processed every 5 seconds for realtime and every minute for turn based; the search expands options being considered after 2 minutes / 4 minutes for real-time and 4 hours / 12 hours for turn-based (note that this may change anytime for technical or functional reasons so those values should not be considered final in any way).
sprockitz wrote: ↑05 March 2020, 04:48I don't understand why only 1st choice, prefer not, and reluctant create tables, it seems like it would make more sense to make a table for 'okay' in the second pass versus skipping over that table and going to the prefer not choice. b/c okay was being skipped over I was under the assumption that it was being treated equitably with first choice.
Well, I think it may be a question of semantics. It's not easy to express clearly and concisely the concept behind these preferences, we had a lot of back and forth on this before settling on the terminology explained in the FAQ (
https://boardgamearena.com/faq?anchor=f ... implelobby). Maybe it would help to think of OK as "no opinion expressed". It's used only if there is not a preference explicitly expressed for the matchmaking expansion being considered. If we have an explicit preference, we always use it rather than the absence of preference.
Hope this thread helped shed some light and trust in the process and did not just add confusion about the complexity
