You click "Play" on Chess.com and within seconds, you are paired with an opponent of similar skill from anywhere in the world. On Tinder, you swipe through profiles curated specifically for your preferences. In League of Legends, five players are assembled into a team balanced against another team of five.

Behind all these experiences is matchmaking, a core system design pattern that pairs users based on compatibility criteria while optimizing for speed and fairness.

Matchmaking appears in almost every system design interview involving real-time pairing: online games, dating apps, ride-sharing, job platforms, and tutoring services. This problem calls for understanding the trade-offs between match quality and wait time, designing efficient queue structures, and handling the complexities of distributed matching at scale.

In this article, we will explore the matchmaking pattern in depth, understand different algorithms and their trade-offs, and learn how to design matchmaking systems for various use cases.

If you're enjoying this newsletter and want to get even more value, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

As a paid subscriber, you'll unlock all premium articles and gain full access to all premium courses on algomaster.io.

Unlock Full Access

Matchmaking is the process of pairing two or more users based on compatibility criteria. The goal is to create fair, enjoyable, or productive pairings while minimizing the time users spend waiting.

Five players with different ratings enter the waiting queue, and the matchmaker pairs them by proximity in skill, producing two matches with a rating gap of just 20 points each.

The core tension in matchmaking is between two competing goals:

These goals often conflict. Finding the perfect match might take minutes, but users expect to be matched in seconds. Every matchmaking system must navigate this trade-off.

Each domain has unique constraints, but the fundamental pattern remains the same: maintain a pool of waiting users, evaluate compatibility, and create pairings that satisfy both quality and speed requirements.

This is the most important concept in matchmaking. You cannot optimize for both perfect matches and instant matching simultaneously.

Most systems solve this with expanding windows: start with strict criteria, then gradually relax them as wait time increases.

1. The Cold Start Problem

When there are few users in the queue, finding good matches is difficult.

Solutions

2. The Imbalanced Pool Problem

Some user segments may have far more supply than demand.

Solutions

3. The Latency Problem

In games, network latency directly affects gameplay quality.

Trade-off decision: Better skill match vs better connection quality.

Solutions

4. The Party/Group Problem

When users queue as groups, matching becomes a constraint satisfaction problem.

Solutions

Algorithm 1: Simple Range Matching

The most straightforward approach. Match players whose ratings fall within a range of each other.

How it works

Algorithm 2: Score-Based Matching

Assign a compatibility score to each potential pairing and create matches that maximize total score.

Score calculation example:

A player pair with 50 rating difference, 30 second average wait, same region, and 40ms latency would score: 100 - 5 + 6 + 10 = 111 points.

Optimization approaches:

Algorithm 3: Elo-Based Expected Outcome Matching

Used in competitive games. Match players such that the expected outcome is close to 50-50.

Win probability formula:

Rating ranges for fair matches (45-55% win chance):

The fair range is approximately ± 70 rating points for a 45-55% expected outcome.

Algorithm 4: Bucket/Tier-Based Matching

Divide players into skill tiers and match within tiers.

Handling tier boundaries:

Players at the edge of tiers (e.g., 1395 Silver vs 1405 Gold) may have long waits. Solutions:

Algorithm 5: Glicko-2 Confidence-Based Matching

Consider rating uncertainty when matching. New players and inactive players have uncertain ratings.

Key insight: A player with high rating deviation (RD) has an uncertain rating. Matching them helps calibrate their true skill faster.

Glicko-2 tracks three values:

The matching strategy follows from this. Match uncertain players against established players so the system calibrates them faster, and prefer matches where the two confidence intervals overlap. RD increases over time for inactive players, so a returning player is treated as uncertain again until a few matches narrow the estimate.

The following diagram shows the full request path from players through the API layer to the regional matchmakers, the shared data stores they read from, and the game server coordinator that receives the final match assignment.

Core Components

Queue Data Structure

Use Redis Sorted Sets for efficient range queries:

This allows finding all players rated 1400-1600 instantly, regardless of queue size.

Matchmaker Loop

The matchmaker runs continuously:

Player Disconnects While Waiting

When a player drops from the queue, the system must decide whether a match was already in progress and respond accordingly, either canceling it and returning the other player to the front of the queue, or simply removing the disconnected player with no further action.

Match Found But Player Declines

Many games require players to accept/decline:

Long Wait Times

When a player waits too long:

Smurf Detection

Smurfs are skilled players using new accounts to stomp weaker opponents.

Detection signals

Solutions

Matching teams adds significant complexity.

Team Rating Calculation

Three common methods translate individual player ratings into a single team rating: a simple average, a weighted average that gives more influence to the strongest player, and a variance-adjusted value that penalizes teams whose skill distribution is uneven.

Party Size Matching

Matching parties of similar size keeps communication advantages balanced, while mixing a full five-stack against five solo players creates an inherent coordination edge that raw rating adjustment cannot fully compensate for.

As a rule, prefer matching similar party compositions against each other. When a mismatch is unavoidable, adjust the rating expectations to compensate, and track win rates by party composition over time so the adjustment stays calibrated to real outcomes.

Role-Based Composition

Games with roles (tank, healer, DPS) need balanced teams:

Solutions

Key Quality Metrics

Monitoring Dashboard

Real-time metrics for queue size, wait-time percentiles, and rating gaps feed directly into an alerting layer that fires when any of those values cross a configured threshold.

1. Start With Requirements

Ask clarifying questions before designing:

2. Discuss Trade-offs

Always mention the core trade-off:

3. Design Incrementally

Build complexity step by step:

4. Mention Real Systems

Reference real implementations:

The diagram maps the three layers every matchmaking system must address: the core concepts that govern every design decision, the algorithm options to choose from based on requirements, and the infrastructure choices that make the system work at scale.

Key takeaways

Thank you for reading!

If you found it valuable, hit a like and consider subscribing for more such content every week.

If you have any questions or suggestions, leave a comment.

This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share

P.S. If you're enjoying this newsletter and want to get even more value, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

As a paid subscriber, you'll unlock all premium articles and gain full access to all premium courses on algomaster.io.

Unlock Full Access

There are group discounts, gift options, and referral bonuses available.

Checkout my Youtube channel for more in-depth content.

Follow me on LinkedIn and X to stay updated.

Checkout my GitHub repositories for free interview preparation resources.

I hope you have a lovely day!

See you soon,

Ashish