Upcoming Versus Matchmaking Test - (Updated**)

Unknown

rofl this is terrible, i cant find any reassonable teams to fight and i am under 100 points with max daken sentry hood

This is not a small TWEEK

please fix

JustDan13

I've got four maxed 2*s, plus one level 130 four star (Nick Fury), which I grant might be skewing my results.

That being said... I can't win the first node. All my options are FAR over my head, usually 3* or 4* characters in the 175-ish range. I put together my best roster, used up a ton of boosts, all my health packs, and didn't even get close to winning the easiest nodes I could find.

Yes, before there were seed teams with a couple of level 1 characters. This let me generate some consistent flow of ISO-8. Certainly not enough to break the game, one would hope, but enough to make it worthwhile to play consistently. If this is the way it shall be moving forward, why in the world would I ever want to play PvP? I'm looking at a net loss every time I attempt an attack. Better, then, to sit back and... not play? How is this a good thing on D3's part?

Needless to say, I'm not a fan of the change, whatever the nuts and bolts that went into it might be. The end result is that I can't play the game, essentially.

Kingofpopcorn

Nice said.
They don't know anything in GAME design.

Amazeballs

Way to go, devs. :slow clap:

SnowcaTT

Like others, I'm seeing rosters vastly beyond my own. In the last two weeks I moved five 117's to 127's. Couldn't make the opening time for seed teams - though it sounds like there were no seed teams?

I think it is matching me with my total possible level base (127 x 3 = 381) to opponents similar level. The problem, of course, is I'm getting 94 + 166 + 166 at the start, and I don't know how it will be possible to win one match like that. My next plan was to suicide a few times to save on ISO, but it sounds like that isn't working for people either.

Professa D

Mr Stoat wrote:

Well something is definitely different. I've wiped my entire roster in the pvp and i'm still seeing 166 (332x3) boosted teams. Normally after killing my entire roster i'd be expecting to see 2*s.

So perhaps the change was more a tanking nerf than anything else? If that's the case I really might have to quit. Granted it was a stupid a mundane task to have to artificially lower the levels of the opponents you face, but it was justifiable because you still got the same 25-40 points for beating up those 2* teams while losing far less health and gaining more ISO as well because of higher volume of matches.

I've said it many times on these forums and also posted it in the Q&A thread, but they need to fix the risk/reward relationships in the game. It's really quite simple:

WEAK OPPONENTS (aka LOW RISK) = LOW REWARDS

STONG OPPONENTS (aka HIGH RISK) = HIGH REWARDS

I mean there are already three nodes in every PvP, is it that ridiculous to assign them as Easy/Normal/Hard and scale the rewards accordingly?

JustDan13

Really glad this change came about before I sunk cash into the game. I had been pondering a few purchases, but at this point I feel like my Clash of Clans account might just need a little bit of love instead.

acescracked

So does this FUBAR surpass the true healing FUBAR? Is there a new king of fubars?

Unknown

SnowcaTT wrote:

Like others, I'm seeing rosters vastly beyond my own. In the last two weeks I moved five 117's to 127's. Couldn't make the opening time for seed teams - though it sounds like there were no seed teams?

I think it is matching me with my total possible level base (127 x 3 = 381) to opponents similar level. The problem, of course, is I'm getting 94 + 166 + 166 at the start, and I don't know how it will be possible to win one match like that. My next plan was to suicide a few times to save on ISO, but it sounds like that isn't working for people either.

There were seed teams of the normal levels, albeit boosted, I would expect. Suiciding my entire roster is having zero effect on the levels of the teams i'm facing. I'm all for a challenge in games but this is beyond tough to say the least to make any progress.

dkffiv

Professa D wrote:

Mr Stoat wrote:

Well something is definitely different. I've wiped my entire roster in the pvp and i'm still seeing 166 (332x3) boosted teams. Normally after killing my entire roster i'd be expecting to see 2*s.

So perhaps the change was more a tanking nerf than anything else? If that's the case I really might have to quit. Granted it was a stupid a mundane task to have to artificially lower the levels of the opponents you face, but it was justifiable because you still got the same 25-40 points for beating up those 2* teams while losing far less health and gaining more ISO as well because of higher volume of matches.

I've said it many times on these forums and also posted it in the Q&A thread, but they need to fix the risk/reward relationships in the game. It's really quite simple:

WEAK OPPONENTS (aka LOW RISK) = LOW REWARDS

STONG OPPONENTS (aka HIGH RISK) = HIGH REWARDS

I mean there are already three nodes in every PvP, is it that ridiculous to assign them as Easy/Normal/Hard and scale the rewards accordingly?

You forget that people who didn't actively tank would occasionally lose (usually to stronger teams) and get set back just enough to keep things balanced. If there's no scaling back and the algorithm is stupid (check how many 3* you have regardless of quality), the IM40 Beast Colossus team will always face Daken Sentry Hood and win maybe 1 in 4 times.

Bowgentle

How removed from your most loyal playerbase - forumites - do you have to be to even ask for feedback about this?
Can there really be any doubt that we DON'T want to face maxed rosters from 0 points onward for the same rewards?
We hate that we get penalised in PVE for having put in the time to get good rosters. Now you want to punish us in PVP too?

No. Roll this back, or risk losing your most loyal customers.

GrumpySmurf1002

"Hey all, we're working on our Versus matchmaking algorithm and will be rolling out some tweaks over the next week so we can collect data on the results. To set expectations, this will not be a huge change but we're interested in hearing your unbiased observations of the changes. We also suspect it won't have any effect for some players. If you see anything different, please share your thoughts with us. We'll have more details later, and we'll share the results of the data we collect."

This bears repeating (my emphasis in bold).

There seems to be a bit of a disconnect in what they thought they were doing and what they did. Massively buffed seed teams and veteran walls from the word go doesn't strike me as "not a huge change."

Xeonic-Ice

They've been longingly staring at that knob, with an unbearable itch that could not be squelched, wondering what would happen if they actually turned it to 11.

Now we know.

Unknown

Another thing to note, I don't see any registered admins on which makes me wonder if they're even actively monitoring reactions at this time. Sure they could be logged in as dummy non-admin accounts or just not logged in at all, I guess...

It's been about two hours at this point and I'm curious to see what they'd have to say after nothing but negative reactions.

"Working as intended" or "Oops we turned the knob a bit too far" ?

JustDan13

adamLmpq wrote:

It's been about two hours at this point and I'm curious to see what they'd have to say after nothing but negative reactions.

"Working as intended" or "Oops we turned the knob a bit too far" ?

"Hey, I bet we can get a tee time for this afternoon if we call now. Who's in?"

Edit to add: I think it's hilarious that I'm sitting at zero points in my group of 500, yet I keep slowly climbing up as more and more players plummet to zero. Current rank: 471!

SnowcaTT

There is a thread broken off for discussion of results,

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=19063&start=40

I recommend everyone go post over there. Prediction: it will surpass the 60+ pages of the "true healing" fiasco.

Unknown

Great job ...

simonsez

"David wrote:

Moore"]this will not be a huge change. We also suspect it won't have any effect for some players.

Going forward, I'm going to have a really, really, really hard time believing anything the devs say...

_RiO_

GrumpySmurf1002 wrote:

"Hey all, we're working on our Versus matchmaking algorithm and will be rolling out some tweaks over the next week so we can collect data on the results. To set expectations, this will not be a huge change but we're interested in hearing your unbiased observations of the changes. We also suspect it won't have any effect for some players. If you see anything different, please share your thoughts with us. We'll have more details later, and we'll share the results of the data we collect."

This bears repeating (my emphasis in bold).

There seems to be a bit of a disconnect in what they thought they were doing and what they did. Massively buffed seed teams and veteran walls from the word go doesn't strike me as "not a huge change."

Match-up algorithms are kind of like encryption algorithms, in that if you have no formal math background and are not extremely well-versed in how they operate, you should have no business whatsoever fiddling with them.
It's fairly easy to deduce that Demiurge does not adher to that philosophy...

Unknown

You'd think that when a company hires a community outreach person they would be more involved on the forum of that company. At least a "we're researching the issue post". But nothing yet from David.