Nefarious Foes - Matchmaking Test - Discussion

BryanMc82

Hi so I'm a 2* transition player and this is my thoughts. It's a nice attempt to equalize the competition. And I say thanks for the advanced notice of this test. But here's my opinion if we are all yes I'm not selfish I mean all are going to be taking it up the rear without even the courtesy of a reach around or lube the least you could do is reward us some. Even a dominatrix with a crush fetish will reward her slave with some sort of gratification. The the difficulty curve is like taking all standard tokens and heroics and just saying tiny kitty to this here how about some 3* that from an roster scanning can see that insert 3* could use a leg up enjoy the cover sorry if you don't need a 6th of the same cover color you have buy hay as long as you play you might luck out and get something you can use.

Unknown

On my steam account I've a 65 2* Thor and a 57 2* wolverine as best characters and the seed teams all outlevel them by 30 levels no matter how many times I skip.

So if you're asking yourselves what this means to a starter roster, I can tell you: it locks them out.

Pylgrim

Put me in the camp of " Devs are trying to fix MMR, give them a bit of slack in the meantime, lest that they stop trying altogether."

That said, I do think that the idea of having a testing server is looking more and more appealing. Many people don't like to feel like guinea pigs, especially when there's a coveted reward at the stake. A testing server would only have people happy to be experimented on.

Unknown

**** Happens when a developer tweaks and fix things in game . So is very good to happened between seasons.

But make Mystique the prize for this tourney in particular only make the situation worse. New caracter = slaughter pvp

Pure lack of wisdom, the rewards would be low tiers as Loki or Ragnarok, and users arent almost imploding here, just testing and make statements about the bad tweak of mmr.

Unknown

ark123 wrote:

On my steam account I've a 65 2* Thor and a 57 2* wolverine as best characters and the seed teams all outlevel them by 30 levels no matter how many times I skip.

So if you're asking yourselves what this means to a starter roster, I can tell you: it locks them out.

Doubtful considering all the 2* rosters in the LR top10s.

Also, earlier in the day I too saw a wall of unbeatable teams on my beginner account (94 2*, 70 2*, 55 and 54 2*). Since the backend quickfix in the afternoon this is no longer the case as I'm getting a much wider range of (beatable) opponents now, none of whom have maxed 166s.

Unknown

LordWill wrote:

Let me say I've been following this and cannot believe some of the posts....

This is a test. They are TRYING to fix stuff that people have been whining about for months. It seems no matter what they do, people find a reason to complain.

They said this was a test, they have given everyone fair warning and asked for our help. They stated they could roll back the changes if need be and people are talking about quitting? Seriously?

They aren't going to be perfect but they have done a much better job of communicating and working on the game. Cut them some slack.

Furthermore the only way for them to test Matchmaking changes is to do something like this on a massive scale. Doing it on a small server with even 100 people wouldn't give them the information they need. Looking at what happens "in the real world" helps them to make "real world fixes".

Guys, they asked for our help. The least we can do is show them we care and help with feedback and constructive comments. We all want the game to be better.

Come to the dark side. Let the hate flow through you. Also, they asked for honest feedback and comments. Just want to make sure the feedback is not vague. Prefer not going through these " tests" more often than we have to.

GrumpySmurf1002

So in the interest of user feedback, here's my take up to 300 so far.

Opponent levels: Normal. Seeing a good chunk of 2* + underleveled 3* (Hood-Moonstone-Ares for instance). Typical of a climb. Bit under my roster level so not too hard. Using a 173 XF, 188 4/2/2 cMags, and 188 2* Daken right now. Sentry/Hood are 282/268 respectively.
Point levels: Terrible. Seeing only 15-18 pt matches, where 22-28 is more typical at this stage of the game.
Brackets: Seems normal. Top 10 I recognize 1-name, but mostly 3* rosters with a smattering of 2*s, which is not uncommon for me to see this early. It's a fresher bracket, but scores seem low. (my 304 is 3rd right now, roughly 90 minutes after join)

As far as LRs, got no 'typical' seed teams for the current one. the 6pm EST one I did. So tweak that back.

So better than I expected following the thread during the day, but definitely a noticeable change.

Unknown

It's funny, I had the same problem of all possible nodes (even after a lot of skipping) being way to high leveled to even have a shot of beating. So I decided to tank a little, and after losing one (1!) game with my highest leveled characters, the node replacing it was something like lvl 40 - lvl 40 - lvl 40 (that's down from 188 - 188 - 188). Did all the people complaining about unbeatable nodes actually try what happens after losing once?

acescracked

LordWill wrote:

Let me say I've been following this and cannot believe some of the posts....

This is a test. They are TRYING to fix stuff that people have been whining about for months. It seems no matter what they do, people find a reason to complain.

They said this was a test, they have given everyone fair warning and asked for our help. They stated they could roll back the changes if need be and people are talking about quitting? Seriously?

They aren't going to be perfect but they have done a much better job of communicating and working on the game. Cut them some slack.

Furthermore the only way for them to test Matchmaking changes is to do something like this on a massive scale. Doing it on a small server with even 100 people wouldn't give them the information they need. Looking at what happens "in the real world" helps them to make "real world fixes".

Guys, they asked for our help. The least we can do is show them we care and help with feedback and constructive comments. We all want the game to be better.

I can't believe your post. I don't remember WHINING about problems with MMR. I dont know who in the player community thought this was problem number 1. Ive seen problem number 1 reported as leaderboard not working at end of event and character balance.

Prior to this test MMR is consistent. You face seed teams and as your points go up you face harder teams, sounds good. This change would be seed teams with immediately facing max 3* teams. People are upset in that the devs as it appears didn't even do a basic test to see that would happen.

Oh and to those that did whine that they have only max 2*s and were hitting a wall of 166. Yea that happened to me and a lot of others. I worked my way thru it with storm, boosts and patience. I don't blame anyone for getting very upset in this thread from this proposed test.

Unknown

acescracked wrote:

LordWill wrote:

Let me say I've been following this and cannot believe some of the posts....

This is a test. They are TRYING to fix stuff that people have been whining about for months. It seems no matter what they do, people find a reason to complain.

They said this was a test, they have given everyone fair warning and asked for our help. They stated they could roll back the changes if need be and people are talking about quitting? Seriously?

They aren't going to be perfect but they have done a much better job of communicating and working on the game. Cut them some slack.

Furthermore the only way for them to test Matchmaking changes is to do something like this on a massive scale. Doing it on a small server with even 100 people wouldn't give them the information they need. Looking at what happens "in the real world" helps them to make "real world fixes".

Guys, they asked for our help. The least we can do is show them we care and help with feedback and constructive comments. We all want the game to be better.

I can't believe your post. I don't remember WHINING about problems with MMR. I dont know who in the player community thought this was problem number 1. Ive seen problem number 1 reported as leaderboard not working at end of event and character balance.

Prior to this test MMR is consistent. You face seed teams and as your points go up you face harder teams, sounds good. This change would be seed teams with immediately facing max 3* teams. People are upset in that the devs as it appears didn't even do a basic test to see that would happen.

Oh and to those that did whine that they have only max 2*s and were hitting a wall of 166. Yea that happened to me and a lot of others. I worked my way thru it with storm, boosts and patience. I don't blame anyone for getting very upset in this thread from this proposed test.

So you actually believe that when LordWill writes people he means YOU, specifically? That must be an interesting world you're living in. People have been whining a lot about MMR, just look at the suggestions and feedback section.

Edit: To give some feedback, I see a lot of variance in the lvl of enemy teams; with a bit of skipping it seems I can always get one way below my own level.

acescracked

blarkh wrote:

acescracked wrote:

LordWill wrote:

Let me say I've been following this and cannot believe some of the posts....

This is a test. They are TRYING to fix stuff that people have been whining about for months. It seems no matter what they do, people find a reason to complain.

They said this was a test, they have given everyone fair warning and asked for our help. They stated they could roll back the changes if need be and people are talking about quitting? Seriously?

They aren't going to be perfect but they have done a much better job of communicating and working on the game. Cut them some slack.

Furthermore the only way for them to test Matchmaking changes is to do something like this on a massive scale. Doing it on a small server with even 100 people wouldn't give them the information they need. Looking at what happens "in the real world" helps them to make "real world fixes".

Guys, they asked for our help. The least we can do is show them we care and help with feedback and constructive comments. We all want the game to be better.

I can't believe your post. I don't remember WHINING about problems with MMR. I dont know who in the player community thought this was problem number 1. Ive seen problem number 1 reported as leaderboard not working at end of event and character balance.

Prior to this test MMR is consistent. You face seed teams and as your points go up you face harder teams, sounds good. This change would be seed teams with immediately facing max 3* teams. People are upset in that the devs as it appears didn't even do a basic test to see that would happen.

Oh and to those that did whine that they have only max 2*s and were hitting a wall of 166. Yea that happened to me and a lot of others. I worked my way thru it with storm, boosts and patience. I don't blame anyone for getting very upset in this thread from this proposed test.

So you actually believe that when LordWill writes people he means YOU, specifically? That must be an interesting world you're living in. People have been whining a lot about MMR, just look at the suggestions and feedback section.

Edit: To give some feedback, I see a lot of variance in the lvl of enemy teams; with a bit of skipping it seems I can always get one way below my own level.

Sweet, flame war!! Answer to your first flame - Sarcasm: the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.

Again, the only people requesting MMR changes (which I alluded to in the last part of my previous post, which you must have missed) are the transitioning players. All the vets including me, day 302, worked thru the 141 slog to build rosters. I've bought exactly 2 covers (blue hood) and maybe 4 daily deal tokens. The rest of the covers I earned via playing in the "broken" MMR. It was hard and took alot of time. I had success along the way but more faliures.

The mistake we vets made was not complaing then that the game is too difficult like some 2*s rosters are now? So now we are complaining.

emaker27

LordWill wrote:

<snip>They aren't going to be perfect but they have done a much better job of communicating and working on the game. Cut them some slack.

Furthermore the only way for them to test Matchmaking changes is to do something like this on a massive scale. Doing it on a small server with even 100 people wouldn't give them the information they need. Looking at what happens "in the real world" helps them to make "real world fixes".

I agree with most of the quote and post but developing a test around this change should be simple or there's a serious failing in the testing process/setup.

Test Plan:
1. Create 10 users each of different roster strength. 10 maxed roster users, 10 mid leveled 3*s, etc
2. Setup one user in each group with pre change MMR and note matchups
3. Change MMR and with the same user, note matchups

I work in QA so this decision may have been made regardless of testing, since the test plan above should be simple enough. Or it could've been a failure in the testing. Either way, it definitely should be testable.

Unknown

The MMR structure was broken before. It allowed us Vets (day 370something) to breeze up to 700 by taking down 2 and low level 3* teams. I feel bad for those people I'm decimating when they're struggling to hit 500-600. As I said several pages ago I'm ok with this change as long as they adjust the progression awards accordingly. If I have to shield day one then there should be a decent reward around 500. My biggest hope with this change is we see less of the players who feel the need to climb to 2k+ in every PVP.

Other than actually playing another human, this is as close to true PVP we're going to get. You don't play COD or Halo and hope for nothing but lvl 10's when you've already prestige 3 times. That said we should be in brackets with similar level players. I'm already seeing 2* teams taking the top spot which is an obvious bad sign that we experienced several months ago.

Unknown

After playing nefarious foes for alittle bit, I noticed the MMR value assigned to individual players seem to have been removed entirely. The match making seems to be based entirely on the individual's point range so the player only gets to see ppl in the point range. The player can face tough opponents or keep on skipping to find easier opponents. This seems to go against the idea of not wanting players to skip nodes repeatedly in the first place (when skip tax was introduced)... I assume the full exposure threshold is still the same where everyone at or above that point threshold can see everyone else at or above the point threshold. Otherwise we would see history repeat itself where high points individuals would only be able to see each other and climb ridiculously high by exchanging hits while everyone else cannot see them.

Unknown

SUPERTOM wrote:

The MMR structure was broken before. It allowed us Vets (day 370something) to breeze up to 700 by taking down 2 and low level 3* teams. I feel bad for those people I'm decimating when they're struggling to hit 500-600. Asdo said several pages ago I'm ok with this change as long as they adjust the progression awards accordingly. If I have to shield day one then there should be a decent reward around 500. My biggest hope with this change is we see less of the players who feel the need to climb to 2k+ in every PVP.

Other than actually playing another human, this is as close to true PVP we're going to get. You don't play COD or Halo and hope for nothing but lvl 10's when you've already prestige 3 times. That said we should be in brackets with similar level players. I'm already seeing 2* teams taking the top spot which is an obvious bad sign that we experienced several months ago.

You appear to be arguing for a system where any player regardless their roster or time spent on the game should face equal competition throughout a PvP. So why put any iso into characters out worry about getting as diverse a roster as possible?

I think it's the reward structure, not MMR that needs to change. The issue that is always danced around with sharding and MMR: how long should transitioning take and are the reward structures in place for players to have the ability to be successful transitioning in that timeframe.

I contend it's not mmr and sharding that are helping and/or hurting transitioning players. My contention is either there is not a concrete, thought out plan for players to transition, or that plan doesn't work. If the idea is for players to transition in 6 months from 2*'s the rewards tiers should support this path, but they don't.

In a bid to make covers rare and valuable, the concept of game progression has been neglected. I don't know anyone who can say long transition takes now with do many characters and limited token system. This displays where the system actually is broken. It is broken because rewards and covers and iso is too finite; therefore, progression is finite exacerbated by s trickle down system, where those who need covers most don't get hardly any.

People blame MMR, and veterans get sharded but the results never change. How many times will sharding and mmr be tweaked with no change in results before people realize the real problem is the reward tiers. I think the PvP progression rewards are close to correct. However, transitioning players often receive reward that do not help them to progress.

Unknown

stephen43084 wrote:

SUPERTOM wrote:

The MMR structure was broken before. It allowed us Vets (day 370something) to breeze up to 700 by taking down 2 and low level 3* teams. I feel bad for those people I'm decimating when they're struggling to hit 500-600. Asdo said several pages ago I'm ok with this change as long as they adjust the progression awards accordingly. If I have to shield day one then there should be a decent reward around 500. My biggest hope with this change is we see less of the players who feel the need to climb to 2k+ in every PVP.

Other than actually playing another human, this is as close to true PVP we're going to get. You don't play COD or Halo and hope for nothing but lvl 10's when you've already prestige 3 times. That said we should be in brackets with similar level players. I'm already seeing 2* teams taking the top spot which is an obvious bad sign that we experienced several months ago.

You appear to be arguing for a system where any player regardless their roster or time spent on the game should face equal competition throughout a PvP. So why put any iso into characters out worry about getting as diverse a roster as possible?

I think it's the reward structure, not MMR that needs to change. The issue that is always danced around with sharding and MMR: how long should transitioning take and are the reward structures in place for players to have the ability to be successful transitioning in that timeframe.

I contend it's not mmr and sharding that are helping and/or hurting transitioning players. My contention is either there is not a concrete, thought out plan for players to transition, or that plan doesn't work. If the idea is for players to transition in 6 months from 2*'s the rewards tiers should support this path, but they don't.

In a bid to make covers rare and valuable, the concept of game progression has been neglected. I don't know anyone who can say long transition takes now with do many characters and limited token system. This displays where the system actually is broken. It is broken because rewards and covers and iso is too finite; therefore, progression is finite exacerbated by s trickle down system, where those who need covers most don't get hardly any.

People blame MMR, and veterans get sharded but the results never change. How many times will sharding and mmr be tweaked with no change in results before people realize the real problem is the reward tiers. I think the PvP progression rewards are close to correct. However, transitioning players often receive reward that do not help them to progress.

The game 'resets' too often in the sense that each 2.5 days the game completely forgets whatever you did the last event and make you prove yourself all over again. It'd be ridiculous to play say any professional sports on this schedule, and even most professional gaming would be out of the question if you have to go through the equivalent of a qualifier round every 2.5 days. Of course, this is because there really isn't anything else persistent in the game to do. It'd probably make more sense to have one or two PvP events a month that last say 4-5 days each so that you have time to actually sort out where everyone is supposed to be. Of course that requires having a large amount of content to make up for all the awards you'd have got and the game doesn't have that right now, so this is no go, but it really shouldn't be that hard to put something persistent for people to do instead.

EstherC

at about the 2D5 hr mark, i entered the event, went up to 413 points and went to work. When lunchtime came around, i logged in and saw i was slammed for 181 points. I trudged back in and spent the next 75 minutes pushing myself up. And ended at 518 points. The grind was ridiculous. I got slammed while playing for the same points for which i was fighting for. It was zero sum game over and over again, like walking on treadmill going nowhere. i exhausted my entire roster and Health Packs just on this grind. Ridiculous.

Unknown

I will give some honest feedback. I am still a semi-new player and am only on day 18 I believe. I have been playing everyday since I downloaded the game. I will give my feedback in a pro/con type of format

Matchmaking Test
Pro:
The devs actually took the time to LISTEN to complaints that players posted about on this forum MMR in this case
The devs attempted to change the matchmaking system based on this information.
The most important one in the Pro section. The devs ANNOUNCED that they are trying to test a new system and requested honest feedback.

Cons:
The devs made a bad choice in choosing an event that features "boosted" characters to test a new matchmaking system
While intentions were good, the new system is worse off than the previous one for newer/lower roster players

If the devs decide to make another test to matchmaking test, I would suggest that they do it off season and instead of choosing an event like Nefarious Foes, they can make a reward type of simulator and get feedback that way. As for the data from this one, at the beginning of both NF and LR I tend to get placed with all opponents with either max 2* rosters, partially leveled 3* rosters, or a mixture of the two.

Personally, at least with the old system I was able to get up to 300 points and have a chance of getting 2* covers from all of those pvp fights before I hit the 166 wall. With this new system I achieved maybe 150 points in NF before I got stuck with opponents who I have no chance in hell of beating. In LR I reach maybe 75 points before hitting that same situation.

Unknown

Phantron wrote:

stephen43084 wrote:

SUPERTOM wrote:

The MMR structure was broken before. It allowed us Vets (day 370something) to breeze up to 700 by taking down 2 and low level 3* teams. I feel bad for those people I'm decimating when they're struggling to hit 500-600. Asdo said several pages ago I'm ok with this change as long as they adjust the progression awards accordingly. If I have to shield day one then there should be a decent reward around 500. My biggest hope with this change is we see less of the players who feel the need to climb to 2k+ in every PVP.

Other than actually playing another human, this is as close to true PVP we're going to get. You don't play COD or Halo and hope for nothing but lvl 10's when you've already prestige 3 times. That said we should be in brackets with similar level players. I'm already seeing 2* teams taking the top spot which is an obvious bad sign that we experienced several months ago.

You appear to be arguing for a system where any player regardless their roster or time spent on the game should face equal competition throughout a PvP. So why put any iso into characters out worry about getting as diverse a roster as possible?

I think it's the reward structure, not MMR that needs to change. The issue that is always danced around with sharding and MMR: how long should transitioning take and are the reward structures in place for players to have the ability to be successful transitioning in that timeframe.

I contend it's not mmr and sharding that are helping and/or hurting transitioning players. My contention is either there is not a concrete, thought out plan for players to transition, or that plan doesn't work. If the idea is for players to transition in 6 months from 2*'s the rewards tiers should support this path, but they don't.

In a bid to make covers rare and valuable, the concept of game progression has been neglected. I don't know anyone who can say long transition takes now with do many characters and limited token system. This displays where the system actually is broken. It is broken because rewards and covers and iso is too finite; therefore, progression is finite exacerbated by s trickle down system, where those who need covers most don't get hardly any.

People blame MMR, and veterans get sharded but the results never change. How many times will sharding and mmr be tweaked with no change in results before people realize the real problem is the reward tiers. I think the PvP progression rewards are close to correct. However, transitioning players often receive reward that do not help them to progress.

The game 'resets' too often in the sense that each 2.5 days the game completely forgets whatever you did the last event and make you prove yourself all over again. It'd be ridiculous to play say any professional sports on this schedule, and even most professional gaming would be out of the question if you have to go through the equivalent of a qualifier round every 2.5 days. Of course, this is because there really isn't anything else persistent in the game to do. It'd probably make more sense to have one or two PvP events a month that last say 4-5 days each so that you have time to actually sort out where everyone is supposed to be. Of course that requires having a large amount of content to make up for all the awards you'd have got and the game doesn't have that right now, so this is no go, but it really shouldn't be that hard to put something persistent for people to do instead.

This mostly correct. The two exceptions is (1) players tanking, not the MMR system when not gamed by players, is why the game totally resets every 2.5 days and (2) different players face different challenges. While it can be argued veteran rosters have an easier and repetitive path to say 700, they have an equal or harder time when they reach this part. Their non repetitive tougher challenge is fighting for position after this threshold is crossed with everyone trying to snipe then on their climb to break 900 and further.

Nellobee

Just joined a reasonably fresh bracket. My 5 health packs took me up to 200 points. I feel like there is way more diversity in the teams I am seeing.
So so far, my impressions are positive.