Upcoming Versus Matchmaking Test

Unknown

Does this will help the 500 wall of 166? Or is it intended that 2* can't get top100? Past multiple events the only way I managed to sneak in was going in last hour/two and exploiting fact that it's not full thus 500 points is enough for top100. Any event when I entered earlier made it so that at 500 I'm at pos 125-150 and only matches offered have maxed 3*s (and I'm getting smashed down in minutes by them).

On secondary note, is it really good idea to base MMR with losing? This game heavily penalize you when you lose, both by points and by waiting time/health packs. I can tell you from my experience I nearly never lose when I attack people since I always search for someone that is below or at my level, and attacks on someone slightly higher are boosted. I don't see much point of attacking 166/270, so when I get to wall I shield to keep my at my position. This way the only loses come from limited people that have me qued since otherwise I'm invisible for rest of event. Seems like people that are keeping losing are mostly doing that on purpose (aka tanking), but surely it cannot be intended way to keep MMR in sane levels is it?

I understand that pushing up, loosing, and getting back up is now actually rewarding Iso wise so it may be worth doing. However I'm still afraid joining brackets early since every time I do, I'm being denied any form of valuable reward no matter my performance.

Unknown

I don't lose on purpose either, but it does happen from time to time, especially since I frequently play up to 1k and beyond, and I mostly meet 249/270/270 on my way after a certain point, which I have to fight with my own featured/190/188. I can handle those odds, but I have plenty of transitioning alliance mates with a serious problem from 500 or 600 onward (and those are the ones that need the covers most).
So for the sake of those guys I hope this problem will at least partially be fixed.

Unknown

Will MMR be based on the matches played during the event or the roster's strength ?

Example :

If I play 3*s to climb, will I face 3*s too or, because I have some 4*s, I will face 4* directly ?

No need to say that if MMR is based on the roster, same as scaling in PvE, it will be a nightmare to climb, which will be AGAIN another punishment for big rosters.

No need to remind for the 100th time, that those who have a big roster spent time and money to get it. So big rosters SHOULD NOT be blamed/made guilty/punished.

SnowcaTT

To all the 2*'s who complain about hitting the wall: you shouldn't get past that wall, you are 2*. You shouldn't get T100, you'll get there eventually.

The frustration I think from 2*'s now is it is easy to get lots of 2*'s - they drop in so many matches. When I climbed 2*, I looked forward to the sub-100 rewards! Now that reward is worthless, and 3* transition is very hard.

Being in that transition - I'm concerned that if the 2*'s get all the 2* matchups and transition teams get the wall, transition will become more difficult/lengthy than ever. 94's have a tough time against teams with a bunch of 166's - but so do teams that are beyond 94's but not stacked with the best characters!


I also wonder how you'll test MMR when MMR is currently being all messed up with double ISO rewards. Through my climb in SG I saw more teams tanking than usual (for the ISO I presume), in the Blade PVP I see the results of that - strong teams still tanking, but even if they aren't I am seeing them sooner since their MMR dropped; weak teams have blazed through these tankers and are sitting higher in points than they usually do, making them prime targets.

Unknown

SnowcaTT wrote:

To all the 2*'s who complain about hitting the wall: you shouldn't get past that wall, you are 2*. You shouldn't get T100, you'll get there eventually.

Good point.

Thing is : there should be enough 2* teams around so that 2* players can play a lot without hitting the "166s" wall.

There should be far more 2*s teams than 166s...

Why is there a problem then ?

GrumpySmurf1002

arktos1971 wrote:

SnowcaTT wrote:

To all the 2*'s who complain about hitting the wall: you shouldn't get past that wall, you are 2*. You shouldn't get T100, you'll get there eventually.

Good point.
Thing is : there should be enough 2* teams around so that 2* players can play a lot without hitting the "166s" wall.
There should be far more 2*s teams than 166s...
Why is there a problem then ?

My happy new 1* roster hits 94s from the word go (ok, after the seed teams). So the 1* wall is somewhere around 70 pts. I think we should start working on that, it's not fair that a new player can't immediately get to 500 to get the cover they need.

Unknown

Let me make this post for about the 10th time.

[soapbox]

Why do we not just get rid of the MMR entirely? Make every match be between 150% and 75% of a players current points.

For example, if I have 500 points, I can be matched with anyone between 750 and 375 points. The better rosters will rise to the top and there will be many more choices instead of skipping the same 3 teams worth 17 points over and over.

[/soapbox]

Hopefully this test solves the problems with MMR

SnowcaTT

papa07 wrote:

Let me make this post for about the 10th time.

[soapbox]

Why do we not just get rid of the MMR entirely? Make every match be between 150% and 75% of a players current points.

For example, if I have 500 points, I can be matched with anyone between 750 and 375 points. The better rosters will rise to the top and there will be many more choices instead of skipping the same 3 teams worth 17 points over and over.

[/soapbox]

Hopefully this test solves the problems with MMR

More people than ever would just wait to play in last hour. PVP already feels like a lightning round.

There are ways to take this idea and go with it. I've suggested before that D teams points count down by one each hour. So a team that played on day one and was worth 24 would only be worth 1 by day 2. Others have suggested no D losses - that would also work if you match up MMR by points alone.

Another suggestion I'd throw out to D3: why not bump your reward structure a bit? Transition is getting crazy hard, and you have given the stat that half the players are new. The problem seems to be 2*'s can't get to T100 for 3* transition, and transitioners can't get enough covers, and top 3* rosters can't compete for 3* rewards.

DOUBLE all tiers. T200 alliances get cover (Soooo many alliances now, this should have happened a long time ago)
T200 get one cover (2*'s happy!)
T50 get two covers (Transitioners happy!)
T10 get three covers
T1 get 4* (This still doesn't fix 4* transition, but a slight bump at least)

simonsez

Instead of pissing off the majority in order to placate the 2* people who seem to think they should be able to rank higher than people with 3* teams, why not run regular BoP and CA as non-season events, concurrently with the normal seasonal PvPs? This will put them on an even footing for a portion of events, and would hopefully ease the complaining.

DaveR4470

simonsez wrote:

Instead of pissing off the majority in order to placate the 2* people who seem to think they should be able to rank higher than people with 3* teams, why not run regular BoP and CA as non-season events, concurrently with the normal seasonal PvPs? This will put them on an even footing for a portion of events, and would hopefully ease the complaining.

First, that's a good idea.

Second, please don't dismiss the 2* complaints so cavalierly. I don't think I should rank higher than people with 3* teams. I do think that I should rank at an appropriate level. But in practice, what happens is (a) I get to 500 points and the heavy hitters (like, I assume, yourself) start to see me in matchups, (b) I get slaughtered by maxed 3* or 4* teams and drop back to 385 points or so, and -- here's the problem -- (c) because of how the matchup system is currently working, I do not see any teams that aren't maxed-out 3* or 4* teams and I functionally can't earn my lost points back. (Unless one or more of my losses was to a comparable 2* team or weaker 3* team that I have a realistic chance of defeating.) I don't want to outrank 3* teams -- I just want to be able to STAY at the point level I arguably should be at. And right now I can't, solely because of how the matchmaking seems to be working. That's a legit complaint that isn't an "I'm special and I should be ranked above the older better-covered players" whine.

And if the answer is "shields"... well, that should be ONE option, not the ONLY option. You should have two choices to make: either shield yourself and be able to walk away from the game for 3/8/24 hours without losing your spot, or keep on playing as much as you can and earn back any points you lose. Right now, the latter option isn't available, so your choices are (a) shield, or (b) start the event right before it ends and run the table as high as you can go so that there's no time for others to defeat you and trap you in the no-earn-back zone. Which, functionally, is a choice between spending money or having your play times rigidly decided by the mechanics of the game itself. Neither of which is a particularly attractive option.

Nellobee

SnowcaTT wrote:

To all the 2*'s who complain about hitting the wall: you shouldn't get past that wall, you are 2*. You shouldn't get T100, you'll get there eventually.

How, exactly? From one 300 point heroic token per PvP?
I keep hammering this point, but it remains true and so many people keep missing it:
2* rosters must be able to earn 3* covers at a decent rate. 3* rosters must be able to earn 4* covers at a decent rate.

simonsez

DaveR4470 wrote:

I do think that I should rank at an appropriate level

But who's to say what an appropriate level is? You seem to think it should be 500 and not 385, but why? I'm running Xf/GT and if I climb to 800 and stay there unshielded, I'm going to wind up back in the 600s. Someone running 3*s would probably end up around 500. So why not 385 for 2*s? It never occurred to me that any of this is unfair. It's like the free market at work.

Unknown

They shouldn't be giving away 2* characters at 500 is 2* players are only supposed to reach 385ish...

Zen808

arktos1971 wrote:

SnowcaTT wrote:

To all the 2*'s who complain about hitting the wall: you shouldn't get past that wall, you are 2*. You shouldn't get T100, you'll get there eventually.

Good point.

Thing is : there should be enough 2* teams around so that 2* players can play a lot without hitting the "166s" wall.

There should be far more 2*s teams than 166s...

Why is there a problem then ?

These two go hand in hand. The 2* teams know they can't make T100. So they stop playing after they hit their 300pt Token, or sometimes after they hit 400pt 25HP. Because the majority are playing hit it and quit it, those that want to go further wind up with The Wall as the only teams with sufficient points to trigger a matchmaking.

That said, catering to the 2*'s to let them reach T100 is wrong. It invalidates all the experience and work of the 3*'s. What they should do is make the T101-300 prize better (like giving Event Tokens, instead of 250-ISO 2* cards), so there's a reason for the 2* teams to continue to strive past 300/400 pts

SnowcaTT

DaveR4470 wrote:

simonsez wrote:

Instead of pissing off the majority in order to placate the 2* people who seem to think they should be able to rank higher than people with 3* teams, why not run regular BoP and CA as non-season events, concurrently with the normal seasonal PvPs? This will put them on an even footing for a portion of events, and would hopefully ease the complaining.

First, that's a good idea.

Second, please don't dismiss the 2* complaints so cavalierly. I don't think I should rank higher than people with 3* teams. I do think that I should rank at an appropriate level. But in practice, what happens is (a) I get to 500 points and the heavy hitters (like, I assume, yourself) start to see me in matchups, (b) I get slaughtered by maxed 3* or 4* teams and drop back to 385 points or so, and -- here's the problem -- (c) because of how the matchup system is currently working, I do not see any teams that aren't maxed-out 3* or 4* teams and I functionally can't earn my lost points back. (Unless one or more of my losses was to a comparable 2* team or weaker 3* team that I have a realistic chance of defeating.) I don't want to outrank 3* teams -- I just want to be able to STAY at the point level I arguably should be at. And right now I can't, solely because of how the matchmaking seems to be working. That's a legit complaint that isn't an "I'm special and I should be ranked above the older better-covered players" whine.

And if the answer is "shields"... well, that should be ONE option, not the ONLY option. You should have two choices to make: either shield yourself and be able to walk away from the game for 3/8/24 hours without losing your spot, or keep on playing as much as you can and earn back any points you lose. Right now, the latter option isn't available, so your choices are (a) shield, or (b) start the event right before it ends and run the table as high as you can go so that there's no time for others to defeat you and trap you in the no-earn-back zone. Which, functionally, is a choice between spending money or having your play times rigidly decided by the mechanics of the game itself. Neither of which is a particularly attractive option.

Unfortunately, those have been the options for quite a long time. I'm at 300 days, have 15 3*'s with 13 covers (most at level 127, none at 166 since ISO is hard to come by to say the least). Realize that this roster rarely gives me T50 or 700 points. Where I'm "supposed" to fall, apparently, is around 650 points and 75th. If that's a pretty covered (though not leveled) roster, a less leveled roster can probably be understood to typically fall around 550 points and 200th.

They have changed MMR a couple of times that I've seen, and it has never changed the following:

1) if I push early, I'll see the wall early (and get beaten back and unable to move forward, like you mention)
2) if I don't shield immediately after a certain point value (400 when I was 2*, 500 when I had all the 2*, 600 at 2*-3*) I will be open to other teams and be hit down quickly.

Shields have always been the only option for me (I've only played since shields were around). I feel they are the mandatory 75HP tax for each PVP.
I suppose the other option is there - you CAN keep playing and earn back your points. If you want to pay for enough health packs to do so, and if you can fight beyond your "tier".

I don't expect my transition team to be hitting T25 or 900 points, I know where it "should" fall unless I'm willing to pay for more. The only way I will hit a higher reward structure is if the Devs lower the rewards as I mentioned earlier - double rewards and 2*'s will be able to get their 3* cover by being 200th. I totally agree the 3*'s should be easier to come by - another way would be by greatly increasing drop rate from heroic tokens, even 2*'s can reach the 300 progression mark for those.

Unknown

DaveR4470 wrote:

Second, please don't dismiss the 2* complaints so cavalierly. I don't think I should rank higher than people with 3* teams. I do think that I should rank at an appropriate level. But in practice, what happens is (a) I get to 500 points and the heavy hitters (like, I assume, yourself) start to see me in matchups, (b) I get slaughtered by maxed 3* or 4* teams and drop back to 385 points or so, and -- here's the problem -- (c) because of how the matchup system is currently working, I do not see any teams that aren't maxed-out 3* or 4* teams and I functionally can't earn my lost points back. (Unless one or more of my losses was to a comparable 2* team or weaker 3* team that I have a realistic chance of defeating.) I don't want to outrank 3* teams -- I just want to be able to STAY at the point level I arguably should be at. And right now I can't, solely because of how the matchmaking seems to be working. That's a legit complaint that isn't an "I'm special and I should be ranked above the older better-covered players" whine.

To me, its tough to sympathize here because the two RL people I know that play this game consistently get to 650 with their 2* rosters without shield hopping or anything like that. Maybe its the time of day that they play or the shards they are in but I don't hear them complaining about not being able to get to that score. Their complaints are typically that they get that score but somehow still manage to miss the top 100 (yay death brackets).

DaveR4470

Grizzlegom wrote:

To me, its tough to sympathize here because the two RL people I know that play this game consistently get to 650 with their 2* rosters without shield hopping or anything like that. Maybe its the time of day that they play or the shards they are in but I don't hear them complaining about not being able to get to that score. Their complaints are typically that they get that score but somehow still manage to miss the top 100 (yay death brackets).

Yep. There's an element of randomness at play too, involving who's in your slice and whether those people play a lot or a little. I've been in events where I've placed top 10 with point totals in the mid-400s... and events where I'm ranked #200 or so with 550 points. You just don't know. That's also part of the problem.

simonsez, to respond to your comment: To me (in this case), 500 points is "appropriate" because I earned that point total by beating comparably equivalent teams to myself. You'd be perfectly reasonable to argue "well, a maxed 2* team shouldn't be earning 500 points"... but I can consistently earn 450-500 points in the current system before I start seeing all 3* teams as matchups, so based on things as they are now, I have to assume that 450-500 is an "appropriate" landing spot for a maxed-2* team. (With, presumably, 750-900 being an "appropriate" landing spot for a maxed 3* team.) If, having reached that spot, I lose to other 2* teams, I should lose a good deal of points. If I lose a lot, it should knock me back to 385 (which is just a random spot I picked). If I play consistently, I should "orbit" around a point in the mid-400s as I beat lower and equivalent teams and lose to higher and equivalent teams, and finish somewhere between 400 and 500.

The problem I see, though, is that the matchmaking system, even though I wind up at 385 points after the losses, says "you're a 500 point level player, so I'm only going to match you with 3*-level teams that are appropriate for that point level." But I can't beat those teams (at least not consistently), which is 100% appropriate. (High 3* teams should beat 2* teams 95% of the time.) So I can never get those points back through normal node play. (In practice, I can usually get some of the points back via revenge nodes... but not always.)

I'm not necessarily saying "I should always finish with 500 points". I'm saying that there should be SOME point that I consistently reach with a given team, and the system should parse out nodes that enable me to stay at that level. It shouldn't be giving wild 200-point swings and locking me out of recovering points due to inappropriate node matchups. Does that make sense?

simonsez

DaveR4470 wrote:

simonsez, to respond to your comment: To me (in this case), 500 points is "appropriate" because I earned that point total by beating comparably equivalent teams to myself.

Sorry, but your logic is completely faulty here. You're basically saying that if one has a 4* team, you should be able to climb freely without ever losing points, since you've earned your points by beating comparable teams.

Unknown

It's a combination of roster strength, effort, skill, and timing. If you're a 2* team and you somehow grind to 800, should you not be there? The whole 2* shouldn't be top 100 argument seems foolish to me. If a 2* roster is good enough to pull it off, why not? Are 3* rosters really having trouble hitting top 100 due to the influx of 2* knocking them down?

Also, I'm impressed with any 2* player that can consistently get 650. In events like Balance of Power, I usually find all the points are 100 lower or so.

rawfsu

Let's just see what happens. Prior to this proposed change, I was actually starting to consistently hit walls past the 300 mark, which is a change for me. Though my ranking has fallen off BIG time (only finished in top 100 once this season as compared to last season where I landed top 100 every PVP I entered), my point totals are up. For this season that's especially huge, considering hitting 4k will get me my first 10-pack ever. Also, I'll be getting a MUCH needed Blade cover at 3k. Since D3 is holding back, all we can do is wait until Saturday!