Failure to Match: 100 PvP Matchups from Divine Champions

Unknown

(TLDR summary at end of post)

In response to the Upcoming Versus Matchmaking Test thread, I decided to keep track of a string of 100 PvP matchups in the current Divine Champions PvP event.

My in game name is Vyn, and the end time for my slice is Wednesday (Feb 4th) at noon (EST). The data below was recorded around 5pm (EST) on Monday (Feb 2nd).

A screenshot of the first page of my roster can be found here.

Due to boosting, the actual top level characters on my roster are as follows:

• L111 5/1/5 Thor 2*
• L111 4/4/3 Ares
• L80 0/2/1 Loki
• L74 3/5/5 Daken
• L74 1/0/1 Elektra
• L60 3/1/4 Storm 2*
• L60 0/1/0 Thor 3*
• L53 5/3/5 Storm 1*
• L50 3/5/4 Moonstone
• L45 4/1/4 Wolverine 1*
• L45 2/2/3 Human Torch 2*
• L40 5/5/3 Iron Man 1*

The average level of my top 3 characters is 100.7. Since it would be rather inefficient to use both 2* Thor and Ares at the same time, I normally play with Daken/Ares/Loki instead, with average level 88.3 in this event. Keep in mind that my Loki has very few covers too, so even that level vastly overstates my roster strength.

Now for the 100 matchups, the columns in the table below are:

• No.: Match number
• Pts: My point total at time of match
• Rnk: My rank at time of match
• Rwrd: Point reward for victory
• L1/L2/L3: Level of enemy's three characters
• Avg: Average level of enemy's three characters

My point total drops periodically because I had to tank battles to conserve iso-8.

No.   Pts	Rnk	Rwrd  L1	 L2	 L3	 Avg	  Notes
001	229	143	022	141	094	141	125.3	
002	229	143	032	141	127	153	140.3	
003	229	143	024	120	080	120	106.7	
004	229	143	027	141	134	141	138.7	
005	229	143	035	125	249	191	188.3	
006	225	146	033	237	156	156	183.0	
007	225	146	034	228	209	166	201.0	
008	225	146	022	052	040	043	045.0	Attacked
009	247	126	026	094	141	141	125.3	
010	247	126	034	249	201	220	223.3	
011	247	126	025	094	156	142	130.7	
012	247	126	020	052	040	043	045.0	Attacked
013	266	114	037	230	166	166	187.3	
014	266	114	020	141	166	141	149.3	
015	266	114	019	094	141	117	117.3	
016	266	114	029	215	166	252	211.0	
017	266	114	037	141	141	094	125.3	
018	262	118	023	141	094	094	109.7	
019	262	118	029	141	152	094	129.0	
020	262	118	024	143	153	153	149.7	
021	262	118	035	141	075	141	119.0	
022	262	118	044	228	270	405	301.0	
023	260	120	029	141	141	141	141.0	
024	260	120	025	405	225	270	300.0	
025	260	120	026	141	094	141	125.3	
026	260	120	024	143	190	094	142.3	
027	260	120	036	141	117	141	133.0	
028	256	123	028	141	141	104	128.7	
029	256	123	037	094	209	141	148.0	
030	256	123	035	141	131	094	122.0	
031	256	123	023	198	166	210	191.3	
032	256	123	036	249	166	166	193.7	
033	251	128	028	168	141	161	156.7	
034	251	128	022	141	094	094	109.7	
035	251	128	039	141	177	141	153.0	
036	251	128	026	110	166	270	182.0	
037	251	128	034	141	141	141	141.0	
038	246	134	029	141	094	114	116.3	
039	246	134	027	129	099	075	101.0	
040	246	134	029	105	094	127	108.7	
041	246	134	028	094	141	141	125.3	
042	246	134	023	141	117	102	120.0	
043	241	136	029	114	141	094	116.3	
044	241	136	027	141	094	094	109.7	
045	241	136	028	141	156	153	150.0	
046	241	136	033	141	091	094	108.7	
047	241	136	030	141	104	094	113.0	
048	235	141	029	111	146	141	132.7	
049	235	141	025	249	141	166	185.3	
050	235	141	036	141	094	105	113.3	
051	235	141	022	086	060	081	075.7	Attacked
052	257	127	032	141	094	122	119.0	
053	257	127	026	141	094	094	109.7	
054	257	127	029	156	140	153	149.7	
055	257	127	022	127	094	094	105.0	
056	257	127	023	106	141	141	129.3	
057	250	133	029	166	141	249	185.3	
058	250	133	023	105	141	114	120.0	
059	250	133	032	141	094	141	125.3	
060	250	133	028	131	153	094	126.0	
061	250	133	033	141	094	141	125.3	
062	245	137	030	141	141	078	120.0	
063	245	137	025	189	077	116	127.3	
064	245	137	026	141	156	078	125.0	
065	245	137	040	249	229	166	214.7	
066	245	137	030	141	141	141	141.0	
067	237	144	028	116	141	141	132.7	
068	237	144	026	141	134	154	143.0	
069	237	144	033	249	230	213	230.7	
070	237	144	021	094	141	063	099.3	
071	237	144	025	105	105	105	105.0	
072	231	153	032	156	152	130	146.0	
073	231	153	031	153	135	220	169.3	
074	231	153	026	127	134	131	130.7	
075	231	153	023	156	130	229	171.7	
076	231	153	022	141	100	141	127.3	
077	224	157	023	117	141	114	124.0	
078	224	157	033	171	141	117	143.0	
079	224	157	022	140	141	140	140.3	
080	224	157	022	050	050	053	051.0	Attacked
081	246	141	022	105	063	120	096.0	
082	246	141	023	141	141	117	133.0	
083	246	141	038	249	166	213	209.3	
084	246	141	043	206	141	153	166.7	
085	246	141	029	141	141	141	141.0	
086	240	145	025	087	095	141	107.7	
087	240	145	027	094	141	141	125.3	
---	232	155	025	249	166	176	197.0	Retaliation node
088	232	155	029	141	094	114	116.3	
089	232	155	023	141	086	094	107.0	
090	232	155	030	147	166	249	187.3	
091	227	159	026	141	141	166	149.3	
092	227	159	025	122	094	131	115.7	
093	227	159	027	141	127	117	128.3	
094	227	159	027	141	094	094	109.7	
095	227	159	027	141	114	141	132.0	
096	220	166	040	180	127	141	149.3	
097	220	166	030	191	166	166	174.3	
098	220	166	024	141	094	094	109.7	
099	220	166	030	141	094	141	125.3	
100	220	166	033	094	122	141	119.0

The number of matchups with average level less than or equal to the average level +X% of my top 3 characters was...

• Top 3 Avg Lvl +00%: 6
• Top 3 Avg Lvl +10%: 20
• Top 3 Avg Lvl +20%: 33
• Top 3 Avg Lvl +30%: 54
• Top 3 Avg Lvl +40%: 62
• Top 3 Avg Lvl +50%: 77

The number of matchups with average level less than or equal to the average level +X% of the 3 characters I actually play with was:

• Team Avg Lvl +00%: 4 (I attacked all 4)
• Team Avg Lvl +10%: 5
• Team Avg Lvl +20%: 9
• Team Avg Lvl +30%: 22
• Team Avg Lvl +40%: 34
• Team Avg Lvl +50%: 55

In summary, I had a total of 4 matchups with opponents that I completely outleveled and just rolled over. Aside from that, there were only 2 or 3 of matchups where I had any chance of victory, and only if I used some serious power boosts. Needless to say, this makes for a frustrating PvP experience when one has to spend far more time skipping and tanking battles than actually playing in one.

Another point worth noting is that during this entire experiment I was only attacked once. If I was given difficult matchups due to over performance, then I ought to be hit more often so I can drop my points/rank and receive more reasonable matchups.

Based on this record of matchups, I think it is fair to say that the matchmaking algorithm for Divine Champions is mostly ineffective. Hopefully this event was still running the old algorithm, because the results here sure look no different than that from previous PvP events.

Edit 1: The average level of the matchups was 140, when I ran a team with an average level of 88.
Edit 2: Added explanation of Rwrd column
Edit 3: TLDR summary — This is not a complaint about points or ranking, but a critique on a match making system that does not allow players to find reasonable matchups.

simonsez

Vynyv wrote:

Another point worth noting is that during this entire experiment I was only attacked once

Then how was it your points kept going down? Based on point drops, you were attacked 16 times other than the one you noted.

And I've got to say, I disagree with your conclusion that the matchmaking was flawed. Every roster has an equilibrium level that it should be expected to settle into. For a roster that only includes some half-leveled 2*s, a score in the mid to high 200s doesn't seem unreasonable.

Unknown

simonsez wrote:

Then how was it your points kept going down? Based on point drops, you were attacked 16 times other than the one you noted.

Perhaps you missed this line of text while you were counting:

Vynyv wrote:

My point total drops periodically because I had to tank battles to conserve iso-8.

simonsez wrote:

And I've got to say, I disagree with your conclusion that the matchmaking was flawed. Every roster has an equilibrium level that it should be expected to settle into. For a roster that only includes some half-leveled 2*s, a score in the mid to high 200s doesn't seem unreasonable.

The matchmaking is flawed because I could hardly find a match to play. If you want the score to settle, then make more people attack me, or reduce point gains from my victories, but do not deny me from playing the game. I neglected to mention this in the original post, but the average level of the matchups was 140, when I was running a team with an average level of 88.

Unknown

I am less interested in the average level vs your roster and more interested in the fact that you NEVER saw a score below 20 available (ok a single 19, but still) and saw many 30+ and a few 40+ point nodes. To me this is epic win, and not failure to match.

You are in the unfortunate position of being a newcomer to the game, with not even a max level 2* character and no OBW. PvP is sadly not designed for you. PvE, on the other hand, is totally designed for you.

Unknown

Lerysh wrote:

PvP is sadly not designed for you.

This is precisely what needs to be fixed however. It seems to me that PvP was intended to be the mainstay of MPQ, if only because it requires much less development time than PvE as players can essentially generate content for each other. I eagerly await the coming fix for PvP match making, which is why I took the time to record all these matchups. Now is also a good time to fix match making since the demand for PvP is likely to increase with the implementation of 8 hour node refreshes in PvE.

Edit 1: Just realized from your mentioning of point rewards that I did not explain that column in the original post. Will fix it.

Edit 2: High point matchups only appear in conjunction with impossible to beat levels, so they are only useful for tanking matches at minimal point loss.

simonsez

Vynyv wrote:

Perhaps you missed this line of text

Yes, I did

Vynyv wrote:

If you want the score to settle, then make more people attack me

If people are still attacking you, then your score hasn't settled yet. If you accept that there is an equilibrium point to be reached, you're describing it, not refuting it. You're not getting attacked, and you can't get any higher. Your score HAS settled.

Vinmarc43

If this is there so call, new matchmaking test, well it's not working, same pattern as before, soon as I hit 537pts, a wall of 270 appeared and lets note this, they boosted she-thor !!! ****, a full lvl is boosted to 375, these D3 guys need to get fired and replaced by normal "non-geek" persons, they are fooling around with us and laughing all day....
or maybe we should strike....lol

Jim_MatriX_cz

Vinmarc43 wrote:

If this is there so call, new matchmaking test, well it's not working, same pattern as before, soon as I hit 537pts, a wall of 270 appeared and lets note this, they boosted she-thor !!! ****, a full lvl is boosted to 375, these D3 guys need to get fired and replaced by normal "non-geek" persons, they are fooling around with us and laughing all day....
or maybe we should strike....lol

My advice for STRIKE is to sell all characters except **** 4HOR, XFW and random one, use all HP and ISO to boost 4HOR and play only with those three:-)))
Then, they will see variaty of play and character's use;-))

PS: I welcomed this event as I can try how usefull is my 4hor 4/2/3 at level around 180.

Unknown

The ELO formula predicts that if you have a rating of 400 higher than someone else you have a 90% chance of winning against them. Note that in the context of MPQ this usually means their chance of winning when they attack you has to be 10% chance because you'd never attack someone 400 points below you to begin with.

Now, looking at the roster of the poster in question, it wouldn't surprise me a team that settles at 700 in equilibrium without shields can actually win defensively 90% of the time.

Unknown

simonsez wrote:

Vynyv wrote:

Perhaps you missed this line of text

Yes, I did

Vynyv wrote:

If you want the score to settle, then make more people attack me

If people are still attacking you, then your score hasn't settled yet. If you accept that there is an equilibrium point to be reached, you're describing it, not refuting it. You're not getting attacked, and you can't get any higher. Your score HAS settled.

Is having a score that has settled at the 43 hour mark of a 60 hour tournament a good thing?

Unknown

papa07 wrote:

Is having a score that has settled at the 43 hour mark of a 60 hour tournament a good thing?

Why not? Is someone going to start play harder to get out of the equilibrium? The only way you move out of equililbrium is really by pay harder so if you're not going to spend the money, you might as well have your score settle as soon as possible. The rating is supposed to measure how strong you are. It doesn't suddenly change in the last 8 hours of the event without a sudden infusion of money.

Unknown

simonsez wrote:

If people are still attacking you, then your score hasn't settled yet. If you accept that there is an equilibrium point to be reached, you're describing it, not refuting it. You're not getting attacked, and you can't get any higher. Your score HAS settled.

I would argue that this is a false dichotomy. There is no reason for a settled score to deny a player from participating in further matches. I think this will be clear if we separate the two issues that are being conflated here:

1. Players should have the option to play a reasonably matched game whenever they want, with the only restriction being health packs. Based on what the developers have stated through various interviews, I think this position is in good agreement with their intentions. Unfortunately, this functionality is only provided to low level players right now, and only in the form of the prologue chapters. All other formats in game can become inaccessible due to over scaling (PvE), lack of essential characters (PvE), or poor match making (PvP).
2. Points and rankings in PvP should be a reflection of a player's ability to win matches. Furthermore, both points and ranking should stabilize over time as a longer match history gives a better gauge of one's ability to win. This is not an issue in contention here.

Phantron wrote:

The ELO formula predicts that if you have a rating of 400 higher than someone else you have a 90% chance of winning against them. Note that in the context of MPQ this usually means their chance of winning when they attack you has to be 10% chance because you'd never attack someone 400 points below you to begin with.

Now, looking at the roster of the poster in question, it wouldn't surprise me a team that settles at 700 in equilibrium without shields can actually win defensively 90% of the time.

This is a fine observation, but surely you can agree that there is no fun in playing a match-3 game where you are expected to lose 90% of the time. Even in chess where ELO originated, players are very rarely matched up with a +400 ELO differential in tournaments. The 90% figure also understates the actual loss chance in most of the matchups recorded above. Due to basic match-3 damage and health disparities, it would take miraculously long chains of match-5's to beat most of these teams I was facing.

All this still ignores the fact that ELO was designed for chess, where players had the same chess pieces, and the first move advantage is relatively small (52–55% win chance). In MPQ, players generally have different team compositions and the attacker has a much large advantage. Yet we can overlook this flaw if the MPQ match making algorithm would just avoid producing such vastly uneven matchups.

dkffiv

Your roster is about as bad as it gets. No one even bothers with 1*'s anymore and the general rule for when to stop tanking (if you want to go as low as possible) is to wait until you see unmaxed 2*'s.

For everyone, regardless of how long you've been playing, you hit a point where you can't go any farther without surging. Your point appears to be around 260. If you want to go higher, win some matches quickly with AP boosts, hit your 300/400/500/whatever point and be happy with your rewards until you've got fully covered and maxed 2*s, its not that hard anymore. Tank/win/surge/whatever until you get the covers you need, then get ready to complain about getting it up the butt by 3* and 4* rosters.

I'd also like to point out this is the worst possible PvP for you. Really good 2* characters are boosted and compete at about 3* quality. Your test would probably be a lot more accurate during that Thor or Squirrel Girl PvP.

Unknown

Vynyv wrote:

Lerysh wrote:

PvP is sadly not designed for you.

This is precisely what needs to be fixed however. It seems to me that PvP was intended to be the mainstay of MPQ, if only because it requires much less development time than PvE as players can essentially generate content for each other. I eagerly await the coming fix for PvP match making, which is why I took the time to record all these matchups. Now is also a good time to fix match making since the demand for PvP is likely to increase with the implementation of 8 hour node refreshes in PvE.

Edit 1: Just realized from your mentioning of point rewards that I did not explain that column in the original post. Will fix it.

Edit 2: High point matchups only appear in conjunction with impossible to beat levels, so they are only useful for tanking matches at minimal point loss.

There is no such thing as an impossible to beat node for me, so high point levels mean good things. Just as you said, PvP is intended to be the mainstay of MPQ, which means it's designed, and rightfully so, for players who have been around for quite some time. 270s and 166s on the roster and no where to go but into the PvP match-fest. Sadly recent changes make it so most these players see 10-15 point matches at high levels (if that) since shielding for a majority of the tournament has become the norm. If you aren't communicating heavily outside of the game looking for targets then you get basically stuck in an endless retaliation loop where you can't break out of X points because if you take a 15 you get hit back for 30. Matchmaking giving you 20+ at all times is a highlight for players like me. I'm sorry your PvP experience hasn't been good so far, but it should get better once you get the OBW covers and levels. There are only 2 or 3 viable 2* teams, and you already have Ares at 70+ so Ares+OBW should be your go to team.

Phillipes

Totally agree with previous Dkffiv post. You have almost sky-high score with your roster.
If you cross certain points treshold, wou will get pawned be others. Your score will lower to some other treshold where veterans wont see you anymore.

This is how that this game is right now and where should still be in the future.

Why many new players think they should be winning pvp tournaments? And they should be bracketed only by other newbies (to ensure win )? And veterans should be bracketed only by other veterans (because it is unfair to see my Ares Obw team crushed by X-Force and GT) ?

This would be disaster !!

If this would be like that, there wouldnt be any reason to progress in this game whatsoever !!
BEST PVP tactics would be to have 1* Ironman.

Im developing my roster to be ABLE to score more.
With full 2* around 600, with full 3* around 700 - 800, with full 4* 800+

It would be completely unfair, if I as 4* player would see only 4* teams from 0 to 800.
NO. I dont want to see ANY 4* to atleast 700. This is how it should be, easily win to some treshold.

MMR is like pyramid. The higher you are, the less people you will see (and the would have ofc fully leveled 4*)

esoxnepa

Deleted, computer double posted.

esoxnepa

Vynyv wrote:

simonsez wrote:

If people are still attacking you, then your score hasn't settled yet. If you accept that there is an equilibrium point to be reached, you're describing it, not refuting it. You're not getting attacked, and you can't get any higher. Your score HAS settled.

I would argue that this is a false dichotomy. There is no reason for a settled score to deny a player from participating in further matches. I think this will be clear if we separate the two issues that are being conflated here:

1. Players should have the option to play a reasonably matched game whenever they want, with the only restriction being health packs. Based on what the developers have stated through various interviews, I think this position is in good agreement with their intentions. Unfortunately, this functionality is only provided to low level players right now, and only in the form of the prologue chapters. All other formats in game can become inaccessible due to over scaling (PvE), lack of essential characters (PvE), or poor match making (PvP).
2. Points and rankings in PvP should be a reflection of a player's ability to win matches. Furthermore, both points and ranking should stabilize over time as a longer match history gives a better gauge of one's ability to win. This is not an issue in contention here.

I agree there should always be matches for you to play with a reasonable chance to win. It's a game and you should have the ability to play it. If you keep getting hit down to a score, that is your balance point. You should be seeing matches you don't want to play, because they are worth too little because of the risk of retaliation along with the matches that would be difficult to win. Boosts and first move bonus give you the ability to win some matches you shouldn't normally win.

This game lacks a version of PvP which allows for fun and use of full rosters. Don't get stuck in the mentality that PvP only has to be a race to the top. It can also be a training area, like Shield Simulator, for different combination of characters and variety to keep the game fresh. However, they tied the shield simulator into the season scores, so it becomes an essential for high placements. It is TERRIBLE that Shield Simulator applies to the season scores. It should offer ISO all the time, be a true progression area where everyone can win the rewards once a month with enough play, and never lose points from matches. Use truly random pairings and keep MMR out of it or run a separate MMR. Don't allow people to use it to tank. Allow people to play the game with any of their roster at any time.

Vynyv wrote:

Phantron wrote:

The ELO formula predicts that if you have a rating of 400 higher than someone else you have a 90% chance of winning against them. Note that in the context of MPQ this usually means their chance of winning when they attack you has to be 10% chance because you'd never attack someone 400 points below you to begin with.

Now, looking at the roster of the poster in question, it wouldn't surprise me a team that settles at 700 in equilibrium without shields can actually win defensively 90% of the time.

This is a fine observation, but surely you can agree that there is no fun in playing a match-3 game where you are expected to lose 90% of the time. Even in chess where ELO originated, players are very rarely matched up with a +400 ELO differential in tournaments. The 90% figure also understates the actual loss chance in most of the matchups recorded above. Due to basic match-3 damage and health disparities, it would take miraculously long chains of match-5's to beat most of these teams I was facing.

All this still ignores the fact that ELO was designed for chess, where players had the same chess pieces, and the first move advantage is relatively small (52–55% win chance). In MPQ, players generally have different team compositions and the attacker has a much large advantage. Yet we can overlook this flaw if the MPQ match making algorithm would just avoid producing such vastly uneven matchups.

MPQ is not chess. Applying ELO to it is terrible. With applying ELO to it, it should be just like chess. You want to keep your ranking as high as you can, because you want to be seeded into the better tournaments. If your MMR is at each of a higher rank, you should just start PvP events off at a tier. (automatically get the lower rewards because you've maintained your ranking.) So I used to be a Class A player, not an Expert, not a Master, not a Grandmaster. If I were maintaining a Class A level MMR in this game, I should start right out with a score of say 500 points. Why, because there is almost no way for me to score less than 500 points in PvP right now. The challenge is for me to push 650+ points. All the playtime of me getting to 500 is just wasting my time and my characters health. Those of you always battling for 1000+ should start out somewhere higher, 750?, where you are right at the front lines. Then you would never want to tank. Because if you drop from Grand Master rank down to Master, now you have to slog through the lower ranked matches again. Wasting your time and providing no challenge to you. There should be events I can't enter because I don't maintain a high enough MMR, just as there should be events you are locked out of, because your MMR shows you would skew the competition, reducing your joy and others in the event. Reward structure commensurate with ranking.

As long as tanking and needing to manipulate your MMR to be able to play exists in the game, it will contain the flaws that come with it. Those being multitudes of annoyingly easy matches, and frustration for lower ranked players that get roflstomped by 4*s.

Chess, golf, football, all have levels of competition. If I go play flag football, I'm not playing against NFL players. Sure, I won't make a million dollars a year, but I get to enjoy playing.


TL;DR
I know this hit my personal rant on how they use an ELO system, but they don't USE the ELO system. Players should be rewarded for maintaining a high MMR and NEVER need to tank, let alone want to. Players should be able to play their full rosters any time without it impacting their or their Alliance's season score.

Unknown

Lerysh wrote:

There is no such thing as an impossible to beat node for me, so high point levels mean good things.

I am glad that you have such a strong roster that no match is impossible. Now if you could put yourself in the shoes of someone without such a roster, would you still say a high point matchup is good, when the chance of loss is very nearly 100%? Let me give you an example of such a matchup currently sitting in one of my nodes.

My Team:
L111 4/4/3 Ares with 6,878 health
L74 3/5/5 Daken with 3,100 health
L80 0/2/1 Loki with 2,913 health
Total Health: 12,891
Max damage efficiency: Onslaught at 267 damage per green
Green match damage: 61
Max damage per turn: (61 + 267) * 3 = 984

Enemy Team (33 point reward):
L371 5/3/5 4Thor with 22,491 health
L201 5/3/5 Loki with 7,152 health
L248 5/5/3 X-Force with 10,069 health
Total health: 39,712
Average match damage: 89.5
Average match-3 damage per turn: 268.5

Ignoring complications from downed characters, overkill, match-4/5's, enemy ability use and etc., then it would take ~40 consecutive turns of green matches and Onslaught for me to defeat the enemy team, whereas the enemy team could wipe me out in ~48 turns with just match damage alone. If a single Smite (4640 dmg), Striking Distance (1605 dmg), X-Force (3388 dmg), or Surgical Strike (518/tile) were to go off, it would easily make up for the 8 turn differential (2148 damage) and result in my loss.

This is not a fun matchup, and should not have been presented by the match making algorithm.

Lerysh wrote:

Just as you said, PvP is intended to be the mainstay of MPQ, which means it's designed, and rightfully so, for players who have been around for quite some time. 270s and 166s on the roster and no where to go but into the PvP match-fest.

Phillipes wrote:

This is how that this game is right now and where should still be in the future.

I disagree strongly with this assertion. The current state of PvP matchups cannot be used as justification for its validity: that is circular reasoning. Just because the current match making algorithm effectively locks out low level players from participation does not mean that PvP should be so exclusive. I think we can all agree that maximizing player participation in PvP would be good for the health of the game, both in terms of increasing player generated content (more/better matches with less repetitions), and revenue for the developers (competition helps drive HP purchases).

Lerysh wrote:

There are only 2 or 3 viable 2* teams, and you already have Ares at 70+ so Ares+OBW should be your go to team.

Oh, don't get me started on roster diversity . Let us leave that for another day.

(Dear RNG Gods: I have three OBW purples already, please drop some blue/black instead)

Phillipes wrote:

Why many new players think they should be winning pvp tournaments?

No strawmen please. I would be more than happy to play PvP matches with minimal or even zero points. The iso-8 and random cover drops are more than adequate rewards.

simonsez

papa07 wrote:

Is having a score that has settled at the 43 hour mark of a 60 hour tournament a good thing?

Do you want further restrictions on how often we can play? It's really not hard for ANY player to reach their limit after almost two days of PvP. I'm the last person to defend the PvP format, but they've gone out of their way to make it so it's NOT grindy. We're not supposed to be playing it continuously right up until the end. If you have any issue with that, and I'm NOT saying you shouldn't, your argument is not with matchmaking, it's with the PvP format as a whole.

simonsez

Vynyv wrote:

There is no reason for a settled score to deny a player from participating in further matches.

It doesn't. If you accept that your current score is your equilibrium, and if MMR matchmaking is working as intended, you can participate again. You would have to face someone to whom you'd probably lose, and then your reduced MMR would allow you to find matches that would get you back to your equilibrium level. Or, you could do a lot of skipping, find an overachiever you could beat, and then you'd get attacked (probably several times), getting you back to, or below, equilibrium.

Unknown

simonsez wrote:

It doesn't. If you accept that your current score is your equilibrium, and if MMR matchmaking is working as intended, you can participate again. You would have to face someone to whom you'd probably lose, and then your reduced MMR would allow you to find matches that would get you back to your equilibrium level. Or, you could do a lot of skipping, find an overachiever you could beat, and then you'd get attacked (probably several times), getting you back to, or below, equilibrium.

Describing the state of the current system does not justify its merits. If the game has collected enough data from a player's match history to determine that said player has reached equilibrium, then it can reduce point rewards/losses to avoid fluctuations in ranking while still offering reasonable matchups. As previously discussed, the goal of allowing players to obtain reasonable matchups does not conflict with having a ranking system that sorts everyone into their appropriate place.